Dix and alsorans.
BC NDP Leadership Election Part III
Thu, 2011-01-27 22:45
#1
BC NDP Leadership Election Part III
Thu, 2011-01-27 23:01
#2
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/
NDP tight-lipped about membership requirement
"But sometimes questions can be answered with yes or no if you obtain a confidential email from Ms. O'Brien that was sent on January 13 in which she advised the leadership campaigns that, "Each individual applicant's fee must be attached to their membership form.""
So dix had 4 days notice that he had to attach his money to his membership forms!
Which part of "MUST" do you not understand, mr Dix?
I guess that confidential email is a basis for Farnworth and Lali to have very legitimate concerns about due process in the leadership election.
And I guess that Ms O'brien's inability to give a yes or no answer to a question makes it likely that the race is already over.
The other horses have already been shot, poisoned and led to different outside tracks.
Most unfair in my opinion but hey! Its winning that counts, eh? And you cannot win without picking winners, eh?
I am sure people will rush to mr Dix defence. I will retreat before the mob.
Fri, 2011-01-28 00:10
#3
Which leadership candidate do you favour Brian? Did you end up buying a membership?
Fri, 2011-01-28 23:29
#5
Farnworth would probably win the BC Liberal leadership contest, The Province and The Sun have been boosting him like crazy.
CanWest seems to hate Dix however. It's been attack after attack after attack.
Maybe some like Brian think that's because CanWest is looking out for British Columbians, I take the opposite point of view.
Sat, 2011-01-29 10:59
#6
``Farnworth would probably win the BC Liberal leadership contest``
Don`t you mean the NDP.
Sat, 2011-01-29 16:39
#7
No, I mean that the opinion makers and agenda setters for the BC Liberal Party seem to genuinely like Farnworth and he isn`t tainted like Clark or Falcon. I think he`d have a good shot. He obviously has a good shot at winning the NDP leadership contest too but the endorsements he`s getting from the right wing media pundits don`t carry the same weight.
Sun, 2011-01-30 17:58
#8
Okay understand what you are saying.
Thu, 2011-02-10 04:09
#9
Note to Jenny: Watch your back.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politic...
Dawn Black endorsed her son's temper tantrum on Facebook. Kwan is being incredibly diplomatic on this.
Thu, 2011-02-10 04:29
#10
"But Ms. Black acknowledged the incident is a reminder of “social media being accessible to everybody. And people should be cognizant that that’s one of the reasons we have some criteria within the NDP around social media and the leadership candidates now” – a reference to a screening process that requires those candidates to hand over the passwords and usernames of their social media accounts so the party can review them."
Is that legal? Is that not a total violation of personal privacy? How many people know that NDP party members are being spied on by the ndp "party".
Did YOU say ANYTHING personal to your ndp mla on facebook?
I think political partys need a collective kick for pulling shit like that. Nobody anywhere in the world should have to hand over their passwords to any shitty secret police.
Has nobody the courage to stand up against personal abuse of that nature? It is sick.
Make them stop spying on their candidates. It is totally abuse and it is wrong and it is invasion of privacy.
No matter what the disidents did there can be no excuse for stinky measures like that.
This is not China. We still have rights and we should protect the rights of MLA's as well as ordinary people.
No wonder Julian did not join the race.
I had no idea that the provincial NDP stood for stuff like that.
Note to Jenny: Watch your back.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politic...
Dawn Black endorsed her son's temper tantrum on Facebook. Kwan is being incredibly diplomatic on this.
Thu, 2011-02-10 04:36
#11
Crackbook is not a private place. Always assume anyone and everyone is watching.
Thu, 2011-02-10 05:37
#12
Farnworth's coming up with some sound policies:
Mike Farnworth would appoint cabinet minister to oversee poverty reduction
If New Democrat Mike Farnworth becomes B.C. premier, he says he will appoint a cabinet minister to make sure the government meets legislated poverty reduction targets.The proposal was outlined Monday as part of the former NDP house leader’s poverty reduction strategy.
Mr. Farnworth said the cabinet minister would have the authority to set and achieve the targets.
Other proposed measures include a $10 minimum wage indexed to cost of living increases.
Thu, 2011-02-10 20:00
#13
OMG! That Farnworth is so right wing! Ugh! 
