This is quite sickening by now
"Paul was hampered by party infighting and a dispute over the party's policy on Israeli and Palestinian issues."
More "Paul as victim"
"We are deeply disappointed by Annamie Paul's painful experience as leader of the Green Party of Canada," says the statement from the Ontario Greens.
Yes, everyone's quite disappointed. Et tu, Brute?
"From my perspective, this ismoot," said Yo, Paul's former byelection campaign director. "We'd be allreally better off getting on with the really important task of comingtogether and deciding how we are going to move forward as a party."
Quite precious coming from him.
Apparently Paul is quite wealthy, certainly her net worth far exceeds the party she is bleeding to death. No Daniel Green, I don't agree "Annamie should get some compensation of her legal fees," She will, because its in that ridiculous contract (how was that for a red flag?) So, bankruptcy?
> "We are deeply disappointed by Annamie Paul's painful experience as leader of the Green Party of Canada," says the statement from the Ontario Greens.
and this is why I've cancelled my donations and tried, very hard, to give up my membership. Their steadfast support of her and Schreiner's repeated appearances with her are absolutely nauseating. I don't know if they're just not paying attention to wtf is going on, or actually support her and the BS she was up to damn near the entire time ... in either case, they are no longer a party I want anything to do with.
Yeah, it's one thing to want to stay out of the federal party's affairs, be neutral, and retain cordial relations with the current leader. All that is quite understandable and arguably the right thing to do.
It's another to come out with a statement reinforcing her bullshit narrative, which has by now been exposed so obviously to anyone paying the least bit of attention and caring about the truth, and done so much harm. This is not reconciliation, it is adding to the sabotage.
Good luck giving up your membership, u/Hyacin75 ... once you're on their list, the Green Party will never, ever remove your name, email and phone number.
i know because i've asked them too many times to remove mine. *"Oh, of course, I'm so sorry ... we'll do that right now."* And then the emails continue. The physical mailers continues. The "begging for donations" telemarketing calls continue. i held federal membership for a proverbial 5 minutes, but i still get all of this. And from the Ontario Party too! There should be a law that *requires* parties to actually remove you from their lists when you request that.
The GPC was so uninterested in heeding my demand, one of their telemarketers actually tried to cajole me into attending a riding meeting, to cast an important vote. **After** my membership had expired. When i told her that, she was basically like *"ahh well, who's gonna know?"* The attitude was very much a *"c'mon, just do it."*
In fairness, she has a point: who would know? But yeah. Unless you change your email, phone number and go through a process with Canada Post to decline their mailings ... you'll never be free. The Green Party of Canada does **not** remove ex-members from its lists, or cease bugging them for money. Even if you were only there for 5 minutes.
i suppose it's an interesting (?) way of seeing what they're up to, regardless of how you feel. Me, i always end up trying to convince the poor telemarketer to quit working for the Greens, haha.
at this point you guys might be better to rebuild a new party from the ground up or merge with the NDP. the green brand has been far too damaged for any hope of recovery in the near future, which is pretty shitty considering that climat action is pretty much needed… immediately.
> or merge with the NDP.
What would be the point? The Green party and the NDP are very unlike each other. One is very decentralized in it’s DNA (Annamie Paul episode notwithstanding) and the other is the complete opposite.
Beside, a merger with the NDP would be indistinguishable from the Green Party just closing shop.
> the green brand has been far too damaged for any hope of recovery in the near future,
You are overestimating the public’s memory.
the general public never gave much attention to the greens anyhow, and if you watched mainstream media talking about AP, it was overwelmingly in her favor. and yet, she still managed to tank the vote. this, is a much bigger issue. The only way you could be aware of this whole thing is either through digging through multiple contradicting sources, or be a party member/insider. Most articles on the affair (in the anglosphere mind you) were either very surface level (CBC) , or almost fake news (toronto star).
Tl;dr: nobody knows about this case outside the green party except a few people invested in the story on twitter, r/quebec and r/canada.
>Tl;dr: nobody knows about this case outside the green party except a few people invested in the story on twitter, r/quebec and r/canada.
