You've Got To Be Kidding

I've said for a long time that just beneath the veneer of civilized that the current owners of the name 'Conservative' in Canada is a squirming base of ugliness.

It appears the veneer's wearing thin:

Ezra is definitely in the Harper war room, a place he jokingly considers to be more of a "peace room. It's more huggable.

"I'm a volunteer helping out. I do burger runs. I do TV panels as a Conservative strategist. It's not that big a deal," says Ezra.

Well, when Ezra is contacted, he is not about to do a burger run but he is about to go on CTV as a Conservative strategist. Ezra tells us nothing about the burger preferences of the Tory war room but he lets us in on strategy.

"Huggable"??? Harper? Right ... but then again the odds of me seeing eye to eye with Ezra Lerant on anything are pretty slim.

Anyway, Chandler is back in the game and he plans to be working on the Harper team, almost certainly being in a Tory phone room wooing undecided voters in Ontario.

"I've been asked by the Tories to be involved heavily in this campaign. I get up from one fight with a black eye and it heals and I get into another one," says Chandler, who no one accuses of staying on the canvas long.

"The federal party is not like the provincial PCs. We work well together. We don't have a problem. I will have an involvement. It's a 99 percent guarantee. It will be in the phone rooms, wherever they are."

Chandler also says when Calgary gets new seats in Parliament because of the city's growth, some top Tories want him to run for one of the open spots.

"I've been asked to seek one of the seats," he says. Who has asked?

"These are people who are high-profile in the party."

The man also has a book coming out next year.

Chandler is well aware his presence in the campaign will raise some eyebrows.

"People can complain all they want. Democracy takes all kinds. We have to learn to play in the sandbox. If they can't grow up, that's their problem," he says.

"I'm not going away. Politics is a blood sport and I'm just going to get better at it."

Half of Chandler's problem is that he has no idea how to compromise. I've yet to see him in a contentious situation where he hasn't tried to bully and bluster his way through it - and then have a major hissy fit when it doesn't go his way.

To hear him talking about 'learning to play in the sandbox', it's almost laughable. It's not like his track record exactly shows us that kind of willingness to cooperate with anyone who dares disagree with him.

If the HarperCon$ are inviting him to run for a seat, they are either just as nutty as Chandler himself has proven to be, or they are oblivious.

Whatever vestiges of the old PC party that used to exist are long gone indeed.

Craig Chandler Campaign Literature

Chandler's campaign literature is an amazing collection of logical contradictions.

Of course, the contradictions stem from Chandler's blithe assumption that the only "kind" of voter that lives in Calgary Egmont is a "conservative voter".

Consider the following:

If you hire me as your MLA, I understand that I report to you and that your views will be represented

Followed a paragraph or so later:

As your MLA, my intention is to vote with the PCs when they act like conservatives, and when they act like Liberals, I will remind them of their roots

So...just how does this man think he's going to represent the moderate voters, which are fiscally moderate and socially quite liberal? Or perhaps he has forgotten that many in this province today are old enough to remember Peter Lougheed's government - and that represents the "roots" of the PC party far more than the absolutist conservatism of the federal Reform Party. I suspect that many of the points on his policy page are "code phrases" that only bear meaning for people that subscribe to Stephen Harper's dishonest social conservatism backed and defined by Charles McVety and his allies - meaning that there are quite likely a lot of issues which are not "open for consultation", unless I miss my guess. (Or conveniently, all he'll hear are opinions that match his own - not unlike )

Of course, he also likes to claim that he is the "trigger" of a "great exodus" from the Alberta PC party. If there's an exodus of any sort happening, it's likely got more to do with a lot of people turning away from the party after starting to realize that the leadership selection process was not what it was represented to be. I'm sure that for a few, Chandler's nomination was the "straw that broke the camel's back", but Chandler just isn't that significant a figure outside of Egmont - and only there because he's chosen to try and be a candidate there.

Last, and perhaps most telling is the bottom of the page - which contains not a picture of the Candidate, or any kind of slogans, but instead appears to have been sold off to supporters as paid advertising space. (One of the ads belongs to one Vicki Engel, who I suspected was a little to cozy with Chandler to be anything other than a puppet candidate. While some might applaud Chandler's "innovation" in selling advertising space on his campaign advertising, it also sends a rather worrisome message - namely that he is for sale to the highest bidder.

Quick, Grab the Popcorn

If this complaint actually goes anywhere, it's going to be positively grand comic theatre.

It seems that Concerned Christians Canada is going to play puppet for Chandler's threatened human rights complaint:

Concerned Christians Canada says it's going to file a human rights complaint against Premier Ed Stelmach and Progressive Conservatives.
National Chair Jim Blake tells QR77's Dave Rutherford the complaint stems from the premier's decision to replace a couple of tory candidates in Calgary - Craig Chandler and Ron Leech.
The group claims both have been rejected as candidates because of their religious views.

