Blog
November 22nd 2011 | 3
Division of Power #4 Response to criticism
The Bill C-10 protest at Andrew Swan’s constituency office that I wrote a blog post about last week was a strange agglomeration of dedicated Occupiers and disgruntled NDP members.
My criticism of that protest late last week sparked some equally critical responses from readers. So here is my response:
I’m certainly aware that many NDP members have worked to convince their party to oppose Bill C-10. I also understand that those NDP members who did “occupy” Swan’s office did so out of perceived desperation.
I would add, however, that NDP members who oppose C-10 have clearly failed to convince both party executives, but also other NDP members and NDP voters, that the current party position on the federal crime package is irresponsible.
Does that mean they should shut up and accept failure? No. Does it mean that they don’t have a right to protest? Absolutely not. But it also doesn’t mean that the entire party apparatus doesn’t work.
By allying with Occupy Winnipeg to annex the office, disgruntled NDP members are essentially claiming that, simply because the party did not adopt a position that some of its members support, that the entire system has failed.
Again, this was clear with calls to abolish the police and prison system outright.
As such, when I offered alternatives to the annexing of Swan’s office, I was directing that critique largely at those who believe that traditional avenues for political change, as opposed to direct action/protest/civil disobedience, are pointless.
I offered those alternatives to point out that there are ways to get involved and make change within a party and that the notion of party members being completely powerless to change or influence party policy (or public policy, if elected) is ridiculous. The critique was aimed largely at the Occupiers who, from what I can tell, ultimately believe that elites control the entire political/economic system.
As for those who were chastising me about discussing the Downtown BIZ forum after talking informally with those who had attended about the level of vitriol and black and white logic, here’s a quote from one of the BIZ protesters:
“The BIZ and the police are not worthy of civil discourse. They are violent racist gangs who roam our streets and abuse the most marginalized and vulnerable among us. I’m proud to say that I was among those who shouted down the WPS and the BIZ when they were spouting their lies and obfuscations. And I’d do it again in a heartbeat.”
Again, there are many things that I am concerned about when it comes to the BIZ and the above quote comes from someone who alerted me to some of those concerns last summer. That doesn’t mean that there is no room for civility unless, of course, you really do believe that the police and BIZ patrols are irrevocably corrupt and racist thugs.
Also, I’ve been working for The Uniter long enough to know when I should do interviews and when it is unnecessary.
Normally, I write news and I delight in interviewing people from all sides of the political spectrum and being as fair as possible in my reporting. Right now, this is my opinion and that opinion is subject to change. I hope you will take it with a grain of salt.
Division of Power is a biweekly exploration of politics and federalism as it pertains to Winnipeg.
Discussion
-
Again I will bring up my critique of your last blog post. You have one,not three or ten but one comment from someone who wants to abolish the police. I will say this again-the dissenting voices at the forum called for reform and more transparency of the police and the biz. In fact these solutions where offered by people who politically are “radical”. So, as per my comments on the last post, there was actually shades of grey at the forum not black and white. Sadly some chose to simply be disruptive but the issues raised out weigh any stupidity of a vocal minority in my mind.
Scott Price CKUW assistant news director
– Scott Price in Winnipeg | November 22nd 2011 at 4:12pm | Link
-
“Also, I’ve been working for The Uniter long enough to know when I should do interviews and when it is unnecessary.”
It doesn’t seem like you do, though. Almost every FACT upon which you base your (very poorly argued) opinions n these two posts is wrong. The very first line of this blog post is wrong. Your characterization of the BIZ forum (as Scott pointed out above) is wrong. Your understanding of the rationale behind the Swan occupation is wrong. Your understanding of who occupied it is wrong.
Your last paragraph seems to indicate that you only believe research and interviews are necessary when you are writing a traditional news piece. That may be true in some cases, but only when you know enough about the subject to be able to write about it without secondary sources. That wasn’t the case here.
– Jacquie | November 22nd 2011 at 5:16pm | Link
-
Er…. so if he’s wrong, what’s right? I’m interested in knowing the reasons, and if you have more insight into it, could you share it with the rest of us?
– Matt | November 24th 2011 at 3:41pm | Link
