Danielle Smith and the politics of division

Just for fun, and because there is nothing as satisfying as saying "I told you so," let's have a look at Danielle Smith in the media. The way she is spinning her problems now is enacting not just one but two of the things I've talked about in this blog before. One, she says "urban elites" are against her. We can assume the addition of "elite" to urban makes it derogatory, because in the right wing world, there can be nothing worse than being elite, reading Harper's in an independent coffee shop while drinking a non-fat chai latte, or having the kind of social and cultural analysis that can be gained through a Liberal Arts education. Here she goes again with the narratives of persecution. I can't help thinking it's not that smart to point out that smart people don't like you much. The second problem she is once again enacting is her tendency to blame the media. As I've said before, bad policy results in negative media attention; it's not a liberal plot. And in this case, bad policy also resulted in a poor election performance. It's not the urban elites or a liberal bias in media that brought down Danielle Smith. In fact, if we were to go back and study the election coverage, there is a case to be made that if there was media bias, it was favourable to Smith. I also had a good laugh when, the day after the election, Smith admitted she and her party might have to take a second look at their policies. Not their fundamental beliefs mind you, just their policies. I'd suggest you all take a few Liberal Arts courses and look at your beliefs too.

Of course, there is one other I told you so to be had, and that is never mess with abortion in Canadian politics. After the Wildrose loss and the decimation of Stephen Woodworth in Federal Parliament over M312, maybe we will finally be able to move on from this divisive strategy. It is never appropriate to threaten the rights of a whole group of people. All of us in Canada should be secure in our rights whether we are women or gay or immigrants or Liberal Arts students. On that, here is my recap of what abortion meant in the Alberta Election in an April 30 guest blog of mine on Abortion Gang. Of course the media is concentrating on the "bozo eruptions" of the homophobic Hunsperger and the Caucasian Ron Leech as well as Smith's own bizarro decision to out herself as a climate change denier when they tell the story of the fall of the Wildrose. But we all know where it started - abortion, conscience rights and the promise to shut down the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It was this trifecta of issues that created the first chink in the Wildrose armour.

I'm hoping we're past playing the politics of division. Perhaps as long as we have a first past the post system the politics of divide and conquer will win out. But a girl can dream.

My Canada includes Women's Rights

Today I am grateful for all of the Canadian women and men who have stood up for women's rights and affirmed my right to bodily autonomy, security of the person, affirmed my right to express my own conscience and control my own destiny. Thank you to all who spoke in the House of Commons against Woodworth's regressive motion. Thank you to Niki Ashton who connected her words so eloquently to the work of her feminist fore-mothers. Thank you to Hedy Fry who managed to demonstrate the absurdity of the motion while assassinating the government's record. Thank you to Francoise Boivin for your passion. Thank you to Gordon O'Connor, Conservative Whip, who clearly stated all the failings of the motion and affirmed that Canadians do not want to go back in time. Thank you to all of you who were so eloquent and passionate.

I have always been against debating abortion. Human rights are not up for debate. But here we were, fighting the most regressive and misogynist forces in our country, debating. Although part of me wanted to block out the spectacle and wished MPs would stand in the House, refuse to speak and even turn their backs, I have to admit I watched intently and was moved by what was said. A few times, I was moved to tears. To hear my values stated in our House of Commons was powerful for me. As my American ally Charlotte Taft reminded me, we have to engage when our rights are threatened. But I'm glad I didn't waste a lot of energy "debating" the antis over the years, whose minds will never change, and had the energy to get fully involved when it counted. I've also always said, as activists, we have to be smart about where to put our energy.

This does not mean I am grateful the debate happened or that I am in any way pleased that Mr. Harper allowed it to go forward. There is no reason to put women or any group of people in a position in which they feel threatened and unsafe, in which they feel their rights may be taken away. Women my age and older often complain that young women take their rights for granted. Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't all of us? To a very large extent, we should be secure in our rights, secure in this country, secure that our government isn't plotting against us. I fault Mr. Harper for putting so many Canadians in a position where they are insecure and feeling unsafe. And it is not just women. Dissenting groups beyond Status of Women Canada feel the chill, especially environmental groups. I will continue to fight for a Canada in which progressives are heard and our agenda is mainstream.

This Motion 312 business isn't over. There will be another hour of debate, and I won't be relieved until this next incursion on our rights is voted down. But I am grateful, grateful to our MPs who spoke on our behalf and grateful to all of our allies.

Happening on the heels of the defeat of the Wildrose in Alberta, I feel doubly happy. My Canada is a Canada in which I am respected and in which I feel safe and my daughter is safe. I am grateful. I belong here.

Woodworth's Misogyny

To Stephen Woodworth and your cabal of fetus fetishists. (Who are they? Check out this video at Creekside and also check out the full list of anti-choice MPs at ARCC.)

Why do you hate women? Why are you and your anachronistic patriarchal cabal trying to force your opinions up my vagina? Why are you forcing Parliament to waste time on a question that has been settled for decades? Give it up, man. It's over. If you get your way, this issue will end up in the Supreme Court and be struck down AGAIN as it has been every time it has been presented since Morgentaler.  Why is my Parliament wasting its time and my money debating a motion that is premised on the denial of women's most basic human rights, the denial of my daughter's most basic human rights, the denial of MY most basic human rights?

Why can't you see the evidence in front of your eyes, and know that denying a woman the right to an abortion only results in driving the procedure underground and bringing harm to women. Are you trying to find ways to harm us? Why do you deny the science and the surveys and the studies and the irrefutable evidence that criminalizing abortion does nothing to reduce its incidence? How can you be so blind to fact?

Why are potential people, clumps of cells no bigger than a few milimeters, more important to you than actual women?

If I can't control my body, I am not free. I will not be enslaved. I will not be enslaved to you and your failing, desperate, patriarchal, misogynist ideology of control and colonization. You don't get to decide what I do with my body. Only I get to decide that.

You would never allow another to control your body, to take away your most basic rights. But this is just women we're talking about here, so you don't care. You feel we can't be trusted. You feel you know what is best for us, that you can make blanket statements about what's right and wrong in our lives without knowing us, without knowing the intricate, intimate details of how we have to live our lives every day, balance our relationships and our budgets and our families. You think none of this matters. You think you know what's best for us. You think you can intervene in our relationship with our Gods and our consciences. You can't. You don't have the right.

When my Parliament uses its power and energy to deny my rights and the rights of half the Canadian population, I am outraged. Outraged. Why do you think it is reasonable to demand that another person give over control of their body to YOU and people who think like you? You know that petition you are sending around, the one that you're putting up in publicly funded schools and having Catholic school children sign, the one that shows a woman's pregnant belly and cuts off her head? I've got to hand it to you. The symbolism is perfect. Your petitions' graphics, let alone the content, show you don't care about women, don't care about me. You've broken that woman into parts, objectified her, made her pornographic. The woman in that picture is nothing but an incubator to you. My daughter is nothing but an incubator to you. I am nothing but an incubator to you.

Why are you obsessed with women's bodies? What is wrong with you? Why can't you go about your business and leave me alone? Don't you have better things to do? Couldn't you dedicate yourself to solving climate change (if you believe in it), or finding people jobs, or building housing for people in poverty, or making sure everyone in Canada eats tonight? No, instead, you are dedicating yourself to your woman-hating agenda. And I have to wonder, what happened to you? Did someone hurt you when you were little and ruin your sense of eroticism and any possibility you have of enjoying a healthy sexual relationship? Did someone convince you sex was a chore done only to procreate? Do you think that clinging to patriarchy is the only way you can be powerful? What happened to you that you are willing to trample the rights of women?

