The UCP Hates You

The Alberta “United Conservative Party” hates you - and it’s with a level of visceral loathing that is inexplicable.  Live in an urban centre?  Well, the cancellation of the Green Line is one of many examples of their loathing for anyone that isn’t “them”.  

Then the National Post published some of the policy proposals that the party is looking at for this fall’s convention.  To call it ‘hate-filled’ is perhaps the kindest thing I can say about it.  The levels of ignorance and hatred contained in the motions is stunning, but also telling. 

At the top of the list are a series of resolutions which are clearly designed to attack transgender women in particular.  Consider a ban on trans women using washrooms, locker rooms etc.  There is no evidence that there is a problem in this area, yet we have a party where such a ban is actually being considered seriously.  This is nothing more than plain old hate masquerading as “protecting women”.  

I could do a deep dive on what they’re babbling about, but that wouldn’t be terribly interesting - the proposals are little different than the ill-informed nonsense that Premier Smith unveiled back in January and is expected to table in the legislature this fall.  More interesting is the connection with other policies, because it is frequently the case that the people who hate transgender people just happen to also be the same people that hate women’s health care (and other rights).  

In particular, I would like to bring to your attention aproposed ban on “late term abortions”, and restrictions on Caesarian Section (C-Section) procedures.

The proposed ban on “late term abortion” is hardly new fare for long time watchers of the Social Conservative (SoCon) set in Canada.  The phrase “Late Term Abortion” is not a medical term, it’s a phrase dreamed up by SoCons to cast the procedure in a particular light.  They want to imply that there’s an almost viable baby being terminated.  The reality is, of course, much more complicated.  Pregnancy is a complex process, and any number of things can go awry from the moment of conception through to the trauma of birth (and yes, birth is traumatic for the body).  After 20 weeks, very few people are opting to end a pregnancy unless it either puts the pregnant person’s life at risk, or something has happened with the fetus that renders it non-viable.  Bans are simple, reality is complex.  

The other policy which would grossly restrict access to birth by C-Section is interesting for the wording it uses:  “Natural childbirth is of course a natural process that has many medical benefits beyond measure for both the mother and child”.  I’d love to know what these supposed “medical benefits” might be - one would think in the annals of modern medicine we would have managed to enumerate such benefits if they existed.  A little like opponents of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) who idealize the process of dying as if it is some wonderful, peaceful process (and have never seen someone die of cancer, heart disease, or sepsis from a blood clot).  Birth is not an easy process, nor is recovering from an invasive surgical procedure like a C-Section.  The idea that women are choosing a surgical option seems deeply rooted in the Christian notion that women’s sexuality is not to be trusted, and that women deserve to be punished for being sexual creatures.  

Further, restricting access to C-Section birth in this case, like restricting abortion, ultimately comes down to being an attack on an individual’s autonomy - and in particular their bodily autonomy.  Here is where women’s rights and 2SLGBTQ+ rights intersect and are politically different sides of the same coin.  

The argument against 2SLGBTQ+ rights has always been fundamentally a moral objection rooted in religious belief.  Similarly, the arguments against women’s bodily autonomy are also moral objections rooted in religious belief.  It is more or less inevitable that a party hell-bent on attacking one will eventually attack the other.

At its core, women’s rights has always been about breaking down the barriers in society that were erected to keep women subservient and dependent on men, and are rooted in a combination of narrow interpretation of religious texts and “biology is destiny” thinking.  Needless to say, women’s health care has always been contentious for some groups - mostly because of those moral codes that they believe are “mandatory”.  

This intersects with 2SLGBTQ+ issues on numerous fronts - ranging from legal recognition of partnerships and families formed by this community to recognizing and supporting the bodily autonomy that necessarily runs through the community.  Transgender people are perhaps the most “radical” expression of that autonomy - going as far as seeking medical interventions to address their experiences.  

Autonomy and legal recognition of both women and 2SLGBTQ+ people sit at the core of the argument, and we need to recognize that those who attack one will inevitably attack the other at some point.  This year’s policy proposals for the UCP underscore the point.  

It might be easy to look and say “well, I’m in another province, so it doesn’t affect me”.  You’re wrong.  There are 3 provincial elections this year - BC, SK, and NB - where there are parties who have put 2SLGBTQ+ rights in their crosshairs, and federally, Poilievre has made similar noises behind closed doors.  Pay close attention to what is happening locally, but also watch what their ideological peers in other provinces are proposing - ideas and policies get shared widely among conservatives.