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. 

Equity, Not Meritocracy

Ever since Biden’s speech to Canada’s Parliament this weekend, Conservative politicians here have been going off about whether or not the female members of cabinet “got there because of their sex or because of merit”.  Consider the following from Poilievre’s communications lead:

The level of sexism and misogyny in this is stunning. The implication of course being that many of the women at the table got there because of their sex, not ability or skill. One of the fundamental principles of feminism is of course that women should be recognized for their abilities, and not have their futures defined solely by their sex. I didn’t think this was terribly difficult to grasp, but apparently in conservative circles, the question remains whether a woman got to her position because of “merit” or on other grounds (they do the same garbage to any marginalized community).

The problem with the conservative notion of “merit”, is that it ignores systemic barriers that various communities face.  It ignores the necessity of making real changes in order to remove those systemic barriers in order for the system to be in fact equitable. 

“Merit” isn’t some magical incantation that removes barriers and puts everybody on an equal playing field. The fact that women still find their skills and qualifications questioned when they rise to positions of prominence is astonishing. That in itself shows us the enormous blind spot that conservative politics has. Yes, it’s important that someone be skilled and capable in their position - whatever it may be. No, it should not be considered acceptable to question those skills and abilities simply because they are in a particular position. 

Taking steps to remove systemic barriers and obstacles does not mean someone was hired into a position “as a pity hire”, nor does it mean that some equally qualified man was pushed out of that position. Equity demands that we as a society take steps to remove barriers so that people have _equitable_ access to opportunities. 

There are good reasons why Pierre Trudeau spoke of a “Just Society”, and more recently we’ve heard the Federal Government talk about a “Just Transition” in reference to the energy transition that is coming in Canada. Just in this framework means that the changes that occur must be equitable, not merely “equal”, and that as a society we need to move consciously towards removing barriers in a way that balances the outcomes. 

Insinuating that someone is “less qualified” because there is a system of equity in place that starts the process of dismantling those barriers is offensive at best. At its worst, it demonstrates a deep intransigence among conservatives to acknowledge that the systems they defend are intrinsically biased in particular directions. 

I used to work in the software industry, a domain that is notorious for its adoration of “the meritocracy”, as if only the most technically proficient should rise to the top because of their skill. The reality is far from that. I’ve seen people who were really terrible developers, but really good at office politics rise to positions they should never have been in; I’ve seen technically capable people moved into leadership roles with no leadership ability whatsoever. Women and minorities struggle to make forward progress in that field - often left at intermediate positions because they aren’t seen as “committed” because they might prioritize their families outside of work, and thus work less “free overtime”. The result is anything but a “meritocracy”. 

Without equity in the system, equality is compromised, and the concept of “merit” is utterly impossible to assess intelligibly. 

So ... The Social Woes Of Today Are The Fault of Whom?!

The political right wing's inability to understand things beyond simplistic bromides has always surprised me.  I get that it makes for easy sound bite politicking, but seriously, the conclusions drawn are often laughable in their implausibility.

Then we come to today's entry in "what stupidity will they say today?":  The Rise of the Single, Woke (and Young) Female.

Joe Oliver and the Wand Of Economic Bamboozlement

In the Financial Post we find Harper era cabinet creature Joe Oliver expounding on the future of the economy - and the evils of "progressivism". 

I'll give you a minute or two to read it ... 

Before we examine it more closely:

Let’s Talk About ‘Political Discrimination’

A few months ago, MP Garnett Genuis tabled a bill which would add protections to Canada’s human right legislation for “Political Belief”.  Then, as the Ontario College of Psychologists moved to discipline Jordan Peterson for spreading hatred, he started crying that this was political discrimination, that he was being “persecuted” for his “politics” (spoiler - he’s not).

This concept of “political discrimination” is really little more than another construct to tell the same people who tried to overthrow a government in February 2022 that their grievances are justified.  You will note that Genuis invokes the grievances over COVID, and Peterson tries to globally call his activity on Twitter “political speech”. 

