According to The Globe & Mail’s final tally, the PC Party won 61 seats, followed by the Wildrose with 17, Liberals 5, and NDP 4.

Of course, the seat totals make this victory look like a landslide. The popular vote shows a different story. Here is the breakdown in popular vote versus 2008:

PC: 43.9% (-8.8%)
WRP: 34.3% (+27.5%)
LIB: 9.9% (-16.5%)
NDP: 9.8% (+1.3%)

As this tally shows, the PC and Liberal parties lost significant support, with the Wildrose picking up steam over the past four years. Over that time, a chunk of the PC base became significantly disenfranchised with what seemed to be a more moderate PC party under Ed Stelmach. With Alison Redford winning the nomination by a slim margin, those who did not want another moderate in charge cemented their decision to move to the Wildrose Party. So with WRP picking up almost 27.5% of the vote despite voter turnout up only a couple percentage points, the question at the end of this election: how did the PC’s still maintain victory?

It’s simple, and if you ask many perennial left-wing voters who they voted for this election, you will have your answer: strategic voting. A massive chunk of liberal voters (and even some typical NDP voters) became fearful of what an Alberta run by a very right-wing party would legislate. The true victory came from the blog posts about “conscience rights”, which spread like wildfire and soon got the left-wing base fearful. The PC base might argue that it was hard work and determination that won this election, but let’s be honest. Hard work and determination occurs every election. Most politicians will work their hardest during campaign season. Going door-to-door, speaking with their constituents personally, night in and night out. This story was everywhere, and it won the election for one party while losing it for another.

Simply put – at the end of the day, the fear of social regression, even in Alberta, was enough to keep the Wildrose out of leadership. Consider it the reverse “John Kerry”. While this was a PC victory, it should be taken as a wake-up call. Relying on left-wingers to prop up a party is not a long-term campaign strategy.

Congratulations to Alison Redford on her victory. No matter what party you support, we all wish for a better, stronger Alberta; even if there isn’t consensus on the road travelled to get there.

Share/Bookmark

Calgary Nose Hill previously had voted Progressive Conservative for all three senate spots in 2004.

Below is a brief biography and quick interview of the candidates in Calgary Mackay-Nose Hill in order of last name:

Roy Alexander (Wildrose): Alexander was born outside of Montreal, and later moved and has lived in Huntington Hills for close to 30 years. His profile states he has a Masters in Leadership, but the institution is unknown. He has owned a photography business for 25 years, and currently invests in real estate and does consulting for non-profit institutions.

Roy Alexander did not return a response for an online interview by the time this post was published.

Neil Brown (Progressive Conservative): Brown holds a B.Sc from the University of Calgary, an M.Sc in Zoology from the University of Alaska, a Ph.D in Biology from McGill University, and LL.B. from the University of Calgary. Prior to being an MLA, Brown worked in academia, ranging from McGill University, Concordia University, and Trent University.  After receiving his Bachelor of Laws, he worked at  McLaws and Company (later Parlee McLaws) in civil litigation. Later, he would open up his own private practice. In 2004, Brown was elected MLA in the riding of Calgary Nose Hill.

Neil Brown did not return a response for an online interview by the time this post was published.

Don Thomspon (Alberta Liberals): Thompson is currently a practising management consultant for both public and private organizations. He currently resides in Macewan with his family.

Below is Don Thompson’s response to an online interview sent to all the candidates for Calgary Mackay-Nose Hill:

1) What is one thing you would like to do to continue growing Alberta’s arts and culture scene?

“I would like to see Alberta compete for for television and film production as BC and Ontario do. “

2) While Alberta continues to thrive off of oil and gas revenue, it’s a non-renewable resource that will not be around forever. What will you do to reduce Alberta’s dependence on oil and gas revenue?

“The Alberta Liberal Party platform, available at http://www.albertaliberal.com/platform.php identifies a number of endowment funds that could easily be created from resource revenues.  Those funds, would help assure Alberta’s prosperity through occasional lean years and when resource revenue drops off permanently.  I would like to see Alberta’s oil and gas upgraded as much as possible here in Alberta.  The bottom line on oil is simply that the world needs our energy and will accept it in whatever form we choose to sell it. Overall, we should diversify our economic base as much as possible if we want to continue into the future as well of as we are now.”

3) What kinds of issues would you enforce the party line, and what kinds of issues would you follow your own judgement or that of your constituency?

“Our party line is that a Liberal MLA is a local MLA.  We understand we are elected to represent the people of our constituency.   The only time I would use my own judgement is when my constituency is clearly ambivalent.”

4) Turnout at elections has been steadily decreasing, with the last two provincial elections at less than 50% voter turnout. How will you motivate individuals and voters to be more involved in the political process?

“It is difficult to get people interested in the political process, perhaps because more people are feeling the process does not consider their interests.”

