Friday, September 05, 2008

What is It With the Green Party and 9/11?

Greens pull candidate over controversial remarks

Less than a week before the seventh anniversary of 9/11, the Green party has pulled yet another candidate over some remarks made on the subject.

On Thursday, the party rejected the candidacy of John Shavluk, the party's nominated candidate for Newton-North Delta. At the heart of the issue lie comments made on in the course of a post about drug laws, police, the Iraq war, and (that troublesome old topic) 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Courtesy of blogger Robert Jago, the post in question reads as follows:

"… you cops are on borrowed time as far as being the enforcers of bad laws and being used as society’s GOONS.
YOU soon will be seen as relevant again and as important as you used to be ,a pillar of the community. i realize how hard it would be to enforce stupid laws and i know i could not have thrown Rosa Parks from the bus. must be a redneck gene somewhere.

if we want to talk about laws,,why don’t you care that your country started an illegal war in Iraq,,arrest some one you law racists!!!!
everyone knows but you guys whats going to happen and its way over due
hey i heard some guy in Australia knows someone who says he had something to do with your governments complicate attack on your shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters. you know “the 2 towers” (who has the ring i wonder)better invade there too eh,,oh no oil?
Apparently, John Shavluk isn't quite the kind of person any self-respecting political party (even the Green party) would want representing them. Go figure.

Of course, we've seen this kind of controversy with the Green party before. In fact, we've seen it within the last 18 months.

The Shavluk affair, as it will quickly come to be known in Green party circles, has quickly come to mirror the Kevin Potvin affair (as it has come to be known in Green party circles).

First off, you have a candidate oddly overconfident despite running for a fringe party with barely 5% popular support in the country. Secondly, controversial topics regarding 9/11 (although, for the record, Shavluk was removed due to the seeming anti-semitic nature of some of his remarks). Finally, both individuals seem to be completely unable to be honest -- even with themselves -- on the topic.

Kevin Potvin insisted that his words had somehow been misrepresented, and that he was being slandered by the mainstream media who found The Republic of East Vancouver threatening.

For his own part, Shavluk insists it's an insidious conspiracy against his particular political goals, insisting that the rejection of his nomination is merely intended to undermine his efforts to legalize marijuana. Shavluk reportedly had worked to bring members of the Marijuana party and like-minded members of the NDP over to the Green party.

Both candidates insist that the Green party will somehow be lost without them. Kevin Potvin imagined himself they would be denying themselves their first MP (although the recent defection of former Liberal Blair Wilson should have dispelled that particular fantasy). Shavluk insists "the Green Party are pretty much cutting their legs out beneath them".

Surely, they'll rue the day. And John Shavluk should totally hold his breath while he waits for that to happen.

As for Kevin Potvin, he's made his own views regarding 9/11 crystal clear. Not only was there his "Revolting Confession", but also once participated in a YouTube video in which another individual encouraged people to vote for Potvin based on his views on 9/11 (the video has since been marked as "private" by its creator).

Now, with John Shavluk's candidacy evaporating over some nutty 9/11-related comments, one has to wonder: does the Green party have an official policy regarding the 9/11 "truth" movement?

If not, does it need one? Apparently, it just might.


  1. Patrick:

    Good post. I'll respond to an important point you made in comments over at my place.

    P.S. - the NDP is not a fringe party, but the NDP actually does have a position on 911 conspiracy theories, which is that it doesn't have a position on 911 conspiracy theories. When questioned about 911 by conspirazoids, however, Jack Layton has repeatedly said that Barrie Zwicker (Canada's premier 911 loon) is a "good friend" of his - precisely the sort of non-statement that encourages fringe weirdos to find a place in the mainstream.

  2. I'm not sure if I'd agree that the "good friend" non-statement encourages 9/11 "truth" weirdos to come to the NDP or not.

    I'd be tempted to insist that it probably couldn't be meant that way -- then again, many such comments have unintentional consequences.

    After all, one need not agree with every belief or bizarre theory one holds in order to maintain a friendship, right?


Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.