Hrmmm...I have to wonder about how strong this complaint is going to be. Chandler's clearly got his people trying to make it look like a broader issue than just the issue of his nomination, but rather has been systemically applied to other "religious" candidates. Even though Jim Blake is ostensibly independent of Mr. Chandler, he is a long-time associate of Chandler's and has popped up with an amazing predictability speaking in favor of Chandler's position. (Whatever that might happen to have been)

From the perspective of Chandler's specific case, it's pretty hard to make a compelling case that "religious beliefs" are the sole and primary cause of why his nomination was rejected. The final decision in the Boissoin case, and two other related cases which hardly went in Chandler's favour, provide a pretty strong case upon which to base a position that Chandler simply had too much political "baggage" to be a viable candidate. (and certainly, opposition parties would have a field day tying the Boissoin case to the PCs had Chandler's nomination gone forward)

As for Mr. Leech, PC party is claiming that he was rejected due to problems with the nomination process. So, the basis upon which the claim is being made in his case remains to be seen.

Frankly, this little endeavor is likely doomed to failure - not because HRCs are biased against Christians, but because there is relatively little to work with. About the only thing in the mix that I can't adequately account for is the meeting Chandler had with PC party leadership in Red Deer. There might be some fodder in there, but whether that outweighs the other material already in the public domain is hard to guess.

As I said in an earlier post on the subject, I actually am looking forward to this case going through its due process. Regardless of the outcome, it deserves an open hearing.

Calgary Egmont Update

Seen in this morning's Calgary Sun, apparently Chandler is "low on funds":

Now running as an independent and citing an in-house poll, which puts him at the front of other candidates vying for the seat, Chandler says he needs at least another $23,000 in donations to keep the momentum going.

An 'in-house' poll? Credibility-wise, that's right up there with drinking your own kool-aid. Yes, Chandler's got a fair number of signs out on the main roads through a couple of areas, but that likely is a matter of going through the phone list from his nomination campaign.

However, it seems a bit of a stretch to me to suggest that he has a "lead" over anyone other than Jonathan Denis at this early stage. (Personally, I think Denis is a weak candidate at this time, especially with the PC's suffering from what appears to be a weak leadership)

The grand irony here is Chandler complaining about a "lack of funds" after allegedly spending in excess of $127,000 to get the PC nomination last fall. Talk about having your priorities upside down. I doubt that any of the other candidates for nominations spent more than a couple of thousand on the nomination. (Less, I would imagine) And I'd guess that campaign costs for the election will run most candidates somewhere around $30,000.

Another Sock Puppet?

It's up to you to guess if PC nomination candidate for Calgary Egmont is another Chandlerite sock-puppet or not.

Vickie Engel announced her candidacy on Saturday, Dec. 21 for the PC nomination in Calgary Egmont.

Given that someone sharing that name shows up as a PGIB member ... in Calgary SE, there's a good possibility.

Then there's her platform page, which reads pretty much like a cut-and-paste job from Chandler's platform page.

Chandler's platform on 'family values' reads:

FAMILY VALUES - Elimination of Child Pornography and strict enforcement laws at the municipal and provincial levels of government. Elimination of interest group funding. Supports the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Stands for the sanctity of life. Craig also believes in creating a provincial sex offenders registry.

Ms. Engel's:

FAMILY VALUES - Elimination of Child Pornography and strict enforcement laws at the municipal and provincial levels of government. Elimination of interest group funding. Vicki also believes in creating a provincial sex offenders registry. Matching the Federal Conservative's "Choice in Child Care Allowance" by giving parents an additional $100 dollars per month for each child ages 5 and under. Formal recognition of income splitting between couples whether they are raising children at home or working full or part time, saving parents thousands of dollars each year in taxes. Increasing the base personal income tax exemption of each parent according to how many children they have. This would save parents hundreds of dollars each year for each child they are raising.

(Emphasis Added)

She's tried to add some additional bafflegab, but aside from substituting her name for Craig's, it's pretty obviously a direct lifting of Chandler's platform.

Smells like yet another sock puppet - no more credible than Crutcher's lame attempt at baiting the PC's last month.

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]

And You Expected What?

According to Chandler's latest post on Project Alberta, David Crutcher is going to pack up his marbles and go play elsewhere.

(Calgary) David Crutcher is withdrawing for the Calgary Egmont Alberta Progressive Conservative Party race. Mr. Crutcher has been in communication with the Executive Director of the party, Jim Campbell and asked for some advice, even personal in nature and the party refused.