5) Flames or Oilers?

“My constituency is CALGARY-Mackay-Nose Hill.”

Jason Webster (Alberta Party): Webster was enrolled in SAIT’s Automated Systems Engineering program (robotics). According to OpenFile, Webster returned to SAIT a couple of years ago after being laid off. He currently works as an accountant for a mid-sized oil and gas company. Previously Webster was a building manager.

Jason Webster did not return a response for an online interview by the time this post was published.

Anne Wilson (Alberta NDP): Wilson has a B.A. in English and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Calgary. She is currently practising law, and before that, Wilson was a landscape gardener at the Calgary Zoo.

Below is Anne Wilson’s response to an online interview sent to all the candidates for Calgary Mackay-Nose Hill:

1) What is one thing you would like to do to continue growing Alberta’s arts and culture scene?

“It may sound counter-intuitive, but I would like to highlight our plan to fund public libraries to ensure that they can fill an significant role in community life.  Boys and girls let loose in a library are entering the arts.”

2) While Alberta continues to thrive off of oil and gas revenue, it’s a non-renewable resource that will not be around forever. What will you do to reduce Alberta’s dependence on oil and gas revenue?

“I support planning to make as smooth a transition as possible from oil and gas revenue to alternate energies. New Democrats would create a Renewable Development Fund, with an associated research centre, to support activities to make Alberta a leader in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation.”

3) What kinds of issues would you enforce the party line, and what kinds of issues would you follow your own judgement or that of your constituency?

“I’m a New Democrat because I believe in our values.  I believe in publicly funded, publicly delivered healthcare, for example.  If I wanted some other program, I’d be in that party!”

4) Turnout at elections has been steadily decreasing, with the last two provincial elections at less than 50% voter turnout. How will you motivate individuals and voters to be more involved in the political process?

“This election is exciting.  I’ve been criticizing the Tories and now the Wild Rose as being healthcare privatizers, and letting people know they can count on me to advocate with all I’ve got to protect healthcare.  That kind of issue motivates voters, you’ll see.”

5) Flames or Oilers?

“Dude.  Flames!”

Share/Bookmark

The riding is currently vacant as incumbent MLA George Groeneveld decided not to run again. Groeneveld was Premier Ed Stelmach’s Minister of Agriculture.

Highwood elected Progressive Conservative for all three senate spots in 2004.

Below is a brief biography of each candidate in the riding in order of last name:

John Barlow (Progressive Conservative): Barlow has lived in the Highwood constituency for approximately 20 years. For the past 15 years, he has worked for the Okotoks Western Wheel newspaper, and is currently the Associate Editor. Before his job at the Western Wheel, he was a sports editor for High River Times.

Miles Dato (Alberta NDP): Dato was born in British Columbia, and has lived in Alberta for the past 6 years. He is currently a health care aide.

Keegan Gibson (Alberta Liberals): There was no biography available about Gibson.

Danielle Smith (Wildrose): Smith is the leader of the Wildrose party and currently is not an MLA. Smith holds a B.A. in English and Economics from the University of Calgary. She was elected as a trustee for the Calgary Board of Education, but the board was disbanded. Smith has an extensive background in journalism and media. She was an editorial writer and columnist for the Calgary Herald, anchor of Global Sunday, and host of two programs on CKMX 1060 AM in Calgary. After, she was the director of provincial affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. She was elected leader of the Wildrose in 2009.

Share/Bookmark

Below is a brief biography of each of the candidates in order of last name:

Kirstin Morrell (Alberta Liberal): Kirstin has a background in corporate communications and was managing editor of the Red Deer Press for two years. She has also worked for Calgary-McCall’s MLA Darshan Kang constituency office before running for the Liberals.

Prasad Panda (Wildrose): Panda is an engineer with 25 years of experience in the energy sector. He is currently working for an integrated energy company.

Stephanie Westlund (Alberta NDP): Westlund holds a Bachelor’s degree in Developmental Studies and a Masters in Resource and the Environmental, both from the University of Calgary. She is currently finishing her doctorate as a Ph.D candidate in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Calgary. She occasionally teaches a course on international and intercultural communications at the U of C.

Teresa Woo-Paw (Progressive Conservative): Woo-Paw holds a Bachelor of Social Work from the University of Calgary. Prior to being elected MLA in 2008, Woo-Paw was elected as trustee and chair to the Calgary Board of Education Public School Board. The board was later disbanded because trustees were unable to work together. Woo-Paw served as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She has also founded many groups including the Calgary Chinese Cultural Centre and Alberta Wild Rose Foundation.

Share/Bookmark

6 parties will be contesting in the riding this election. As well, the riding chose Progressive Conservative for all three senate seats back in 2004.

