Dana Larsen has NDP convention credentials revoked

Frankly if he was doing that it is a serious breach of ethics in my books.  Imagine what would happen if single issue people on all kinds of issues from abortion to equal marriage starting doing that to try and push their agendas.

I have no problem with someone being striped of credentials if they were subsidizing people based on their support or nonsupport of a particular resolution or issue.

This is one of those times you have to seperate support for an issue or individual with integrity of democracy.

I don't believe it happens all the time.  Not based on support for a resolution or a specific issue.

I can honestly say I have never seen that.  When our riding has subsidized people attending it has never been based on their support for an issue or a resolution.

I have serious, serious trouble with such a blatant attempt to manipulate policy.  Such behaviour could easily lead to groups trying to turn the NDP policy against choice, against equal marriage or hundreds of other important core values.

In this case Lavigne has done the right thing in my mind.  Larsen has shown a serious lack of judgement on at least two occassions now and this attempt to influence party policy by throwing around money is very, very anti-democratic and smacks of tactics I have seen in the Liberals and Conservatives.

Ridings assist to people to go so they will support the ridings resolutions. I can't believe you are denying it.

 You make me sad BA with your claims.

  If you think the LGTBQ lobby groups did not help each other to get there to vote on their specific resolutions, I believe you know you would be wrong. If you think women did not help to get other women to conventions for choice resolutions long ago now, you would  again be wrong.

This is just sickening on so many levels.

I will stand corrected, but I think those would have been ridings doing that supporting.  It might have been networked through other means, but I have only ever seen ridings, or unions supporting their own members.

This action is a whole different kettle of fish in my mind.

The Federal NDP has become increasingly out of touch with BC issues.  Now they seem intent on inventing new rules to make it as dificult as possible to get delegates from the west coast out to Halifax for the convention.  Frankly, I think we need our own Bloc party.

I know meloves, look for this to alienate a huge portion of BC voters,  and I have already emailed contacts and told them to start pulling support for the NDP in their area and amongst their friends. Hopefully we can get  most of the NDP seats in BC gone in the next election.

The only way this can be made better is for Dana'a credentials to be put back in place. Immediately.

And remember...just the other day people were speaking of the proxy votes that were going to the convention, and if proxy votes can go and be used for "specific" causes, then Dana sure as hell can help others to get there, who want to support their own cause.

I really don't get what you are on about in this.  Unions send their members to convention.  So do riding associations.  There is nothing undemocratic about that if they are an affliated organization.  They are not sent there based on their support for a particular resolution.  Thats how things work and I would certainly support there only being riding associations and caucuses, but right now that is not how things are.

By 'networking by other means' I mean specifically they may have been in a group or caucus and worked together to get nominated to be riding or afiliated union delegates.  Thats organizing.

That is most definitly not was occured here.  Subsidies seen to have been offered contingent on voting and supporting a particular resolution(s).  I can only go by what has been stated here by a supported of Larsens.  On the face of it I have very serious problems with what has occured and the precedent it could set for being taken over by NDPer for Life or some such thing.

Yeah some of us tried that in Ontario.  We got Mike Harris for our troubles. 

So far the information is coming from one source - we don't know if the desciption is totally accurate.  You should at least wait to see if there is more to this than we know so far.

However, it is your life - feel free to do what you like.

I have never seen a proxy vote, unless you mean an alternate delegate - but then they are just a replacement delegate.  They have to be physically on the floor to vote during any particular vote and could only vote if the actual delegate was not present.  Nothing else would be allowed. 

Nor do I see why it should have been limited to BCers or considered some kind of slap at BC.  Travel expenses for someone traveling from a more remote location in terms of airports or rail would have just as big a cost as someone flying from Vancouver.  The argument isn't logical.

We have never, ever placed an expectation on delegates and their voting on issues in our riding.  In fact I have gone to convention with a fellow babbler from our riding where we strongly argued the opposite sides of an issue.  That's democracy in action.

I'll try this again.  This was not a riding offering to support their own members. (or a union local)  This was an individual, or maybe a lobby group, offering money to pay for travel expenses on the condition they support a particular resolution.  They are very, very different things.

