[fvc-wat-disc] Meeting with Bardish

Mon Nov 20 11:52:30 EST 2017

Yes, indeed.  Anything other than a polite approach to a politician is 
completely counter-productive.  Perhaps simply asking for 
clarification?  That could present the opportunity to say that we find a 
requirement of details on the visiting group unprecedented.

Based on 13 years of association with Fair Vote and other groups here in 
Waterloo, plus years in Alberta, I would say such a request is 
unprecedented.  And it's for that reason that I find asking for names 
and addresses odd.  Definitely "intimidation" comes in different forms 
in different countries (I've worked in several where intimidation could 
mean really bad things - for me up to and including a wall and a 
sub-machine gun in one country and being chased by armed goons through 
the night in another). But in Canadian terms.......... My reaction to 
Stu's email was that "intimidating" was a reasonable word for him to 
have used, in the sense of inducing anxiety.

Mary.

On 11/20/2017 10:16 AM, Stephanie Janzen-Martin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for the responses. I am all in favour of pushing MPs 
> (respectfully), on policy issues. My only concern with how this email 
> thread was going was that it seemed to be veering into territory that 
> seemed unnecessarily harsh and negative - if we see our MP as treating 
> people as second class citizens and intimidation etc, those are big 
> claims, and I hesitate to throw them around lightly. (I've lived 
> places where that is a real threat, and that kind of stuff actually 
> does happen, and it looks very different from this - trust me! :)) Not 
> that there isn't maybe a way that Bardish could have handled this 
> better, but jumping to intimidation just seems unrealistic to me - 
> especially since, as far I can tell, nobody has even asked her why she 
> wanted the info. Feels like a lot of negative speculation that is very 
> thin on facts. :)
>
> Why would we confront Bardish (even if it is done politely) and tell 
> her that some people didn't like her request, and are accusing her of 
> intimidation, when we haven't even bothered to ask her why she asked 
> for the info in the first place? Shouldn't we learn more first?
>
> Let's have a great chat with Bardish about PR and policy, and be smart 
> and clear-headed about it. Let's not jump to falsely positive 
> conclusions (overly naive), but let's also not jump to falsely 
> negative conclusions (overly cynical).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> SJM
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:59 AM STUART CHANDLER 
> <stuchandler43 at gmail.com <mailto:stuchandler43 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Stephanie‎ (and all)
>
>     I, for one, certainly value your viewpoint. It's good to know
>     you've had a positive experience working with Bardish's office.
>
>     Personally, I always approach life from the perspective of "Expect
>     the Best", so, I want there to be no misunderstanding of my
>     intent. I agree 100% that we should approach EVERY meeting with
>     ANY person or group from that positive perspective.
>
>     However, I believe it is wise to consider all factors before such
>     a meeting, so as not to be blind-sided by something that, in
>     retrospect we should have seen coming. And we are left standing
>     with mouths agape, not knowing what say in response. I also
>     believe it is possible to say challenging things ‎in very
>     respectful ways.
>
>     In my opinion, the best way to approach this would be to
>     respectfully advise her office of how the email is being received
>     by some people, and to add the assurance that we imagine that
>     reaction was not intended.
>
>     I have identified 3 reactions: 1) surprise and concern over the
>     introduction of a new practice in the visit to the MP's office.
>     ‎2) the feeling of intimidation generated. 3) the feeling of
>     possible exclusion (or being considered 2nd-class) if a
>     prospective visitor lives in a different riding.
>
>     As we are a group that is focused on the promotion of increased
>     Democracy, I suggest that before we passively accept a new
>     practice by an MP, we consider if it is likely to advance the
>     cause of Democracy (and access to MPs) or more likely to have the
>     opposite effect. ‎To me, this seems to have the opposite effect.
>     And an MP should be respectfully advised.
>
>     Sincerely.
>
>     Stu.
>
>     Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>     *From: *Stephanie Janzen-Martin
>     *Sent: *Monday, November 20, 2017 9:00 AM
>
>     *To: *FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
>     *Reply To: *FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
>
