Of Campaigns, Bigotry, and Dog Whistles

So, with UCP leader Danielle Smith regularly playing dodge-em with her own statements in the past, it shouldn't come as any big surprise that something would come bubbling to the surface from one of the UCP candidates.  

This week's entry into the bigot olympics comes via the UCP candidate for Lacombe-Ponoka, Jennifer Johnson, who thought it would be "clever" to compare having transgender kids in schools to adding fecal matter to cookie dough. I'm not going to go into dismantling the rancid stupidity of her comments beyond borrowing from Lily Allen, and saying "Fuck You Very, Very Much", Ms Johnson. 

I've listened to the recording, and it was offensive to say the least, and the other people in the room are all giving her laughs and knowing chuckles. Every last person in that room should be ashamed of themselves. 

After bubbling around for a couple of days, today, on the day of the leader's debate, Danielle Smith issued the following as a statement on the matter:  

This thing is one giant dog whistle from start to finish. There are a number of things about it I want to highlight. 

First, it doesn't eject Ms. Johnson from the UCP candidate pool, it just says "well, when government first sits, you won't be part of caucus.  But it also clearly leaves open the door for her to join caucus later.  It doesn't stipulate any conditions around that return. 

The message here is clear enough: "What you said is bad, but we're going to give you a nudge and a wink as punishment". The intent is simple:  wait for the ruckus to die down, and we'll quietly bring you into caucus then. 

There is an underlying dog whistle here, and I suspect it comes from the Take Back Alberta crowd: "To the base:  Shut up about trans issues, they're political dynamite".  They're not wrong about this, but we also know that TBA organizers are in full agreement with Ms. Johnson - as can be seen carefully coded in the following message promoting one of their events: 

Lurking in there are not-so-subtly worded comments aimed at transgender people living normal lives (and doing things like say ... swimming - a reference to an alleged, and disproven, indecent exposure event at a pool in Calgary), and drag queen story time events at public libraries. 

The second part is that "there are valid discussions to be had" - this is a carefully worded dog whistle that is little different to the 2019 issue around GSAs.  "Oh, we're protecting the children!".  No, you're not. The only meaningful discussion related to transgender children is to be had between the children, their parents, and their doctors. The only public policy matter is the one that says "how do we support these families so that we don't end up traumatizing the children with our bullshit as adults?".

Smith's comments "encouraging" candidates to become more informed are, at best, a limp attempt to paper over the unbridled hatred racing around inside her party. I can't help but think of it as little different than her attempts to defend Hunsperger in 2012 by saying "well, he's entitled to hold those opinions".  

So ... When's Harper Going To Engineer His Defeat?

There's little to be optimistic about in recent comments from Mr. Harper on the subject of Abortion, Gun Control and the Death Penalty.

On the surface, Harper has said that he doesn't want to get into those subjects, right?

Well, let's look a little further, shall we?

First of all, Harper's "back benchers" like Vellacott, Bruinooge and Epp have been very active putting forward bills that are directly or indirectly about abortion. We know that the base is alive and well in Harper's caucus - and they haven't exactly been silent.

Nobody in Harper's caucus so much as sneezes without permission from the PMO, and usually with specific instructions as to precisely when to sneeze and at what volume. Make no mistake, those bills had Harper's permission to exist in the first place - which, given Mr. Harper, is essentially an endorsement of the bill itself.

Second, I've found plenty of occasions where Harper (or his minions) have been dog-whistling to their "base" on a regular basis.

So, how do Harper's recent statements constitute a "dog whistle"? Simple, they're key hot button issues to his base - even mentioning them publicly is a reminder to his base that those issues haven't been forgotten about even if they haven't been acted on yet.

He describes abortion as an issue he’s spent his political career trying to “stay out of” and insists he wants no debate on abortion law. “What I say to people, if you want to diminish the number of abortions, you’ve got to change hearts and not laws,” he said.