While it is true that politics is always loaded with opinion, we need to recognize that politics can be reasonably informed by facts and evidence. Is Peterson calling a non-binary person “it” a matter of “politics”, or is it simply a mean spirited attack on the person? Are the protests against vaccines based in a sound understanding of the science? I am not going to argue the veracity of those claims here, they are provided to illustrate the issue being raised. 

Politics is a complex space, and it’s no secret that malign actors have been deliberately injecting disinformation and misinformation into our discourse for some time. It’s also not hugely surprising that conservative politicians here are often aligned with the propaganda. 

It is no surprise that it is conservative politicians pushing this narrative now. It’s convenient, it aligns with their ongoing campaign against Trudeau, and it further undermines public confidence in the institutions of democracy. It fits incredibly well with narratives like “the election was stolen”, and the narratives used to justify practices like gerrymandering electoral districts. 

I find it particularly interesting to note that this is coming from an Alberta conservative though.  Political discrimination has been rampant in Alberta for years. Decades of single party conservative rule long ago made it perfectly acceptable for all sorts of activity that could fall under the rubric of “political discrimination”.  

Stories of bosses telling their employees how to vote in elections have been a common occurrence in Alberta for years; an overtly aggressive form of conservatism has long made it very difficult to openly hold perspectives at odds with conservatism (or whatever is wearing that cloak today). Candidates have had their cars sabotaged, and having signs from other parties is also a good way to find your home vandalized.

I’m not saying any of this is good, rather that it is more than passing strange that conservatives are pushing this narrative today, when they’ve actively engaged in creating a political environment in Alberta that supports “political discrimination” for years - without moaning about it once.

Looking at our Charter, an argument could be made that Political Discrimination is in fact protected under a combination of fundamental rights.  In particular, the fundamental rights in S2. I do not think that it could easily be ‘read in’ under S15 because S15 is generally reserved for immutable characteristics of the person, and political perspectives are reasonably subject to change over the course of one’s life. 

To be clear, nobody who lost their job for refusing to be vaccinated did so over “politics”.  They lost their job for failing to comply with a new requirement. Yes, you can moan all you like about whether that’s coercion or not - but it’s not politics.

There are some interesting, and perverse consequences to introducing such a clause into our non-discrimination laws.  For example, political parties (who are employers), would suddenly find it much harder to get rid of an employee whose political beliefs no longer aligned with the direction of the party. Employers would find the murky waters of “political beliefs” being brought up in dismissal suits, and so on. 

In fact, the concept of “Political Discrimination” is so murky that it could be twisted into all sorts of forms.  That means it’s far more of a political weapon today than it is an actual tool. 

Conservatives Are Dismantling Western Democracies

It's been a bit of a whirlwind lately, but there are some very disturbing patterns emerging in the politics of western democracy these days. At the top of the list, is what appears to be a steady effort on the part of conservative politicians to dismantle western democracies, and in particular the concept of individual rights.  

This is happening on numerous levels, and because each country is slightly different, the specific attacks are distinct.  The pattern, however, is what matters. In general, the attacks are either aimed at the judiciary, or at the rights of individuals, with a general approach of fomenting what will become constitutional crises. 

Although not the first occurrence of this, the UK government's decision to exercise rarely used powers to deny royal assent to the Scottish Parliament's recently passed Gender Recognition Reform Act.  My first thought on this was "that's an odd move - exercising those powers in the UK is going to provoke a constitutional crisis.  Then I thought about it a bit further, and a few months ago, when Alberta's newly minted Premier Danielle  Smith was musing about an "Alberta Sovereignty Act", the topic of whether the Federal Government could exercise an equally obscure power called "Refusal".  

In both cases, the exercise of the power in question would trigger a political and constitutional crisis in both countries. Such a crisis would call into question both the division of powers, the role of the Federal level of government to intervene in the affairs of a lower level of government, and in fact with the judiciary had any power at all to mediate such a dispute. Such a crisis could in fact be serious enough to break the political consensus that had led to the constitutions of the respective nations being formed as they are. 

Let's consider for a moment that the objective in both cases is not in fact to assert novel powers, nor to overrule the legislation of an errant lower level of government, but rather it is to provoke the crisis that would allow the conservatives to dismantle the much more liberal constitutions - especially the civil rights aspects of those documents - which conservatives have for some time seen as an obstacle to their legislative agendas. 

