Category Archives: Free Speech

So what will the next excuse be?

Posted on by
13

Yesterday I drove down to Olympic Plaza to make a point and I made that point in spades. Mayor Nenshi claimed that the squatters in Olympic Plaza could not be charged under our city bylaws because they were protected by the Charter of Rights and they were expressing themselves. Nenshi also said that the city does not have the authority to move and arrest people simply based on bylaw infractions. I proved both of those statements utterly wrong in short order.

I did my research. I made sure to park my vehicle in a safe spot where there would be no damage to the park and even put a pan underneath as the truck leaks the odd drop of transmission fluid and I did not want to stain the pavement. I did make sure that I was breaking a bylaw under the same act as those tenting in the park.

I screwed a few signs to the box-liner of my truck with some random and purposely inane demands. I wanted my parallel to the “occupiers” to be as complete as possible. Many have been scratching their heads over the ever changing and increasingly bizarre laundry list of demands being made by the occupiers. It was pretty clear that for a person to be considered as expressing themselves in order to qualify for this apparent Charter protection that a rational goal or demand is not really required. I had my demands and it is not the place of law enforcement to consider whether these were valid demands or not.

Within half an hour bylaw enforcement officers confronted me and demanded that I leave the park. I politely refused to and said that I was exercising my charter right of expression. The officers took my drivers license and registration and went back to their vehicle. They returned to warn me again that I would be charged for a bylaw infraction if I remained. Again I refused to move. They returned to their truck for some period of time then where doubtless many phone calls were made.

Next a couple officers from the Calgary Police Service approached me. They repeated their request that I leave or be charged with bylaw violation. I again refused to leave and stated that I was excersizing my charter right of expression. This pattern continued in a repetitive way for some time as an increasing number of police and bylaw vehicles appeared on the site.

The police finally approached me after this had gone on for perhaps a couple hours to let me know that a towtruck was on the way and that I would have to leave my vehicle in order for it to be towed. I asked the officer to clearly tell me what would happen if I refused to leave my vehicle. He made it very clear that I would be forcibly removed and arrested if I did not leave my truck.

At this point I decided to leave my truck. I had made my point and saw no need to further force the hand of the police nor increase the number of fines that I was getting.

Again to summarize. The Charter of Rights does not prevent the city from enforcing bylaws in Olympic Plaza against protesters. The city of Calgary does have the means and authority to have protesters arrested and removed by force from Olympic Plaza.

Some have been trying to claim that my removal was due to safety reasons and such. That simply is not true or I would have been fined for such. I was fined for incorrectly parking in a park. Some may claim that the reason for the law against that sort of parking is based on safety. Well to that I counter that the law against tenting in the city parks has some basis in safety as well.

A fellow blogger who attended the event did a great summary on his blog and took an excellent photo to make a point.

One of the shots shows the sign in the park that very clearly states that habitation and camping within the park is against the city bylaws. There is even a graphic depiction of a tent with a line through it in case a person may be unable to read or not speak English.  Another shot shows the tents illegally surrounding one of those signs.

Another item of note down there is that the squatters are settling in even more deeply for the winter. A larger structure has been added to their collection of tents and things such as wooden pallets are being piled up. This simply means more damage will be added to the already estimated $40,000 and I see a great deal more safety issues here as the sqatters either freeze body parts off or burn things to stay warm.

This farce has gone on long enough. Calgary city hall has allowed itself to be bullied by a collection of squatters and their bluff for non-enforcement has been called.

Do we have two sets of laws in Calgary? If the City of Calgary continues to refuse to enforce the laws on these squatters while they did not hesitate to charge myself I think that the answer is pretty clear.

 

Petition time.

Posted on by
70

Just yesterday Mayor Nenshi outright told “occupiers” that camping in Olympic Plaza is illegal. While it is good to see that Mayor Nenshi has acknowledged that the activity of these squatters is breaking our laws, it appears that there still is no will on the part of city hall to enforce our laws. Can we get out of compliance with city bylaws simply by claiming that we are expressing ourselves for some vague cause? I don’t think so.

Here is a court ruling from 1994. People tried to camp on Parliament Hill in order to protest and claimed it was protected by the charter. It was ruled that camping in parks is not a Charter protected form of expression twice.