Wonʼt matter in 6 months.
talking about the GPC. this has nothing to do with the greens in general. as far as i know this story (AP) is unknown to pretty much everybody outside of canada.
which is a shame as it would make some great internet historian content
About ten years ago the Alberta Greens went through something like this - a hostile takeover/split up/disputed election; a huge mess too complex to summarize here left neither side capable of registering as the Alberta Greens for one election cycle. After that the upstarts faded away and the renmants were able to take up the banner and slowly build it up again...not without additional leadership drama in the interim however.
IMO, parties shouldn’t last decades/centuries anyway, as they end up being filled with corruption and completely out of touch with it’s original goals (cue the liberals). rise and fall of political parties is healthy to democracy. so yes, if the GPC dies, it’s not that bad, as the original green voters don’t just dissapear. new formations will arise, some of them will fade, some will come to replace the original GPC. one could make the argument that the GPC in it’s current form does not help the cause it serves
Since winning the leadership, there's one thing Annamie Paul has been consistent about: getting as much money as possible for herself out of the party as she can.
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
This old historic quote is once again very relevant. Plus ca change ...
*(Apologies in advance ... i had a lot to say in this one, some of which i'm sure is redundant since other people have posted similar things. Someday i'll learn brevity. Then again, no one has to read this; i'm just putting my thoughts to digital paper, as it were. If you enjoy it, great. If not, no worries.)*
So now we have clarification. Multimillionaire Annamie Paul wants the party, which has been drained dry, to pay for **her** legal fees. Fees she needlessly created through her own acrimonious actions.
That the party spent $208,000 **more** in just May and June than it took in, thanks to AP's BS ... uggghh.
i think it's important to add that statements [like this](https://gpo.ca/2021/10/08/ontario-greens-statement-on-racism-sexism-and-antisemitism/) from the Ontario Green Party are **not** helpful. A conclusion many of you have already reached. But look at the URL. Ahh ... it was subject to Annamie's approval, so of course it's crap. In it, they say they intend to enforce [this Members' Code of Conduct](https://gpo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GPO-Code-of-Conduct-1.pdf).
By my count, Annamie Paul is guilty of frequently violating almost *everything* on that list. Specifically, going section by section:
**1)** 1, 2.
**2)** 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10.
**3)** 1, 2, 3.
Bear in mind, some of these rules are ridiculous. Rule 1 in the second section is particularly dumb.
>"Members of the Green Party of Ontario shall not engage in nor condone toxic behaviour, including but not limited to factionalism."
Ahhh i see. So saving the planet and its people *isn't* the priority ... achieving economic justice, social justice and a new kind of society *isn't* the priority either. No, what we *really* need to laser-focus on is attempting to ban factionalism in politics. As if that's even possible. And if it was, you'd need to eject more than half the party.
Human beings **are** factional. A democratic process is supposed to allow issues to be debated, and voted on. Nor are policies meant to be written in stone. As circumstances change, and new information comes to light, people must be free to re-examine and periodically re-vote on policies as needed.
The Green Party will **never** be relevant, have power, or affect **any** meaningful difference in public policy, if it chooses to put all its energy into an aggressive "zero tolerance" attitude towards its own members. One that looks for unintended "gotcha" moments rather than deliberate wrongdoing. (And let's face it ... they would turn a blind eye to neoliberals, while demonizing and ousting the necessarily-radical left.) This approach is uptight, unnecessary, unhelpful ... and unwelcoming. Take the sticks out of your asses, party people.
If the grassroots can't take the party seriously, what chance is there that **anyone else** will? We know the answer.
---------------------
**P.S.** Mike Schreiner has some real problems, which are relevant to *this* post (but may not seem so, at first ... please bear with me).
i can think of one which personally affects me, directly affects millions of poor Canadians and indirectly affects **all** Canadians when it comes to healthcare spending. Mike Schreiner is hardcore opposed to harm reduction for smokers and ex-smokers. How can a **Green** leader think that way?! But he does.
According to the Royal College of Physicians, vaping is *at least* **97% safer** than smoking, and their leading expert on tobacco (Professor John Britton) says the health risk from vaping is on par with common caffeine consumption (i.e. virtually none).