Looking a little further, in Israel, a recently elected hard right government under Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to massively overhaul the role of the state's court system.  Conservatives have long argued that courts had become "activist" - usually in the context of the fact that much of their legislative agenda runs at odds with the concepts of individual rights. Here in Canada, Harper feuded with the SCC over matters like mandatory minimum sentencing, and lost on fundamental matters associated with the court's interpretation of the Charter. 

In the United States, the politicization of the courts by the GOP took hold under GWB, and during the Obama years, the GOP refused to allow any of Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to be affirmed. This set the stage for a series of GOP candidates to be appointed under Trump, and then for the now-conservative aligned court to reverse course on abortion.  

Both of these moves are designed to ultimately place the courts firmly under the yoke of political masters, and to roll back much of the legislative and case law decisions that conservatives don't like.

Then in both Canada and the US, we are seeing provinces and states teeing up legislation designed to create conflict with their respective Federal governments. This isn't merely a case of "the usual grievances", as demonstrated in both Alberta and Saskatchewan, the provinces are attempted to assert unique powers to ignore Federal laws - not a good thing.  Ontario's conservative government has threatened to use the S33 "Notwithstanding" clause multiple times on matters where it seems capricious and unnecessary to do so. 

In both Canada and the US following their 2020 and 2021 elections respectively, extreme elements fostered by increasingly radical conservative politicians attempted to overturn the results of elections - in both cases by launching attacks on the seat of government itself, claiming in one form or another that the government was unjustly elected, or that it was acting against the people. This is no coincidence - the specifics of talking points differ, but the tactics of both were strikingly similar, with the Canadian Convoy occupation clearly drawing from the organizing and funding efforts around the US Capitol riots of 2021, and the Convoy shifting towards almost a siege model, instead of direct attack - clearly based on "lessons learned".  Mysteriously in both cases, the public backing of these events by conservative politicians is both prominent and not actively discussed in the news. 

How does this all tie together, you might ask? The same way it always does of late. Conservatives have been increasingly organizing with each other internationally through organizations like the IDU. I do not think it is a coincidence that there are direct and indirect connections to the IDU where these various activities are taking place.

Any one of these could be viewed as nothing more than a spat between levels of government, it comes at a time when political divisions are running high, and the far right has become increasingly emboldened. However, it seems increasingly unlikely when conservative politicians around the world are expressing suspiciously similar sentiments, and are making disturbingly parallel moves to address long standing conservative grievances. 

Two Days In Alberta Politics

It’s Friday - end of the week, and the last 2 days of politics in Alberta have been a whirlwind … on Wednesday, Kenney said he would step down after getting 51.4% support in a leadership review vote, and on Thursday, the UCP caucus voted to keep Kenney on as the leader until a leadership race is concluded. 

So … kind of a “I’m leaving … fooled ya, I’m still here” couple of days.

What does all this really mean? 

On The Emergency Measures Act

If you've been paying attention at all, you are aware that the Federal Government has invoked the Emergency Measures Act to deal with the "Convoy". In this writer's opinion, this decision came a week late, and let me explain why. 

First, as much as the organizers have tried to make a carnival atmosphere around this protest - bouncy castles, hot tubs, bbq's etc to be found everywhere in the occupation zone, that is little more than a façade cover for what's really going on.  

Second, this is no ordinary protest where a bunch of people get pissed off about an issue and go and hold a rally on the steps of the Parliament buildings. Those protests have a pattern of organization and attendance that seldom lasts more than a few days at most. 

Structurally, there are several elements of this "protest" that indicate it is something else entirely. These range from blockading streets with heavy trucks to create what amounts to an occupation zone, setting up what are clearly military-styled bases for logistics and supply, coordinating actions with other units of occupation which had set themselves up at border crossings, and using sophisticated processes to raise funds to sustain the protest. 

These are major differentiators that show us that a level of organization and planning not normally associated with peaceful protest is at play here. I'm not saying that organization and planning don't happen with other protests.  It certainly does. However, it doesn't normally include this level of sophistication. 

