Dana Larsen has NDP convention credentials revoked - III

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Dana Larsen has NDP convention credentials revoked - III

Continued from here

Michelle

I just read through the last thread, and I'm feeling kind of unhappy about it.  Why?  Because there are so many excellent people tearing each other to shreds in it.

Bookish Agrarian is a stand up guy and very progressive.  I think it's important for people to recognize that it's possible to agree with a position the party has taken, not because you're doing damage control, but because you really believe it.  I think Bookish has been making pretty solid arguments in favour of his opinion, and he's been doing so without trashing Dana.  It's okay to hold the opinion that what Dana did was out of bounds, just as it's okay to think that he was within bounds.

That said, I think Bookish and other people who agree with him need to realize that it's also okay for people to support Dana on this.  The sarcasm and attacks have not been one-sided in the other thread. 

I wonder if we can make an effort at keeping the tone in this thread civil, instead of being sarcastic with each other.  I also wonder whether it would be possible for people to step back and realize that criticism of, or support for, the party does not equal criticism of, or support for specific individuals here.

So, for instance, if someone is really unhappy about the position the party has taken and says so in strong terms, that doesn't mean they're saying that you personally are this or that.  Now, that said, I think it's also important for people who are unhappy with the party to not attack people here simply for agreeing with the party's position on this. 

I think there are ways of discussing this without attacking each other.  Can we try it?

remind remind's picture

Because some people are not fully informed as to what has been going on and are trying to skew the whole table granting thing etc, in order to say this is nothing against Dana,  but Dana's actions.

Quote:
July 4, 2009 - 1:40pm

I tried to buy an ad in the federal convention guide.

It is for End Prohibition, and says "Thank you to the NDP for standing up against the Conservative's failed War on Drugs." It includes a quote from Libby Davies and contact information for End Prohibition.

After booking the ad well in advance and then sending it in before deadline, we were suddenly told after the deadline had passed that the ad was not acceptable, and that the NDP was not accepting any ads from internal NDP groups.

When I spoke with Drew Anderson, the fellow who is apparently in charge of producing the convention guide, he said he would email me a copy of their policy on advertising which didn't allow us to advertise. But he hasn't sent me this document as promised.

I am disappointed by this blocking of our ad for End Prohibition. I also don't believe that other "internal advocacy" groups would also be blocked. Would they refuse Gay NDP or an NDP Enviro Group from advertising? I doubt it.

I am frustrated by this kind of thing. We're a group with over 700 members now, we have support from many MPs and MLAs, I have personally signed up many new NDP members and brought many volunteers and activists into the party.

The ad is thanking the NDP for a policy stand they have already taken. It is hardly controversial.

Why the hell does the NDP want to turn down my money and reject an ad from our group?

Quote:
July 13, 2009 - 5:07pm ....Our requests to book a table for End Prohibition are now all going unanswered.

It seems to me that there should be someone willing to stand up and say why the End Prohibition ad has been blocked. Shouldn't there be an open process with accountability by decision-makers?

The Vancouver-Quadra riding association executive, upon hearing of this situation, has passed an Emergency Resolution which they are distributing to the BC Council of Federal Ridings. (I didn't ask them to do this, but I'm glad for the support.) Their resolution is as follows:

1. The Vancouver Quadra Riding Association Executive calls on the NDP to approve endprohibition's ad for the HFX09 Convention, to provide a copy of any advertising policy guiding such ads, and to explain in detail the basis for the initial denial of the ad.

But now after refusal, for a variety of reasons as the thread notes, a table is allowed but not Dana, and of course  note the excuses as to why the ad was not accepted.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/end-prohibition-ad-blocked-ndp...

Quote:
June 27, 2009 - 6:52pm

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

"End Prohibition" has a standing offer to help with the travel expenses of anyone going to convention who will help promote and support our resolution on drug policy reform.

Note no comments were made by strockholm by anyone about this, it wqas accepted as normal, even by stock, who hard the nerve to  label anyone here who supports Dana is a heroin junkie.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-convention

Another thread about the endprohibition resolution below.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/marijuana-and-drug-policy-reso...

More on vitrioholic  feelings about Dana that has lead to this further action against him

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/calling-shenanigans-ndp-conven...

