Climenhaga exposes more Wildrose Anti-Choice shenanigans

In a great post on his blog, Alberta Diary, David Climenhaga exposes more Wildrose shenanigans about abortion. Kevin Kinahan, former candidate in Lethbridge-West has been explicitly anti-choice in the past, calling for an end to funding abortion. Have a look at Climenhaga's excellent post here. My thanks to David for continuing to dig, even after the election is over.

Both Wildrose and the Federal Conservatives try to have it both ways on abortion, remaining anti-choice to thier base while pretending to be neutral or pro-choice to the rest of us. Here is yet another example. Like David, I wonder how long this page will stay on the internet? Any bets?

Link Byfield - Future Cabinet Minister?

Here's an excellent blog post about Link Byfield, and some of the other Wildrose candidates who have hit the news lately. Link Byfield's history has not been fully exhumed yet as it has here, (maybe this is the "Missing Link" - sorry, couldn't resist) and this is worth the read. Please, pass it around, and thanks to A. Picazo for doing the work. Picazo mentions the internet has been "cleansed" of much information about Byfield. Yup. I've seen this myself about a few other issues I've investigated during this election and it scares me. That's why it's so important that independent bloggers and writers dig this stuff up and keep the history known and knowable. So, thanks A. Picazo. You've done us all a great service.

Alberta's Choice

Let's face it. Wildrose, a party billing itself as "change" in Alberta, does not represent change at all. With the most regressive members of the Progressive Conservatives among its ranks (with the notable exception of Ted Morton, who remains an albatross for the PCs) they can hardly make the claim that they will bring change. This is a place for Conservatives who don't think the Progressive Conservatives are conservative enough. The PCs, on the other hand, are also looking to capture the change narrative with the new Alison Redford broom sweeping clean. But they are still the PCs. As a new website points out through the use of a fun quiz (I do love a good quiz)they really are not that much different than their disaffected country cousins in the Wildrose. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, as my mother always says.

Or are the PCs and Wildrose incredibly different? Can Alison Redford lead the party to a truly progressive vision of conservatism? If anyone can, it is probably her. One thing we do know is how the PCs have dealt with their own members who make the kinds of crazy statements noted in the quiz above. They've never let them get the upper hand. That's something. Not much, but something. Redford has specifically reached out to a more progressive voter, both in her leadership campaign and now in the election campaign. I don't think it's purely a crass grab at power. I think she knows she needs progressives on the inside to sway her party. Wildrose, on the other hand, is reaching out to the least progressive voters. That is a significant difference.

But having said that, I think it is naive for the progressive voter to expect that because we voted PC that the party will suddenly reflect our core values. Change like that doesn't happen in an election period or a year or even a term. 


I just saw this video urging for strategic voting that kind of made me laugh and kind of made me sad. To be fair, Smith doesn't think the Flintstones is real, (I don't think) but the fact that this kind of rhetoric is part of our election makes me so disheartened I want to crawl under my bed. This is where the Wildrose perspective has brought us.  And I understand the point the strategic voters are making.

So, how to vote? Look at your local candidate? Good idea. What does she or he believe? Is he or she a Hunsperger or a Leech? Try not to make eye contact and back away. You have to do some asking around, some digging. There is still time.

How about looking at the leaders? Good idea too. The leaders in this day and age really do set the agenda. Once in power, unfortunately, our local representatives are expected to tow the party line. That's the price of being in a party. We've seen enough of the leaders in this campaign to help us decide.

Here are two different takes on strategic voting, one from Daveberta who points out that we are also voting for the opposition in the upcoming election. Do we want a right wing party as opposition to a righter wing party? Or do we want a progressive counter balance? Good question, Dave. And then there is the other Dave, Dave Climenhaga, an unabashed ND calling for an ND vote. He makes some good points. Don't forget to visit Change Alberta too, and see what their take on your riding is.