And remind - I have only stated my beliefs based on my values and how I view the world.  I am not attacking you in any way, or your right to hold a different opinion.  I simply believe what was done here was very wrong.  I rarely find myself agreeing with Brad Lavigne, but I do in this case -assuming we have all the facts in front of us.

Yes, we did the same in BC and got Gordo and I thought I would never do it again, but the NDP has just laid the straw that broke the camel's back. They think we will  just shut up and allow them to play games from the center of the universe, as we have no one else to vote for.

However, if the NDP are going to keep on playing  politics with BC people, while expecting us to continue to vote for them, so that they can try to attract, right wing swing voters on the prairies, they are sadly mistaken.

We might as well vote for party that at least reflects our environmental focus and is up front about their hypocrisy, and who actually want us to vote for them, if only to get our 2 bucks a vote and drive their poll numbers up.

First it was the table and program advertising, and now this. And combined with northreport's ugly spew against Dana the other day, it is too much.

Well Northreport is no one to base anything on.  How do you know he even is an NDP voter?   Just because he says so?  For that matter how do we know he isn't the alter ego of Warren Kinsella?  He sure doesn't represent my NDP a lot of the time.

I don't understand the 'table and program advertising' comment.  But it will have to wait until morning as I am off to bed.

Take care whatever you decide.

I imagine that whatever process and decision happened in this situation involved people who knew each other's identity, were mandated to take such decisions and remain accountable for them. That seems like a reasonable standard if party democracy means anything - and much better than the present guessing game.

I see so there is nothing undemocratic about affiliated organizations from supporting member-delegates in there efforts to get to the convetion, but there is something wrong with groups "internal" to the NDP buying ads in a brochure. So what is the issue here? Did I miss something? Dana's group is affiliated with the NDP so he can't buy advertising, but he's not affiliated so he can't support group member going to the convention.

Did I miss something?

Sounds to me like the executive are using every available piece of fine print they can to shut this guy up.

Libby can run independently and still win.

Yes you missed something- an affiliated union organization is one in which belongs to the NDP in a manner similar to a riding association.  End Prohibition is not an affiliated organization it is a group of NDPers who are advocating a position they wish the NDP to take.  An affiliated organization is defined in the NDP consitution and is a very specific thing.

Its up to the ND party to show us how they are so different than the guys they keep warning us about.  If the others are so terrible then you should be offering to do things differently.  If you consistently fail to do that and fail to get people elected as a result then it's not the voters fault, its Your's.  The voter is acting rationally.  By not supporting you they have given you a clear signal that you can still take measures to remedy.   If you still refuse to, then the voter you have alienated is even less likely to take your appeals seriously in the future.   I don't know why any of this is so difficult to see.  

If OTOH you want to rid yourselves of all those you think will scare off the kind of voters who normally go Liberal or Conservative then you have succeeded admirably.  Just don't complain when those you turned your backs on turn theirs back on you.  Or when those who normally vote Liberal and Conservative still do.   There are other -albiet slower- ways around this democratic connundrum, as I have suggested before, but you first have to start listening again to those who actually deal with the kind of problems that decades of top-down neo-liberal ideology has wrought, not those who are trained to think they can just bluff their way around it forever.  We're all running out of time, whether the average liberal or conservative wants to see it or not.   

Damn coyotes are keeping me awake.

It just occurrs to me there is a significant hole in the story as presented.  It would not be Brad Lavigne's job to determine credentials.  It will be the job of identified individuals as a group to oversee credentials.  They usually mostly end up sorting up misplaced registrations and reporting on numbers, but it would be them who would make any decision around credentials.  It would not be made lightly or without some pretty compelling concerns. 

Lavigne might be tasked with carrying out the communications of a decision, but it would not be him deciding anything.  So the implication that this was some rogue decision by one person, specifically Brad Lavigne is patently false.

As well I just can't fathom what people don't get about this person or group offering money IF they would agree to support a position.  This is not the same as like minded individuals pooling resourses.  This was a straight out offer to exchange the money for travel in exchange for support.  It might be a nuance, but nuances do matter.

And Michelle if you are going to change the thread title the entire thing should read Larsen offers money if delegates agreed to support a resolution (and then the rest of it) because that is the entire story.  Otherwise you are using your moderators position and its editing ability to support your own views not for clarification.