In fact in that thread you will find this little ditty indicating the NDP knew for sure a month ago Dana was going to assist those who could not afford to to attend:

Quote:
July 13, 2009 - 3:28pm

Well it seems as if I am banned from making any posts on the Official NDP Convention Page on Facebook.

Here's the page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=92933656333

Over the past few weeks I have made three posts to the Facebook page wall, and all of them have been deleted within 48 hours or less.

I don't have the exact wording anymore, but the first post said:

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

The second post said:

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

The third post said:

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, even if you agree with the decisions to ban the End Prohibition ad from the Convention Guide and to regularly delete my posts from the Facebook page, there should be someone who is willing to take responsibility for these decisions.

Everyone I have spoken to on these issues says that it is not their decision, and then cuts off communication with me.

 

And BTW alcohol has destroyed more lives and people than drugs have, but yet it is legal. Alcohol is also the largest contributer to social crimes, well beyond drug addiction. So people need to stop with the irrational bias towards drugs  and ending prohibition. They need to be regulated and controlled, for those reasons alone, let alone  to get organized crime out of the mix.

ETA: Also no here talks  disparaging about people who drink alcohol,  and  thus who are alcohol users, but yet they believe they can disparage drug users in ugly terminology that marginalizes and  labels as being less than.

Bookish Agrarian

Thanks for being generous Michelle.

I think I'll just stay out of this thread from here on in.  There is not much more I can add at this point anyway.

Well other than I just heard back about this couple from Yellowknife that are proposing that Canada change its location to somewhere off the coast of Costa Rica.  I know the vast NDP conspiracy is dead set against this, but I have to admit I am totally in favour.  Since I will have time by not participating in this thread I may sneak off and join the "Canada in its place" underground.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Please stop caricaturing our position as belief in an NDP 'conspiracy'. No one here has said anything of the sort, except for you. It's very frustrating.

Michelle

Oh, stop. :)

remind remind's picture

That is disappointing BA, given that you should now be aware that  things are diferent than you suggested in the other thread. Are you cutting and running because things are not as you were portraying them to be? I.e.:

 

The NDP KNEW LONG AGO, about Dana's financial assistance actions but waited until the  day before  the Convention started to act upon them. Pl

The NDP refused  a table and a AD, also LONG AGO,  but now the table can be there.

 

And BTW, I hate being in this situation with you,  BA, as I respect you more than anyone else here. But I can find no areas of aggreement with you on this.

I feel the same way as you dio about the agenda attacks on the NDP, but that is not where I am at in this, this is seriously the last straw for me in respect to the Layton/Lavinge lead NDP. I cannot vote for a party that would behave in such a way, while pretending they were different.

SeniorCitizen

I don't mean to hijact the present conversation, but while I was composing my response to the last thread, the moderator shut it down because this one was started.  But I think that it is still important to respond to BA from an earlier post.  I would suggest that he do some research into the benefits of legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs.  He could start by reading Jack Herer's book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes.  If he has already read it then I can't believe he is making some of the statements that he is presently making. 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

"...when other things are going on and are as or more likely more important than his singleminded obsession with legalizing far more than a bit of pot like heroin, meth and so on."

Then Cueball wrote:

"Like what? The name of the party?"

"And in a subsequent post BA wrote: Oh I don't know crazy things like job creation, environmental protection, universal health care, access to education, immigration issues, food and farming policies, poverty, equality issues, care and dignity for seniors and so many more. 

But apparently, according to you, the only issue that matters and makes you a progressive is whether someone can legally shoot smack in the foodcourt at your local mall or open up a meth cooker on a bicycle cart like one of those popscicle ones."

My response:

BA, Legalization of drugs is NOT a single minded obsession, and is just as important as all of the issues you have listed and it is much more than being able to "legally shoot smack in the foodcourt."  Your points will all be affected in a positive way by legalization of drugs.  First of all job creation: With the legalization of marijuana would come jobs in farming, packaging, distribution, and marketing among others.  This ties into food and farming policies.  With legalization of marijuana would come the proliferation of hemp production, as much of the reluctance to license hemp farming is due to its relationship to marijuana and the difficulty in distinguishing one from the other.  There is no more useful plant on earth.  It can be used to produce food, textiles, paper, fabric, and fuel.  It can provide alternative sources of energy. It is readily renewable and can grow nearly everywhere. 

