Dana's NDP Convention Report

End Prohibition at the Federal NDP Convention

By Dana Larsen

I joined the NDP in 2003, and in 2005 I started a group within the NDP called "End Prohibition: New Democrats Against the Drug War."

This group has now grown to over 700 NDP members and supporters who work within the NDP to promote resolutions which clarify and expand the party's policy on marijuana and harm reduction issues.

Over the past five years I have personally attended over a dozen NDP conventions in eight provinces. We usually purchase table space and buy a small ad in the convention guide, along with many other groups.

We have never had a single problem at any of the dozen conventions before this federal convention. But at this most recent federal convention we had unprecedented problems every step of the way.

-- PERSONALLY BANNED FROM POSTING ON OFFICIAL FACEBOOK PAGE WALL

In February, I created a Facebook group for the NDP Convention. I made sure it was clear that it wasn't an official page. In June, I received a message on Facebook from Jen Anthony, who said she was organizing the convention. She said that they were going to make an official Facebook page for the convention, and then they saw that I had made a page already.

Jen asked me to make her an admin on my page, and then to delete myself as admin and turn it over to her. I agreed to make her an admin but not to delete myself.

Shortly thereafter I saw that she had instead created an Official Facebook Page for the Convention. That seemed like a good idea, and so I linked to it from my Facebook page and sent out a message to everyone on my event page notifying them that there was now an Official NDP page for the convention.

My convention event page is here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=42586397764

The official event page is here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=92933656333 [2]

In late June and early July I made posts to their Facebook page wall, and all of them were deleted within 48 hours or less.

The first post was made around June 29 and said:

* If you are an NDP member who supports drug policy reform and wants to come to the Convention, contact info@endprohibition for information on how we can help to get you there.

The second post was made on July 9 and said:

* Why are the Resolution Priority Panels being held BEFORE the Call to Order?

The third post was made on July 11 and said:

* Long live the NDP! Jack Layton for Prime Minister.

Although there are many other posts from NDP members on the Facebook wall, all of mine were deleted within 48 hours or less of being posted.

I sent a Facebook message to Jen Anthony and Marena Winstanley, who are the two admins on the page, and who are both "Convention Organizers" in some way. I politely asked if they knew why my posts were getting deleted.

Jen didn't reply, and Marena sent me a Facebook reply which said simply:

"I'm afraid I don't have much to say in response to your messages. These are not my decisions to be made."

I replied asking politely who it is that is making these decisions, but I received no further response.

-- AD IN CONVENTION GUIDE BLOCKED

During the month of June we booked space for two quarter page ads in the NDP Convention Guide book.

One ad is for End Prohibition, and says "Thank you to the NDP for standing up against the Conservative's failed War on Drugs." It includes a quote from Libby Davies and contact information for End Prohibition. You can see it here: http://www.danalarsen.com/uploads/PmWiki/endproh-ad.jpg [3]

The second ad is for the Vancouver Medical Cannabis Dispensary Society, a provincially-registered non-profit society of which I am a Director. This ad says "Thank you to the NDP for standing up for the rights of medicinal cannabis users." It includes an image of a marijuana leaf and the contact information for the Dispensary. You can see it here: http://www.danalarsen.com/uploads/PmWiki/disp-ad.jpg [4]

After booking the ads well in advance and then sending them in a few days before the end of June deadline, we were told after shortly the deadline had passed that the ads were "unacceptable."

I spoke with Drew Anderson, the fellow who is apparently in charge of producing the convention guide, on Friday, July 3, he said he would email me a copy of their policy on advertising which didn't allow us to advertise. But instead, on Monday July 6, he sent me an email which said only: "As promised, I am following up on our conversation from Friday in writing. The ads that you submitted are not consistent with our advertising policy. As such they will not appear in our Convention guide. Thank you. Drew Anderson."

I immediately wrote back and asked again to see a copy of the actual advertising policy, as well as to please know who is responsible for making the decisions. I also offered to make changes to the ads if possible so as to bring them into line with policy.

Drew did not reply, so on Thursday, July 9, I called National Director Brad Lavigne and spoke with him personally on the phone.

Brad told me that he wasn't aware of the situation, and that he didn't oversee every ad decision in the Convention Guide. He gave me the impression that Drew was acting on his own, took my phone number and said that he would call me back soon. But he never did.

Instead, a week later on Thursday, July 16, almost three weeks after our ads were initially rejected, I received an email from Drew Anderson as follows:

----------------------------------
Dear Dana,
 
I am responding to your correspondence related to applications for advertising in our 2009 Convention guide.  
 
As a federal political party, we are subject to the strict financing restrictions laid out in the Canada Elections Act.  In order to ensure we are in compliance, we are very selective about which types of organizations are offered advertising properties.  We reserve the right to reject advertising which we believe places us in a compliance risk. 
 
As part of this approach, we are not offering any advertising properties whatsoever from advocacy groups – regardless of what they are advocating.  This is consistent with our approach during the 2006 Convention.
 
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns,
 
Sincerely,
 
Drew Anderson
Canada’s New Democrats
----------------------------------
 
I immediately wrote back, asking what an "advocacy group" means specifically. Because while End Prohibition is an informal group within the NDP, the Vancouver Dispensary Society is a registered non-profit, and so maybe one of the ads would be acceptable. I also asked if we would ever hear back about our table bookings. Drew did not reply.

When I look now at the convention guide from Halifax, I see ads like the one on page 15 from the BC and Yukon Building Trades, which says simply "Thank you for speaking up for working people." These kinds of ads seem pretty much the same as to what we were trying to purchase.

-- TABLE BOOKING STALLED

Along with trying to book an ad in the Convention Guide, End Prohibition and the Vancouver Medicinal Cannabis Dispensary Society were both trying to book table space at the Convention. It is usual for many social advocacy and non-profit groups to pay for a table at NDP Conventions, and End Prohibition had a table at the last federal convention in Quebec. (We've also had tables and ads at many provincial NDP Conventions across Canada over the past three years.)

We filled out the forms to book the table space and sent them in well before the June deadline. For the whole month of July we received no reply to our calls, emails and Facebook messages asking if our forms had been received. During every correspondence we had with Drew Anderson about our ads, we asked about our table space and received no reply.

Finally, two days before the convention, at almost the exact same time as Brad Lavigne emailed me to notify me that I had been de-registered as a delegate (see below), my associate received a call from Drew Anderson, informing him that End Prohibition could have a table, but not the Dispensary Society. Drew also said that we didn't have to pay the usual fee, we could have the table from free!