Thanks BA.

Take your agenda elsewhere Stockholm.

If they're nutbars Stockholm then over half the population under the age of sixty should be tossed behind bars too.  Hope your pure minority doesn't mind caring for the rest of us while we all cool our heels for a few years of rest and "rehabilitation".

"If the NDP loses the votes of the two or three heroin junkies in Canada who actually vote - its a price well worth paying."

You are no progressive. No. Not.

It's times like this I wish advanced democracy was the way in Canada. This four-year race to the polls FPP style is getting on everyone's nerves

Stockholm, that was not my point. Nowhere in the text I quoted do you refer to the legalization of heroin.

Instead, I see you being reactionary, dismissive and superior to human beings with addictions you don't like, reducing them to ridiculous cartoons. Dehumanizing them.

Not. Progressive.

"If your going to start bringing forth resolutions supporting the legalization of heroin, you might as well start proposing resolutions extolling the virtues of child pornography - they are both equally socially unacceptable."

Are they the same, in your opinion?

Hi everyone!

I am currently in Halifax, it is a fine city and I always enjoy being here.

Yes I have been "de-registered" as a Delegate, and I have also been told that I cannot attend the convention as an Observer either! So I guess I will spend a few days loitering in the hallways.

I am exhausted after a long flight, so I haven't read this long thread in its entirety. I will try to post more details and answer any questions tomorrow.

This convention is shaping up to be the strangest I have ever attended.

I received an email from the convention email address yesterday, with a letter from Brad Lavigne explaining that I had been stripped of my delegate status.

Oddly, at almost the same time as the email was being sent to me, my friend Benn Greer got a call from Drew Anderson at NDP HQ. Benn had sent in the forms to book two tables at the convention back in June. Despite our repeated and persistent calls, emails and even messages on facebook, we had received absolutely no response to our table booking. But two days before convention begins, and on the same day that I got bounced as a delegate, Drew finally calls and says that we can have a table! I simply don't know how to interpret this bizarre timing.

Anyways, what follows is the complete text of the letter which I received by email from Brad Lavigne. I had to retype it as they sent it in a pdf format that didn't allow me to cut and paste.

------------------------------------------

Monday, August 10, 2009

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. Dana Larson
Gibsons BC

Dear Mr Larson,

It has recently come to our attention that you have been offering to provide financial inducements to individuals to attend the Federal New Democratic Convention in Halifax.

Both on an 'eNDProhibition' web site, as well as postings in your name on Rabble.ca, you have repeatedly offered to induce individuals to attend the convention through a financial gift for voting in a certain way. This is a concern to the Party, for a couple of reasons.

The first is that provision of a material benefit for voting a certain way is clear vote-buying, a practice that is widely acknowledged to be undemocratic and one that is not in keeping with the democratic principles of the New Democratic Party.

Second, your stated intention to defray the travel, lodging, food and other costs, as well as to provide subsidies to delegates to enable them to attend the Convention, risks causing the Party to be in breach of the provisions of the Income Tax Act of Canada, which limit the amount of the tax receipt that the party may issue to a person who has made a contribution to the "eligible amount" of the contribution. The "eligible amount" of a contribution is net of any advantage or benefit that a person who has made a contribution has received or will receive, where the advantage or benefit is in any way related to the contribution.

Moreover, the offer to provide subsidies of "other items" leaves open the possibility that such delegates might end up paying all or a portion of their Convention fees (which are considered a contribution under the Elections Act) with money that is not theirs. This would be a breach of Section 405.3 of the Elections Act, which states "No individual shall make a contribution to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate or a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant that comes from money, property or the services of any person or entity that was provided to that individual for that purpose." Again, in such a circumstance the Party would be exposed to the risk of issuing tax receipts to such delegates that they would not be entitled to receive.

In short, by offering the inducements that you have, the Party would be put in the positiion of issuing tax receipts contrary to the requirements under the Income Tax Act. You will understand that the Party cannot accept such a risk.

