Investigation into treatment of Dana Larson and the marijuana resolution needed

You may want to add to it having the chair allow intentionally fillibustering earlier house keeping motions on Sunday to prevent the name change motion from being debated and voted on.

I highly doubt there was either support for the resolution on a name change. I don't hear any outrage from either 1300 delegates or some of the 40,000 to 80,000 card carrying NDPers that may exist.

The only people talking about a name change are pundits, babblers, MLW posters, and some media looking for a story.

It didn't even catch the attention of the general public, which clearly demonstrates a non starter.

There was no filibuster, Daniel. Yes, we do read every resolution out loud. Yes, we do let a minimum of 3 people speak on an issue, even if they're all in favour of it, so everyone will understand the issues around it. 

How about a Royal Commission? Or better yet a Battle Royale?

I think a Babble Royale would be preferable.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Daniel, I'd like to see what the Green Party would do with Dana Larsen. You can have him!!

I think the Green party is going to get a lot of people from BC, the NDP is getting more and more out of touch with the west coast once again.

...just like in the BC election - NDP 42% Greens 8%

I agree Dana was treated badly. While the NDP is still the only party for progressives to actually get seats in Parliament, the NDP shouldn't expect unqualified support from folks on the left. I'm quite turned off by Brad Lavigne, for example.

Me too, Boom Boom (nice to see you, BTW.  Now is about the time we'd get a gardening thread going about our fall harvests, but it won't be me as the crap weather in Toronto this summer has meant my garden is a total washout).

At the risk of being a bit drifty: I think Stockholm got to the heart of it in this post:

The NDP wants more seats, so they're going to try and discreetly shed their fringier elements.  The Liberals would have handled this better, IMO; they've far more experience with being hypocritical sellouts.  

But take SS marriage, for instance.  The NDP adopted a principled stance, and we all applauded them for it, but there are people in the NDP who believe that supporting the most activist extremist position on that issue cost them seats.  And they don't want to lose more seats over another "fringe" issue.

Actually, I've never met anyone in the NDP who thinks that supporting SSM cost the NDP any seats (apart from costing us Churchill in 2006 as a results of Bev Desjarlais running as an independent and splitting the vote). On the flip side, its clear that being unswervingly supportive of SSM was a big help to the NDP's image in a number of urban seats. I'd like someone to name me a seat that the NDP would GAIN as a result of being depicted as the pro-heroin party?

SSM was unpopular in Canada as little as ten years ago. These days people who don't support it are looked down upon as homophobic.

Marijuana legalization may follow the same tragictory in the next ten years, especially if a major party supports it and starts presenting the logical arguments behind it.

Even if you think supporting marijuana legalization is a bad idea because we will lose votes, I hope you'll agree that trying undermine democracy isn't they right way to stop it.

Agreed; my whole point is, they intended to give Dana the brush-off, and they were inept about it.  The fact that we're talking about it over here is proof of that.

As has been said again and again and again and again. The NDP has supported decriminalization of marijuana for many years and continues to do so. That is not the issue. Larsen and his gang want to legalize ALL drugs. I repeat ALL drugs - heroin, cocaine, crack, you name it. Only a tiny minority of libertarians support that extreme a position and even discussing it would make the party an object of ridicule.

And the fact that half a dozen people on bable are still talking about Larsen is irrelevant. There are lots of bizarre fringe issues that apark endless threads on babble that no one else on earth gives a damn about. I'd like to see evidence that vast numbers of people outside of the half dozen people posting on this thread care about this.

How could they have given Dana the brush-off without being inept about it?

They could have not done all those things to Dana and only sabotaged the resolition panel or they could have presented thier case in an open and honest way and then watched as the resolution passed with a comfortable majority.

Maybe they weren't being inept. maybe they wanted his expulsion to be a big deal so that the NDP could have a "Sister Souljah moment".

It's not just the people on Babble who are still talking about it!!  The Economist, you know, that conservative and respected magazine, has been in favour of legalizing ALL drugs for quite a while.  Please take the time to read the article and come back here if you can come up with any solid arguments against legalizing all drugs. 

I care about this issue.  I have been an NDP member for 25 years.  I have used various drugs for more than 39 years and continue to smoke daily.  And I've had a full time job for many, many years.

So what's your point again, Stock?

i'm sure everyone here would agree that the more lethal or toxic the substance, the more regulation and strick control there should be.   or do you believe that the meth, crack and heroin dealers are operating 'clean' businesses, selling only safe drugs to adults who have been educated and informed about the drug they are choosing to use?  because really, that would be naive --

Regulation and strict control are fine so long as it is legal.  Have you read The Economist article I linked to above?

