Trying to digest the Wildrose Alliance use of my blog post
Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 8:43PM My last blog post, where I have decided to take a break from the PC Party of Alberta, has gotten too much discussion in my opinion. I woke up this morning and was met with many comments in person and on Twitter, suggesting that I had taken a revolutionary step, or put myself at some kind of political risk. In my opinion, that just exemplifies how people put way to much emphasis on political parties, and not near enough on in-depth discussion about governance. By being a moderately read blogger, people seem to have assumed that I am more interested in forwarding some kind of partisan agenda, or the flip-side of that, that I will be put at some kind of political harm for doing so.
This emphasis on strictly adhering to political labels and a "win at all cost" game where everything relies on getting your party across the finish line is what's harming progress in current government. I concede that all parties need to focus on winning elections, but they must do so from an intelligent and defensible position. Speaking against my party is exactly what I think the average Albertan does every day in the coffee shops, lunch-rooms and boardrooms of our province.
So I was not really surprised when I was alerted to a blog by a local Edmonton Whitemud organiser for the Wildrose Alliance, basically using my blog posts, which are largely a public reflection of my ongoing political introspection, as a largely incorrect and strictly partisan attempt at futhering their story. The problem, in my opinion, is that the post is not as honest as I have been, and suffers from a rather serious bout of congnitive dissonance.
In the post, written by Brian Dell, he actually alludes that the Wildrose Alliance might be a great home for people like me who are disenfranchised about Bill 44. His argument seems flawed, so I guess I need to chime in and offer my two cents.
Basically Dell suggests that since Leader Danielle Smith gave a speech against the need for Bill 44, in his words in the "Heartland of Alberta Social Conservatism". He uses that as evidence she is against the law. He then suggests that her position is in line with the Sheldon Chumir Foundation, and even invokes that the namesake of that organization is Liberal. I guess he is trying to suggest that maybe she is partly Liberal or something.
So, here is the problem and why I have immeasurable concern for his argument, and the officially publicised policy of the Wildrose.
In that speech in Nanton, Smith tells the citizens of that town this:
"We didn't need to come through with a parental rights clause. The concern they have is free speech. They already know they had the right to pull their kids under the School Act."
Yet the party refuses to follow that up with concrete policy against Section 9 of the Bill, ironically ignoring the part she said was wrong. Yet they have an official policy position to see Section 3 removed, which is the part of the law that protects individuals from hate language. Why did the party ignore the useless and redundant Section 9, yet focused on removing the anti-hate section?
I can't think of any explanation for this, other than the common perception that Wildrose Alliance Policy is being steered by Social Conservatives that find sexuality, religious debate and sexual education as something that should not be discussed in our classrooms. The removal of Section 3 is clearly the wishes of hard-righters like Ezra Levant (who has some good points on the abuse of the HRC). Why does Dell use the position of the Chumir Foundation for his argument when it serves his parties position, but ingores that the foundation suggess the entire legislation is "a disaster"? I can only assume it's basic partisan politics, ignoring the inteligence and sensibilities of Albertans.
Dell goes on to suggest that I might be more "Liberal" than their party and may not fit, because I think Smith is "too corporate". I can't imagine where he would get this, as I am a 15 year veteran of big-business, and run a very rapid growth business as an entreprenuer. I am active on two boards in Edmonton, who's primary goals are to grow business in the City. What he might be alluding to is that I have questioned why she seems to have exclusivly focused on discussions around the oil and gas sector, or Bill 50. She seems very comfortable in chumming up to the Oil and Gas sector of Calgary, but I haven't seen her addressing issues of poverty, homelessness, economic diversification, sustainable development, or the environment. Sure their policy document addresses these, but every parties does. Her actions have largely ignored them. The scan of news items on the Wildrose website, going back a full year, ignores what they are doing in these areas.
Sorry if I am offended Brian, but I am willing to listen. Is Danielle Smith or the party willing to address these issues? Will she be able to convince her party that Section 9 of Bill 44 should be removed as well, as she aluded in her speech delivered to the Social Conservative heartland?
I am a political free agent now. Convince me and you might see that I am no bleeding heart Liberal and am actually lookig for a fiscally responsbible (note the difference from conservative, which is a partisan label) alternative. But don't argue that life is so simple that people who care about typical Liberal issues are not part of the political discussion or important to Albertans.
It's time for complicated and compassionate leadership for this Province.
Bill 44, bill 50, wildrose alliance in Alberta 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
I've had my share of complaints too but I like this "fiscal four" and through them see a lot of renewal through the pary.
