Honest Conservative is an Oxymoron in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and ...  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calgary-Shaw By-Election: Don't Get Too Confident

 First, congratulations to newly-elected MLA Kyle Campbell.  The win was decisive enough to not need a judicial recount, and to some degree sent a message to the United Conservative Party (UCP).  

This is not the overwhelming victory that it should have been.  Voters did not turn out in large numbers, and while a 500 vote margin is large enough to avoid a judicial recount, it's not anywhere near what should have been the case if people were actually paying attention to what is going on in Alberta politics. 

You can fully expect the UCP to argue a few things here: 

1. It's a by-election, and the turnout is so low as to really mean it was just angry NDPers who came out in numbers.
2. The vote was "split" because the Progressive Tory Party (PTP) garnered nearly 1,000 votes - stealing victory from the UCP

It's the latter argument that is more insidious because it presupposes that the existence of the PTP is invalid, and they should all be part of the UCP.  They will use this to attempt to undermine the PTP between now and next election. 

The logic will be something along the lines of "voting for the UCP will ensure the continuance of the conservative dominion over Alberta", and that "voting for the PTP is essentially voting for the NDP, and we cannot have the NDP in power ever again".  

Unite The Right Logic

The error in that logic is the supposition that conservatism is somehow a monolith.  In reality, as we are seeing in both BC and Federally, the language of "unite the right" is really a code phrase for a "takeover from within" of a party by its most radicalized socially conservative fringe groups.  

Federally, it's been a long, slow burn with the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  The "unite the right" campaign began in the late 1990s and culminated in the merger of the Reform Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties under Stephen Harper's control.  I say control because while Harper was leader of the CPC, he was very careful to keep the social conservative wing carefully constrained so that the public wouldn't freak out at some of their more radical policies.  Since Harper stepped aside after losing the Federal Election in 2015, we have seen the CPC move ever further right, with increasingly radical socially-conservative policies become part of the policy book at each convention, and leaders that seem more willing than Harper to adopt those policies themselves.   That's a long burn - 25 years - but it was only that long because of Harper's tenure at the helm - had a leader with less focus on power been in charge, I would probably have been writing this kind of argument by 2015. 

The BC Conservatives have been speed running this same script.  The BC Conservatives ejected Rustad after the party narrowly lost the 2024 election.  The first half of 2026 was a leadership campaign which ultimately led to the election of Kerry-Lynne Findlay - who has made it very clear she is aligned with the more radicalized socially conservative wing of the party.  Rustad was already aligned, although somewhat more careful about what he said, Findlay is far more direct about it.  The BC Conservatives went from at least seemingly mainstream to radicalized in less than a year.  Since becoming leader, 9 MLAs have departed the BC Conservative caucus.  

The UCP suffers from a similar problem, with internal coups having resulted in the party going from "newly united" to radicalized in less than 10 years.  COVID no doubt played a role in that, but it's not hard to look at the party as it was in 2017 and what it looks like now and see that Danielle Smith is clearly beholden to a small, but organized and vocal group of radicals.  

In short, the "united front" of conservatives is not really what it claims to be.  It's a front for the movement's most extreme beliefs to take precedence.  

Upcoming Electoral Moments In Alberta

The Referendums

In just over a month, Alberta voters will vote in a series of 10 referendum questions - all of which are basically separatist propaganda questions.  If current polling is any indication, these questions should all go down to a pretty nasty defeat.  Of course, that supposes that a significant percentage of eligible voters actually vote.  It is not clear to me at all that will be the case.  

I fully expect Smith to ignore the results of the referendum and simply forge ahead with next steps.  Not because she has any mandate to do so, but because her career depends on that happening.

2027 Election

Next year's election is another matter entirely.  First, this fall is when Smith's second "Electoral District Commission" will release its revised electoral map.  Expect this to contain a significant amount of "gerrymandering" in the form of ridings on the edges of major urban centres being carved into "rurban ridings", and ridings where the UCP sees themselves at risk being creatively rearranged so that they are absorbed into safer ridings.  

Additionally, the UCP will probably step up its campaign against both the PTP and the NDP. 

Closing Thoughts 

The upshot here is that while the by-election in Calgary-Shaw is a definite win for people who are angry with the UCP, we need to recognize that we are not dealing with a party that cares one whit about "democratic mandates", and will push through whatever it feels like.  