"I understand that the party's poorly written constitution has no method to pre-qualify candidates and I asked Mr. Campbell to even give his personal feeling on whether I would be accepted as a candidate. All I received back is a passing of the buck and that they do not pre-approve candidates" stated David Crutcher.

Jim Campbell wrote to Mr. Crutcher in response to his e-mail that "It has not been the practice in the past to pre-approve candidates before a nomination and the Executive would have to be assembled for a meeting to treat any such question. I would not presume to say what their decision, or the Leader's, would be". Mr. Campbell also further stated that " While the PCAA lends assistance where required, it does not normally run the process or interfere with the independence of the constituencies"

As if either Chandler or Crutcher would have expected anything other than an elliptical response from PC brass. Even a pidgin knowledge of the party Constitution such as I have gleaned in recent weeks makes it painfully apparent that the party executive is somewhat hamstrung on Crutcher's demand for a "pre-approval", as final approval of nominees happens after the nomination vote at the constituency level.

David Crutcher encourages the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party to change it's constitution, fire it's president and get a new leader, or there will be continued bleeding from the party.

Uh-huh. How typical. The hard-line social conservative like Chandler or Crutcher is a surprisingly thin-skinned creature. As long as they think things are going their way, they are happy. As soon as their plans go awry, they lash out at everyone they perceive to be "to blame", and take oh so little ownership of how their own contribution to the story plays in.

Amusingly, this announcement comes mere days after Chandler starts declaring that he's going to run, along with a small slate of PGIB-affiliated candidates.

If Stelmach Agrees To Sign Off Crutcher...

He will be admitting to his organization the hostility of Craig Chandler.

Consider the following. On the Project Alberta thread talking about his "sympathy dinner", we find Mr. Chandler posting the following:

All we are waiting for is some indication that his papers would be signed if he won, just some indication. Even if informal, but we shall see.

Please note, Craig is talking "we" here, implying strongly the connections between himself and Mr. Crutcher. (Which further reinforces my suspicion that Crutcher's declaration that he will run for the nomination is essentially a "sock-puppet" maneuver on the part of Chandler and his allies)

Then we find the following posted by Chandler on Project Alberta:

I need as much Info on the PC's as possible such as the following:

1 - How much money lost due to Royalty Review? (please provide names and links)

2 - Any info on candidates

3 - Any other info that is good for ammo in the election

And a little later on the same thread:

Keep it Coming!

United Against Stelmach!

If party brass is even marginally aware of these conversations going on, I can't see how Stelmach could possibly justify allowing someone so closely associated with Chandler to run.

However, as Ken Chapman points out, this whole business could provide the Alberta Alliance and Wildrose parties with a "common enemy" in Ed Stelmach. Frankly, if that happens, it still does little for Mr. Chandler's own political aspirations - as he continues to demonstrate that he is essentially destructive if you "piss him off".

The whole lot of the shenanigans demonstrates a fundamental point that I have always felt bears a great deal of truth - namely that social and fiscal conservatism are largely mutually incompatible.

Where fiscal conservatism is generally compatible with the notion of multiculturalism as it has evolved in Canada, social conservatism has unfortunately adopted the cloak of Christian Fundamentalist politics. Speaking broadly, fiscal conservatism tends to be rather laissez-faire on social matters - believing that for the most part, people can sort themselves out. The social/religious conservative tends to desire an increased adherence to whatever "scriptural truths" they believe should be enforced in law.

Enforcing "scriptural truths" by force of law is expensive, especially when that law runs orthogonal to foundational aspects of law in Canada - such as the Constitution. This in general tends to make "fiscal conservatives" uncomfortable simply because it means taking a position that will cause the government to spend enormous amounts of money for "gains" that they do not necessarily buy into.

In large part, this is why Stelmach is encountering issues with the "social conservatives" that lurk in the PC party. While Stelmach is apparently a social conservative on a personal level, he seems to be much more of a fiscal conservative in policy terms. Where Ralph Klein was more or less "hands off" in his leadership, which made room for some of these people to step forward (Ted Morton and Victor Doerksen for example), they could do so only as long as they didn't have a "political cost" to Ralph.

Ed Stelmach doesn't enjoy the kind of personal popularity that Ralph did with the electorate, and thus he cannot afford to allow a great deal of dissent within caucus ranks - relying instead upon creating the image of being a "good manager".

No matter how much Chandler wants to protest that he is being misrepresented, the simple fact is that regardless of what he said or didn't say, he has come to represent a particular kind of "social conservative" in the public mind, and it is a kind of "social conservative" that carries a high political price among the voting public.

It's Tiny Violins Time

It seems that Chandler has decided to try to make a profit from his newfound status as "martyr for democracy". Over at Project Alberta, he has posted an announcement for his fundraising dinner for January:



Now, Chandler running another fundraiser is hardly surprising. I rather expected this, but it certainly reinforces my suspicion that Crutcher's announced "conditional nomination candidacy" is little more than a sock-puppet maneuver on Chandler's part.