We can all rest assured that the City of Calgary will enforce the law if we do not clear the snow from our sidewalks, park illegally or ride the train without paying. Why is an exception being made for a small group of squatters who have caused thousands of dollars in damage to Olympic Plaza while disrupting legitimately booked events?

Mayor Nenshi and city hall are hoping that our Calgary weather will do their job for them. This is a cowardly approach to their responsibility as guardians of our public property and we as citizens need to speak up when our elected officials shy away from their jobs. Even if a cold snap disperses the “occupiers”, how can we be assured that somebody will not simply set up camp again when the weather breaks? Some of these “occupiers” are on the extreme end of things and may stay out there in any weather. Could we be legally on the hook if an “occupier” gets frostbite or worse while camping in our park?

We need to speak up. Call 311 to register a complaint with city hall. Please register your support on the petition linked below as well. We can have our park cleaned up if we speak up and make our elected officials address this ongoing issue.

Petition requesting equal enforcement of civic bylaws in the city of Calgary.

 

As long as it takes!!

Posted on by
7

Well we are certainly seeing discussion heating up on the collection of kids squatting in Calgary’s Olympic Plaza. The Muslim Heritage Festival had to share their space with a bunch squatters and got to enjoy a lower turnout (probably due to squatters in area) and a distracted event as a result. Other events are coming where groups have booked and paid for Olympic Plaza and those events are now at risk of cancellation due to these squatters. An estimated $40,000 in damage to the park from ground damage to washroom vandalism to damaged paint has occurred due to the squatters and that number can only be expected to grow.

There are only two ways the squatting in our taxfunded park is going to come to an end. One way is if the city stops politely asking the squatters to leave and actually enforces city bylaws on them as they do for the rest of us. The other way will be for Canada as a whole to accept and cave to the demands of these 20 some hipsters and radically change our entire national system. The squatters have already demonstrated that they are more than willing to camp indefinitely in our park and live on the goodwill of the productive. The squatters have repeatedly said that they will stay as long as it takes until their demands are met.

Lets look at the demands that we must meet.
Demand 1:

“We want a Canada that is not looking down the barrel of the same economic rifle that has already fired on the United States. Where the fiat currency with which we currently operate — a currency with a value based solely upon government regulation and law — and the fractional reserve banking system through which it operates, where the required reserves are defined as “nil” by the Bank of Canada Act section 457 (4), are brought to an end.”

Wow. These kids won’t leave our park until we completely change the entire system of Canada’s currency back to the gold standard or something. Yeah, that should happen right away.

Demand 2.

“We want an Alberta that grows its wheat, raises its cattle, cuts its timber and pumps its oil in a manner that is sustainable and to the benefit of the land and to every person, not to the benefit of corporations abroad.”

Hmm pretty broad. Do they mean we should end all exports or all foreign investment in Canada? Both perhaps? OK yeah, that will happen right way there kids.

Demand 3.

“We want a Canada where the debt per-capita does not double in the next decade”

Hmm. I guess we will need to legislate against personal borrowing somehow. This one could be tough but hey, we can get right on that.

Demand 4:

“We want a Canada where every single person is given the democratic representation they deserve, not representation based on mob rule of the majority”

Hmm, a magical system that does not rely on counting individual votes or something. Will the 20 kids determine which representation is deserving? How far will the electorate bend in ending this terrible democratic ruling by uhhh yes the majority.

Demand 5:

“We want a healthcare system based on healing, not on the perpetuation of illness for the sake capital gain.”

Hmm, now we are getting into a conspiracy realm where these folks believe that people are purposely being kept ill for capital gain. Uhhhh OK kids. We will talk to the Illuminati and the Freemasons and see if they can relax that control on people’s health.

Demand #6:

“We want a Canada Where our system of exchange no longer embodies
the logic of a cancer cell.”

Hmm, not sure where to go with this one. Maybe if we ask nicely we can convince cancer cells to change their logic. I see that happening sooner than changing our system of exchange.

Demand #7:

“We want a media that delivers information honestly, no longer filtering it through the lens of corporate or political agendas.”

Hmm. Media conspiracies. OK so we will nationalize all media. That should happen right away. Pravda was such a great paper of the past.

Ok above is just a few of some of the gems these guys are demanding. If you want to go to the source head here. I strongly suspect that it will all make a great deal more sense with the massive consumption of some sort of mind-altering drug however because it sure as hell makes little sense sober. There are all sorts of other broad demands such as ending “systemic inequity” though none can point to direct examples. Some have said they want the oilsands totally shut down while others are on about pipelines. The list of demands appears to be as infinite as the schedule of these squatters.