With the legalization of marijuana comes better and cheaper healthcare for many who have found medical marijuana to be the most helpful to their condition.  And with the production of marijuana for medical purposes comes further employment.  Since hemp will be more available it can also contribute to prevention of disease in that it provides nutrition and reduces pollution through the alternative energy mentioned earlier. Much disease is due to stress.  Marijuana is also a great stress reliever, that is if we aren't constantly worried about getting arrested for ingesting it. 

Legalization of all drugs is important, although the legalization of marijuana, on its own, would be a huge step forward for our economy.  The prohibition of drugs is responsible for so much of the crime in our country.  If the drugs were legal and regulated and a plan put in place to supply all present addicts, our drug problem would be so much less.  I would expect that some people would still experiment with drugs, but gone would be most of the gang problem and the murders in our big cities would be reduced to near zero.  Those that experiment would be getting substances of known quality and strength and they would not be dying because they are ingesting something of questionable quality and dosage.  

Because of prohibition, our children are not being educated truthfully about the dangers of these substances.  This is not safe for our children to be uneducated.

What would be improved by legalization of all drugs.  Jobs, the environment, the economy, healthcare (both prevention and care), poverty issues, education, crime and on and on.  And all of this in one resolution!

Prohibition of drugs is harmful.  To legalize and regulate would make everyone safer and it would improve our economy.

A party that believes in "social and economic justice" should be considering the legalizaiton of drugs as one of their MOST important issues.  

The galling thing is that Jack Layton and others in the party know all of this.  Yet they avoid the issue or water it down to be ineffective.  Why? To try to appeal to the centre.  Unfortunately they are alienating many of their true supporters, those that believe in what the NDP used to believe in.  Should the NDP be satisfied with their 20% or should they be taking a chance on what they really believe by supporting a comprehensive plan for legalization of marijuana and other drugs?

Fidel

Let's all hold our breaths and not vote for anyone next election. Especially NDP voters who, apparently,  now have every reason to abandon the party. We are pushed constantly without letup to assume that things will get progressively better if we do nothing at all. It has to be a law of physics we're not aware of at this point in time. The seeds of concern, doubt and uncertainty about the NDP have taken spread over the fauna of babble and are now in full bloom on what I think was once a progressive site with progressive posters excited about progressive change for the better in Canada, a two old line party plutocracy for far too long.

 

Unionist

Whereas I voted for the NDP at the last two opportunities (one general and one byelection), because I liked Mulcair's style and stance on most issues and because an NDP win could help energize some progressive forces; whereas the time before (2004) I voted Bloc in an attempt to unseat the Liberal creep of the day. I don't know who I'll vote for next time. But I do know this: I am capable of choosing a party and/or a candidate in a particular election, or even over decades, without getting down on my knees to one party, kissing its backside, swearing eternal loyalty to it no matter what, and viciously attacking anyone who offers a word of criticism.

Likewise, I can support, applaud, and encourage Dana in his courageous struggle, while still pointing out to him that childish exhibitionism will NOT win support for his cause (notwithstanding Catchfire's reasoned analysis in the other thread).

What certain very lowlife people in the NDP did to Dana is unforgiveable - but it will not define how I vote. It's not important enough, and I don't think it characterizes the party as a whole. To defend that action against Dana is to spit on any pretence of democratic party life. Dana is a far more worthy and persistent supporter of the NDP than these lowlifes could ever hope to be. If the Liberal party made them a better offer, they'd be slithering their way over there tout de suite.

I must say I sympathize with and admire the position that remind expressed above. As a staunch defender of the NDP - and of Jack Layton - it can't have been simple for her to make the statements she has made. But they come obviously from a deep place of principle. I wish the same could be said for everyone participating in this debate.

Fidel

Facts which I'm vaguely aware of about Dana's situtation:

1. The NDP supported Dana and gave him his much sought after shot at election for political office and the golden opportunity to further the cause of legalization for not only himself but an untold number of other Canadians who support the cause in some unknown order of personal political priorities favouring progressive change for the better in this northern Puerto Rico.

