Dana Larsen has NDP convention credentials revoked - II

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlisonMyrden
Dana Larsen has NDP convention credentials revoked - II

[Opening post removed by moderator - it said exactly the same thing as the opening post in the previous thread (link below).  Alison must have double-posted this last night by accident.]

Continued from this thread:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/dana-larsen-0

Winston

I've just been reading all the posts in the other (now closed) topic, and thought I'd weigh in with my 2 cents.

1. I truly don't believe that Dana was intentionally trying to create trouble for the Party, but neither do I think the party is over-reacting.

2. Dana did not intend to hijack the party by providing financial assistance to individuals wanting to attnd convention - in fact, especially if one assumes there may be a correlation with grassroots support for drug policy reform and more limited means of attending, his actions speak to a dedication to democratic principles.  That said, he should have (or ought to have) known that the financial asssistance he was offering could be perceived badly, and may have skirted or outright violated our very strict political financing laws before offering it.

3. The Party's response is an appropriate one - it is trying to shield itself from any bad publicity that could damage the party's cause (not to mention the cause for a sane drug policy).  I would expect that is why the eNDProhibition table is still allowed.

I, for one, intend on supporting Dana and his group's resolutions on the convention floor (they are good ideas), but I am not going to shed too many tears for Dana's absence there.  Though I really wish he could have been there - he is a good advocate - unfortunately, as I wish he had learned during the last election, where impropriety and bad judgment are concerned, public perception is nearly as bad as reality.

 

Snert Snert's picture

And there's that home phone number.

Michelle

Oh crap.  I didn't see two threads.  It looks like it's a duplicate thread that she started yesterday.  I'll edit it now.  The current timestamp on the opening post is:

August 12, 2009 - 9:40pm

The time stamp will change to the current time now when I edit it.  Just letting people know, so that they don't think she posted it again this afternoon after I told her not to.  She must have double-posted by accident last night.

jrootham

I think the party's action is excessive.  Also timed to be disruptive rather than helpful, although that is more likely incompetence than malevolence. 

Dana has apparently been barred from the hall.  I think he's been mildly over the top on Babble (my only contact with him).  Does anyone who has had dealings with him think his personal presence is so disruptive that barring him from the hall is appropriate?

 

Fidel

I dont like to say it but the NDP needs to play the FPTP game and play it well if we're going to have a shot at changing things in general in this still somewhat politically and socially conservative Northern Puerto Rico.

FPP tends to cause ALL parties to put up candidates, usually white males with the best credentials and experience and therefore the best chance of winning a phony phucking majority. That's not the NDP's fault. The NDP has tried and is trying to change that situation, too. Dana was given a chance by the NDP last election. And he blew it.

genstrike

jrootham wrote:
I think he's been mildly over the top on Babble

I don't think Dana has been over the top on babble.  He has his issues that he is really passionate about (like we all do), and he actually believes the stuff that a lot of NDPers often tell other progressives ("no, our party is not perfect, but you should still join and try to work within it and change it because it's the best way and all the other alternatives suck"), yet when he actually does it he gets shit on.  He's very passionate about an issue (the drug war) and seems to be a tireless advocate on it, and is probably more loyal to the party than they deserve (although I don't like discussions on party loyalty).  He's probably been more respectful to other babblers than they are of him (even after we discount "sway" following him around).  He has been called a narcissist on here, but he strikes me as more of a tireless advocate for an issue he cares about than someone who is in it for himself (Lord knows we have enough of those people in Parliament and Legislatures across the country, representing all parties)

I think the problem is that Dana represents something very dangerous to The Party.  He is very passionate and outspoken on an issue where his position isn't popular in our political system (although I think it is considerably more popular with people - you know, those objects who vote - than we are led to believe) - a liberal-democratic capitalist system with a touch of puritanism and a worship of the elusive "middle Canadian" - middle class, middle aged, white, male, hetero, and in the middle on issues of oppression.  He stands out from the typical blandish New Democrat politician willing to give lip service to the left but unwilling to risk losing the support of the people who don't support him in the first place by taking strong stands on issues that affect people.

genstrike

Fidel wrote:
Dana was given a chance by the NDP last election. And he blew it.