Mr. Larsen, because your offers of financial inducements to other delegates are contrary to the democratic principles of the New Democratic Party and risk placing the Party in a position where it may issue tax receipts contrary to the Income Tax Act, the Party Officers have decided to de-register you as a delegate to the Convention.

The Party will reimburse to you any fees that you have remitted to it in connection with your planned attendance at the Convention.

Sincerely,

Brad Lavigne
National Director
------------------------------------------

And this is the reply that I sent to Brad Lavigne:

------------------------------------------
Hello Brad,

I am surprised and confused by this turn of events. It is shocking to me that I have been stripped of my delegate status with no chance to response to these false allegations against me.

Is there any way that I can appeal this decision?

I will take this opportunity to correct some of the misapprehensions in your letter to me.

First, allegations of vote-buying are false. I never once explicitly or implicitly offered any sort of inducement for changing someone's intended vote. The offer of travel and lodging subsidy was clearly made only to registered delegates who already support drug policy reform.

Second, I am aware of the rules around the payment of delegate fees, and we never offered or provided any sort of subsidy or payment to cover these for anyone. I was always very clear that we were offering subsidy for travel and lodging only. By "other items" we meant incidental expenses, certainly not delegate fees.

Third, because an individual's personal transportation and lodging expenses are not considered receiptable expenses, subsidization of those expenses for another individual would not in any way cause myself or the party to be in breach of the Income Tax Act.

Fourth, it should be noted that on numerous occasions, party organizations such as the ONDY or unions have subsidized delegates attending on their behalf. I am not sure how our offer of a subsidy for our delegates is any different. Youth delegates are on occasion asked to vote as a block by their provincial organization and unions are often explicit in their commands to vote a specific way.

Finally, considering that the posts in question are all well over a month old (the notice on the End Prohibition site was posted in March) I am confused as to why I heard nothing about this until two days before the convention.

My flight leaves for Halifax in a few hours and it is too late to cancel it. I look forward to discussing this with you in person.

Dana Larsen
------------------------------------------

Unbelievable stockholm, you just called us all, who disagreed with Dana's cedentials being stripped, heroin junkies, you slandering....and you had better get a time out for it!

And you predict we won't leave, watch us. And it is going to be interesting when you see what the next regional polls for BC are, and what you do to try and explain the drop.

Thanks Dana,

by Marc Emery of CANNABIS CULTURE - Dana Larsen, organizer of End Prohibition, an 800-strong organization within the NDP membership, has been banned from the annual NDP convention this weekend at the Halifax Convention Center.

The NDP claim Larsen was “attempting to buy votes” of fellow delegates by offering to assist in the transportation costs of fellow delegates if they were short on money to attend. Delegates are chosen by constituency associations or by recognized associations within the NDP, like Young New Democrats.

Larsen, a former editor of Cannabis Culture Magazine, has been an active member of the New Democratic Party since Jack Layton volunteered to visit me, CC publisher Marc Emery, at my home in October 2003. Layton recorded a video for POT.TV encouraging people in the Canadian cannabis culture to join his party and get involved. Layton had become leader of the NDP earlier in 2003 and visited my house that October day to widen the appeal of the NDP to young people and drug law reformers. Watch the video from POT.TV here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpPfYe1a6Qg.

Dana Larsen joined the Sunshine Coast NDP riding association shortly after and worked on the 2004, 2006 and 2008 campaigns. Larsen won the NDP nomination for Sunshine Coast-Sea-To-sky Country for the October 2008 federal election, but NDP election coordinator Gerry Scott ordered Larsen to resign after media began showing video from Larsen’s days as editor of Cannabis Culture Magazine, including footage showing him enthusiastically smoking marijuana joints.

Since 2005, Dana had organized 800+ members of the NDP into a group called End Prohibition. Dana Larsen attended all provincial NDP conventions since 2006 and at each one eNDProhibition, buttressed by constituency associations' support, succeeded in introducing and passing resolutions, all aimed at reforming the prohibition on marijuana and other banned substances.

The Halifax annual NDP convention is taking place this Friday to Sunday, and Dana Larsen and END Prohibition have resolutions in contention, seconded by nine NDP constituency associations across Canada.