2. Dana quit on the NDP in the middle of an election campaign after submarining his own chances for election. It wasnt the NDP who either created that Youtube video nor did the NDP force Dana to do business with a coca seedlings company before deciding on his political aspirations. Those were personal choices he made and now has to deal with the consquences and political realities of the situation. If he doesnt like slimey politicking, then he should swallow his personal mistakes now, and back the NDP pushing for electoral reform and progressive change in general in this stagnant northern colony owned and controlled by Can-Am billionaire interests and absentee landlords.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Dana did not quit the NDP. I find the level of disinformation and distortion being thrown around here to be startling. Is it to much to say that one needs to be fast and loose with the facts to defend the NDP, on almost anything?

Coyote

He said "quit on", not "quit", obviously referring to Dana's resignation as a candidate after his irresponsible activities came to light.

Fidel

That's right, Coyote. And thanks for having read for comprehension. At this point I dont think he does it on purpose, sadly.

melovesproles

i think Cueball's question has just been answered.  Everyone here has read the background on this and knows Gerry Scott demanded that Dana resign.  Saying he "quit on" the NDP when they demanded he step down is blatant dishonesty and seems to be all the apologists have left in their arsenal.

Michelle

Unionist, people who are defending the NDP's actions in this case are not "spitting on any pretence of democratic party life".  They're expressing sincere opinions and backing them up with arguments.  There ARE two sides to this story.  I know it feels like there's only one valid side when you feel really strongly about something like this, but that's not really the way it is.

And saying that some of the people participating in this debate are NOT "coming from a place of deep principle" is going to feel like an attack to those here who are disagreeing with you.

You got attacked a couple of times in the previous thread with similar insinuations about why you're taking the position you are, and that sucked too.  But I'm hoping that we can avoid perpetuating that in this thread.

remind remind's picture

Actual facts not the ones fidel states as being so:

He did not even "quit on" the NDP, the NDP quit on him. G Scott forced him to resign. just as he did Kirt.

And if you do not think he has "swallowed"  his mistakes, you would be wrong, and he is backing progressive change in very many areas. Not so sure about you though, as Fidel, you stretch credibility beyond belief in this instance stating Dana quit when he clearly did not.

Fidel

And actual claims to fact should require sources, no? That's why I could not include a source in my post and therefore had to qualify my own same. You refer to G Scott having drummed Dana from an election campaign. Dana's web site says he resigned in the middle of the controversy, which I believe was also in the middle of the election campaign

Has anyone considered that the NDP cant afford to waste anymore time and resources on a candidate who has harmed the very cause he works for by his own choices and his own actions? I'm sure he thought videotaping himself using marijunana and other drugs was good entertainment in those days before deciding to join the NDP and representing millions of other people who want to be responsible marijuana users in a legal sense.

Daniel Grice

The language "asked for your resignation" = resign or be fired.  Resigning looks nicer on a resume.

Anyways, Dana Larsen in his own words today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFRsCKOkj6Q

It turns out he helped a whole whopping 6 delegates get to the convention.  

remind remind's picture

In one of the threads I linked to above, which really should be read if one is going to comment, one should do it from a fully informed basis, there is the account of what happened to Dana at the hands of Gerry Scott.

Daniel Grice

Also, appears the legalization motion was passed by the members at the prioritization session, only to have the NDP back room crush it:

http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2009/08/bravo-brad-lavigne.html

remind remind's picture

Nonsense fidel, we all do things when we are young that we would not even think of doing 10 years later.

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

And saying that some of the people participating in this debate are NOT "coming from a place of deep principle" is going to feel like an attack to those here who are disagreeing with you.

So when someone says Dana was barred from the convention because he tried to buy votes, I'm not allowed to state the obvious? I'm supposed to pretend that someone actually believes this? Whereas he was barred from running as a candidate for some totally unrelated reason? I'm supposed to say, "yes, I see, I respect that well-reasoned and progressive viewpoint, although I differ slightly, with respect"?