I'm still on the anybody but Wildrose bandwagon. Hope to see you there on the 23rd.

I just noticed a charming blogger misnamed my blog on her charming post about Alberta Politics and called this space "The Alberta Monologues." And oh, so it has become. Sorry to my regular readers. I'll get on track again soon.


----
The Abortion Monologues is available in e-book format at Smashwords and on Kindle, Kobo, iBooks and any of your other favourites.

Wildrose: adding racism to sexism and homophobia

Recent developments continue to show the Wildrose for who they really are. In spite of the $1000 promised to candidates who can keep their mouths shut, those crazy candidates just can't help themselves. Today, we have a Wildrose candidate, Ron Leech in Calgary-Greenway, attributing his success to being white. Way to go. As of this moment, the link to this article in the Calgary Herald is mysteriously "broken" and the Page Is Not Found, so I'm clipping it from when I had it, just to prove it was there.

Calgary Wildrose candidate attributes his electoral edge to being Caucasian

www.calgaryherald.com

The article read, "A day after an Edmonton-based Wildrose candidate came under fire for controversial religious views, a Calgary-based candidate with the party found himself in the headlines for on-air comments suggesting his chances of victory were better than his non-white rivals."

Here it is in Metro, with the quote from the candidate taken from a radio interview on the weekend. "I think as a Caucasian I have an advantage," Leech said. "When different community leaders such as a Sikh leader or a Muslim leader speak, they really speak to their own people in many ways. As a Caucasian, I believe that I can to all the community." Oh, yes. The White Folks are Normative, don't you know. White, being Normal, means White is the Voice, the Voice of All. It's hard to know where to go with this without ranting, so I will let you rant on your own in your own homes.

The other candidate the now vanished Calgary Herald article is referring to is the Heinous Hunsperger, of course, who, on his blog said some of the most offensive things I've read in years about homosexuality. Read about it at Daveberta, who includes the text of the Hunsperger blog (also, mysteriously vanished now from its original site.) I guess he won't be getting his thousand bucks either. Again, I just don't know where to go with this without ranting. Rant away to your friends, please.

 

 

The worst offender of all might be Danielle Smith herself. Apparently, Smith isn't convinced that climate change is real. No thousand bucks for Danielle either. The "faux"gressive and self-described pro-choice and pro-gay rights wannabe leader hasn't condemned any of the statements made by her candidates. Draw your own conclusions.

Welcome to Alberta in 1950 everyone. Welcome to the future. Think Twice. Vote Once.

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.

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

Wildrose canvasser reported saying, "You can't kill government from the outside"

Since blogging about the Wildrose position on abortion and conscience rights and writing the three part history of Danielle Smith's disastrous ten months on the Calgary School Board, I have received many notes from people who remember that time and want to share their memories, and also from a few who have deep concerns about Wildrose. This little note came in yesterday:

"Two folks from Wildrose came to the door a couple of days ago, door knocking. 

I was about to go out so couldn't chat to them, but wish I had had time. I did say that I didn't think anyone who is Libertarian has any business in government, too cognitively dissonant to be believed. His answer was, 'You can't kill government from the outside.' Pretty succinct."

And pretty scary.

Nice that someone finally stated the goal of Wildrose so clearly.

Smith's stint on the Calgary Board of Education Board of Trustees can in no way be construed as a time that was constructive for public education. I've got to say, her comments on education in last night's leaders debate made my blood boil. I wanted someone to say, "If you care about public school so much, explain your record as a public school Trustee, a record that was so lousy, you got canned." But no one did. Redford almost got the chance. Smith was busy explaining her experience, or lack thereof, and Redford mentioned the School Board. Unfortunately, time was up and she couldn't continue. I always thought Smith's actions indicated she wanted to kill public education, not help it.

Now we have her supporters going door to door saying "You can't kill government from the outside." 

What else does anyone need to know?

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!