The patriarchy wants to control women in reproduction, always has, always will. It's the ultimate tool of oppression and coercion against women. Isn't it time to find a way to live as equals? How many more generations will we have to wait until people like you are gone?

You do not have the right to impose your values on me. I have values, and they are just as strong and important and vital to me as yours are to you. The difference between you and me is I'll never try to shove mine up another woman's vagina, or down another man's throat. Believe what you want. It's a free country, and I'm pro-choice. I support your right to believe any stupid thing you want to believe. But I'll never support your efforts to force others to abide by your twisted, erotophobic, anti-sex, misogynist, patriarchal bundle of human-rights affronting crap that your motion represents.

You are waking a sleeping giant. Women are not things for you to possess and command. You are about to find out, we are warriors.

What to Expect While You're Expecting Motion 312

Lots of people have asked me what this “Motion 312” business is about, and I realize I tend to write this blog as though everyone already knows. So here is my Motion 312 Adviser, also known as “What to Expect While You’re Expecting Motion 312.”

Background: The Big Picture - What is Motion 312?

The motion is a question raised by MP StephenWoodworth, a real piece of anti-choice work. In his motion, he asks Parliament to strike a committee to study whether or not the fetus (or in his words, “the child”) is human. His intentions with this motion are clear to all of us; he wants the fetus declared a person so that abortions will be criminalized along with any women having them. For a full discussion of all the arguments against this motion, please look at the wonderful Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) site here. To put it in a nutshell, there is one argument that moves me the most. When fetuses are persons, women are not. Two persons cannot exist in one body and both have rights. This means that if the fetus is given personhood, the woman who carries it loses personhood. Not to put too fine a point on it, the woman will be considered only in terms of her capacity as incubator.

In Canada, we may be fortunate to have the word "persons" so strongly associated with women's rights, something that is not shared by our American sisters. The Famous Five famously ensured that women in Canada were considered persons under the law, and that changed everything for us. As persons, we are entitled to everything a man is entitled to, including security of the person. Most women understand we cannot give that away.

I did an interview for a local Calgary paper about Motion 312. You can hear the audio here, if you are interested. Stephanie Grey and Wendy Lowe, also interviewed, are both anti-choicers. Listen if you feel like getting angry. (caution: trigger warning) Bruce Foster is the final interviewee. If the writer of the piece asked Bruce Foster on to balance out the perspective, it might have been nice if Foster had been a little more clear on whether he thought women had rights. Apparently, his role was to give a political perspective. But I do appreciate his point that this will go where most private members' bills go, which is nowhere, and that it will die on the order paper.

The specifics:

To understand Motion M-312and the discussion that follows, it’s probably a good idea to read it first, so here it is in full.

"That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

"that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

"that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

"that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

"that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

" (i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

" (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

" (iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

" (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

For the record, Standing Order 114(2) is about substitution of committee members.

What is the Process?

On April 26, the House will have its first hour of debate on this motion. The first speaker will have 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions and answers. The government gets the most time here, so there won’t be much time for opposing MPs to speak. So far, I understand that Francoise Boivin, Jean Crowder and Ruth-Ellen Brosseau plan to speak against motion. There may not be time for any others. We cannot, as citizens opposed to this motion, think that many opposition party members and pro-choice members will be given time to say their peace on this issue. Debate is severely limited. However, opposition party members can have 60 seconds to say something in the 15 minutes before question period every day. They could get up every day to present paper petitions, could read off names of individuals who signed the online petition, or just mention the online petition and say that it is growing every day. If you have an opposition member as your MP, it would be a good idea to ask them to raise this issue on your behalf in this short time they have available to them.

The second hour of debate will be scheduled for some time in June or perhaps September. The thinking is that if Stephen Harper is truly embarrassed by this motion, it will be pushed back. My own thought is that the outcome of the Alberta election makes a difference here. Now that the Wildrose Party (a party closely aligned with old Reformers and present day federal Conservatives) has been soundly defeated, Harper has to realize there is still massive opposition to a regressive social agenda, even in Alberta. He has to see that this motion will still alienate the vast majority of Canadians. I think that if Wildrose had won, Harper would have been more inclined to let the M-312 play out and try to appease his base. But as Bruce Foster notes in the audio interview mentioned above, Harper also knows abortion is the third rail of politics. Better to leave it alone.

After the second hour of debate, there will be a vote, and the House will decide if this “Women Can’t Be Trusted Motion” will pass, and a committee will be struck to investigate when “a child” as the motion puts it, becomes a “human being.”

Then What?

At this point, if it gets this far, it is important to take note of the membership of the committee as outlined in the motion. Membership of the committee must be established within twenty days of the committee being struck. Looking back at the text of the motion, we can see how membership will be weighted towards anti-choice Conservatives. The Vice-Chair must be from opposition, but there are anti-choice opposition members. This will be something to watch for. If an anti-choice opposition member is chosen, there is really not much hope. (addendum: April 25. The NDP caucus is unanimously opposed to M 312)  The Chair (a Conservative) will not vote unless there is a tie, but again we can assume the chair will be anti-choice. It is quite reasonable to challenge the validity of this committee because of the bias inherent in its membership.

How will we know what the committee is doing?

In the past, committee proceedings were often public, and sometimes even broadcast on CPAC, and committee proceedings get put on the web. However, these days, increasingly, committees meet “in-camera,” which is interesting considering the Conservatives claim to be all about transparency.

Further, it is highly likely that people who speak to the committee will only be allowed to speak on the motion itself. The motion is carefully worded to exclude any mention of the woman carrying the fetus. For example, the questions ask the legal impact on “the child” and its human rights, but not on the woman and hers. Also, it asks only about medical evidence. There is no debate about whether medically, the fetus is human. It has human DNA. Case closed. The real question in terms of abortion is if the fetus is a person in legal terms. These are two significantly different issues, and Motion 312 only deals with the first. In other words, the Committee can deny witnesses who wish to speak about the legal issues, because it’s not part of the motion. Witnesses may only be permitted to speak to what medically identifies the fetus as human.

Also, we have no way of knowing who will be called to speak at the committee and give evidence. Again, this evidence will likely be limited to the motion itself, and witnesses who wish to speak about the woman carrying the pregnancy or the legal aspects of personhood may be excluded. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely the committee will find anything they don’t want to find.

Pro-Choice advocates will definitely not speak to the motion if they don’t ask to speak, so it is important that we do ask to submit briefs anyway, even if we expect our requests to be denied. The process for doing so is outlined here. Although I would like to agree with my optimistic fellow blogger at “Fat and Not Afraid” that pro-choice voices will be heard, I am less optimistic. I think this committee, if it is struck, is not going to be transparent and won’t hear the excellent arguments put forward against the motion by allies like ARCC.

To understand what happens to Motion 312 after the committee finishes its "work" and presents its findings, it is probably most instructive to look at the anti-choice’s perspective outlined on this website. (caution: another trigger warning.) If you don't want to go there, which I totally understand, ARCC summarizes their plan in this way. The anti-choice will "bring forward the biology of fetal development as 'scientific evidence' that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are human beings from conception and deserve legal protection. However, this would subordinate women to their fetuses and eliminate many rights and legal protections for pregnant women."

I hope this brings some clarity to the process and explains the myriad reasons for concern. Again, there is plenty of action in the coming days against this motion. Get involved however you can, and don't worry that you have blown it if you don't have something ready for the 26th. All of our actions must continue throughout this process, and certainly to the second hour of debate.

-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an ebook on Smashwords and through Kindle, Kobo, iBooks or any of your other favourite formats. There are a very few paper copies left for sale, which can be purchased by going back to the website. This will be the last print run.

Are You A Wildrose Supporter? Take the Quiz.