And who exactly did I launch a personal attack against here, Michelle? I am ignoring one poster entirely because of his gratuitous constant personal attacks which you have never called him on, which is your prerogative. But if someone says something outrageous and unprincipled, their statement will receive the response it deserves. I will not attack anyone personally, and I invite you to make that distinction more finely.

 

remind remind's picture

Quote:
The reports from the policy prioritization session this morning, which apparently saw the floor vote to move the marijuana anti-prohibition resolution from 20th spot (where it will never reach the floor) to 2nd, and the vote then vote nullified and the resolution sent back down to the basement because (depending on who you talk to) of a procedural oversight (vote was called before a speaker against had spoke) or procedural shenanigans (party brass fiddling the rules to have time to stock the room with opponents) won't help quiet matters either.

 From Daniel's link.

Unionist

[url=http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3262.html]Canada's NDP leader on Pot-TV[/url]

Quote:
Jack Layton, leader of Canada's federal New Democratic Party, spoke to Cannabis Culture publisher Marc Emery about his strong support for legal marijuana, in an October 26 interview on Pot-TV.
The New Democratic Party (NDP), is Canada's fourth largest political party, and the only party with a formal policy to support legal marijuana.

The left-wing NDPcurrently have 14 seats in Canada's federal Parliament. Although they have never formed Canada's government or Official Opposition, they have often had a major influence on government policy, and have sometimes been called the "conscience" of Canadian politics.

In his 20-minute interview with Emery, Layton was very explicit in his support for ending the war on cannabis. At one point, Layton called marijuana a "wonderful substance."

"Do you think anybody should go to jail for having anything to do with marijuana," asked Emery, "whether it's selling, buying, growing, or any of those things?" Layton responded, "No, I don't."

Fidel

Daniel Grice wrote:

The language "asked for your resignation" = resign or be fired.  Resigning looks nicer on a resume.

Anyways, Dana Larsen in his own words today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFRsCKOkj6Q

It turns out he helped a whole whopping 6 delegates get to the convention.  

I do wear a hearing aid, but Larsen mentions not being "beloved by the inner core of the NDP" for what happened in the last election when quote-unquote, ...I resigned my candidacy...,  1:22 into the video. And the rest of it is all about Brad Lavigne and meanies at the convention. I did not hear him say that anyone asked for or demanded his resignation during the last election campaign, the one in which Larsen quit on the NDP and forfeited a seat to another political party as a result. It appears to me that Larsen quit on the NDP in the middle of an election campaign.

And now he's angry and making a big commotion and trying to do even more damage to the NDP after the fact. What he's doing now has more to do with giving the NDP bad press than furthering the cause for legalization. I actually think Larsen is harming the case for legalization and is not a serious contender for political office. I would vote for a new leader for my cause next marijuana advocacy leadership convention. I support legalization but no longer have faith in Dana Larsen as the leader of my cause, seriously speaking.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Without commenting on the actual details, I find it absolutely crazy that anyone could attribute enough weight to this issue to build an opinion of the NDP or Jack Layton as a whole. 

Fidel

Oh I think it's false concern, too. As a supporter for legalization, I'm actually more concerned about Larsen representing the cause on my behalf, too. We need a better rep for legalization. Sorry Dana. You were good, but now we need someone with a realistic chance of furthering your cause and our's.

Unionist

Fidel, why not read before making stuff up:

Dana Larsen wrote:

Then about two weeks before the election was actually called, I got a call from Gerry Scott, who I think had fairly recently started working on the election campaign and had just realized who I was. He called me, along with the then party secretary, and alternately threatened and begged me to resign my nomination. He complained about my candidate's website, about my affiliation with the Vancouver Seed Bank, my authorship of Hairy Pothead, and so on. He asked me forcefully to resign my nomination.

I told him no. I said if he wanted me to resign then he should have Jack Layton call me. I said if Jack asked me to resign I would do it no problem. But I told him I had the support of my riding, and I was not going to resign, and he was only hired to run the campaign, not an elected person. After pressuring me intensly for over an hour, he finally backed down and said he was going to keep an eye on me and that I had better not make trouble as a candidate.