-- PERSONALLY BARRED FROM THE CONVENTION

On Tuesday, August 11, two days before the convention was to begin, I received an email from Brad Lavigne, notifying me that I had been de-registered as a delegate.

In the email, I was accused of "vote buying" for offering "a material benefit for voting a certain way." This was based on posts I had made on the Internet over six months earlier.

I have transcribed their letter as follows:

------------------------------------------
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 a few hours later:

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

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

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

The main point in their letter was that I had made these offers on the www.endprohibition.ca [5] website, and on the discussion forums at www.rabble.ca/babble [6]

On the End Prohibition website I had made only one post offering travel and lodging subsidies, on March 24, over four months before the convention.

You can read the whole post here: http://www.endprohibition.ca/2009_03_24_archive.php [7]

The relevant parts of that post are as follows:

---------------------
We are also working to get as many End Prohibition members as possible registered as delegates for this convention. We are offering subsidies to our delegates to cover the cost of travel, food, lodging and other items.

We will be posting our marijuana and drug policy resolution very soon. Please introduce this resolution at your local riding association so that it will come to the convention with a broad base of support across the country.

I hope that you will be able to join us at this NDP convention in Halifax! This will be a unique opportunity for you to travel across Canada, make new friends in the NDP, and have fun promoting legal marijuana and an end to prohibition.

Once again, we are offering subsidies to our delegates to cover the cost of travel, food, lodging and other items. Please contact us if you are interested!
---------------------

And I also made some posts on the Babble forums about our offer to help delegates get to the convention.

The first was on January 20, 2009:

----------------------------------
Well I will be there of course. I think it will be my 11th NDP convention, but I'm starting to lose count.

If there's any Babblers who want to go but perhaps cannot afford it, please contact me. I am organizing transport and lodging for groups of delegates. All that I ask in return is your vote on an anti-prohibition resolution and perhaps one or two other issues, otherwise you can vote and do as you please.

If you are interested, please contact me.
----------------------------------

The next two were in together in the same thread a few months later. On June 27:

----------------------------------
Does anyone know if the deadline to submit resolutions also been extended?

"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.
----------------------------------

And then on July 25:

----------------------------------
Please note that the only people we're offering help to are NDP members who have already been approved as delegates by their riding associations. Probably it's going to be six or seven people, and they've all agreed to help work our table, (although at this point I don't think we're going to be allowed to have one.)
----------------------------------

While I agree that the January 20 post should have been phrased differently, I still think it is clear in the broader context of the posts that I was seeking like-minded people willing to work at our table and help out at the convention, and not trying to bribe anyone to change their vote.

As I explained in the posts on March 24, June 27 and July 25, I was seeking delegates to come to convention and "promote and support" our group, including to help work our table, give out flyers and buttons to delegates and otherwise help with our efforts at convention. I wouldn't expect anyone who didn't already support drug policy reform would want to work at our table and hand out flyers for End Prohibition.

The most contentious post was made January 20, over 6 months before the convention. Yet I was only notified of my ban two days before the convention was to begin, with no prior hint that anything I had written was a cause for concern.

I believe that I should at least have been given a chance to respond to these accusations and offer a defence before being banned from the convention. And if these allegations were so serious as to ban me, then perhaps there should have been a further investigation of some sort?

Just banning me from the convention, without any advance communication, hearing or investigation, seems like a very strange and undemocratic way of dealing with this situation. I believe we could have easily resolved this problem in a less confrontational manner if there had been an opportunity to do so.

-- AT THE CONVENTION

Shortly after I wrote back to Brad Lavigne, I received a phone call from Drew Anderson. Drew told me that I shouldn't bother coming to Halifax because I couldn't be a delegate. I told him it was too late to cancel my flight and I would just come as an Observer instead.

Drew called me back twenty minutes later, and told me that I would not be allowed to attend as an Observer either. When I told him that I wouldn't be able to get a refund on my flight, he actually told me that the NDP could compensate me for the cost of my lost airfare if I just stayed home!

Of course I decided to come anyways. I arrived in Halifax on Wednesday night, and Thursday morning I went the YND Convention, being held in the same building as the NDP Convention which started on Friday.

Along with a few NDP friends I registered as an Observer and sat down in the room where the convention was to be held.

Just before the Call to Order, someone came and told me that Drew Anderson wanted to meet with me. I followed this person down the hall to where I met Drew, and Drew took me to a private room. My friend and associate in End Prohibition Benn Greer came along too.

Drew was polite and friendly, but he told me that I was not allowed in the building, and that he would call security on me if I didn't cooperate.

I mentioned to Drew that banning me didn't make much sense. If I was truly guilty of undermining democracy by bribing delegates, then just banning me didn't really solve that problem.

After saying "Now I don't want to read about this on Babble," Drew told me that the reason I had been banned was because Brad Lavigne had received a phone call from a reporter, asking about my posts on Babble. Drew told me that by banning me they had squelched any problems with the media, but that if I didn't cooperate then the party might choose to launch a police investigation against me, or pursue a deeper investigation into the delegates I had help subsidize.

Drew then told me "I am sure you will agree that this is best dealt with quietly."

I asked Drew that if this was truly only about the posts I had made on Babble, and if these things had truly only come to light very recently, then had how come we had such trouble booking our ad and table space?

Drew told me that he regretted not being able to run our ads, and that he had consulted with lawyers about our ads, and he was told that they weren't allowed because they weren't advertising anything, or that our groups weren't getting any value from the ads because we wouldn't run them anywhere else. I admit I didn't fully understand his reply, I may be misquoting him, it didn't make any sense to me.

Drew also told me that the delay with our table was just due to them being busy, and that other people trying to book tables had also had problems. (Later on, when we asked the other people who had tables about their experiences, they all told us their tables had been booked right away and they had no problems getting a reply or booking their space.)

By the next morning I had a sign printed which said "I was banned from the NDP Convention. Ask me why." I spent most of the next three days standing outside the front of the Halifax convention centre with my sign, talking to curious delegates and media.

You can see a photo of me with my sign here: http://www.danalarsen.com/uploads/Main/dana-banned-sign.jpg [8]

I received quite a bit of media coverage, including being on the front page of the weekend Metro in Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa and Halifax. I was also covered in The Province, many Black Press newspapers, a story in the Canadian Press, and I am told I was on both CTV and Global News, although I haven't seen those. A short video of me posted on Youtube is the top result for a search on "NDP Convention" and has received double the views of anything else from the convention.