Wow.
"that just exemplifies how people put way to much emphasis on political parties, and not near enough on in-depth discussion about governance" is something I have been feeling for some time now.
It makes me feel hopeful that there is a new future for Alberta and Albertans.
Hi, Chris;
When you say that "the party refuses to follow that up with concrete policy against Section 9 of the Bill, ironically ignoring the part she said was wrong," I think I need to tell you how Wildrose makes policy.
As far as policy development goes, the Wildrose Party is utterly different from the PCs. PC policy is made by caucus (usually under the Leader's instructions). Wildrose Alliance policy, by contrast, is created and decided by the members. This, needless to say, means that policy can only be decided at Annual General Meetings, by common vote of the assembled members. The reason that we have no policy on Section 9 is that we haven't had an AGM since the legislation that concerns you was created.
In this context, you have to realize that Danielle's position is as much as the party's hierarchy has the right to say on the matter. "Party Policy" isn't made by the party's elites -- it is made by the members, and the elites are bound by it.
In fact, an ordinary Wildrose member has more power than a backbench MLA for the PCs. An ordinary member (with the support of a handful of others) has the right to propose and argue for a policy, at the AGM. In that context, the argument is far more important than who makes the argument. In fact, the members commonly reward those who make good arguments with more power within the Party. By contrast, the PC caucus has the right to decide on policy -- but the backbencher will endorse whatever the leader says, on pain of losing a career. Where the PC party allows the powerful to decide policy, the Wildrose gives power to those who make good policy.
As Brian points out, the Wildrose membership -- including its leader -- is sympathetic to things that you think are important. It also offers an opportunity for educated and principled persons to advance arguments for good policies. There is even an upcoming opportunity for you to enact the very policy that you have just been arguing for. With respect, then, I think that Brian is right, and you are wrong: the Wildrose Party seems like a better fit for you than the PC Party ever was.
If you would like to discuss this further, please send me a private email.
Regards,
John Hilton-O'Brien
VP-Policy, Wildrose Alliance Party
John:
Great response, yet I seemed to be missing something. I read your policy document, and there is an existing party policy that you are proposing to remove section 3 of Bill 44. So, assuming that it's your members who set policy (which is GREAT), I have to assume that it Bill 44 was already considered, and it's important to your members that the anti-hate section should be removed, yet section 9 stays.
What am I missing? I sincerely want to understand your position on this for my personal interests in Bill 44, but also because I think it is a major perception issues with others, who believe that your party is being driven by a collection of Social Conservatives.
Like it or not, that is the perception, and you have a chance to improve your position with thousands of social moderates (also constituents of the big tent) if you proposed as a party to remove it.
John, what happens when issues crop up in between AGMs where there's no clear policy to cover the situation? Can the party leader just not say anything until the next AGM?
Don't get me wrong, I am not against members helping to form policy, but it seems a little ludicrous to have to wait to adjust policy once per year. If something that requires a response comes out of Copenhagen and the policy of the Wildrose Party doesn't quite address it, you're going to have to wait to say anything?
Sounds to me like it's something that works well in theory, but in practice, doesn't.
Leaders of all parties have to react to what is happening at the time. While policy is set at an AGM at times when there is something new that crops up the party, the caucus and the leader have to address it. As they did with the H1N1 roll out problems. In other words where their is policy you follow where there is a vacuum you have to make rational and reasonable positions on the fly.
Keep in mind that the Wildrose Alliance consisted of less than 2000 members and around 100 showed up at the AGM. With closer to 14000 members the AGM will be more significant and broader based. So I think there is room for things to be more big tent within certain issues. Certainly fiscally the party will remain conservative but it will naturally broaden in other areas.
I do not expect the party to just through social conservatives overboard as some would advocate but I think they will be welcomed in a broader tent where both sides must abide.
The party needs to criticize the government where it's wrong, sure, but it would be a serious setback to remove Bill 44 - one of the most progressive pieces of legislation for children and parents.
Chris: I read your policy document, and there is an existing party policy that you are proposing to remove section 3 of Bill 44.
The Wildrose policy document says they want to remove section 3 of the "Human Rights & Multiculturalism Act," not section 3 of Bill 44.
What does the "section 9" you refer to talk about?