Thu, 2011-02-10 21:24
#14
It's a shame he's taking the reactionary line on justice, everyone I know gets a visceral reaction against him as soon as they hear this. Credit where credit's due though, he's done a good job of actually putting forward some good ideas on other issues. It's a mystery on the other hand as to why Horgan wants to be leader, certainly doesn't seem to be because of any ideas he has. You get the feeling someone told him he would make a good 'consensus builder' and it stuck in his craw. James 2.0.
Thu, 2011-02-10 22:34
#15
Depends who you talk to, melovesproles. I suspect a majority of voters of all stripes have a concern for community safety. As soon as a New Democrat talks about crime, they get labeled as being on the right of the party regardless how they address the issue. It's similar to talking about debt and deficit reduction in the 1990's. No issue should be off limits. And no issue should be conceded to the right.
Just because someone is tough on crime doesn't mean they advocate the exact same solutions as the right either. Farnworth had a private members bill on allowing victims of crime time off from work with job protection... not right-wing to me. He said we need to get tough on gang violence and as a part of that, giving parents the supports needed... doesn't sound right-wing to me. He's talked about fighting poverty, especially child poverty, which is part of addressing the causes of crime. He spoke out in favour of better enforcement of hate crimes... not something you'd hear out of the mouth of Harper.
Thu, 2011-02-10 23:01
#16
As soon as a New Democrat talks about crime, they get labeled as being on the right of the party regardless how they address the issue.
C'mon, you have to do better than that, Siskay and Davies have talked about crime lots and no one is saying they are on the right of the party. How you address the issue is very important.
Which is why when Farnworth regurgitates rightwing memes like 'the scourge of grow-ops" and "getting tough on gangs' he aligns himself with the rightwingers who also chant those memes like Stephen Harper.
There are practical solutions to the organized crime and violence that surround this extremely large blackmarket sector in BCs economy and there are very serious consequences to pursuing the aggressive Harper agenda of increasingly draconian penalties for non-violent crimes. The obvious consequences include increasing the percentage of public spending that will have to be committed to imprisoning people and funding industries which profit off of incarcerating your domestic population making future reform very difficult. Farnworth clearly isn't stupid, so he knows that. So why does he sing the Harper tune on this one?
Fri, 2011-02-11 00:20
#17
So, saying it's time to get tough on gangs... people who terrorize and shoot up neighbourhoods... is right-wing? And gang violence is non-violent?
And boo hoo about prisons. Some people belong there. And many get off quite light with little or no rehabilitation.
This group hug mentality is really naive. Everyone understands we need to address the causes of crime. But we have to deal with people who actually commit crime and especially those who commit violence against others and the community. And that's what I'm hearing from Farnworth.
Fri, 2011-02-11 01:08
#18
You're dodging a very simple and obvious fact: Gang violence is linked to the lucrative drug trade caused by prohibitionist policies. The only ones who are group hugging are the people profiting from the status quo and the politicians like Farnworth and Harper who are pushing policies which ensure they continue to get wealthy. There isn't any real excuse to be ignorant of this, we have historial and geographical case studies to reference.
Take a look at Mexico where it's get tough on gangs policies have strengthened the cartels and plunged Mexican society neck deep in open violence. Harper is pushing for Canada to copy the War on Drugs approach of the US where boo hooo, they have the highest prison populate rate in the world and 50% of those people behind bars are there for drug related offences. Do you think they belong there? Once you start down that track, it's a self-propulsion machine, the prison building complex will continue to drain public spending with exponentially increasing vigour.
Feeding the prison building complex while ignoring the biggest root cause of organized crime and gang violence, the enormous black market profits caused by drug prohibition, is a recipe for making the problem worse and building towards a Mexican scenario. That's what I'm hearing from Harper and Farnworth. I don't believe either of them are naeive so we have to wonder about their motives. For a neocon like Harper, draining the public purse and incarcerating as many low-income people as possible makes some sense I suppose. For someone who claims to be a social democrat, not so much...
Fri, 2011-02-11 02:16
#19
Hunky, watch this video from start to finish and come back and tell us what you don't understand. I don't think anyone ever said it clearer than he did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlkdy5Ky3Cg
It is a Victoria cop telling you and everybody with ears exactly why the tough on crime stuff never works. It is basic economics. Tough on crime makes crime more profitable. Mom and Pop mortgauge helper ops will stop producing because they are afraid but the big boys will ramp up production because they are not afraid. And with their monopoly profits, they will arm themselves to the teeth.