Uh huh - spot the dog whistle phrases in there:

insists he wants no debate on abortion law

That's perfectly true - Harper doesn't want a debate. What he wants is the absolute power to impose his will. There will be no debate about it.

if you want to diminish the number of abortions, you’ve got to change hearts and not laws

Ah - in other words, under Harper, Canada's government will be funding more wingnut welfare programs by handing money out by the ton to so-called "pregnancy crisis centers" (fronts for various anti-choice groups) that lie to women about abortion.

Remember, Harper has done more to subvert and disrupt our democracy than any previous Prime Minister, and he's got his sights set on power - and I don't think he gives a damn what the price for that is as long as he can impose his will on Canada.

The Wingnuts Heard The Dog Whistle In The Budget

I said cutting GRS funding was a dog whistle for the fundies.

Sure enough, as if to make my point for me, the following letter appeared in the Edmonton Journal:

Why don't we consider delisting abortions? Surely in this enlightened day, no baby should suffer annihilation just because the timing is wrong, or because proper birth control was not used. How many abortions are performed in Alberta each year, and how much do they cost taxpayers? I am not questioning abortion where the health of the mother or baby is at risk. But Alberta could be a leader in delisting this abhorrent medical procedure.

Judy Buddle, Edmonton

I'd hardly say that this comes as a surprise per se; although I still think it has more to do with a proposed series of amendments to the Alberta Human Rights legislation the Lindsay Blackett has been working on for quite some time.

Slouching Towards An Election

The HarperCon$ are busily putting their election machinery into high gear, setting the stage for what I expect will be a fall election.

While the Rahim Jaffer affair continues to grow legs, arms and tentacles, and distracts public attention from the real game that is afoot.

Harper is moving to replace Governor General Michaelle Jean, no doubt he will choose someone whose conservative credentials are impeccable - in the hopes that the next GG won't sign legislation into force, no doubt.

Mysteriously, I received a rare propaganda page from my otherwise missing in action MP a few days ago - and it was considerably larger than the usual pamphlets I see from his office. All of it carefully worded "feel good" nonsense intended to soothe anxious SoCon radicals that the Con$ are working in their best interests.

The legislative game is very interesting. The HarperCon$ have routinely used an array of Private Member's bills to play dog whistle politics with their base. Interestingly, as we discovered with the closer inspection of parliamentary procedure last time Harper prorogued parliament, Private Member's bills survive prorogation - which saves the HarperCon$ a certain amount of public discomfort when the same bill, for the same stupidity is reintroduced time after time - reigniting debate over issues that are generally inflammatory.

Consider the following. The Con$ have long railed against the long gun registry program, but Bill C-391 is a private member's bill. The Conservatives know that passing it as a Government bill would split wide open the rural/urban voter divide, and likely would cost them a significant number of urban seats in centers like Toronto. But, by allowing their "backbenchers" to put it forward, they can claim that they "tried" to make it happen, but the evil opposition wouldn't let them.

Then we have Rod Bruinooge's bill C-510, the "coerced into an abortion" anti-abortion bill. This is a blatant case of dog-whistle politics. It's intended to appeal to the ultra conservative base of Reformatories with their roots firmly in Alberta's Bible Belt. The law itself is fundamentally unnecessary, and legislates something which needs no legislation - and presumes that a pregnant woman can't make an intelligent decision on her own.

Bruinooge's brand of misogyny could almost be shrugged off as a wingnut politician's ravings - except for the G8 'women's health initiative' that has been bubbling around:

The Bloc pressed the Conservatives as to whether they would put aside ideology and include abortion as part of their family planning measures. No way, the government said.

“Canada’s contribution to maternal and child health may include family planning however Canada’s contribution will not include funding abortions,” Jim Abbott, the parliamentary secretary to the International Co-operation Minister, asserted.

Now the extremist misogyny of the Federal Conservatives is coming from the front benches - loud and clear. This can only mean that the Con$ are busy trying to shore up their "base" support before the summer recess - when they will no doubt run all over the country announcing all sorts of "feel good" spending.

More Dog Whistles Out of Edmonton

So, Premier Stelmach finally said something about his direction yesterday.

A defiant Alberta premier broke ranks with some of his own senior cabinet ministers Tuesday, declaring that, under his watch, taxes will never increase to help the government escape from its multibillion-dollar deficit and a deepening fiscal hole.