Yes, I would have liked to have seen a fair and open debate about legalizing marijuana at the convention as well.

I have not been here for a while but want to say something.

I know all this will yes effect the next election as many in my groups  have now given up on the NDP.

All 5 of us here for example  just joined the Green Party and stopped our monthly donations to the NDP.

I guess some of you will now see that it was and is an  issue and yes I will admit Dana Larsen  did set back our movement with his stupid LSD movies as he pretended to represent any one but mark emery and their pot business's.

Its too bad some one else did not attempt the move to a better crime and drug problem instead of Larsen now destroying all the work previously done to get it on the platform.

Some of my friends had been trying to do so since 1972 and also have now quit the NDP.

I heard it all here in other threads and agree Larsen has just single handedly killed support to the cannabis issue in the NDP and  should have just stepped aside.

Stupid very stupid.

Thanks a lot Larsen.

Go Green Party !

Yes, as we have seen, single issue zealotry has been real vote-getter for the Green Party, to say nothing of the Marijuana Party.

To clarify, I never said Dana killed support for drug law reform in the NDP.  He just hurt his own resolution at this convention.  The fact he can list off all the media outlets that covered him there actually makes my point rather well.  He might want to do a content analysis on those clippings and ask himself how many of them covered his deregistration and demonstration, versus the amount of coverage he got for his actual issue.

Succintly said.  The more cognizant knee-dippers want to cultivate a broader and more stable base, and distance themselves from the more fringe elements.

Personally, I'm in favour of ending pot prohibition, but legalizing everything??  I've been a pharmacist for 23 years and currently I work in methadone maintenance.  North Americans DO NOT need easier access to drugs.  I'm not going to bother putting up any stats for the moment, but generally speaking, Canadians and Americans are, in comparison with elsewhere in the world, massively over-medicated.  Maybe we need to look at why that is instead of focusing on making it easier to get more drugs.

And crack cocaine and crystal meth are evil substances that rob people of their humanity.  Just saying.

Agreed.  But would you not also agree that it is a health issue and not a criminal act?

... it is obvious the NDP killed it themselves, and they won't be actioning it anytime soon.

Oh well, it will be sweet to see the NDP back down to 12 or less seats.

This is a complete misrepresentation of my beliefs and goals on this issue.

I would support a regulated model of access to some of these substances, under a doctor's prescription and supervision. But I have never called for heroin to be as readily available as marijuana should be.

I support NDP Drug Policy Critic Libby Davies, when she says that we need a primarily "non-criminal, regulatory approach" to drug use.

edit

just not worth the bother

Dana, I agree that it is a misrepresentation, but they gotta blow smoke somewhere to cover their actions.

 Decriminalization so regulation can happen, and drug addiction being viewed as a health problem, is the  whole issue for me, it impacts  10's of thousands across Canada,  and needs to be addressed NOW, as opposed to approving resolutions that really are a fringe portion of society.

If herion addiction was considered a health problem, we would not need the nasty methadone program, people could be put through 24 hr detox, covered under  health care, that addicts can't afford to access and so desperately want.

Mexico apparently did an interesting thing recently... decriminalized small, personal amounts of pretty much all drugs, while retaining legal penalties for trafficking in drugs (which can't really be called a health issue).

As a civil libertarian type, I don't really care all that much what others choose to put in their bodies, so long as they're prepared to take 100% of the responsibility for their choices.  My support, such as it is, for regulating drug use is that I really don't believe we're ready to take that kind of responsibility.

But Mexico is also building 12 new prisons. Private prisons with American money.

Money from their privatized prison business.

It appears forced drug treatment(what ever that  is) is required with the third offence.

Mexicos new policy is a joke just like the ndp's decrim policy.

Dana you killed a lot of peoples efforts in the ndp with your not cleaning up your ego videos with mark emery.

I hope it was worth it?

We're talking about an issue that has a huge social and economic impact on BC.  Its clear that the NDP just doesn't get it and has become just another mainstream Torontoist party totally out of touch with BC.  We need a political party that understands the economic and social realities of our province and the NDP has signalled it has no interest in that role.  It's time to shop around.  I wish the NDP luck in Ontario and Atlantic Canada just as I wish the Bloc luck in Quebec but I want a party that has a grasp on how things work in my province.

Oh but they do.

Just a little clarification: it was because heroin was rightly regarded as a health problem, and detox didn't work in lots of folks, that methadone maintenance came about in the 1960s.

