UPDATED: Perhaps They Forgot (In)Alien(able) Rights?

The Edmonton Journal reports the following story about the Wildrose Party:

Wildrose members on Saturday voted down a “definitive statement” on equality rights, one day after leader Danielle Smith trumpeted the motion that had been adopted by the party last year.

Perhaps its specificity offended some of the party's 'less progressive' members?

Delegates at the Wildrose annual general meeting in Red Deer voted 148 — 109 to reject a proposal to make policy a motion adopted last year defending the rights of all people, “regardless of race, religious belief, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.”

Instead, party members opted to maintain their existing policy recognizing that “all Albertans have equal rights, privileges and responsibilities.”

With the kind of logic and language worthy of the Orwell imprimatur,

Smith described the vote as an affirmation of the party’s current policy, rather than as a defeat of the proposed plank.

“I think that the nature of the debate was that they were concerned there might be something excluded in that long list,” said Smith, who was not on the convention floor for the vote. “I think that’s a reasonable position to take. I certainly don’t think anyone should take offence to it.”

She's probably right. The defeated equality statement did seem to have one glaring omission. There was not one mention of (in)alien(able) rights, and it would would hardly pay to offend these denizens of Rigel V11 :



The farsightedness of Wildrose is indeed breathtaking.

UPDATE: Special thanks to Alison who, in her comment below, provided a link to some telling information:

Wildrose priorities ... not too big on inalienable equality rights for people but nonetheless want property rights entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, the Wildrose was joined by federal Conservative Lethbridge MP Jim Hillyer to announce a new legislative motion that will be the first step in entrenching Alberta landowner rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Introduced by Wildrose Lacombe-Ponoka MLA Rod Fox, the amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be brought about under section 43 of the Constitution Act, which states that

if a constitutional amendment applies to one or more provinces, but not all of them, the amendment requires only the support of the province to which it applies with resolutions by the Senate and House of Commons, and of the legislative assembly of each province where the amendment applies.

Wildrose leader Danielle Smith is wildly enthusiastic about entrenching property rights, since it gets government 'off the backs of the people,' a foundational tenet of the party:

“Landowners are the best stewards of our beautiful landscapes and they deserve to have their rights fully protected so they can manage their property with minimal interference from government,” Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said. “This kind of positive constitutional change is possible and critical for advancing property rights in Alberta. I hope that after Mr. Prentice’s campaign commitments this past summer, both he and his government will fully support this motion.”

Make of that what you will.

Just a Little Reminder

While the right enthuses about Dear Leader's performance on the G20 world stage, here's something to bring everyone back down to earth:



And letter writers also have some thoughts to share on the issue.

This from The Globe:

Yes, the U.S.-China climate deal is a really, really, really big deal (Yes, This Is A Really, Really Big Deal – editorial, Nov. 13). Climate change is not just one of the greatest threats facing humanity, it is the greatest threat. With a carbon fee and dividend, we can have a carbon-reducing mechanism, plus more jobs. Since B.C. introduced its revenue-neutral carbon tax, its clean technology industry has been flourishing and emissions per capita are down sharply.

I have conservative values, but Stephen Harper’s closed-minded approach to this issue does not resonate with these values. One hopes the China-U.S. emissions agreement will force him to do something.

Sharon Howarth, Toronto

And from The Star:

Before he became prime minister, Stephen Harper famously said that climate change was a “socialist plot.” Now that we have the new U.S.-Chinese climate agreement, perhaps our Petro State leader will say, “This is just another plot. Canada sells oil. Let others worry about the planet’s future.”

Anthony Ketchum, Toronto

Apparently, Nothing Is Sacred To These People

Thanks to Ed Tanas for this:



Ed asks in a tweet why the mainstream media aren't covering this. A good question.

More Of The Same

In today's Star, Thomas Walkom explains why the U.S. China climate deal is not likely to have any impact whatsoever on Harper's ongoing and egregious contempt for all things related to climate change:

For this prime minister, only one player in the climate change debate matters: the petroleum industry.

When Harper talks about dealing with climate change in a way that protects jobs and growth, he means jobs and growth in the Alberta tarsands.
In part, this is sheer politics. Alberta is the Conservative heartland. If Harper were to be seen as neglecting Alberta, he would risk triggering the same kind of rebellion that destroyed the old Progressive Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark.

