GPC membership vs the Federal Leadership Elite: What’s at stake, and is it already too late?
Justin Trudeau has finally come out and hinted that electoral reform isn’t his priority anymore, now that the evil Conservatives have been ousted. Perhaps Trudeau’s abandonment of more of his election pledges could steer the current GPC leadership in a less frantic direction. It is being posited that FPTP strongly relates to the status-quo, and human rights advocates as well as environmentalists inherently challenge the status-quo, do they not?
Being forced to squabble with the GPC Federal elite also is an example of the status-quo. It is a waste of time, and wasting time is a very useful tactic employed by those who are really in power. If the GPC cannot become a progressive party by the next election (or the election after that, and so on), there will not be any chance to meaningfully resist the status-quo. Try as she might on electoral reform, but E. May is being gamed, and in turn, the membership is being gamed by E. May. She’s being used to waste the GPC membership’s time. The shadow government would easily prefer another rigged losing effort from E. May, rather than risk the membership electing someone with much less of an inclination to take lobbyists and the sort to heart. Has E. May not already indicated that she does not even enjoy her position? And a critical thinker with even the mildest paranoia might discern that the Liberal leadership is so far in cruise control—the most handsome Prime Minister in a hundred years with the gender equal and ethnically diverse cabinet; the media exploitation of feminism; the shirtless pictures. The Liberals are not some beacon of progressiveness. The shadow government of Canada does not intend to implement electoral reform, lest the millions of Canadians with foreign policy concerns be sincerely represented.
The status-quo is an important concept to be fully aware of. It is what the GPC’s current divisiveness, instigated by E. May and the Israel lobby, is really all about.
The GPC can exist; it can have powerful policies on climate change; it can offer mild observations about some hostilities in the middle east (namely the OPT), such as believing in the farce that is a two state solution, and whichever other dull rhetoric employed by this, the status-quo. The membership, though, must get past the federal leader if it is to pass a policy that holds Israel accountable for its brutal occupation. How is it that the GPC can attempt to chase down electoral reform while being the most climate change driven party, and yet cannot pass the mildest version of the BDS policy possible? The obvious answer lies in BDS being the only tangible and non-violent strategy to mitigate zionist oppression, and any more mention of BDS, especially in a staunchly pro-Israel Canada, will force Israel to end its apartheid regime faster. The more complex answer is that without progressively fighting for the human rights of the most beleaguered, the GPC will never be capable of implementing such policies that conflict with corporate interests. Only in 2016 was the American Green Party able to finally gain some measure of popularity. While she is still a long shot to win, Jill Stein and her party’s platform would not be nearly as convincing if she were not explaining that her party would boycott not only Israel, but all human rights abusers, while opposing the neoconservative expansionist agenda in the middle east.
To offer some proof that meaningful actions that grant human rights for Palestinians is enshrined in every sense of progressiveness, here is a quote from an email released by WikiLeaks, which was sent to Mr. Podesta from Charles Bane Jr:
“I’m a lifelong Democrat, but I’m repulsed by the BDS movement that has become, in too many minds, a tenet of progressive orthodoxy. As extreme as the most conservative may be, the right wing is unswerving in its support of Israel, and shows no tolerance for anti-Semitism. I understand fully that the PM of Israel is an opportunist, and unsavory. But the larger reality is that the BDS movement, popular among academics, would be gaining adherents no matter who was PM. This is fundamentally wrong. It needs to be addressed as a moral issue and the Secretary, would, in my opinion, reap the benefits of being (as we both know her to be) unequivocally pro- Israel in voters’ minds.”
Indeed, the noted quote is from an email sent to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, but it offers a glimpse into the minds of people who would certainly be against electoral reform, or practically anything that would offer a more precise and just representation of the people as well as a sustainable and peaceful future for all.
The GPC does not currently function with the intention of ever winning. The advocacy of Palestinian human rights, however, changes that, because then the GPC would be the only party that does not strongly vouch for corporate interests. The colonization of Palestine by European settlers, which was an anti-Semitic scheme plotted by the wealthiest of bankers, shares a common connection with corporate interests. These are the same corporate interests that led to the Iraq invasion and the nonchalant creation of Isis. An American proxy state in the the Middle East that operates with impunity creates an atmosphere that is helpful for corporate interests—weapons, war, oil. Even worse so is that the zionist regime has shown to its allies, like the KSA, that it is so far possible to commit war crimes with impunity, and the more war crimes committed by various actors, the more impossible it will ever be to hold a specific actor accountable.