Some people went through detox over and over and over again, and still relapsed because LT withdrawal symptoms persist for months (depression, anxiety, cravings).

So I would favour methadone maintenance, or this, heroin maintenance: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/361/8/777

The issue here is not BC or pot or legalization or decriminalization (which the New Dems have a solid official policy in support of). The issue here is the Dana Larsen show, and if Dana Larsen is persona non grata in the NDP then it is his own doing.

Forget blaming Dana, put the blame where it belongs.

jack layton ?

Any here that went to the 2006 convention would know the Greens would not have grown had jack not lied then.

To any who know how Larsen really got his nomination this comes as no surprise.

Sadly its the ndp who will yes now pay.

And rightly so I guess.

Who should have the authority to decide when someone is persona non grata in the NDP?

Sineed, I am speaking about 24 hr instant detox,  with sub-derma implants blocking the neuro receptors, followed up with programs.

Methadone programs were only supposed to be short term, not life time addictions feeding.

The Doer-ites in charge.

A passionate principled articulate advocate against prohibition = An embarrassment

A Harperite stooge working to further deep integration with the US = The party's poster boy

The message is loud and clear.

I don't think decriminalization of all drugs is about giving people easier access to them.  I think it's about not criminalizing people who are addicted to them.

Only a fleet of advertising blimps circling the country would make it clearer.

The fast detox is dangerous and doesn't work LT.

If people have to take methadone for years because it keeps them off the heroin or Oxycontin, it's not a bad thing.

Basically, I think we're not getting to root causes.  Like I said upthread, North Americans are the most massively over-medicated people in the world, both with illicit and legal drugs.

I have no objections to Dana.  But I don't think being anti-prohibition means we have to be pro-drugs. 

Exactly, and the only people who do not want them decriminalized are those who are making billions off of them, and people's addictions,  and of course those they support politically to make sure they never are decriminalized.

Would decriminalization also decriminalize the sale of drugs?  I would assume so, or else it almost certainly would make it easier for people to access drugs.

This is the sanest thing I have read on babble for months.

There were a lot of upset people at the convention, mostly about the re-vote that was held to reverse the floor vote on changing the agenda.

There was some passionate debate and fancy maneouvering on both sides to try and control the agenda for the convention. And there was a floor vote of all delegates (with two recounts) where the majority voted to change the convention agenda to allow for more time to debate resolutions. Then this vote was later reversed in the same rule-breaking way that they had a re-vote on our cannabis resolution in the earlier panel.

So this is about more than just one resolution, this is about a majority of delegates trying to change the agenda to allow for more debate time. That is a pretty rare thing at a convention to have a battle over the agenda first thing. So even though I wasn't in the room, it seems to me like there was some serious clashes between factions, and that the inner circle that created the agenda had to bend/break the rules to maintain their control over the convention agenda.

In general, the convention agenda is set up to minimize the ability of delegates to pass a lot of meaningful resolutions. Whether this is a good or bad thing is I suppose a matter of perspective, but I have no doubt that if the goal was truly to allow delegates to engage in meaningful debate which becomes reflected in party policy, things would be run differently.

Obviously you are being biased in the way you ask this question. The resolution which we put forward was not in any way "pro-heroin" and I've never heard even extreme media commentators describe support for harm reduction and access to safe, medicalized heroin under a doctor's supervision as "pro-heroin."

However, it is good to remember that in the province where we are trying to grow the most, namely Quebec, there has consistently been very strong public support for legalized marijuana and harm reduction policy. (Both the BQ and the NDP voted against the terrible mandatory minimums drug bill which passed Parliament earlier this year and is now before the Senate.)

Also note that in Vancouver, former Mayor Larry Campbell was always outspoken against the drug war and very supportive of needle exchange and the Supervised Injection Site, and he was always wildly popular.

Interestingly, a stronger call for a harm reduction based drug policy could gain the NDP support from some who are normally hostile to us. For instance, the National Post newspaper consistently editorializes for legal pot and against the whole drug war, but are hardly NDP-friendly. If we messaged properly, perhaps they would help to defend the NDP against attacks from the right regarding any such progressive drug policy we might put forward.

In regards to the actual theme of this thread, which is a call for further investigation into the craziness surrounding the End Prohibition ad and table and my banning, I don't think I am going to be pursuing any formal actions or investigations. I don't plan on personally launching any official complaints or inquiries at this time. If others want to do so that is up to them, and I certainly don't oppose such efforts.