Wildrose is making headway because Albertans want change. But I can't help wondering if Wildrose is the change Albertans want. So I'm doing my own vote compass. (If you haven't done the actual vote compass yet, do so). This questionnaire reflects specific issues that have arisen during the campaign. The desire to punish the Progressive Conservatives is strong. But are Albertans who say they will vote Wildrose actually believers in their policy? Take this 13 Question Quiz (because 13 is lucky) and check the links to see if your beliefs really match those of the party and some of its candidates.


1. Do you believe that social issues should be decided by referendum?
a) yes b) no

Wildrose suggests that "social issues like abortion" could go to citizen initiated referendum (See pg. 51). This sounds democratic, but can lead to real difficulties, as has been the case in California ballot initiatives. Wildrose says that all referendum initiatives will have to pass a review by the courts saying that they are legal and would not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, all anyone seeking a referendum has to do is to suggest Alberta invoke the notwishstanding clause in order to get around the Charter. Some, including Alison Redford, who is also a lawyer, suggest that government by referendum is merely a way for those who disagree with court decisions to get around them. Critics express concerns that government by referendum is cumbersome. Other critics say it opens up social policy to special interest groups, as Rick Mercer so brilliantly pointed out in his famous Doris/Stockwell Day skit. Those with the most money (or in Rick's case, the most humour) will win, not necessarily those who are in compliance with human rights legislation observed in the rest of Canada. I suggest anyone who wants to govern by referendum is interested in power, but not in the hard work of actually governing. They will throw all of those tough decisions back to the voter. If you believe that we elect our representatives to do the hard work of representing us and making policy, and that it is the role of government to govern, you might not be a Wildrose supporter.

2. Do you believe that "conscience rights" should supersede human rights enabling public servants like marriage commissioners to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples?
a) yes b) no.

Wildrose's vision of conscience rights is discriminatory. "Conscience rights" means that public servants like marriage commissioners can deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Marriage commissioners are a public option for those seeking legal marriage but not necessarily a religious marriage. No one has ever said that religious institutions must go against their own beliefs.  Freedom of religion is already protected under the Charter. Wildrose policy would lead us into the past. My own belief is that if a marriage commissioner can't do their job for all members of the public, they should not be a marriage commissioner.

3. Do you believe the Alberta Human Rights Commission should be dismantled, along with its work in education and advocacy?
a) yes b) no

Read this link, from the University of Calgary Faculy of Law blog for a scathing critique of the Wildrose position on Human Rights.

4. Do you believe pharmacists should be allowed to deny birth control and emergency contraception to customers?
a) yes b) no

"Conscience rights" gives pharmacists this option. In many Alberta towns, there is only one pharmacy. This would leave many women without options and timely access to emergency contraception such as Plan B.

5. Do you believe Doctors should be able to refuse to refer patients for medically necessary services that they disagree with, like abortion?
a) yes b) no

"Conscience rights" means doctors could do just that. Some people argue that doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions if they don't want to. No doctor is currently forced to perform abortions against their will.  This is a red herring and fear mongering by the Wildrose. No doctor is trained in everything, and doctors who perform abortions seek out the training to do so. Any doctor performing abortions does so voluntarily. What conscience rights means is that doctors who are anti-choice can refuse to refer women for medically necessary services, or send them to anti-choice places like Pregnancy Care Centres where they will not get the help they are asking for.

6. Would you like to have a referendum on whether abortion should be de-funded or de-listed in Alberta, or any aspect of abortion? 
a) yes b) no

If you're sick of hearing about abortion in the news now, a referendum will only make things worse. Regular readers of this blog know I get bored repeating the same arguments over and over again. Read the case against delisting or defunding here. The whole "I don't support it so I don't want to pay for it argument" is problematic on many levels. What if I'm not keen on war? I guess I can hold back my taxes that go to the military then. Well, it doesn't work like that. All of us pay for stuff we don't use, and sometimes don't even agree with. Our investment in each other through programs supported by our taxes is one of the only pieces of evidence that we have that we care about each other and are willing to work towards collective goals. It's why the streetlights are on at night and the traffic signals work.

7. Do you believe that there should be more privatization of health care in Alberta?
a) yes b) no

Liberals claim that approximately 30% of AHC is already privatized. This will only increase under a Wildrose government, as their policy documents describe (see page 31 and onwards).  Key supporters of the Wildrose are also key proponents of privatized medicine. As a person who has had cancer, I can tell you how important publicly funded health care is. I've seen a lot of the system, and it works. I would be dead, broke or both today if I lived in the United States where health care is private. Rather than increase privatization, I'd like to see an increased investment in public health care like dental care for children and drugs for cancer patients. No one should be denied health care because they can't afford it. But hey, that's just me, and it's my blog.

8. Are you aware of Danielle Smith's elected history, her disastrous ten months on the Calgary School Board? Are you aware that her past statements conflict with recent assurances that she is personally pro-choice and supportive of gay rights? (I know, this was two questions, but they are related.)
a) yes  b) no

Danielle Smith has little elected history, (a grand total of ten months) and what little she does have has been chronicled here on this blog and by Daveberta. Warren Kinsella has also published a few of her choice quotes from the past, indicating what her thoughts really are on social issues. Yes, they were compiled by Kinsella, a liberal, but they were spoken by Smith, and that's what matters.These must be examined carefully by all voters.

9. Are you aware of the backgrounds of Wildrose candidates like Allan Hunsperger, Link Byfield, Ron Leech and John Carpay, and do you agree with their beliefs? 
a) yes b) no

10. Do you believe Alberta should adopt "firewall" strategies and isolate itself in Confederation by opting out of the Canada Pension Plan, and creating its own immigration policy?
a) yes b) no

The Wildrose platform (p 79-82) revives what has been called the "Firewall" vision of Alberta, based on a letter written and signed by many current Wildrose supporters which suggested Alberta be more isolationist. The Wildrose platform suggests Alberta opt out of Canada Pension and create an Alberta only pension plan. It suggests we create our own immigration policy, again opting out of the Canadian vision, our own police force instead of the RCMP, and that we opt out of environmental legislation that might impact Alberta business. My own opinion is in other provinces, this kind of talk would be called separatism. I'm a firm believer in federalism and that Canada is stronger when we all work together.

11. Do you believe Alberta, as a wealthy and resource rich province, should not support poorer provinces through transfer payments and we should keep our wealth to ourselves?
a) yes b) no

Wildrose policy suggests we need to "aggressively address the issue of interprovincial wealth transfer," because currently, as Canada's richest province, Alberta gives more than it gets. Transfer payments are intended to ensure all Canadians have equal access to social services regardless of where they live. Wildrose does not believe Alberta should help its neighbours. This is unlikely to make us welcome in a national conversation.

12. Do you think climate change is unproven?
a) yes b) no

Danielle Smith isn't sure she believes in climate change.  If you answered yes, you've found your party and Smith is your gal to lead you against science and logic.


13. Is punishing the Progressive Conservatives worth voting for people whose policies you don't know or disagree with?
a) yes b) no


If you answer yes to any of these questions, maybe Wildrose is your zone. If you answer no, I urge you to think twice about giving them your vote. Anybody but Wildrose.

Personhood Motion 312 Action Alert

As you all are aware, Motion 312, the "Women Can't Be Trusted" motion, is going for debate in the House April 26. Here is some vital information you can share via twitter and facebook, or through any means you have to get the word out.

ARCC's action alert page lists a whole host of activities. First of all, sign the petition.