However, Chandler's attempts to adopt the cloak of martyrdom are actually kind of pathetically funny:



He feels he's been "tarred and feathered" for something he didn't even write. No, he didn't write it, but he clearly sanctioned it - both in spirit and action. Not only did Chandler republish that letter on both "Freedom Radio Network" and the "Concerned Christians Canada" websites, he brags about bankrolling Boissoin's defense:



Even more amusing is Chandler's attempt to rationalize how he is the "hero" in the various human rights decisions which hardly could be argued as "going in his favor".



Lurking in the midst of all that sophistry, Chandler spouts one of the bigger fibs I've ever seen. His sentence implies that not only did he sell his shares two years ago, but that he left the organization around that time. However, as I've blogged before, Chandler in fact remained CEO of the CCC until his resignation in March of 2007.

In other words, through the vast majority of the time from when Boissoin wrote his vile little screed to the point at which he reached a settlement with Rob Wells on behalf of CCC, Freedom Radio Network and himself. At which point it had to be getting painfully obvious that he didn't have a leg to stand on with respect to the various human rights laws involved, and the critical Alberta decision would go against him and the CCC (as a member of the CCC executive at the time, he would hold a certain degree of personal responsibility in the matter).

While Chandler attempts to distance himself from the whole Boissoin incident, he ultimately comes off looking like he not only backs Boissoin, but clearly one must infer that he also backs what Boissoin wrote. At no time that I am aware of has Chandler ever come forward to distance himself from the Boissoin letter's content. In reality he has made it very clear by his actions what he believes. In fact in his mealy-mouthed apology to Rob Wells, Chandler writes:

If you have felt we have done so please accept our deepest apologies. Our views will not change, however, and if and when we discuss this matter again we will be careful to insure that our words are calculated before spoken.

So, while on one side of the coin, he seems to be apologizing, and then he turns around and essentially says that he sees nothing wrong with what has been said - pivoting on the sophistry of "how it was said".

The meme that Chandler is propagating about how he "didn't say or write anything hateful" is only marginally true. There are many who would argue that the transcript of Freedom Radio Network July 29 is hardly pleasant about the matter.

Funny or Pathetic ... You Decide

It appears that since Chandler can't get his nomination to run as a Progressive Conservative, he has convinced one of his good buddies to step forward as a sock puppet:



Now, per se, David Crutcher doesn't have quite the same level of nasty personal history as Chandler, but his association with Chandler is public knowledge, and it's similarly quite clear that Crutcher is of a similar mind to Chandler on many issues. (even if he isn't prone to the bullying presentation of his ally).

David Crutcher is asking the Executive and the Premier to let him know in advance before he submits his papers if he would be accepted as a candidate.

"I think what happened to Craig Chandler is appalling and disturbing and I do not wish to go through that humiliation. Craig Chandler should have never been refused as a candidate. I expect an answer right away" concluded Crutcher.

If that doesn't give you a clue as to what Chandler and his buddies are thinking, I don't know what will. It's quite clear that they are trying to set things up to make Stelmach look bad. If Stelmach approves Crutcher, Chandler will run around crying about what a hypocrite Stelmach is, and if he refuses to approve Crutcher on the basis of his association with Chandler, the Chandler Crew(™) will run about crying about how "undemocratic" the PC's are.

"I believe that that the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party is headed in the wrong direction and am choosing to fight from within to make some changes, much like my friend Craig Chandler, tried to do. Like Mr. Chandler I am a believer in Jesus Christ. Like Craig Chandler I also support Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. I also share Chandler's views on the definition of marriage" stated David Crutcher.

To which I can only wonder if Mr. Crutcher (or Mr. Chandler) believes that his right to free speech or religion entitles him to marginalize others. Or perhaps, they simply believe that their rights supercede everybody else's.

While I have no love for the PCs in their current form, Stelmach would be a complete fool to allow known associates of Chandler to stand as candidates for the PCs. The linkages aren't hard to find, and after the events of the last few weeks, damage to the party's reputation from having such individuals running at all could be devastating at the polls.

[Update 8/12/07]:
I see that the Calgary Herald has picked up this story.

But Mount Royal College political science instructor Keith Brownsey said Crutcher's bid propels the potentially embarrassing political drama forward, and will continue dividing the Tory party.

"It could seem as if it were an attempt to embarrass the Conservatives or the Stelmach government more than anything else," said Brownsey.

"On the other hand, Mr. Crutcher as a Conservative in good standing has every right to run for the party." Calls to party executive weren't returned on Saturday.