It is quite clear to me that this was a personal effort by National Director Brad Lavigne to discredit me and eliminate my presence and influence at this convention. I admit that I gave him some easy ammunition with my clumsy and amateurish efforts to help delegates get to Halifax.

I would rather focus on the broader problems of our convention structure, of which my treatment was just one symptom, and come up with some ideas to change the structure of NDP Conventions so that we have a more democratic system for prioritizing resolutions and getting them to the floor of the convention.

I noted Darwin's blog (linked from the first post in the thread) includes some very interesting suggestions to change how Conventions are run.

One of the suggestions struck me as very interesting, which was to ban MPs and the Party President from speaking on resolutions from the floor.

You are going to have to prove this, as I personally know 3 people who have been through it, and they found it to be very successful for them. And they, along with other former addicts have worked, are working hard to get other people access to this.

What's the difference sineed between the 3? You are just trading 1 for the other.

Again a sweeping statement that is inaccurate.

Dana I am going to call you on your characterization of the NDP convention.  After all the brouhaha on babble I spoke to a number of friends and aquantences about convention.  Your characterization is completely and utterly different than theirs.  In fact a number of them spoke about how disappointed they were in your behaviour being strong advocates on drug policy.  Either you are just making things up, or you are so caught up in your own self importance you can't see the difference.

And battles over debating issues always, always take place at conventions.  There is nothing rare about it.  And you know what- it is always the same people doing it around their particular hobby horse and they are always ignored by the majority of delegates who want to get on with it.  Your pretence that there was some massive conspiracy against you, rather than your own actions having consequences is making you look like a prima dona more concerned about themselves than any issue. 

I actually expect that there will be an effort to formally revoke my NDP membership. I have already heard through the grapevine that this effort is underway.

And since I have now been convicted (without trial) of vote-buying, it doesn't seem a big step to revoke my membership from the party entirely.

It will be tricky for Brad Lavigne to orchestrate this, because NDP memberships are controlled provincially, not federally. However, I don't have many powerful friends in the party, so I doubt anyone would bother going to bat in my defense if there was a concerted effort to oust me entirely.

I know that when the ON NDP took away the membership of Buzz Hargrove, he didn't get any kind of hearing, he just got dumped. So I don't know if I would ever get a chance to formally defend myself against these accusations, and probably I would just get an emailed letter informing me that my membership in the NDP had been revoked.

LOL. Libby Davies has a solid policy. Not the "New Dems". Read this item from the NDP website - one of only two which their search engine returns when you input "marijuana":

That was September 20, 2008. They really sound like they're pushing for decriminalization, don't they?

Oh, a search for "decriminalization" yields only one item, but it's about the decriminalization of homosexuality 42 years ago.

Your "solid official policy" is some dead letter in a convention resolution somewhere, which the handful of party leaders have decided must be buried - as I explained in a post addressed to Dana last year [55] and as I have repeated here since 2006:

Sineed, as you know, I always respect and read your posts on this board. But why in God's name are you confusing the banning of Dana's voice from the party with the substantive issues regarding drugs? That's not what's being discussed here. Dana and his allies have no opportunity to debate your viewpoint within the NDP, because some shit named Brad Lavigne banned him on concocted grounds of vote-buying. And you can see for yourself that there are actually some self-styled progressive people here who SUPPORT that banning and even one or two that try to suggest that vote-buying was the real reason! Surely that must be condemned and exposed - because until then, only one side of the "debate" is heard.

Buzz Hargrove had the right to take his case before provincial council. He choose not to exercize that right.

You should try and get a copy of the BC constatution.

By the way, my suggestions for improving the NDP conventions are here.

I expect that there were all kinds of views on how the convention went. It's a big event and many people have never been to a convention before and don't know what to expect.

Since the vote to change the agenda was a tight one, clearly around half the delegates liked the way things were being run.

I wasn't allowed into the building so I wasn't able to witness everything myself. And I never claimed to have done any scientific polling on how delegates felt about the convention.

I am sure that some people think I am an idiot and were unhappy to see me in front of the convention hall. But not a single one of those people chose to speak to me. So the only experiences I had in speaking to delegates were polite, friendly and generally supportive. Most people didn't know who I was or what I was doing there.

I also spoke with many delegates at social events outside the convention, and while I noticed that some people glared at me or didn't come to talk to me, many others were happy to see me and expressed support for my position and my work within the party.

I never claimed a massive conspiracy, I think I have been pretty clear in pointing out that this is mainly an effort by National Director Brad Lavigne.

