Investigation into treatment of Dana Larson and the marijuana resolution needed

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.

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.

Darwin OConnor wrote:

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

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

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.

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

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." 

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!

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?

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

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)

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???

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.

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? 

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.

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.

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.

Coyote wrote:

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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