This is going to sound harsh, but it's time for Stelmach to purge the party of the cancer of divisiveness. Should he allow Crutcher's candidacy, he will have simply have guaranteed that his party will be torn apart by the vicious infighting that Chandler will push for. Chandler has already made it clear that he is only willing to unite the party by demanding that it go down the path Chandler prescribes.
[/Update]

Pot, May I Introduce The Kettle?

In the ongoing saga of Craig Chandler's nomination in Calgary Egmont, we find Craig in the news again. This time, claiming that the Premier's office was meddling in the nomination race in Egmont:

The e-mail to Chandler dated Oct. 22 reads: "Sorry about how things have turned out. I got an urgent call from the Premier's Office asking me to back Jonathan. What else could I do?"

Chandler said the e-mail proves Stelmach's office was trying to meddle with the outcome in Calgary-Egmont.

"You look at the words of Paul Jackson says there, 'What else could I do?' He could have kept his word. He was obviously under great duress."

Hmmm ... it's politics as normal as far as I can tell. I did wonder aloud about Jackson's seeming about-face prior to the nomination vote when Jackson wrote some surprisingly flattering columns about Jonathan Denis.

If any of us are supposed to be either surprised or mad about this, I fail to see why. Nominations are internal party business. Personally, I fail to see much difference between the Premier's office trying to garner support for Mr. Denis and Mr. Crutcher (and other members of the riding executive) being directly affiliated with Chandler's campaign - even when they supposedly had "stepped aside". It's called politics.

When I heard Mr. Denis' name being bandied about as a potential candidate, I wondered if his sudden appearance didn't have some connection to the "party establishment" who by then should have been starting to clue in that something was afoot in Calgary Egmont that could turn out to be a nasty little political liability.

I'm not at all sure that this revelation really means a great deal. From a matter of polling numbers, it's pretty clear that Chandler's campaign in Egmont was effective in garnering people willing to vote for him. Okay, so the Premier's office tried to influence the outcome - so did the riding executive.


When it comes down to it, Chandler's nomination was quashed for the very fundamental reason that the man comes with (to paraphrase Rick Bell) "more baggage than the lost baggage counter at Air Canada". Surely, few are surprised by Stelmach's actions, after all having Chandler running for the party would have handed the Liberals and the NDP enough ammunition to seriously damage the PCs as a whole.

The Calgary Herald editorial page yesterday:

Sometimes it's not just what is said, but how it's said. Chandler is notorious for offending just about everyone with his abrasive in-your-face style. It's no wonder that virtually every PC MLA was nervous about his nomination.
...
Chandler is entitled to his views. But a candidate with a record of support for someone deemed to have breached human rights laws, and who also ran afoul of the AHRC with his own intemperate remarks, is a liability to the party. His views are not the party's views, and Stelmach had no choice but to quash Chandler's candidacy.

Frankly, I can't say that I find this outburst by Chandler surprising at all. He's running about trying to frame it as the party not allowing a "social conervative" to run, but really if you think about it that's largely a crock. There are a good many "social conservative" MLAs in the legislature already - Ted Morton and Victor Doerksen to name two. But neither of those men have run afoul so consistently of Canada's human rights law.

This is all blame shifting on Chandler's part. He's trying to make himself out to be the "hero" of the story (don't we all want to be the hero of our own stories?), and he clearly has yet to take ownership of how his own actions in the past have contributed to the outcome.

Fallout and Recrimination

Now that the decision making around Chandler's candidacy is over, we are starting to see various voices in the PC party starting to critique Stelmach's handling of the situation.

Comments like the following are popping up:

Would Jim Dinning have let the Chandler episode run its course the same way Ed did?

I'm not at all sure that Stelmach could have done anything but. From a few intimations in the news, it doesn't sound like the PC party has a process that enables party brass to "vet" nomination candidates. There are some clauses that provide the final say-so on a nominee belongs to the party leadership, but that only kicks in after someone has been nominated.

Second, I suspect that few people realize the lengths that Chandler went to to ensure his nomination in Calgary Egmont. He had managed to get a number of his close allies to step forward to act as board executive for the riding association. At least four of his people were on the Egmont constituency association board, probably enough to make it difficult to shut down Chandler's campaign without generating some seriously bad optics for the party.

Stelmach had a nasty little problem on his hands the day he assumed the party leadership, and I doubt he was even aware of its existence. He actually did the best thing he could - let the game unfold however it may, and then let the uproar publicize all of the activities that have made Craig Chandler notorious in recent years. Waiting for the AHRC ruling on the Boissoin case simply made it even easier to justify refusing Chandler's candidacy, as it put one more nail in Chandler's political coffin as a PC.