All I know is that I have been to a dozen provincial conventions plus the last federal one, and at this convention we had unprecedented hassles getting our normal ad and table space, then I got banned at the last minute for a post I had made six months earlier, then they had to call a special re-vote to get the cannabis policy resolution pushed back down the priority list. People can draw whatever conclusions they like from this series of unfortunate events.

edit

Dana, I still admire you, but you should not waste your time answering phony arguments that come from an insincere place. I've put those on "ignore", personally. There are plenty of legitimate concerns over some of your actions by sincere people, and I'm sure they can be won over.

That would have been one fair hearing, wouldn't it? Dana can expect the same "justice" when his turn comes.

Dana, thanks that is a far more reasonable statement than what you originally posted.  My concern was that you were mischaracterizing what plenty of other people reported was going on at convention as if it was some gospel truth.  And that anything different than what happens at every single convention around resolution priorities was occuring on the floor of the convention.  We all have our hobby horses.  My friends were upset that not a single agricutural resolution made it to the floor because of the new process.  Frankly I beleive food policy is far more important than drug policy. So it cuts a lot of different ways. That doesn't mean there is/was a bunch of manipulation going on.

ETA

And Dana I wouldn't put to much into people being polite.  Most people, especially New Democrats are in those situations.  Don't confuse that with support though.  It might come back to haunt you.  Take it for what it was people's sense of fair play and the fact you seem to be a friendly, approachable person yourself.  If every person who was polite to me at the door step when canvassing for my local candidate actually voted NDP for instance I wouldn't have a Conservative MP.

Unionist those 2 statements on marijuanna at the NDP site are a mind boggling display of hypocrisy.

Layton seeks out the BC marijuanna party for support, and then pulls that shit on Dion, and then there is Libby's sane commentary about Bill C 15. Of course there is the Liberal hypocrisy too, as they now support Bill C15.

As I stated Canada does not need 3 parties who are exactly the same.

And if the NDP can sell out as they have recently, then  they can sell out to what ever else becomes what they believe to be a barrier to Layton at least becoming official opposition.

Women's rights next? As a caucus member already supported the private member's bill C-484, with nothing happening to him.

Then there is the supported pull out of Durban II

The lack of stance against Israelis aparthied.

Pissing around with other  trivial shit, when verticle integration our food supply needs dealing with, and social justice activities need actioning.

The federal NDP is no longer a safe place for social democrats, nor perhaps women.

Here's what Libby said when Paul Martin was still in power:

It will make a couple of our babblers cringe to read that.

And I'm supposed to believe that Libby being thousands of km away during this convention was just a "coincidence". Sorry, I don't.

My prediction: Her days in the party are numbered. Likewise for Bill Siksay.

Libby was in Halifax, at convention, according to many people who were there. I doubt they are mistaken.

For the love of Pete, unionist; it's called "thread drift," and it's contributed to the liveliness of this thread, IMO.

Okay so more to the point: to be honest, I'm not too surprised, and suspected things like this would start to happen when Jack became leader.  Don't get me wrong; Jack's far from a "reefer madness" kind of guy.  But Jack wants mainstream appeal, and you don't get there by giving a platform to the author of "Hairy Potthead and the Marijuana Stone." 

She's also house leader which makes her the second most powerful person in caucus. She ain't going anywhere.

oh please - this is way over the top for me.

All involved parties need to reflect on their true (and perhaps hidden and/or unreflected intent here).

IMO, drug use should be considered a health and not a criminal matter. I agree that citizens are over medicated - both legal and illegal. We don't need more drugs. Pot should be dicriminalized, legalized, and treated like alcohol.

NDP does have policy on drug legalization which passed at previous convention. Food security is more important than drug security - look around the world. Personally this isn't either/or scenerio but which is more important and a priority.

I just think that folks should be looking at what their real intentions are in all these postings, their agendas, and see if their is some common ground.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Don't worry, Sineed. You'll learn the hang of it. You see, if you hear an ubsubstantiated rumour that Libby Davies was not at convention, it is reasonable to drift to that subject - and make any number of accusations and draw any kind of conclusions you like - such as the House Leader being not long for the party. That, of course is "what is being discussed here".

There will be no retraction of the rumour or the speculation, because that would only further "thread drift".

Love ya Unionist, but as always, we gets our digs in as we can.

How can you ignore and comment on posts at the same time?

Instead of ridiculing me, people might consider the implications of some bastard bureaucrat barring a delegate from convention on trumped-up grounds. That's more important than I am.