One day after some of his most trusted ministers said both tax hikes and program cuts are needed to redress the province's revenue crunch, Premier Ed Stelmach said his government won't hike personal or corporate taxes, and vowed never to adopt a provincial sales tax.

This is another dog whistle moment - to the extreme right wing base that now seems to have control over the Alberta PC's. It's a signal that under Stelmach, the government is going to get axed down to as small as he can make it.

It shows a disappointing lack of vision and wisdom on his part though. He has just shackled himself to only surviving on existing revenues - by far the majority of which are coming in from a natural resources sector that has been pummeled in recent months.

Stelmach has just taken so many tools off the table, that his government's ability to respond to the economic situation we see today is reduced to two things: borrowing money and cutting services. That's it.

It's a sacred cow in Alberta that we will never have a provincial sales tax. When times have been good, that's been feasible for the government to get away with, and it plays well at the ballot box. What Stelmach, and others, fail to recognize is that a Sales Tax would go a long ways to stabilizing the revenues that the Alberta Government sees.

Unfortunately, Stelmach is playing to his base - he has been more blatantly since the April budget, and it's going to get a whole lot worse in the coming months. Especially when the leadership of the governing party isn't even willing to consider all of the tools that are available to him in addressing the current situation.

Stelmach's approach is going to make the recession in Alberta lot worse, and a lot deeper for longer in short order - purely so he can shore up his support within the party.

Talk about a government being past its "best before" date!

More Signs That Harper's Planning An Election

The Con$ Start Sliming The Liberals in an attempt to deflect public attention from the seething cesspool of Conservative corruption.

In the midst of the Afghan Detainee documents scandal, the Geurgis/Jaffer affair, growing suspicion over the activities of MP Shory, a "Maternal Health" initiative that's so blatantly a dog whistle to the extremist base and the squirming of the secretive "pro-Life Caucus" headed up by Harper's ideological bed-mate Rod Bruinooge, we find the latest HarperCon lies are aimed at discrediting Michael Ignatieff as some kind of evil conspirator seeking to form an "illegitimate" coalition with the other opposition parties:

“Today, Ignatieff is once again out talking about coalitions with the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats,” according to Conservative Party talking points circulated today to MPs and supporters.

To bolster their conspiracy/coalition theory the strategists compiled several recent statements from prominent Liberals: “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said he’s always been prepared to work with other parties to form a coalition … (Hill Times, May 17, 2010.)”

This has been representative of the Conservative party's tactics since day one - when the situation gets too hot, they try to deflect attention elsewhere ... and you have to admit, it's gotten pretty warm in Ottawa in recent weeks.

Of course, the Con$ like to argue that any coalition would be "illegitimate", or even outright illegal. They're lying. Canada's parliamentary system is fundamentally identical to Britain's - and they've got a coalition government now. Open your eyes, Canada - the HarperCon$ are lying to you about how Parliament works - what else are they lying to you about?

When Denial Goes Wrong ... Very Wrong

So, Pope Ratzinger has sent out one of his minions to "explain away" his latest homophobic/transphobic dog whistle remarks.

He also said that Pope Benedict's comments were "quite difficult to interpret" and as a result of this that he had been "very much" misrepresented in the media.

Horsefeathers - one only has to take other statements the Pope, and other members of the RC Clergy have made - to realize that the Pope wasn't being at all obscure.

The cardinal went on to say that the pope was only trying to emphasise the importance of the family, and the responsibility on humans to procreate.

Oh lovely - from this, one might conclude that rape is acceptable behaviour - after all the rapist is merely trying to procreate. Give me a break. (No, I don't believe the Pope meant any such thing, but this Church is so hell-bent on regulating sexuality that they've lost sight of reality)

We should also consider that sex does not necessarily result in pregnancy, so even if one were to view its purpose as primarily procreative, one still has to recognize that it serves other purposes. If it were purely procreative, then one would expect that the probability of conception as a result of sexual intercourse would be a lot higher. (Of course, nobody is supposed to question the Vatican's interpretation of "God's Design" ... goodness knows, we might have a point)

The Pope said behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations is "a destruction of God's work."