I guess another thing that can happen is that we let these kids and pretty much anybody with a chip on their shoulder camp in our public spaces any time they want in perpetuity.

This is getting totally unreasonable people. The demands being made are totally in outer space and the damage being caused by the squatters is increasing. Whatever point these guys may have had to be made has been made. We need to move these squatters out of our park.

In the posting on this blog prior to this one there is contact information for making bylaw complaints and for contacting individual aldermen. Call 311 and let the city know that this foolishness has gone on long enough.

We need to equally enforce our bylaws for all.

 

Time to take back Olympic Plaza!

Posted on by
11

This embarrassing and expensive scene has gone on long enough. A small collection of squatters has been camped in our taxfunded park illegally for weeks now and the damages and costs are beginning to mount up. These kids have done an estimated $40,000 in damage alone to our park and the costs will only rise.

The Muslim Heritage day event which was booked and paid for in good faith will now have to hold their event in a dirty park (cant maintain and clean properly with squatters camping) and they will have less space than anticipated due to these tenters. Another group that had booked the plaza for Monday is now seeking a new location as will another group that is booked for Wednesday if we do not kick these kids out of our park.

Olympic Plaza was never designed for camping and due to that the damages are mounting up fast. Costs for extra policing and additional maintenance are building up. How many thousands of dollars will have to be refunded to the legitimate groups that have booked and paid for the plaza that will have to relocated due to the city allowing illegal squatting in our park?

This is a sad and expensive joke and is an embarrassment to our city. There is NO reason that we can’t evict these squatters from our park. There is a hollow and weak case being made that these squatters are protected by the Canadian Charter in this. That again is simply a load of BS. Speech is protected as is expression. Both speech and expression are possible without illegally camping in a downtown park. No rights are being repressed through evicting these kids.

If indeed that cowardly excuse of possible charter issues is valid, then I suggest that none of us in the entire city of Calgary need abide by bylaws ever again. The “occupy” group has never really explained exactly what they are protesting. I guess those of us who ignore other bylaws will not need a real reason for our protest either. If I refuse to licence my dog, I have a charter defense in it. I need only say “I don’t like social inequity and I am not licencing in protest”. By city council logic I am covered by the charter. Can I use this defense if I don’t pay parking tickets? Can I occupy a free seat on the C-Train in protest and make a charter challenge if I get a ticket?

Storage is expensive. I suggest that people should park their RVs and fifth-wheels in Calgary parks. Heck you can even camp there when you please. Dig a firepit for yourself. Vandalize the local bathrooms and displace other people using the park. It is OK. Just claim some vapid complaint about the way the world is and claim your action is your means of expression.

Is it becoming clear yet why making an exception in our bylaws for this gang of camping kids is a big deal? To most people it is something of a no-brainer.

Our city council is hiding in collective fear of the potentially poor optics that may happen if we actually enforce the law and kick these kids from the park. We need to take away their excuses. The fear of a charter challenge is utter BS as demonstrated above. I don’t think we really need to sweat a bunch of ragtag hipsters organizing and taking the city to court on a charter challenge anyway. That is simply way too much work for them. There is no charter right for squatting.

Another common dodge used by city councilors is claiming that there have been few complaints. From what I heard from the person on the other end of a 311 call, there have been many complaints already. Still, we need to ramp up the complaints.

Don’t let our city officials hide on this issue and lets not let these squatters cost the taxpayers any more than they already have!!

We must register our complaints and it must spread. Below are the means to contact city hall and your councilors. Use them and spread the word to neighbors and coworkers who are tired of this. Clearly city hall won’t move without some heavy prodding on this issue.

To begin with, simply call 311. There is an option for bylaw complaints. While on a coffee break give the number a dial and make a formal complaint of people camping after-hours in Olympic Plaza.

Calling is most effective but online complaints can be filed here if that is preferred.

Contacting the aldermen themselves is effective as well. They do try to hide direct contact information when possible. The beginnings of contact information for aldermen can be found here and here though.

On twitter many of our aldermen follow the #yyccc hashtag. Tweet them directly if you are on and demand that our park be cleaned up. Some but not all of our city council is on twitter. Their twitter handles are below.