I didn't hear from him again until 10 days into the campaign, when the Liberals contacted the Globe and Mail with a story that I had a "cocaine shop" and simultaneously contacted CBC with carefully edited footage from my Pot-TV shows.

Gerry Scott flipped out and was ordering me to resign right away. I didn't really want to, but I could see that my campaign team was not going to be able to resist the pressure and in the heat and pressure of the momentI agreed to resign. I first asked to talk to Jack but Scott wouldn't help me to do that, he wanted me to resign quickly, and in the end I agreed to do so.

Whatever you think of Dana, he's no quitter. So it's ironic that you would accuse him of abandoning the NDP when the facts show exactly the opposite.

 

Fidel

Quote:
I first asked to talk to Jack but Scott wouldn't help me to do that, he wanted me to resign quickly, and in the end I agreed to do so.

He says he agreed to do so ie. resign. Nothing about trying to speak with or contact Jack on his own like I might have done myself with a little initiative.

Does anyone feel that Dana Larsen has a shot with any party since the weasely Liberals did their dirty politicking as usual against yet another NDP candidate? Does Larsen realize he is damaged goods at this point and his political career over and dont with no thanks to his own antics and Liberals sending the tape to the CBC?

Dana has the weasely Liebrals, those Libranos made new again under Count Iggy von Schtiggy practicing US-style smear politics to thank for exposing his less than parliamentary demenour prior to the NDP giving him the shot at political office, which seems unrealistic for him at this point. Team US-style Smear(LPC) certainly arent offering Dana any job slots.

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

By that same logic, Napoleon Bonaparte resigned voluntarily as Emperor of France. Tongue out

remind remind's picture

Pogo wrote:
Without commenting on the actual details, I find it absolutely crazy that anyone could attribute enough weight to this issue to build an opinion of the NDP or Jack Layton as a whole.

Excuse me, did you never stop to realize that weight accumulates, and then accumulates some more, until finally a criticl mass  of realization is achieved, in order to form a most solid opinion upon?

We are not just the public at large here, that can be dismissed as "being crazy", nor unable to form an opinion. Many have been NDP  for decades longer than Jack Layton and Brad Lavigne, and we will survive this hostile takeover attempt.

Say nothing of the strong knowlege that drug prohibition must end,  contrary to what the current brain trust appears to feel, along with much else they are ignoring that needs to be actioned.

And doing this to Dana is wrong wrong wrong. Say nothing of what they did with burying the resolution after it was adopted to be 2nd up for debate.

This is not going away, nor is it going to be trivialized. What was it 8 or 9 ridings that participated in this resolution development, including 2 MPs?

That is a lot of people and activists to piss off. And they should have thought of that before instead of "professionalizing" in a manner that they believe is best.

There is already a Liberal Party they need to move on over there.

 

 

Fidel

Dana did it to himself with help from Liberal Party weasels and the Liberal friendly weasels at the CBC

Unionist

Tar. Feathers. Pitchforks!

 

NorthReport

So let me get this straight:

 

1 Dana withheld information about his past from the NDP before accepting the nomination to run in the last election

 

2 The NDP forced Dana to resign during the last election campaign

 

3 As a result the NDP was damaged politically during the last election campaign (my opinion)

 

4 It was a difficult situation for Dana as well as the NDP(my opinion) 

 

5 Dana apologised for what happened

 

6 Dana did not purposely set out to damage the NDP (my opinion)

 

7 Dana was already a hot potato for some in the NDP prior to the present convention

 

8 Some people in the NDP were concerned about the NDP's image being additionally damaged by Dana at the convention

9 A lot of NDP members are NOT into the war on drugs but are concerned how best to address the issue     

So far that's all I know for sure.

 

I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get the facts clear.    

Fidel

What's wrong with Dana running as an independent candidate, that same wise choice that our faux concerned ones are always recommending we vote for instead of the NDP?

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

 

I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get the facts clear.    

Has the NDP launched an investigation into which delegates accepted financial assistance from Dana?

 

NorthReport

remind wrote:

We are not just the public at large here, that can be dismissed as "being crazy", nor unable to form an opinion. Many have been NDP  for decades longer than Jack Layton and Brad Lavigne, and we will survive this hostile takeover attempt.

Thank you for saying this remind.