Didn't he win the nomination on his own merits (he obviously wasn't a parachute candidate that the party set up)?  Wasn't it the NDP who blew it for him by pressuring him to resign?

kyall

I'm glad I'm not going to convention, for I would not want to be dealing with this.  Neither will a substantial number of other delegates, methinks.  It's such a distraction from what convention is supposed to be.

Bookish Agrarian

Oh hogwash.  This has nothing to do with the advocacy of any issue.  If that were the case the booth would not have been allowed.

If delegates who presented some sort of controversial or outlandish resolution had their credentials removed the line leading out of the hall would be longer than the one going in.  Read the list of resolutions for this years convention.  Some of the resolutions are far more controversial in terms of challenging the economic status quo then the one Larsen is advocating on drug policy.  None of them have had their credentials removed.

This was a very straightforward case of a lobby group trying to buy support and violating all kinds of rules and ethical considerations period.  How anyone feels about drug policy is about as important to this situation as Larsen's view on who will win this years Badminton World Cup.

jrootham

The particular position that Dana has been over the top on is the question of the timing of the prioritization sessions.

The idea of membership voting on priorities is relatively new at the federal level (this will be the second or third time, I believe).  It has been referred to as the Saskatchewan model, I presume because they did it first.

This is a vastly more democratic method than what prevails in Ontario, which is what was previously done federally as well, AFAIK.  In that case priorities are set by a private meeting of a committee, if you disagree you track down signatures and file an appeal, which consists of making an argument in front of the committee and then the meet again privately to make their decision.  I went through this process at the last Ontario Convention.

With the current Federal process you do have to understand that the critical meeting is Friday morning.  I do not find the fact that this is prior to the formal opening of Convention a problem.  The point is there is a meeting and it's very clear that it's important and open.

 

Bookish Agrarian

genstrike wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Dana was given a chance by the NDP last election. And he blew it.

Didn't he win the nomination on his own merits (he obviously wasn't a parachute candidate that the party set up)?  Wasn't it the NDP who blew it for him by pressuring him to resign?

He taped himself taking LSD and driving.  Would you think it was okay if he had boozed up at the local dive bar and took to the road.  He showed a staggering lack of judgement in doing such a thing and then bragging about it.  He could have killed himself or innocent drivers or pedestrians.  I can't beleive anyone would think that such an unbelievable lack of personal responsibility should be given a pass when no remorse for the activity was ever shown that I have seen.  (Let alone the less important issue of the position the NDP was placed in)

There should have been no need to pressure anyone to resign. 

Snert Snert's picture

I think you're probably correct that the average voter, these days, is either in favour of decriminalizing marijuana, or wouldn't bother to oppose it.

But at the same time, if a convention gets hijacked by the pro-weed crowd, that's just such an amazing gift to the other parties.  We've got a global recession, we've got wars and occupations around the globe, we've got an impending H1N1 pandemic, and maybe we'll get the NDP convention where all the Dippers gathered to bicker about whether weed should be "decriminalized" or "legalized", and whether this should also include angel dust and meth.  I'm not sure I blame the NDP if they're a little concerned about that.

I support decriminalizing, or legalizing, marijuana, but I think it needs to be addressed with a bit of perspective, and I don't know whether single-issue activists, by definition, can do that.

 

Michelle

kyall wrote:

I'm glad I'm not going to convention, for I would not want to be dealing with this.  Neither will a substantial number of other delegates, methinks.  It's such a distraction from what convention is supposed to be.

