Integrity and the UCP - a rant - Alberta Votes 2019, part 5

I find it curious that I hear so many Albertans say that they are not sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and full of hatred. They say, "It is not fair to paint all conservatives with the same brush! Just because so many UCP candidates have said and done all these sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and hateful things, including the leader, Jason Kenney, it isn't fair to characterise the whole party that way!"

Oh, no?

How do you feel about election fraud, identity theft, money laundering...?

"Well that's bad, but nothing has been proven. And anyway, if Kenney's team cheated, it doesn't matter because he would have won the leadership anyway. It's just a matter of making it a really big win."

Or

"Nothing has been proven, and anyway, Kenney wouldn't have known anything about it. He has said so."

Or

"The more moderates will keep Kenney in line."

Sure. That has worked so well with Trump and Ford, hasn't it?

So, if you recognise that the UCP is basically run by sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic haters who also cheat, who are you going to vote for?

"Well, um... the UCP."

So, you're not sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic and filled with hate, and you personally would not commit election fraud, but you're OK with all that?

"You don't understand! We have to vote conservative. The commies have been destroying the province!"

Aha!

I shake my head in bewilderment. These are, presumably, not stupid people. They have seen the reports that Kenney made back-room deals with car dealers, promising to reduce consumer protection regulations. That, potentially, will make the roads less safe for all of us, but it's A-OK because those car dealers deserve to make more money.

The UCP platform is a carefully worded thing. Let's break it down.

The UCP voted against increasing RCMP presence in rural areas, and then while unvieling their "tough on crime" platform, cited crime statistics from while the PCs were in power to back up their claim that there was a "rural crime wave" because of the NDP. They want to explore a "Repeat Offenders Policy", which sounds an awful lot like a ramp-up to an American style three-strikes-and-you're-out policy.

Meanwhile, crime in Alberta has decreased since the NDP introduced their law enforcement policies in early 2018.

The UCP wants to make special exceptions in the law for people living in rural areas. They want it to be ok to "defend your property" (aka shoot tresspassers) if you are in a rural area. They also want stiffer penalties for offenders who commit crimes in a rural area.

Can you say "pandering for rural votes"?

The UCP's platform also contains an all-out war on workers. They are offering a tiered minimum wage plan that will see people who are young or "of lower human capital" earn less for the same work. It feels reminiscent of the TFW plan.

"But, my kid is looking for work. He will have a better chance of getting a job if the employer can pay him less!"

Do you even hear the words coming out of your mouth?

You seriously want your kid to be exploited? That's fantastic. Good luck to your kid.

The UCP will make it so employers can pay out for overtime banked hours at a non-overtime rate. So, instead of paying time and half for overtime, they get to pay straight time.

The time and a half for overtime rule is in place pretty well across Canada. Well, now in Ontario, Ford is going to scrap that too. Ford and Kenney are working off the same playbook. But the policy is in place for a reason. It is meant as a deterrent, so employers don't take advantage of workers and force them to work a lot of overtime. It is meant to help workers have some kind of work-life balance.  Getting rid of the incentive to not have employees work unreasonable hours rolls back workers rights by decades, by the standards of most provinces. It's a race to the bottom, folks. Do you want to work all the time? Because if employers don't have to pay time and half, they can make employees work and work and work. And if the workers refuse, they will see their regular hours cut or, even worse, they could be out of a job.

One big truth of unfettered employer/employee relationships is, without government regulations protecting workers, employers can always find someone more desperate, someone who will work for less money and less time off. This is Great Depression stuff. Industrial Revolution stuff.

They want to repeal Bill 6, which put in place protections for agricultural workers, which brought Alberta up to par with the other provinces. Apparently, agricultural workers don't deserve protection, in the eyes of the UCP.

The UCP says they will cut corporate taxes and corporate red tape (code for reducing regulations that protect workers, consumers, and the environment).

The UCP will repeal the carbon tax. Never mind that this will cause the federal carbon tax to come into effect.

"Oh, but Jason Kenney is committed to fighting the federal tax in court!"

