Who's in the basement of the WAP "big tent"?
Sunday, December 13, 2009 at 6:45PM If you watch this video (embedded below), you will see 8 minutes of hilarity as star-struck "Conservatives" speak at length on why they are standing in line to have Sarah Palin sign their copy of her book "Going Rogue". This video is produced by New Left Media, two obvious liberal citizens and a camera.
Like Ken Chapman, I AM NOT comparing Sarah Palin to Danielle Smith. Sarah Palin makes me want to move to Russia, just so I can live in her backyard and throw flaming bags of caribou dung over her fence. I mostly like what I see in Danielle Smith and frankly I think that she has a better political radar, communication skills, and more scrappy tenacity than our current Premier Ed Stelmach.
That said, I think there are many good reasons to question the motives of her party and it's insiders, and/or her political experience. This week, Smith was questioned by the public in an online forum sponsored by the Edmonton Journal, and was asked "where do you stand on gay rights?". Her response was so mystifying and evasive, it can only make you question the reason she evaded it. Smith said "Our party does not take positions on divisive social issues".
There are only two possible scenarios behind this comment:
1) She is so naive to think that a party can simply ignore the basic human rights of an entire group of citizens, offend them by not standing up for them, and pretend that falls into some kind of safe label like "libertarianism". Same-sex marriage, and fair treatment regardless of sexuality is protected in Canada under the Human Rights Act and Civil Marriage Act.
2) She is fighting to hold onto the base of Social Conservative party members, and this serves as code for "I hear your concerns about sexuality, how it offends your religious beliefs, and your idea of family values. I am willing to foresake their vote and protection, to pander to your more active electorate".
It can't be anything but either of those, and since I am confident in Smith's intellect and understanding of something so basic as individual human rights in Canada, I can't help but think that the second scenario is more likely.
I am not going to get into her comments basically suggesting that the science behind Global Warming is largely unproven, or that she has spent all of her time talking to and about the Calgary based oil interests. I will forgo the issue about her promising to lead a transparent government, yet refusing to disclose her list of party donors. Believe it or not, in my mind anyways, these are all debatable from one perspective or another.
But as I have blogged about before, if you look at her parties policy on removing the troublesome hate-speech protections (Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights and Multiculturalism Act), and yet refusing to remove the equally troublesome Section 9 (which ironically increases the risk of teachers being thrown in front of the same Human Rights Commission for free-discussion on religion and sexuality in the classroom), a section Smith herself said was redundant and unnecassary, I HAVE TO ASSUME that her party is the desired home of right-wing religious conservatives.
While watching the video below, I laughed at the truly idiotic response of the interviewed. But I am not naive enough to dismiss them as a non-political force. Nor am I willing to make the same mistake here in Aberta, and all the more reason I am questioning who is partying in the basement of the Wildrose Alliance Party's "Big-Tent-Basement". Sign me up for some good 'Ol Fashioned fiscal responsibility, and some 'By Gosh individual rights and freedoms, but I'll pass on the bullying of others because you think you can impose your religious belief on others.
I am sorry Ms. Smith, but I just can't give you a free pass on this one. You are throwing Libertarian and Big-Tent around as your catch-all defense of these issues. That's not leadership, that's politicking. Which might be fine for many, perhaps even the majority, but not good enough for me.
Bill 44, Danielle Smith, Sarah Palin, wildrose alliance in Alberta 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
When the headlines first started, I too fell for the "hype".. the chance at something new, something better. Even to the point where I sent her an email (which was never answered, maybe I'm just not "big guns" enough to deserve a response) looking for more information. And then... when I actually started to listen, to investigate, to watch... and I see the exact same things you see.
Thank you for confirming that I have not lost my mind, and I am capable of reading somewhat between the lines and seeing red flags.
At the least, I will simply just say ... #NailedIt
Chris it is not an either or. That is a fabrication and misidentification of who Danielle is in my perspective.
It was a logical falicy along the lines of Are you still beating your wife/husband?
The questioner is not necessarily more honest than the person answering. Should Ms. Smith say yes we support Gay rights, they will jump all over past positions. If she says no then...