Below is a brief summary of each candidate and a link to their websites (in order to last name):

Chris Challis (Wildrose): Challis holds a degree in business management from the University of Lethbridge, and is the president and CEO of two oilfield services and transportation companies. He is on the Wildrose Calgary Northwest Constituency Board. He now lives in Tuscany, and has so for the past 10 years.

Bryan Hunt (Evergreen): Hunt owns a software development consulting firm as well as media business. He is married with four children.

 Sandra Jansen (Progressive Conservative): Jansen is known for her work in the television industry, most notably as national news anchor for the CTV News Channel for 10 years. She has a diploma in broadcasting from SAIT and the University of Calgary, as well as a degree in French from McGill University. As well, she has an M.A. in Professional Communications from Royal Roads University. She was Redford’s Southern Alberta communications manager during her bid for the Progressive Conservative leadership to replace Ed Stelmach.

Brian Malkinson (Alberta New Democrats): Malkinson is a third generation Calgarian, and has a degree in science from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. He is currently a designer and analyst for a Calgary based e-Commerce start up company. He was elected president of the student’s union at the Surrey campus. His involvement with the NDP include serving as vice president of the Fleetwood – Port Kells NDP riding association.

Troy Millington (Alberta Party): Millington has an education and physics degree from the University of British Columbia. He works as a computer consultant and is also a stay at home dad.

Robert Prcic (Alberta Liberals): [Note: profile taken from Openfile] Prcic is in his final year of study at the University of Calgary majoring in Law and Society. He completed a Registered Apprentice Program in automotive mechanics and is still working as a mechanic. He has lived in northwest Calgary since 2000.

Share/Bookmark

First there was Edmonton-South-West candidate Allan Hunsperger, a former Pastor, who wrote how tolerance and acceptance of gay people “is cruel and not loving.” You see, gay people should choose “to not live the way they were born,” according to Hunsperger. “You can live the way you were born, and if you die the way you were born, then you will suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering … Warning people not to live the way they were born is not judgment or condemnation — it is love!”

Smith’s reaction to Hunsperger’s commentary was as off-putting as the homophobic screed itself.

“When a person is making personal statements in their capacity as a pastor, which he was, I don’t think anybody should be surprised that they’re expressing certain viewpoints,” Smith explained. “I’m not going to be the sort of politician who engages in discrimination against religious candidates.”

But when it comes to her candidates themselves ‘engaging in discrimination’ toward a group of people? No harm, no foul, apparently; so long as the discrimination is  expressed under the guise of religion.

Ron Leech, Wildrose candidate for Calgary-Greenway, was the next candidate to come down with foot-in-mouth disease. On a weekend radio program, Leech suggested he holds an advantage over his rivals in the riding simply because he’s white.

“I think, as a caucasian, I have an advantage,” explained Leech. “When different community leaders such as a Sikh leader or a Muslim leader speaks they really speak to their own people in many ways. As a caucasian I believe that I can speak to all the community.”

Once again, Smith’s reaction was one of indifference.

“I’m not concerned about (the remarks),” Smith assured reporters. “I think every candidate puts forward their best argument for why they should be the person the way represent the community. I know Dr. Leech runs a private school that has a large number of people from cultural communities. He has a very ethnically diverse riding. He’s made great friendships and in roads with leaders of different cultural communities.”

In other words, he’s not racist because he knows some ethnic people.

Unlike Hunsperger, however, Leech quickly apologized for, what he calls, his poor choice of words. Smith, being the ‘true leader‘ she is, broadcast the apology on twitter and Facebook, thus washing her hands of all responsibility.

As yet, however, there has been no apology or clarification from either Smith or Leech regarding the latter’s 2004 ‘defense of marriage.’

”I do not hate homosexuals, lesbians, adulterers or, for that matter, rapists,” Leech writes. “What I do hate is sin and its devastating effects on people’s lives … the foundational institution of all human society, always and everywhere.

[...] Redefining marriage to allow the deliberate exclusion of either a father or mother sends a terrible message to the next generation. It says children don’t deserve both parents, and it will further demoralize their own efforts to become parents themselves.

[...] It is biblically, morally and practically reprehensible for the government to pretend that two men or two women engaged in mutual stimulation are the same as a husband and wife, as potential parents. Marriage is not about equal rights; it isn’t a special-interest group. It is a repository for the future of humanity.

All Canadians — including childless homosexuals — benefit from a healthy marriage culture. All Canadians pay the price in increased taxes, mental illness, crime and human suffering when mothers and fathers choose to divorce or not marry. Adding same-sex marriages to a hodgepodge of family groupings will only worsen the confusion.

So I am against same-sex marriage for four reasons:

First, were homosexuality at all legitimate, the Bible would include options other than natural heterosexuality; yet homosexuality is only ever condemned.

So, second, homosexuality, like every other sin, is a conscious rebellion against divinely created order. Scriptures (like Romans 1:26-32) clearly call homosexual behaviour sinful. To deliberately choose to practise a sin is intentional rebellion.