Larsen has been active in 12 previous NDP provincial and national conventions. He considers himself to have allies in NDP MP’s Bill Siksay and Libby Davies. Davies was to introduce Larsen’s resolution that calls for the NDP to adopt a clear, detailed policy calling for non-punitive regulation of the cannabis industry and the distribution of cannabis.
Suddenly, earlier this week, the NDP party brass dispatched Davies to the Middle East as part of a parliamentary fact-finding mission, even though she was scheduled to speak at the convention this weekend.

Bill Siksay was to replace Davies in speaking to the motion at the NDP resolution prioritization meeting, which is being held on Friday morning outside the convention, as the call to order does not come into effect until Saturday morning. This decision to hold the prioritization of resolutions meeting on Friday, before the NDP delegates have arrived and been called to order is illegal. Many delegates won’t have arrived by Friday morning, and since it is not on the convention agenda, many wouldn’t even be aware of it. The reason for this is that Dana Larsen expects over 150 delegates who are his allies to be at the convention on Saturday, and the NDP is trying desperately to sideline Larsen’s increasing clout and presence in the NDP.

Dana was denied advertising in the convention booklet for END Prohibition, and then denied access to a table at the convention for End Prohibition literature and publications, and then informed this morning by email that by order of the NDP National Director Brad Lavigne, he was banned from the convention as a delegate and observer for “attempting to buy votes”.

I interviewed Larsen today and asked him what Lavigne meant by that.

“I offered to help pay the transportation of some of the delegates who were having difficulty doing so,” he responded. “But I’ve checked the rules - the unions bus people to conventions all the time, and plane fare is paid for - for hotels, the union delegates are assisted considerably. You can’t make assistance to a delegate contingent on how they vote, and of course, I haven’t done that. So they are inventing these rules as they see necessary to curtail my influence at this convention.”

Larsen will still be at the Halifax Convention Centre, if only in the hallways co-ordinating his allies inside the convention.

“I’m a loyal NDP member; I still am,” Larsen said when I asked about this brazen usurpation of democracy. “What they’re doing is wrong but it won’t drive me out of the party. I’ll be at the convention, but now the pundits and media have something to write about that will cause Lavigne’s action to backfire. Our resolution will be more talked about, while the Executive attempting these undemocratic backroom moves will only encourage cynicism about the NDP’s commitment to democracy within its own party.”

I regret the wording I used in a couple of my posts when I was offering subsidies to like-minded delegates.

I certainly never intended to get anyone to change their vote, or to buy anyone's vote.

I was seeking to help people get to convention who had already been chosen as delegates and who were supportive of drug policy reform.

The posts I made on Babble were made some time ago. It is odd to me that this issue only came up immediately before the convention.

No-one from the NDP contacted me or asked for any information or gave me any chance to explain what had happened, I was simply notified, by email, two days before the convention that I had been de-registered.

I am also not allowed to be an Observer. I had just registered as an Observer at the Youth Convention, but then I was taken away by Drew Anderson and escorted from the building. I have been told that I am not allowed inside the Convention Hall at all.

So we have a table for End Prohibition now, which was confirmed at the exact same time as they emailed me to notify me of my deregistration. But I am not allowed to be at the table since it is in the Convention Hall and I am banned from the whole building.

Your going to allow stockholm's slander to stand?

Hi Spartacist1of7.  Please don't call our forum members "jack-asses" - it is against the policy you agreed to when you signed up for babble.  Otherwise your stay here will be short.

Oh yes sexism works spartacus1-7! :rolleyes: "take it like a man and stop whining and crying" indeed. So we are supposed to believe only women, and those like women, whine and cry?

Just like your last post in this thread doesn't either

New Democrats criticised the Conservatives for breaking Elections Canada rules by keeping their 2005 delegate fees off the books.

New Democrats criticised the Liberals for mis-appropriating funds to pump up their election war chest in 1997 and 2000.

New Democrats criticised the Liberals and Conservatives for stacking nomination meetings with bogus delegates.

So, it is hypocritical in the extreme to turn a blind eye to someone offering to play money-for-votes in our party.  I agree with Bookish Agrarian.  Allowing anyone to pay, or offer to pay for votes is both a breach of democracy and Elections Canada rules.