>     *Subject: *Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Meeting with Bardisheach meeting ‎
>
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     I'll add my thoughts in here, if you don't mind. I am not a
>     particular fan of the liberals (I'm NDP/Green) - but I have had
>     several issues where I have been working with Bardish's office
>     (here and Ottawa) for the last year or so. She and her staff have
>     been extremely polite, positive and helpful, while working with me
>     on big questions, despite there being no immediate fix available.
>     (On another issue, they worked very hard with me over several
>     weeks and found an immediate solution, which was great!)
>
>     Maybe she really is trying to secretly intimidate the opposition
>     by getting logistical info, or maybe this is a simple
>     misunderstanding that is being escalated every time someone else
>     responds in the email thread. If so, I am sure that any meeting we
>     might get with her in this issue will be compromised if we go in
>     assuming the worst. How can we expect to work for positive change
>     if we are so convinced of such negative things about her, based on
>     so little info?  If that is how the meeting is going to be
>     started, then I'd rather not be a part of it, since I already have
>     a great working relationship with her and her staff, and I don't
>     want to jeopardize it with these negative assumptions.
>
>     All I'm saying is that I would give the benefit of the doubt and
>     get more info before assuming intimidation... :)
>
>     Hope that helps,
>
>     SJM
>
>     On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:09 PM Mary Jackes <mkj at bell.net
>     <mailto:mkj at bell.net>> wrote:
>
>         I must say that this leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth. 
>         It feels like intimidation.
>
>         Best,
>
>         Mary
>
>
>         On 11/18/2017 9:21 AM, STUART CHANDLER wrote:
>>         Thanks Sharon for passing the Bardish email along.
>>
>>         Holy crap!!  More proof that Bardish has a HUGE amount of
>>         nerve, and indulges in covert/overt intimidation (although
>>         I'm sure she would cleverly try to sell it as "genuine
>>         interest in her constituants". ‎ I have no doubt that she has
>>         a pretty clear sense of the effect that "interest" (in having
>>         the names and addresses of those interested in visiting her
>>         office - particularly if coming with intent to complain or
>>         challenge) would have on anyone so inclined.
>>
>>         Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>>         *From: *Sharon Sommerville
>>         *Sent: *Friday, November 17, 2017 8:08 PM
>>         *To: *FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
>>         *Reply To: *FVC Waterloo Region Discussion
>>         *Subject: *Re: [fvc-wat-disc] Meeting with Bardish
>>
>>
>>         Hi Cathe,
>>
>>         That would be great, thank you!  Will
>>
>>         Here is th email that I rec'd today from Bardish's
>>         constituency assistant:
>>
>>         Hi Sharon,
>>
>>         Thanks for your email and for your call the other day, could
>>         you please let me know some info about who would like to
>>         meet? Could you please also provide their Waterloo addresses
>>         for our records?
>>
>>         Thanks and I hope you’re having a great day.
>>
>>         Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>         In my experience, it is unheard of to screen constituents for
>>         a meeting with a MP. Let me know if you want to provide
>>         Bardish's office with your address.
>>
>>
>>         Cheers,
>>
>>         Sharon
>>
>>
>         _______________________________________________
>         This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>         Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>         <mailto:fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org>
>         Unsubscribe:
>         http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>
>     -- 
>
>     Stephanie Janzen-Martin
>     Find me at: Menno Adventures...
>     https://sustainabledevelopmentresources.wordpress.com     Director
>     of Program Development - www.smcegypt.org <http://www.smcegypt.org>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>     Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>     <mailto:fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org>
>     Unsubscribe:
>     http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org
>
> -- 
>
> Stephanie Janzen-Martin
> Find me at: Menno Adventures... 
> https://sustainabledevelopmentresources.wordpress.com     Director of 
> Program Development - www.smcegypt.org <http://www.smcegypt.org>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20171120/96a0fb17/attachment-0002.htm>