My supporters caused a bit of a stir as well, some going a bit overboard and posting Brad Lavigne's home phone number, which I didn't ask for and didn't feel was very helpful. However, there's nothing wrong with people contacting the National Director of the NDP to complain about this, as long as it is at his work number or email.

Apparently, I also received so many positive comments on the NDP Official Convention Facebook page that they disabled the public wall entirely when they couldn't delete them fast enough.

I also received nothing but a friendly and positive response from the many delegates who went by me on their way in. Not everyone stopped to talk to me, but most of those who did offered their sympathy and support, and many ended up taking an End Prohibition button and putting it on before continuing on into the convention.

-- RESOLUTIONS PROCESS

While I was not in the building during the resolutions prioritization meetings, I have spoken with other people who were there. All of the following is based on what I was told by others who were inside the convention.

The resolution on cannabis and drug policy had initially been set at number 20 on the priority list. Although it had been passed by 9 riding associations, and 3 others had also passed different resolutions with similar goals, it was still placed two spots behind a resolution calling for more controls on pet food safety.

During the prioritization meeting, a motion was made to push up the priority of the drug policy resolution to number two. A few delegates spoke in support of the motion, and no-one went to the Con mikes to speak against it. So a vote was held, and the motion passed by a large majority.

A while later, the chair said words to this effect: "I haven't had enough coffee. No-one spoke against that resolution on drug policy. Let's go back and do that again."

Now this is clearly against Roberts Rules of Order and NDP Rules of Order for a meeting. The only way to go back and have a re-vote is if a delegate who had initially voted in favour of the item introduces a motion to have a re-vote, and that motion needs to pass with a two-thirds majority. Neither of these things happened, the chair just arbitrarily decided to have a do-over all on her own. There were challenges from the floor against the chair, but in the end this was allowed to occur.

Between the first and second votes many delegates entered the room who had not been there before. Speakers who hadn't been there for the first vote were now lined up at the Con mike, and when the new vote was held there was a tight margin of victory to keep that pesky drug policy resolution down at #20 on the list.

However, the resolutions from #6 to #20 were later passed by the panel in an omnibus motion, which means that even though they were not debated on the convention floor, they must still be considered by the Federal Council at their next meeting.

This same kind of "do-over" occured on the main convention floor as well, over the issue of the convention agenda. An amendment was made to the agenda from the floor of the convention, to add an hour to policy debate by moving a US Democrat guest speaker to an evening session. After heated debate the motion was carried in a majority vote.

Then after some delegates had left the room and the debate had moved on to other topics, Olivia Chow proposed that the agenda motion be reconsidered. Despite this being an absolute violation of Roberts Rules of Order, the convention chair allowed a re-vote and the original vote was reversed.

In both instances it was the same person chairing when the decisions to have a re-vote were held.

-- CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

While I feel that both I and the democratic convention process were badly treated by National Director Brad Lavigne, my support for the NDP has not wavered, and I do not feel that the actions of Brad are supported by most of the membership of the party.

I agree that the way I worded my January 20 offer to help delegates get to the convention could be misinterpreted, especially if you are actively seeking to find some way to justify keeping me away from the convention. But I think any fair-minded analysis would agree that bribery and vote-buying did not occur, and that it was never my intent.

I definitely feel that the situation could have been dealt with much better than the last-minute ban I was given, and that I should at least have been given a chance to explain and defend myself.

In the context of my posts being deleted, the ads and table being blocked, and the general lack of response to our queries, the last-minute stripping of my delegate credentials seems more like part of a pattern of wanting to eliminate my influence from the convention, than a genuine concern for the integrity of the democratic process.

I would definitely like to see some changes occur in regards to how the federal NDP runs their conventions, so that we can create a system which is truly democratic and grassroots.

Regardless, my work within the NDP continues. I will be in Edmonton for the Alberta NDP Convention this Sept 11-13, and I will be at the BC NDP Convention this winter as well. I hope to see some of you there!

Thank you so much for this report, Dana, and congratulations on staying the course.

PS: Brad Lavigne should be fired. If he was "just following orders", then the person giving the orders should be fired along with Brad Lavigne.

And to be the "devil's advocate" there are always two sides to the "story." Amen - sign - grr.

Dana is right about Robert's rules of order, however, one needs to check NDP bylaws to see if our bylaws overrule in places for Roberts. So the bylaws may state that the chair of committees can overrule Roberts. That the chair has the authority to not require 2/3's of majority rule.

That an organizations bylaws take presidence over Robert's rules. Know this as I sit on a Board. Check the NDP bylaws to see if that gave the chair "legal" leeway.

That's from the Appendix, entitled "Rules of Procedure for Plenary Sessions", to the only version I could find quickly of the NDP constitution - the 2001 version.

Note that Roberts' Rules don't apply, because:

... but reconsideration is a matter "regulated herein".

Finally:

So, unless the reconsideration procedure had been modified as provided in para 16 above, and if Dana's account is accurate (which in my experience it always is), Chow committed a foul.

The snipets of debate I watched on CPAC had reasonably abyssmal chairing. The presiding officer's often looked like they were not in control of the proceedings. Sort of reminded me of  the House of Commons.

That said amening an agenda to move a guest from their originally scheduled time is a bit rude.

thanks Unionist - what I find is that most people who chair mtgs do not know parliamentary procedures, and moreover, voting subjects also don't know "the rules."

Taking parliamentary procedure courses, such as in Robert's rules, really helps and makes one knowledgable. That said,

the philosophy behind any "rules of parliamentary order" is promoting "democracy" and not stifling "democracy." A good chair will be open and actually help participants know the rules, explain them, give prompts, so that people can fully participate.

I am very disappointed that the "rules of order" were used - it appears in this case - to prevent debate and thus democracy.

Thanks for the report Dana, and I am more than a bit teed about threat levelling by "Drew". WTF is that?

This is nonsense, of course.

Funds provided to a delegate "to defray the travel, lodging, food and other costs" (to use Lavigne's words) are not funds provided for the purpose of paying Convention fees, and thus do not attract the provisions of Section 405.3 of the Elections Act, contrary to Lavigne's claim.

I know this much: I would never have a conversation with Mr. Larsen without recording it. Ever.

Some babblers are fond of lecturing Barry Weisleder and the other members and supporters of the Socialist Caucus about how they are wasting their time trying to influence the NDP and how they should quit the party. "Resistance is futile," they chant in unison.