He also said man must be protected "from the destruction of himself" and urged respect for the "nature of the human being as man and woman."

I see. So, as I have repeatedly pointed out in the past, what about intersex individuals? Or are they supposed to be celibate as well? The other problem I have with this Pope's logic here (and the pathetic attempt at "unwinding the damage") is that it makes the horrendous mistake of assuming that sex == love. Anyone with any real experience in an adult relationship will have long ago realized that love is quite apart from any sexual relations involved.

"The Vatican has already reinforced its anti-gay reputation by strongly opposing a UN declaration calling for an end to discrimination against gays, but this latest Papal outburst is clear evidence of an obsession about homosexuality which is tantamount to paranoia."

Now then, given that this Pope has repeatedly shown himself to be overtly hostile towards GLBT people, is it any surprise that when he says something that can be interpreted as hostile, it is seen as such? (including by the wingnuts)

[Update 31/12/08]:
Apparently there are also theologians who see the Pope's rant as unreasonably hostile as well: The Pope has forgotten Christ's word.

H/T: AE Brain
[/Update]

Well ... Yesterday Was An Off-Price Day In Alberta Politics

The day started with a bunch of Kenney's caucus showing up at yet another separatist policy dog-whistle being unveiled:

... and it ended with a COVID update presser from Jason Kenney that basically said "nah, we don't care about whether you're landing in ICU on a ventilator, or that the rest of the health care system is crashing".

To be honest, I'm not at all sure which to be angrier about - a bunch of numpties stuffing the Buffalo Declaration and the old Firewall Letter in a blender and calling it something new, or a heartless premier who seems all too content with letting Alberta burn to the ground while he screws around.

I'm disgusted with both, and I'm even more appalled that the UCP caucus hasn't got the collective spine to give this premier the boot that he so richly deserves. It says much about them, and none of it good. 

  

Can You Imagine What They'll Do With A Majority?

It's not really news that Jason Kenney forced the omission of any mention of equality rights in the new citizenship guide.

Drafts and other internal documents related to the guide were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969 and more recently, civil marriage rights to same-sex couples was legalized nationwide in 2005," the earliest draft of the guide says under the section Towards a Modern Canada.

And in the section on citizenship rights, the early draft said: "Equality Rights — Canadians are protected against discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or age."

Neither sentence survived the minister's red marker.

Kenney has steadfastly opposed same-sex marriage since his time as an opposition MP in the House of Commons.

In the larger picture of our country, this particular act is small potatoes ... or is it?

More realistically, along with Harper's recent refusal to include contraception and abortion in his world stage 'Maternal Health' initiative, Kenney's actions are another political dog whistle aimed squarely at the TheoCon base that is at the core of the old reform party movement.

Make no mistake about it - there are major elements within the CPoC that would quite happily roll back both gender and sexual equality rights to the era when being gay was a criminal offense ... not unlike what Uganda is trying to do right now, and where both contraception and abortion were either illegal, or nearly impossible to acquire.

When Harper and his ministers feel they have to play so blatantly to these attitudes, it's not hard to imagine just what might happen should Canadians ever grant this bunch a majority.

Honest Conservative is an Oxymoron in Canada

 Way back in the 90s, Preston Manning admonished Reform party candidates as follows:  "Don't tell voters what you really believe, get yourself elected first" (this is a paraphrase).  That has become a mantra among conservatives since then.  

Federally, the CPC under Harper had a significant "values" caucus (read: social/religious conservatives) who badly wanted to legislate against abortion, gay rights, and women's rights.  Harper would throw them the odd bit of "red meat" - allowing a private member's bill to move along for a while - until it became apparent that if it actually got passed, the political price would be too high.  Policy books were carefully curated, and unless you had a good eye for "dog whistle" language, most people would assume that the CPC was less radical than it actually was.  Since Harper's departure in 2015, that mask has dropped, and the radicalized wing of the party has become increasingly powerful.  

Provincially, the picture is similar across the country, with some truly egregious examples emerging in the western provinces.  In Alberta, the UCP has undergone two internal coups, resulting in a party that has become increasingly radical and is legislating in a manner completely at odds with the platform they ran on in 2023.  Nobody in 2023 thought they were electing a party that would spend political capital on attacking minority rights and separatism, yet here we are.  Smith to this day denies that the party is in fact a separatist party.  