Third, deliberately sterile homosexuality violates God’s intention for human creation itself. The Bible says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. So God blessed them and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’ ” (Genesis 1:27-28)

Fourth, homosexuality distorts the image of God. The image of God comprises both male and female, a complementarity eternal and everlasting.

To affirm homosexuality is to distort the image of God, to insult the nature and being of God.”

To his credit, and in direct op[position to Hunsperger, Leech does state “gays and lesbians have the right to live as they choose,” so there’s that ...

But I digress.

The purpose of this piece is to provide a glimpse of another Wildrose candidate who, so far, has avoided media scrutiny. In addition, it seems someone has gone to great lengths to cleanse the internet of his written work.

Link Byfield, editor and publisher of the (now defunct) Alberta Report magazine, is the Wildrose candidate for Barrhead-Westlock-Morinville. A former ‘senator-in-waiting’, Byfield is beloved among social conservatives everywhere. What puzzles me is, being such a prominent figure, why he has remained silent throughout the campaign on various issues that he was once so eager to write about?

No matter. I archived much of his work years ago.

Whether Byfield’s writings are of any value to potential voters, I suppose is open for interpretation. However, given the public reaction to both Hunsperger and Leech, I suspect more than a few will appreciate having a complete picture of their potential candidate of choice.

Because I do not have (publicly accessible) links to the articles, the following excerpts can be lengthy. But I feel it is important to include as much of the original content as possible.

March 18, 2002 - On the issue of ‘conscience rights,’ the case of Dr. Stephen Dawson, a born again Christian who “refused to prescribe the birth control pill to single women or sildenafil to single men because of his religious beliefs.” Dawson not only abdicated his duties as a medical professional, but distributed photocopies of Bible passages to patients, one of which read “when you do not warn nor dissuade an unrighteous man from his evil ways, he will lose his soul for his iniquity, and his blood will be on your hands.”

He faced charges of professional misconduct, but in the end the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) and Dawson ‘ended their confrontation’ by agreeing a detailed policy statement be posted in his waiting room, and that he refrain from proselytizing to patients.

(Ironically enough, Dawson would later have his license revoked for having “committed an act of professional misconduct in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient.”)

Here is Byfield’s take, in part, on the matter:

“Note well the case of Dr. Stephen Dawson ... Not only could it sound the death knell of freedom, but of society as we have known it.

Dr. Dawson is a Christian of no particular denomination. He reads the Bible and I'd think he prays. [...] He realized, he says, that he should stop abetting the sins of his patients, so he sent them all a letter explaining that he would no longer write birth-control prescriptions for unmarried women, or dispense Viagra for single men, since this would promote adultery. Nor would he refer anyone to a more compliant doctor.

If any such letter came to me, whether I agreed with it or not, I’d rejoice. [...] Last summer four women, even though they were perfectly free to find themselves another contraceptive dealer, complained to the provincial college of physicians. The CPSO has since charged him with “professional misconduct in that he failed to meet the overall moral and professional standard of care.” How ironic. His case is set for April.

Dr. Dawson has sinned against modern sensibilities in two ways, or so I would gather by reading the scathing comments about him in the press. First, he is discriminating against unmarried, sexually active women. This is hopelessly cruel and inconsiderate, apparently …Women have a God-given right (or at least a government-given one) to copulate as they wish without hindrance and lectures from him. Worse, granted that he himself has this mental thing about chastity, he has refused to send them along to someone with views more up to date. He has said that if he did, he might as well give them what they want himself; his responsibility is to discourage them as best he can.

Such intransigence has provoked outrage. “Suppose someone said, ‘I’m uncomfortable with treating a minority,”‘ countered science and religion Professor James Robert Brown in the Barrie Examiner. “I’d say, ‘So long, scum.’ You have no right letting your private beliefs affect your public behaviour.”

If Prof. Brown is the best the University of Toronto can find to moralize on the rights of conscience, God help Ontario. Anyone who could utter a remark so moronic belongs on a human-rights commission somewhere … Only a weak or perverse mind would equate race with sexual behaviour. To refuse medicine to a man because he is white or yellow or black is morally a totally different thing than saying that certain occasions of sexual intercourse should be discouraged. There are no “wrong” races unless you are a racist. There are, however, many, many “wrong” forms of sex, unless you are an imbecile.

[...] There is a growing tendency to mistake hurt feelings for criminal assault, especially on behalf of politically favoured “victim” groups: women, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc. To criticize their attitudes or behaviour is to “attack” them, which amounts to sexism, homophobia and racism. Thus freed from unkind comment, they do what they like.

