Investigation into treatment of Dana Larson and the marijuana resolution needed

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dana Larsen

Quote:
and if Dana Larsen is persona non grata in the NDP then it is his own doing.

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these accusations, and probably I would just get an emailed letter informing me that my membership in the NDP had been revoked.

Unionist

MUN Prof. wrote:

The issue here is not BC or pot or legalization or decriminalization (which the New Dems have a solid official policy in support of).

LOL. Libby Davies has a solid policy. Not the "New Dems". [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/fact-check-liberals-must-come-clean-secret-deal-... this item[/color][/url] from the NDP website - one of only two which their search engine returns when you input "marijuana":

Quote:

Stephane Dion must immediately answer the following questions:

  • What are the specific terms of the deal he made with St-Maurice and the Marijuana Party?
  • How much money have Mr. St-Maurice, the Marijuana Party or other drug activists raised for the Dion Liberals?
  • Do the Liberals still plan to use these funds now that they are beginning to distance themselves from their drug activist supporters?
  • How many other Liberal insiders have close ties with extreme wings of the drug legalization movement?

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 [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/872120/Re-NDP-amp-marijuana-policy][color=r... year[/color][/url] and as I have repeated here since 2006:

Quote:
I have told you for almost three years that I do not believe the NDP will decriminalize marijuana, notwithstanding its pretentious statements, in any near future, even if they're in a position to do so. I told you in 2006 that they hadn't even made it a condition of support of two consecutive minority governments. I know you consider that they're the best bet. But the party's outrageous actions in this case (in particular with regard to Kirk Tousaw - and please, everyone, no more disingenuous statements about how the party didn't pressure him to quit) and its flippant dismissal of you, are a good sign that they just don't give a shit. Pardon my rudeness.

 

Unionist

Sineed wrote:

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

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 [b]SUPPORT[/b] that banning and even one or two that try to suggest that vote-buying [b]was the real reason[/b]! Surely that must be condemned and exposed - because until then, only one side of the "debate" is heard.

 

Darwin OConnor

Dana Larsen wrote:
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.

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.

Dana Larsen

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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 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.

Unionist

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.

 

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

edit

Unionist

Darwin OConnor wrote:

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

LaughingLaughing

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

 

Bookish Agrarian

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.Wink

 

remind remind's picture

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.

Unionist

[url=http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/337/ca.shtml][color=red]Here's what Libby said[/color][/url] when Paul Martin was still in power:

Quote:
The NDP is ready to make marijuana an issue in the elections, said Davies. "We need some sort of legalized regime," she said, "and we want the federal government to take a much stronger position for a non-punitive, rules-based approach to drugs. [NDP head] Jack Layton will deal with this very forthrightly in the campaign," she said. "In many places, this is an issue people will want to look at, and we want to be part of bringing about change. This could be a first step toward dealing with our ridiculous prohibition laws."

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.

Coyote

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

Coyote

_MG_7536_2

Libby is to Jack's left :)

Sineed

Unionist wrote:

 

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.

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." 

Stockholm

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

janfromthebruce

remind wrote:

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.

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!

Coyote

Sineed wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 

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.

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

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. Laughing

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

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

Unionist

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.

Coyote

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

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:
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.

Actually it is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Stockholm

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)

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:

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.

 

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?

remind remind's picture

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.

remind remind's picture

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.

Quote:
Decriminalizing marijuana possession with the goal of removing its production and distribution from the control of organized crime.

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.

 

 

 

 

Stockholm

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???

Stockholm

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.

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
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. 

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.

remind remind's picture

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.

 

 

Erik Redburn

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? 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

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.

 

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.

ennir

Stockholm wrote:

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.

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.

 

Stockholm

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

Unionist

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.

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:

"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???

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?

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:
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.

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.

remind remind's picture

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

madmax

Coyote wrote:

_MG_7536_2

Libby is to Jack's left :)

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.

remind remind's picture

Stockholm wrote:
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.

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.

Coyote

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 [b]was[/b] 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.

remind remind's picture

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.

Coyote

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

remind remind's picture

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.

Coyote

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).

remind remind's picture

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.

Coyote

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

remind remind's picture

ah...but he is not a hyprocrit

the grey

Dana Larsen wrote:

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.

Darwin OConnor wrote:

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

Unionist wrote:

 

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

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.

Bookish Agrarian

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

remind remind's picture

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

Pages

Topic locked