Most of what’s really happening is not being disclosed to Canadians. This is common knowledge to critical thinkers involved with politics. To take a recent example, the CBC published some impartial pieces about Trudeau’s weapons dealings and his back-peddle on electoral reform: “The Canadian government is far more secretive than the Americans about such matters… Canada quietly rewrote the rules governing the export of arms to other countries. No longer do such exports hinge on whether the recipient nation is a human rights abuser.”
More: “‘The wording was changed to reflect the reality of how these things have always worked,’ says Thomas Juneau, a former DND strategic analyst who now teaches international affairs at the University of Ottawa. ‘We pretend that we’re boy scouts, but a lot of what we do is not different from what other countries do. If that sounds like a definition of hypocrisy, well, there you are. You’d be hard-pressed to find any significant Canadian statements about the war in Yemen. Canada doesn’t want to be seen to be criticizing an ally and good customer, and at the same time doesn’t want to be seen as closely associated with it. The middle ground, then, is silence.'”
These somewhat objective assessments, if comprehended fully, should jar Justin Trudeau loyalists and the naive people who take the Prime Minister’s charm at face value. Trudeau would love if, for his entire leadership, he could brag about how nice Canadians are, and other cliches that Canadian leaders so often use to diverge from the real issues at hand.
Trudeau has explained that Canada cannot just become a “banana republic,” so he must sell billions of weapons to human rights violators. E. May has condemned the injustices against Palestinians and the settlement building, but that is as far as she will go. The justification for why Canada subsidizes oppression is a politician’s chore. They would prefer to broadcast nonsense to millions of Canadians about how a grassroots movement is very bad, and that militarily occupied people are invisible. Here’s a hint: if a powerful politician is making an effort to demonize a grassroots civil movement, somebody’s trying to hide something.
What the members of the GPC have indicated with the mild BDS policy is that it’s about time meaningful steps are taken. The GPC members do not want to continue paying lip service for human rights violators. The GPC members care not only about the environment and electoral reform, but about human rights violations, equal rights, wars and invasions. The GPC cannot offer a progressive platform without having a progressive foreign policy, and a progressive foreign policy cannot transpire without the confrontation of Palestinian human rights, as well as standing up for all other nations which are being bombarded by America’s allies and exploiters.
The GPC and its leadership must be fully aware that the tragic predicaments in the middle east are connected to climate change. The conflict in this region is predominantly for resources like oil—for fracking and building pipelines—as well as for cashing in on weapons sales to mercenaries and nations.
It is my paranoid assessment that if E. May is not removed or replaced soon, the path would be paved for the Liberals to easily continue a marijuana-legalization-highlighted Justin Trudeau Canadian-nice-guy demagoguery on behalf of those elites worried sick that Palestinian human rights should be a tenant of progressiveness.
The appointed Israel apologist on demand for a recent debate on BDS, Jean Luc-Cook, embarrassingly stammered repeatedly about “the dirty side of politics”—that the media and lobbyist pressure and attacks are reason for the GPC not to get involved with human rights advocacy. The reality is probably closer to the opposite. Thousands of people have contacted the GPC with support for the BDS policy, and town halls are predominantly filled with moral human beings awaiting a progressive party.
Rather, a GPC that cannot confront Canada’s atrocious foreign policy record offers continued irrelevancy—just another option to divide and conquer the masses.
Israel is governed by the most right wing fanatical regime in the world, it’s current Prime Minister having won his election primarily because of racist tactics, as summed up in yet another leaked email: “Just as patterns of immigration are moving the US left, patterns of immigration are moving Israel right. I have never seen anything like Bibi’s furious surge to the right in the last 4 days. Nothing like it in America. He had robo-calls calling the President ‘Hussein Obama, the Muslim,’ he had ads saying the Arabs will vote in droves… All the smart guys in Tel Aviv thought Bibi was having a nervous breakdown. In the US you could never get away with those kind of racist appeals. But, man, did it work.”
At the pace the GPC is going, the next Canadian election will not offer meaningful change, and the world will continue to be pulled in an irreversible catastrophic direction with the assistance of the Canadian government. It may already be too late, and so the GPC must act swiftly, if it is to act at all, which might mean that more immediate and organized measures must be taken to elect a federal leader that will represent his or her membership more than special interests.