But the worst part of Dr. Dawson’s prosecution is this. He is defending the principle of sexual purpose: that it isn’t just for recreation; it’s to transmit life through the natural institution of the family. Suppress his right to defend the natural family and you render inevitable the only ultimate alternative–the spiritually vacuous Brave New World that is the subject of this week’s cover story by Terry O’Neill. We always want to think that “choices” don’t really matter. They really do. Some paths lead to heaven, others to hell. If as a society we choose to suppress genuine freedom in favour of some fraudulent synthetic substitute, we will soon find ourselves in hell. Dr. Dawson could be forgiven for thinking we’ve already arrived. “

January 1, 2001 - On the issue of same sex marriage.

“ [...] Registered Domestic Partnership (RDP). This singularly unattractive label would be affixed to any two people who want to declare themselves mutually dependent for tax and pension purposes, be they a married man and wife, common-law cohabitants, two siblings, two gays or just two long-time friends.

[...] First, all of our “houses of worship” worth the name always have and always will reserve marriage solely to heterosexuals … homosexuality being what it is, relatively few homosexuals and lesbians want to be married anyway. They may want the right, but few seem to want the reality. This whole struggle has been about political mastery, not equal rights, for this is not a right they use … the few who do form more lasting partnerships already have the same tax and benefit rights as normal married couples… the Liberals gave them that last year: everything except the use of the word “marriage.” And now, needless to say, a few activists are determined to get that too, and nothing seems likely to stop them … the goal now is status.

This debate is not … between “traditionalists” and “progressivists.” It’s between nature and perversity; between reality and illusion. The triangle of father, mother and child is a permanent and inescapable norm of human nature. You can always find some workable exceptions to it, but they have to be recognized as exceptions. Any society foolish enough to pretend there is no norm will soon enough suffer grave, even fatal, consequences.

The danger of homosexual marriage is not that there will be many such marriages. There will be few. The danger lies in recognizing them, or affirming them, or pretending they’re just as good as the real thing. It debases the whole institution.

I don’t think it is possible to have a free and orderly society if the state refuses to affirm certain natural moral norms. It’s one thing to say that we should tolerate differences, but quite another to insist that the state not recognize any norms at all. Yet that is what we keep trying to do.

Christians say that man is inclined to rebellion against both God and his own better nature–that his good inclinations have been corrupted by ungodly, unnatural contrary impulses: pride, anger, dishonesty, lust, laziness, jealousy and greed. A good government sets itself to discourage these bad impulses, but can’t succeed unless (a) the government itself can tell good from bad, and (b) most people actually govern themselves. Families are an essential–in fact the essential–agent of that self-government. They are the first and most effective authority of all. Forget that simple fact and you are very soon left with a choice between anarchy and slavery. Which increasingly is our emerging circumstance. “

February 5, 2001 - On homosexuality, apparently being in the same class as, and promoting, pedophilia.

“The like-minded groups we now discreetly refer to as “sexual minorities”–homosexuals, lesbians, pedophiles, etc.–loomed large in the news in January. There was worldwide media attention on two gay pseudo-weddings in Toronto, which were described as a “first” despite the fact that such illegal ceremonies have been occurring in a few obscure renegade “churches” for years.

[...] The January 1-8 edition of the U.S. Weekly Standard newsmagazine carried a chilling story … (documenting) how pedophiles are gaining acceptance as a legitimate “sexual minority,” especially the homosexual variety. This astonishing tolerance is not to be found among the general public … rather it exists among the various social, medical and psychological establishments, and many (though not all) of the homosexual organizations, where it has been incubating securely for over a decade. Now it is creeping stealthily into the areas of high culture and gay literature, cutting-edge cinema, classy advertising, “gay studies” departments, and into the legal system.

The process is identical to the one that has succeeded so well for homosexuality–behaviour which, you may recall, was a crime until 32 years ago. First, pedophilia ceases to be an immoral act; it becomes merely an illness. All the terminology is carefully neutralized: to go on calling it “sexual abuse” is denounced as pedophobic. It then rapidly ceases to be seen as a disease, and becomes merely a different orientation.”

March 19, 2001 - On homosexuals as parents, caregivers, and (apparently incompetent) competent human beings.

“A lesbian in our vicinity named Teresa O’Riordan, I read in our weekly Morinville-Gibbons Free Press, has been appointed to the local Community Justice Committee. She and seven other volunteers will help try to keep young offenders out of jail by giving them guidance and encouragement to turn their lives around.

[...] four years ago Ms. O’Riordan was something of a celebrity, when she had a run-in with the Alberta social services department over her suitability as a foster mother. [...]