I've done that, and I'll let you know what else I've done regarding these alerts. My knitting is on its way to Ottawa already via the Womb Swarm Parliament group listed in the action. As you can see, I'm a terrible knitter, but who cares? Go on to their site to see some great knitted uteri from people who know what they are doing. But as far as my effort goes, it's the thought that counts, and I love the zipper. The piece is titled "Keep Out" and the materials are yarn, metal zipper, cotton thread, wooden BBQ skewer, poster board and sharpie. I knitted this with the Revolutionary Knitters one night here in Calgary, and I'm just happy they exist.

I've been Telling Anti-Choice MPs Everything, a great effort that makes over-sharing useful. They have the 411 on my menopausal menstrual inconsistencies, my last mammogram, and so on. I've joined forces with the Radical Handmaids in spirit, even though I can't be physically present for their actions.

And, how can you not love the outfits. I have spread the word (oh, have I spread the word) and I am a member of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, supporting their actions with cold hard cash.

Here in Alberta, we're fighting a war on a dual front, as are our sisters in New Brunswick and PEI. This is what it's going to be like all over Canada if the radical right get to move their anti-woman agenda forward.

We have to remember our best weapon, and that's humour. The anti-choice folks aren't funny. So create your actions and move your point of view forward.



And here is the funniest thing I've ever seen about personhood bills. See The Daily Show on Personhood. It's the best.
----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book at Smashwords and via your favourite e-book distributors like Kobo, Kindle and iBooks. Check it out. Print copies are still available back at the website via paypal until they run out. This is the last print run.

Anybody but Wildrose.

I can get pretty riled up about politics. Especially when my rights are on the line, when the rights of my daughter are on the line and the rights of all women are on the line. I get riled up when the rights of all of LGBTI folks are jeopardized. All of you who have been reading this blog for the past ten days know the score. If this is your first hit, please, read back over the last few posts. The Wildrose position on abortion broke here, and besides Daveberta, I'm the only one I know of to really talk about Danielle Smith's disastrous history on the Calgary Public School Board, her only elected experience to date. Smith showed herself to be unresponsive, even undemocratic.

It's hard for me to believe that in my home province of Alberta, my fellow Albertans are willing to sell off human rights for a lousy three hundred bucks from the Wildrose. I have to hope this is all just a bad dream.

Letters from people concerned about Wildrose keep coming in to me, as though I can stop them. I want to tell you all, your job now is not to preach to the converted. It is to preach to those people you don't usually talk to, the Wildrose supporters and those leaning in that direction. Don't waste your time talking to the true believers, although it is sometimes fun to drop anti-Wildrose materials at houses with Wildrose signs. You have to remember, they actually want a return to 1950s style values. They believe the crap they are selling. You have to speak to the moderates, moderates like most Albertans. Don't be afraid to offend. This is a democracy and this is an election period. You have to risk offence to change a mind, but this can always be done with civility.

I understand the desire to punish the PCs, to send them a message that they have blown it. I understand that Alison Redford's message that she is a new broom sweeping clean is met with skepticism. I was a fierce opponent of Bill 44. I get it. And I'm not a PC. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The most out of touch members of her party moved to the Wildrose.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, goes the old saying. And as I've said before on this blog, if you had told me a year ago I would publish a sentence that claims the best way to change Alberta is to vote PC, I would have told you that you were insane. If you can't stomach a PC vote, vote Liberal, vote ND, vote Alberta Party, vote Green or Evergreen or whatever those folks are calling themselves now. They need some encouragement. I urge everyone who is against the regressive agenda of Wildrose to vote anyone but Wildrose. Look at the Change Alberta site if you want to see the lay of the land and which progressive candidates might win in your riding.

When you talk to people, do mention the things that matter to you, conscience rights, reproductive rights, government by referendum. Tell them about Smith's disastrous history on the school board, the only political experience she has. But don't forget the bigger picture. The Wildrose platform is isolationist. They don't like transfer payments and say Alberta gives more than it gets. They don't seem to understand the purpose of transfer payments, which is for richer parts of Canada to contribute to the social safety net so that all Canadians can benefit equally. They are Libertarians, interested only in looking out for number one. They are old Firewallers from the Reform days. They want Alberta to have its own immigration policy and pension plan, opting out of national plans and opportunities to build a nation. They want to bring in legislation that will mean federal rules on the environment will not apply here. Read the platform. It's all there.

[Addendum: And here is some more ammunition from Warren Kinsella, who has quoted Danielle Smith on a host of issues that reveal her true conscience. Check it out].
Do what you can. There is only a week left. I thank you for all of your letters, and I am grateful to know my efforts are appreciated, but I urge you to spend your energy now talking to people whose votes you can change.

Yours,
Jane

Progressive Conservative Party on Abortion

For the Record, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has not answered my three questions on abortion. (Neither have the Liberals or New Democrats.) I doubt they will, and really, who can blame them. But they are speaking about it in the media. But since I started this storm, I feel compelled to at least try to get information from other parties out there. Right now, all I can do is glean from the media and report.

This is what Alison Redford had to say about abortion and conscience rights this morning on CBC’s the Current.

Anna Maria Tremonti asked Redford about the Wildrose stance on abortion and conscience rights. (Start at 7:17 if you are listening to the clip above)

Redford: “I think Albertans are shocked to hear that that’s come back into the discussion. You know these are issues that were decided in Canada twenty years ago and I think Albertans are very proud of who we are as a community. It was very unsettling for me to hear this come up last week from that party as a legitimate policy position and I was just as disappointed to hear that the party itself would go further with respect to citizen referenda which really, I think, is something that concerns Albertans. It’s not where we, I don’t believe, should go. My sense from speaking to Albertans is that these are discussions that are incredibly divisive. Of course people should have their own personal beliefs, but when you start to talk about conscience rights it’s a very slippery slope. It upsets me that we seem to think, or that they seem to think,  that this is something Albertans want to talk about and quite frankly I think for a lot of Albertans it’s a little embarrassing for people in the rest of Canada to think that Albertans are still debating these as serious issues.

Tremonti:  You have spent years working in human rights and constitutional law. Does the concept of conscience rights even have a chance of going anywhere? Is it a red herring?

Redford: What I see this as is a legal construct that is brought forward by people with certain political beliefs when they don’t like the decisions that the courts have made.  Now, that’s a fairly technical legal argument, and I don’t think that we get very far by turning this into a debate between lawyers. But we’ve certainly seen in Alberta in the last couple of days commentary from legal scholars from our own University of Calgary saying that this stuff just doesn’t make sense.  It doesn’t reflect the reality of the law in Canada, of the Courts in Canada, of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Okey dokey. Or is that okie dokie? 

I still want to know what you'll do to improve access to abortion services in the north and rural Alberta, but I'm feeling pretty confident you have no plans to de-list or to pose any fundamental challenge to a woman's right to choose or to make access to services worse. Also, in comparison to Wildrose and Danielle Smith's approach to this is in the media, this is very sane. No narrative of persecution here. I point this out to support my own contention that abortion only becomes an issue when you say something dumb about it.

I don't want to be a bummer or anything, but I feel compelled to mention that PC party is the party that brought in Bill 44. Would someone please ask whether or not they plan to repeal this? A watchful eye is definitely necessary here too.

I'm not going to get into health care funding generally and various positions on privatizing delivery. That wouldn't be fair because I didn't do it with the other parties. But if you're interested, it's something to find out about.

As a final note, I just want to point out that at the end of the interview, Tremonti notes that Danielle Smith had been invited to the interview but declined.

I'll try to find something just as concise from the Liberals and New Democrats too, and get that posted sometime soon. They're not getting as much media, so it's a little more difficult. So much for the liberal media bias claimed by Ms Smith.