I wonder how many of them would give the same advice to you.

What an odd comment. Are you a professional blackmailer, by any chance?

SO not what i meant. I mean knowing that anything i say can and will be put in the public domain, I would ensure that I kept an audio record. All I wasy saying.

Are you suggesting that Dana has a track record of misrepresenting what people say/write to him? 

I'm saying that I would want an audio record of the conversation because it can and will be made public.

But you haven't explained what the benefit of such a recording would be to you. The only possible reason I can think of (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that you are afraid that any publication of your remarks by Dana will be a misrepresentation of what you said, hence the need for a recording to set the record straight.

And the only possible reason I can think of why you would have such a fear (and again, please correct me if I am wrong) is that you believe Dana would likely misrepresent your remarks. Otherwise, why not record all your conversations with everybody?

I think it is obvious that there will always be disagreements about interpretation of any given conversation, particularly if that conversation is centred on areas of disagreement. I think Dana has a habit of recounting verbal conversations about touchy subjects and putting them on the public record. I am NOT saying that he is lying, but I am saying that for my personal comfort - knowing the likielihood that anything I say can and will be placed on the public record - I would want to ensure that I had an audio recording of that conversation to which I could refer if my interpretation of that conversation differed from that of Mr. Larsen.

You are obviously singling him out for special treatment.

Moreover, you are announcing it on this thread in a way that can only be calculated to cast aspersions on his honesty:

However, your latest "explanation" of what you are trying to say clearly backs away from admitting that. And wisely so. 

I am singling out for special treatment someone who has a habit of making conversations public. Yes. Absolutely.  The fact that you decided to accuse me of blackmail or some such nonsense is your issue, not mine.

When and where I think Mr. Larsen has been lying or having a casual relationship with the truth, believe me I have no trouble saying so. Such as, for instance, when he defends driving under the influence of marijuana. He says it has no effect on his driving ability. I call that a lie.

Have you looked at his driving record or something?

Dana explaining the videos here on babble.

Of course, if you believe that marijuana does not impair your driving (which no serious person believes), you are unlikely to consider yourself impaired while driving under the influence of marijuana.

I haven't done a count of babblers, but I know that I told Dana, almost 4 years ago, that the federal NDP would never take the lead in legalization of cannabis (let alone the rest) - still, I have supported and admired his determination and continue to do so. That's his personal choice, and who knows, I may turn out to be wrong.

But that's a far cry from Barry Weisleder's apparent view that the NDP will become the vehicle for some kind of radical transformation of capitalism, if only we keep haranguing long enough.

Heck I wish I had a tape recorder too. I tried to be as accurate as possible in summarizing the conversations I had with Drew Anderson, but having a tape to prove my version of events would be very useful.

Marijuana can impair driving ability, as can any substance. The question is dosage and potency. Eating six cannabis cookies can be very impairing, but a few puffs off of a joint is not significantly impairing.

This question of dosage and potency is the same with any substance. A cup of coffee is not impairing, but eating a dozen caffeine pills is impairing.

According the comprehensive 2002 Canadian Senate Report on Cannabis: "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving." http://cannabislink.ca/gov/senatesumm.htm

You can find an article with links to many major studies into the effects of marijuana use on driving here: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4131.html [30]

You seriously think it is okay to drive after consuming marijuana. Obviously, as with any substance, there is a threshold for impairment. We agree on that. But we also agreed long ago that drinking in a moving vehicle was a mistake. "Have one for the road" became verboten, as it should have been.

Having one "rolled for the road" puts everyone on the road with you in danger. Frankly, you should be apologizing.

He states that he was not impaired, are you stating he was?

Was he even driving when he stated he had one rolled for the road?

I've watched COPS a couple of times (the canadian version anyway) where they've caught a driver with a joint and told him to drive home (without any charges). What's up with that?

Oh the joy of thread drift, where my report on the convention becomes mired in a debate over pot and driving and something I did a decade ago...

I'm pretty sure I have already debated, discussed and apologized on this issue many times already. But if you need to hear it again, then let me clear.

I regret and apologize for stating that I had one rolled for the road, and I don't encourage people to toke while driving.

While it is true that marijuana is generally far less impairing than alcohol or sleepiness, it is still best to wait until you get home before sparking up that joint.

Dana, thank you for your persistence and your good humor, I find it astonishing and admirable.  :) 

Dana, I have no clue how you carry on with calm and equanimity in the face of such extreme hostility, but I'd like a bit of whatever you're smoking...

As an outsider, I'd have to ask:  Does the NDP gain anything from treating Dana like this that could actually be worth the tsuris?

Can't we assume that most of the hard-core "zero tolerance" drug types would be Tories or right-wing Liberals, and thus not votes that were ever going to be winnable by the NDP no matter what?

The NDP leadership really needs to explain why they're so paranoid about an ad in a convention program.  Does anyone decide to vote in a general election based on convention program ads? 

Extreme hostility? From me?  I disagree vehemently with many of his very public positions, and some of the ways he deals with them. I don't think he's very credible, frankly. But is that hostility? 

I'm sure Dana's a lovely guy. How's that? I haven't called him any names and won't. I'll never talk to or about him the way that can happen in the ever-shifting cueball/unionist/spector/fidel wars. I will never question his sincerity, or his right to have an opposite opinion from my own.

I do not believe you should get behind the wheel after one drink, or one toke. Doctors will tell you the same. I am very concerned at anyone who minimizes driving under the influence - and then defends that minimization (as Dana DID in the quote I linked to).

And I thank Dana for his clarification on the matter, but he still does persist in minimizing the effects of driving under the influence. I think that is a serious matter that needs addressing from anyone who seeks to engage on the issue of drugs and our social response to them.

Honestly, Coyote, whatever your position on DUI, I thought your comment re: recording conversations with 'Mr. Larsen' to be defamatory.

But, this is all off topic, of course. Welcome back to BC, Dana. Thanks for your comments regarding the laughably paranoid manner you were treated by some members of the NDP brass.

I was talking about the convention, not the 2008 campaign. They should just have run the ad.  Nobody who hates pot THAT much votes for a party like the NDP anyway.

Since you've raised the question, however:

It can fairly be asked why Dana's quite minor impairment should have forced him out of the campaign when Campbell was allowed to LEAD his party through two more general elections(and won them both)after getting massively hammered in Hawaii.

And is that one moment going to be used to stop Dana from being the NDP nominee in future elections, or is the feeling now that he's been punished enough?