Ms. T O’Riordan and her then-husband had the reputation in foster-parent circles of being excellent substitute caregivers; in fact, they specialized in severe and difficult cases … but in their middle years in, the middle ’90s, Mr. T departed, Mrs. T discovered herself to be a lesbian, kept possession of the house and brought in a female spouse. Word got around, and when she applied for two more foster children, having only one remaining in her care, she was asked if her new live-in was “more than just a friend.” Having thus run afoul of an Alberta Social Services policy against employing “nontraditional families” for foster purposes, she shared her unhappiness with the Edmonton Journal. Ever vigilant against homophobic intolerance in Alberta’s Tory government, the Journal loudly proclaimed her cause against then minister Stockwell Day.

But Mr. Day soon moved on to Treasury, and his social services successor, Lyle Oberg, put the “nontraditional” policy under “review.” The Alberta government was by now under attack about human rights from lesbians in Calgary, homosexuals in Edmonton, sterilization victims, nine sarcastic judges in the Supreme Court of Canada, the United Nations, federal cabinet ministers, its own addlepated human rights commission, Desmond Tutu and media-driven lobby groups everywhere. So on the question of homosexual fostering and adoption it quietly buckled.

[...] According to the Free Press, she is now a government-paid family counsellor in Athabasca during the day, and presents after-hours family life courses about parenting and anger management in Edmonton. And to boot she’s on one of federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan’s new Gentleness and Compassion Committees.

All of which goes to show how absurdly our public attitudes have been turned on their head. Here we have a divorcee teaching families how to succeed, a lesbian teaching about parenting, and all on the state payroll. Here we see a noted permissivist assigned to monitor young criminals whose most urgent need is probably a good hard kick in the pants.

As for anger management, I can’t help but wonder (bigot that I am) if Ms. T’s household suffers the kind of domestic violence and discord for which lesbian relationships are so notorious. The odds are that it doesn’t, but short of a police complaint or hospital emergency visit, how would anyone know? Did anyone ask? Is anyone these days allowed to ask?

[...] The trouble with Ms. T is not that she is a bad person; I assume she’s a very nice person, a nicer and more caring one than I. Nor is the problem that she’s “different”; we are all in some ways unusual, and if we weren’t it would be a dull world. No, the trouble with Ms. T is simply that there is no Mr. T, and every child should, if at all possible, have a mother and a father. It’s the way nature intended it, and no matter how many lobby groups and judges claim otherwise, the government can’t change nature. Moreover, anyone who can’t see something so obvious has no business teaching others about family life. Of all the things Ms. O’Riordan might have made a livelihood doing, it’s odd she chose this one. And it’s even odder that the people who hired her saw nothing odd about it. I suppose they sensed that the sexual misfits are unaccountably in control of things, and feared that if they didn’t hire Ms. O’Riordan they’d find themselves beset by her ruthless media attack dogs. Rather than risk such a calamity, they put her on the payroll. That’s how it’s done these days.“

November 20, 2000 –  On … Eminem?!? (and Byfield’s selective support for censorship and really, really Big Government.)

“There was much rolling of eyes two weeks ago when authorities in Ontario tried to prevent the loathsome white rapper Marshall Mathers (alias Eminem) from entering Canada. The attempt failed, the concert sold out and there was predictable tut-tutting about the self-defeating futility of anyone trying to censor “freedom of expression.”

Now like most people of reasonable taste, I have never listened to Mr. Mathers’ noise. Reading about it is enough. [...]

It probably was a mistake for Ontario Attorney General Jim Flaherty even to suggest there was a chance Mr. Mathers could be kept out for violating Canada’s Criminal Code hate law … he demonstrated his and our utter impotence to establish community standards of any kind at all.

Small-l liberals seem to like it this way. Mr. Mathers “is no more shocking for our time than Elvis and his swivel hips were for his, not to mention Alice Cooper and his chopping up a baby doll on stage in the 1970s,’ wrote Edmonton Journal pop culture apologist David Staples … he thinks the rapper deserves “respect” for giving the “raging ambitions and hormones” of young males a safe outlet. “It crosses a line,” conceded Mr. Staples, “but it’s nothing too horrific, and it certainly expresses feeling.”

Well, yes. And all feelings are equally good, right? So say the liberals. All emotions, no matter how depraved, unreasonable, destructive, self-indulgent, violent and vile–all deserve an unrestrained airing on a public stage, and life will go on. Nothing is shocking, nothing is shameful. Just learn a little tolerance.

[...] Why should we tolerate Eminem? He is bad for music, bad for social peace and trust, bad for morals, bad for his fans, bad for everyone, including himself … That liberals like Mr. Staples can behold 20,000 fans worshipping someone with the manners and morals of pimp, and imagine no evil will come of it if we just look the other way, surely represents some kind of cultural death wish.

It’s time–long past time, in fact–to admit that we have stopped even trying to defend community standards of decency. The job entails someone saying “no” to the parade of creeps who pander for profit to humanity’s worst instincts and impulses. Until about 40 years ago we were willing to do this, and we were a stronger and better people as a result.

