www.ChrisLaBossiere.com

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.

 

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.

I have heard and often use the saying "Out of the Room, Out of the Deal". It makes a great deal of sense in many different settings, and is very pertinent when we talk about politics. Like my last post about ChangeCamp Edmonton, I have very little sympathy for politicians who were "Out of the Room". They are for the most part "Out of the Deal" when it comes to new media circles and a new engaged citizenry who are using new technology to congregate.

Well the other side of that, is the often regular occurence where regular citizens are out of the room, usually because the door was closed to them in the first place. Again however, I think there is a place for new technology particularly web-based tools like Twitter and Facebook, to force the conversation back into the public's hands.

The perfect example in recent history is the Bill 44 debate that occured last spring. I still maintain that this debate was a revolutionary shift in the way political debates are held, as regular citizens began debating in real-time, at 4:00 am in fact, directly with MLA'a who were sitting in the legislature during the 3rd reading of the contentious bill. Not only was that unexpected by the MLA's, but those of them who were not on Twitter were signing up from the floor, so they could get their words in edgewise. Frankly they couldn't resist the momentum, and mostly because of Twitter discussions that were happeneing around "Hashtags" like #bill44. This simple string of text allows Twitter users to follow anything being said about this topic, in real-time by anyone in the World. You can still see that the conversation is still alive, largely due to Twitter, and I am hoping to keep that discussion going.

So, introducing www.LiveGov.ca. A web-project that I have started which will be an EVENT based website focused on live political events while they happen. My goal with LiveGov, is to bring focus to events, even if they are private or behind walls that typical Albertans simply can't attend. I plan to use the tool to create discussion around the Hashtags used in Twitter, and I plan to also "cover-live" the events when they reach their natural culmination.

LiveGov.ca will not be a website that you have to visit often, but it will always be there between events to create the hashtags, and allow individuals (Twitter users or otherwise) to follow the conversation. Using the Twitter API, anyone can see the discussions, based on hashtag, but also post directly to Twitter from there.

The magic (I HOPE), will come during the hours of the event when the discussion is at it's peak, to get people from all walks of life to join in. Using a tool from www.CoverItLive.com, during the events, even regular non-Twitter users will be able to participate in the discussion, add comments, upload photos, videos, etc. The number one hope I have is that with enough "Tweets" on a hashtags, we will DRAG the establishment into the discussion on Twitter, and LiveGov.ca will aggregate the conversation for every Albertan to see.

The first event I plan to cover is the Progressive Conservative Association - Annual General Meeting on November 7th. If you can imagine, these are the three hashtags I hope get a lot of discussion:

• #pcagm (general discussion on the event)
• #stelmach09 (discussion around the leadership review of Premier Stelmach)
• #bill44 (furthered debate on the future of this contentious bil)

Imagine with me for a second the ability for regular citizens to participate in the debate, without having to be at the convention or even PC party insiders. Then imagine if you will that we might start to see PC Insiders and MLA's use Twitter to respond to the comments of those citizens. It might be like having the convention in the living rooms of all Albertan's.

If this is a success, I plan to cover other types of live events:

• Sessions inside the legislature
• City Council meetings
• Party events
• Rally's and protests

Using the CoverItLive tool during those events, I can easilly have guest producers and posters contribute to the conversation, and using the embed ability of CoverItLive, let them embed the discussion in their blog or website. Allowing their readership to participate in the event.

If you would like to be a live contributor to the PC AGM event, let me know and I will be happy to grant you access to the tool. If you have Hashtags you would like to add or suggest, please comment here.