We are already finding that there are connections among these protestors that are very concerning. Connections to white nationalist groups that want to start what they call a "race war" to found their bizarre idea of a white homeland (Vanilla ISIS anybody?).  Now, I'm not saying that the majority of the protestors _are_ connected to these various groups and movements.  I suspect most of them are what I would call "useful idiots" who got sucked into the emotional high of participating in something big.  They're being used by the core organizers as "cannon fodder".  They will bear the brunt of direct enforcement in the form of fines and criminal charges for harassment, property damage, and whatever other offences are happening within the occupation zone. 

However, let's not kid ourselves about the core organization of this "protest".  Their goal was never about "ending vaccine mandates" - that was merely a pretext.  The "MOU" that came out as they were driving into Ottawa made it quite clear that the goals had shifted to the overthrow of the government similar to that attempted in the Jan 6, 2021 assault on the US legislative buildings. 

Looking a little closer at this protest on the ground, it shows a disturbing shift. First, on the surface it looks a bit like the "Yellow Vest Convoy" a couple of years ago (complete with some of the same figures central to organizing it).  However, it also shifts in some very concerning ways.  First, while the the Yellow Vest Convoy certainly used heavy trucks as a symbol, this protest shifted to using them essentially as modern day siege warfare tools. Setting up logistics and supply bases at the edges of what became the occupation zone in downtown Ottawa is another hint of the emergence of a paramilitary/military mindset entering the picture. While they created a "carnival like" atmosphere in the occupation zone, they have actually engaged in a form of psychological warfare by using their vehicle horns to create a non-stop noise zone. 

Then there is quite a rogues gallery of people connected to organizing this "protest" (Seriously - read that article). They all hang out on the political far right, and move even further right when opportunity arises, but what's notable to me is the range of skillsets that they bring to the table. I do not think that is accidental, nor do I think that the connections to elected politicians are accidental. 

Then there is the funding for this thing. People started getting suspicious when the campaign on GoFundMe raised nearly $10M.  Let's be clear here - $10M is not chump change, and the GoFundMe campaign racked that up in weeks.  The quarterly donations to the CPC don't reach that kind of number even when they're doing well. When it shifted to a less well known Christian Evangelical fundraising site called "GiveSendGo", nearly $8M was raised in even less time. A data leak following a hack of GiveSendGo has made it possible to start building a picture of where this money is coming from.  Then the protest organization shifted to the much more shadowy world of cryptocurrency.  

Now ... does this sound like a "perfectly normal peaceful protest" to you?  Because to me, there's a ton of red flags going up here that say there are actors involved whose intentions are anything but. 

The Federal Government allowed this protest to go for a long time (3+ weeks) before moving to invoke emergency powers, and really this happened in large part because the US started pressuring over the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge (in particular) as a result of the economic impact of shutting down the automotive trade sector. 

Fair enough.  At 3 weeks in, there had been little to no attempt on the part of the conservative-led provinces to intervene in the protest and start to restore order. Premier Ford in Ontario eventually did declare a state of emergency, but even then refused to ask the Federal Government to assist with intervention. 

I suspect that the conservative politicians in Canada saw this as a golden opportunity to force Trudeau's hand into using the Emergency Measures Act.  So they quietly let Canada burn, and did virtually nothing. They were likely hoping that in doing so, the Federal Government would move with the military, and they would have all sorts of nasty video of the military moving in to quell the protests.  

Does this meet the standard set out in the Emergency Measures Act? While the Canadian Civil Liberties Association thinks it's a massive overreach, I think there is more than ample evidence that shows this goes beyond normal levels of civil protest and disobedience and has moved into being an attack on Canada itself. When the protestors themselves publish a document essentially demanding the duly elected government resign en masse, we have to consider that there is a reasonable probability that this protest represents a much more significant threat to Canada and its government than appears on the surface. 

I suspect that as investigators start digging into the financial and organizational structures behind this, they are going to find a lot of very ugly things connecting this "protest" to some of the darker corners of conservative political activism, and it will likely as not be very problematic for some very highly placed conservative organizers - both in Canada and abroad. Conservatism is one thing, fascists are another matter altogether - and aligning with fascists is a danger to all of us.