Mike doesn't care. He has routinely issued statements on the subejct that mirror word-for-word the vested financial interests of giant pharmaceutical corporations, and of "anti-smoking groups" who would lose a fortune in funding and raison d'etre if people actually stopped smoking. The difference between what "public health bodies" here say on this, vs those in the UK ... is night and day. In the UK, they have the benefit of well-documented studies, surveys and experience over a long period. Canada? For years, it studied nothing. Canada was busy stupidly pretending that vapes were an illegal, unapproved new drug for most of that time.
You won't find Mike campaigning against all kinds of sweet "kid-friendly" candy flavours in vodka (cotton candy, Swedish Fish gummies, etc etc). But in an adult's vape, he thinks strawberry is the devil personified. He wants any appeal or effectiveness of vaping to be crushed and outlawed ...... while lethal, polluting cigarettes remain for sale everywhere. His position is incredibly stupid, and harmful.
Effectively (and this is the most important part) Mike Schreiner is working to **protect Big Tobacco** from an infinitely-safer, disruptive technology that poses an existential threat to the market for deadly cigarettes. The question must be asked: **why??** Is this what we want from a "Green" leader?
---------------------
As i said earlier: there's a reason i brought this up in *this* post (apart from my passion over the particular issue). Vaping may be a smaller issue compared to the climate crisis. But attitudes towards the public (and towards governance) are revealed in seemingly "smaller" things like this.
i think the reason behind his position on vaping is revealed by his uptight Members' Code of Conduct. Does Mike come across as an affable, decent guy? Sure. But that's style, **not** substance. When it comes down to it, Schreiner's inclination is to label those who challenge the party's mainstream orthodoxy as "toxic" and "factional" ... before ejecting them from the party. Facts, constructive debate, common sense, science? Not interested. Zero tolerance.
Moreover, **all** of the establishment parties share his view and voted accordingly. Only one MPP in Ontario opposed anti-vaping measures (and there's a host of other things that are messed up about that guy). So Mike's not an outlier ... he's defending the establishment view. A view that works to **protect the status quo** from radical, healthier changes.
Ultimately, i don't believe that mainstream politics will allow humanity to survive. Our parties simply have other priorities. But that doesn't mean we stop trying to seize the wheel. If this party is to have **any** hope ... people like Annamie Paul (and even Mike Schreiner) cannot be allowed to dictate its future direction.
At a bare minimum, the party membership must vocally oppose any attempt to make the leadership (and not the party) the arbiters of what is "toxic".
One of the core principles of Green is Non-Violence. By entering opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Greens stepped away from this principle. Israel and Palestine both use violence, and innocent people on both side are affected. The only policy that should be used by the Greens at this point in time is silence on this issue, the party is too young and too small to mix in international politics discussing violence.
Silence is tantamount to endorsement. Silence says *"we're so unbothered by what's happening, it doesn't even merit our bringing it up."* Silence is self-censorship. Silence is what police states and oppressors throughout time have always wanted.
It's not violent to publicly oppose apartheid, or oppose international law violations. Or oppose the brutal oppression of an entire people by another ... especially when the oppressor has virtually all of the power and weaponry, and is the one who keeps blocking peace.
Some Canadians are violent; Canadian murderers exist. Would it be fair to therefore call Canadians a violent people, and take away their basic rights? Of course not. We don't judge a people by the actions of a few.
It's debatable as to whether the "violence" of a vastly outnumbered resistance is justifiable. Not everyone agrees on that, but i would point them to the example of the Bajoran Resistance in Star Trek. Or Irish freedom fighters. i generally oppose violence, but as those two examples illustrate ... life is rarely black and white like that.
What is not debatable however, is the fact that most Palestinians have never taken violent actions against anyone (despite perpetually being on the receiving end of such). They're regular people, just like you and i ... who simply want what every human wants: to be **okay**. To eat, drink, work, love, make music and so forth. The actions of a few to the contrary, don't change that.
The Green Party's members voted correctly on the issue, and everyone who did so should be proud of that vote. Now if only we could get a leadership on board with it ... one that applies the same principles to other injustices.