Smith's Risky History (Part 3) Government Smith Style

This is the third of a three part series about Danielle Smith’s history as a School Board Trustee. This one has the least to do with reproductive rights and is completely off the regular topic of this blog, but in terms of the Alberta Provincial Election, it is probably the most vital. It’s about governance. I can already feel you glazing over.


An issue like conscience rights is something people can wrap their heads around and something they care about with passion. An issue like abortion is like an explosion. Abortion is what I call a “deaf” word, like cancer. People hear it and they go deaf. Although my original questions to all the parties were about abortion, the response from Wildrose made the issue much bigger. It became about using referenda to decide social issues. It became about democracy. It became about governance.


As in my other two posts, Smith’s disastrous history on the School Board gives us some vital information about her. This history matters. On to Part Three.


Part Three: Government Smith Style

As everyone knows, Smith’s only elected political experience is her ten months on the School Board.
I have often wondered why Smith never spoke out against the government's decision to dismiss a democratically elected board. I can't find any evidence of it in the media, and I don't remember her speaking out at the time. For someone saying she's all about democratic rights, it makes me wonder about her definition of democracy, just like I wonder about her definition of pro-choice and pro-gay. Maybe this is another thing she talks a good line on but does nothing about. Other Trustees vilified the government and called the tactic anti-democratic. If the public elected the Board, and the public was sick of them, the public should have been given the opportunity to get rid of them in the next election. Or better yet, someone on the Board could have shown some leadership and found a way through the divisions. No one did. The Chair at the time did not. Smith certainly did not. She was obstructionist, to say the least. I'm not interested in what blame is to be shared among the other Trustees. Smith is the only one of them vying to lead the province right now. Instead of showing leadership, instead of being productive and moving public education forward, she helped tear it apart in Calgary. Having Big Daddy Oberg come in and send the bad girls to their rooms was something almost everyone had an opinion about. Yet, when it happened, Smith was quiet. So was Anderson. Smith did not speak up for democracy.

[addendum April 15. After everyone was fired, Alberta Report said that Lyle Oberg had asked Smith and Anderson to run again which would seem to indicate they were in agreement on many things. Today, Oberg is a key advisor of Smith's, and Oberg just opened a five star private hospital in BC. Neither has a commitment to keeping public education or public health care public.]


The operating budget of the CBE back then was roughly $700,000. That’s not much compared to the provincial budget. And Smith wasn’t keen on getting into the details of it. As I mentioned in Part Two, Jennifer Pollock confirms that Smith and Peggy Anderson took a political stance not to participate in budget meetings. This was part of a broader philosophy about governance and what they felt the role of a Trustee was. Again this tells us something about Smith's style of governing. As a Libertarian, Smith believes there should be less government. Anything that makes less government is justifiable in and of itself. This would include non-participation in budget processes. As a Libertarian, she can say she believes anything. She says she is pro-choice, (See Part One for questions about that) but government shouldn't pay for abortion. But the thing is, Libertarians don't believe government should pay for anything. They don't like taxation. Leave it all to the individual.

In these circumstances, what would happen to public school?

Smith was an enthusiastic supporter of something called the “Carver Model” of governance. (Again, I feel your eyes glazing over, but try to stick with me. I’m getting to the point, honestly.) Right after I was elected, the new Trustees were sent to a weekend of presentations on "How to be a Trustee." I was happy at the time to have any guidance at all. I didn’t know until later it was an indoctrination into how administration wanted us to behave and the Carver Model. I soon learned the job really wasn't what I thought it was, or what it had ever been in the past. It had changed. I thought I had been elected to represent constituents on matters of public education. With the Board moving to the Carver model, I was wrong.



Under Carver, the Board creates policies and something called “Ends statements” that say what the goals of the organization are, but stays out of the details of how to get there. You can see why administrators would approve of this model. They have no elected representatives looking at the gory details of how they do things, the gory details like budget line items. As long as they work within broadly defined policy and meet the Ends Statements, it’s all good.  



The Carver model was not designed for use with an elected political body. (I feel you yawning, try to stay with me. This is the part that matters.) It needed to be creatively adapted so that the Board could still do its job as elected officials and achieve goals Smith and others wanted, like less micro-managing by Trustees, a goal that I shared in some respects. We have to trust, to some extent, that administrators know what they are doing. But this has to be balanced against having enough knowledge and input to be accountable to constituents, both in reporting back to them and carrying out their will. Smith was against any kind of creative adaptation to this model and wanted it used in its most orthodox way.



It might be hard to believe, but this topic was a hot one among Trustees, and could not have been more boring, less understood, or less cared about by Calgarians. I had no idea when I became a Trustee that I would be spending my time on implementing this new governance model. But the adoption of the Carver model changed everything about the way the board worked and how it related to both CBE administration and citizens. What has never been made clear to citizens, even to this day, is that Trustees don't function anymore as representatives of their constituents. They are not someone parents can call and get help from beyond the Trustees acting as receptionists and referring calls to the appropriate administrative person. I think that the adoption of the Carver model is the reason that now, the Trustees have handed over financial decision making power to Administration and try to limit public input on the school system.



And this is how Smith wanted it. As we all know, the devil is in the details, and most of us looking at a fiasco like the “no meet committee” would agree that the person in charge should have had an eye on that. It’s pretty hard to be accountable to the electorate otherwise. I have never met a person who does not think their elected representative should be accountable to them. This is an issue that goes to the heart of the nature of democracy.


Smith says she wanted to join the CBE board of Trustees in part because she felt the Board had been unresponsive to parents. Yet, she was solidly behind a governance model that could only result in less responsiveness. In the article by Maurice Tougas about Smith’s leadership potential mentioned in Part One, Pollock notes that Smith has a history, one that I can personally vouch for, of not showing any interest in constituent issues she didn't agree with. A lot of people lost faith in the capacity of the School Board to represent them. And once that happens, people start to ask why we even have one. That can only help Libertarians achieve less government.


In the Tougas article, Pollock says that, “Smith went her own way as a trustee.” Smith took “the unusual stand of advocating school closings, suggesting up to 30 schools should be closed.” Danielle Smith and I have met only once that I remember, and I'm sure she wouldn't remember it. It was while she was a Trustee. She was visiting my daughter's elementary school, one of the 30 schools she wanted to close. The other parents and I joked that she walked around it with the eyes of a real estate agent. Remember, Smith had also run on her support for charter schools. In Calgary, closed public schools often get leased to charter schools and sometimes private schools. It's a pretty good deal for them. I've never been convinced it's a good deal for public schools. Finding buildings is a pretty significant way to support Charter Schools. If she was talking to parents, she wasn't talking to us about saving our school.


I quit my job as Trustee a few months before the end of my term, stressed out and ill, disillusioned and disappointed at everything I had learned while I was there. I was often alone in my opinions, but the divisions among Board members when I was there never came close to what happened on the Board Smith was part of. We were divided, but civil. I quit when I realized my job was not to be the representative of the people who elected me, even though they thought it was. I quit when I realized I could no longer support what the Board was doing. My job was to be the yes-woman, and I couldn't do it anymore. I felt like a hypocrite. I couldn’t pretend I was a representative of my constituents when the board had basically eliminated any capacity for that, as far as I was concerned. I couldn’t pretend that what I was doing had anything to do with democracy. I was criticized for my decision, but not by many. Most people understood. I made sure my resignation was close enough to the next election that it wouldn't trigger a by-election. I didn't want it to cost the taxpayers money. And I also knew that there was not a single vote result between my departure and the end of the term for this Board that would have been altered by my presence. By that time, votes were generally going 5-2 or 6-1. The school closure issue was finished and we were moving into summer. To me, what would have been worse for Calgary Public was another divisive, bickering board. I wouldn't be that person. Calgary didn't need that again. Sometimes it's better to walk away.



