No, Craig ... Western Separatism Is More Fiction Than Fact

I was wondering where Craig Chandler had gotten to - especially in the run up to the current election - a time that usually draws him out to comment on something.

Well ... apparently he's been nursing his inner western separatist back to health after the 'flare-and-fizzle' of David Crutcher's Western Business and Taxpayers Association in 2008.

“Western Canada will not tolerate a purposeful slap in the face if the government they chose is rejected by Canada’s Central Canadian parties. The threat of the West organizing to separate is real and reared it’s head in a serious way last time the coalition threat occurred. Unlike Quebec, the West can afford to leave and even pay its share of the debt on the way out” stated Craig B. Chandler, Executive Director of the PGIB.

What people like Chandler don't seem to understand is that the idea of separation from Canada has been tossed about from time to time for decades. I first encountered it in the late 1970s when the Western Canada Concept party came into being. It didn't exactly go anywhere then, and in the thirty years since, entities like the WCC have flared up and died out repeatedly - usually led by a bunch of loudmouths who have no real idea what they're on about and gaining absolutely no real traction with the public as whole.

Why? Unlike Quebec, where separatism has its roots in the cultural history of the province and is deeply influenced by the colonial wars between England and France, the concept in western Canada is rooted solely in political and economic arguments with little or no grounding in our cultural identity as Canadians.

Simply put, most Western Canadians are quite happy to be Canadian first. We know that economic and political upsets happen from time to time - and we've likely as not lived through a few of them. The idea of separatism is a fantasy that gets played with occasionally, but really doesn't have any traction with people's sentiments.

Mr. Chandler seems to take great offense at the idea of a coalition being formed in our parliament and then governing. Sadly, his sense of offense is rooted in his blindness to the subtleties and workings of the Westminster Parliament system that we use in Canada.

Far too many people these days assume that we are voting "for the party leader" that we want as Prime Minister. In fact, we are electing our local representative to Parliament. It is up to the members of parliament to form a workable government that has "the confidence of the house". That may or may not be led by the party with the most seats, and if a couple of parties band together to form a government that is in fact perfectly legitimate - in spite of the lies that Harper has told the public about coalitions. (Perhaps, Mr. Chandler would like to muse a little bit on Harper's past dalliances with the concept of coalition as well)

Rather than fuming about Western Separatism as an alternative, Mr. Chandler would be better off focusing his energies on trying to understand why it is that voter turnout has been declining for so long. Why, for example, did 22% of the electorate decide 80% of the seats in the last Alberta provincial election? Why did over half the voters just stay home that day? (Of course, an engaged electorate generally doesn't bode well for today's conservatives, who know damn good and well that most people would object violently to their policies - if they bothered to look)

I was wondering what happend to ...

I was wondering the other day what happened with one Craig Chandler. It seems he has turned up in Collingwood ON, where his family's investment in an ethanol plant has gotten into some hot water.

I see that Mr. Chandler is being the same graceful self that Calgarians are so used to:

Craig Chandler and Crutcher were met by a group of east end residents, many of them from Blue Shores, who repeatedly heckled the PGIB representatives. As they spoke, calls of “go back to Calgary” were heard, along with shouts of “you obviously don’t know what’s going on here.”

Chandler responded angrily to the interruptions. He told the spectators he and Crutcher were there to speak to the media only.

“I’m not the nice Chandler here,” he told the spectators.

What is it with these people? Didn't they ever learn the old saying about catching more flies with honey than vinegar when they were growing up?

It's Been A Decade...

Since The Supreme Court ruled in Vriend v. Alberta.

To this day, the Alberta government has failed to explicitly amend its human rights legislation, instead obliging the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission to leave the following proviso posted on their website:

Although it is not expressly stated in the Act, as of April 2, 1998, sexual orientation is "read in" to the Act by the Supreme Court of Canada as a protected ground of discrimination in Alberta.

The Stelmach government's response is characteristically vague:

Alberta's culture minister says language explicitly protecting gay rights will be looked at as part of a review of the human rights laws.

Uh-huh. I can just imagine how swimmingly that's going to go. You're going to hand one of the most publicly volatile legislative topics to the most inexperienced minister in cabinet? Unless I miss my guess that leaves Minister of Culture Blackett very subject to the influences of such people as Ted Morton (whose attitudes aren't exactly an improvement on Craig Chandler, IMO. What could possibly go wrong?

I've Seen This Pattern Before

Chandler's nothing if not consistent. It seems that Chandler tried to run a slate of candidates for the executive of the newly merged "Wildrose Alliance" party (Formerly the Alberta Alliance and Link Byfield's Wildrose Party.

We've seen this pattern before - he used more or less the same tactics when he went after the PC nomination in Calgary Egmont. He tried to get enough of "his people" (e.g. David Crutcher) to take on high profile/controlling positions in the board, and then went after the nomination

What it tells me is that Craig and his band of allies (mostly "senior" members of PGIB) don't actually have much traction within Alberta's political parties, as they flit from party to party trying to find a place where they can be in control. Perhaps in a few years they'll learn the base concept of party politics - namely that it is a game of compromise.