Hee.  Yeah, it's SUPPOSED to be about whether to change the name to "Democratic Party" or not. :D

remind remind's picture

"buy support" Yell

remind remind's picture

Michelle wrote:
Hee.  Yeah, it's SUPPOSED to be about whether to change the name to "Democratic Party" or not. :D

Yes something of way more substance than the millions of lives in Canada affected by the criminalizing of a health issue, say nothing of the social and family impacts of it, nor the economical ones.

remind remind's picture

 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
He taped himself taking LSD and driving.  Would you think it was okay if he had boozed up at the local dive bar and took to the road.  He showed a staggering lack of judgement in doing such a thing and then bragging about it.  He could have killed himself or innocent drivers or pedestrians.  I can't beleive anyone would think that such an unbelievable lack of personal responsibility should be given a pass when no remorse for the activity was ever shown that I have seen.  (Let alone the less important issue of the position the NDP was placed in)

There should have been no need to pressure anyone to resign.

You seem to forget we have a premier who did just what you depicted who has been re-elected twice since and thus given a pass.

Bookish Agrarian

You seem to be living by the two wrongs make a right rule - I don't.

Bookish Agrarian

remind wrote:

"buy support" Yell

Yes buy support.  That is exactly what offering a financial inducement in exchange for supporting a specific resolution is.  I would expect the same treatment of any group engaging in that behaviour. 

Or I am not allowed my own opinion?

remind remind's picture

No I am living by the rule apparently the voters choose what they believe should be given a pass.

And you sure are BA, just as I am allowed to be have mine.

Bookish Agrarian

I'm not putting little angry faces behind other opinions.

remind remind's picture

I am angry about said characterization, of Dana's actions, and that is my opinion, on that comment.

Unionist

I have supported, congratulated, and encouraged Dana in his efforts for several years on this thread - while also expressing my view that the NDP would never take the lead in decriminalizing (never mind legalizing) cannabis. Dana, ever the optimist, disagreed with me, and I admire him for that persistence.

When the video surfaced of his apparently driving after or while using drugs, I expressed my view that this activity was a disservice to the cause of legalization. Some babblers, including Dana, disagreed with me, comparing it to "gay pride" - the need to "flaunt it" as a part of achieving rights. I personally thought the comparison to be feeble, but so be it.

This latest attack against Dana - under the transparent pretext of funding rules - ought to be the last straw. Anyone who suggests that the real objective is not getting rid of a calm, rational, persuasive, and passionate (and therefore highly embarrassing) advocate, is living in a self-inflicted druggy dream world.

This is not rocket science. Shame, and shame again, on the federal NDP, for suppressing progressive opinion within its ranks. I'm pretty sure even this won't faze Dana for long, but that just shows he's a better person than I am.

 

Fidel

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

genstrike wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Dana was given a chance by the NDP last election. And he blew it.

Didn't he win the nomination on his own merits (he obviously wasn't a parachute candidate that the party set up)?  Wasn't it the NDP who blew it for him by pressuring him to resign?

He taped himself taking LSD and driving. 

I thought he quit the federal campaign after some deal with a coca seedlings company?  And there was a youtube video of Dana  the NDP candidate driving a car while attempting to break the Guiness record for most joints smoked at once? I must admit it was a unique campaign method, but I think the onus is now on Dana to prove he's serious about advocating for legalization.

I think Dana didnt help this cause which also happens to be shared by some number of Canadians who want and desire  marijuana for personal use. If I was active in that cause alone, I think I would vote against Dana as leader of the cause. No offense to Dana or the cause for legalization intended, which I think is a worthy cause.

Unionist

Interesting. I thought Dana's punishment was being dropped as a candidate last year. Apparently that wasn't punishment enough. It's like the gift that keeps on giving. Maybe he'll be expelled from the party yet. Perhaps tar and feathers.

 

Fidel
Michelle

Just a quick note to say that I believe Dana DID express regret, and even apologized, for his lack of judgement in the LSD/driving video, which was from years ago. 

ghoris

I've had a chance to review the posts on the other thread. Here are my thoughts.