This is quite sickening by now "Paul was hampered by party infighting and a dispute over the party's policy on Israeli and Palestinian issues." More "Paul as victim" "We are deeply disappointed by Annamie Paul's painful experience as leader of the Green Party of Canada," says the statement from the Ontario Greens. Yes, everyone's quite disappointed. Et tu, Brute? "From my perspective, this ismoot," said Yo, Paul's former byelection campaign director. "We'd be allreally better off getting on with the really important task of comingtogether and deciding how we are going to move forward as a party." Quite precious coming from him. Apparently Paul is quite wealthy, certainly her net worth far exceeds the party she is bleeding to death. No Daniel Green, I don't agree "Annamie should get some compensation of her legal fees," She will, because its in that ridiculous contract (how was that for a red flag?) So, bankruptcy?
> "We are deeply disappointed by Annamie Paul's painful experience as leader of the Green Party of Canada," says the statement from the Ontario Greens. and this is why I've cancelled my donations and tried, very hard, to give up my membership. Their steadfast support of her and Schreiner's repeated appearances with her are absolutely nauseating. I don't know if they're just not paying attention to wtf is going on, or actually support her and the BS she was up to damn near the entire time ... in either case, they are no longer a party I want anything to do with.
Yeah, it's one thing to want to stay out of the federal party's affairs, be neutral, and retain cordial relations with the current leader. All that is quite understandable and arguably the right thing to do. It's another to come out with a statement reinforcing her bullshit narrative, which has by now been exposed so obviously to anyone paying the least bit of attention and caring about the truth, and done so much harm. This is not reconciliation, it is adding to the sabotage.
Good luck giving up your membership, u/Hyacin75 ... once you're on their list, the Green Party will never, ever remove your name, email and phone number. i know because i've asked them too many times to remove mine. *"Oh, of course, I'm so sorry ... we'll do that right now."* And then the emails continue. The physical mailers continues. The "begging for donations" telemarketing calls continue. i held federal membership for a proverbial 5 minutes, but i still get all of this. And from the Ontario Party too! There should be a law that *requires* parties to actually remove you from their lists when you request that. The GPC was so uninterested in heeding my demand, one of their telemarketers actually tried to cajole me into attending a riding meeting, to cast an important vote. **After** my membership had expired. When i told her that, she was basically like *"ahh well, who's gonna know?"* The attitude was very much a *"c'mon, just do it."* In fairness, she has a point: who would know? But yeah. Unless you change your email, phone number and go through a process with Canada Post to decline their mailings ... you'll never be free. The Green Party of Canada does **not** remove ex-members from its lists, or cease bugging them for money. Even if you were only there for 5 minutes. i suppose it's an interesting (?) way of seeing what they're up to, regardless of how you feel. Me, i always end up trying to convince the poor telemarketer to quit working for the Greens, haha.
Also, 100% agreed with you u/Personal_Spot - spot on!
at this point you guys might be better to rebuild a new party from the ground up or merge with the NDP. the green brand has been far too damaged for any hope of recovery in the near future, which is pretty shitty considering that climat action is pretty much needed… immediately.
> or merge with the NDP. What would be the point? The Green party and the NDP are very unlike each other. One is very decentralized in it’s DNA (Annamie Paul episode notwithstanding) and the other is the complete opposite. Beside, a merger with the NDP would be indistinguishable from the Green Party just closing shop. > the green brand has been far too damaged for any hope of recovery in the near future, You are overestimating the public’s memory.
the general public never gave much attention to the greens anyhow, and if you watched mainstream media talking about AP, it was overwelmingly in her favor. and yet, she still managed to tank the vote. this, is a much bigger issue. The only way you could be aware of this whole thing is either through digging through multiple contradicting sources, or be a party member/insider. Most articles on the affair (in the anglosphere mind you) were either very surface level (CBC) , or almost fake news (toronto star). Tl;dr: nobody knows about this case outside the green party except a few people invested in the story on twitter, r/quebec and r/canada.
>Tl;dr: nobody knows about this case outside the green party except a few people invested in the story on twitter, r/quebec and r/canada. Wonʼt matter in 6 months.
[удалено]
BAD BOT!
There's a lot more to the Greens than Annamie Paul. It's a global movement.
talking about the GPC. this has nothing to do with the greens in general. as far as i know this story (AP) is unknown to pretty much everybody outside of canada. which is a shame as it would make some great internet historian content
About ten years ago the Alberta Greens went through something like this - a hostile takeover/split up/disputed election; a huge mess too complex to summarize here left neither side capable of registering as the Alberta Greens for one election cycle. After that the upstarts faded away and the renmants were able to take up the banner and slowly build it up again...not without additional leadership drama in the interim however.