@nenshi @yycgael @councilorkeats @pootmans @aldjonmar @bpincott @bigredyyc @peterdemong @druhfarrell

This issue will not go away until we as citizens make it go away. We can’t let city hall bury their heads on this while countless thousands of dollars are wasted, our park gets further damaged and innocent groups get displaced from events booked and paid for in good faith. Email tweet and call whoever you can on this folks. It has to come to an end and soon.

Time to move these “occupiers” on.

Posted on by
6

I was going to begin by saying something like “alright, these guys have made their point and now it is time to move on.”. I then realized that the “occupy” Edmonton and Calgary squatters haven’t even figured out what their point is much less made one. The bottom line is that they are a bunch of bored, spoiled malcontents trying to seek a sense of purpose through complaining rather than working whether in an employed sense or in the political/activist sense that our great free nation provides. Taxpayers are paying and people who have legitimately booked parks for functions are at risk of being displaced by these squatters. Park maintenance is falling behind and we may see delays in the outdoor skating rink that we pay for as taxpayers.

Appeasement with this small group of squatting complainers is a waste of time. The city graciously set aside and allowed free camping at St. Patrick’s Island for this. The motley group of the entitled turned up their noses at this and began to squat in our Olympic Plaza  instead. Now should people want to spend an afternoon with their kids on the grass in our downtown park, they will have to weave between tents and protest signs. The “occupiers” have demanded condoms by the way so I would suggest not getting too close to those tents.

I find it outright offensive when I see these directionless layabouts comparing themselves to to the revolutionaries participating in the recent “Arab Spring”, Martin Luther King and even Gandhi. These guys live in one of the most prosperous cities in the most prosperous province in one of the most prosperous countries on earth. Canada is not perfect but we have some of the most open and democratic rights as individuals on the planet in living here. For these “occupiers” to liken themselves to those living in third world dictatorships where civil rights are simply a dream is insulting to say the least. I even saw one person vacuously  claiming that medieval peasants have better standards of living than Canadians do.

On twitter and facebook I have seen people try to claim that if we evict these squatters from our parks that we will violate their charter rights. Sorry folks but that is complete, total, unadulterated bullshit. These guys have full free speech. They have been exercising it on the latest apps as they tweet about their trials and tribulations with their Iphones. We have free expression. The protest and march was allowed and demonstrations will continue to be allowed. That covers free assembly too. In most of the other countries in the world this group would have been locked up in the planning stages of their protest and definitely assaulted when the march began. We rightly have and protect all of those rights to assemble and speak here in Canada.

The self-styled occupying stooges however feel that they have a charter right to camp in a city park. Sorry guys, simple by-law enforcement is not a violation of your rights. I used the analogy before in that if I kicked out people squatting in my backyard I have not violated their rights to assembly, speech or expression. They have all of those rights. They just can’t camp in my yard. It is not that complicated.

It is clear that this handful of people truly do have nothing better to do. To appease and wait them out will be to allow them to turn our beautiful city park into a shantytown that city citizens and visitors will avoid. These guys are playing the game that kids would do where they put their finger as close to your nose as possible and repeatedly chant “Im not touching you” until the victim of the annoyance finally slaps the hand away. The child then will claim they have been wronged of course. It is time to give these kiddies a lesson in life and kick them out of our park. They can go to a campground, back to their mom’s basement or even get a job and a home. Playtime in the taxpayers park is over.

This cause and this group has become an outright laughingstock and even folks on the left are distancing themselves from the remnants squatting in parks. Corbella at the Herald went and visited the park and interviewed the squatters in person. They indeed proved themselves to be as vapid and directionless as they appeared on the outside. In a followup Corbella found that they are not learning anything as time passes.

City bylaws exist for a reason. I don’t agree with all of them and I often feel that we have too many of them. That being said, when you are going to have over a million people living in an area, a degree of regulation is required. I can’t  simply ignore parking rules if I feel the federal government did something I disagreed with and my free assembly rights will not be violated if my vehicle gets towed away. I can’t dispose of motor oil in my garbage and I cant open a commercial production facility in a residential area. I can’t camp in city parks as well.

As I said in the beginning, it is time to kick these kiddies out of our park. If we want to simplify it lets just say it is a matter of bylaw enforcement.