1) The notion that having the convention in Halifax and this action against Dana Larsen are part of some vast conspiracy in the party against British Columbians and their "values" is absurd. First, it's mighty presumptuous to assume that Mr. Larsen and his supporters represent the views of British Columbians, whether within the NDP or generally. While mainstream British Columbians, by and large, would probably agree with decriminalizing pot, I doubt you'd find much support for the sort of wide-ranging proposals Mr. Larsen was putting forward on all sorts of drugs. Second, the fact that we are at one end of the country means that unless the convention is held right next door, say in Calgary, BCers are always going to have to travel long distances to get there.

2) I generally do not agree with much of what Mr. Larsen says (and I am forced to question his judgment after the video incident) though I do respect him for his commitment to his beliefs. But let's not pretend that he represents a view of drug policy that is widely shared, within the NDP or without. The party can have the most comprehensive, "progressive" drug policy in the Western world - it will not do much good if the vast majority of the electorate sees the NDP as a joke or a fringe party.

3) That being said, I highly doubt that this issue would have "hijacked" the convention as some obviously feared. I really do not think (travel subsidies aside) that Mr. Larsen would have enjoyed significant support for his views at the convention. There are far more "out-there" resolutions put forward and debated than Mr. Larsen's resolution on drug policy. I have a hard time believing that a small fringe group such as this could "hijack" the convention.

4) What Mr. Larsen did sure looks like promising a financial incentive in exchange for delegate votes, and that is a practice that ought to be discouraged. However, let's not be naive. Many affiliated groups provide financial support for delegates in the expectation (perhaps not so explicitly expressed) that those delegates will support them. I'm sad to say that this really looks like a selective application of an otherwise worthwhile policy. The party should, however, apply that policy consistently. Perhaps Mr. Larsen's real sin was that he was so direct in his offer.

At the end of the day, I think the party overreacted on this one. If you are going to ban this sort of behaviour, fine, but be consistent about it. I do not understand why some in the party seem to be so hell-bent on keeping a few fringe activists out of the convention. It's not like single-issue activists have never attended conventions before. I cannot recall any attending in such great numbers that they were able to have any significant sway. 

melovesproles

Quote:
I have supported, congratulated, and encouraged Dana in his efforts for several years on this thread - while also expressing my view that the NDP would never take the lead in decriminalizing (never mind legalizing) cannabis. Dana, ever the optimist, disagreed with me, and I admire him for that persistence.

Yeah, you are right on about that.  This is actually an issue that really demonstrates the prevalent strategy of the NDP when it comes to progressive politics.  When the Liberals put forward their decrim bill, and made the debate mainstream, the NDP suddenly prioritized the issue and Layton came out saying he supported full on legalization.  At the time, i was pretty disillusioned with the NDP due mostly to provincial politics but I thought this showed a lot of guts and made me think that maybe the Federal NDP was heading in a new bolder progressive direction.  However, despite polls showing the public supports decrim, the Liberals under Martin moved to kill the bill.  And the NDP has followed their lead in placing less and less importance on the issue, now going so far as to ban the leading advocate of legalization fromt he convention for trying to make it easier for BCers(the province most effected by the draconian drug laws Harper and Ignatieff are pushing) from getting across the continent to attend. 

The NDP will do nothing on this issue unless there is a serious shift in policy with one of the other parties and then they may tack slightly to the left.  However, I think its clear that their strategy is reactive and depends very much on what the Liberals do.  That's why when facing the most rightwing Liberal leader in decades, the NDP is set to hold their blandest convention ever.

Bookish Agrarian

ghoris - thank you for a balanced posting.

While I think it was absolutely the right thing to strip Larsen of his delegate credentials, it would have been acceptable to allow him Observer status.  As long as there is not more to this than we know.