At least one Liberal blogger had already flagged what Larsen was up to back in February!  http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2009/02/pass-bong-my-favourite-former-ndp.html

The party's decision was the right one.  No matter what you may think of him personally, or his cause, Larsen has shown bad judgement in this.  The New Democratic Party can't be responsible for it.

No actually it wasn't oppoguy

It's exactly the same.

Unless you think that the "like-minded individuals" are going to share their pool of resources with others who are not "like-minded".

Huh?

I don't believe it for a second. 

In fact, you can follow news about their trip in the rabble blogs, I think.

How do you know she was "sent away"?  How do you know she didn't decide to go herself?  Because Marc speculated that it was so?

Ah the virtuous Mr Larsen

"First, allegations of vote-buying are false. I never once explicitly or implicitly offered any sort of inducement for changing someone's intended vote. The offer of travel and lodging subsidy was clearly made only to registered delegates who already support drug policy reform."

This is an outright lie. The offer was clearly made to pay for expenses - exchange money- in return for supporting a resolution. I'll quote -End Prohibition" has a standing offer to help with the travel expenses of anyone going to convention who will help promote and support our resolution on drug policy reform

Third, because an individual's personal transportation and lodging expenses are not considered receiptable expenses, subsidization of those expenses for another individual would not in any way cause myself or the party to be in breach of the Income Tax Act.

This demonstrates the abysmal ignorance Mr Larsen was operating under, either that or he just didn't care what damage it would cause. Lodgings and food costs can be considered part of your donation to the party through the appartus of political contribution so it is quite possible that someone could receive and inducement and a tax credit. Elections Canada would be concerned about the mere possibility and it would cause considerably more embarrassment or worse for the NDP than bouncing someone like this from Convention.

Fourth, it should be noted that on numerous occasions, party organizations such as the ONDY or unions have subsidized delegates attending on their behalf. I am not sure how our offer of a subsidy for our delegates is any different. Youth delegates are on occasion asked to vote as a block by their provincial organization and unions are often explicit in their commands to vote a specific way.

This is union bashing horseshit, but even on the face of it is again false. Union affliates and youth delegations are offical parts of the NDP consitutional structure. They have standing within the party unlike this group which is collection of like-minded individuals who are working for change on an issue dear to them. Affliated organization, like riding associations are completely transparent in their subsidies for travel. As well, not one of those organizations, because of their structure could make their assistance conditional on supporting a particular resolution. What would have happened to someone who accepted this financial inducement and went to convention and voted another way? My guess they would have been subjected to outing in public as this seems to be the way they operate.

Finally what seems to be missed by many posters is that those facing financial hardship can already apply to the party and receive assistance to travel to convention. In the 80s I took advantage of this generosity when I was unemployed. If Larsen was so concened about people attending, but with no strings attached to their votes, he could have directed people there, or gosh even made a donation to that cause as we did this year since we were unable to attend. He didn't. He violated some of the most basic premises of democracy within the party and in general. His attempts to crash the Youth convention confirms he is self-centred and totally unconcerned about the damage he might have caused the party.

Okay I can live with that.  But you seemed to be tipping your hand when you said -Too bad, but not surprising, that they're being so heavy-handed

Yeah, I think it's a bit heavy-handed to block him from Convention.  So what?  That doesn't mean I said so in the thread title.  And that doesn't mean that I have given any opinion on whether Dana's original actions that led to it were appropriate.

JimmyRiddle, if you have a problem with something someone is writing on babble, flag their post and send us a note that way.  Don't start demanding specific punishments for babblers you disagree with in your thread posts, please.  That goes for everyone.

Oh I see libby is a member of the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Association, which makes sense of her going then. So if I am in error about her being sent away so be it, but it seems suspicious seeing as how she had been slated into the convention.

Not really what anything.  Upon consideration I guess I was rationalizing jumping to conclusions and over-reaching.

The better approach might just be to apologize.  So I will.  Sorry for jumping on you.

Unbelievable, seriously!

Let it go, remind.  No one's suspending you over this - no worries. :)

I think this is a difficult position for the party as well as Larson. When rules are broken as they certainly appear to be with respect to financing the party does have to protect the integrity of the process. That this is shutting down debate as a by-product is very unfortunate.