Mexico north. Harper wants to be a crime lord too. He wants to have people in prisons working for corporations like they do in the states. He is building new prisons in anticipation of putting working class Joes to work. (Just his way around minimum wage legislation).
Perhaps Farnworth is just going after votes. But I do not respect him using this issue in such a way. Society has moved on. Recreational drugs are everywhere. They are here to stay. The market will be sated whether Harper puts 1 million in Jaol or 5 million.
We all know who is going to go to prison. The same ethnic groups who are already there. This is not about justice and everyone knows it in their hearts. It is about expanding the prison industry.
So, saying it's time to get tough on gangs... people who terrorize and shoot up neighbourhoods... is right-wing? And gang violence is non-violent?
And boo hoo about prisons. Some people belong there. And many get off quite light with little or no rehabilitation.
This group hug mentality is really naive. Everyone understands we need to address the causes of crime. But we have to deal with people who actually commit crime and especially those who commit violence against others and the community. And that's what I'm hearing from Farnworth.
Fri, 2011-02-11 13:38
#20
As soon as a New Democrat talks about crime, they get labeled as being on the right of the party regardless how they address the issue.
C'mon, you have to do better than that, Siskay and Davies have talked about crime lots and no one is saying they are on the right of the party. How you address the issue is very important.
The thing is, Davies and Siksay don't receive nearly as much attention when they do talk about crime as does Jack Layton when he calls for manditory minimums, or the Manitoba NDP when they cave into pressure from the anti-crime lobby in the PC party. Any time the NDP says we should be tough on crime, it only serves to legitimize the right-wing view on that, not counter-act it. It moves to the point where every party basically says the same thing about crime. Even right-wingers will pay lip service to crime prevention at some point.
Fri, 2011-02-11 17:42
#21
melovesproles... I understand gang violence it linked to drugs among other things. It's not the reason people join them though for the most part. That has to be addressed. I support legalization of pot. But are you advocating we legalize crack? Heroin?
How do we deal with gangs who decide to shoot up a neigbourhood? "Oh, sorry, I understand why you did this. Please don't do it again. You're free to go."
People who commit acts of violence against others or the community do so by their own free will. We understand how some get to that point... but they are still responsible for their actions.
As for the so-called "prison industry"... the one run by government in this country... it needs to be reformed especially in dealing with rehabilitation and support after release. We still should be sending people to prison who belong there however. And if it's a crime of violence, that's where they should go. Call that right-wing all you want. It's not.
Fri, 2011-02-11 18:17
#22
Pogo
A couple of years ago, Jenny Kwan invited the United Nations to come and examine our homelessness problem. I attended the public forum which listened to about 100 people talk about their treatment. It was overwhelmingly from the Downtown Eastside. Over and over again people called for the police to get rid of the elements that were preying on their community (dealers, pimps etc...). Yes they wanted opportunity and support, but they also wanted some law and order.
Tough on crime is not just protecting rich people in rich neighborhoods, it is also taking care of people who are feeding off those that can least afford it.
Yes we need to fix our attitudes towards drugs (my first vote is for Dana), but we also need to protect people from violence. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Fri, 2011-02-11 19:15
#23
Guess everyone is ok with the "party" getting the passwords of all the leadership candidates? "a reference to a screening process that requires those candidates to hand over the passwords and usernames of their social media accounts so the party can review them."
Well, I guess those who are ok with it are part of the "borg". The hive mentality of us and them? Can some of you justify it?
I cannot understand how a future leader of this province must submit to a violation of his or her personal space in that way.
Maybe it is just me, and I am way off base? It just gives me the creeps.
What next? A medical to check for std's? A hand in the pants to check that everything is in order?
The quote above suggests that Lali and Larsen had to give their social media passwords to Moe and his friends on Council. Does nobody see anything wrong with that? What is stopping them sending Larsen's info to cop central?
Did the "party" give a declaration that their personal info will not be sold to 3rd partys? And who would believe them if they did?
I know everybody here has some agenda or other. As far as I can see it, this is about the NDP central council violating basic human rights.
It absolutely disgusts me.
Fri, 2011-02-11 19:44
#24
Pogo
I am not sure if I agree with the extent to which the party is pursuing this, but I am not going to pretend that social media is private. As we saw in previous elections, social media timebombs can have a serious negative impact on campaigns.