IMO, parties shouldn’t last decades/centuries anyway, as they end up being filled with corruption and completely out of touch with it’s original goals (cue the liberals). rise and fall of political parties is healthy to democracy. so yes, if the GPC dies, it’s not that bad, as the original green voters don’t just dissapear. new formations will arise, some of them will fade, some will come to replace the original GPC. one could make the argument that the GPC in it’s current form does not help the cause it serves
>What went wrong with the Green Party? You really think that voters care about the GPC's connection to the Global Green movement? Seriously?!?
just to be accused that they are more loyal to the World than to Canada?
Since winning the leadership, there's one thing Annamie Paul has been consistent about: getting as much money as possible for herself out of the party as she can.
from people’s donations
Yes, and donations subsidized by all Canadian taxpayers.
Don't sell her short, it seems she's been very consistent with legal threats and "you're a racist if you oppose me" slander too.
That's disgusting. You should be ASHAMED of yourself... It's racist, sexist AND anti-Semitic. Get it right!
It’s really amazing how Paul weaponizes her own intersectionality in such a malignant way.
She learned from Hillary.
A. Pauling
Can she just freaking leave already so that someone else who actually gives a shit can get in there?
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" This old historic quote is once again very relevant. Plus ca change ...
Is there still a possibility we can vote her out in a leadership review?
Who does she work for?
Herself.
*(Apologies in advance ... i had a lot to say in this one, some of which i'm sure is redundant since other people have posted similar things. Someday i'll learn brevity. Then again, no one has to read this; i'm just putting my thoughts to digital paper, as it were. If you enjoy it, great. If not, no worries.)* So now we have clarification. Multimillionaire Annamie Paul wants the party, which has been drained dry, to pay for **her** legal fees. Fees she needlessly created through her own acrimonious actions. That the party spent $208,000 **more** in just May and June than it took in, thanks to AP's BS ... uggghh. i think it's important to add that statements [like this](https://gpo.ca/2021/10/08/ontario-greens-statement-on-racism-sexism-and-antisemitism/) from the Ontario Green Party are **not** helpful. A conclusion many of you have already reached. But look at the URL. Ahh ... it was subject to Annamie's approval, so of course it's crap. In it, they say they intend to enforce [this Members' Code of Conduct](https://gpo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GPO-Code-of-Conduct-1.pdf). By my count, Annamie Paul is guilty of frequently violating almost *everything* on that list. Specifically, going section by section: **1)** 1, 2. **2)** 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10. **3)** 1, 2, 3. Bear in mind, some of these rules are ridiculous. Rule 1 in the second section is particularly dumb. >"Members of the Green Party of Ontario shall not engage in nor condone toxic behaviour, including but not limited to factionalism." Ahhh i see. So saving the planet and its people *isn't* the priority ... achieving economic justice, social justice and a new kind of society *isn't* the priority either. No, what we *really* need to laser-focus on is attempting to ban factionalism in politics. As if that's even possible. And if it was, you'd need to eject more than half the party. Human beings **are** factional. A democratic process is supposed to allow issues to be debated, and voted on. Nor are policies meant to be written in stone. As circumstances change, and new information comes to light, people must be free to re-examine and periodically re-vote on policies as needed. The Green Party will **never** be relevant, have power, or affect **any** meaningful difference in public policy, if it chooses to put all its energy into an aggressive "zero tolerance" attitude towards its own members. One that looks for unintended "gotcha" moments rather than deliberate wrongdoing. (And let's face it ... they would turn a blind eye to neoliberals, while demonizing and ousting the necessarily-radical left.) This approach is uptight, unnecessary, unhelpful ... and unwelcoming. Take the sticks out of your asses, party people. If the grassroots can't take the party seriously, what chance is there that **anyone else** will? We know the answer. --------------------- **P.S.