Opponents of the UCP and the separatist movement in Alberta need to continue to organize and get their message out there.  Not just during campaign periods.  

Of Trade Deals, Foreign Interference, and Conservative Leadership In Canada

We talk a lot about "foreign interference" in Canadian politics, but we don't very often talk about the single biggest source of interference in Canada's political discourse:  the United States.  For decades, we have quietly accepted the presence of American ties to various political groups and lobbying efforts, either turning a blind eye, or out of some naive belief that the US and Canada are much the same and therefore it's not really interference when there is cross border collaboration between various politicians and parties. 

Conservatives in particular have taken advantage of this, appearing regularly at US conservative conferences and networking events like the CPAC conference or the "Prayer Breakfast" events.  These connections are well documented, and sustained by events like Danielle Smith travelling to Mar-a-Lago, or former PM Harper's 2018 visit to the White House.   Visits like Smith's and Harper's are not mere social calls - they are very much "kiss the ring" moments where a "client" leader swears fealty to a more powerful leader.  That's important to recognize.  

American influence in Canada's politics is everywhere - it's so pervasive that we often don't think about it or give it the consideration it deserves.  The events of the last couple of weeks should give Canadians pause and motivation to reconsider that.  Let me draw you the picture I see emerging.

The Formation of The UCP Sowed The Seeds of Its Failure

When Jason Kenney created the UCP he set up the preconditions for the party to get to where it is today, and its eventual demise.  What do I mean by this?  Kenney may have believed that he could control the extreme elements in the UCP in much the same way that Harper did so as leader of the CPC. 

Harper allowed the extremist factions in the CPC to exist and even to have something of a voice in the party, but at the moment that a given push looked like it would have a political cost for him, he would shut it down.  This was done through a combination of tools - Harper exercised considerable personal control over the party apparatus.  That meant that in large part, if you kept him happy, your career was secure.  The leader's office had the power to quash constituency decisions such as new nominees, and the "public face" of the party was carefully protected.  So, while the extremist wings of the CPC could make a certain level of noise - it was never enough to do more than keep their followers believing the party was aligned with them.  

However, Harper was able to do this because the Federal CPC is a much bigger entity than the UCP in Alberta - and although the Prairie Reform rump of the party clearly dominates it today, the party needs votes from outside the Prairies in order to have any hope of ever forming government.  Harper understood this, and was very careful to keep the extremes in check even though his own leadership depended on them. 

A party of the scale of the UCP is a much different animal, and that's where Kenney's choices failed. 

Supreme Court Hearings on Quebec Bill 21

 The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is holding hearings in the matter English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al.  Before you yawn and walk away, this is probably the single most important SCC case in 20 years.  I've written about the arguments in some depth here.

Among the issues on the table is very much the question "Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms truly apply to all Canadians, or do we have a patchwork of rights where provinces decide what rights are available to Canadians living in their borders?".  Do I have your attention yet? 

Let's talk about that:

The Dangers Of The UCP's MAID Legislation

I have lots to say about the UCP's Bill 18, which is clearly another piece of red meat legislation for the slavering Social Conservative base, but I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time critiquing the legislation for its declared purpose.  Beyond stating the obvious that this is the UCP stepping in between a patient and their care team, and removing personal autonomy from the patient - others will no doubt point out those issues (and probably already have).  

What I want to address is the much darker, more insidious aspect of this legislation.  

What Is Gender Ideology?

I have long asserted that Gender Ideology is fundamentally a "straw man" construct that the political right has co-opted and turned into a bucket that they fill with all of their fears about transgender people (in much the same way that the word "transgenderism" is another term they love to throw around to invalidate transgender people).  

This morning, I went to Google and asked its AI to define "Gender Ideology", here's what it came back with: 

"Gender ideology" is a term primarily used by conservative, religious, and anti-LGBTQ+ groups to describe, and criticize, a set of beliefs regarding gender identity, sexual orientation, and reproductive rights. It is largely employed as a pejorative, catch-all phrase to frame modern understandings of gender—particularly those that decouple gender from biological sex—as a dangerous, artificial, or fabricated construct. 