Failure To Proofread

Sometimes the era of digital information that we live in makes it all too easy to write something and not proofread it adequately - leaving others who come to read what we've written wondering what the point really was, or laughing at the non-sequiturs that we left out for their enjoyment. (I know I've done it enough times on this space!)

I decided this evening to go see what has been updated on Craig Chandler's website today - thinking that as a provincial election approaches, he'll be gearing up for something.

The changes aren't that dramatic as of today, but there's a couple of gems that come from a failure to "read carefully before posting".

...However, on December 1, 2007 Democracy was denied and Ed Stelmach revealed his true face of intolerance. Infact, Ed Stelmach was involved in influencing votes from the very beginning. See our Democracy denied section for the full detals.

We are writing this letter to introduce you to Craig Chandler and to show our deep respect and support for him.

Many feel quite strongly that Craig Chandler is the most qualified candidate for the position of MLA in Calgary Egmont and one that will unify the party.

I have no idea how Chandler thinks he's going "unify" any party when he's running as an independent candidate.

His behaviour since December 1 is hardly that of a man seeking to reconcile any differences - lashing out with lawsuits (or at least threats of), and generally appearing to try to "poison the well" for the PC's where Calgary Egmont is concerned. Real "unifying", that.

The rest is just a recycle of the "letter" that he was dropping in mailboxes throughout much of Calgary Egmont back in July last year.

Does Chandler's Past Matter?

[Update Nov 28]
Since someone has complained that it is "illegal" to post quotes from the actual complaint itself, I have edited out those quotes for the time being while I find alternative sources.
[/Update]
If you were talking about the distant past, I might agree that it doesn't. However, much of Chandler's controversial past isn't that old - the letter that Stephen Boissoin wrote in Red Deer was published in 2002 - not that long ago.

The complaint Rob Wells made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission date to 2005.

Poking around the web today, we find Chandler trying to refute a column in the Edmonton Sun by Neil Waugh. Craig is trying to claim that Waugh is "factually wrong":

The complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission relating to everythng from homosexuals of having a "conspiracy against society," of being "sick, diseased and mentally ill" and of being "linked to paedophilia." come directly from the letter written by Rev Stepen Boisson, not myself.

Strictly speaking, that might be true enough. I have in my possession the unabridged Minutes of Settlement document between Rob Wells and Craig Chandler and Concerned Christians Canada. (It was posted in its unabridged form on the CCC website for several months). The appendixes to the settlement contain copies of some of the statements that Chandler made on his "Freedom Radio Network" program that spawned the complaint.

Chandler is explicitly quoted as saying that homosexuality is "an unhealthy lifestyle", among other things, which covers the "diseased" bits. As well as making some pretty broad implications of the legitimacy of sexual minorities by suggesting that they originate from the Devil. I would argue that going as far as bringing Boissoin onto the radio program and ranting away about the evils being gay is a pretty strong endorsement of what Boissoin wrote in his letter.

[Quotes from Complaint Removed At Reader's Suggestion]

However, we should also bear in mind what Chandler said on air in response to Mr. Wells' complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

Win or lose, and I’ll make this promise to Mister [W.], ’cause I know he downloads our shows and listens. I’ll make this promise to ya, [R.]. Win or lose, we’re going to sue you. And here’s why. Because it’s frivolous what you’re doing. We will take our fight to the other courts where you don’t just write a simple letter, [R.]. And then, and you can just get away with, uh, uh, just doing that and not having to have legal counsel. We will go to court. Uh, we will go to court and we will take it as, as far as the Supreme Court. We will get our monies back if we have any fines or anything of the sort. We won’t pay those either. We won’t pay those. This is a battle that you’ve just, uh, you know, it’s, uh, you’ve, you started something which is going to need to be decided at a higher level.

There's more, but that is fundamentally an attempt at what is otherwise known as "libel chill". When your first response to being called on your crap is to threaten lawsuits, that is the act of a bully.

We should note that as far as any of the complaints around the Boissoin issue that have involved Mr. Chandler (all of them that I've heard of), not one has Mr. Chandler been found justified in his actions - which, in my view, makes these threats an attempt to achieve Mr. Wells' silence.

Amusingly, one of Chandler's apparent supporters on "Project Alberta" writes:

This "knuckle dragging Neanderthal" portrayal has spread through many newspapers, internet news outlets & blogs - Craig's personal & business credibility has been destroyed...... No matter what retraction with a small clarification is printed later - the damage has been done...

Politics is all about image - Chandler's own actions today and in the recent past have been a part of forging the image that he projects. If the media is portraying him as a "knuckle dragging neanderthal", it's because his own actions have created that image. Threatening to sue someone for taking legitimate steps to challenge your words makes you a bully, much of what Chandler has said about GLBT people can hardly be called "tolerant", and his recent tirade telling 60% of Albertans to leave because they don't vote his way didn't exactly help matters. You can sue someone for libel, but you better be damn sure that what you are suing about is in fact libel. If there is a reasonable truth to the statements, you don't have a case.