And what will that cost? Alberta taxpayers are going to make a bunch of lawyers really rich doing that. You know that right? And they won't win. It's like taking your money and putting it in a fire pit and setting it alight. But, you know, you do you...

The UCP are going to repeal Bill 24, that protects kids who join GSAs from being reported to their parents.

"But, parents have a right to know what our kids are doing at school!"

Do you need a phone call if your child joins the chess club? Or the yearbook committee? Or the basketball team? No? So why do you need a call if your child joins a GSA? Is it because you think there's something wrong with that? If you think there is something troubling or bad about your child participating in a GSA, that is exactly why Bill 24 is necessary.

Additionally, the UCP will halt the rewriting of curriculum and re-introduce 50% provincial exams for graduation. In short, a return to the classroom of the 1950s.  Also, encourage people to take their children out of the public school system and put them in private schools, charter schools, or home schooling. Because we can't have our precious progeny rubbing elbows with people we don't like.

"No. It's not like that! We send our kids to charter schools because the education standard is higher."

Why is that, do you suppose? Could it be because the funds being diverted to charter schools from public schools are starving the public system, providing less opportunity for kids from less affluent families who cannot manage to send their children to private or charter schools?

And, honestly, while there are valid reasons for home-schooling, such as isolated location, health concerns, bullying... Simply not wanting your offspring exposed to different people and viewpoints is not one of them. Eventually these kids will be adults. They will be released into the general population. If you have kept them from experiencing diversity and planted your own beliefs and biases in their heads, how are the rest of us to cope with them? And also, if you have only a high school diploma or less, what on earth makes you imagine you can do a better job teaching them than people who have been trained to educate?

Health care. The UCP appears ready to open the door to private medicine in Alberta. Which is a stepping stone to full-on US-style medicine. This is vastly more expensive and excludes people without the means to pay for it.

If you are wealthy, the US health care system is lovely. If you are poor and you get seriously sick, you will probably die. Even people who have insurance have told me they had an accident or got sick and then had to fight their insurance company to cover it. And once it goes to court, you aren't really getting that much back after the lawyers are paid. People in the US are using GoFundMe to pay for cancer treatments and other health conditions. Is that really what people want?

"I just feel that I should have the right to decide if I pay for my health care myself. If I can afford it, why shouldn't I get put to the top of the list?"

I honestly have no way to explain to people why they should feel compassion and empathy. It seems so unnatural to me to not feel for people who are less fortunate or facing difficult challenges. I don't even know how to begin to explain why other people should matter. Why we should be our brother's keeper. How we are all in this together, this thing called life. Shouldn't we work together for things to get better for everyone? How can that be bad?

There is so much more. I will do a detailed breakdown of the UCP platform, and the platforms of the other parties, over the  next while.

I am just so infuriated and bewildered. I haven't even begun to delve into the sketchy stuff around the UCP leadership campaign. How can you think of voting for someone being investigated for election fraud? I mean, one investigation, you can reasonably make an argument for "innocent until proven guilty". But multiple investigations? Really?

"Well, it doesn't matter because he was going to win anyway. Besides, the NDP commies are destroying the province."

So, corruption is ok with you?

"No! That traitor Turdough should be charged with treason!"

I think you do not understand the meaning of "treason".

Anyway, I am fed up. People are hell-bent on voting against their own best interests, believing that they are doing the best thing for themselves and their families.

People are prepared to vote for a candidate and a party that they say doesn't represent their views.

So.. is it willful blindness? Or secret agreement with all the sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and hateful pronouncements from UPC candidates?

I don't get it. I just don't. The Albertans I know are, by and large, very nice, decent-seeming people. So, I am having a big problem getting my head around the disconnect. That nice, decent people could decide the best thing they could do for their province is vote in a government that demonstrates through its platform that it only cares about the wealthy and business owners. That it doesn't care about equipping our children, Alberta's future, with the best learning methodologies. That feels, somehow, that the wealthy are deserving of better health care than the poor.  That stands behind candidates who have expressed sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and hate-filled views. What are they thinking?