For those who are unaware Observer status means you are not allowed onto the 'floor' of the convention.  However, there is a special section in which Observers can comforatably sit and come and go as they like.  From this area communicating, as long as you are respectful of noise concerns for others in the Hall, can easily take place with delegates.

remind remind's picture

 62% of BCers are admitted  puffers ghoris. How  many are there actually? Obviously over 62%.

ghoris

Let's assume for sake of argument that you're right (I'm not going to waste time debunking such an obviously problematic claim). But let's assume 62% of British Columbians are "puffers" as you put it (which, by the way, could range from "I've tried it once" to "I smoke three joints a day"). Do you honestly believe that 62% of British Columbians would also support total legalization of all drugs, including drugs like LSD, crack or heroin?

Aristotleded24

ghoris wrote:
Second, the fact that we are at one end of the country means that unless the convention is held right next door, say in Calgary, BCers are always going to have to travel long distances to get there.

Then Atlantic Canadians have to travel a longer distance, and there are always people who don't have convenient access to airports. Canada is a big country, and this is what happens when any national gathering of any kind takes place.

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

I have supported, congratulated, and encouraged Dana in his efforts for several years on this thread - while also expressing my view that the NDP would never take the lead in decriminalizing (never mind legalizing) cannabis. Dana, ever the optimist, disagreed with me, and I admire him for that persistence.

When the video surfaced of his apparently driving after or while using drugs, I expressed my view that this activity was a disservice to the cause of legalization. Some babblers, including Dana, disagreed with me, comparing it to "gay pride" - the need to "flaunt it" as a part of achieving rights. I personally thought the comparison to be feeble, but so be it.

This latest attack against Dana - under the transparent pretext of funding rules - ought to be the last straw. Anyone who suggests that the real objective is not getting rid of a calm, rational, persuasive, and passionate (and therefore highly embarrassing) advocate, is living in a self-inflicted druggy dream world.

This is not rocket science. Shame, and shame again, on the federal NDP, for suppressing progressive opinion within its ranks. I'm pretty sure even this won't faze Dana for long, but that just shows he's a better person than I am.

 

Well of course you do.  Who would ever believe you could miss an opportunity to attack the NDP.

It is amazing though in your rush to pat them on the back you missed the incrediably unprogressive things they were saying in justifying this action.

You see they made the claim that Unions do this all the time.  Of course as every right-winger and an alarming number of so-called progressive apparently know Unions are totatlitarin organizations.  Union bosses compel Union members do things against their will all the time after all.  Union members could never think for themselves and always vote as a block in lock step with what the Union bosses tell them.  That is the esscence of the claim Larsen and his supporters are making in justifying this action since it 'happens all the time'.   

But go right ahead don't let little details like that get in the way of you getting your shots in at the NDP.

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

@ghoris

Angus-Reid recently released a poll on this subject:

In BC:

-64% support legalization of cannabis

-Support for legalization of harder drugs are in the 7-11% range, depending on the specific drug.

It may take some time for common acceptance of such a policy, but the policy is still sound and should be pursued.

Also, it was about the same in all provinces in canada so Stockholms suggestion that only 2% of canadians support the end of all prohibition is clearly false, if you accept the findings of this poll to be accurate.

I can't seem to find a poll that backs reminds claim, but I do remember seeing something for canada as a whole in 50-75% range for having smoked it in their lifetimes, in the past few years. So claiming that number for bc is not so much of a stretch. However, as an argument it does fail logically in that people who smoke do not necessarily support legalization and people who don't don't automatically disagree either.

 

Fidel

Aristotleded24 wrote:

ghoris wrote:
Second, the fact that we are at one end of the country means that unless the convention is held right next door, say in Calgary, BCers are always going to have to travel long distances to get there.

Then Atlantic Canadians have to travel a longer distance, and there are always people who don't have convenient access to airports. Canada is a big country, and this is what happens when any national gathering of any kind takes place.

Dont fly mostly American owned and controlled "Air Canada." Theyll charge you an arm and half a leg to fly anywhere in this northern colony. West Jet?