Core Beliefs Criticized as "Gender Ideology"
Those who use the term "gender ideology" often argue it encompasses the following ideas: 

• Social Construction of Gender: The belief that gender roles and identities are not fixed by nature or biology, but are constructed by society and culture.
• Gender Identity over Biology: The assertion that a person's internal sense of their gender ("gender identity") is more definitive than their assigned sex at birth.
• Gender Fluidity: The concept that gender can be fluid, non-binary, or chosen, rather than strictly male or female.
• Separation of Sex and Gender: The distinction between biological sex (chromosomes/anatomy) and gender (socially constructed roles), which is foundational to gender studies.

Unsurprisingly, GLAAD notes that this is a term which is used not by either academic researchers in the area, nor by actual transgender people.  It is used primarily by the same actors who used the term "gay agenda" (similarly devoid of meaning for the people it is intended to attack).  

Looking closer at the broad ideas that "Gender Ideology" is charitably intended to encompass, we see a pattern that in domains like psychology and sociology we call "biopsychosocial" (BPS), where the concepts involved encompass the domains of biology (the physical), psychology (the individual), and sociological (the social) dimensions in a manner where they intersect with each other.  

Poilievre Gets an 87% Approval Vote

 CPC leader Pierre Poilievre won his leadership review vote with over 87%. What does this tell us? 

I'm sure that within Liberal party ranks, there is a certain amount of cheering going on, since Poilievre is polling well behind Mark Carney for "preferred PM".  Almost certainly if an election were held today, the Conservatives would lose (again).   While in the short term, Poilievre's victory might appear to be a boon for the Liberals, I wouldn't be quite so quick to cheer.

Having replaced Jenny Byrne with Steven Outhouse, I think we can expect to see yet another round of "rebranding" applied to Poilievre's image.  His speech last night gave some hints of that beginning.  There was a definite effort not to be quite as obnoxious as he has been in the last year or two (although I doubt very much that he's going to be able to pivot away from a reflexive tendency to attack after 20 years of practice).  Branding, or image, whatever you want to call it, does matter in politics today, and conservatives have a disturbing ability to make otherwise unpalatable candidates look "good enough" to voters who don't pay close attention. 

The real issue with the CPC isn't "the leader", and it really never has been - it's what the party represents and has become over the years from its beginnings as the prairie rump "Reform Party" through to its current form.  Reform was always a party of extremes - weirdly authoritarian and libertarian at the same time, and substantially driven by a bunch of Social Conservative (they aren't really conservative) grievance groups.  

As the party expanded eastward, it ran into a number of roadblocks where they just couldn't seem to make headway - especially in Ontario and Quebec.  That led to a shift and some rebranding efforts that tried to paper over the perception that the party was dominated by Christian Fundamentalists from the Prairies.  Fast forward through the merger with the old Progressive Conservative Party to today, and we need to spend some quality time reading through the party policy book and the policy motions.  

Unfortunately, in these documents lies a ton of policies that the party doesn't talk about - policies which ultimately are designed to implement many aspects of the socially conservative (regressive) state that Prairie Evangelicals have been pushing towards for decades.  Journalist Marci McDonald documented it really well in her book "The Armageddon Factor".  Although the book is now somewhat dated, it does document much of the drive for the religious right to gain control over the Conservative Party.  

Now, in part, we need to understand that when people are accusing the CPC of having a "hidden agenda", it's not that the agenda is "really hidden" - it's well known and documented.  However, when politicians sit there and say "oh, I won't do _THAT_", they're engaging in deceit.  Poilievre has done this repeatedly on the abortion topic, only his party keeps these topics alive in their policy declaration.  

In more recent history, in Alberta we've seen this deceit used by the UCP under Danielle Smith.  So much of what she said she "wouldn't do" while she was running in 2023 mysteriously became legislation starting in 2024.  At this point in time, I wouldn't trust any party that refuses to talk about any topic that's in their policy manual.  

This is fundamentally the core of where Poilievre has a problem - he is at the helm of a party that I characterize as half a dozen angry badgers in a trench coat.  No amount of rebranding is going to address the fundamental issue that the CPC has major players in it that have "views" that are radically divergent from those of most Canadians. 

I take last night's confidence vote in Poilievre as a sign that the CPC has turned inward.  They aren't receptive to the opinions of the broader public, rather they have decided that they are going to attempt to deceive Canadian voters into electing them so they can impose an agenda that is regressive at best.

So, Queen Dani Doesn't Like Courts?

In a year-end interview, Premier Smith of Alberta complained that "judges aren't accountable", and elected politicians are.  