I know when I was hunting for a job a friend suggested that I quit any game links on facebook as some overeager HR person may find out about them and consider me a timewaster (funny she didn't mention babble).
Fri, 2011-02-11 19:52
#25
Brian White, did you end up signing up for a membership? Do you support any of the candidates?
Fri, 2011-02-11 21:22
#26
"I am not going to pretend that social media is private"
Thats a cheap red herring pogo, and you bluddy well know it. So you, being a meek little person, will give some bastard in authority your password if they ask? (But only if they are NDP). We know social media isn't private, but the passwords are. Are we assuming that the NDP doctors the sites of all its candidates.
Hey, maybe your employer wants your password too? Ok, lets all play dumb and thick as planks here.
What happens if someone breaks into the NDP and steals the paswords of ALL the leadership candidates? What happens if the party invites comrade spysky from Russia to campaign with them? Maybe they will end the campaign with everybody's bank account hacked.
Who is going to look like turds in a bucket then? The NDP is fucken stupid to ask for the passwords.
For starters, it is a total violation of privacy and it puts a lot of people in danger of a lot worse. And you guys are cool with that!?
I am not sure if I agree with the extent to which the party is pursuing this, but I am not going to pretend that social media is private. As we saw in previous elections, social media timebombs can have a serious negative impact on campaigns.
I know when I was hunting for a job a friend suggested that I quit any game links on facebook as some overeager HR person may find out about them and consider me a timewaster (funny she didn't mention babble).
Fri, 2011-02-11 21:37
#27
What is your point? Do YOU support your leader giving their social media passwords to a bunch of backroom hoods?
Shit like that should be cleaned up by an ethics committee. But you have to have ethical people on the committee so there is a chicken and egg problem.
ANY of you party faithful get it?
The general public will not be amused when they find out that your politburo asks for (and gets!) private passwords from their Leaders. Will they take the chance and elect them to government so they can do the same with THEIR passwords and social security info?
I think it is staggeringly stupid to treat the potential leaders like that. It is contempt. Generally if a party holds its leadership material in contempt, it has even greater contempt for the lower downs. (Thats us).
Brian White, did you end up signing up for a membership? Do you support any of the candidates?
Fri, 2011-02-11 21:51
#28
Pogo
It is kind of cool how my first sentence points out that I have trouble with the guidelines, and yet you still attack me like I am totally against you. The fact is that the privacy of the internet social media is dubious. Politicians all over have been burned by what they have posted. If I remember a few hollywood stars had their sites hacked, and the security of the sites is pretty flimsy.
That said I would not give my password to anyone, but I wouldn't have a problem signing a form that I didn't have x, y, and z on my site (where x, y, and z are clearly inappropriate things to have on a social media site). I would also consider closing my personal site if it's existence provided a risk of problems (ie: people posting things on my site and others then quoting them and attributing them to me by association) They don't call it private office, they call it public office and if you are going to be the leader of a party and wish to be premier of the province then you should be ready for what the job entails.
Fri, 2011-02-11 22:55
#29
Over and over again people called for the police to get rid of the elements that were preying on their community (dealers, pimps etc...). Yes they wanted opportunity and support, but they also wanted some law and order.
Tough on crime is not just protecting rich people in rich neighborhoods, it is also taking care of people who are feeding off those that can least afford it.
Yes we need to fix our attitudes towards drugs (my first vote is for Dana), but we also need to protect people from violence. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Agreed. Too often, the left wants to focus on the causes while the right wants to focus on just the crime itself. A balance needs to be there to effectively deal with the violence in our communities. From what I see of Farnworth, he seems to get that balance.
Fri, 2011-02-11 22:56
#30
Brian White, did you end up signing up for a membership? Do you support any of the candidates?
What is your point? Do YOU support your leader giving their social media passwords to a bunch of backroom hoods?
Backroom hoods? Your constant use of hyperbole is becoming a crutch.
I think Facebook is dangerous to take lightly and while I do have an account, it's a fake name with a throwaway email account.
If I were to ever run in a provincial or federal election for a party (not that I'm planning to), I would start first by scrubbing all my accounts myself (I would probably do that while considering to run, ie. while deciding). Then I would happily pass over my password, and encourage them to pillage and scrub.
I think running for provincial leadership of a major party is a very significant endeavor. I don't see anything unrealistic about this request. If someone is serious about serving at that level then I'd expect they're facebook accounts to be pretty clean.