I may disagree with you, but that is not important here, because you are showing your true colours, and that is that you really do give a damn about building a better society.

NorthReport

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 

I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get the facts clear.    

Has the NDP launched an investigation into which delegates accepted financial assistance from Dana?

 

Unionist,

I know almost nothing about what has happened concerning the convention, and Dana's situation, apart from what I have read here, and see in the press. 

I have been at work all day, have no information, so it might be helpful to hear from people in Nova Scota.

It is a shame what has happened here.

Perhaps some kind of a mediation could be set up between the warring parties. I'm just throwing that out there. Is that a possibility?

 

remind remind's picture

NorthReport wrote:
So let me get this straight:

1 Dana withheld information about his past from the NDP before accepting the nomination to run in the last election

He with held nothing, everyone who elected him in his riding  would have known full well, who he was and what his past was.  If not the whole province who are aware politically. Gerry Scott even knew, that is why he wanted Dana to resign his ELECTED  candidacy before the election campaign even started. Thus Gerry Scott put himself above the people in the riding who elected Dana. And he continued to do so, just as he did with Kurt.

Quote:
2 The NDP forced Dana to resign during the last election campaign

Gerry Scott did, not the NDP. Thus taking away the ridings democratic choice.

Quote:
3 As a result the NDP was damaged politically during the last election campaign (my opinion)

Gerry Scott damaged the NDP the most,  by his handling of this, if they were, not Dana.

Quote:
4 It was a difficult situation for Dana as well as the NDP(my opinion)

Made more difficult by Gerry Scott.'s actions.

Quote:
5 Dana apologised for what happened

The NDP hasn't.

Quote:
6 Dana did not purposely set out to damage the NDP (my opinion)

Well...that is a change of tune from the uglies you were spewing against him. Nor did he damage the NDP.

Quote:
7 Dana was already a hot potato for some in the NDP prior to the present convention

For some? Apparently for Brad Lavigne who has no business interfering in the manner he has. He made this a situation, it did not have to be this way. This is what is  ugly about men and their pissing matches. They do not care what the fall out is once they  engage in the pissing.

Quote:
8 Some people in the NDP were concerned about the NDP's image being additionally damaged by Dana at the convention

Short sighted thinking on the part of Brad Lavigne, the NDP's image, such as it is, took, and will take, a heavier hit from his actions than they would have, had they just allowed things to progress FAIRLY and democratically.

Quote:
9 A lot of NDP members are NOT into the war on drugs but are concerned how best to address the issue   

Yep we are NOT into the war on drugs. It is BS, to the nth degree. There is a reason why Canada has the harm reduction model.

Nope, we know how to address the issue, hence the support for the resolution to be debated in 2nd place. Unlike Brad Lavigne and others of his ilk.

 

 

remind remind's picture

Frankly, I do not care who Dana helped to go, it is no one's business. And if  Brad lavigne and his ilk start down that path, it is just going to piss off more people and create more bad feelings.

Most NDP members and  long time supporters, who most likely were former members, know that people get helped financially all the time to go to conventions and they are not hyprocritical enough to pretend otherwise, nor do I believe they would want the party to go on a hyprocritical witch hunt.

Mediation? how about firing some people?

Unionist

I agree with you, remind - I'm just wondering how they can ban Dana (who openly and in good faith announced what he was doing), and not investigate and ban those who covertly accepted unlawful financial assistance?

One possible approach would just be to ask every delegate where they stand on drug legalization. If they answer "in favour", then they could be required to give proof that they did not receive illicit funding.

I know it sounds unusual, but surely the Party must be protected from any hint of controversy, no? And if it doesn't weed out the offenders now, then come tax time, the Party could be held liable for collusion with violation of the law.

No, on balance, I think the witch hunt, once begun, must be taken to its logical conclusion. We wouldn't want to be called "hypocrites", now would we?

 

remind remind's picture

Well there is always that too unionist, however, I would rather go for Dana'a re-enstatement to the convention as a delegate, the resolution to be  placed back where it was determined to be, to be debated,   apologies from Layton, and a firing of Brad Levigne and others who conspired with him.

miles

Dana was screwed by the party aparatus. then again Dana rolled the dice and crapped out. others are getting away with the same but no punishment. so is it a rule violation or a muzzle on Dana.

