04.15.2012 12:00 AM

In today’s Sun: Danielle Smith is lying

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.

29 Comments

  1. Frederick Haultain says:

    Conscience rights is nothing new in Alberta politics. Indeed the Redford’s own party attempted to implement conscience rights just six years ago. Perhaps you can provide some quote on Mr. Morton’s views on all the social policies that you found quotes for Mrs. Smith. He was the impetus for that legislation and remains a powerful force in the PC cabinet and I think Albertans have a right to know those views as well – particularly since he might end up as leader if Redford can only scrape by a bare minority. My point is that just because you get an allegedly “Progressive” Premier does not mean that you exorcised all the demons from the PC Party. As well, all the nuts from the PC party did not magically go to Wildrose! At the end of the day Wildrose is likely not all that different than the PCs on many of these issues when you start asking individual party members. Moreover, isn’t the hidden agenda argument the same one that people made about Stephen Harper? Whatever his faults, and there are many, he has yet to get rid of abortion and gay rights as so many of the pundits predicted (the same pundits by the way that are making the same bold predictions about Smith).

    • Michael says:

      Harper has been sucessful because he has been able to keep a lid on the extreme element of the Conservative Party.

      That was easy to do with a minority, he had the carrot of a majority to dangle in front of them. I am sure that the extreme element of the Conservatives is already getting impatient now that there aren’t the constraints of a minority. They are going to want to see their policies implemented.

      If Wildrose wins, it is only going to embolden them more, and it is going to get very hard for Harper to hold the coalitionn together.

  2. bluegreenblogger says:

    hmm, I was thinking I would like to see those quotes in context, but then I couldn’t think of any context that would excuse. pretty whacked out. Except for the charter rights quote. And I thought it was a little extreme to relax drunk driving penalties….

  3. Danielle’s University Behaviour Code v2:

    Dresscode for Women

    i) Natural women will be permitted to wear miniskirts.

    ii) Great flexibility in the hemline is permitted as long as the hemline is 1 cm above or below the subject’s ankles.

    iii) The material will be of sufficient strength, durability and flexibility so as to permit the wearer to perform a wide variety of tasks, ex. lifting bundles of hay, snow shovelling and preparing the menfolk’s meals thrice daily.

  4. Mark McCourt says:

    The latest poll has the Wildrose up by about 25-30 points in Calgary and rural Alberta, and I’m uncertain news that Toronto’s Jean Chrétien Fan Club Prez disses Danielle will dial that back. Sorry Warren, but booga booga and Barney dolls don’t have your desired effect in Wild Rose country.

    As you should know, Alberta used the notwithstanding clause to ban gay marriage from 2000-2005 while the PCs were in power, so maybe instead of insinuating that Albertans should vote PC, you could plead with them not to erase the Liberals and NDP from our legislature.

  5. Adam says:

    So as a family doctor that provides care for thousands of patients, should my license to practice medicine hinge on that one element of patient care? Are we going to say as a society, ‘sure you can prescribe antibiotics, antihypertensives, insulin etc but unless you are willing to actively participate in the killing of an unborn child we don’t want you practicing medicine’? Is that what you are telling me, and all pro-life physicians, Warren?

    • Depends on what you mean by ‘that one element of patient care’.

      Do you refer to your conscience or abortion rights?

      The point I think is that if it’s the former, then how do we draw the line for consistent care in the face of conscientious objection? Today it’s abortion rights, tomorrow could it not be objection to the use of antibiotics or insulin?

      • Adam says:

        Because if there’s one thing that has been consistently ethically controversial, its the use of antibiotics to treat infections. I am sure you can find countless examples of this in the literature.

        Seriously, If I refuse to prescribe abortifacient medications should I lose my medical licence?

        • Cam Prymak says:

          Assuming you actually are a physician in good standing, then that would be your choice wouldn’t it?

          You could always practice somewhere that supported two tier healthcare. Economic mobility is a great thing, according to PMSH.

        • sharonapple88 says:

          there’s one thing that has been consistently ethically controversial, its the use of antibiotics to treat infections

          It’s over prescribed, especially with regards to sore throats. I’ve had sinus infections where the doctors told me to clear it out with saline.

          Doctors early in the HIV epidemic tried to use the conscience clause to refuse treatment. <– Truly horrible.

    • sharonapple88 says:

      How many family doctors are involved with abortions? More of an Ob-gyn situation, no? Serious question. Anyway, doctors seem to select themselves out by simply not training for the procedure.

      http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/894048–a-young-abortion-doctor-s-dilemma

      There has been conscious laws in the US since Roe vs. Wade. But it seems as though the point has moved beyond abortion and into birth control. The
      The Republicans used this angle with respects to their recent birth control bill. And there have been cases in the news, like Dr. Michele Phillips, a doctor who refused to prescribe birth control for a patient because the woman was unmarried. I can understand how doctors can be placed in moral dilemmas, but at the same time, we have to also question how much control we want to give to a doctor with respects to our own care?

  6. que sera sera says:

    When Danielle Smith stipulates mandatory bozo insurance for her candidates, she’s basically alerted the country that her entire slate ARE bozos. As leader, she Would know.

    Wildrose apparently ascribes to that old adage that the federal Conservative Party has proven time and time again:

    “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth & remove all doubt.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/alberta-election/wildroses-behaviour-bonds-aim-to-nip-bozo-eruptions-in-the-bud/article2402792/

  7. Curt says:

    Warren,
    I believe it is the citizens of Alberta that will decide the election. Values that are advocated in Ontario might not be held to the same esteem in Alberta. Your hidden assumption in this article today assumes your bias is right.

  8. Rob H. says:

    Lies?

    I’m not raising taxes.. Then promptly sends a bill for $107 million to municipalities.

    I’m not removing the cap on senior care placements.. I never said that. But she did, and it’s in Hansard.

    I’m going to try three public funded family medical clinics.. Then states that she’s going ahead to build 104 to compete with patients of tax paying family doctors.

    Lies to Pharmacy Association of Alberta.

    Oh.

    And the best lie.

    I’m a Progressive CONSERVATIVE! And then rolls out spending promises making NDP Brian Mason blush, and gets a good leg up by he Toronto Sun and Warren Kinsella.

    Yup.

    A lot of lies going on with a certain female leader in Alberta.

  9. Patrick says:

    Maybe Danielle Smith is not a lost cause after all. When I read last week that she was “pro-choice”, I thought that she had followed the trend of opting out of thinking about the reality of abortion. Maybe there is hope for after all. At least at one time she seems to have been willing to contemplate how much damagr is actually being done

  10. Rob says:

    Seriously Warren? Do you actually believe what you wrote? Remember back in 2006 when you pilloried the Federal Liberals for using this line of attack against the Federal Conservatives? The PCs are using the same ‘hidden agenda’ crap that we have seen from the Federal Liberals against conservatives all through the last decade. Danielle Smith is a thoughtful, articulate, and dynamic woman. She has said a thousand times in this campaign that she will not legislate one way or the other on conscience rights… but you and the PCs won’t take no for an answer. Isn’t it possible that she held an opinion in 2001 and has since changed her mind?

  11. David says:

    I’m a far-Right douchebag.

  12. Wes says:

    I’m glad to hear she’s not telling the truth. Now I can vote for her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*