The reason I asked you if you got a membership was because it seemed like you were really interested in what was going on with the leader. I thought maybe you just didn't like Carole James, but it doesn't seem like you like any of the leaders at all (or the NDP really).
Sat, 2011-02-12 02:48
#31
I know a few internet security experts. Giving your password to anybody is a big no no. Have you heard of phishing? And Lali or Larsen giving his password to Sihota and the James gang is like Suicide for his campaign. They are handing information to the enemy.
I am shocked that people so willingly gloss over really shitty behaviour from their party high command. Once again, how are the NDP going to get ordinary people to trust them if they demand passwords from potential leaders?
It will destroy the party credibility.
"If I were to ever run in a provincial or federal election for a party (not that I'm planning to), I would start first by scrubbing all my accounts myself (I would probably do that while considering to run, ie. while deciding). Then I would happily pass over my password, and encourage them to pillage and scrub."
Ok, here is a thought for you. BLAND. If you scrub everything, you end up looking like a bland sack of boredom. Great way to advertize your party.
Here is the bc ndp youtube info.
Name:
BCNewDemocrats
Channel Views:
4,508
Total Upload Views:
33,255
Joined:
December 12, 2007
Subscribers:
76
Website:
http://www.bcndp.ca
Country:
Canada
I get more views in 2 months than they got in 3 years. Scrubbing has just isolated them from the people they want to vote for them.
They should be getting a few thousand views per day with the leadership contest going on.
Sat, 2011-02-12 04:28
#32
We'll see what happens once the Liberals pick their leader. At that point, no excuses, the NDP leadership candidates are going to have to start performing. ...zzzzzzzz... omg fell asleep just thinking about them. (shaking myself awake).
Sat, 2011-02-12 04:32
#33
I get more views in 2 months than they got in 3 years. Scrubbing has just isolated them from the people they want to vote for them.
They should be getting a few thousand views per day with the leadership contest going on.
I agree that the outreach is terrible. I think there are a lot of problems with this non-campaign but I don't think the scrubbing is a big deal.
Sat, 2011-02-12 19:07
#34
But are you advocating we legalize crack? Heroin?
I've had friends who were alcoholics and friends who were heroin addicts and I've noticed a lot of similarities. They both did a lot of damage to their lives but they also both held down jobs and were viewed as 'functional'. They also both finally got help for treating their substance issues without going to prison. What I didn't notice was any moral reason why the heroin addict should be a criminal and the alcoholic should be someone who needs medical help and support. What's your reason for treating people with drug addictions as criminals? I'd appreciate an explanation because I really don't understand the logic.
How do we deal with gangs who decide to shoot up a neigbourhood? "Oh, sorry, I understand why you did this. Please don't do it again. You're free to go."
Is that what we do now? Could you show me anyone who is saying that is what we should be doing?? I don't see it. What I do see is a very concerted effort by Harper and his allies in the right wing media to whip up hysteria over gang violence and channel it into changing Canada's laws so that they are closer in line with the penal system in the US where they they have the highest incareration rate in the world and violent/gang crime is far worse than here.
As for the so-called "prison industry"... the one run by government in this country...
What's your point? The military is run by the government too, do you think when they hand out military contracts, that this doesn't affect industries/profits ect? If you really are ignorant of how corporations profit from locking people up in this country I can find you studies, just ask or do a little research, it's not hard to find. And it does damage the credibility of the Social Democratic movement in Canada that a higher percentage of public funds are going to be allocated to locking people up for non-violent drug related offences including marijuana. The right wing government loves spending tax dollars on incarerating and bombing poor people but because it helps further the spread of their ideology: that government does more harm than good. They've been very successful at instilling that in younger generations. And good luck ever clawing back the welfare, that these industries are going to start receiving for locking people up and see how easy it is. Our southern neighbour is a poignant example.
A couple of years ago, Jenny Kwan invited the United Nations to come and examine our homelessness problem. I attended the public forum which listened to about 100 people talk about their treatment. It was overwhelmingly from the Downtown Eastside. Over and over again people called for the police to get rid of the elements that were preying on their community (dealers, pimps etc...). Yes they wanted opportunity and support, but they also wanted some law and order.
Tough on crime is not just protecting rich people in rich neighborhoods, it is also taking care of people who are feeding off those that can least afford it.