That’s the end of this series. I hope you found it instructive. I've told this story from my perspective and the interpretations I've given are mine alone. I wish I could find my freaking glasses. Sorry about any typos. Apparently I've called Daveberta a bogger instead of a blogger. Sorry Dave. At least I didn't call him a bugger. I correct my mistakes when I find them. In other words, no one's perfect. I don't expect anyone, elected or otherwise, to be perfect. I do expect some integrity. I just want everyone to understand the history of this school board so they can decide for themselves if Wildrose represents their values, and if they think Ms Smith can represent them well. Like I've said, if the best indicator of future performance is past performance, everyone is entitled to know what I know. Blogs can be useful for that. 

Part One is here
Part Two is here


-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords

Danielle Smith's Risky History (Part 2) Narrative of Persecution

This is Part Two of Smith's Risky History - Part One is Here

As I said in Part One, I was the School Board Trustee for Wards 6 and 7 after Ms Smith. Since the best indicator of future performance is past performance, we need to look at her past as a Trustee.

One of the things I've been blogging about lately is how Smith likes to blame liberal conspiracies for any dissent against her. It's interesting to note her language. She has blamed "eastern Canadian critics" (read liberals) for her troubles, attacking her opponents for doing their best to protect reproductive rights and gay rights, while she herself says she's pro-choice and pro-gay rights. On the one hand, Smith claims philosophical alignment with pro-choice and pro-gay rights folks, and on the other, she blames them for trying to bring her down.

Something doesn't add up. A person who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights doesn't propose or encourage strategies that will harm reproductive rights and gay rights. As Part One makes clear, there's nothing in her history to characterize her as a progressive on these issues except her statement at last night's forum. If there were, the media would have printed it when the stories broke. Progressives with some credibility as progressives understand her "fauxgressive" rhetoric. I think her party knows exactly who she is - someone who can appear moderate compared to the rest of them and won't lift a finger to stop their regressive agenda. Now, on to Part Two.

Part Two: Smith's Narrative of Persecution

Smith's tendency to demonize her critics and portray herself as persecuted was clear while she was a Trustee and continues today.

Here's one example from the School Board days. While on the Board, Smith and Peggy Anderson had their poor attendance reported to the government by a constituent, Donn Lovett. Lovett wanted them removed from the Board in accordance with the School Act. Smith claimed that the daytime budget meetings conflicted with her day job and suggested the scheduling of those meetings was done just so it would be impossible for her to attend. Jennifer Pollock, a Trustee at the time, confirms that Smith and Anderson had a political stance against attending budget meetings. They didn't think the elected board should have anything to do with the details of the budget, except to write general policy or guidelines. (I'll talk more about this in part three, when I talk about Smith's record on governance.) Smith and Anderson said trustees Jennifer Pollock, Liz LoVecchio and Judy Tilston had put Lovett up to the letter. Lovett responded, "Nobody needs to tell me to do anything." (See this source and Daveberta again.) [Addendum April 13, 2012: I've just been able to confirm with Donn Lovett that Smith initiated a law suit against him as a result of this incident.]

More recently, when opposition to the idea of “conscience rights” arose and a former supporter publicly bailed on Wildrose as a result, Wildrose started saying it was a plot against them by a liberals. Their former supporter was labelled a conservative mole. Like Lovett, she affirmed that she acted independently. (As do I, by the way.) Smith and Wildrose deny that their opponents might have brains of our own. To them, we are all puppets on a conspiratorial string.

Here's another example. Smith was well known as the subject of some legendary "mean girl" note passing during school board meetings, a situation widely believed to be the final straw for a frustrated public and the catalyst for the Board's removal. Smith released the notes to the media, and has since called this "good opposition research." She is obviously proud of her work here. Although she denies she retrieved the notes from the garbage, other trustees said that was the only place she could have found them. The point here is that Smith made it an issue, found the notes and made them public. She wanted those notes in the media. The media in turn were delighted to outline all the details of who said what about who's hair and someone's ugly suit. (See Daveberta's blog for excruciating detail on the whole note passing fiasco.)


In this campaign, Wildrose used another "mean girl" comment and made hay out of it. The Globe and Mail reported that Wildrose had used the ridiculous tweet about Smith's family life and childless status so that it played strongly in Smith's favour. At first, media was ignoring the tweet, because it was completely insignificant. Anyone who's ever been on Twitter knows it's full of crap like this. After being unable to light a fire under the tweet, Wildrose sent out a press release just to make sure everyone knew. They wanted it to be an issue. Yes, the tweet was ridiculous and insulting and the woman who tweeted it was idiotic and was dealt with. Similarly, yes, the notes were ridiculous and petty and all involved were publicly shamed. But Smith sure made the most of both of these situations to draw attention to herself. Even I felt sorry for her after the idiotic tweet. What a woman wants to do about a family is no one's business. I'm pro-choice. But I never would have known someone took a pot shot at her unless her people had spent so much time making sure I did. After I learned that, my sympathy evaporated. It reminded me too much of the "mean girl" note incident.


What’s interesting to me is that the "mean girl" notes about bad hair and the recent tweet are genuinely petty compared to saying you’ll put “issues like abortion” to citizen initiated referendum and enact conscience rights that override human rights. But it is this abortion issue and this conscience rights issue that Smith portrays as frivolous. Again, as the Globe and Mail notes, Smith says it's all liberal lies, electioneering and those darned easterners are behind it. (For the record, I'm from Toronto and moved to Calgary in 1988. In Smith's world, that fact alone would seem to be enough to dismiss my concerns about her policies.) If, as Smith says, “It’s typical of liberal politicians to demonize a conservative party using fear-mongering,” it is just as typical for Smith to demonize progressives and use their well-founded concerns to portray herself as hard done by and misrepresented.

This week, journalists are finding out just how little negative opinion Smith and the Wildrose are willing to brook. Another article in the Globe and Mail says that journalists who aren't towing the Wildrose Party line are being rebutted. But Wildrose is not just rebutting what they find to be errors in facts; they are rebutting so-called errors of opinion. They are coming down on people who merely disagree with them. This is all sounding very Stephen Harper to me. When Harper first got into power, he de-funded Status of Women Canada the Court Challenges Program, certainly both venues for dissenters. I could write a book about how Stephen Harper has quelled dissent, and right now the last chapter would be about CBC cuts.

As I've said before, the very idea that Conservatives are the subject of liberal media persecution is  hard to buy when you remember that Smith used to work for the Calgary Herald, has had more than enough presence in media in both print and television, and that her husband is an executive with Sun Media. The media is biased? Really? In what direction? Does Smith really want to open up that can of worms?

I don't want a Provincial leader who cries persecution anytime anyone disagrees with them, or a leader who dismisses and derides dissent. And I sure don't want a leader who is going to pick a fight with the rest of Canada. I get a sense that Wildrose could start another persecution narrative, the old one where Alberta is hard done by within Canada. It's already started. Wildrose policy has enough in it to show us how a Wildrose government will relate to the rest of Canada. Wildrose is bothered by the fact that Albertans give more in transfer payments than we get. Oh poor Alberta. No reason for us to help out our neighbours. Libertarians leave that kind of stuff to individuals, remember?  Wildrose policy suggests Alberta get its own immigration policy, opt out of Canada Pension in favour of our own, and that Alberta reject any federal legislation that might come to bear on our industry (read environmental rules). If Quebec were saying some of what's in the Wildrose policy book, the word "separatist" would surely arise. Someone else can blog about that.

Part Three: Government Smith Style

-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords

Smith's Risky History (Part One) The "Fauxgressive" Ms Smith

Last night at a forum in Okotoks, Danielle Smith said she supported gay rights and was pro-choice. If actions speak louder than words, it's time to look at actions.