The reality of it is that Stelmach had to act in the best political interests of his party given a very limited set of tools. If Stelmach had not acted as he did, he risked giving the opposition a huge array of ammunition to lob at his party during an election, and that's something Stelmach can't afford.

I see that Chandler is threatening to sue the PC party to recover the costs of his campaign. If he actually did spend $127,000 on the nomination itself, the man must have money to burn. I doubt any of his competitors spent even 10% of that amount for the nomination itself. Given that the first thing out of Chandler's mouth is almost always "I'll sue you" (followed a close second by "Christophobe" it seems these days), I don't suppose the party should be surprised.

Perhaps the greatest irony of all this is that the more Chandler lashes out viciously at those he perceives to have slighted him, the less electable he becomes.

Chandler Leaves the PC Party

Like you didn't see this coming, but officially, Chandler says he is leaving the PC party.

Controversial conservative, Craig Chandler, says he is quitting the provincial party.

His decision comes after a meeting with the premier, and 40 other senior party members, on Saturday.

Stelmach obviously could read the tea leaves just fine:

Ed Stelmach came out of the meeting and said endorsing Chandler’s nomination in Calgary-Egmont was not in the best interests of the party.

This past week has not exactly been a high point in Chandler's public career. Not only did the Alberta Human Rights Commission rule against CCC in the matter of the Boissoin letter, but also his grip on the riding association in Calgary Egmont started to unravel, and a hard-fought nomination campaign (there is no doubt that Chandler worked hard to get that nomination) has just been rendered moot. Ouch - that's gotta hurt.

[Update 17:15]
The Globe and Mail has picked up the story - the reader comments are hysterically funny at times...

Also, the Calgary Herald has their story up with it a few choice quotes from the ever so tactful Chandler:

But Chandler vowed to remain a player in the riding in the upcoming election, suggesting he may run as a candidate either independently or for another party.

"I am not going away," Chandler said.

He accused the party of intolerance towards "people of faith" and predicted a mass exodus of social conservatives from the party.

"This will split the party," he predicted.

The next election campaign in Egmont will undoubtedly be interesting political theater...especially if Chandler chooses to run either as an independent or under another party's banner.
[/Update]

[Update Dec 2]:
I see that Rick Bell has a few more choice tidbits.

He says the provincial Tories are now intolerant to people of faith and against free speech and, when the Tory grassroots review the premier's leadership, "they're going to eat him alive."

"I'm going to use my network within the Conservative party to cause duress to Mr. Stelmach. Ed Stelmach is done. There is no room for social conservatives. You've got Liberal and Liberal Lite. Liberal, Tory, same old story." ...

The man with the Tory boot on his backside figures some Tory higher-ups are "Christophobic" and compares their questioning of him to the communist-hunting hearings of Sen. Joe McCarthy in the U.S. of the '50s.

"Are you a right winger? Are you a social conservative? Do you believe in Jesus Christ? That's kind of what I went through. They've just split the party in half."

Chandler will consider running as an independent. "I got kicked in the teeth. At 37, I'll outlive half that room," says Chandler.

"I've wept over this in the past week but I'm not exactly a person that's going to take this lying down."

All threats and malice as soon as things go against him. Doesn't exactly make the man look like anyone who is ready to play a role of statesmanship - or even politician for that matter. I'd like to think we can expect our politicians (or prospective politicians) to be gracious in defeat or victory.
[/Update]

Boissoin Hearing Conclusions & Ruling

The Alberta Human Rights Commission ruling on the Boissoin/CCC complaint has been posted.

The short synopsis: Boissoin and the CCC lost the case:

361. In conclusion, I find that the respondents, Mr. Boissoin and the CCC, have contravened
s. 3 of the Act by causing to be published in the Red Deer Advocate, before the public, a
publication which is likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt because of their
sexual preference.

The commissioner's interpretation and balance of the legislative and legal principles at play here is impressive:

356. I have considered Charter values in reaching my decision. I agree with the argument of the CCLA that Charter values are at play, not only when there is a constitutional challenge. Further, the case law is clear that in any analysis of competing rights, the balance must be done in light of the Charter. I accept the authority as submitted by the CCLA from Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] S.C.C. 256.
In quoting from Justice Charron at paragraph 16:

The rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter establish a
minimum constitutional protection that must be taken into account by the
legislature and by every person or body subject to the Canadian Charter.

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.

This wording puts those who would use their faith to marginalize others into an awkward place. Although it is valid to discuss topics of faith, clearly there are now stated boundaries to those rights - namely that you are entitled to a religious opinion, and to express that opinion up to the point where you are trying to curtail someone else's right to a peaceful existence.