Achieving public office is very difficult and requries the vast majority of voters to make up their mind on minimal information.  It is not a question of right or wrong of smoking marijuana, but rather the underlying slacker image that is pretty hard to overcome.

I think all people should be required to do a sleep deprivation assessement prior to driving. If you had a very fitfull sleep the night before because you don't have air conditioning  then you are almost certainly going to have your ability to drive affected greater than a chronic pothead who takes one or two tokes berfore getting behind the wheel.  Mid-afternoon sleep related acidents are one of the highest categories.  That in effect is what I think Dana was trying to say. You would be right to assume that I do not agree with zero tolerance rules for alchol either. I believe that one should ensure they are not impaired by any cause prior to driving.

"Almost half of Canadians go about their daily lives deprived of sleep, according to a new report from Statistics Canada. That means half the 18 million vehicles on the road are in the hands of drivers who may not be as alert as they should be. In the United States, more than half of adults surveyed reported driving drowsy in the past year. One in five reported falling asleep at the wheel.

The problem of drowsy drivers is serious enough in Canada to keep scientists and government researchers awake nights. In 1995, a British study was released on the effects of sleep deprivation on driving. It found that 16 per cent of all vehicle accidents were caused by sleepiness. "We would find the same sort of thing in Canada," or about 35,000 accidents a year, says Alistair MacLean, head of the psychology department at Queen's University."

http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/23032001/feature.htm

I wasn't actually talking about you, Coyote. But unless you speak out against the de-registration of Dana as a delegate and the other efforts to stifle his viewpoint, I'll stick with "extreme hostility".

I don't know about 'extreme hostility'.  Seems a little harsh.  I'd just as soon chalk it up to oblique pandering that is typically consistent with sycophancy, and NDP related threads for the most part.

lol

Have the letter N, D, and P, tied together in a row, been typed by me in this thread even once? Ah, sycophancy! Inept sycophancy, at that!

Believe it or not, some of us just aren't buying what Larsen is selling.

And I will certainly remember the phrase "extreme hostility", Unionist. I will be sure to remember how loose a term it really is. I believe it amounts to disagreeing with you.

Kindly stop your histrionic grandstanding. It's not typical of your posts, which I always respect irrespective of agreeing or not.

This is simple. Do you agree with the measures taken to bar Dana from the room - even as an observer - and to bar his ads and his message, as described? If you don't want to answer, kindly let me know why.

It is nice to see that nothing ever changes on babble and you are still painting people with your bullshit loyalty tests.

I think Dana has shown incredibly poor judgement, and that his banning from convention is a result of his own actions.

I don't agree with what the NDP did to Dana either, its shows a lack of democracy in the NDP hierarchy IMO, but Coyote is about the last person I'd ever describe as "hostile" in anything, and to be fair there were some reasonable arguments and understandable concerns expressed on the other side too.   I just don't happen to accept them on this issue and worried about what this might mean for the party in general. 

Hardly coyote!

How the Lavigne and Drew handled this are piss poor anti-democratic actions.

I don't see much pandering or syncophancy shown by most NDPers here either, if things like differences of opinion within ranks is anything to go by. I leave that to the professionals.  A few party in-types do seem to drop in when some uncomfortable issue threatens to take off, but most the regulars here seem capable as anyone else of speaking their own minds.  I don't know if Coyote is even a member.

To be clear yes I am a partisan New Democrat. And while my posting record is less critical of the NDP than many, I disagree with the party on many issues from both left and right. For instance, I am critical of the party's position on Israel/Palestine and think it should be more forceful in advocating for Palestinian rights; I also think the federal party needs to present a more fiscally prudent face if it wants to govern.

In other words, my membership in the party does not dictate my positions.

DL:  "I definitely feel that the situation could have been dealt with much better than the last-minute ban I was given, and that I should at least have been given a chance to explain and defend myself.

In the context of my posts being deleted, the ads and table being blocked, and the general lack of response to our queries, the last-minute stripping of my delegate credentials seems more like part of a pattern of wanting to eliminate my influence from the convention, than a genuine concern for the integrity of the democratic process.

I would definitely like to see some changes occur in regards to how the federal NDP runs their conventions, so that we can create a system which is truly democratic and grassroots."

Those are the parts that worry me most, as they could just as easily apply to others with unconvential views and make me doubt its just about the rules.  The explanations for those prior mishaps didn't seem very convincing to me either and together they can't just be shrugged off.

I accept that Coyote, youre not as cranky as I too-often am on politics but youve always been willing and able to speak out on minority positions.  Also glad to see BA is posting again.   (I often feel like I'm stuck in the middle here, most people would consider me a wild eyed idealist but rarely mistaken for a mediator)

Thanx Erik. I appreciate that.

Only call em the way I see em C.  Not being the naturally conciliatory type an all...  :) 

I didn't ask you why he was banned. I asked you whether you agreed. The Waffle was banned from the NDP in the 1970s because of its opinions - not its "actions". The NDP appears to care only about organizational loyalty and electability (ironic, this latter part, because of its perennial failure to inspire even its natural constituency). What bothers me about your posts here, frankly, is your mixing Dana's 10-year-old foolish video with his banning from convention. I find that connection troubling. I disagreed vocally with those babblers who thought that video was harmless or even positive, and I said so here. But totalitarian control of opinions and speech which do not even conflict with party policy is way over the line. Brad Lavigne should not be allowed anywhere near a democratic organization. His banning should be the result of his actions.

Normally, I can appreciate Coyote's point of view on many issues, however the same sentiment here escapes me.  The End Prohibition group are expendable in the minds of the top echelon, and their concerns, the people involved, along with all of the people who support an end to punitive criminal code sanctions represent an embarrassing fringe sideshow not to be associated with, while there existed the prospect of acquiring media coverage at the Convention alongside a party which seeks broader national legitimacy.  Apparently, they wouldn't go quietly under the rug, wouldn't take the hint that normally comes with being completely ignored when they outlived their usefulness, if any existed previously, which necessitated another more direct means of disposal, backed up with the threat of security guards.

Someone should start a "Fire Brad Lavigne" group on Facebook

I guess that's what passes for political activism these days.

I was only half-serious.

I don't see anything wrong with your suggestion, LP. It's not like you were suggesting that such an action would be the beginning and end of your political activism. That was Spector's extrapolation.

Another reason I hesitate to sign up for the NDP.  Keep up the good fight Dana. 