Danielle Smith says I'm "Some Blogger"

Danielle Smith says I'm "some blogger,"* and not in a nice way. Not in the way someone says, "you're some great friend," or "you're some terrific cook." Nope. Not that way. She's not going to be derailed by "some blogger" to whom a lowly staffer "miscommunicated" and she's not going to be drawn into talking about abortion.

Let's be clear. The lowly staffer, who happens to be the Wildrose Chief Administrative Officer, (C-level executive, as in CEO or CIO) someone who is in charge, someone who one would think knows their policy, answered a question of mine, a lowly blogger. I relayed his answer. "We [Wildrose] respect that Albertans view social issues differently, which is why Wildrose would immediately introduce legislation allowing citizens to put issues like abortion to a citizen initiated referendum. This open and democratic process allows Albertans to tell government what they believe is important." (emphasis added.)

Their current dilemma is not them responding to some blogger - it is them responding to THEMSELVES. They are responding to their own statement about their own policy. The staffer/Chief Administrative Officer did not miscommunicate. He was speaking from a high level, was cordial, concise and absolutely clear, and that is the Wildrose's problem, NOT that he miscommunicated.

And stop with the cop out that abortion is federal jurisdiction. No one asked Wildrose about the status of abortion in law. Health Care is funded provincially. I hope to heavens the Wildrose and its leader understands their role in the provision of health care. Right now, they seem not to. I asked if the party supported choice, what it would do to expand access to abortion in northern and rural areas and if it would continue to fund all medically necessary services including abortion. None of these questions takes Wildrose out of its jurisdiction. If elected, Wildrose will get to decide the what, the where, the how, the how much, and the how fast of health care. And given the leader's past statements that she favours defunding abortion, the questions are more than reasonable.

And by the way, Wildrose still hasn't answered my questions.

If, as Ms. Smith indicates in her bluster on TV, the Wildrose would not put abortion to referendum, I want to know what issues Wildrose would put to referendum. What "issues like abortion" will Wildrose decline to govern on? I want to know.  Or is it the whole referendum policy that the Chief Administrative Officer miscommunicated? Is this a policy or not? Will it be immediately implemented or not?

This is so beyond abortion now. Will Wildrose leave issues like gay rights to referenda? The Wildrose seem to know they can't mess with human rights, yet, they are supporting a "conscience clause" which allows messing with human rights. (Read Liberal Kent Hehr's piece about so called conscience rights and what's wrong with them for a larger discussion.) And they are doing this at the same time as they are promising to dismantle the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Connect the dots.

I didn't open the can of worms, Ms. Smith. Your party did. Your people did. Now you are trying to put the lid back on, scapegoating staffers and insulting bloggers. It's all sounding very Republican to me. It's the fault of the "lamestream" media. It's liberals being all tricksy. It doesn't sound like new politics to me to hear a leader blame someone else and deflect answers to simple questions. This doesn't sound new to me at all. To me it's the same old same old. Another party that won't be transparent, that won't answer questions and that will say anything to get elected.

And let's be clear about one last thing. I am indeed "some blogger."



-----------------------------------
*addendum, this was heard by another and reported back to me. I don't have a citation for it, although I trust the source
----

The Abortion Monologues is available in print through the website and as an e-book at Smashwords.

Alberta Wildrose party on Abortion

Well, as I always do, I contacted each of the major political parties in the upcoming Alberta election to do a little check up on choice. These are the questions I asked:


Does your party support a woman's right to choose? What will your party do to expand access to abortion services in Alberta, especially in rural areas and the north? Does your party believe in fully funding all medically necessary health services, including abortion?


Here is the response from the Wildrose, deleting the salutations:


"Wildrose is committed to Alberta values of free enterprise, less government, increased personal freedom and democracy.  We also recognize that views about social and moral issues are diverse, and we believe that individuals ought to be able to hold, and express, their opinions.

