Earlier, we exclusively reported on federal Green Vancouver-Kingsway candidate Kevin Potvin's controversial 9-11 editorial. Speaking first with Public Eye, Mr. Potvin said he still endorses the "totality" of that editorial. But what does the Green Party have to say about his opinions? In an interview, deputy leader Adriane Carr said Mr. Potvin's four-year-old article "certainly raises alarm bells in my mind." So she called Mr. Potvin this morning to discuss the matter.
During that call, Ms. Carr, "asked him the question of where does he stand on violence and war. And he is clearly against violence and war. And that is, of course, the Green Party's perspective. So I was reassured in that answer."
The deputy leader explained the Greens don't whip candidate into line like other parties, where "people don't have the freedom to express things." That being said though, Ms. Carr added, "I think he went over the top. I don't think you'd find Green Party members, in any sense, thinking that the tragic loss of life and use of violence (on 9-11) was in any way right. And I needed to hear a reasurrance from Kevin that he felt that way."
"He told me he does feel that way - and that he did use provocative language and emotion to make the point that there are a lot of lives being lost in wars that are not being reported on. And that is certainly something that I sympathize with and the Green Party sympathizes with. We have become, as a society, inured to the level of violence and death that occurs around our world. Fair enough. That's a point worth making. How he made was, in my mind, over the top. And I was happy to have him confirm for me that he doesn't support violent acts or war."
But aren't the Greens concerned about running a candidate who, for example, felt an "urge to pump my first in the air" after American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon? "I think, to me, it's upsetting to think that anybody would think that that kind of incident - or anything to do with the violence that's out there - may teach a lesson," she responded. "Because, obviously, it doesn't teach a lesson. It just begets fear and violent response and wars on terror."
"So it may be good literary license. But, politically, the license is a bit narrower. I felt sure that it was his creative way of putting forward a pretty awful fact about the war. It was politically risky. He was doing it as a journalist. So, politically, I would expect he would consider what he was saying in the context of our party's absolute commitment to non-violent resolution of conflict."
So will Mr. Potvin be the Green candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway when Canadians go to the polls? "I think that it's important to have a party in which candidates are able to express their points of view and they don't have to toe the line. But this one goes over the top for me...He's been nominated. He hasn't gone through the full process yet. I think I have to leave it at that. And I will have further conversations with him. But, as I say, at least today, he has reassured me."
It is ridiculous to think his nomination meant anything. He won by acclamation. The Greens don't even have a Electoral District Association set up for Kingsway.
So it's okay for a Green Party candidate upon hearing about the tragedy of 911 to have felt an "...urge to pump my first in the air". You heard "alarm bells" in your head (for lack of a better word) Adrienne Carr...give me a break...how about fire bells...Adrienne Carr, you should be ashamed of yourself...vote Green...vote for ignorant and outrageous stupidity!!!
Where was this Potvin's outrage when Saddam was melting Kurds into the sands of Arabia?
Where is his outrage when poor young Muslim girls are being subjected to clitoral mutilation (female circumcision)?
Where is his outrage when "fellow Muslims" are being tortured to death because they will not rewrite the Koran and abide by murder as a sacrament?
Potvin's idle ramblings aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
I see this as part of a worrying trend on the left globally. The ideology of the 9/11 attackers, Al Queda, Hamas, and the Taliban are all fascistic and the left seems to be finding a degree of comfort with them because they are attacking the global corporate-American system.
But at the end of the day, all fascism is anti-progressive, anti-human rights, racist and tribal in nature. When people on the left suppport fascists they specifically support the movements that are opposed to everything that they would like to see in the world.
My enemy's enemy is my friend thinking leads to only worse situations. Look at World War 2 - Stalin was not better than Hitler but because of the West's support of his regime, eastern Europe was subjected to two more generations of totalitarian hell.
The Green Party needs to look at doing what Reform did in the 1987 to 1993 era - find the extremists and remove them from the party.
Bernard, according to last nite's BBC world news Oxfam has issued a report highly critical of the Western government's boycott of the Hamas Govt in the Palestinian Territories. They claim it has caused huge drops in earned incomes and in essential public services among the ordinary people there.
At least implicitly, Oxfam is saying that Western Govt's should not be so opposed to Hamas's political positioning as to cause real hardship to everyday people. Do you think Oxfam is being dangerously soft on terrorism? Do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization? If so, why was the EU foreign minister Benita Ferrero-Waldner meeting with Hamas's finance minister Salam Fayyad to discuss an eventual resumption of normal trade and aid relationships?