Ridiculing you? For my part, I believe I was correcting the record on a mistatement made in this thread - and ensuing misinformed speculation.

Actually it is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Libby until at  some point during the convention was in Palestine with the government committee.

As such, she apparently flew back in for a portion of it. Perhaps after the resolution processes, as she was suppose to introduce one and didn't?

This is the NDP's "drug" policy up until the convention, and apparently there now isn't one.

And what is over the top Jan?

The NDP spoke out against our participation in Durban II.

The position on Afghanistan has been in retrograde for a while now. Where is their condemnation of Karzis actions against women, for example? I have been waiting and waiting.

A NDP MP, voted for Bill C484 without sanctions against him.

They want to increase the number of RCMP officers.

There are NO strong statements condemning Israel's actions.

They (meaning Lavigne/Layton/Dewar/Marsten/Stoffer et al) have proven they are hyprocrits, and that nothing is sacred to their endeavours to get elected.

Women are not safe IMV, it is my experience that women's rights will get thrown under the bus everytime, when men are striving to reach their dreams of power.

There is no party any goddamn better than the NDP, but  I now realize that this formation of the NDP is no damn different than them either.

NDP policies stand until a convention votes to scrap them. The NDP policy on marijuana decriminalization remains the official party policy until such time as a new policy resolution supersedes it. Since no resolution on the topic was voted on at all at the convention, the old policy stands.

"A NDP MP, voted for Bill C484 without sanctions against him."

Bill C484 was a private members bill. Peter Stoffer has a personal policy of voting for all private members bills on first reading so that they can be debated and voted on because he thinks that it should be easier for private members bills to get a hearing. He made it clear in this case that he would vote against the bill if it ever came to an actual vote (which it never did)

Why don't you look at the many years worth of resolutions in favour of anti-scab legislation that the Manitoba NDP has passed, and the fact that after 10 years the NDP government hasn't passed it, and then tell me how much weight resolutions passed at conventions actually carry?

Don't give a shit stockholm,  whether it was 1st, 2nd or 3rd reading, and whether it was/is his personal policy or not, and said so when it happened, he voted on a Bill that would impact women's rights.

This was not just any old private members bill, it was a Bill restricting women's rights to self determine. His personal policy should have been set aside, full stop.  His personal political policies mean squat when it comes to  voting on human rights.

And it was just one more straw that lead me to this point.

You have your opinion. Others differ. There are 20 million eligible voters in Canada and if the NDP cannot count on Remind's vote, we will have to work on the other 19,999,999.

"Why don't you look at the many years worth of resolutions in favour of anti-scab legislation that the Manitoba NDP has passed, and the fact that after 10 years the NDP government hasn't passed it, and then tell me how much weight resolutions passed at conventions actually carry?"

Well then there is nothing to discuss is there? Resolutions don't matter anyways, so people like Dana Larsen and the Socialist Caucus should stop wasting their and everyone else's time by introducing any resolutions in the first place? If resolutions don't carry any weight - why are these people so obsessed with getting resolutions on their pet issues voted on in the first place???

Ya well stockie boy, just wait and see. Men in the NDP are always forgetting it is the women of Canada who support them in the majority.

When people start cutting roots from things, the entity ends up dying. And when they, those people who do the cutting,  stand for nothing,  as well as being power hungry, the death is usually quicker.

There is no need for the NDP, we have the Cons and Liberals for people like you to feel comfortable in.

ETD for clarity of who/what the formerly used "they" were

If you think a chorus of people are going to get on their hands and knees begging "please, please Remind. We implore you not to give up on the NDP! PLEEEEEASE!!!" ....Forget it. It isn't worth it. and don't think that you speak for anyone other than yourself.

The central obstacle within movements such as the NDP, just as is with the other mainstream political parties, are the inner-party bureaucrats whose job it is to control events through the coordination of cliques, rules and by-laws that are often made up on the fly if the existing parameters are insufficient to deal with the situation.  The purpose of this synchronization is not to further the interests of the membership, but is more directed towards strong arming directional tendencies away from rank and file supporters and into the hands of a few charlatans and power mongers.  When a stray concept surfaces from within the ranks that requests some measure of autonomy, no effort is spared, over or underhanded, to drain the attempt of all meaning and content by preventing issues of substance from being addressed.  Energy is directed not towards debate, but towards shutting it down.  Then, as distrust and detachment sets in among the faithful, the apathy is ridiculed as a failure to understand the bigger picture, or as an ungrateful lack of political consciousness in accordance with the values of the party.