Then we come to B.C., and the crumbling edifice of a "unified" conservatism under the BC Conservative banner.  Two years ago, John Rustad led the BC Conservatives to a hair's breadth of attaining power.  When he booted Dallas Brodie from caucus for comments that most people would describe as racist, that led to the formation of OneBC, and put his leadership under threat from factions of the party who apparently felt he wasn't "conservative enough".  Eventually that led to his ouster and replacement by Kerry-Lynne Findlay after a lengthy and bitter leadership fight. 

Findlay set about engaging in one of the most blatant purity purges any conservative party has ever witnessed, resulting in the collapse of her leadership in a record setting 112 days.  This isn't an accident, and it isn't an aberration - it is exactly what you would expect when a party is made up of factions that simply don't see eye to eye on much.  Sooner or later, the most radicalized faction will agitate and organize to seize control. 

Which leads us to yesterday's revelation that the B.C. Conservatives are "in talks" with OneBC.  Now, in itself, this is not surprising - parties often discuss what they might do in scenarios where together they might be able to seize power from a rival either through cooperation or even merger.  

However, B.C. Conservative leader Lorne Doerksen made the following statement which I can only describe as ominous in the context:  

Asked about the discussions Tuesday, Doerkson said there had been “nothing formal,” while reiterating his party’s commitment to embracing conservative values.

“That’s not up for conversation,” Doerkson said at the time. “We will bring conservative values, for certain, to the people of British Columbia.” (emphasis added) 

What precisely does "conservative values" mean here?  OneBC is, to put it kindly, on the extreme end of social conservatism, with distinctly racist, anti-2SLGBTQ policies permeating the party's policies.  Lorne Doerksen's own comments should make anyone who isn't themselves a social conservative incredibly nervous: 

I was supportive of the LGBTQ community. Always have been and always will be.

SOGI [Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity education resources] has been a lightning rod for division in this province. I think that SOGI has to be removed.

and ...  

I've had friends that attended residential schools, and I have heard many stories from people that have survived those schools.

I'm absolutely supportive of our First Nations in this province.

If there has been a crime committed, then there needs to be an absolute, formal, deep investigation into what has happened here because I think all Canadians need to understand that better so that we can move forward on a better path

So, in short, anti-2SLGBTQ (because let's be honest, anyone who is bitching about SOGI is doing so because it includes that community and that gives them the squickies), and nothing like a little "soft residential school denialism" to show us the underlying racism.  Does Mr. Doerksen not recall the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its final report?  We've had that investigation already.

Now we have the BC Conservatives playing footsie with OneBC?  That should make anyone nervous - because OneBC was formed out of "the BC Conservatives weren't radical enough for us" thinking.  

I'm not going to claim that the MLAs who left caucus under Findlay are the "reasonable ones" - I think they are the ones who were targeted by Findlay's purge for one reason or another, or they saw the political fallout of staying with Findlay on the wall and decided it would be better for their future prospects to depart.

Prior to the collapse of her leadership in September, there were already rumours of OneBC being invited to return to the BC Conservatives ... largely because KLF was already aligned with OneBC - and she was making that clear. 

Doerksen is trying to play "the reasonable one" here, while tacitly signalling to the hardliners that he's on their side.  That's the whole problem - conservatism in Canada is not a singular movement with a coherent set of beliefs.  It is a collection of groups, all with distinctly different beliefs and values fighting for control over the "blue flag".  The claim that there is "something in common" is a fantasy - the goal is power, and "leaders" emerge who will do everything they can to cobble together some kind of "alliance", only to have it fall apart in real time as they discover how radicalized some of the participants really are. 

I've watched this script play out so many times since the 1990s that the first question I ask when someone tells me that they are "a conservative" is "which faction do you follow?".  The least honest are always the ones with the most unelectable ideas. 