The Alberta Attorney General's arguments are similarly aligned and rather interesting from the perspective of Alberta's past history regarding GLBT rights cases such as Vriend:

242. It is the Attorney General’s position that Mr. Boissoin’s letter is discriminatory and it clearly falls within in the purview of Section 3 of the Act. The Attorney General’s position is that the Intervener C.C.L.A. agrees on the point that the province of Alberta has jurisdiction to legislate with regard to discriminatory expression that is directly linked to areas of prohibited discriminatory practices. It is the position of the Attorney General that the discriminatory messages in Mr. Boissoin’s letter need only likely cause others to engage in prohibited practices. Furthermore, it is the position of the Attorney General that no link to actual discriminatory acts need be established in this regard.

243. The Attorney General submits that evidence before this Panel of Mr. Doug Jones and Dr. Kevin Alderson have established that Mr. Boissoin’s letter contains messages that have the effect of enhancing discrimination against homosexuals living in central Alberta. The messages as asserted by Mr. Boissoin add to the misperception of gay people as being inherently evil. Further, Mr. Boissoin condones the mistreatment of gay people through his message creating an atmosphere that is conducive to discrimination.

244. The Attorney General asserts that on a plain reading of Mr. Boissoin’s letter he is seeking that readers do whatever they can within their own sphere of influence to stop the homosexual machine. Furthermore, Mr. Boissoin is encouraging discrimination in employment tenancy and in goods and services.

Ouch - that's a pretty harsh condemnation of a fairly short letter to the editor.

This has not been a good week for Craig Chandler - founder and one time head of the CCC, whose involvement in this case is not to be overlooked:

358. No evidence was presented by the CCC as to its position regarding the statements made by Mr. Boissoin. Mr. Boissoin did state on cross examination that Mr. Craig Chandler was aware and supported what he was doing.

359. Early in the proceedings, Ms. MacIntosh, representing Mr. Chipeur, Q.C., made an
application, as instructed by Mr. Craig Chandler on behalf of the CCC, only with respect to the issue of whether or not the CCC should be removed as a party.

Strangely, it is also this same case that provoked Rob Wells of Edmonton to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about what was said on Chandler's "Freedom Radio Network" show in February 2005, and to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Commission when a few months later Chandler threatened to retaliate. Not one of those cases has landed in Chandler's favour, and neither has this one.

Next up, will Stelmach really want this man running alongside him in an anticipated spring election?

[Update 18:22]
Well, would you look at that, CCC's responding to the ruling:

Jim Blake, the current head of the Christian group, said all Canadians should be allowed to speak freely.

"Clearly, the freedom of expression has been suppressed so we're disappointed," Blake said.

Just like your Blake's accusations that PC party brass reviewing Chandler's suitability as a candidate are a witch hunt, Blake has missed the point once again. The issue is not "freedom of speech", but whether the exercise of that freedom impinges upon the valid rights of others.
[/Update]

Breaking: Crutcher Removed As President of PCs In Egmont

CBC is reporting that David Crutcher has been voted out as president of the Egmont PC riding association.

Crutcher has been an affiliate of Craig Chandler for a long time, and a letter published through Chandler's campaign apparatus from the "riding executive" just prior to nomination vote made it clear that Crutcher was unquestionably backing Chandler, and it is arguable that he had never really left Chandler's campaign in spite of claims to that effect on Chandler's campaign website.

I suspect that this represents the first step for the PCs to break the grip that Chandler and crew tried to impose on the Egmont riding organization.

You Knew That Had To Come...

It was going to happen sooner or later, I guess. The latest meme out of the Chandler camp is that reviewing his candidacy is a religious witch hunt - from no less than the head of Chandler-founded Concerned Christians Canada, Jim Blake.

Jim Blake of Concerned Christians Canada likened the review to a witch hunt, targeting social conservatives and evangelical Christians.

"This is not an issue of Craig Chandler being an intolerant person," Blake said Wednesday. "It's a party that's saying we don't want people of faith in our party that are going to speak their values in any way, shape or form, even if it's not in the political forum."

No, sorry Jim. That's a gross distortion of reality. There's quite a difference between legitimate religious positions and discourse and much of what Chandler's past is. Chandler has made himself a public figure, and he has been - to put it politely - over the top in much of what he has said publicly. Especially about GLBT people, but also about anyone who dares to be something other than his particular breed of "conservative".

The meme about religious persecution is largely a fabrication rooted not in reality but in the fevered imaginings those who insist upon using their religious beliefs as a club to beat the rest of the world with. It is not a matter of "religious freedom", but rather a question of when does the expression of that freedom begin to impinge upon the legitimate rights of others.

Frankly, if Chandler's religious beliefs are an issue it is because he has chosen to make them part of the issue of his own free will. Aside from occasional side references to faith, much of what has gotten Chandler into hot water has not been expressed in the language of faith, but in the much cruder language of the street tough. It may be rooted in some notion of faith, but it is questionable whether one could argue that it is a legitimate expression of such when it degenerates into threats and abusive language.