What we need is a Criminal Code amendment authorizing municipalities to empanel a jury of citizens, half of them men and half women chosen at random, to arbitrate community standards. If Valerie Smith thinks Mr. Mathers has squandered his right to appear in Toronto, she should make her case to the jurors, and if two-thirds agree with her the concert should be shut down. If a record or video store sells such material, and a jury majority finds it outside community norms, the merchant should be fined.

Horrors! the liberals will cry; that would be censorship. Yes, indeed it would. But what is the alternative? To say there must be no such thing as community standards? To insist that our social norms must always be set by those who are consciously determined to destroy them?

No credible case can be made that a free society never censors anything. A few lingering vestiges of censorship can be found even in our own; public sexual intercourse is still forbidden, for example, at least for now. (But just wait for the chorus: How intolerant of us! How would it harm you?)

The real question is, who gets to say what the community standard is? To whom do we entrust that task? To government bureaucrats? Not likely. To judges? No, they’ve spent the last four decades telling us they don’t feel qualified. But that leaves only one source of authority–namely, the public itself.

So let’s ask the public. Empanel a jury and let the Marshall Mathers of this world make their case.”

When Danielle Smith insists, so long as she is the leader of the Wildrose, she will not legislate on moral issues, I believe her. However, that doesn’t mean Albertans should be electing individuals who have yet to escape the mentality of the 19th century.

One of the more amusing moments to emerge from the Leaders’ Debate was Liberal Leader Raj Sherman’s quip: “This is Alberta, not Alabama.”

The Wildrose would do well to remember that.

You can view this piece, and more, at apicazo.com
Follow me on twitter at @a_picazo

Share/Bookmark

The Candidates

Iqtidar Awan (LIB)

Manmeet Bhullar (PC)

Al Brown (NDP)

Ron Leech (WRP)

Iqtidar Awan was originally nominated as the Liberal candidate in Calgary-Northern Hills, but shifted to Greenway. He is an experienced volunteer with the Liberals, but this is his first foray as a candidate. The political scientist and writer lists health care and fiscal responsibility as his 2 main issues. Awan has listed his personal cell phone number on his campaign literature – so he’s definitely not insulating himself from voters (a former cabinet minister used to do the same thing – blows my mind. In a good way.)

Manmeet Bhullar was elected in 2008 straight out of law school to represent Calgary-Montrose. At dissolution, he was the youngest MLA in the house, and is the Minister of Service Alberta (ministers hold their portfolios until a new minister is sworn in – even during elections, the bucks needs to stop with an elected official). Bhullar lists the economy and health care as the biggest issues for his community, and in a terrible injustice was named to Avenue Magazine’s Top 40 Under 40 in 2011 (over your humble scribe).

Al Brown is an experienced campaigner, having run for the NDP in the 2007 Calgary-Elbow By-Election (3.3%), the 2008 General Election for Calgary-Montrose (6.7%) and in the 2011 Federal election in Calgary-East (14%). The journeyman electrician is hoping that his party’s stance on electrical bills will play into his wheel-house, and is a vice-president of the Alberta New Democratic Party. He has run against both his PC and Wildrose opponents before, in Montrose (2008).

Ron Leech was elected the PC Candidate in Calgary-Montrose in 2008, in a race the Party later threw out over allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the local board. Under a cloud of confusion, Leech ran as an Independent in the riding, falling 617 votes shy of victory. The Wildrose Alliance received over 800 votes in that election, so combine those votes with the ones Leech got himself, and Leech is looking like he’s a contender in 2012 as the Wildrose candidate. The former pastor has drawn sharp criticism during the campaign for his strong stance against marriage rights for same-sex couples.

(Originally posted at The Enlightened Savage)

Share/Bookmark

The Candidates:

Said Abdulbaki (LIB)

Wayne Cao (PC)

Janice Dixon (EVG)

Jeevan Mangat (WRP)

Don Monroe (NDP)

Said Abdulbaki may be better known to some readers as “The Sheik” – a character he portrayed on Stampede Wrestling. The businessman and pizza impresario was a Wildrose regional director for southern Alberta and ran for the party in Calgary-Montrose in 2008. After failing to secure the Chestermere-Rockyview nomination last year for Wildrose, he switched to the Liberals, listing Pierre Trudeau as a political hero of his (I’m sure that was a popular view in his former party. In wrestling, they call that a “heel turn”).

Wayne Cao was elected MLA here in 1997, and the popular myth is that you can’t build a garage in your back yard in Ogden or Dover without Cao showing up to cut the ribbon and celebrate (and sing). The IT Professional previously had a long career with Shell Canada before being elected. He lists healthcare, the economy, and social assistance as key areas of importance for the riding. His political hero is Abraham Lincoln – wonder if he’s going to see this?