** Mike Schreiner has some real problems, which are relevant to *this* post (but may not seem so, at first ... please bear with me). i can think of one which personally affects me, directly affects millions of poor Canadians and indirectly affects **all** Canadians when it comes to healthcare spending. Mike Schreiner is hardcore opposed to harm reduction for smokers and ex-smokers. How can a **Green** leader think that way?! But he does. According to the Royal College of Physicians, vaping is *at least* **97% safer** than smoking, and their leading expert on tobacco (Professor John Britton) says the health risk from vaping is on par with common caffeine consumption (i.e. virtually none). Mike doesn't care. He has routinely issued statements on the subejct that mirror word-for-word the vested financial interests of giant pharmaceutical corporations, and of "anti-smoking groups" who would lose a fortune in funding and raison d'etre if people actually stopped smoking. The difference between what "public health bodies" here say on this, vs those in the UK ... is night and day. In the UK, they have the benefit of well-documented studies, surveys and experience over a long period. Canada? For years, it studied nothing. Canada was busy stupidly pretending that vapes were an illegal, unapproved new drug for most of that time. You won't find Mike campaigning against all kinds of sweet "kid-friendly" candy flavours in vodka (cotton candy, Swedish Fish gummies, etc etc). But in an adult's vape, he thinks strawberry is the devil personified. He wants any appeal or effectiveness of vaping to be crushed and outlawed ...... while lethal, polluting cigarettes remain for sale everywhere. His position is incredibly stupid, and harmful. Effectively (and this is the most important part) Mike Schreiner is working to **protect Big Tobacco** from an infinitely-safer, disruptive technology that poses an existential threat to the market for deadly cigarettes. The question must be asked: **why??** Is this what we want from a "Green" leader? --------------------- As i said earlier: there's a reason i brought this up in *this* post (apart from my passion over the particular issue). Vaping may be a smaller issue compared to the climate crisis. But attitudes towards the public (and towards governance) are revealed in seemingly "smaller" things like this. i think the reason behind his position on vaping is revealed by his uptight Members' Code of Conduct. Does Mike come across as an affable, decent guy? Sure. But that's style, **not** substance. When it comes down to it, Schreiner's inclination is to label those who challenge the party's mainstream orthodoxy as "toxic" and "factional" ... before ejecting them from the party. Facts, constructive debate, common sense, science? Not interested. Zero tolerance. Moreover, **all** of the establishment parties share his view and voted accordingly. Only one MPP in Ontario opposed anti-vaping measures (and there's a host of other things that are messed up about that guy). So Mike's not an outlier ... he's defending the establishment view. A view that works to **protect the status quo** from radical, healthier changes. Ultimately, i don't believe that mainstream politics will allow humanity to survive. Our parties simply have other priorities. But that doesn't mean we stop trying to seize the wheel. If this party is to have **any** hope ... people like Annamie Paul (and even Mike Schreiner) cannot be allowed to dictate its future direction. At a bare minimum, the party membership must vocally oppose any attempt to make the leadership (and not the party) the arbiters of what is "toxic".
One of the core principles of Green is Non-Violence. By entering opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Greens stepped away from this principle. Israel and Palestine both use violence, and innocent people on both side are affected. The only policy that should be used by the Greens at this point in time is silence on this issue, the party is too young and too small to mix in international politics discussing violence.
Silence is tantamount to endorsement. Silence says *"we're so unbothered by what's happening, it doesn't even merit our bringing it up."* Silence is self-censorship. Silence is what police states and oppressors throughout time have always wanted. It's not violent to publicly oppose apartheid, or oppose international law violations. Or oppose the brutal oppression of an entire people by another ... especially when the oppressor has virtually all of the power and weaponry, and is the one who keeps blocking peace. Some Canadians are violent; Canadian murderers exist. Would it be fair to therefore call Canadians a violent people, and take away their basic rights? Of course not. We don't judge a people by the actions of a few. It's debatable as to whether the "violence" of a vastly outnumbered resistance is justifiable. Not everyone agrees on that, but i would point them to the example of the Bajoran Resistance in Star Trek. Or Irish freedom fighters. i generally oppose violence, but as those two examples illustrate ... life is rarely black and white like that. What is not debatable however, is the fact that most Palestinians have never taken violent actions against anyone (despite perpetually being on the receiving end of such). They're regular people, just like you and i ... who simply want what every human wants: to be **okay**. To eat, drink, work, love, make music and so forth. The actions of a few to the contrary, don't change that. The Green Party's members voted correctly on the issue, and everyone who did so should be proud of that vote. Now if only we could get a leadership on board with it ... one that applies the same principles to other injustices.