The Invisible Hand:
Bill 44 is a bill to amend The Human Rights & Multiculturalism Act. Section 3 of that act is to protect groups and individuals from hate inspired speech, and section 9 (new section) deals with educators responsibilities in discussing sexuality, religion and sexual education in the classroom. Section 9 is redundant legislation as the protections were in the school act, and it now places the onerous possibility on teachers that they may be drug in front of the same human rights commission that the WAP are afraid of under Section 3. Not to mention the optics this type of backwards legislation says about Alberta as an open and progressive society.
Simply put, the Wildrose are "Sucking and Blowing" at the sae time on this issue. I could be convinced that Section 3 has much room for flaws, but then the same logic applies to Section 9.
Chris
Alan;
Simple enough. While the Leader and Executive are not able to set policy, they are able to take policy "positions," so long as these do not contradict established policy. This is precisely what Danielle has done.
Chris;
Danielle has taken a policy position regarding Bill 44. The policy document itself, however, does not change until the membership have the time to consider the matter. Since the position Danielle has taken is simply an extension of party policy, I expect the members to endorse it at the next AGM.
Regards,
John HOB
Regards,
john HOB
Wow. Clunky editing mechanics if you aren't a member. -John HOB
If teachers violate parents and students rights., they SHOULD be brought before the human rights commission. What's the problem with that?
Simply put, the Wildrose are "Sucking and Blowing" at the sae time on this issue.
How so? Opposition to Section 3 is part the party's policy, and its leader came out against Bill 44/Section 9. In other words, they're opposed to the HRC kangaroo courts both when it comes to hate speech, and when it comes to the classroom. Where's the inconsistency?
I have always been interested in politics and on many occasions THOUGHT about joining a political party. In the last couple of elections I have voted Conservative but I do not think they are doing a good job and believe they need a huge cabinet shake-up. I sometimes wonder who the REAL Conservative leader is. Are there too many cooks in the kitchen? I also wish the other parties would stop complaining and put forward solutions.
In reading Chris' post, and the comments from John Hilton-O'Brien, I am downright scared of the WAP. John makes it sound that in order for the WAP to make policy, they need to have a town hall meeting which in my opinion does not and will not work. Albertan's need and should demand effective leadership and the way John describes the creation of WAP policy does not sound like leadership.
If I had to vote today, I could not comfortably put my vote behind ANY political party in Alberta and this is sad.
Respectfully,
David Salmon
Let me first of all say that I am not a spokesman for the Wildrose Alliance.
There are a lot of things missing in the Wildrose policy book. There is no condemnation of Hitler, for example. Now, should one conclude from that fact that the party supports Hitler? Even if the party leader condemned Hitler that wouldn't do because the condemnation is not also in the policy book?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Ah, but they took a position on another section of the Bill, hence section 9 was considered.
If I blog about I how I don't like the not withstanding clause, does that mean I support (or don't support) the right to due process beause both sections are in the Charter?
Ask me about Bill 44, and I agree with Danielle. But ask me to join a protest march against s.9 of Bill 44, and I have to say that I don't believe it likely that it is going to change the way I live my life. If some kid is pulled from a class and he grows up to be narrow-minded, he probably would have been pulled from class without Bill 44, and even more likely the kid probably would not be in the secular public school system at all. If we as a society can tolerate kids being withdrawn from the entire school system, I should think we should be able to tolerate their being withdrawn from the occasional class. Now one could say that I am not taking the threat to teachers seriously, but quite frankly I doubt that we are going to see many teachers being persecuted by human rights commissions. Like a lot of "socially conservative" legislation, I see it as pandering, more optics than substance.
What "threat to teachers"? If a teacher disobeys the law, there should be a mechanism to complain and enforce it. No issue with that.
Brian:
I suspect on 99% of the issues, we would likely agree. However on both Section 3 and Section 9, I see a clear pandering to the social conservative agenda, which leaves me deeply concerned about who has the most influence within the wildrose alliance party. It is hard to argue that "The Members" set the policy, when you basically use your initial policy to make make segments of the public feel they are losing protection under your position.
We can agree to disagree, and I look forward to seeing Danielle Smith come out and suggest the removal of Section 9 from the bill, and the amendment of Section 3 to prevent the kangaroo court scenario, but maintain protection for people who don't have as strong a voice.
Well, Chris, I'm of the opinion that Danielle has already "come out and suggest[ted] the removal of Section 9 from the bill."
In any case even if you agreed with me on that, if you wanted to find another reason to not support the Wildrose Alliance I am sure you would find one. It is not like it is impossible to not be a supporter of the party!
[url=http://fyfk.ru/]���������� ����[/url]
[url=http://fyfk.ru/]�������� ����� ������[/url]