In contrast, I would actually argue that while I consider the Christian Heritage Party platform to be a hate-filled screed, it at least attempts to root itself explicitly in the language of the party's expressed concept of "Christian Faith". Much of what is in their policy is tied back to specific passages in scripture. At least in that case, one can turn around and argue that their interpretation of scripture is flawed.

Politically speaking, the PC's have to make a choice as to whether the reputation that Chandler has accrued in the public arena is a liability that the party can "afford" to overcome or not in the next election. With the Stelmach government's polling numbers quite low, Stelmach may well be considering candidates with the kind of reputation that Chandler has acquired to be far too great a political risk. We'll find out as the party makes its decision in the coming days and weeks.

Talk About No Win

Poor Ed Stelmach. No matter what he does, he loses on the review of Chandler's candidacy.

Rick Bell covered it quite nicely in yesterday's Sun as well.

Chandler has a history - and it's a long, and not very nice looking one. I've blogged about it numerous times in the past.

Stelmach is in an awkward place with Chandler. Refuse to sign off on Chandler as a candidate, and Stelmach will be accused of not respecting democracy, and he will lose a lot of the "Ted Morton supporters" - likely to the Alberta Alliance or Wild Rose parties.

Endorse Chandler as a candidate and the opposition can quite rightly tar Stelmach and his party with Chandler's past history. Whether you are talking about Chandler's tirades against GLBT people, or his insistence that we are all the same stripe of "conservative" that he is in Alberta, Chandler's own past is a political liability.

Not exactly a "win" for the PC's, but the opposition NDP and Liberal parties can certainly make hay out of the decision either way.

Calgary Egmont Is Now Vulnerable

The PC stranglehold on Calgary Egmont for so many years just became a little more vulnerable tonight, with party members in the riding selecting Craig Chandler as their nominee to stand in the next provincial election.

I shudder to imagine what depths the next election campaign will sink to.

PC Members In Egmont - Consider Character

Politics is often as much about a candidate's character as anything else. Oftentimes it is what is written and said outside of the campaign sphere that tells us the most.

Such is the case with Mr. Chandler who is currently seeking the PC nomination in Calgary Egmont.

Perusing postings on Project Alberta, one of his haunts, I came across this lovely little post:



Please note the following snippet:

...He told me why he did and if it is true this campaign has been tampered with.

Put it this way. I win and I will not pursue it. I lose and I will post the e-mail thread Paul and I had privately and many will be shocked at the reason Paul gave.

So, not only does Craig essentially threaten to make public a discourse that was assumed to be in some confidence, he also makes it conditional upon his success (or lack thereof) in the coming nomination vote this weekend.

Further, should he lose, it will be (in his mind) because "the election was tampered with".

This doesn't sound like someone who is going to accept anything other than getting their own way. Most of us outgrow that in our childhood.

I Smell Something Rotten In Egmont

This saturday is the voting day for PC's in Calgary Egmont. Members of that party in Calgary Egmont need to consider carefully the contrast between words and actions, especially among the Chandler campaign.

Of particular note, in my view is the contrast between an announcement in August to the effect That David Crutcher had LEFT the Chandler campaign committee.

Then there is the signatures found at the bottom of the screed that residents of Egmont found dropped in their mailbox:



Waitasec - what is the executive doing here? Didn't Crutcher step aside as a member of Chandler's campaign team? And aren't most of the other executive signatories listed as part of Chandler's campaign team?



So, if they are writing "as individuals", please tell me why the letter is emblazoned with Chandler's letterhead? (and no, I don't buy that ripping Chandler's logo off his website and then slapping names below it differentiates this from Chandler's campaign crap - especially when the text of it blathers on incessantly repeating the talking points off Chandler's previous campaign literature.





This vile bit of drivel ends off with an appeal based on all of Chandler's wonderful attributes and integrity:



Oh yes, let's review Craig's "integrity" for a moment shall we? After all, if he wants to play representative for people, we might expect him to live up to his commitments.

Over at Concerned Christians, we find the documents related to a human rights complaint lodged by Rob Wells of Edmonton. In these pages, we find the text of a negotiated settlement of the dispute, which reads:

[Update: Nov. 28/07]
I see that the apology letter page now has a link to the CHRC settlement agreement document. It's new to me, and I apologize if I missed it earlier.
[/Update]

I suspect like the pseudo distancing of Mr. Crutcher from Chandler's campaign team, it's a matter of political convenience. Members of the PC association in Egmont need to think carefully about whether their next candidate should be Mr. Chandler, and whether Mr. Chandler's associates should remain on the board of that association.