The legalities of abortion fall under federal jurisdiction.  We respect that Albertans view social issues differently, which is why Wildrose would immediately introduce legislation allowing citizens to put issues like abortion to a citizen initiated referendum. This open and democratic process allows Albertans to tell government what they believe is important.

Thank you again for your email.  We look forward to your support on April 23^rd."

Well, thanks for that, but NO, you will not have my support on April 23rd. For the purposes of this forum, I'm going to state my objections to the Wildrose only in terms of the questions I asked here.

First off, none of the questions were answered. Instead, they say they'll put social issues to a referendum. Remember when the good old boys of the Reform/Alliance party decided that a referendum was the best way to settle everything? Remember how Rick Mercer mercilessly mocked the idea in the famous "Doris Day" skit? He got a bunch of Canadians to sign a petition to have Stockwell Day  change his name to Doris. That's the kind of ridiculousness that government by referendum enables. Referendum is for those who can't be bothered with policy.

Government by referendum is government by special interest. Whoever can mount the most effective campaign on any issue, abortion or otherwise, and has the funds to make a dent in the fickle public psyche wins. That means the good citizens of Alberta could decide, if they see fit, to defund abortions, to keep abortions from being performed in Alberta, to prevent women from accessing medically necessary care, to decide some people aren't deserving of human rights. Or, the good citizens of Alberta, the majority of whom are pro-choice, could go the other way. They could say, "Hey, it's pretty crazy a woman can't get an abortion if she lives in Fort Mac." We could all decide that this is a situation that has to be resolved, insist more doctors and clinics are available and that no woman be forced to travel or wait for an abortion. But the point is, neither of these things should be decided by referendum. Why? Because it's about human rights, as the Supreme Court has said over and over and over again.

If a citizen wants to put the human rights of any particular group at issue, say GLBTI, green people, or in this case WOMEN, to see if the preservation of their rights wins the popularity contest of the referendum, that's unacceptable. Human rights, my friends, can't be decided by referendum. That's why political parties need policies, specific policies, not this kind of baloney. But that's what libertarians do - they abandon the responsibility of policy making and call that policy instead.

The Wildrose isn't conservative. It is libertarian. Their beliefs can be summed up in the phrase, "I'm all right Jack, and if you're not, that's not my fucking problem." They care about private interest, not public interest. On the surface, libertarianism seems like the ultimate kind of government for the pro-choice person. Anyone can do what they want. But our choices are always socially constructed. If government decides not to, say, support midwifery, guess what? Most of us can't afford it privately, and  midwifery gets this sense about it that it's not "legitimate." Sure, no one is stopping us from using midwives, but when there aren't any available and no one can afford them anyways except rich folks and midwives can't make a living and leave the province in droves, the choice has still been made for us. That was the status of midwifery in Alberta for decades. This is the side of libertarianism that matters here. If we're all just looking out for number one, who builds the roads? If we're all just looking out for number one, who protects human rights?

Further, abortion is and isn't a federal issue.  Yes, legally it is under federal jurisdiction, but that's not what I asked, is it? That's just an excuse not to deal with the questions. The Canada Health Act outlines broad parameters. There is a lot of room within them for interpretation by the provinces. How health care is delivered, what gets delivered, how much, in what space of time, and all that, is a provincial issue. Provinces can make a host of decisions on their own that can affect care for many people. That's one reason  why some provinces have long wait lists for hip replacements and others don't. That's one reason why some provinces cover podiatry and others don't.  And the federal conservatives have shown no interest in protecting women's rights to access medically necessary services including abortion in PEI, where no abortions are available at all, or in New Brunswick, which is currently violating women's rights as well. For more on this, see earlier posts about New Brunswick and PEI.

So if you care about protecting existing access to abortion in Alberta or even making it better, the Wildrose is not your party, unless of course you want to save your $300 Danielle bucks for a quick trip to BC or SK.

I'll post responses from the other parties too, if and when I get them.

See also More on Wildrose and Abortion

----

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