I don’t support the NDP so I don’t care what Dix does about this, and I understand the need for tact going into an election. But I find it sadly ironic that a politician is turfed for expressing a view that most people share. Political Correctness is alive and well.
she resigned, he accepted end of story but how didn’t the NDP do their research on her after all political correctness these days demands a person with a holier then though image.
oops that means Dix should resign for forging a fake memo for the RCMP investigation.
Mary Polak = Homophobic Schools
Christy = Ethnic Outreach
John Cummins = Cheap diapers with lots of gimmicks.
Seems like BC voters are faced with some very shitty choices, unless they’re willing to throw their ballots at the Green Party. lol
[quote=“PLA”]
Seems like BC voters are faced with some very shitty choices, unless they’re willing to throw their ballots at the Green Party. lol[/quote]
Yes. Agreed. I like Hondo, but I’ll be voting for Jennifer. A strategic vote to get rid of the Liberals.
Most people? Perhaps, but not most people in the BC Liberal government. They have worked quite hard at building more positive relationships with aboriginal people, including to encourage economic development.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Most people? Perhaps, but not most people in the BC Liberal government. They have worked quite hard at building more positive relationships with aboriginal people, including to encourage economic development.[/quote]
Most is subjective, but based on the comments of the attached news story it seems that way. It isn’t necessarily the person involved, the party, or this particular subject that I find interesting, it is the issue with people in public office (or seeking it) that have a popular view on an issue that doesn’t jive with the party line. I get the politics of it and the need to tow party lines etc., but it is yet another example of being told how we are supposed to feel or think by the Party.
[quote=“crazy Horse”]
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Most people? Perhaps, but not most people in the BC Liberal government. They have worked quite hard at building more positive relationships with aboriginal people, including to encourage economic development.[/quote]
Most is subjective, but based on the comments of the attached news story it seems that way. It isn’t necessarily the person involved, the party, or this particular subject that I find interesting, it is the issue with people in public office (or seeking it) that have a popular view on an issue that doesn’t jive with the party line. I get the politics of it and the need to tow party lines etc., but it is yet another example of being told how we are supposed to feel or think by the Party.
ca.news.yahoo.com/b-c-ndp-drops- … 34050.html[/quote]
It’s not in the Province’s best interests to have people like Dayleen Van Ryswyk in positions of power, regardless of which party they’re associated with. Her views take us nowhere except back into a conflict-ridden, toxic situation that discourages investment and economic development. They are bad for business.
Soon after becoming premier, Gordon Campbell, to his credit, realised that he had to set aside what “most people” think and find constructive ways of working with aboriginal people through what has been called the “New Relationship”. Things have been a lot better under the Liberals than they were under the premiership of Zalm, who is now the spiritual leader of the BC Conservatives. Hopefully an NDP government will continue the more positive approaches that the Liberals developed.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Soon after becoming premier, Gordon Campbell, to his credit, realised that he had to set aside what “most people” think and find constructive ways of working with aboriginal people through what has been called the “New Relationship”. [/quote]
Have to disagree with you here. If Gordon Campbell really wanted to set aside what ‘most people’ think ‘soon after becoming premier’, then why the referendum asking if aboriginal people should be taxed, etc?
Can you explain how the treaty referendum was ‘working with aboriginal people through a new relationship’ ?
I think it did a lot more harm than good.
Perhaps Campbell softened his approach to Aboriginal people well into his mandate, but in 2002, I think it’s safe to say that the tone was set by that referendum.
[quote=“MiG”]
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Soon after becoming premier, Gordon Campbell, to his credit, realised that he had to set aside what “most people” think and find constructive ways of working with aboriginal people through what has been called the “New Relationship”. [/quote]
Have to disagree with you here. If Gordon Campbell really wanted to set aside what ‘most people’ think ‘soon after becoming premier’, then why the referendum asking if aboriginal people should be taxed, etc?
Can you explain how the treaty referendum was ‘working with aboriginal people through a new relationship’ ?
I think it did a lot more harm than good.
Perhaps Campbell softened his approach to Aboriginal people well into his mandate, but in 2002, I think it’s safe to say that the tone was set by that referendum.[/quote]
Sure that’s where he started out but he moved beyond those positions and started working more constructively, including by entering into numerous forestry and other natural resources agreements.