If Dana had not made himself the issue, his resolution or one of the similar ones would have had a very good likelihood of passing, I believe.  He turned it into a sideshow, made himself the story, and did nothing for his own cause.  I see that kind of grandstanding has sucked in a fair number of posters here on Babble, but it's rarely effective in making real progress.

You folks poo-poo the legal concerns being raised about whether the donations would place some people over the limit, or constitute a contribution by an entity other than a person.  But not only do I think they're valid, I think not protecting the party against those types of allegations would have been highly irresponsible of its national director, particularly in this climate where party finance rules are becoming so politicized by the Conservatives.

I think there's a growing constituency to deal with drug use in a smarter way.  Dana can never be the poster-boy for that issue and expect it to succeed, however, due to his past actions, particularly on those videos.  Some actions have long-term consequences, I'm afraid, and that's one of them for him.

It's a separate issue, but those actions were also costly for other NDP candidates, volunteers and contributors, and could easily have contributed to our shortfalls in Vancouver Island North and Surrey North, plus our coming up short in Kamloops, Nanaimo-Alberni and Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge in the last election.

It's very hard for me to see Dana as the aggrieved party here, rather than all those folks who slogged their hearts out last time, only to be faced with a backlash based on the actions of someone they might never have met, but who indirectly gave everyone a bad reputation by boasting on a videotape about driving under the influence of intoxicants.

I appreciate your analysis, OttawaObserver but I think you might be a bit old on this issue, pardon the ageism but it needs to be said.

Lavigne could have cautioned Dana, asked him to stop, and done likewise with any delegates who may have accepted financial assistance. How does barring him from entering the room resolve the issue of contributions? Were the delegates who took money barred? Was any effort made to ascertain who they were? The aim was quite different.

Now you're getting confused. He was disqualified as a candidate for the video. That was last year. He was barred from entering the room for the contributions. That was this year. Is the video being used again?

While this post might be considered thread drift I just came across this story where it states that a court in Argentina has just ruled that simple possession for ones own use isn't illegal in that country.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/08/25/argentina.drug.decriminaliz...

Actually, I don't take offence, because it is true that I see this differently now than I would have when I was younger and "the man" was always out to get people (the way I saw things then).  The story hurt us last year in seats we could have won and in two we wound up losing.

Believe me, I've earned every wrinkle and grey hair I've got, trying to learn from my past mistakes.  I'm not embarrassed to be a bit old on an issue, because hopefully that comes from a bit of experience the hard way.

I didn't feel confused when I wrote it, as I did say "it's a separate issue, but ..." when I began the second half of the post.  However neatly you are able to separate the video last year from how Dana was going to be viewed this year, though, not everyone else out there would be as sophisticated as you, Unionist.

The guy who was driving high on a video last year and bragging about it, is not the best poster-child for marijuana law reform this year, to most of the folks who would have to be won over for such a provision to ever pass into law.  This is why I pointed out to Dana on Babble weeks before the convention that I thought he would see more progress on his resolution if he took himself out of the equation.  And I say that as someone who voted for a drug law reform resolution in my own riding.

Sometimes we best serve our issue by leading the storming of the ramparts, and sometimes we do it the most good by standing aside and letting others in a better position to do so go for it instead.

Unionist you are a valuable contributor here, however on this overall issue, I have to agree with ottawa observer.

More discouraging words:

"Regular marijuana usage robs men of sexual highs" (New Scientist)

Luckily, most don't notice.

So do you think the "pardon" makes a comment like this acceptable. ;)

To play devil's advocate, what if the tables were turned, and it was said young people, for example, don't have enough life experience to be aware of the big picture. By-the-way I am not suggesting that, and I do enjoy reading your posts. 

Personally, I do not believe Dana's video caused any voter degradation in BC, if anything perhaps his forced resignation caused voter degradation.

And I think it is too ff, for people in the NDP echelons to believe such is the case,. IMV, they apparently are way out of touch with the voters in the areas OO named , except perhaps Pitt Meadows and the religious vote. Who I doubt would vote for the NDP in the first place.

I came up with some suggestions to improve things. This main one is it replace the resolutions prioritization with a system where deligates vote on resolution priority in advance of the convention.

I was wondering the people who spoke agains raising the priority of the resolution said.

I suspect we're going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on that point, then.

Fair enough, though I weight in my favour given I actually live in BC and know the territories in question.

You know I am all for democracy, but I think this voting for resolution priority thing is actually rather undemocratic.  What happens is that issues that aren't sexy, or say most people don't understand like agriculture policy get pushed down and only the squeaky wheel gets their grease, or it opens up the NDP to manipulation by single issue groups.

I don't know how you open things up and make sure policy discussion is broad enough to actually be reflective.  It is a very hard circle to square.  Maybe that is a topic for a seperate thread though.

Yes, autocratic control is soo much better. Count me as a lost vote.

Lived and worked there myself.  We probably experienced different "villages within the city" however.

"Nobody who hates pot THAT much votes for a party like the NDP anyway."

Its not just about pot. Its about advocating for the legalization of ALL drugs - and contrary to what a lot of babblers may like to believe, i suspect that the vast, vast, vast majority of people who vote NDP are opposed to that. I realize that if you spend you life among social activists in downtown Toronto or Vancouver - you can start to believe that everyone is an NDP/Green/Communist swing voter and that people who vote NDP are all pot-smoking neo-hippies who go to anti-globalization marches wearing mismatched socks. The reality is that the number one predictor of whether someone will vote NDP is whether their income is low or high. I suspect that there are actually a very large number of people who vote NDP in places like Sackville-Eastern Shore, north Winnipeg, Northern Ontario, Windsor, hamilton, Churchill and various suburban BC ridings like in Surrey - who are not all that big on drug legalization and who may not be all that big on cannabis legalization either and if the NDP were depicted as a party that was being infiltrated by former Marijuana Party activists etc... it would make the party look whacky and fringe and not to be taken seriously.

I'm not arguing against decriminalization of marijuana. That is already NDP policy and i agree with it. But I think you are kidding yourself if you think that there is no political price to be paid anywhere in canada for being viewed as the "pro-drug party".

Living also in the area in question I would say without question that his video cost us votes and votes outside his seat.  I was always getting people asking me what kinds of  candidates we were running.  In the lower mainland we have a famous bait car video of a thief on crack, drugs in cars hits a nerve.  More than that though is the general slacker image.  People are electing someone to represent their interests, to facilitate deals for the community.  They don't want a slacker.