Unionist

Thanks again, Michelle! That "ignore" tweak is working great - gets rid of stubborn stains, telltale odours - leaves the thread squeaky klean!

Erik Redburn

U: "This latest attack against Dana - under the transparent pretext of funding rules - ought to be the last straw. Anyone who suggests that the real objective is not getting rid of a calm, rational, persuasive, and passionate (and therefore highly embarrassing) advocate, is living in a self-inflicted druggy dream world."

Its not that simple.  I was only suggesting holding back support unless theres more positive moves being made, but if this is the last straw with others thats their choice too.  Right now I still don't see many other realistic options, democratic choices, but to try to redirect the party to a more progressive direction again.  Canada still needs some more progressive voices in Parliament and one that has a decent chance of forming government somewhere again.  I know you gave up on the NDP decades ago, but there have been some very good NDP leadwers who have accomplished some very useful things since Laxer's bid was defeated, such as Barrett in BC and Blakeny and Shreyer in Manitoba so its not all one way down into liberalism.  Layton I thought showed some promise when he first got in but if hes becoming the problem he too can be replaced along with his usually clueless advisors.  If the party can't be brought back from its centrist drift then other more openly leftist coalitions could always be formed, but that too has its risks.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Actually Erik. MDA and Exctasy (MDMA) are not the same drug. They are simillar however.

MDMA: Methylenedioxymethamphetamine

MDA: Methylenedioxyamphetamine

Quote:
MDA is thought to be similar in pharmacological mechanism of action and phenomenological effects to its more widely used N-methyl analogue MDMA (Ecstasy). Like MDMA, MDA causes serotonin and dopamine release by acting as a substrate at the SERT and DAT, respectively. This may explain the similar euphoric and empathogenic effects of the two compounds. However, (R)-MDA has a higher efficacy in stimulating the 5-HT2A receptor than (R)-MDMA; thus MDA tends to cause more psychedelic-like effects, such as visual hallucinations. MDMA can also produce psychedelic-like visual effects, though these are generally less pronounced than those of MDA, or require a heavier dose to become apparent.

Erik Redburn

Interesting, I didn't know that.  I've been out of the whole scene for too long obviously. 

Erik Redburn

"Let's assume for sake of argument that you're right (I'm not going to waste time debunking such an obviously problematic claim). But let's assume 62% of British Columbians are "puffers" as you put it (which, by the way, could range from "I've tried it once" to "I smoke three joints a day"). Do you honestly believe that 62% of British Columbians would also support total legalization of all drugs, including drugs like LSD, crack or heroin?"

 

More than sixty percent of boomers and post-boomers have tried pot and many still use it occasionally I'm sure.  I also make a sharper distinction than Dana between non-addictive and mild drugs like pot or exctasy(or MDA as it ws known in my day) and addictive ones like heroin, crack and meth; with others like coka and psychodelics in between for different reasons.  I've seen the other darker side of it too, to say the least. (Even pot/weed/ganja isn't one hundred percent benign if overused)  

But thats all almost irrelevant here, if his positions are seen as so fringe by the party then it only adds to the suspicions.  Not so 'absurd' that some might suspect other motives here, for what most now seem to agree was at least a heavy handed approach, when theres a general drift to the right on most issues, to make the party seem more "mainstream" and "professional" (meaning more image management and fewer activists), and when anyone whos been involved in the party, even on the margins, knows there are still plenty of other members who hold some very backwards attitudes towards it.  Not entirely on the rightside either, but to a large extent yes.

That said, I've seen the other side of it now though and understand the party's concerns about vote buying.  It doesn't look to me like that was quite what Dana was really intending, or that there was any danger of this becoming a big problem in their group, no.  Skirts the edges of it maybe but since it doesn't look like its unusual among other constitutionally 'affiliated' groups I don't think he can treated as an outcast for that either.  The guy who ratted on him here can take a flying leap into the nearest mud puddle, with my blessings.