Perhaps (though I hold out limited hope), the eviction of these complainers may help inject a dose of reality into their worlds. We have a myriad of democratic and free means to pursue changes to our governance and system. People can form/join political parties and activist groups. Rallies can be held and marches can be organized. Letters can be written and doors can be knocked (all that work terrifies some though). Sitting around in a park complaining is not an effective (or legal) way to get anything done. Perhaps the bylaw boot to the collected bottoms of this bunch of squatters will encourage them to move on to something productive.

Our city council has been unsurprisingly reticent on this issue. With members such as Farrell and Pincott in there this sort of turning a blind eye to our laws is to be expected I guess. Some on council have some common sense though. I strongly encourage everybody to email members of city council and demand that they enforce our park bylaws as vigourously as they do with our parking bylaws.

If we are going to have regulation and laws, they must be evenly enforced.

Edit:: I want to add this fellow’s video. He hits the nail on the head quite well in describing a day in the life of an “occupier”

Lizzie May and a deep sense of entitlement.

Posted on by
Reply

Strangely while so many people are complaining that our federal elections have been too close together, many of these same people seem to have completely forgotten the mess that was made when Elizabeth May was allowed to participate in the debate in the 2008 election. People claim that they want to see reasoned discussion of issues in this election yet some of those people want the election debate turned into a circus again with the addition of an irrational fringe candidate like Elizabeth May. In 2008 May completely disrupted the debate with shrill interjections and interruptions of the other candidates. Serious issues were lost as other candidates had to battle to simply get a word in edgewise as May kept sidetracking into her strange world of green/socialism.  Lets not forget, Elizabeth May is the person who called Canadian’s stupid on her way in to the last election (and people wonder why Greens cant win seats).

Elizabeth May is no more entitled to enter a televised debate than the leaders of parties such as the Christian Heritage Party or the Marijuana party. These groups are electoral non-entities with single-issue stands and small cult followings.  While these fringe parties certainly have every right to campaign, they have no absolute right to force their way into a debate being held by a consortium of private broadcasters. I am seeing hyperbolic comments about free speech being infringed upon and I am getting tired of it. Just as reducing tax funding for arts does not infringe on free expression, private broadcasters are not infringing on free speech when they choose what they will televise.

People are disengaged enough from politics as it is. The election debate is a good opportunity for people for people to get a close look at the parties in real contention for seats and it helps voters make their decisions. A mistake was made last time and May derailed this fine electoral tool. This should not be allowed to happen again. Had May been somewhat lucid in the last debate perhaps her participation could be considered but come on, May turned the 2008 into a gong-show. May was given the benefit of the doubt once and we have learned from that error.

Elizabeth May and her fringe party are not entitled to sit at the big table during the debates no matter how deeply their sense of entitlement sits. Come back when you have won a seat or two Liz. Until then your party is on the fringe no matter how loudly your followers howl.

I do hope that the consortium holds their ground on the exclusion of May in the debates. Otherwise we likely will see an end to national televised debates of any relevance as the addition of every fringe group with a loud voice continues to dilute the more important and broad policy discussions that only the major parties can provide.

The continued collapse of Alberta’s “progressives”.

Posted on by
1

 While Alberta’s Liberal party still will not shed itself of it’s name (which equates to poison), individual left-wingers in Alberta have tried to cloak themselves by using the term “progressive” rather than Liberal. The vast majority of Albertans do not support left-wing movements however and it has been a rather dark comedy observing “progressives” ripping themselves apart in trying to hide from this reality.

 Eddie Stelmach is continuing to represent the “progressive” part of the Progressive Conservative Party through his continued top-down governance style and out of control spending. The recent flip-flop on teacher salaries and his questioning of the bonuses given to the people that he appointed himself prove a level of incompetence that only a progressive can achieve.

 On the Liberal front, a desperate David Swann issued an open letter begging for other “progressive” movements to join them so that they may possibly retain their status of official opposition in the next general election (the PCs will likely fill that role). Brian (irrelevant) Mason was quick to dismiss Swann’s plea as he is more than happy to keep his party in the two to three seat position that it enjoys. Mason likes being a big fish in a small pond and he will remain there.

 During the Stampede Parade an incident occurred that could not have been better scripted in the symbolism that it represented. An antique car was acquired and Swann along with his dwindling caucus tried to ride in the parade.

 The car broke down and they had to push it.