Like everything else that comes out of today's conservative politicians, this is 1 part truth, 9 parts lie.  Accountability takes many forms, and to frame elections as the only legitimate kind of accountability in our system of government is simply false.  It's convenient for her in the moment, but when she then turns around and complains that "people are abusing recall", one does have to wonder exactly how sincere she really is.  

Smith complains that "we've had 10 years of Justin Trudeau appointing judges", and that "...ideology getting into these judgements ...".  What she's really doing is misrepresenting the process through which judges are appointed in this country, as well as the nature of how judgments are written - judges actually explain their reasoning in their rulings, something that politicians seldom bother with.

Wherein Colin Wright Takes A Victory Lap

Over in The Wall Street Journal, author Colin Wright takes a victory lap declaring that transgender youth are in fact the result of "social contagion".  

As you might expect, he's fallen all the way down the Gender Critical rabbit hole, making some of the most ridiculous claims possible, and citing material from the "Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine" (SEGM) - a notoriously anti-transgender group which is more a collection of cranks than practitioners of legitimate science.  

The dominant counterargument to the social-contagion theory, repeated endlessly by the media and activists, is that the sharp rise in transgender identification over the past decade simply reflects liberation: People today are more comfortable expressing their authentic selves. The favored analogy compares this rise to the historic increase in left-handedness once schools stopped discouraging it. As transgender activist and biologist Julia Serano put it in a 2017 article, “there wasn’t really a rise in left-handedness so much as there was a rise in left-handed acceptance” that allowed its true natural prevalence to emerge. John Oliver popularized this analogy on “Last Week Tonight” in 2022, insisting that the surge in trans identification was simply a sign that “people were free to be who they f— were.”

If transgender identity were an innate trait, like left-handedness, we would expect identification rates to rise at first when it became socially acceptable, then plateau and remain stable at a fixed level. If the phenomenon were instead driven by social contagion, we might expect a boom-and-bust pattern: a spike followed by a rapid decline once the social forces driving it weaken.

As both a transgender person and a left-handed person, I cannot tell you how completely misguided this really is.  In order for Wright's hypothesis to stand up, we have to turn a blind eye to the last 5 years or more of increasingly hate-filled anti-transgender _LEGISLATION_ and rhetoric coming from the political right, especially in the US and UK.  These laws are draconian, they are hurtful, and yes, they are profoundly damaging. 

If Mr. Wright thinks that transgender youth identities are "just social contagion", he is implying strongly that those youth are too stupid to understand the world around them - that they only follow the lead of others.  Reality is quite different.  Youth are in fact very sensitive to the social signals in their environment, and it would be hard for transgender youth not to be aware of the increasingly hostile legislative environment.  Nor can they ignore the hostility that they hear on a daily basis coming from religious leaders in church, or even their families.  

Mr. Wright has engaged in one of the most serious errors in research and analysis:  Correlation Fallacy.  He is assuming that the reduction being observed indicates a "reduction" in the number of transgender people.  This is, in my experience, likely false in the long run.  Transgender youth are clever - they know the signals they are receiving and will decide to transition later when they feel it's safer to do so.  That may mean getting out from the family home, or given current circumstances, may mean emigrating to another country where being transgender isn't being actively criminalized.  To claim as he does, without serious evidence, is sloppy at best.

Such as it is, the "evidence" for "social contagion" theory regarding gender identity is at best sparse, and most of it is so methodologically flawed as to qualify as junk science.  As an example, many "Gender Critical" arguments reference Littman's 2017 paper proposing "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria".  It was pure junk science.  Methodologically flawed, it proceeded to draw conclusions about transgender youth without even talking to a single transgender youth!  Learn to recognize junk science, people. 

Now, who the heck is Colin Wright?  The byline for him posted with his article reads:  "Mr. Wright is an evolutionary biologist and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute."

The Manhattan Institute? Oh - another conservative "think tank" - you'll pardon me while I ignore that - partisan think tanks are at best disinformation sources, and being affiliated with one doesn't help.  Being affiliated with SEGM is in my view another strike - SEGM is a key purveyor of junk science and misinformation about transgender people.

Doing a brief search on Google Scholar, I see no evidence that Mr. Wright has ever engaged in significant study of transgender people, either as a primary researcher, or as a contributor.  So, basically, we have another case of "I have a PhD, therefore, I can opine on any subject, regardless of whether I know anything about it".  This is sadly, an all too common state of affairs.  People with no actual background or study in the area manage to acquire an audience, and presto, they are "experts".  