Le T Le T's picture

That letter to Dana was absurd. No matter what your opinions are of drugs and the governments that percecute their users, if you can not see that this is Party Establishment arbitrarly dropping the rule book in a rather inappropriate and untimely way than you might be part of the Party Establishment.

This is actually a great example of how drug laws are applied too. The dominant decision makers use their rules when it suits them. So, Dana offering airfare to a delegate that can not afford to go is "anti-democratic" but a rich uncle/father/mother/union buying their kid a plane ticket is "democracy in action". Fuck that shit. The NDP (or whatever stupid-ass-navel-gazing-focus-grouped name they waste their time inventing) has no idea what democracy means.

There are many posters here who I can just tell want to sink their teeth into this drug addict who embarrassed the party. The self-important people who stripped Dana of his right to participate in the convention no doubt had to use their best lies and progressive platitudes to suppress that agonizing 'DRUG ADDICT WHO EMBARRASSED THE PARTY!!!' to a dull roar in the back of their minds as they checked tax law to back up their decision.

Dana, you have an almost naive patience for a party and political system that can barely contain its hatred of you.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Le T wrote:

That letter to Dana was absurd. No matter what your opinions are of drugs and the governments that percecute their users, if you can not see that this is Party Establishment arbitrarly dropping the rule book in a rather inappropriate and untimely way than you might be part of the Party Establishment.

What strikes me is that it is an admission of complete panic. A party which is internally strong should be able to handle people like Dana.

Daniel Grice

As a Green, I'll let the NDPers debate the morals of this.. But seriously, you'd think your brass would have learnt by now that they get infinitely worst media attention by dumping candidates or blocking a delegate than you would passing controversial motions or having a bunch of pot smokers bussed in.

You better change your name or this will be the biggest story of your convention.

Farmpunk

Haha, Grice... Unlike having the Green party leader bounce around the country looking for a seat, which is apparently the party's single purpose at this point in time.
 
Cueball: "
"What strikes me is that it is an admission of complete panic. A party which is internally strong should be able to handle people like Dana."
 
Back to the BC Bud party he goes, I guess. Unless the Cueball Party believes it can stickhandle around a candidate like Larsen without getting snookered at the polls.
 
Unionist: "Thanks again, Michelle! That "ignore" tweak is working great - gets rid of stubborn stains, telltale odours - leaves the thread squeaky klean!"
What? Why wasn't I told of this?? But if I ignored Unionist then I'd miss out on my daily dose of passive aggressive banality and thus be the lesser man myself.
Any head with a still functioning head knows full well that the rule book always applies most harshly to those working on the edges. Political parties aren't totally fair? Who knew?

 

Michelle

This has gotten a bit of press coverage:

North Shore Outlook (BC):

Quote:

Dana Larsen, the pot activist and former federal NDP candidate, says he has been suspended from the federal NDP convention in Halifax under allegations of vote-buying.

Larsen said in an interview with The Outlook this morning that he was ousted from the federal convention over the issue of forum posts on the "Federal Convention 2009" Facebook events page and a website called endprohibition.ca.

The NDP Facebook thread has been deleted, however one post attributed to a user named Dana Larsen on a rabble.ca forum reads: "If there's any Babblers who want to go (to the convention) 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."

A user identified as Dana Larsen also offered to arrange transportation across the country for delegates in a post made on a Cannabis Culture forum.

Maclean's

Quote:

I’m going to let you in on a little journalistic secret here, NDP organizers: We — we-the-media, that is — expect — nay, demand — at least one zany resolution from every party policy convention. If you’re not going to give us a leadership review — or, better yet, a multi-ballot leadership vote, complete with delegates, drama and intrigue, and — of course — thundersticks — then you’d better darned well give us something to get us out of bed in time for that three hour plenary session at the crack of nine on Saturday morning. In recent years, for the Conservatives, it’s usually something about abortion or same sex marriage; for the Liberals, it’s Quebec nationhood and — thank you, youth wing —  legalized prostitution, and for the NDP, it’s nationalizing the banks and decriminalizing soft drugs. It happens every time: One of your riding associations comes up with a crowd-pleasingly controversial proposal,  we write about, it either passes and goes nowhere, or it fails, and we all go home, satisfied by having taken part in a proud Canadian political tradition.