 Wow. The provincial Liberals forlornly pushing an outdated machine in front of tens of thousands of Albertans who are indifferent to them.

 Another group that dissed Swann’s love letter was the Alberta Party. For those not aware, the Alberta Party is a fringe political party that was taken over by a group of “progressives” who felt that the Liberals and NDP were not serving the needs of that minority of left-wing citizens of Alberta. These progressives rationed that the small pool should be split into wading ponds.

 This group of homeless progressives failed dismally in getting a few thousand signatures in order to form a fresh party so they took the route of taking over a small but existing party.

 The newly anointed leader of the Alberta Party is Edwin Erickson. Some may remember him from when he participated in the takeover of the Alberta Green Party which he subsequently destroyed.

 In light of recent events, it looks like Erickson is taking the skills he learned in dividing the Alberta Green Party and applying them to destroying the fledgling Alberta Party. Below are some transcripts from  Alberta Hansard where the Alberta Party presented to a legislative committee.

The Chair: I would ask that the Alberta Party take their chairs at the
end of the table, please. I’ll ask you to introduce yourselves, please.

Mr. Erickson: I’m Edwin Erickson, the leader of the Alberta Party.
I have an official statement to make from the party.

The Chair: And the other member, please?

Mr. Whyte: My name is Bob Whyte. I’m one of the Edmonton
region elected representatives. I’m perhaps the first person for this
party to register to make a presentation today. My presentation will
be very brief.

 Ok so here we have Edwin Erickson the apparent leader of the party and Bob Whyte a board member of the party each approaching the committee. Whyte felt he had to point out that he was the first person to register for this presentation. The reason for this comes below:

Mr. Erickson: I will make the official statement from the party.
Any other statement is not an official representation of the party and
is certainly not part of our mandate for being here.

 OK, so Erickson has to make it clear that he is the only one who can speak for the party. Elected board members may not do so and will not be considered part of the mandate or official.

 Quite the disclaimer. Rather ironic considering the Alberta Party is still wrapped in their idealistic and delusional “big listen” and that they are trying to come from some sort of high position in supporting democratic rights and free speech.

Mr. Erickson: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
ladies and gentlemen, it’s my pleasure to speak to the committee
on behalf of the Alberta Party. I will take this opportunity to give
you a brief description of our party for your information, followed
by the Alberta Party’s recommendations to the committee.
The revitalized Alberta Party has suspended all its former policies
and on March 4 of this year embarked on a program to reach out to
Albertans through its Big Listen project. The intention of the Big
Listen project is to engage a wide cross-section of Albertans in the
process of creating party policy, with the first fruits of that labour to
be realized at our policy convention in November of this year. The
Big Listen project is born of the Alberta Party’s core belief in
exercising accountability, transparency, and collaboration with
members of the Alberta Party, with participants of the Big Listen,
and with all Albertans.
Although some initial thoughts on potential positive changes in
accountability for funding of leadership campaigns have been items
of discussion within the board of directors and executive of the
Alberta Party, it must be stressed that our party has not yet completed
the first decisive phase of the Big Listen program. Because
that process has not yet been fulfilled, we are not prepared to make
specific recommendations to the committee at this time.
However, we would like to make it known for the record that the
Alberta Party does definitely support in principle the concepts of
funding limitation,accountability,and transparency for all provincial
political parties when conducting partyleadership campaigns. In the
spirit of collaborative effort toward enhanced good government, as

July 8, 2010 Public Safety and Services PS-321

leader of the Alberta Party I extend the offer to work together with
the committee and all other political parties toward this common
goal.In closing, the Alberta Party wishes the committee success with
its endeavours to institute meaningful legislative or regulatory
reform applicable to all. Thank you for the opportunity. I’m
available for your questions.

 OK, so Erickson makes his big presentation which essentially is a plug for their party with no substance. Nothing new there.

 Now it gets more fun:

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Erickson.
I’ll open the floor to Mr. Whyte for some comments.

Mr. Whyte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for upholding my registration to speak here today. Very
briefly, I support the representations that were made in writing by
Mr. Robert Leddy, who is present today and who is a former interim
leader of our party.
I query one of the important statements made by the gentleman
who spoke before who stated, “The revitalized Alberta Party has
suspended all its former policies.” The query is because those
policies which have been adopted by the general membership of the
province continue until they are changed by the general membership
of the province. I think it is suitable to make a representation that a
board of directors cannot discharge the decisions of the general
membership. A board of directors needs to act within the mandate
that has been given to them, and it is on that point that I wanted to
speak here today. I felt if I remained silent, then I would be giving
consent by silence to this statement.
Thank you.