Alberta: Where It's AOKIYAAC

(* AOKIYAC - It's All Okay If You Are A Conservative *)

So, I see that Iris Evans has issued a sort-of apology:

The comments were "certainly targeted at financial literacy and not at people who had to work out of the home and be away from the children. It wasn't. And if they inadvertently, or if the way it's been reported, offends somebody, I do apologize," Iris Evans told CBC News on Wednesday evening.

"But it was never with the intent to slam parenting as people do when they have children in alternative care or in daycare. It was an intent to point out the importance of the early years in teaching skills to children whether it's behavioural issues or financial literacy."

First off, that isn't an apology, it's an attempt at a dodge. Iris screwed up, embarrassed the government and is now trying the "I was taken out of context" excuse, along with a conditional statement of apology. Sorry, not good enough, Iris.

Second, going back to her original comments, it's pretty hard to see how her explanation does anything to substantively mitigate the underlying message of what she said:

"They've understood perfectly well that when you're raising children, you don't both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise," Evans said. "This is not a statement against daycare. It's a statement about their belief in the importance of raising children properly."

She also said a lack of education is ruining the upbringing of some children and leading to mental illness and crime.

"The huge failure of Canadians is not to educate the children properly, and then why should we be surprised when they have mental illnesses or commit dreadful crimes?" she said. "We've really got to focus on that properly, and it should be financial literacy as well as anything else."

I just can't parse this collection of assumptions and assertions without it turning into nothing more than yet another dog whistle to the so-called 'family values' crowd that continues to argue that women who have children shouldn't be working - and if they are, that any problems in their families are "all their fault".

Among other points in here, she is essentially inferring that mental health issues are directly related to problems within the family unit. This is arguably false on many, many fronts, and coming from somebody with her background in health care, she should know better. There are many, many causes for various mental health issues, and it is beyond irresponsible to blame parents for those problems - by inference or otherwise.

Similarly, I don't buy the claim that implied about youth crime either. There are many factors that can cause youth to turn to crime. While parental neglect can be a cause, it is beyond irresponsible to assume that it is a necessary precondition. Blanket "blame the parents" comments reflect sloppy thinking on the minister's part.

She is claiming that her comments are about "financial education", and yet it is so painfully clear from the content of what she said that financial matters are at best secondary clauses in the core message of her statements. At the core of it all is the same romanticized view of family that is often used to oppose gay marriage, abortion, sex education and whatnot. Sorry, but the era when families could routinely afford to live on one income while the other parent stayed at home is long past. At most it is a romanticized ideal now, and the romanticization has quietly omitted all of the reasons why it had to change.

Limp, half-baked apologies are not what we need from this government and its ministers. But then again, we have a minister in charge of health care who has no health care background and a finance minister who used to be a nurse - not exactly the kind of stellar qualifications that would get them senior executive posts in any kind of corporation looking after similar responsibilities!

Canada's Conservative Government: Misogyny and Ignorance in One Package

After listening to yesterday's Question Period, I am astonished and appalled by the responses of our government regarding their "Maternal Health" development program for the G8.

Says the odious Bev Oda:

“This initiative is about saving the lives of mothers and children,” she said. “Far too many lives are being sacrificed when we can do something about it. This is the time we should act.”

Yes, Canada, this is exactly what the Forced-Pregnancy crowd wants. Take away options which allow women to control their fertility - after all if they don't want to be pregnant, they shouldn't be engaging in sex, right?

Then there's the more realistic side of the world, pointed out by MP Carolyn Bennett:

“Unbelievably, the minister suggested that birth control has nothing to do with saving lives,” Dr. Bennett said, noting that United Nations says a “lack of adequate contraceptive services is responsible for 1.5 million deaths in developing countries every year.”

What?! How can it be that our government is not only ignoring the research?

Oh - wait - these are the heirs of the Bush II years in the US - facts and evidence don't matter, just their dogma.

[Update 18/3/10]
So, having sounded the dog whistle loud and clear to the base, we now see Harper beating a retreat ... of a sort:

"We are not closing doors against any options, including contraception," Harper said in French in the Commons. "But we do not want a debate here or elsewhere on abortion."

But why is contraception - and safe abortion - even a question? For decades, these have been part of Canada's foreign aid policies - nicely aligning us with the UK, and much of the EU.