But in part, it is based on Harper’s theory of the Canadian economy. The prime minister views resources — particularly energy resources — as the driving forces of the entire economy.

Under this logic, whatever is good for oilsands producers is good for Canada.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

UPDATED: Would You Hug A Terrorist?

There is no question that here in the West, we like to treat death almost as an embarrassment; we sanitize it, hide it away in hospitals and palliative care units, and conduct our lives with a kind of cognitive dissonance, believing on some level that while it happens to others, somehow an exception will be made in our case.

Not for us the graphic horror of many deaths: severed limbs, exposed entrails, torrents of blood. One need only look at how photos of the Boston Marathon victims were doctored to realize the truth of our aversions.

Unfortunately, in the many war-torn areas of our fractured world, especially the Middle East, people do not have that option. Their lives are often a daily series of bombardments shattering their communities and their lives that cannot withstand even the greatest efforts at denial.

Why are we so isolated from their suffering, their maiming, their deaths? Modern technology, of course, allows countries like ours to attack from a distance, using drones, long-range missiles, etc., the resulting images just fuzzy war-video game images that are broadcast to us. It is all too easy to dissociate from real life and its deadly consequences.

Fortunately, there is a movement entitled Hug A Terrorist that is seeking to combat the depersonalization that permits us to accept obscene terms such as 'collateral damage' with equanimity. It was started last summer by two Palestinian-Syrian girls as a response to the carnage in Gaza to show that the people who are labelled terrorists are often just innocent, ordinary people, many of them mere children:



Yesterday, McMaster University in Hamilton hosted an event inspired by that video. You can click here to watch the news report.

While it garnered widespread support, there were those who objected to it, such as local Harper MP David Sweet, who tweeted that he agreed with [the]sentiments ... [but] considered the campaign "outrageous and poorly timed."

Others felt even more strongly:

[A] handful of other Mac students watched the activity. Wearing a yarmulke, 3rd-year student Zach Harris said he thought the campaign made light of terrorism.

"It belittles the word," he said.

Another nearby student, Sarah Kohanzadeh, said she thought students passing by were uncomfortable with the campaign.

Neither Harris nor Kohanzadeh went across the hall to talk with the pro-Palestinian students, they said. Both of them belong to the university's Israel on Campus group, but said they were watching the campaign in the Student Centre independently of the group.

"We're trying to stay low," Kohanzadeh said.

Jacob Klugsberg, a 4th year student, said he found the campaign offensive in using the concept of terrorism "ironically or in a joking way." He said he did walk across the hall to talk. He said he hopes the campus can be a place where discussions happen to move toward "lasting peace."

Happily, unlike in the 'real world,' disagreements did not devolve into violence.

UPDATE: Ira Rosen, of the Hamilton Jewish Federation Public Relations Committee, takes grave exception to the event:

This stunt is morally reprehensible and deeply offensive and casts the very real human suffering caused by terrorists as a joke. It is an insult to the memory of Canadians, indeed to all people, who have fought and died at the hands of terrorists.

You can read his full response here.

It Seems That Bill O'Reilly Got A Few Things Wrong About Jesus

At least according to scholar Resa Aslan:

Beware! Just Say No!

This latest anti-drug propaganda public service ad from the Harper regime is not being well received. Here is a sampling of the critical reaction culled from You Tube:

- "As a Canadian taxpayer, I'm highly offended that my money contributed to this mass disinformation, which amounts to nothing more than scare tactics. It's time for the government
to drop the political motives that are clearly behind these types of messages about drugs, and instead embrace an opinion that is based on public health."

-"What a weak argument - '300 - 400% stronger than it was 30 years ago'. Now you only have to smoke a half joint, instead of 3 joints like you did 30 years ago! Weak! I want my tax
money back!"
-"Listening to this commercial can seem harmless, but it can cause serious damage to a teen’s developing brain."

-"I used to think marijuana was bad, till I saw this commercial. Now I've concluded adults are liars."

-"I don't smoke cannabis, but it's disgraceful knowing my tax money is being wasted on propaganda. How about some sources?"

-"Is this the same advertisement that the College of Physicians refused to support?"

-"Not a fan of pot, but this ad is just stupid," concluded a user going by the handle Antphetamines.

I don't know about you, but I still prefer the original scare story: