People who don’t live in Alberta should be paying attention to the Alberta election. And not simply because it may be historic, signaling the end of a 40-year political dynasty.
It’s historic, and worthy of your consideration, because Alberta is on the cusp of plunging itself into a divisive, needless debate, one that could spill over into other provinces.

The debate centres on some of the most difficult issues of our era: Reproductive choice for women, equal marriage for gays and lesbians, the wall that exists (supposedly) between church and state.
Alberta Wildrose leader Danielle Smith wants to tear down that wall, although she would never be so impolitic as to say so out loud. When a microphone is pointed in her direction, the frontrunner in the Alberta election insists she doesn’t want to defund abortion.

She claims she doesn’t want to stop gay marriages. She will say, with a straight face, that she wants to keep religion out of politics.

But here’s the thing: Smith — who, with her background in TV journalism, knows how to lull voters to sleep — isn’t telling the truth. She’s lying, in fact. She’s trying to have it both ways.

Here are some of the things that Smith said before Wildrose existed, and before she became its leader. She was a lot more candid, back then.

Comments (29)

SFH and Bjorn are going to lose their shit over this.  Godlike genius. Sent by Mraz, via some anonymous person who told him to give it to me.  Now, I give it to you.  It will change your life.

Comments (10)

[Son Two has just been picked up by Dad from a sleepover at a pal’s. He’s asked how it went.]

Son, wearily: Dad, it was a party.

Me: You actually look like you did some partying, to tell you the truth.

Son, bemused: Dad, I am the party.

Me, marveling: Wow. Are you a Kinsella male or what?

Comments (3)

Q: What is Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath’s leadership?

Comments (32)

Her Majesty makes it official.

I was there, that cold April day – with my roommates Harold, Chris and Ryan. Afterwards, we went to Grad’s on Somerset to have what we described as “Constitution beers.” We had not a few, as I recall.

I also recall that we grumbled about the number of old white men onstage on the Hill, and how seats were reserved at the front for VIPs. We thought of the Constitution as the people’s document, not the personal property of the elites. But, in the main – and like everyone else on that blustery Ottawa day – we were happy. It felt like we were a new country.

In the intervening years, of course, quite a few other Canadians have come to be fond of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, too. Polls have shown that Canadians, everywhere, are proud of it.  Twenty years after that day, a national survey found that 88 per cent believed the Charter was a “good thing for Canada,” and 72 per cent said it adequately protects the rights of Canadians. Support for the Charter was strong in all regions, running from a high of 91 per cent in Quebec to 86 per cent in Western Canada.

Thirty years later, support for the repatriation of the Cosntitution – and the proclamation of the Charter – remains just as high.  Even with the mythology surrounding “the night of long knives,” Quebeckers remain enthusiastically onside.

Because they despise the notion of equality which it embodies, Stephen Harper’s Reformatories refuse to acknowledge the Constitution.  The New Democrats, meanwhile, have their Sherbrooke Declaration, which advocates for breaking up Canada with just one vote, contrary to a hallowed Supreme Court constitutional decision – and a new leader who passionately favours “asymmetrical federalism,” and constitutional inequality, and the Sherbrooke Declaration. 

In the United States, political parties jostle to be seen as the defenders of the Constitution.  To them, it is the supreme legislative expression of the nation itself. In Canada, the two (presently) leading federal parties regard it as inconvenience, or worse.

For Liberals – who repatriated the Constitution, and proclaimed the Charter – the path is clear: we need to renew ourselves as the party of the party of the Constitution.  Politically, it is the smart thing to do.

And, morally, it is our obligation.

Comments (98)

This photo was taken just before Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath’s latest press conference, today.  Where she claimed she doesn’t want an election.

That’s her campaign van.  Anyone believe her claims that she doesn’t want an election?

I didn’t think so.

Comments (12)

Dan Gardner is an intimidating guy.  I met him about a decade ago, when he was leaving the employ of the Ontario PC government and heading off to work at the Ottawa Citizen.  He was a big, slightly-intimidating guy.  I figured he was a conservative, and that we wouldn’t agree on much.

In the interim, I have come to be very impressed by his passion for certain issues, and the ferocity with which he writes about them.  As such, he’s probably the most informed journalist in Canada on the drug trade, and what should be done about it.

Dan argues that the so-called “war on drugs” is irrevocably lost, and that governments have been doing a very bad job dealing with illegal drug use.  In particular, he is resolutely favours programs like Insite in Vancouver.  He also favours expanding them.  So, today, do others.

Arguing with Dan, I think, is a bit like arguing with me: people don’t like to do it.  We tend to take no prisoners.

But, with respect – lawyers always say that when they are about to disagree with you – I disagree with him, still, about safe injection sites.  Not for the reasons that conservatives always give, of course, with their inane fetish for “law and order” (except as it applies to them, cf. Robocon).  For another reason – for the reason a bleeding-heart liberal like me would give: drug addiction is bad, and it ultimately kills people.  So we need to help addicts from being addicts, because we don’t want them to die.  I believe we have a moral obligation to do that.  That’s not hurting them; that’s helping our fellow citizens.

Dan will have a passionate and much more thoughtful take on that, of course.  But I wanted to venture my own opinion – offered up to someone I respect a great deal, but with whom I still disagree.

Comments (56)

One said they’d vote against the budget before they read it; the other says they’ll vote against it if all the demands in their ransom note aren’t met.

We don’t want an election. But we’ll be ready when and if there is one.

Comments (3)

The latest in the Trayvon Martin tragedy, here.  Hope it’s correct.

Comments (25)

She doesn’t seem to understand why declaring the founder of Free Dominion her “good friend,” and linking to her, is a really bad idea.  In fact, “Fern” has lately taken to expressing her pride in being associated with racist dregs.

Here’s a sampling of just a few words posted over the past two years on Free Dominion by just one regular, Edward Kennedy (who, by the by, is a longtime OLA and Tim Hudak supporter).  Wonder how a self-professed feminist and progressive can be okay with raw sewage like this?  Me, too.

Comments (9)