Monday, December 17, 2007

Break Out The Popcorn...

The Chandler saga is going to get interesting.

Today, Chandler announced that he's going to run as an independant candidate in Calgary Egmont.

That comes as no real surprise - Chandler started making such grumblings as soon as it became public knowledge that his nomination was being reviewed carefully. While that should make for quite an amusing election campaign in Calgary Egmont, it's far from the only aspect of the story.

"They're no longer Conservative," he said. "Conservatives wouldn't act like that. Conservatives believe in freedom."
Chandler also said he was running with a slate of candidates who would challenge the Tories in other ridings, including deputy premier Ron Stevens' riding. Those vying for legislature seats include Jim Blake, national chairman of Concerned Christians Canada, and David Crutcher, the former riding association president in Calgary-Egmont and a Chandler associate.


Wow, I wonder what Chandler thinks about MPs in Ottawa that Harper has turfed out of caucus for daring to question Harper's authority. Running a slate of candidates against the PCs has got to have made the Liberals and NDP positively ecstatic in those ridings. Chandler may have just handed over a handful of ridings to the opposition parties.

Chandler said he also plans on launching a lawsuit and human rights complaints against the Tories, the latter stemming from what he said was a "grilling" on his faith by Tory executives who were considering his nomination. He alleged Monday that he was discriminated against because of some of his religious beliefs.


Now, this will be interesting. I've said for quite some time that if there is any validity to the claims often thrown around by supposedly "Christian" anti-gay activists, that they should avail themselves of the human rights laws of the land and put those claims to the test.

Since I wasn't party to the conversations in Red Deer, nor the deliberations of the PC Party executive, I cannot say if Chandler's claims have any substantive validity. I suspect that the party has an equally legitimate argument that it cannot accept a candidate whose "political baggage" is as extensive as Chandler's.

It will be interesting to see how Chandler's human rights complaint plays against the words in paragraph 357 of the Lund/Boissoin decision which reads:

357. In balancing the freedom afforded under the Charter and the degree of protection afforded through the provincial legislation, I considered s. 2(b) of the Charter in regards to the fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media, the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association. Having considered the Charter and the balancing of the freedoms set out in the Charter, I have interpreted the Act in a manner which respected the broad protection granted to religious freedom. However, I have found that this protection does not trump the protection afforded under the Alberta human rights legislation in s. 3. to protection against hatred and contempt. I also take the view that s.3(2) required a balancing of these freedoms afforded to individuals under the Charter, with the prohibitions in s. 3(1) of the Act. In this case, the publication’s exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. It cannot be the case that any speech wrapped in the ‘guise’ of politics or religion is beyond reproach by any legislation but the Criminal Code.


If, as Chandler claims, he was refused candidacy because of his religion specifically, that is a problem that deserves to be addressed. If, however, Chandler's candidacy was refused on the basis of the baggage that came along with how he has conducted himself, then he's got quite a hill to climb.

[Update 16:05]:
I see CBC has their copy up on the story, and it adds a few more choice tidbits of Chandler's wisdom:

He also said he plans to sue the party in the new year to reclaim about $170,000 he claims he spent on his nomination campaign.


Is it just me, or is this amount going up? When this story first emerged a week or so back, Chandler was talking in terms of $127,000. (Who in their right mind spends over $100K to get a riding nomination???)

Calling Stelmach's rejection of his nomination a "denial of democracy," Chandler said Monday he hopes to take Calgary-Egmont from the Tories as an Independent.

"I think they picked the wrong guy to push aside," he told reporters.


Apparently, Craig has never figured out the concept of when to gracefully retreat. Instead, we get to watch Craig's antics as he tries to take out his anger on the PC's, and he demonstrates once again that he in fact has no idea how to work with people who don't see the world his way.
[/Update]

[Update 2]:
I suspect the $170,000 number may be a factual error on CBC's part. Over at Project Alberta, Chandler's own press release posting uses the $127,000 number.
[/Update]

3 comments:

evilscientist said...

I'm curious on what he spend $120k+ on for a nomination given that most Candidates in the provincial election spend around $40k.

Anonymous said...

And candidates for a nomination tend to spend less than $5k, even in urban ridings.

Taking a shot at it, I think he is including a salary for himself (or whatever he would choose to call it), and possibly some paid staffers. Buses and memberships?... say it ain't so.

From what I hear, some members of the PC Executive are actually welcoming a Chandler lawsuit, because then they (a) get to cross-examine him, which will allow everyone to get their fill of why he wasn't accepted in the first place, and (b) to substantiate the monetary claim, Chandler will have to itemize his costs for all to see.

Anonymous said...

Good point, I'd like to see the transcripts and evidence that will come out of this court case. I'm getting tired of this pathetic story. I honestly think he was counting on the PC party to cave, settle out of court and pay him back his 'costs', and may still be counting on this. If the case is dragged out long enough it may become more cost effective to settle out of court, which will count as a victory to Chandler, who will trumpet it as such.

I personally hope the court case results in a victory for the PCs and will for the time being shut him up, but I doubt it. He'll probably drag it out again through the Appeals court, and continue to be a pain until he gets his way. And if he can't he'll find others to carry on. And it'll be worse when the elections come around, with Chandler badgering the PCs for 'violating' democratic practices by refusing to accept his nomination. Whether or not you like the PCs this sort of crap is more destructive to the political process due mostly to the FUD being cast about.

E.

Collective Punishment

Ever since Pierre Poilievre opened his mouth and declared that Trans Women need to be banned from washrooms and locker rooms , there's b...