Yes we need to fix our attitudes towards drugs (my first vote is for Dana), but we also need to protect people from violence. The two are not mutually exclusive.
OK, I do agree with most of that and it's true lower income neighbourhoods are on the frontline and should be protected. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any balance. But other things that aren't mutually exclusive are 'getting tough on crime' polices and making things more violent and organized crime more profitable. I have friends in Mexico who have told me stories about the same politicians there who support using the army against the cartels attending the weddings of other very well-known drug traffickers. Brian's link to the police officer pointing out how 'getting tough on drug crime' helps the Big Fish gobble up the Little fish is worth a read for anyone who doesn't understand this. And I think it's obvious that's the direction our Federal government is taking right now and I don't see a very effective opposition to it. And in the case of Farnworth it looks like outright acquiescence.
Sat, 2011-02-12 19:21
#35
I agree that the outreach is terrible. I think there are a lot of problems with this non-campaign but I don't think the scrubbing is a big deal.
Why do you think this is happening...err not happening?
Sat, 2011-02-12 23:34
#36
I've had friends who were alcoholics and friends who were heroin addicts and I've noticed a lot of similarities. They both did a lot of damage to their lives but they also both held down jobs and were viewed as 'functional'. They also both finally got help for treating their substance issues without going to prison. What I didn't notice was any moral reason why the heroin addict should be a criminal and the alcoholic should be someone who needs medical help and support. What's your reason for treating people with drug addictions as criminals? I'd appreciate an explanation because I really don't understand the logic.
My ex suffered from an opiate addiction. And it was bad. Finally, we got him into methadone therapy. After we had split, he showed up at my door with a crack cocaine addiction asking for help. I had to live through that for a few weeks before getting him help which is sadly lacking in this country. I don't have a very positive opinion of drugs as you can understand. I never once said we should lock up addicts and treat them as criminals. I think those in prison now should be released. And money should be invested in meaningful rehab and detox facilites.
Those who sell drugs such as crack, heroin, prescription drugs like dilaudid, should be hung up by their privates. "Tough on crime" to me means targeting those who sell to our loved ones and to our children. I have no tolerance for drug dealers. So as you can see, I too am somewhat a victim of crime to a degree. What I had to live through is still with me today. Maybe that's why I have a slightly different perspective on how to deal with it.
I don't support throwing everyone in prison. Can you quote Farnworth with saying that? And as I mentioned before, our prison system needs to be reformed. But lots of people who are there now belong there. And if you shoot off a gun in a neighbourhood, you should end up there too. Maybe we should rephrase "tough on crime" to "common sense on crime".
Is that what we do now? Could you show me anyone who is saying that is what we should be doing?? I don't see it. What I do see is a very concerted effort by Harper and his allies in the right wing media to whip up hysteria over gang violence and channel it into changing Canada's laws so that they are closer in line with the penal system in the US where they they have the highest incareration rate in the world and violent/gang crime is far worse than here.
What's your point? The military is run by the government too, do you think when they hand out military contracts, that this doesn't affect industries/profits ect? If you really are ignorant of how corporations profit from locking people up in this country I can find you studies, just ask or do a little research, it's not hard to find. And it does damage the credibility of the Social Democratic movement in Canada that a higher percentage of public funds are going to be allocated to locking people up for non-violent drug related offences including marijuana. The right wing government loves spending tax dollars on incarerating and bombing poor people but because it helps further the spread of their ideology: that government does more harm than good. They've been very successful at instilling that in younger generations. And good luck ever clawing back the welfare, that these industries are going to start receiving for locking people up and see how easy it is. Our southern neighbour is a poignant example.
Actually, if you could provide those studies, I'd be interested in reading them.
Mon, 2011-02-14 04:02
#37
Maysie wrote in the closed thread "And you don't need someone's password to see what they've said/done on Facebook, you just need to be a "friend". Albeit an unrestricted one." That is EXACTLY my point!
Why is the ndp council or executive even asking for those passwords? It allows them to see the emails of the leadership candidates which are PRIVATE. Between the candidate and whoever sent or received the emails.
So by violating the candidates privacy, you are also violating the privacy of anybody who they emailed with. That is a huge can of worms to open up.
If I send an email to Carole James, or Lana Popham, the email is for the recipient, not for Moe Sihota. This policy (if continued) is going to cause a big chill around all the ndp candidates on the entire internet. I will not be communiting with them by email, many others will not either. No feedback will put them out of touch with what people want. And that is not a great space for a political party to be in.
Mon, 2011-02-14 11:15
#38
So, have you bought a BC NDP membership and/or do you support any of the candidates?? If not, then this contest shoudl be of no interest or relevance to you.
Mon, 2011-02-14 22:38
#39
I live in BC so it has a lot more relevence to me than to you. I view the passwords thing as extremely wrong, extremely wrong and it has no place in a democracy.
Would you give your passwords to someone else? I would love it if the BC NDP had an ethics committee or if people here on babble could say the practice of asking for social media passwords from leadership candidates is
A Unethical
B A security hazard (for everyone involved)
C Intimidation of leadership candidates
D Violates their rights as private individuals
E Violates the rights of people who communicate with those leadership candidates.
Clearly their powerbrokers are mired in the late 70's and that is probably how they did things then. Many on babble work in and for human rights, many work in tech security, many in legal stuff.
I do not understand why you cannot condemn this awful practice. If the conservatives, or bc libs did it you would be screaming blue murder.
Asking the leadership candidates to give their passwords to a vetting committee is wrong. It isn't slightly wrong, it is really wrong.
Nobody has the right to extort the passwords from anyone.
It is wrong no matter who does it.
(Stockholm is unlikely ever ever ever to admit this) He is what he is and this is just his latest attempt to stuff dirt back under the carpet.
It would be nice to have some people weigh in about this and don't be wishy washy about it either.
Maybe the NDP powerbrokers can be made to back down on this issue.
If they do not clean up, I am certain it will become a much bigger issue going forward. I have a question for people.
Are the cops allowed to demand your passwords? If not, why should the powerbrokers have the right?
So, have you bought a BC NDP membership and/or do you support any of the candidates?? If not, then this contest shoudl be of no interest or relevance to you.
Tue, 2011-02-15 07:40
#40
remind
LMAO @ the latest "outrage" against the BCNDP. If it ain't one thing it is another, Brian.
And I say this as someone who is not votiing BCNDP; if you want to lead a political party your social networking accounts on sites should be fully open to the party, no matter what party it is.
Said people are going for a run at the highest public office and public net working sites are definitely not off base, at least not any more than a criminal record check is, or a piss test from an employer.
Tue, 2011-02-15 21:20
#41
At least you have an opinion, remind. I respect that.
I just think everybody deserves privacy.
I guess you would have no problem if the party tapped leaders phone lines too?
It is a bit of a shock to me that people do not voice an opinion.
Tue, 2011-02-15 23:13
#42
Brian,
The political culture in this province is nerfed. In previous decades, people had opinions about public affairs, right or wrong. At some point, just about everyone became self-absorbed and cynical. Those in power love that. That includes MLAs who disappear unnoticed for years on end.
Tue, 2011-02-15 23:37
#43
I think it makes sense to give the "party brass" access to campaign facebook passwords, assuming the "party brass" doesn't just change things on a whim. Seeing as how the NDP got burned in the last provincial and federal election with flaky candidates doing flaky things it seems like it would make more sense that someone keep an eye on these things. If it were a little more professional in its candidate background checks it wouldn't have lost multiple candidates in the last federal election and it wouldn't have blown a gasket when those tame pictures of their provincial candidate showed up on facebook. It isn't as if someone who dissents against general party policy is going to be silenced, it seems like more of a preventative measure as a part of a general background check. Because honestly, if the party were to really try to censor people recent history proves that it will fail miserably and that people who lean to the left in this province are independent enough to make up their own minds.
Besides, if it goes over board with these things, I wouldn't be surprised to see people bolt from the party. There is a big opening in this province and I think both of the main parties are on their "last legs."
Edited to add: On the other hand, considering how easy it is to take screen captures, it seems dumb for them to make this demand because it's unlikely they'll escape any really bad publicity. Assuming someone makes some negative comment that's highly impolitic on some candidates facebook website, both the campaign and the party miss it, but some enterprising netizen captures it. That basically means that the information is captured forever. So, while I can still see why the party would want this information and I see a reasonable reasoning behind it, it betrays their lack of internet savvy.
Wed, 2011-02-16 16:03
#44
Regarding the blase attitude, it's because that's the least of their transgressions. I have very low expectations of the NDP. I have nearly none when it comes to other parties. That's the nature of electoral politics. I'm about as cynical as someone twice my age.