There's a reason we don't go to a mechanic to diagnose medical issues, and we don't ask our physicians to repair our cars.  They are very different domains with different training and knowledge.  It would be nice if Mr. Wright had some actual expertise in the area of gender identity, but aside from writing opinion articles in newspapers, he has none.

Conservatism Is Dead

Conservatism in Canada is no longer a coherent political philosophy.  It has become a hybrid of a business that sells access to power, and a collection of people who have been drawn into utterly paranoid conspiracy theories.  The slide into this place has been a long, slow process, and I don’t think it’s necessarily all intentional.

Let me explain why I think this is the case, and then we can get into how we got here in the first place.

Parasitic Capitalism (Oilpatch Edition)

I have little love for the oil & gas industry in Alberta.  Having grown up here, worked in and adjacent to the industry for years, I have become increasingly disillusioned, and then angry with both the industry and the government.  At this point in our history (2025), I'm pretty much at the point of saying that not only has the industry captured the UCP government, but it has become a parasite on the Alberta and Canadian economies.  

"Oh, but what about the billions it brings in?" proponents say.  Those billions mean nothing if they leave the people holding the bag with billions more in costs after projects are shut down.  We have a massive problem with oil companies leaving their industrial wastelands lying about and simply doing nothing to clean up after they are done with production on a site. 

Further, they refuse to pay municipal taxes to municipalities because they know they can ignore it and the government will do nothing, and they can tie any legal actions up in courts until the municipality runs out of money to pursue the matter with.  Landowners are supposed to be paid money for access to the surface area where they put wells down, and companies ignore those obligations too - often for the same reasons. 

All of this makes me quite furious - both with the government and with industry - however, my ire is focused much more on industry because they are the ones making profits off the resources, and ignoring their responsibilities beyond those profits. 

A Week In Alberta Politics

 Alberta’s politics are an awful mess right now, and this past week has been quite a spectacle even for Alberta. 

Devin Dreeshen kicked things off by making a fuss over bike lanes in Calgary (and Edmonton, no doubt). To put it bluntly, Dreeshen is a privileged little twit that lives out in rural Alberta - he has no experience with urban planning whatsoever, much less has he ever lived in a major urban area for any length of time.  He has no clue about what it takes to get around in Calgary or Edmonton.  He needs to leave the municipalities alone on this one. 

Then we move to newly-minted “Municipal Affairs Minister” Dan Williams, who saw fit to come out with guns blazing over city hall implementing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies.  Ah yes, the wonderful world of “merit hiring” - which is really a code phrase for there being a shocking number of fragile white men who are utterly terrified that someone who is not white might actually be their equal.  We’ll come back to this in a bit, because just when you think the week’s done, the UCP gets worse.

Yesterday, Education Minister Nicolaides decided it was a good time to roll out what amounts to a book ban in school libraries. In spite of the minister's claims to the contrary, this is really a ban on 2SLGBTQ material in school libraries.  Back in May, when the minister foreshadowed this action, it was pretty clear that this was based on a bunch of "Parents Groups" borrowing from a moral panic strategy that has already played out in the United States.  Of course, the proposed list of books comes from a number of US conservative aligned sources. 

None of this should surprise us - the Canadian Social Conservative movement is tightly enmeshed with its American counterpart, and at least in Alberta, they are practically drooling over the prospect of having a government so cowed by the fact that they ejected former Premier Jason Kenney a couple of years ago that they think they can push their extreme agenda even further.  It doesn't matter what Danielle Smith thinks or believes - she's shown that she kowtows to the loudest, most obnoxious voices in her party. 

Where is all this going?  Backwards for the most part.  Like her attack on transgender people started in January 2024, this is all about rolling back rights, access, and equity.  The UCP wants all them damned queers back in the closet.  The smaller the closet, the better, and they don't care who they trample in the process.  

But, it doesn't stop there.  There is a whole host of "SoCon" hobby horse issues - and it doesn't stop at abortion either - although LaGrange is obviously chuckling with glee as she tears our healthcare system apart at the seams - breaking it so badly that I suspect healthcare in Alberta will look increasingly like "if you aren't wealthy, you're screwed" - Alabama will look amazing.  