Lastly, as a nation, Canada cannot justifiably allow a part, or the whole, of a city to be held under siege for any length of time. It has a duty to its citizens in such matters that requires action. The failure of local and provincial authorities to act on this threat effectively earlier made it a federal problem. The investigation into what happened needs to inspect not only the actions and organization of the protestors, but the actions (or lack thereof) of police, municipal authorities, and provincial governments as well.  Those who were willingly complicit in this debacle must be held to account - regardless of how prominent they are, or the public positions they may hold. 

In the meantime, we get to watch the CPC attempt to play "gotcha" politics with Trudeau in the House of Commons, while they madly scramble in the backrooms to destroy the evidence connecting them to the protest itself. 

There Is No Such Thing As A "True Conservative"

In his column for yesterday's National Post, John Robson opines that the problems that Jason Kenney and Erin O'Toole are having with the electorate are because they aren't being "Real Conservatives" (or "Conservative Enough").  

No, Mr. Robson, that isn't it at all. Perhaps it's escaped your notice in the last couple of decades, but conservatism has changed, and the evidence of that change exists in many places. The selection of leaders like Kenney, Scheer, and O'Toole are evidence of that change. The change started decades ago, and it solidified when Harper engineered his take-over of the PCs and Canadian Alliance parties to form the current CPC.

Yet, every time a conservative runs headlong into the reality that they aren't winning, writers like Mr. Robson start opining that it's really because the politician isn't "a true conservative".  I don't know what this "true conservative" looks like, and frankly I suspect that such an animal doesn't really exist. 

Why do I say this? Because the claim itself rests upon a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Writers who make this claim are blinding themselves to the reality that is unfolding around them. Today's Conservatism is no longer some semi-idealized version of a politics that was opined into existence in the 19th century. It has changed.

Conservatives chose to rally around Harper, Kenney, Ford, and more recently O'Toole ... and frankly voters are turning their backs on this brand of populist, deceitful conservatism for good reason.  

Kenney has been sliding in the polls for at least the last year. Why? Because once in power he showed us who he really is with arrogance, condescension, and lies. He has earned the ire of voters in Alberta for a bunch of reasons - but he is very much the face of today's populist conservatism. 

O'Toole came out swinging in the election, and in some ways did far better than expected.  But - and it's a big but - he lost ground in the key province of Ontario. Since losing to Trudeau in 2015, the CPC has all but undone the gains made in Ontario that helped the party win in 2006. What was it that caused them to lose in 2015? Harper dropping the veil and showing us the ugly side of the CPC - whether that was an elitist view of citizenship, or the overt racism of the campaign (Old Stock Canadians, Barbaric Cultural Practices Hotline, etc.).  

You see, these, are the values that conservatism has come to hold in Canada. Language like "Traditional Social Values" no longer means what guys like Robson seem to think it does.  It has become code-speak for a miserable combination of elitism and bigotry drawn from the worst elements of the 19th century British Empire. Fiscal probity, something conservatives have long claimed to be the natural proponents of, has become coded language for letting the wealthy off from paying their fair share towards the nation, and throws in a side helping of corporate greed.  

Conservatism today isn't what Robson thinks it is, and the fix isn't for "Kenney and O'Toole to act more like conservatives" - they are what conservatism has become. 

Figure out what conservatism should be, and find a way to that place. Don't insult Canadians' intelligence by telling us that the worst leaders of the movement "just need to act better".  The movement needs to change. 

Alberta's Conservatives Are Abusers

 It should come as no surprise to most readers that I have little use for conservatism in its current form. I think it has become something to be reviled, and today, I was introduced to an article that reinforced my thoughts on the matter, and in some key respects highlights the nature of how conservatives have been abusing Albertans - for decades.  

The article is in Alberta Views:  "Rural Resentment"

When I saw this article reposted on Facebook, I started to write out a comment, but I quickly found it was getting too long to be a comment, so I'm moving it here. 

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.