Wed, 2011-02-16 16:37
#45
Left Turn
Changing the focus a bit...
[url=http://straight.com/article-374665/vancouver/bc-ndp-leadership-contender.... NDP leadership contender John Horgan wouldn't impose moratorium on watershed logging[/url]
He's billing himself as his party's environmental candidate, but NDP leadership hopeful John Horgan has said it would be "irresponsible" for him to commit to imposing a moratorium on logging in B.C.'s drinking watersheds....
In a phone interview with the Straight, Wilderohness Committee healthy communities campaigner Ben West conceded that defining what is and is not logging in watershed areas can be difficult.However, on the issue of a moratorium, West remarked, "It seems like a no-brainer to me in terms of a policy."
So if it's a no-brainer for Ben West, why is it not a no-brainer for John Horgan, especially when he claims to be the BC NDP's environmental candidate?
Thu, 2011-02-17 03:22
#46
I pm'ed a tech savvy babbler and although he said that it "might" not be illegal, he did say tha it certainly isn't ethical from either a protection of privacy or a computer security point of view.
I really wish that the political elites could realize that they are in a big glass room and everybody can see what they are doing.
Maybe they just don't care?
It does not just betray their lack of internet savv. It shows that they lack a lot of other qualities too.
Flakey candidates did flakey things. Nobody needs their facebook passwords to do a background check.
Anyway, it seems that most people either do not care or take a view that the party handlers may be pit bulls but they are our pit bulls.
I take the view that it is a shame that the pit bulls are attacking their owners.
Edited to add: They had too much other stuff on the agenda tonight (wed 16 feb) but there was an air of astonishment when I mentioned the password thing. The correct protocol is something like "minimally invasive consensual collection of information". (Give me your password or quit the race does not sound like consensual to me).
Anyway, nobody here seems to give a shit that the leadership candidates for the NDP were forced to hand over their social media passwords to nameless faceless people. So I shall take it elsewhere.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politic... gives some details of the 17 page screening.
Thu, 2011-02-17 17:29
#47
So Harry Lali has dropped out - just as well. I like him but it's the right decision.
Fri, 2011-02-18 16:27
#48
Lali Says Money Just Wasn't There
It's game over for Harry Lali. Lali dropped out of the NDP leadership race yesterday, saying the financial burden would have been too tough to take on. Lali says it's hard for anyone to raise the money required to meet the party's funding allocations.Lali says in order to fund the $100,000 necessary to mount a strong campaign, he would have had to raise $215,000. He says NDP rules say the party gets the $15,000 deposit required to put your name in, then 50% of everything you raise.
Lali says his heart was in it, but the fundraising just wasn't going to happen.
Tue, 2011-02-22 13:14
#49
In the NDP leadership race, the poll found Mike Farnworth has the highest level of support. Fifty-nine per cent of NDP voters and 42 per cent of all respondents said he would be a good choice to replace Carole James as party leader. Adrian Dix received endorsement from 45 per cent of NDP voters and 27 per cent of all respondents.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politic...
Tue, 2011-02-22 13:59
#50
remind
So piss tests and criminal record checks are A okay Brian, but password access to juvenille social networking sites isn't....LMAOOOOOOOOOO
Go Christy Clark, some self labelled BC progressives deserve you and the BC Liberals for another term.
Tue, 2011-02-22 21:29
#51
So piss tests and criminal record checks are A okay Brian, but password access to juvenille social networking sites isn't....LMAOOOOOOOOOO
Go Christy Clark, some self labelled BC progressives deserve you and the BC Liberals for another term.
Why not ask radiorahim about computer security issues? He is one person here who knows his stuff and did not let personal or party bias cloud his response.
He gave me exactly the answers I expected. The NDP has given a small core of people access to the passwords of ALL the leadership candidates. If any one of them has financial difficulties, gets hacked or changes sides or is out for blood after the infighting, ALL those passwords might be for sale on the open or closed market. That means that it might be election time and damaging social media posts will start appearing in the names of candidates. The candidates might even be locked out of their own accounts for days.
It was a totally fucking stupid move on the part of the NDP. Ask any computer savvy kid in highschool. Some of them will vote in the next election. If the leadership pulls capers like this, they are unlikely to vote NDP.
Lots of people take computer security ignorance and violation of privacy VERY seriously. Many of them vote left.
You have lost them.