"It will be fine. The moderates in the party will control the out-of-control leader."

Sure. What could go wrong? (Spoilers: check out what Doug Ford is doing in Ontario. Check out what Trump is doing in the US."Moderates" were going to control them too)

I could argue myself blue in the face trying to explain that the Alberta NDP is not a communist party. They aren't even very socialist. They are more centrist. Albertans, of course, will not believe that. This is because their frame of reference is skewed right. Four decades of right-wing rule will do that. It's like in the US. Their starting point is so far to the right that Americans who saw themselves as progressive viewed Harper as suspiciously left-leaning.

The bottom line is, if you really feel you are not sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic and full of hate, how can you vote for a party that attracts and supports so many that are all those things?

"But... pipelines! Jobs!"

What about children, vulnerable populations, the elderly, the environment?

"The moderates in the UCP will make sure it's ok."

Just keep telling yourself that. You do realise Kenney can't do any more than Notley has to make the pipeline happen, don't you? He can't do anything about a carbon tax either, and isn't a made-in-Alberta and provincially controlled carbon tax better than one imposed by Ottawa? The job situation in Alberta is heavily influenced by external forces which Kenney has no magic to control. The world is gravitating away from fossil fuels. Automation and off-shore cheap labour are taking jobs out of the province. We need to diversify our economy, not double down on a dying industry.

But, you know... Go ahead and put a party in power that is going to be seriously hard on women, the LGBTQ+ community, the elderly, the sick, the poor, those of "lower human capital", the young, people of colour... If you look at Ontario under Ford you can see what that future looks like. But, if it's ok with you...

Make a man premier who is under RCMP investigation for corruption in the form of election fraud, money-laundering, and identity theft. What could go wrong?

After all, it's between you and your conscience. Because you aren't sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and full of hate.

Integrity, Ethics, Smear Campaigns, and Accountability - Alberta Votes 2019, part 1

There is a really interesting thing happening in politics at the moment. It's a weird sort of doublespeak.

Not too long ago, one could say things like:

• The earth is round
• Scientific facts should be the basis of policy
• Vaccinations save thousands of lives
• Nazis are bad

And not be contradicted by anyone. Even those who might disagree on any of those points probably would not want to make it known they felt that way.

That seems to have all changed. We are living in an age of "fake news" and "alternative facts". Both are deeply troubling.

Fake news, one might assume, encompasses conspiracy theories, gossip about celebrities, urban myths, and extremist propaganda. These types of things are purveyed by fringe media companies and independent websites and podcasts, right? Well, yes and no.

That certainly used to be the case. You'd see badly doctored photos of celebrities on the cover of the National Enquirer on the way through the checkout line and be amazed that anyone actually believed that sort of nonsense. The tabloids have a number of Hollywood and TV personalities living lives of great turmoil and intrigue, making them appear far more interesting than they probably actually are. Another thing North American tabloids do is make fantastical pronouncements about the royal family.

"Queen kicks Camilla out of the palace!"

"Feud between Kate and Meagan!"

 "Queen is stepping down, names William and Kate as King and Queen!"

It's all absolute twaddle, of course. For starters, anyone who has any inkling of how the monarchy works in the UK knows that is simply not how succession is done. And the claims of huge turbulence in the lives of the royals appear to be quite unfounded. But there are some people who do believe that Queen Elizabeth is an absolute monarch rather than a symbolic head of state. People who haven't got a clue what she does might imagine she can shout "Off with his head!" and something dire would actually happen. And they do believe these stories and buy the papers and keep the Murdochs of the world in caviar.

That has gone on for a long time. But for accurate reporting of current events we could turn to many reputable sources. We still can, of course, but it is much more difficult to know, with certainty, that the source is accurate.

For a long time, media in Canada and around the world have had a slant to the way they report things. Some media outlets tend to lean left, like the Toronto Star, while others tend to lean right, like the chain of Sun newspapers. Both report the news but different aspects of a story may be emphasized, depending on the editorial slant of the publication. The majority of Canadian media seem to be centre-right, including the Globe and Mail, the National Post, The Calgary Herald, etc. This is quite clear if we look at which party various media sources has backed in recent federal elections:

People tend to choose media sources that present a world view that they agree with. However, with the proliferation of online media sources, the spectrum has widened considerably. Canadians also have access to much more American media than ever before.