Instead, you boot the guy out, thus giving us something even better to cover: a banned delegate with an axe to grind! And a twitter account! It’s like you planned the whole thing just to give us a good hook for this weekend’s coverage. Since the delegate in question is on the ground in Halifax, and even under an NDP government, you can’t have the province put him on the next plane back to BC, he can scrum with reporters, maybe round up a few dozen supporters to picket the opening session — really, he’ll wind up with far more media coverage than he would have gotten if he’d managed to pass his pro-pot resolution in the first place.

Metro News, Edmonton (hmm, wonder if it'll be in Toronto's Metro too?  I'll see today when I'm on the way to work.)

Yahoo News Canada

(this one's a Canadian Press article, so it's repeated in a bunch of other publications too.)

Oh, and Caissa, this is from the Chronicle Herald:

Unionist

Farmpunk wrote:
But if I ignored Unionist then I'd miss out on my daily dose of passive aggressive banality and thus be the lesser man myself.

Because I haven't used the "ignore" function on Farmpunk yet (I'm applying a "three strikes" rule, which his buddy already failed), I've reported the above gratuitous personal attack. If he strikes out, such reports will no longer be required, of course. He can continue to demonstrate his personal obsession with me, with the added benefit of knowing that everyone has to suffer through them except the intended target.

 

Michelle

Oh, let it go.  It was no more gratuitous than your original "ignore feature" remark, which I also let go.  Let's move on.

 

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

Just a quick note to say that I believe Dana DID express regret, and even apologized, for his lack of judgement in the LSD/driving video, which was from years ago. 

I don't recall that at all - in fact, as I said above, even babblers were trying to defend such actions and videos as being analogous to "gay pride". Here's one example:

Michelle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Analogy: When the NDP was in power in Ontario, it made same-sex benefits a matter of a "free" vote. When the Liberals were in power federally, they decriminalized sodomy and abortion, and legalized same-sex marriage.

These achievements are not to the credit of the Liberals, nor of the NDP. They stemmed from societal change, civil disobedience, judicial activism, and a host of other movements, with the politicians of all stripes being the very last to line up.

Okay, let's use that analogy, although I'll say from the outset that the right to be free of sexual orientation discrimination isn't on the same level as marijuana decriminalization.

The fact is, the gay rights movement has always used a variety of tactics, including ones that many straight people tut-tutted about, like gay pride parades. You could make exactly the same argument about pride parades, which used to be pretty "shocking" and "outrageous" (although they're pretty mainstream now) as you do about Dana's Pot-TV episodes and the Hairy Pothead book. In fact, those same arguments WERE made, and probably still are, about the more flamboyant aspects of gay culture and pride activism.

I don't agree with that criticism.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/872122/Re-NDP-amp-marijuana-policy][=r.... 25, 2008[/color][/url]

 

Michelle

It was in the thread about his resignation, which of course I can't find now because the Canadian Politics forum threads don't go back far enough since the relaunch happened in November and the election campaign was during September and October.  Sigh.  I really wish we had our old threads.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Farmpunk wrote:
Haha, Grice... Unlike having the Green party leader bounce around the country looking for a seat, which is apparently the party's single purpose at this point in time.

 
Cueball: "
"What strikes me is that it is an admission of complete panic. A party which is internally strong should be able to handle people like Dana."
 
Back to the BC Bud party he goes, I guess. Unless the Cueball Party believes it can stickhandle around a candidate like Larsen without getting snookered at the polls.

We aren't talking about his candidacy. We are talking about revoking his credentials at the convention, and now barring him from the convention hall as an observer, and various other issues post-candidacy.

Pages

Topic locked