I vote for the muzzle

Aristotleded24

There doesn't seem to be a consensus among NDPers in this thread about whether or not taking this action against Dana was right. I think both sides make valid points, so I have a hard time forming an opinion on this matter. Based on the arguments, I think those who are arguing in favour of what the NDP did have done a better job.

What I will say is that the attempt to make the party more professionally run, as the other parties are, is alienating many long-time NDP supporters. These people have valid concerns, as the natural constituency of the NDP is and should be people who are not happy with the status quo. Should the NDP move in this direction, why would unhappy people switch, and why would people who support other parties change to the NDP? Moves like this will play into this sentiment. I hope the NDP realises this and that it does not take these kinds of decisions lightly.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I hope the NDP realises this and that it does not take these kinds of decisions lightly.

So you agree with me that they should ban those who received the money, not just those who paid it?

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
I hope the NDP realises this and that it does not take these kinds of decisions lightly.

So you agree with me that they should ban those who received the money, not just those who paid it?

I'm having a hard time forming an opinion about this matter. By "these kinds of decisions," I meant decisions like revoking credentials and over-riding candidate nominations.

NorthReport

Unionist wrote:

Fidel, why not read before making stuff up:

Dana Larsen wrote:

Then about two weeks before the election was actually called, I got a call from Gerry Scott, who I think had fairly recently started working on the election campaign and had just realized who I was. He called me, along with the then party secretary, and alternately threatened and begged me to resign my nomination. He complained about my candidate's website, about my affiliation with the Vancouver Seed Bank, my authorship of Hairy Pothead, and so on. He asked me forcefully to resign my nomination.

 

I told him no. I said if he wanted me to resign then he should have Jack Layton call me. I said if Jack asked me to resign I would do it no problem. But I told him I had the support of my riding, and I was not going to resign, and he was only hired to run the campaign, not an elected person. After pressuring me intensly for over an hour, he finally backed down and said he was going to keep an eye on me and that I had better not make trouble as a candidate.

I didn't hear from him again until 10 days into the campaign, when the Liberals contacted the Globe and Mail with a story that I had a "cocaine shop" and simultaneously contacted CBC with carefully edited footage from my Pot-TV shows.

Gerry Scott flipped out and was ordering me to resign right away. I didn't really want to, but I could see that my campaign team was not going to be able to resist the pressure and in the heat and pressure of the momentI agreed to resign. I first asked to talk to Jack but Scott wouldn't help me to do that, he wanted me to resign quickly, and in the end I agreed to do so.

Whatever you think of Dana, he's no quitter. So it's ironic that you would accuse him of abandoning the NDP when the facts show exactly the opposite.

 

 

Unionist,

 

Thanks for this.

 

Where does this come from - could we please have a link for it?

 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

 

Unionist,

 

Thanks for this.

 

Where does this come from - could we please have a link for it?

 

You're welcome. Actually, I found it on [url=babble.[/url]">http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1043478/QuoteQuoteDana-Larsen][=red]ba...

 

NorthReport

Thanks again Unionist.

 

Now focusing on the NDP, and not Dana, when Dana ran as a candidate in the last elction. if what was reported upstream is accurate:

 

1 The NDP itself bears some responsibility for this smoozola

 

2 The party initial vetting process was run unprofessionally.

 

3 Following their initial encounter over this, Scott should have arranged immediately for Dana to talk with Jack.

 

4 Barring that (No 3 just above), whoever was responsible for wielding the knife, should have acted immediately and arranged for Dana to immediately step down as candidate.

 

5 By not immediately and firmly dealing with the issue, Scott has to bear some responsibility for the damage inflicted on the NDP campaign as well. 

 

6 Why was a duly nominated candidate Dana blocked from talking with Jack Layton?

 

7 Could Dana not have called Jack directly? Perhaps he did not have his phone number.

 

8 This is indeed very strange.

 

9 What gives here?

  

Fidel

And, why can't Dana take a hint? What's with the fatal attraction? What part of the word "no" doesnt he understand?

Pages

Topic locked