Going after trans youth was the "thin edge of the wedge" in the UCP's strategy.  Trans youth have the least voice politically, and even less resources to fight back with.  The government engaged in performative "consultation", but excluded voices of trans kids, their parents, and the people who actually provide treatment.  

Then they came along with a ban on trans women in sports.  Again, they listened to a small group of people who loudly proclaim that having trans women in sport is somehow "unfair", but ignored the voices of trans women, and any evidence that challenges the assumption that trans women have "automatic advantages" athletically because at some point their bodies may have produced testosterone.  The resulting policy is far reaching, and unreasonable to say the least. 

The recent "book ban" policy is clearly built on similar grounds.  When you look at it objectively, it's about erasing 2SLGBTQ voices from school libraries.  Did the government engage in meaningful consultation?  No.  They consulted with Action4Canada and a couple of other known anti-2SLGBTQ groups who helpfully provided them with book lists from similar campaigns in the US.  The "public consultation" was such an obvious "push poll" designed to provoke outrage it wasn't even worthy of being considered a fig leaf of consultation. 

Can you see the wedge being hammered in even further?  

If you think this government is going to stop at attacking trans people and library books in schools, I have news for you.  Williams' shot at "DEI" is a warning - they are coming after everything.   Think that you lost out in a job hiring process to a "diversity hire"?  Cool, they'll back you.  Do I expect them to go after the Alberta Human Rights Commission?  Absolutely - they are going to make it just about impossible to make a successful complaint if you aren't white, male, Christian, and wealthy.  

As for women's issues?  Well - get used to having to fight for everything from health care to voting, because that's on the agenda too. There is no shortage of religious hardliners who want to make it impossible for women to vote, and the fight over abortion is always about bodily autonomy. 

The point here is that Alberta is the beachhead in Canada for this extremist influence coming up from the US.  If we don't stand against it now, we're all screwed.  

Pierre Wants To Eradicate “Woke Ideology”

 So, back in late March, Poilievre was unveiling his platform for Quebec, and in that speech he talked about eliminating “woke ideology” from university research. At first glance, you might look and say “meh, so what?”

The problem, of course, is that this puts the politicians in the position of being the arbiters of what is “worthy” of being studied.  As we have seen with Trump’s “campaign against Woke”, this goes much further than merely attacking research that involves transgender people.  No, in fact the Trump administration has published a list of words that it has now banned.  It is quite extensive - pretty much covering every area of discourse that conservatives have decided that they don’t like - climate change, equality, women, diversity, allergies, and even the analysis of applying science to either policy or medical treatment.  

At its core, the conservative assault on “Woke” turns out to be little more than re-litigating every rights and politics issue that they have lost the argument over in the last century.  “It’s gone too far!”, they declare.  They complain that the research itself should not be done because it offends their “feelings” about the subject.

But what price do these bans on certain subjects exact from society?  Well, in Trump’s America, it’s now next to impossible to study how drugs affect women versus how they work in men.  We have known for some time that women have very different responses to treatments than men do, and that’s in a wide range of topics including cardiac care.  But now that research is effectively halted in the US.  When Harper was Prime Minister, we saw him engage in overt suppression of climate science, even going so far as to prohibit scientists from speaking on the subject without political authorization. 

To posit a bit of a straw man, you might assert that Poilievre wouldn’t go as far as Trump has done on this file.  But what does that even mean?  Poilievre hasn’t shown us any evidence that he would moderate his behaviour, and in fact his willingness to emulate Trump on so many points suggests that in fact he would lift heavily from Trump.  

But think about it from a government policy perspective.  Do you think that a government should ignore science when forming policy?  Or should policy at least consider the scientific evidence in that domain?

To make a somewhat extreme example, consider the legislature deciding to pass legislation governing the treatment of heart attacks.  The evidence today around heart attacks is clear - treatment is urgent, and requires a combination of medicine and surgical interventions.  Long term follow-up is necessary, and the patient is encouraged to make major lifestyle changes, including exercise.  All of this has decades worth of research backing it up.  

Now consider the government decides in drafting its legislation that in fact all that research is wrong, and because the politicians believe that a heart attack is an event that the victim should “tough out”, they ban ambulances from responding to calls that are possible cardiac events. 

I would hope you would be outraged by such legislation, and you would be calling on the politicians to pay attention to the scientific literature on the subject.  Yet, that is exactly what we are seeing on so many levels with conservative politicians writing legislation on other matters - they are ignoring any kind scientific evidence in favour of their “feelings” about the subject.