Janice Dixon is a graduate of the University of Toronto, where she majored in political science and international development. The well-travelled Dixon feels that redevelopment and urbanization are big issues in Calgary-Fort, which includes the soon-to-be-overhauled East Village area.

Jeevan Mangat is a graduate of Lord Beaverbrook High School in Calgary – but nobody’s perfect (Go Grandin!). He went on to earn a civil engineering degree from U of C, and also ran a family restaurant. He is currently a commercial property manager, and places heavy emphasis on fiscal discipline being required in Edmonton. He won the nomination here that was triggered when the previously nominated candidate, Bob McInnis, withdrew in mid-2011.

Don Monroe is a City of Calgary employee and union organizer who fosters people with special needs in his home. An active member of the Metis Association of Alberta, Monroe lists health care access and public funding as his biggest issue. His roots are in Forest Lawn.

(Originally posted at The Enlightened Savage)

Share/Bookmark

It is interesting to note that as of 2008,70% of  Calgary Foothill’s residents hold a post-secondary degree. All 4 candidates in this district hold post-secondary degrees.

The last time Alberta held a Senate nominee election in 2004, Calgary Foothills voted Progressive Conservative for all 3 senate spots.

Below is a brief profile of each of the candidates (in order for last name):

Jenn Carkner (NDP): Carkner is a University of New Brunswick graduate with an M.Sc. in Political Science. She currently works at the University of Calgary as an editor and research grants officer. She has only recently moved to Calgary and was active with the NDP back in New Brunswick.

Kurt Hansen (Liberal): Hansen is an environmental engineer for an extensive period of time, and holds a Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering. He was born and raised in Denmark, immigrated to Canada in 1974 and has lived here since. He currently has his own consulting firm. He’s a local resident of Dalhousie, and has been active with the Alberta Liberal Calgary Varsity Constituency Association.

Dustin Nau (Wildrose): Nau holds a Masters and Ph.D in Psychology. According to Openfile, Nau is a veteran of the U.S. Army, and is currently a psychotherapist, counsellor, author, and a former adjunct professor.

Len Webber (Progressive Conservative): Webber is the incumbent MLA for Calgary Foothills. He holds a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Calgary, and is also a SAIT journeyman electrician. He has served as Minister of Aboriginal Relations and International and Intergovernmental Relations under Premier Ed Stelmach during his 2008-2012 term. Before entering politics, Webber owned his own contracting company, and was the director and vice president of Webber Academy.

Share/Bookmark

The Candidates:

Beena Ashar (LIB)

Greg Clark (AP)

James Cole (WRP)

Craig Coolahan (NDP)

William Hamilton (EVG)

Alison Redford (PC)

Beena Ashar ran unsuccessfully for Alderman in Ward 5 in 2010, finishing 3rd. The community fundraiser and prolific volunteer has been active on political campaigns for quite some time. Her issues include public safety and fiscal responsibility. Ashar was the final candidate named by the Alberta Liberals for this election. At this time, she does not have a campaign website.

Greg Clark is an entrepreneur born and raised in Calgary-Elbow, and a founding partner at C3 Associates, one of Alberta’s fastest growing companies for several years running. Clark - who also teaches Business Management at the University of Calgary – is all about vision: Long-term planning over short-term political promises. He has a series of 10 videos on his website, featuring his opinions on everything from health care to conscience rights to democratic reform.

James Cole moved his family from Ontario to Alberta in 2006 to follow his love of politics and to capitalize on the Alberta Advantage. The Chartered Financial Analyst is the treasurer for the local Calgary CFA Society (it’s got to take serious stones to be the treasurer for a group of CFA’s). Cole is a firm believer in fiscal discipline, something he says the current government lacks.

Craig Coolahan is a technical writer and union activist for the United Utility Workers’ Association. A New Democrat running where New Democrats are routinely thrashed, Coolahan is an advocate for affordable child care and affordable housing. He became a new father last December.

William Hamilton is a communications consultant and founding partner of Principia Communications Strategies. He’s also the only candidate (from anywhere in Calgary) to routinely send press releases to bloggers such as yours truly. William had a bit of fun on April Fool’s Day, issuing a release that he had appointed an Ent as Campaign Manager (Ents, naturally, are far too methodical to last long on a 28-day campaign). He ran for the federal Green in 2011, capturing 11% support in Calgary-Centre. His major issues are sustainability and public transit.

Alison Redford was elected here in 2008 by a margin of 419 votes. The lawyer and mother to 10-year old Sarah was elected Leader of the PC Party in October of 2011, and sworn in as Premier of Alberta a week later. Alberta’s first female Premier, she is a graduate of Bishop Carroll High School in Calgary – but nobody’s perfect (Go Grandin!). You may have heard her name a few times during this election. I interviewed Redford, a noted carnivore, at a local BBQ restaurant during her bid for the PC Leadership – follow this link to hear said interview.

Share/Bookmark