He's Kind of Angry For a Stoner

During the course of the 2008 federal election, NDP leader Jack Layton has run into some troubles over an alleged deal he struck with Marc Emery, the party has had some pot-related troubles.

Over the course of the campaign, Layton has shed two candidates over drug-related issues.

Layton himself denies the deal. But one particular individual -- clearly a Marijuana party activist -- takes exception to his denial.

Posting videos on YouTube under the name LyingLayton, one individual has taken it upon himself to reveal the depth of the alleged collaboration between Layton and Emery.

In one video, "LyingLayton" inserts numerous "fact checks" balloons into a video of Layton being asked by Jane Taber to comment on the allegations during an appearance on CTV's Question Period:



Another video features Layton speaking to Emery and Larsen's POT-TV, wherein Layton speaks ambiguously about marijuana decriminalization:



In another video, Layton appears on Much Music during the 2004 campaign in which he admits to having used marijuana (not terribly damaging, considering the broad number of Canadians who have either tried, or continue to use, marijuana).



During the video, Layton commits to removing marijuana from the criminal code, and commits to (as he previously described on POT-TV) a "rules-based system" wherein driving under the influence would remain forbidden (thus the removal of the irrepressible and irresponsible -- if not outright retarded -- Larsen as an NDP candidate).

In another video, Layton appears speaking with a Marc Emery and notes that his candidates are running on a platform of legalizing -- not merely decriminalizing -- pot:



He also invokes the expressed opinions of then-Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell, who also favoured reform of marijuana-related drug laws.

Layton also speaks of visiting Amsterdam, and expresses an opinion that legalized marijuana would somehow be "self-regulating".

In the final video, Emery stumps for Layton.



Layton "gets it", and is "one of us", Emery insists.

Maybe not so much as Emery believed. Not only does Layton seem to want to disassociate himself from his obvious association with Emery and his cohorts, but apparently was never in full solidarity with them in the first place.

After all, when Dana Larsen took video of himself driving while smoking pot, he must have believed that it was A-OK. Whether or not he ever imagined his party would be A-OK with it is another matter entirely.

In the end, however, it's certainly better that Layton is willing to stake limits on his association with the Marijuana party and its activists.

After all, anyone in this country whose favoured political issue is whether or not they can toke up legally is simply too stupid to be taken seriously, and should do all Canadians a favour by declining to vote.

Me, Too! Me, Too!

Green party admission to leaders' debates has brought Canada's other political crazies out of the woodworks

With Green party leader Elizabeth May set to participate in the televised leaders' debates -- despite her party having never elected a single, solitary MP -- many of Canada's other political crazies want a spot in the big show, too.

"The parties that are in the House are treating it like a private fiefdom, they're trying to pull up the drawbridge behind them and exclude other parties and new ideas," said Christian Heritage party leader Ron Gray.

"A democracy requires an informed electorate," he added. "To preempt the voter's decision by excluding one important voice is anti-democratic."

But in the 2005/06 federal election, only 28,152 voters voted for the anti-abortion, anti-gay social conservative Christian Heritage party. That's good for a 0.19% of the popular vote.

Is the Christian Heritage party really an "important voice"? Not bloody likely.

Marijuana party leader Blair Longley also thinks that, gosh-darn it, it's all just not fair.

"It's so unfair it goes off the scale," Longley sniffed. "We've been complaining forever and ever. Marijuana Party candidates are routinely excluded from debates, all over the place, all the time."

"If you're below the two-per-cent (threshold), you're nothing," Longley noted.

And for good reason, too. It's one thing for the debates to have to moderate a leaders' debate amongst four (now five) different leaders. Add a burnout douchebag who's probably stoned to the mix?

Not a pretty picture.

In the 2005/06 election 9,171 voters cast their ballot in favour of the Marijuana party. One presumes that a good deal of their constituency must have had an epiphany on election day: "if the only political issue I care about is the legalization of marijuana, I am clearly too fucking stupid to vote."

Of course, there is one fringe party in Canada that could actually make a somewhat legitimate claim to a spot in the leaders' debate: the Communist party, who elected Fred Rose in 1943, when the party ran candidates as the Labour Progressive party.

Unfortunately for the Communist party (and fortunately for the rest of us), however, the Communist party will still have to field candidates against the Marxist-Leninist party, splitting what is quite literally the pinko-commie vote.

Of course, neither party would stand a chance of electing an MP anywhere. There are three reasons for this: Communist. Marxist. Leninist.

Commanding a potential 10% of the popular vote, the Green party has certainly grown in status far beyond the meager dreams of these other fringe upstarts. But with the party finally claiming a place at the televised debate -- even with a leader acting as nothing more than a proxy for the Liberal party -- one has to wonder how long it may be before the network consortium relents and lets all these other crazies in, too.

Then again, Parliament (on a good day) already resembles an unruly kindergarten classroom. Why shouldn't the leaders' debate follow suit?