Never thought that for a moment stock, nor would ever expect it. How purely shallow you are. I think my new name for you will be Wade.

Just voicing what will happen, given this latest sorry excuse for actions by the NDP handlers, and those they seek to handle.

And most definitely I am speaking on my behalf, but be sure I am not alone. There are many more voices here and elsewhere expressing sentiments close to my own, many moreso than yours, so you can riddle yourself up some more patriarchial posturing.

~

Slumberjack, I see the bigger picture, have done so for decades, they can try and ridicule me all they want, I will just snicker. And I have a bunch of political consciounessess of value, so I need not worry about theirs. ;)

Sadly though, I thought the party's roots were capable  of keeping the dog's of war away. Seems not.

I don't support an official investigation as he was on the borderline of violating certain electoral rules (even if theyre commonly broken by other in-groups), but I will say thats its interesting that the same people who insist Dana only represents a small fringe element in the party are also the same ones defending all the undemocratic moves to prevent his resolutions from even reaching the floor.  Well which is it guys? 

You actually think the NDP of today could arrange a whole chorus without paying for it? More like a barbershop quartet, or a duo on weekdays.

You would be wrong about that, I completely support what remind is saying.

Although I will add that I think the positive aspect to the current illegal status of marijuana is that it wakes people up to the lie that exists about it and once you have woken up to that lie then you begin to see the many ways we are lied to.

The NDP already supports decriminalization of marijuana and has for many years. So what's the problem?

The problem is that those in charge of party policy currently have decided that it's incompatible with electability, so they've buried decriminalization and won't even allow it to be discussed at convention. But in terms of lip service? You're right, no problem.

What does this have to do with the Socialist Caucus? I certainly never brought them up.

In any case, your response proves my point exactly. What's the point of members passing convention resolutions if the leadership of the Party is only going to arbitrarily ignore them anyways?

I will bet my life savings that when the NDP wins a majority government, marijuana will be decriminalized. I can also promise that if there is a Liberal minority government that introduces legislation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana - the NDP and the BQ will vote in favour of it.

I think that's enough.

1,000kms or 1,000 mm just a small trivial error.... LOL, Good to see her at Jacks Left. I find her interesting and articulate from what I have seen on television.  Obviously, like any forum, people hear things or make mistakes.  There is little doubt now, Libby Davies was present at the convention.

Really?

Good thing you speak only for yourself. Great MP's like Libby Davis  and Bill Siksay certainly don't think it is enough.

Moreover, quite the cute slight of hand in your sentence that I bolded, "if" the minority Liberal government introduces it, eh? Not the NDP spear heading it though.

And if the NDP win a majority government, not "when", you think they would do so, eh. No wonder your life savings are so easily bet away.

If this is representative of the "new" thinking in the NDP upper echelons, I must say they have smarmy platitudes down to a fine art.

ALL drug addictions have to be moved into the realm of health care and out of the criminal code jurisdiction.

This isn't really even about the decriminalization of pot, it is about social justice on an  societal scale, and democracy in the party politic body.

It does appear she was in Palestine (a horrible place for an NDP MP to go, I guess) for part of the convention; however, she was there, on stage (with Bill Siskay as well), very much a part of the NDP team. And a solid supporter of Jack Layton. Any rumour and innuendo to the contrary can, and should, be easily dismissed.

Who was doing so coyote?

Are you trying to infer something, by infering such was ever said?

Starting a innuendo rumour, about people supposedly starting a rumour through innuendo, is easy to dismiss and should be too.

I was obviously referring to Unionist's musings in post number 61 of this thread.

Oh...I thought he meant that the NDP would eventually oust them,  or completely marginalize their voices, and not what you suggested at all.

As the NDP looks to be on a track that is not, or will not in the future, be in solid support of who and what they are.

So I guess that is why I did not get who you were obliquely refering to.

Right. What I am saying is that such speculation is unwarranted and fully unsupported by the facts. And to be fair to Unionist, he is not the first on babble to posit such a notion. It was said in one of the earlier convention threads by someone else as well (not sure who).

Well, I think you are correct, in the short term anyway, as I am sure they are smart enough to realize overtly marginalizing, or ousting, Libby and Bill, would chuck away every seat in BC that they have, except perhaps Nathan's.

But then again, they appear headed to target the "religious"  hyprocritical vote, so who knows.

Bill Siskay is one of the most "religious" MPs in Parliament.

ah...but he is not a hyprocrit

The suspension of Buzz Hargrove's membership was in fact the subject of an intensive debate at the Ontario NDP Provincial Council, and Buzz Hargrove was made aware that it would be happening in advance.  There were delegates advocating both for and against his suspension, and the fair and democratic process was followed.