I don't see how the party can ignore rules that are there to avoid corruption-- even if in this case it was an honest mistake - something we can assume but cannot prove.

I sense that a compromise might have been to remove credentials but allow observer status but this might have been seen as a too weak response to a question of offering inducement to support a particular resolution BA's arguments are very compelling. Perhaps a better compromise might have been to find a way to give another person holding the same views as Larson -- who did not make the transgression an additional opportunity to be heard. this could allow both an avoidance of a narrowing of debate as well as full protection of the integrity of the process.

I certainly hope that nobody leaves the NDP or tries to see the party defeated over this-- even if you are on the opposite side of this surely you can see why they took the decision they did even as you disagree with it.

It is unfortunate that Larson's views, as legitimate as they are, are an embarrassment to the party in some circles. I would not want to see this fact considered as democracy can be embarrassing and views should not be shut out just because our enemies will benefit from them. The party has some work to do in public education on drug policy-- but does not want to pay the price for this because there are many other important issues that can be damaged or sidelined. I recognize priorities need to be made and that is the point of conventions-- it is a terrible place to lose voices who can help us discuss and come to a consensus on those priorities. But again democratic principles of not offering inducements-- or the appearance of that-- are also important. I remain sympathetic to both Larson's side and the party even as mistakes might have been the cause of the trouble rather than anything intentional.

The NDP remains the most progressive option out there with any hope of gaining representation in the House and we should not lose sight of that.

Too late, and no I can't see the other side, as there is no other side. People get funding to go to conventions all the time in order to support resolutions by a lobby group, no matter how much some people state this does not happen.

No it is quite obvious they are not any more progressive than the Conservatives, or Liberals. We did not lose sight of anything,  the NDP has.

What would have helped Dana immensely is a better plan for the subsidization of travel fees. For example, had he asked people to submit receipts for valid expenses before sending a cheque\cash it would have eliminated the perceived risk to the party.

Mind you, the party is sure looking for an excuse to bar him. Their regulatory risk reason is about as thin of a risk as they could plausibly come up with and just reeks of field fertilizer.

If the NDP had not banned him don't tell me the other parties would not have made hay.

Remind-- sorry you can't see the difference between the Cons and the Liberals and the NDP. Think about the experience we are having with Harper-- privatization, P3s, human rights rollbacks, regressive tax policies, environmental polices, childcare, immigration... Of course I could see the difference in 1995 here in Ontario when many of my sisters and brothers said there was not-- I voted NDP while they brought us Mike Harris and I sure notced the difference after. Then when the Liberals brought in regressive taxation funding for healthcare here I still noticed the difference.

Ok be pissed at the NDP for this but to pretend you can no longer see any daylight between the NDP and the Cons smacks of anger-fueled fantasy of the sort that can set back the cause of working people years. If you think it is worth electing worse parties then fine go for it but don't try to sell that garbage about there being no difference-- on one issue ok maybe on all issues seen as a package- you have got to be kidding.

Sean, it is an aggregate viewing, or as you put it a "package of issues", only I see it as a  package of issues that the NDP is failing on. And this is the final straw, for me.

Sanction by who?

Gravity of offence? Posting Brad's home phone number? is this number in the Ottawa phone book? By the way it appears she posted it on Facebook and here.

It may be in the phone book but of course there is nothing confirming that the person listed is the same person and that is something that privacy legislation covers- for this reason I am not confirming if it actually is in the book.

There is a lot of private information out there-- what is also private is the links between that information. So that this person works at this place is there-- that there is someone with that name in the book is there. That the person listed in the book is or is not the same person who works in a given place is new additional information and organizations in Canada are obliged to be careful with that.

Michelle removed the post quickly so Rabble seems okay.

To sanction a person or not is the prerogative of the moderator taking into account everything, the person the intent and the context-- just as we do not support mandatory sentencing in criminal law, we will need to be respectful of a decision. We do not know, nor should we, what Michelle has said privately to the person but the fact that the post was edited makes it clear it is not allowed. If it happens again, the moderator will make a new decision and can sanction the person. Since we do not know what was said between the poster and the Mod, I'll have to accept that the matter is closed.

(written before mode post above and posted I guess right after)