There are numerous attempts to place popular news sources on a spectrum or grid to show how they present information relative to one another and, perhaps, an unbiased central truth. For example:

This chart was developed by Vanessa Otero, an American lawyer who became very concerned about the biases in the media people consume and the effect that could have on society. You can read about the research that went into developing the chart here.

Clearly, there is a cluster of news media at the top centre of this chart that represents the least biased of the options. However, as one moves down the chart, it is clear that there are many media sources that people are accessing for news that range from wildly inaccurate interpretations to total lies.

People read something in the Daily Caller or Breitbart and then spread it around, proclaiming that "this is not being covered by mainstream media!" They pass these things around on social media, convincing one another that there is a massive cover-up and the mainstream media is in on it.

To make matters much cloudier, the current President of the United States has taken to declaring any news coverage he doesn't like to be "fake news". So we have his followers further convinced that the main stream media outlets are deceiving them.

And then, in January of 2017, the President's advisor, Kellyann Conway, told NBC news that Sean Spicer, White House Press Secretary, "gave alternative facts" (2:00 mark). This kind of talk makes sane, rational people's heads hurt.

There are no "alternative facts". There are facts and there are not-facts, also known as lies. This was a tipping point in the way people interact with reality.

Jump ahead to the Charlottesville confrontation, where clashes between white supremacists with tiki torches and anti-fascist protestors culminates in a woman being run down by a car. Trump goes on media and declared there was "blame on both sides".

This is a natural extension of a tricky bit of communications that began several years earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement began as a rallying point for African Americans to protest and draw attention to racialized violence by American police. However, some took offense to this. They countered with an "All Lives Matter" slogan. The genesis of the All Lives Matter appears to have been within the Republican Party, perhaps driven by a desire to change the channel from the growing focus on systemic racism. While "All Lives Matter" may be interpreted by some as more inclusive, it is actually a way to ignore or minimize the very real, and very life-threatening, issues faced by African Americans.

See what they did there? They made a slogan that is very hard to argue with. Of course all lives matter. The point of Black Lives Matter was not to suggest ONLY black lives matter. It was not, as some on the right insisted, racist. It was a reminder that black lives matter TOO. And this made quite a few people very angry, insecure, and hostile.

"Blame on both sides" or "very fine people on both sides" is a way of giving a nod and a wink to white supremacists, neo-nazis, fascists, and other hate groups. This moral ambiguity sends a signal that this person/politician/leader is open to, at the very least, tolerate, if not fully embrace these factions.

We are seeing this in Canada as well. CPC Leader, Andrew Scheer, seems to have a lot of trouble condemning racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny. The same can be said of quite a few of the current crop of conservatives in both federal and provincial politics. What's that about? Well, it certainly appears, from scans of the various conservative parties' facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and comments on news articles, that a goodly number of those who support and would vote for these parties feel there isn't a problem with holding these kinds of views. If Scheer, Ford, Kenney, or any of the other leaders on the right actually and convincingly condemned hate groups and hatred based on ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, they would lose votes.

Now, in the election in Alberta, we are seeing yet another evolution of this phenomenon.

Two UCP candidates have withdrawn from the race this week because hateful comments they wrote in the past have come to light.

The first was Caylan Ford, a handpicked "star candidate" brought in from Ontario. She had made some comments suggesting that white far-right terrorists, such as those who shoot up mosques, are discriminated against compared with Muslim terrorists. She also expressed sadness that white people are being replaced by immigrants in their homeland.

She resigned. But then she did an unusual thing. She fought back. She issued a statement suggesting she had been taken out of context.

The second was Eva Kiryakos. She had issues about which bathroom people use, and views on females wearing modest clothing because males are very visual, and she shared some meme from a far-right group saying that Muslim refugees in Germany are causing a rape crisis. She withdrew from the race. But then she did an unusual thing. She fought back.

