[Peace-discussion] Proposed resolution to boycott Israel"s Peace Festival
Owen Broadhurst
owen.broadhurst@gmail.com
Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:25:11 -0400
------=_Part_25289_30396546.1153934711709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Les, the Lavender Caucus came to no conclusions as a result of its
deliberations. The Caucus declined endorsement of the call to boycott World
Pride, but passed no resolutions against any such a boycott. You should also
know that the Green-Rainbow Party supports the World Pride boycott.
Also, you wrote:
"Again, as in the passage of Resolution 190 last November, the Committee
fails to follow the Green Party's procedure in trying to reach consensus
with its local groups before passing such measures."
A friend of mine in another thread - off-list - asked:
>
> Why in the world were not rank and file Greens part of the process for
> adopting such an important policy resolution?
>
I quite frankly believe they were. They certainly had been in the state
party that sponsored the resolution, and they certainly had been in also the
Green-Rainbow Party which advanced the cause of divestment some time even
before the GPotUS National Committee did. Another state party made the
decision to bring the resolution before the NC. Once there, the NC
representatives then have responsibility to discuss the pending matters with
their constituents if that is their charge.
It is up to the state parties, as opposed to GPotUS, to define the
relationship of their National Committee representatives to their state
party/ caucus constituencies. Once the proposal was introduced, and it quite
properly was introduced in accordance with the very same procedures used in
addressing every National Committee proposal, the delegates themselves
receive feedback as needed from their various constituencies in accord with
the common practice of the body they represent. The GRP, BTW, still solidly
backs 190.
I don't doubt for one minute that maverick delegates exist, but I'm highly
doubtful that one could of most NC delegates who had approved of the
resolution argue that they failed to keep their state parties informed. It
is true that a few state parties have now been poised to reconsider the
decision - but this in many cases would be due to more vulnerable state
parties being infiltrated by various outside parties specifically recruited
only to reverse the NC vote.
I can't say that I'm terribly concerned about how Ha Yerukim receives any
such news, by the way.
Owen R. Broadhurst (MA)
On 6/14/06, Les Amer <lesamer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I read with much concern the PAX committee's plans for
> a resolution to "implement" Resolution 190 by calling
> for a boycott of the Peace Festival in Israel.
>
> Again, as in the passage of Resolution 190 last
> November, the Committee fails to follow the Green
> Party's procedure in trying to reach consensus with
> its local groups before passing such measures. Such a
> resolution will be very much opposed by the Israel
> Green Party and the LGBT Greens, as well I'm sure by
> other local groups. To endorse such a divisive
> resolution without proper coordination with the Party
> rank-and-file shows a complete disregard for the
> purpose of the Party, and calls into question the
> motives of the Resolution backers.
>
> I hope that much more thought will be brought into
> this resolution than was done with 190. All they will
> accomplish is to make the Party locals more divided
> and upset with its national representatives.
>
> Les Amer
> Los Angeles Greens
--
Owen R. Broadhurst
Candidate for State Representative
Third Hampden District
http://www.owenbroadhurst.org
------=_Part_25289_30396546.1153934711709
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>Les, the Lavender Caucus came to no conclusions as a result of its deliberations. The Caucus declined endorsement of the call to boycott World Pride, but passed no resolutions against any such a boycott. You should also know that the Green-Rainbow Party supports the World Pride boycott.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, you wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Again, as in the passage of Resolution 190 last November, the Committee fails to follow the Green Party's procedure in trying to reach consensus with its local groups before passing such measures."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A friend of mine in another thread - off-list - asked:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><span class="q">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div>
<div><span><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </span></div></div>
<div>
<div><font face="Arial"><font color="#008000" size="2">Why in the world were not rank and file Greens part of the process for adopting such an important policy resolution? </font></font></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></span></div>
<div>
<div>I quite frankly believe they were. They certainly had been in the state party that sponsored the resolution, and they certainly had been in also the Green-Rainbow Party which advanced the cause of divestment some time even before the GPotUS National Committee did. Another state party made the decision to bring the resolution before the NC. Once there, the NC representatives then have responsibility to discuss the pending matters with their constituents if that is their charge.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is up to the state parties, as opposed to GPotUS, to define the relationship of their National Committee representatives to their state party/ caucus constituencies. Once the proposal was introduced, and it quite properly was introduced in accordance with the very same procedures used in addressing every National Committee proposal, the delegates themselves receive feedback as needed from their various constituencies in accord with the common practice of the body they represent. The GRP, BTW, still solidly backs 190.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't doubt for one minute that maverick delegates exist, but I'm highly doubtful that one could of most NC delegates who had approved of the resolution argue that they failed to keep their state parties informed. It is true that a few state parties have now been poised to reconsider the decision - but this in many cases would be due to more vulnerable state parties being infiltrated by various outside parties specifically recruited only to reverse the NC vote.
</div></div></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I can't say that I'm terribly concerned about how Ha Yerukim receives any such news, by the way. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Owen R. Broadhurst (MA)<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/14/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Les Amer</b> <<a title="mailto:lesamer@yahoo.com" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:lesamer@yahoo.com" target="_blank">
lesamer@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hello<br><br>I read with much concern the PAX committee's plans for<br>a resolution to "implement" Resolution 190 by calling
<br>for a boycott of the Peace Festival in Israel.<br><br>Again, as in the passage of Resolution 190 last<br>November, the Committee fails to follow the Green<br>Party's procedure in trying to reach consensus with<br>its local groups before passing such measures. Such a
<br>resolution will be very much opposed by the Israel<br>Green Party and the LGBT Greens, as well I'm sure by<br>other local groups. To endorse such a divisive<br>resolution without proper coordination with the Party<br>
rank-and-file shows a complete disregard for the<br>purpose of the Party, and calls into question the<br>motives of the Resolution backers.<br><br>I hope that much more thought will be brought into<br>this resolution than was done with 190. All they will
<br>accomplish is to make the Party locals more divided<br>and upset with its national representatives.<br><br>Les Amer<br>Los Angeles Greens</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Owen R. Broadhurst<br>Candidate for State Representative
<br>Third Hampden District<br><a title="http://www.owenbroadhurst.org" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.owenbroadhurst.org/" target="_blank">http://www.owenbroadhurst.org</a>
------=_Part_25289_30396546.1153934711709--