 Whyte has to begin by thanking the Chair for upholding his registration. Clearly Erickson and others in the Alberta Party tried to shut down Whyte’s right to speak to their committee. Thankfully  reason prevailed, Bob Whyte was allowed to speak and we can enjoy this comical event.

 Whyte is rightly mentioning that in their takeover of the Alberta Party, the rights of the existing members were completely ignored. The party constitution was completely trampled on too. How progressive.

 No wonder Erickson wanted Whyte shut out.

The Chair: Thank you.
I’ll open the floor to questions, starting with Mr. Allred.

Mr. Allred: Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Whyte, in your reference to the
former policies of the party, was there any policy that dealt specifically
with this issue of disclosure of leadership campaign funding,
et cetera?

Mr. Whyte: To the best of my knowledge there was not. A lot of
work has been done on it, but it has not received the final imprimatur
of the board of directors.

Mr. Allred: So there never was a policy with regard to disclosure of
leadership campaign funding.

Mr. Whyte: To the best of my knowledge. There is a desire for
transparency and so on, but to the best of my knowledge there is no
exact provision on this.

Mr. Allred: So with regard to this particular issue, then, I would
presume that you and the leader are in concurrence.

Mr. Whyte: Generally speaking, yes.

Mr. Allred: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Allred.

 OK, so through questions it is determined that the original Alberta Party never had any policies with regards to leadership donors.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Erickson, you
were present for the submissions made by the Conservative Party, by
Ms Notley from the New Democrats. Do you generally agree?
Certainly, the Alberta Liberals have been the leaders here. We have
had full and open disclosure for some time. The statements made by Ms
Notley and certainly the statements made by Mr. Smith that they,
too, would like to see an open, transparent disclosure process not
only for donations but also for expenses to leadership campaigns –
you’re the leader of the Alberta Party. What would you like to see
done?

Mr. Erickson: Well, I think my statement that I made saying that
we support in principle the concepts of limited funding, accountability,
and transparency for all political parties pretty well tells you that
we concur with that notion.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Macdonald.
The next question by Ms Calahasen.

Ms Calahasen: I understand that you both agree. According to the
concepts that you’ve been working with on the funding limitation
and accountability, both of you agree that there should be an
accountable measure to be able to deal with financial situations for
leadership races. Is that in fact true?

Mr. Erickson: Yes, that’s the general . . .

10:15

Ms Calahasen: Okay. Knowing that – and I understand that you
have not completed the Big Listen, as you call it – are there any
policies or anything that would guide this party to look at public
disclosure from a context of reporting, and what would your
thoughts be as to who should govern the management of such a
thing?

Mr. Erickson: I’m sorry that I can’t give you any indication in that
direction because of the fact that our process is incomplete. I’m here
today to fortify the concept that we do want increased accountability,
transparency, and fundraising limitation for leadership races.
Unfortunately, I can’t expound on that very much. I’m here to show
my party’s support to the concept.

Ms Calahasen: So if the party is in support of the concept and if our
process is finished before your process is finished, you would live
with whatever we come forward with in recommendations?

Mr. Erickson: Absolutely.

Ms Calahasen: Thank you.

 OK, so Erickson has confirmed that the new Alberta Party has no stand or policy in regards to leadership funding and disclosure either.

In other words, they had nothing to say yet felt compelled to waste time and people’s tax-dollars in order to stand before a public committee and air their internal party dirty laundry.

 Wow, those progressives sure know how to make good public impressions. 

 The entire original document can be found here.

 I sort of wish that the Alberta Party could get a seat or two so we could laugh at their antics in every Hansard. Alas, it is clear that they will rip themselves apart from within long before they get even a single constituency association registered. There is no way this group of folks will get themselves into a position of electability.

 The bottom line in all of this is that a small group of people will simply not face the reality that Alberta is not left-wing and their stunts are getting increasingly pathetic on all fronts as they try to dodge this reality.

 Meanwhile, the Wildrose Alliance Party continues to soar along on the heels of a monumental AGM and packed fundraisers.