She issued a statement on Twitter and a statement and video on her facebook page. In her video she describes herself and mentions key points of her history. She is, in effect, the perfect candidate for a party desperately trying to dispel the impression that they are racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and misogynist. She is a woman, she is from Iraq, she is a refugee. Also, she does not deny saying the things she was reported to have said. She seems to be justifying her opinions. Then she goes on to say she had been bullied from the race because of her views. A bit about freedom of speech and the importance of everyone being able to express their opinions.

In effect, her message is that there is nothing wrong with holding these views, or expressing these views. Even if you are a candidate that hopes to take part in forming public policy and legislation.

Some on the progressive side have tried to explain that's not how this all works.

Meanwhile, UCP supporters have taken up her cause, saying the left is bullying and oppressing by not finding her views acceptable in a political candidate. 

And eventually it devolved into the sort of bitter exchange one becomes all too familiar with on Twitter.

And where does Jason Kenney stand on all this? Two of his star candidates resigned. Other candidates have been in the news recently for a variety of sexist, racist, etc. comments. Of course he was asked about it. "You know, we've tried to do very vigorous candidate screening to ensure that people had not expressed truly hateful views, but our standard was not perfection. In a world of social media, sometimes people post things that they learn to regret, or they articulated themselves in an awkward way. But, if our standard was that no one had ever said anything that anybody could possibly construe as offensive, you know, that would be a standard very few people could meet."

The question that springs to mind is, if it is so difficult to find candidates who don't post hateful, extremely biased views, why are the other parties not plagued with the same issue?

But I digress.

Those on the organized right are trying to shift the line again.

Our society has evolved over the past hundred years or so. Commonly held beliefs include:

• All people are equal, regardless of race/ethnicity, colour, religion (or the lack thereof), gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, country of origin, or socioeconomic status.
• All people deserve equal protection under the law.
• All people deserve equal opportunity to be educated, employed, secure housing, and be free of persecution on the basis of any of those attributes listed above.

Not too long ago you could make these assertions without fear of someone trying to shout you down. Even those who disagreed were unlikely to air those views publicly. Because they were not socially acceptable. Because I suspect even those who held them knew, deep down, they held nasty, angry, hateful views.

What we are seeing now is not people being caught out in their nasty views and disappearing in disgrace. We are seeing those who hold these views standing up for them, and others lauding their courage and determination. Leaders refusing to take a stand against that sort of view.

This is a dangerous and slippery slope. To read some of the things people on the right post in social media, to see how vociferously they defend their views, is frankly terrifying. No longer grumbling under their breath, the door is being opened to them to express their hatred openly.

This sort of hatred is not normal. Babies are not born with hatred or fear of the "other". That is taught to them. And we seemed to be doing well in changing the narrative, changing the kinds of things that children learn. But now we seem to be going backwards.

Or rather, the holdouts who have carried hateful, fearful views in their hearts, those who truly believe they are superior than other people and that other specific groups are lesser than themselves, are feeling emboldened to pronounce these views and are supported in defending them.

And it is leaders like Trump, like Ford, like Scheer, and like Kenney, who do not condemn these views, who do not demonstrate that they, themselves, do not hold these views, who are creating public space for this.

How many people will be victimised or die before we turn this around? Before the proponents of bigotry and hatred are refused access to positions of power?

The right has created a paradigm wherein the intolerant, the biased, the haters, and yes, the fascists can rewrite the story and cast themselves as the victims of those who do not share their views. This is an incredibly dangerous development. They are attempting to make their harmful views sacrosanct. They are trying to intimidate people so they will not face criticism. They are signalling that any challenging or calling out of their views will result in the one doing the calling out being cast as a bully. They are trying to silence those who seek to see a better society for everyone.

They are trying to turn the tables, to normalize their intolerant thinking again. They are trying to turn back the clock in our society to a place and time where patriarchy and white supremacy ruled, and if you weren't a white male you were worth less.

Don't let them confuse you, or intimidate you,  when you try to do the right thing.