Is it relevant to the Mr. Chandler who is now trying to act as if he is a "changed man"? Yes, I believe it is. If it were decades old, I might be less concerned - it's not - it is recent and ongoing activity on his part. Hardly something that one can merely ignore. Stelmach, as I pointed out earlier, has an ugly choice to make.

Paul Jackson Drops Endorsement of Chandler?

I think the PC party brass have been busy arm-twisting Paul Jackson.

Jackson's latest column is singing the praises of Jonathan Denis - which is interesting because in the past Jackson has often spoken very favorably of Craig Chandler.

In a previous column about Denis, Jackson alludes to Chandler in a somewhat less flattering light:

Denis' competitors for the nomination are either old and worn-out political warhorses, off-the-wall rabble-rousers, or unknown and unproven candidates.

I'm pretty sure that Denis was "pushed forward" as an alternative to Chandler when party brass started to figure out the game that Chandler had afoot.

Notable, although perhaps unrelated, I notice that Chandler's personal website is down, as well as significant portions of his "Freedom Radio Network" site are surprisingly MIA.

Richard Evans Is Channeling Chandler

What is it with these people?

First this week, we get Craig Chandler ranting about how you must vote Conservative or LEAVE Alberta!. Chandler's hard-nosed tirade was nothing more than a mean spirited tirade against people who dare disagree with his perception of Alberta's politics. (which may well be in the process of swinging away from the PC's)

Then we get Richard Evans complaining about all the money we spend on the homeless in Calgary.

According to Mr. Evans' thinking, 13% of the homeless moved here moved here to specifically suck off the public teat.

Why does he claim this? Because the statistics he's been looking at show the following:

Among absolutely homeless individuals who were surveyed, the most frequently cited reasons for coming to Calgary were:

[…]

7% - better access to services (health or social services, including schools)

6% - more / better shelter accommodations

[…]

Of course, what he fails to admit is that these reasons may well be one of many reasons that drew someone to Calgary, second he assumes that the reasons are mutually exclusive. (I don't have the study's questionnaire at hand, so I'm going to guess that they probably aren't mutually exclusive) That aside, I think the other end of Richard's statistics is equally important - by far the vast majority of homeless people are there for reasons other than intentionally being a drain on public resources.

So, according to Mr. Evans, the money required to look after these people is approximately 110 new police officers. While I think there is merit in expanding Calgary's law enforcement agency, I don't think it's exactly wise - or appropriate - to do so by punishing the homeless further. Poverty is not a problem that you deal with by putting more police on the streets.

Both Chandler and Evans exhibit the worst attributes of modern-day conservative ethos - a hostile mean-spiritedness that brooks no opposition, and is devoid of compassion for others whose lot in life is less fortunate.

Chandler on CTV

It appears that CFCN picked up on Chandler's little tirade as well - and they've posted an interview with him as well.

In it, he continues to reiterate his asinine "if you're not a conservative, leave" tirade. To which I can only say this: "Piss Off, Craig!" There are Albertans who have lived here a lot longer than you have who are not rabid, fundamentalist conservative ideologues...I'm one of them!

Additionally, I'm sad to say, but Stelmach's comments on the matter don't exactly inspire me, either. This is an issue where Stelmach needs to come out and be very clear, forceful and unambiguous in squelching Chandler's BS. I wouldn't say he did that.

Picking Up On Chandler...

[Update 19:20]
Over at Daveberta's blog, the comments are positively hilarious - especially when someone pops up to defend Chandler's insane rantings

Also via Daveberta, we find this little turd that he mentioned a while ago on Project Alberta as part of his strategy for dragging Alberta's PCs even further into the extreme right wing ...

The domain registration is via Chandler's PGIB group...

[/Update]
I've been waiting for this for some time. At long last, we finally see people in the media picking up on Chandler's latest insanity.

Today, it's columnist Rick Bell in the Calgary Sun, pointing out the utter insanity of Chandler's If you aren't a PC, leave Alberta tirade.

Amusingly, in a move almost as brazenly stupid as Ralph Klein's infamous "Bums-and-Creeps" speech, Chandler basically tries to blame all the people who are moving into Alberta for Ed Stelmach's plummeting support numbers:

Alberta is growing in a way that was never expected and many of the people coming here do not truly appreciate Alberta or even understand the history of this province or the relationship with the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party. To those of you who have come to our great land from out of province, you need to remember that you came here to our home and we vote conservative.

Newsflash, Craig. Not all Albertans vote conservative. Frightening to you, some of might even consider voting Liberal on occasion. After all, anyone who has ties to the liberal party (or anything that is left of Chandler's ideas) is clearly untrustworthy:

Lastly, the polls are manipulated, at least anything by Cameron Strategies. Cameron Strategies are Liberals and can't be trusted.

Sure, Craig. We'll keep in mind that like most bullies, you actually believe that you have a monopoly on "truth"(™).

We are all "real Albertans", Craig - and our opinions do not become invalid because we step into this province.