To be clear, science doesn’t write policy, but science produces information that should be used to guide policy.  If a subject makes you uncomfortable, that doesn’t mean it should not be studied - in fact to me that makes it more important that it is studied actively.  Similarly, politicians should write policy, but not direct what _cannot_ be explored in research.

But what is this conservative “war on woke” really about? When I look at it broadly, it seems to boil down to unwinding equality because a bunch of white dudes are all butt-hurt that they aren’t the only ones with a say any more.

DEI - which is in many respects about dismantling the legacy of racism and marginalization that was pervasive in society even after the civil rights era supposedly made us all equal (it didn’t, it just knocked over the legal impediments to equality).  

Immigration - oh yes, the problem of “the immigrants”.  Whether this is “great replacement theory”, or other aspects of immigration like temporary foreign worker permits, at the end of the day it boils down to this existential fear that “white males” won’t be able to compete.  They might wrap it up in respectable looking terms, but it’s really just racism with a thin gauze of “concern” wrapped around it. 

Women’s reproductive rights - at its core, this is a matter of bodily autonomy.  The whole abortion fight has always been about regulating women’s bodies - a matter rooted in a myriad of ancient fears about the female body.  Medicine has gradually dismantled the superstitious beliefs that those fears once buttressed, but far too many still view women, sexuality, and pregnancy with deep mistrust.  But, as a central theme in conservative thinking, fighting abortion remains stubbornly consistent - even when the logic behind their claims is no longer relevant. 

Transgender people - like female reproductive rights, this is all about bodily autonomy.  The idea that transgender people exist poses a huge, complex problem for the conservative mind.  Not only does it connect back to women’s rights in general (because so much of women’s oppression in the past has to do with reproduction), but in fact transgender rights are inextricably connected because the transgender person represents a radical form of both bodily and social autonomy that centres on the individual. Conservatives tend to value conformity, and transgender people are the opposite of conformity.  In fact, transgender people push back on all the social pressures that they experience in the process of actualizing themselves as human beings.  

All of this connects back to an underlying fear on the part of conservative men that somehow these social changes make them “lesser” in society.  They don’t, of course - we still live in a society where being a white male carries an enormous amount of power and privilege.  Look at the people who are the biggest opponents of “woke” - almost inevitably they are anything but the “prime specimens” that they think themselves to be.  Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson, Pierre Poilievre - none of them are ideal, and frankly if it weren’t for money or notoriety, any of them would be ignored as simply snivelling twits. 

The “war on woke” is really about restoring a social hierarchy that died out decades ago - and it’s being conducted at the cost of the rights and freedoms of real people. 

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. 

How The UCP Is Lining Up To Steal Your Healthcare (and Rights)

Things are beginning to line up in terms of the UCP's plan and we can see now how they are going to attack health care and Albertans.  There's quite a sequence of things here, but the picture they paint when you draw it all out is quite interesting - and not in a good way interesting.

You Got Played, Girl

 On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called "Let Kids Be Kids" (spoiler alert:  it was an anti-trans/anti-2SLGBTQ/anti-SOGI/"parents rights" rally in reality).  

They brought in a transgender woman from Lethbridge to speak to the transgender case.  I don't know this person, but from their answers to the questions put to them, they clearly lack both research and clinical knowledge in the domain.  Being transgender does not mean that one has spent time in the academic and clinical literature relevant to this domain, and this is a problem.  

Her stated purpose was to engage in dialogue, but quite frankly, she got played.  In a 2 hour long event, she was allocated a grand total of 10 minutes during which the host asked them questions that she had to respond to.  The rest of the 2 hours was given over to opening comments, and presentations by some of the most dishonest players in the Alberta "parental rights" movement - and their presentations destroyed any semblance of "goodwill" and "open dialogue".  She got played for a patsy. 

Let me explain: 

The UCP Goes "Hold My Beer" To The CPC

Author's Note:  I started writing something about the UCP's policy resolutions in October, but it seemed redundant.  Now that the UCP has held their AGM, and these have been voted on, it's time to take a look at the shape of the party that results from it. 

In September, the CPC held its policy convention and went full SoCon - passing every discriminatory, bigotry-laden policy put before them - and by significant margins.  This weekend, the UCP said to the CPC:  "Hold my beer".  