The NDP already has to fight against a stereotype that its made up of slackers and pie in the sky flower children with supposedly impracticle ideas etc... incidents like the Larsen kefuffle play into that image - therefore it does a lot more damage. If Larsen had been a Tory who was forced out - it wouldn't have done so much damage to them because whatever negative stereotypes people have about Tories - they don't involve thinking that the party is full of pot smoking flower children. Its more of a problem for the Tories if a candidate of theirs was once a white suprmacist!

Yes that's exactly what I was saying.  Jeez

Hi remind,

I too am going to have to respectfully diasgee with you on this issue, and I usually do live in BC as well.  ;)

"Different villages" oo?

We should talk about how many stayed home in North Island, Nanaimo, and Kamloops then perhaps?

The main negative publicity from the MSM on the Halifax convention-dropping the name" New"Sorry Brian amse we cant' allwow you to attemnd  any more convetnion. Your ideas are bad for our image.  Then, lets s keep out those academics in their tweed coats and the braless feminists and the outrgeous  gays and the nasty trade unionists and the immigrants and  poor who just ruin our TV image with their cray ideas. . . Let's make sure our next convention is full of white middle class middle income small businessmen  in sutis and ties who can talk of how we need to cut social programs and taxes and  jail the deviants. Tha'ts the way to power/ . Image is everything you know. Sccrew principel and policy.,

Sorry Stock, I just couldn;t resist.

Stock is clearly more in tune with the MS. At least, in the absence of a believable economic alternative that will provide jobs - something beyond repeating words like "green", that is. What's the "policy" that gets screwed by staying away from this particular green plant?

I agree that while most Canadians support legalization of marijuana, they do not support "legalization" of methamphetamine or heroin.

Of course, the word "legalize" is a vague term which can mean many things. I don't advocate that injectable heroin be made as readily available as cannabis products should be. But perhaps opiates could be made legally available to those who are already addicted to them, under a doctor's prescription and supervision.

I think a growing number of Canadians now support terms like "harm reduction" and things like needle exchange and Supervised Injection Sites. The idea that using police and prisons as the primary way of dealing with illegal drug users is a failed effort.

I think a large number of Canadians would agree with the phrase "illegal drug use should be treated primarily as a health and social issue instead of as a criminal one."

If you take a look at the resolution we had put together for the NDP Convention, it is based more on a "tax and regulate" model for cannabis, and an acknowledgement that we need to come up with a better way of dealing with other drugs, based on principles other than criminalization.

---
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the NDP advocate for the elimination of all fines and criminal penalties for personal cultivation and possession of cannabis, and the establishment of a taxed and regulated framework for production and distribution of cannabis to adults;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NDP support a broad federal review of the impacts and harms caused by current drug policies, to select the best model for the government to implement a non-criminal, regulatory approach to psychoactive substance use that is based on reducing risk and harm, emphasizing prevention, public education, health promotion and safety.
---

Whenever I speak about drug use, I try to point out that the main factors in the danger of using any substance is the dosage and potency. Injecting a pure version of any substance is generally going to be far more harmful, risky and addictive than drinking or eating a diluted version. So clearly injecting pure alcohol is far more risky than drinking a beer, just as injecting methamphetamine is far more risky than eating a pep pill. In the same way, chewing whole coca leaf is not harmful and could be considered beneficial, while injecting pure cocaine is much more risky and harmful. This is different than our usual way of thinking about these plants and substances, and certainly our laws make no difference between coca leaf and pure cocaine, or between a mild opiate drink and injectable heroin.

OK, I'll bite.

In the case of Vancouver Island North and Nanaimo-Alberni [90], the NDP raw vote stayed constant or slipped a very tiny bit, while the Conservative raw vote increased, and the Liberals' fell bigtime.  The Greens picked up some of that falling Liberal vote (more so in Nanaimo-Alberni where John Fryer was running), but most of the rest stayed home or went Conservative.  Turnout in both cases was down 3 percentage points (a small drop compared to many parts of Ontario).

In Kamloops [91], the NDP raw vote actually increased along with the Conservatives, and the Liberal vote (which is usually much higher in Kamloops than anywhere else in the Interior) again dropped substantially, half going to the Conservatives 3/4s of the rest going to the NDP and 1/4 going Green.  Turnout was not down in this case.  The NDP was 10 percentage points (just under 6,000 votes) behind the Conservatives.

So, to answer the question, the NDP missed winning these seats NOT because its vote stayed home, but because it was unsuccessful in winning over disaffected Liberals.  I can't believe Dana's video had nothing to do with that.

Respectfully OO, there is no way in hell Dana's video had anything to do with it.

My point about voters staying home, and perhaps even voting  in Green Nanaimo Alberni and VIsland north stands.  I would safely bet the majority of NDP supporters in both ridings are pot smokers, at the least.

Kamloops, was Crawford's to lose and lose he did. On his own merit and lack of campaigning. He was invisible. Blamming Dana for his failure is unbelievable.

Plus alientating the large dermographic of pot smokers there did not help, they might as well vote for Ken, at least he has represented many of them in court, more likely than not, so they know he does not judge them. :D

I know it's not true that the majority of NDP supporters in Nanaimo-Alberni are pot smokers, and I doubt it's true in Vancouver Island North.  NDP voters did not overall switch Green in Vancouver Island North in 2008, as Catherine Bell held her raw vote almost to a person from 2006, and she had picked up most of the remaining Green vote back then.  New Green voters came from disaffected Liberals in that riding.  Maybe 600 NDP voters abandoned the NDP for the Greens in Alberni; not enough to win by a long stretch.

remind, Dana's video offended pot smokers too, you know.  Apart from modelling behaviour that is unsafe to oneself and others on the public roads, it was braggartly.  And I think if we consult with even the most progressive pollsters, we would find that that incident had a big impact on helping disaffected Liberals decide not to vote NDP.

But I'm guessing we move in very different circles to come up with such differing perceptions.

I doubt it, and I find it very offensive that you think so, or are trying to say so.

Think this conversation should be done before more irrepairable damage occurs.

What's clear to me, is that the spin doctors and control freaks are clearly in control of the NDP these days.   They want to make sure that the NDP is "on message" and that nothing potentially "embarassing" happens.

But we're now in the internet era and the party apparatchiks clearly don't "get it".   What would have probably been a "non event" has become an embarassment for the party brass.   It looks good on these control freaks.

Certainly didn't mean to offend, but no point me making things worse.