I wasn't going to talk about Smith and the School Board. The focus of this blog is abortion and reproductive rights. But this is about reproductive rights. It's about protecting them. Here is part one of a three part series.
 
In Smith's ten months as a Trustee on the Calgary Board of Education, (Oct 19, 1998 to Aug 19, 1999) she told us some important things about who she was. Her actions in this present election period and the policies she has put forward indicate she hasn’t changed. Since the best indicator of future performance is past performance, the past is worth bringing up.  

Danielle Smith, as everyone knows, was part of the infamous CBE Board of Trustees that got removed from office in 1999. Colloquially, people say they got fired. I know quite a bit about this time. My daughter was in elementary school and I was paying attention. I was a member of a parent activist group supporting public education and after the Board was sent packing, I thought I should try to help. I ran for Trustee in Wards 6 and 7 and won. I was the Trustee for Wards 6 and 7 after Smith.

Part One:  The "Fauxgressive" Ms Smith

Tell me who you walk with and I’ll tell you who you are, goes the saying. In 1998, Danielle Smith and another Trustee, Peggy Anderson, were Reformers/neo cons elected to a board that had been made up of Liberals and non-partisans (sometimes referred to in the media as moderates). Seemingly joined at the hip, they shared a campaign manager who was also Jason Kenny's Executive Assistant. Smith campaigned with Rob Anders. They waved at traffic together on 17^th Ave. S.W. Both Kenny and Anders are anti-choice/pro-life. Smith and Anderson were elected on narrow margins based on a platform of support for charter schools, back to basic education, and increased school discipline among other things. Anderson's day job was in Jason Kenny’s office. She also worked with some joint I think was called the Family Values Coalition, a group espousing the kind of values that say only straight and patriarchal families have value. In her first week in office, she put a poster up on her door that said, “Abstinence works every time.” This was no surprise. She spoke in candidate forums in favour of abstinence only education.


There were glowing reports written about them both many times in the now defunct Alberta Report. The message was always the same. The right finally had someone on the school board to put those progressives in their place.


The conflicts that this board was so famous for were, in part, generated by a conflict of values around human rights.The previous Board of Trustees, three of whom were returned to the Board in that same election, had managed to bring forward new policy ensuring the safety and security of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual staff and students. This was contentious. Remember back in the day when it was okay to say homosexuals didn’t deserve protection, security of the person and all the human rights straight people have? If you don't, don't worry. We might get to re-live it soon.


Today, Smith is interested in protecting “conscience rights.” That means she is interested in allowing certain people, like public marriage commissioners, to discriminate against LGBTI persons.Wildrose is trying to convince us that conscience rights are a progressive notion, even a way to protect rights. In a Libertarian view of the world like hers, the individual is everything. As my fellow blogger Pedgehog would say, it's "fauxgressive." It's a way of co-opting the language of progressive people and using it to establish regressive policies.

[Addendum: April 14, 2012. Thanks to Warren Kinsella for researching Smith's conscience in her own words. Read her record on these issues here.]

It is not progressive or gay friendly to give people a means to discriminate against gay people. No one is going to give Smith a rainbow pin for that.



Where would this right to discriminate end? The Globe and Mail in it's main editorial yesterday derides the idea and asks if it would extend to being allowed to refuse to marry inter-racial couples. Could doctors refuse to prescribe birth control, or could pharmacists refuse to dispense it? In many towns throughout Alberta, there is only one pharmacy. This could seriously affect people's capacity to access birth control and emergency contraception like Plan B.

I'm interested in how conscience rights would apply to teachers. Would teachers who objected to the idea of evolution be forced to comply with the curriculum? Would a policy like the one mentioned above, the one that protects gay students and staff be enforceable in a world where conscience rights can trump human rights protections?

Conscience rights could be used to justify all sorts of nonsense in schools. For example, once I joined the Board, I met with a group of parents concerned that an anti-choice group related to American Crisis Pregnancy Centres, an outfit called the Pregnancy Care Centre, was being invited into schools to provide sexuality education. They said they had not been able to make any headway on the issue and had been unable to get a response from their Trustee in the past. This did not surprise me. I met with many constituents who had been unable to get a response from Smith while she was in office and were frustrated by this. In an article by Maurice Tougas for Alberta Views about Smith’s leadership potential, Tougas interviewed Jennifer Pollock, who indicated that, "Smith had no interest in attending meetings with the public, and claims that Smith told people: 'We’ll tell you what we want you to know.' Smith and Anderson, Pollock says, only wanted to hear opinions from the public that reflected their own views, and were not interested in more 'esoteric' matters, such as art education." This parent group I met with had a well-founded concern that the CBE was not living up to its responsibility to offer comprehensive sexuality education according to Alberta Curriculum. One parent reported that the representative from the anti-choice group was in her child's class. She held out an oreo cookie and asked the class who wanted it. Hands shot up. Then she opened it, licked the filling, put it back together and asked who wanted it now. Groans and gags ensued. The representative said that's what the students would be like if they had sex before marriage.

Will conscience rights bring us back to abstinence lessons like this? Conscience rights will not move us forward. They invite discrimination and the kind of thinking that we have spent decades evolving beyond.

In a column written by Smith in 2000 and reproduced here, (go to the bottom) Smith mentions the Pregnancy Care Centre to say they seem to be doing things right because they want to help youth with sexual decision making. Yes, they do, as long as the decision isn't pro-choice. If Ms Smith is pro choice and stands for gay rights, her actions do not reflect it, then or now.

Looking at the potential candidates for a Wildrose Cabinet noted by blogger Daveberta, I’m concerned that protecting the human rights of LGBTI persons is going to be contentious again. Link Byfield (candidate in Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock) is the former publisher of Alberta Report, a magazine remembered by my gay and lesbian friends for the hateful nonsense it obsessively printed about homosexuals. Another potential Cabinet Minister is John Carpay (candidate in Calgary-Lougheed). He thought Ralph Klein should have used the Notwithstanding Clause so Alberta could continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Carpay has defended Bill Whatcott against charges in Saskatchewan. Whatcott recently delivered disgusting homophobic flyers door to door in Calgary. The Charter protects his right to free speech. He doesn't need a conscience clause for this. He does need a conscience clause if he wants to take this ideas one step further, become a marriage commissioner and refuse to marry gays or lesbians.

Moving on to reproductive rights rights, as Daveberta notes, potential Cabinet Member Carpay also defends the University of Calgary Campus pro-life group, a group discussed on this blog many times. They bring the CCBR's GAP presentation, also known as the fetus porn show, to campus. Many of the same faces from campus pro-life show up at various Calgary locations like Stampede to share their fetus porn with unsuspecting families and passersby. The GAP presentations compare abortion to the Holocaust. The CCBR also operates the dreadful fetus mobile that drives around Calgary. Many Calgarians despise this truck. Even Bishop Henry finds the tactics of this group offensive.


One way to test if policy is in any good is to apply specific cases and see what happens. For example, we have learned, thank goodness, that the application of the case of abortion in the Wildrose policy of citizen initiated referendum shows how the policy fails and fails spectacularly. Such a case would violate Charter rights. Worse, while it was fought, it would leave women vulnerable.


Smith is on the record stating that she doesn't think the public should have to fund abortions. Again, the column is reproduced here.  In it, she says much more than that. She says:

"Any politician who challenges the status quo gets pilloried by the media, abortion-rights groups and opposing politicians.

Yet when the courts struck down the Criminal Code sections that dealt with abortion in 1988, they never said, 'And ye shall never pass laws on this matter again.'