 The next election is going to be a fun one indeed.

Concerned Clowns Canada

Posted on by
5

Clowns8

AKA Concerned Christians Canada (a small religious lobby group) is outraged that the Calgary Zoo has a sculpture depicting a dancing elephant outside of their elephant area.

cgy-ganesh-zoo

 Never mind that the sculpture has been there for nearly two years already and nobody really cared. Never mind that Ganesh is a cultural icon (yes a God) that is rather strongly represented in the very area that Calgary’s elephants originate. This outrageous display of religion must be stopped!!! (at least the kooks at the CCC think so)

 One must feel pretty weak in their faith if they fear that the mere sight of a sculpture will suddenly make them renounce and convert to Hinduism.

 There are some very real issues facing people of faith these days. The actions of Human Rights Commissions comes to mind. Fringe groups demanding that religious organizations perform ceremonies that clash with their faith is another.

 A bloody comical looking statue though? Come on you guys. There really must be something better that you could be doing.

 Actions from groups like this only serve to further marginalize people of faith within society.

 I haven’t been to the zoo in years. Perhaps it is time to take the kids down there this weekend.

Keep gagging those MLAs Ed.

Posted on by
2

The Stelmach caucus It is not terribly surprising. Despite having lost what would have been considered one of the PCs safest seats a couple weeks ago, Special Ed clearly has not learned a lesson from it. Ed was sent a message but the message fell on deaf ears. One of the turning points of the Calgary Glenmore by-election campaign was when Diane Colley-Urquhart stated at a forum that she would not put the interests of her constituents ahead of the interests of the party. While Diane was admirably honest in saying that, it killed her chances of winning the seat. People want representation. Is it really that confusing?

 We see now that Kyle Fawcett has been spanked for daring to speak up for his constituents.  Kyle will no doubt be hidden in the back benches for at least an entire term for his attempted show of integrity.

 It is so laughable (in a sad way) when PC candidates try to claim that the only way to get a voice in the legislature is to support the governing party. It is rather clear that the exact opposite is the reality.

 A vote for the PCs is simply a vote for the dictatorial judgement of Ed Stelmach. No PC MLA is allowed to speak for themselves or their constituents. This is pretty much a proven fact now. A vote for the PCs is nothing less than a wasted vote. One almost has to wonder why we have 83 seats? Why don’t we eliminate them and simply make one nice big throne for Ed?

 The Wildrose Alliance Party will allow MLAs to represent their constituents. It is clear that Albertans are realizing this as the party growth has been explosive.

 I do fear for how much damage Ed Stelmach will do to the province before Albertans get the next chance to replace him. I am happy though that the replacement for Ed and his tired party is well in the works.

Special Ed lays down the law.

Posted on by
4

 Guy Boutilier performed the worst sin imaginable in Ed Stelmach’s caucus; he dared to speak up for his constituents. For the crime of showing a backbone and acting on behalf of the people who entrusted him with their vote, Boutilier has been kicked out of the P.C. Caucus. No hearing, no defense and no appeal.

 You can always tell when the government is doing something distasteful. The government always does these things late on a Friday night in hopes that it will blow over on the weekend when people are not paying attention. Eddie’s main man Tom Olson (Tom moves his hand and Ed’s mouth moves) certainly was involved in the timing of this decision at least. Stelmach is not media savvy enough to have chosen such a time for this move all by himself. I suspect that despite these efforts, this will not simply go away.

 When Ralph Klein kicked Oberg from caucus, Klein at least let the entire caucus discuss the issue. This incident speaks worlds about the dictatorial nature of Stelmach. Caucus was to meet this Tuesday where other party MLAs could have at least discussed the fate of Guy. Ed took the initiative however and unilaterally kicked Boutilier out in order to avoid having people speak in favor of Guy actually having done his job.

 The PCs are less democratic then ever and this rather proves it. Anybody who actually wants a voice in the legislature that represents their constituency had best either have an opposition MLA or move to Vegreville.

 Not much point in having constituencies when it is clear that Stelmach calls all the shots.

 It is critical that individual MLAs be allowed to represent their constituents. Otherwise we may as well simply elect one person as dictator. Only the Wildrose Alliance Party has policy demanding free votes and the protection of MLAs. I think that a man such as Boutilier who stands by his principles in favor of his constituents would make a nice addition to the party.