There is no good answer to those when you have a conservative person being asked by someone. Stephen Harper has a similar issue with Abortion and the way the media would attack him on the issue or any of his candidates became ridiculous.
The party to my knowledge has no position on Gay rights, has never had a position on them. Any more than the PCs do.
I have said this to you before and said this in other places but I think that social conservatives are not being thrown a bone. In fact the "base" want someone to be forthright on this. Someone who is speaking in code will not jump up when elected for their issues. Most of the time I think social conservatives have become a beating stick for liberals who seem to think they are the root of all evil.
There are stupid people in all walks of life and belief and ridiculing one side for your own aggrandizement for me makes you seem littler. Living outside of Canada at the time Rick Mercer did his dumb American shtick I was almost never so embarrassed at the ego-centric nature of it all.
One would think we would be holier-than-thou enough to avoid that kind of stuff but Borat proves it sells to show how gullible people are even if there are lots in your own black helicopter camp.
Jonathan:
You are counter-arguing along a different discussion. She alludes to Gay Rights as a Divisive Social Issue. Canada, and virtually every civilized western country has protected the rights of Gays as a basic human right. What is her response then, if not code?
At the very least, you have to admit that she is saying that she believes that being gay is more socially divisive than being black, female, muslim, or midget, other constituents who are protected under the same Act.
Please, keep trying to explain this to me.
What's the problem with a teacher being hauled before a human rights commission if they disobey the law? If the law is broken, they have to be dealt with. Danielle Smith will protect the rights of parents to do this.
John:
By your logic then; why would the Alliance seek to remove Section 3 because it wants to protect regular citizens who could be falsely accused of spreading "hate-language", but feels that it is perfectly acceptable to place that same HRC prosecution risk on teachers?
Also Danielle Smith said herself that Section 9 was redundant, as the protections you so dearly want to see in place, are already there for Parents under the School Act.
Please explain to me EXACTLY why this isn't a double-standard application of the law. Remove protections in one place, and add laws that are unnecessary and create the same potential for HRC risk for teachers.
I await your thoughtful discussion.
I believe Albertans have bigger concerns here like whether we are going to end up going down the road of California and Greece to financial crisis. Even if crisis is avoided, it would be inexcusable to exhaust our conventional oil reserves and have no financial asset to show for it. We would have to tell our grandchildren that their inheritance was blown on consumption instead of monetized. It comes down to whether we exhibit an attitude of stewardship or an attitude of what government can do for me today.
But to focus for a moment on this "rights" talk, I have to take issue with applying the term "right" to a demand for government to take a positive action, as opposed to just butting out. If I have the "right" to compel a government official to sanction my private marriage ceremony, that is not recognition of a "negative" right but creating a positive obligation on government to provide a service. And most advocates of liberalizing marriage who are open and forthcoming acknowledge that the goal is sociological: eliminating the stigma of perceived deviance by normalizing same-sex relations. That is not at all the same thing as advocating for a right to deviate from the norm.
Now that may be a worthy sociological goal, just as it may be equally worthy for religious conservatives to oppose the normalization of yesterday's deviance when the process simultaneously turns yesterday's norms into today's deviance (i.e. stigmatizes social conservatives). The fear of marginalization amongst the "family values" set strikes me as well founded when self-styled liberals allow their "rights" appeals to segue from negative "freedom from" coercion to positive demands for government acttion. The concern is not with gay rights for many Albertans so much as with the prospect that some of the more aggressive advocates here are interested in the larger project of paving over old, established norms with new norms chosen by people who approach human sexuality, behaviour, and identity from the perspective that it is all quite mechanical as opposed to mysterious and sacred.
A transformation of our province's financial administration, a professionalization of government management and in general a modernization of the instrumental areas of our lives relating to work and economy, is of more interest to most Albertans than a reengineering of our social values. If our social values are primarily a legacy of our homesteading, God-fearing, pioneering ancestors I would say I just don't really see a big problem there. In fact, perhaps they keep the culture of financial stewardship and discipline from unravelling even more such that supporters of those social values find natural allies amongst fiscal conservatives and by extension a natural home with the Wildrose Alliance.