You're giving this issue way too much credit. The only place where anyone seems to care about what happened to Dana Larsen is among about half a dozen people who post on babble. In the real world, the so-called "spin doctors and control freeaks (sic.)" did the right thing. The mainstream media ignored Dana Larsen and there were no embarrassing news stories about the NDP having serious resolutions calling for the legalization of all drugs. The system worked and they all feel vindicated.

If you think being "on message" all the time is a bad thing, try the alternative and see how far you get when you keep going "off message". That's how you lose support and lose elections - by going off message all the time.

Can't wait for the NDP vote to collapse frankly

Be prepared to wait and very very long time....you may not live to see the day.

You make the NDP sound as appealing as refrigerator mold.

I yearn for the days of Ed Broadbent, I loved the guy.

The only thing that amazes me more than the dedication of the rank-and-file party members is the strategic incompotence of the people calling the shots.

I would say my post unwise and regretted and lacking in wisdom.  ;)

Perhaps, it is an issue that I see as somewhat important to the circle I run in and what I meant was the NDP was just playing to old tropes.  I'd prefer them to be ahead of the pack.

Just frustrated, my bad.

Trying to get back on topic:

I think the resolutions Dana quoted earlier are not the least scary and would resonate with a majority of Canadians.  No matter the issues with Dana, were those resolutions not reasonable?

Here's the problem: everyone assumes that the rest of the country thinks along the same lines as they and their circle of friends do.  It's really really hard to break outside of that and understand the ways that different groups see the world.  People who are a bit older and have lived and worked in many more parts of the country have a slightly easier time doing it as a result of their life experience, but probably not all of them are equally good at appreciating it either.

For myself, I probably should have known better than to raise the Dana issue all over again here, but some volunteer work I did for the convention got stepped all over and all my time wasted because of what Dana did there.  I don't expect an apology, but just wanted to point out that it rarely occurs to the prima donas the impact their actions have on so many others (also notably including the mover of the drug law reform motion in our riding).

I'm sorry to hear that OO.  It's important to hear the other side.  Hopefully this can be better managed in the future by the end prohibition lobby.

Well actually my little protest outside the convention was covered in the Canadian Press, BC's Province Newspaper, The Black Press, Now Magazine and The Coast Reporter, and I was on the front page of the Weekend Metro in Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa and Halifax, plus I was on CTV and Global TV News. I even inspired two editorial cartoons.

And why would a resolution on ending the drug war be embarrassing? Both national newspapers support legalized cannabis, and there's tons of columnists and journalists all across Canada who also support ending prohibition. More Canadians support drug policy reform than currently vote NDP, so it would seem like a vote-winner to me.

This thread is miscategorized, as it definitely belongs in the comedy section.  

One problem is that political strategists don't care about people.  They care about only one person:  the elusive middle Canadian.  This person is invariably white, male, middle class, middle income, residing in a medium sized city, in a middle income suburb, middle of the road politically, with a white picket fence, 2.3 kids, and some very traditionalist and conservative economic opinions.  This man doesn't like change or vision, he doesn't want to rock the boat, and he doesn't give two shits for the poor or victims of oppression.  Trust me, I've seen an NDP government take a right-wing position which >75% of the population opposed.  But the middle Manitoban (or at least his representatives in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Chamber of Commerce) wanted it, so it was done.  It doesn't matter if a left-wing idea is popular, we must be careful not to scare the elusive middle Canadian.

Personally, I've never met this guy, although I read the media speaking on behalf of him.

And this middle Canadian doesn't like things which are different.  He finds it scary.  And since you're different, you must be banished for you might scare the hypothetical middle Canadian so much that he might not leave the boundaries of his hypothetical white picket fence and vote for The Party.

Hi OttawaObserver, I am curious as to what this was? I can't see how I disrupted anything or harmed the volunteer work of anyone else. I just sat outside the convention building with my sign, and I only spoke with people who came up to me and initiated conversation.

What specifically did I do at the convention that I should not have done? Would it have been better if I had done as Brad Lavigne and Drew Anderson wanted, which was to stay at home and quietly accept my banishment?

Or do you mean it was wrong to try and buy an ad, book a table and promote drug policy reform issues as I have been doing non-stop within the NDP for the past four years?

No matter what the NDP does, it's NEVER going to be able to "out square" the Tories and the Liberals.  And as New Labour shows, once you've made an obsessive effort to be as uptight as the right, you're not going to be able to do anything in power that's worth doing.  New Labour did a few tiny increments on education and social welfare, but they were trivial compared to the war Tony got them into just to prove that, in the words of the Billy Bragg song "we don't like peace campaigners 'round here".  The law and order vote will always be anti-NDP and there's no good reason to even TRY to get it.

The only way to deal with attacks on your supporters for being too activist, too idealist, too "pie in the sky", is to actually DEFEND activists and idealists and to defend the idea that people like that are as valid and as important in politics as any Liberal fundraiser or Tory investment banker.  If you DEFEND your base, you can win.

I"m sure even you, Stock, would agree that it could never be worth having a federal NDP government if the party had to go Blairite to get it, and that it would automatically morally disqualify an NDP government from calling itself an NDP government if it ever involved itself in anything remotely like the Iraq War or sending people to Gitmo.

Ken, you just made the NDP out to be supportive of the Iraq war and Gitmo's secret gulag for torture. They haven't even been elected to federal government for the first time, and youre concerned about the NDP breaking promises already. Broken promises is more descriptive of our long-time stoogeocracy, but not the NDP,  or even Ralph Nader.  

Thanks, Fidel.   It's a case of ratcheting up of a single issue's importance to a near hysteria. People fluncing off even though they know the party is the only one in the country doing a damned thing about housing and feeding a growing number of dispossessed.

The individual who authored the situation has combed the media universe and found:

"Well actually my little protest outside the convention was covered in the Canadian Press, BC's Province Newspaper, The Black Press, Now Magazine and The Coast Reporter, and I was on the front page of the Weekend Metro in Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa and Halifax, plus I was on CTV and Global TV News. I even inspired two editorial cartoons."

Now if one asked oneself why those media covered DANA LARSEN and not the social issues affecting the lives of millions, one understands that that is what a hostile media do to social democrats. Keeps the advertisers happy and advertising.

The ego does not understand this. And a large number of supposedly savvy are out lunching with him.

Would anybody say this flower child  in a video should not be a delegate to NDP conventions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTdneZAHAJY

You're starting to get the idea!

Long thread.