What they did say was that the process for approving the procedure, through therapeutic abortion committees, was flawed and cumbersome, and denied a woman her right to security of the person.

However, writing in favour of striking down the legislation, Justice J. Wilson also said that the protection of the fetus 'is a perfectly valid legislative objective' and that 'Section 1 of the Charter authorizes reasonable limits to be put upon the woman’s right.'

In fact, the court said a fetus should be treated differently depending on its level of development, suggesting 'a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages where the woman’s autonomy would be absolute and a restrictive approach in the later stages where the state’s interest in protecting the fetus would justify its prescribing conditions.'

And where does the line get drawn?

The esteemed court said it 'should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature.'"

How can someone who is pro-choice attack those who protect choice? From this, it is clear Ms Smith is very supportive of changing the status of abortion in law (admittedly out of provincial jurisdiction) and by extension, I think it is clear she would support citizen based referendum about changing the way it is delivered in Alberta Health, something that would be within her jurisdiction if she were to win. She has given every indication in the past that she would be happy to see abortion restricted, if not ended.

If Ms Smith looks progressive, it's only because she associates with the most regressive politicians in Canada. It has been made clear that de-listing could happen through a referendum and she has not definitively ruled that out. Meanwhile, the campaign to de-fund abortion has already started at Alberta Pro-Life. They seem pretty pumped. I wonder what they know?

If Ms Smith really is pro-choice and supportive of gay rights, I for one would like to see her act on those beliefs. Until then, I'll  remain unconvinced.

Part Two of Smith's Risky History - Creating a Narrative of Persecution
Part Three of Smith's Risky History - Government Smith Style

-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords

Stupid Policy Results in Media Attention - It's not a liberal plot

I've had a day to study the different responses to blog posts about the Wildrose on Abortion and the Alberta Party on Abortion. My conclusion? Abortion becomes an issue when a party says something stupid about it. Case in point. I blogged about the Alberta Party's stance on abortion and there was no response. A few hits on the posting, but not many. Why? Cynics might say it's because the Alberta Party has no chance of forming government. No one cares. Probably true. But what is also true is they didn't say anything shocking. Now, if all the parties said reasonable things, abortion never would have been mentioned in the mainstream media at all. (That's the media that Wildrose has taken to calling "lamestream" media as they channel Sarah Palin.)

So why did abortion become an issue? Is it those damn liberals? No, it was Wildrose who made it an issue. They said they would put social "issues like abortion" to citizen initiated referendum. Even if that was a "mistake" because now they realize and have to admit it would violate the Charter, it was a clear message to their base that they wanted to. It's just that darn Charter of Rights and Freedoms that keeps them from doing what they want.

It wasn't a one time mistake. They said it to me, they said it at least to one other citizen. (See my earlier post on the response to Wildrose.) That person didn't blog about it. They initially just shook their head, had their question answered, and moved on. I got the answer and spread the word. Why? Because I can. Because I consider it a public service. Because I care about the issue, not because I am an Eastern liberal cabal member. It wasn't a carefully laid plan to expose Wildrose. Yeah, that's it, I wrote a play about abortion and blogged about the issue for years, just waiting to expose a party that didn't exist yet when I started thinking about this issue. Yeah, that must be it. What a plan! I'm freaking brilliant.

I have read and heard repeated reports over the past few days that Danielle Smith says attacks on Wildrose on issues of conscience rights and their policy to govern by referendum are typical liberal attacks, part of a pattern of Liberals to demonize and vilify the right. Poor Wildrose. They have to concern themselves with dissent. Edmonton blogger Kathleen Smith posted about her decision to stop supporting Wildrose as a result of their stance on conscience rights and was immediately lambasted by the party who accused her of being a Conservative Mole (in Wildrose speak, a flaming capital L Liberal.) Apparently the phrase "terrorism campaign" was used. According the an Edmonton Journal article on the events, Kathleen Smith laughs off the suggestion that she's a Tory mole: "If I am, I'm brilliant." Yeah, I feel what you're saying Kathleen.

Of course the person getting the worst of this is Alison Redford. A progressive conservative in the style of Peter Lougheed, she is painted as being part of this imaginary liberal cabal that the Wildrose likes to vilify and that we hear so much about in Republican politics to the south. Apparently we control the media. If so, we've given Danielle Smith quite a pass. Her own history with the Calgary Herald and the fact that her husband is an executive with Sun Media is seldom made an issue. All I'm saying is in Alberta, the very notion that the media is liberal is laughable. Smith's political history has been largely whitewashed, with the notable exception of another blogger, Daveberta, who like Kathleen Smith has a much wider following than little old me. These days, with reduced media budgets for real investigation, digging up information gets left to folks like Daveberta. He does his homework. See these two articles on the Wildrose, the first on who the candidates are and who might form cabinet and the second on Ms. Smith's history on the Calgary Public School Board. Occasionally, someone like me stumbles upon a story without even realizing it's a story.

And again, it never would have been a story if Wildrose hadn't said something so surprising. Their own policy got seen for the craziness that it is through the application of a specific case, in this case, abortion. Governing by referendum is a hopelessly flawed way to govern. Anyone who needs proof, look no farther than California ballot initiatives. What kinds of things could be brought to referendum? Here's a start, without details beyond the general topic, in no particular order, with no logic or weight given to the possible success of the topic or whether it passes a charter challenge, because that's the way these initiatives would come up - totally randomly. Raising the age of consent. Lowering the age of consent. Parental consent for birth control for minors. Parental consent for abortion for minors, even if the preganancy was caused by incest. Require a panel of doctors to approve an abortion. Fund IVF. Don't fund IVF. Defund abortion. End Gay Marriage (hey it happened in California). Lower taxes. Lower corporate taxes. Implement flat taxes. Implement a sales tax. Eliminate school boards. Increase the power of school boards. Change the royalty regime (an oil business thing, for those who don't live here). Legislate a portion of all oil revenue into the Heritage Fund. End the Heritage Fund and distribute its contents to Albertans because our money is better off in our pockets with our Dani bucks. Alter property rights in favour of land owners. Alter property rights in favour of business. Reduce environmental protection. Increase environmental protection. Take flouride out of drinking water. Put flouride into drinking water. Ban the sale of genetically modified food. Ban the import of asparagus out of season. Impose a special fee on everyone who lives in Okotoks and Airdrie and commutes to Calgary to work for their daily use of Calgary's urban roads and services. Alternately, take a portion of property taxes raised in Airdrie and Okotoks and give it to Calgary for wear and tear. Impose Public Private Partnerships on all new school and hospital projects. Give urban centres more seats. Give rural Alberta more seats. Go nuclear free. Add nuclear power. Do I need to go on? Do you see what I'm getting at?

Government by referendum is a bad idea. What Wildrose said about abortion was a problem, but the policy (a real policy) of citizen initiated referendum that was behind that statement is the real problem. When we elect a government, we elect them to decide things. Wildrose wants power, but not the responsbility of government. They want to turn human rights over to the courts and people's individual consciences. They want to give any thorny issues back to the public.

Danielle Smith mocks Alison Redford for suggesting Alberta is changing and for stating she likes those changes. Alberta is fine, just the way it is, says Smith. Apparently, she doesn't believe that for a second. There are changes in store for us. Wildrose has a vision for Alberta, and the fact that I don't like it doesn't make me part of a terrorist campaign.


[Addendum April 15: Same theory proved again. Less than 50 hits on the post about the Progressive Conservative position on Abortion. Why? Because no one said anything ridiculous.]
-----
The Abortion Monologues is now available as an e-book through Smashwords. Download a copy onto your e-reader or as a PDF. Better yet, put on a show!