Before the UCP delegates this weekend were some 30 policy resolutions, and they ranged from almost reasonable sounding policy ideas to outright conspiracy theory level crackpottery.  The resulting policy is a pastiche of terrible ideas rooted in bigotry and ignorance.  

The CPC Went Full SoCon

The brief summary of yesterday’s policy votes at the CPC 2023 convention was published by CBC. Go there first, and read it - but I really think they missed more than a few things, so this is going to be a bit more of a deep dive into the policies they passed and how much worse for women and minorities it really is.

This Afternoon We Find Out

This afternoon, we find out which of the 50+ policy resolutions get adopted by the CPC.  Back here, I reviewed 3 policy resolutions in context, and questioned just how “broad” the conservative tent really is.  If any of those 3 resolutions is adopted, we can safely conclude that the CPC continues to tilt at the windmills of women’s rights, 2SLGBTQ+ rights, and in particular transgender rights. 

Make no mistake about it, by openly attacking transgender rights, the CPC is lining up to attack a whole host of social issues, ranging from education to women’s healthcare.

Something I want to emphasize is that the current focus of the political right on transgender women has enormous negative implications for women as a whole.  In particular, it represents a return to policing women’s bodies and appearance through peer pressure.  If you don’t look sufficiently “feminine” by someone else’s standards, you will find yourself challenged when you try to use a washroom in a public space - and by “not looking sufficiently feminine”, that could be as simple as wearing a bunch of old clothes when you pop out of the house to pick up some new paint brushes while you’re in the midst of painting your home. Whoops - you’re not dressed in the latest fashions, your hair isn’t done, and you *gasp* forgot your makeup!  I assure you that there will be someone who decides that means you’re not really a woman.  

I wish I was joking.  I’m not.  Stereotypes like the so-called Stepford Wives exist because in numerous religious subgroups, women are not merely expected to be “obedient to their husbands”, but they come under enormous scrutiny and pressure to conform (and while I write this from a generally Anglo-Christian perspective, these same pressures exist in many cultural milieus).  The ultimate goal here is very much to return women to the social role that they were forced into prior to the civil rights era, and potentially even pre-personhood where biology - specifically the ability to bear children - defines womanhood entirely. 

Transgender people present a fundamental threat to that worldview because they demand a separation of “the body” and the social roles associated with that body.  A core demand of feminism has always been autonomy, and in particular bodily autonomy.  Women have long sought the means to control their own fertility, but it has only been in the last 6 decades or so that the tools to do so have come to exist in a reasonably safe form.  To many, the changes that resulted from this autonomy, ranging from women having careers (and demanding equality in the workplace), to having actual public discourse about things like reproduction, have been an existential threat not only to existing power structures, but to their own sense of security.  The old models of “dad goes to work, mom stays home and looks after the household” have given way to much more complex structures that make old biblical adages about “the woman shall submit to her husband” very difficult to place in the modern world. 

Just as the recognition of sexual diversity has challenged the idea that “marriage” only exists for the purposes of producing children (a very utilitarian concept), or that sex only exists between “man and woman”, the mere existence of transgender people challenges previously rigid categories of “masculine” and “feminine”.  That is something which more socially conservative elements in our society have long regarded as an existential threat because not only does it require deconstructing and separating the social and the biological aspects of being human, it undermines centuries old scriptures that they hold as “divine truth”.  

That’s the whole problem here.  We have an entire segment of the population that is struggling to cope with change, and are completely unable to reconcile the “truth” of their faith with the world we exist in.  They desperately seek to roll things back to a “simpler time” where absolutes of the past still functioned - and they can only do that by erasing hard fought rights and freedoms.  

It may seem easy to look at it and say “well, they’re just going after trans people”, but spend any amount of time poking through the content on sites like LifeSite News and others that the Social Conservative set control, and it’s quite clear that if they were to ever gain actual power, a rollback of rights and freedoms across the board is their plan … in some cases think in terms of “yeah - mandatory church attendance” type stuff.  

This afternoon’s votes will tell us how much influence the SoCon right has over the CPC.  My guesstimate based on what I’ve seen over the last 20 years is that the answer is “far too much”.  Remember, this is the party which only grudgingly removed its opposition to same sex marriage in 2015 or 16 (and it did not endorse it - just removed their opposition to it), and coming up on the last election refused to admit that global warming is a thing.