The fact that Harper & Co. are "questioning" this, and "considering it as an option" tells us a great deal about what they would do given the opportunity.
[/Update]

Dear Pope Ratz:

[Update 29/12/08]
I see that the wingnuts heard the Pope's 'dog whistle' all too well:

Unless we "listen to the language of creation" he said, we end up with "destruction of the work of God." The Pope suggested that the gender ideology which seeks to redefine the sexes to allow for homosexuality, transgenderism and such things are examples of mankind separating himself "from creation and the Creator.

I believe this makes my point for me.
[/Update]
There are some subjects where it's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

In this case, the subject is transsexualism.

Without actually using the word, Benedict took a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender. Defend "the nature of man against its manipulation," Benedict told the priests, bishops and cardinals gathered Monday in the ornate Clementine hall. "The Church speaks of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected." The Pope again denounced the contemporary idea that gender is a malleable definition. That path, he said, leads to a "self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator.

So just what does the Pope think about people with various Intersex conditions - or has the Vatican given them some kind of a special dispensation? For that matter, the Pope has no idea whether or not transsexuality is a perfectly normal (if rare) aspect of human experience.

His selective condemnation is based on a highly debatable understanding of "natural law" - it is one that assumes that the inner person is defined by their outer appearance. As we all know, it is folly to 'judge a book by its cover', and for this Pope to condemn an entire class of people on the basis that "god-given gender" is fixed and immutable is deeply problematic. How does this Pope claim know what goes on inside the heads of someone who is transsexual? How does he know that a 'female soul' did not wind up in a male body (or vice versa)? The fact is that he doesn't.

For him to claim that 'God doesn't make mistakes' is ridiculous, for one only has to turn to the physically intersexed and realize that such a claim is ludicrous. For the Pope to claim that gender is "immutable" is to claim that it resides only in the genitalia, and yet we know that so much more of the human experience - social, sexual and romantic takes place between the ears - which other than what someone finds a way to express in words or actions is largely inscrutable. There is also a small, but growing body of evidence that suggests that there are physical as well as psychological factors at play with transsexuals.

In short, Pope Ratzinger knows not what he speaks of, and has proven to the world that he is truly a fool for opening his mouth. He would do far better for the world to focus his attentions on the horrors in Africa, rather than spouting off about identities that he is so clearly ignorant of.

What Exactly Is A “Broad Coalition Of Conservatives”?

This morning, on the news one of the headline stories was about the CPC policy convention, where they are going to debate a range of policies, and two of them are outright eliminationist anti-transgender crap. (We’ll come back to that) One of the party talking heads said some inane drivel about the CPC being a “democratic party with a broad coalition of conservatives”. 

Besides being a somewhat silly attempt to define the party as “big tent”, what does the term really mean? It certainly doesn’t mean inclusion - the CPC continues to pander to extreme libertarians whose idea of “economic policy” is basically “let them eat cake”.  So if you’re somewhere in the middle and lower income ranges, they sure as hell aren’t including you - your pockets are the first ones they are going to pick through user fees, means testing programs, etc.  They also continue to be very much in the thrall of social conservative movements that want to exclude people who don’t fit into a particularly narrow idea of the world (usually one based on a bad reading of Old Testament texts).  So yeah, if you’re a woman, a member of the 2SLGBTQ community, or you belong to one of those “other religions”, don’t think for a moment that you’re safe in that party - you aren’t.

I did take a look through the CPC policy proposals, and there are some doozies in there.  Let's go exploring, shall we?

Twisting the Night Away ...

 I won’t waste much time directly addressing the attempted coup that took place in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday this past week. Others have already covered it in considerable depth, and the fallout will no doubt take months or more to sort out.  

However, Maclean’s decided to publish something today that I think deserves to be smacked around for continuing exactly the patterns that I have become increasingly critical of conservatism in Canada for following. 

The column, entitled “Let’s Not Waste This Crisis in American Democracy”, and is written by former Harper-era communications guy Andrew MacDougall.  Please, go and read it.  When you are done reading it, I’ll explain just how twisted it really is.