On December 9, the NDP’s vetting committee informed Yves Engler, a well known anti-war activist based in Montreal, that his candidacy for NDP leader had been rejected.
The decision came as little surprise. In recent months, Engler had been subjected to a surreptitious campaign of gossip and slander by key NDP organizers and officials concerning his “real intentions” in running for NDP leader. He was repeatedly blocked from attending events for NDP members, in violation of his rights as a party member.
In truth, the NDP brass likely never intended to allow Engler to run. The purpose of these actions was to foster an environment of suspicion and hostility towards Engler, in hopes of building approval for his eventual rejection. Their work done, the NDP’s vetting committee decided it was finally time to pull the trigger.
Rejected based on lies
The NDP’s written rejection of Engler has not been released publicly. However, certain extracts have found their way into the press and on social media.
The Globe & Mail reports that one of the reasons Engler was rejected was that he repeated “Russian state propaganda with respect to the Russo-Ukrainian war and Nato.”
What is the truth? Engler has gone on the record as being opposed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which he described as being “illegal.” In speaking to the Globe upon receipt of his rejection letter, Engler added that he “has no sympathy for Vladimir Putin.”
In truth, what the NDP brass really means by “Russian state propaganda” is Engler’s opposition to NATO and its role in fuelling the conflict in Ukraine—a view which conflicts with the pro-war, pro-NATO policy of the current NDP.
According to Engler, the NDP also cited how many of his positions “contradict the NDP’s core commitments to democracy, international law, and solidarity with oppressed peoples.”
Again, what do the facts say? Engler has published over a dozen books documenting and condemning the violations of international law by the U.S. and Canadian governments. Canada’s imperialist bullying of oppressed peoples is a recurring theme in his writings. The proof is there in black and white for anyone interested in reading it.
Engler has rightly pointed out how if anyone has a poor record on these questions, it is the current and past leadership of the NDP. This includes the NDP’s early support for the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia (which openly contravened international law), the NDP’s approval of NATO actions in Libya in 2011, and the weak opposition of the NDP to the Israeli regime in the early stages of the genocide in Gaza.
Engler’s crime is not that he failed to stand in “solidarity with oppressed peoples,” but that he did so consistently—even when those victims were at the hands of the U.S. and the Canadian governments, which the official NDP at times supported.
The vetting committee also suggested that Engler has intimidated public officials, including “by following people to their private accommodations and to private vehicles.” This is a reference to Engler’s well known habit of confronting politicians over their support for Israel during the genocide in Gaza.
But who were these officials? By and large, they were Liberal MPs (including Mark Carney), and at a time when the Liberal Party was offering its full throated support for Israel’s bombing campaign. Engler, while at times verbally confrontational, never made physical contact with any of the people who he confronted—politicians who in any case were protected by a phalanx of police and security personnel. This can all be found quite easily on Engler’s social media.
One can agree or disagree with Engler’s tactics. However, the idea that confronting elected officials with questions in a public space somehow qualifies as intimidation or harassment defies belief. Instead, it shows how the NDP tops place greater value on “proper” political decorum for its candidates than on advocacy for a just cause—even when that cause is… “solidarity with oppressed peoples.”
What the NDP’s decision means
The NDP’s rejection of Yves Engler is important for what it reveals about the NDP.
The cited reasons for Engler’s rejection include many positions which are widely held in the left and in the anti-war movement—movements which in the past the NDP considered itself a part of, however inconsistently. Others, like his stance on the Russia-Ukraine war, are held by a large part of the population.
The problem is not Engler. In truth, the problem is that the NDP no longer stands for the ideas its leaders at least pretended to champion in the past—the opposition to Canadian imperialism being one example, but far from the only one.
Instead, the NDP bureaucracy has determined that moulding the party into a “respectable” outfit (read: a party that plays by the rules in parliament), with “acceptable” positions on the issues facing the world (read: positions acceptable to Canadian business and the U.S. state department), is the only way for the NDP to take power. Engler did not fit with this image, hence his ejection from the race.
However, the NDP’s stance is not just offside with Engler and his supporters. Increasingly, it is offside with the broader working class, many of whom are looking for a party that speaks truth to power, exposes the theater of Canadian politics, and puts forward genuine socialist and anti-war policies—whoever it might upset in Ottawa and Bay Street.
The NDP’s treatment of Engler indicates that it has no intention of being that party, whether it be led by Engler or anyone else. In this environment, even a leader who attempted to tack left would likely be met with sabotage from within their own party along the lines of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party in the U.K. That this approach will lead to power is doubtful; that it will kill the NDP as a viable force for the working class is certain.
The NDP brass didn’t defeat Engler—but they may have defeated the NDP.