Oh don't interject fact and reality into this thread it will be totally out of place.

What? Are you saying Bill is a hyprocrit, or not religious, or that Bill and Libby are not great MP's, BA? ;)

She was present for that picture, whenever it was taken, but she was thousands of km away on August 14, when the convention had already begun:

Unless Libby's mixed up or lying, of course. Mind you, she'll have a fair chance to defend herself against those charges, along with Dana, when the time comes.

more drift by way of reminding why this issue is important:

Disabled Woman Dies After Eviction for Medical Marijuana Use

http://mostlywater.org/disabled_woman_dies_after_eviction_medical_mariju...

"Marilyn Holsten's last days on Earth were a living hell.."

No I am speaking of the total BS some are spreading in this thread, such as was corrected above my post and is now being rationalized above this post in 101.

Hey remind, I don't get your post - are you saying that Bill and Libby are both Bachelors of Arts?

Thank you for that link, Unionist. It should clear up any absurd and unsubstantiated claims that Libby was sent anywhere against her will, or to keep her from Convention or for any reason other than her own sense of duty to the people of Gaza. Her days in the party stretch long, and honourably, before her. I'm sure you would agree.

I find the timing of her trip curious (as did many in the anti-prohibition movement prior to the convention), but I fully agree as to her integrity and her courageous support for the Palestinian cause. I'm still concerned that if she continues to push her principled views on various issues, which have become clearly at variance with the inner circle's electoral policy, her days are numbered. Bill Siksay has already been disciplined, and we know what happened to Svend. I'm confident that whatever gives, it won't be her integrity.

I find the timing of her trip curious (as did many in the anti-prohibition movement prior to the convention),

So you are still making the claim that anyone could push Libby Davies out of the way and she would have remained as quiet as a church mouse.  Absurd, but all too beleivable..

Re: "curious timing". Do you suppose Brad Lavigne conspired with Code Pink to keep Libby away from Convention?

Nah, that would be absurd. Especially given her presence at Convention (the picture is from the third day). I mean, who conspires to send someone thousands of miles away from somewhere, but doesn't ensure that they aren't able to attend?

No one would believe that. That would just be too absurd.

As absurd as suggesting that the House Leader and Co-Deputy Leader of the NDP is somehow on thin ice with the party.

And that truly is absurd, as I'm sure you would agree.

We cross-posted BA. How absurd! lol

Well this post will be a bit different - normally I have to point out when you are underestimating Liberal strength, but this time I have to point it out about the NDP.  Do you really think that the NDP is going to be reduced to only 12 seats?  There is little danger of that happening in the next election, and certainly not because of Dana Larsen who 99% of people haven't heard of.  You may have decided not to vote NDP because of it, but it's not going to be something that effects many other voters other than those on this thread.  Stockholm is right.

The NDP may lose some seats in the next election to the Liberals and a few to the Conservatives, but to suggest that they are going to collapse back to pre-2004 levels of support is not realistic.

I don't give a flying fig about BUzz Hargove, but thats not what this is about.  Dismissing this as something that only concerns the poliotical margins doesn't fly when you start getting onetime supporters turning on the heat, and even the MS media the party is courting uses it against you.  The main issue to me is the lack of inner-party democracy that was on open display here.  

I think remind was just expressing a personal wish there.  Their support won't entirely collapse over this, obviously not, but if this trend of turning on their own activist base continues (which it most definietly will if other members don't start calling the brass on it) then the party is in trouble. 

Unlike the Liberals and CONs the NDP still relies on their activists between and during elections, and their voting base is still well ahead of John Q Public on such things -a base that is still their single largest demographic, by far.   (that was probably obscured during the nineties, Layton just brought them back a bit closer to their historic norm)  Guys like Stockholm no more reflects the average NDPer than, well, Fidel does.  I'm quite sure that I'm closer to the average NDP centre on most issues.  

Guys with more foresight than Layton better start looking beyond the next election, or their present illusions that theyre on the verge of winning it all.

"Resolutions don't matter anyways, so people like Dana Larsen and the Socialist Caucus should stop wasting their and everyone else's time by introducing any resolutions in the first place? If resolutions don't carry any weight - why are these people so obsessed with getting resolutions on their pet issues voted on in the first place???"

And to get this back on track, at one time I would have put this down as just another Stockholm-ism but now I'm not so sure.

Continued here