What is it, exactly, you think you do here?
What is it, exactly, you think you do here?
How we think of the role of government vastly changes what we're willing to accept.
This Week in AB
Don’t get high on your own supply
If someone wants to activate the most triggered amongst us, they choose their words carefully. In 2023, one of those words is “mandate”.
When the UCP launched their nationwide advertising campaign against the federal government’s clean energy draft, the language they used was meant to target people who are most willing to pick up a torch and pitchfork on command — and their success with them will be used as confirmation of greater success than they can reasonably claim.
“Mandate”, of course, is meant to remind people of the “most discriminated against group in (Danielle Smith’s) lifetime” — those who were asked to choose between their job and their “principles”, those who were not welcome travelers to other countries, and those who were restricted from having a beer at the local pub.
The pandemic changed our attitudes towards others and pitted individual responsibility against individual freedom, sure, but even with the exceptionally high number of people who took medical advice to the pharmacies and got their vaccines, and understood that vaccine mandates — and the consequences of not following them — were applied indiscriminately based on the benefit to the public of having access to medical professionals and hospital beds in case other, regular, emergencies came up, a majority of Canadians (61%) were still sympathetic to those who faced consequences over their distrust of the advancement in vaccine technology.
That tells us that even though some tried to capitalize on the “victimization” of that slight few who could not be arsed to trust people who did understand mRNA vaccines, many Canadians were not so influenced by the “us vs them” rhetoric that they lost all empathy for their neighbours — as in, they still held onto their ability to think critically about how people make decisions in a difficult situation.
Sadly, I think that’s why language that works particularly well to stimulate blind rage and mouth frothing in Alberta hasn’t had near the same success in other provinces, let alone at the federal level, since 2015.
Though, we can also look at the 2023 election in Alberta and say that a narrative implying assuredness of the evil in others is no longer doing quite so well here, either.
Not that it’s a shock with Smith. One of the most incredible moments I watched was when she was moderating a Strong and Free Network (formerly Manning Centre) event and said something to the effect of “I don’t understand why all conservatives don’t think like we do” with an air of such certainty that she relinquished any apparent interest in examining why that may be.
However, they are following the burgeoning success of then-Premier Rachel Notley’s campaign to change Canadian’s minds on Alberta oil — the UCP is just targeting the already initiated.
Credit where credit is due; Rachel Notley showed up to spaces where she was welcome but her ideas may not be popular and made the case for supporting local. Smith and the UCP are simply seeking to appeal to an audience who already agrees with them.
And that’s why you don’t get high on your own supply; it might make you feel good in the short term but it won’t improve your overall market share.
Canada
Grabbing that brass ring in Manitoba
Jennifer surely points to an important distinction in saying “a First Nations person smashed through a glass ceiling and broke down barriers within a system not designed for us” — as in, not with the intention to allow anyone’s success other than a privileged few.
I don’t have any experience as a First Nations person, but I am a woman and that is, in my somewhat relatable experience, someone else who is often considered to be facing the obstacle of a “glass ceiling”.
By the bye, a “glass ceiling” refers to a goal that you can “see” but is basically out of reach due to an invisible, yet real, obstacle that prevents you from reaching said goal.
We can call it “tradition” or “convention” but the reality is that some people cling to the idea that if it hasn’t been done before, it should/can not be done in the present/future.
In some circles, we call these people “conservatives” but I digress.
One thing that I discovered when seeking Indigenous women as guests on the podcast is that, in some circles, there exists a defiance against (read: refusal toward) participating in certain processes that are considered a reflection of accepting colonization — such as voting.
This is as sticky as a wicket can be.
By declining to participate, does one actually register their dissent or simply become a voting bloc to be ignored?
The election of Wab Kinew as premier of Manitoba could offer some hope for those who withdrew from a practice they did not want to legitimize with their participation. The question is whether he will make a difference or carry on with the status quo as previous glass ceiling breaker Rachel Notley did.
There’s more…
There’s also a darker side to Manitoba’s election: what the hell was the PC campaign thinking with this ad?
it harkens back to the self-victimization of conservatives, by conservatives.
“We know we’re unpopular AF but on a positive note, no one will know if you voted for us”, is an incredibly self-defeating stance that, in my mind, highlights the ever-shrinking bubble that far too many conservatives have resigned themselves to.
I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before but one of the most useful exercises I was given in university was from a philosophy prof who required us to include one source that called our evidentiary support for our thesis into question.
Reading only opinions you agree with doesn’t build critical thinking; knowing and taking into account the dissenting views does because it will either force you to strengthen your argument or change your mind.
That’s a win-win not just for the opinionated but for those forced to see your hot takes. Just saying.
Bringing a hydrogen bomb to a water balloon fight
Petitions: what are they good for? Absolutely nothing unless the governing party wants to act.
And so goes the continuously sordid tale of Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe.
For some reason, Moe has decided to go after the safety of trans kids by using the notwithstanding clause after receiving 18 letters from people who purportedly have children in Saskatchewan public schools.
Approximately 26% of Saskatchewan’s 1,132,505 population is under the age of 19. So, of the approximately 74% remaining, 0.0000214% of the eligible voting population asked Moe to put parental rights first and the guy is taking that on as some sort of test of his leadership — in case you needed any evidence that some governments only respond to things its elected officials actually want to respond to.
18 letters.
In comparison, “hundreds” showed up to protest.
Let’s not kid ourselves, though — the 18 people who wrote letters are far more likely to vote for Moe’s party than the hundreds who showed up to protest.
Still, as many have pointed out, trans kids are disproportionately at risk of poor mental health outcomes when their families reject them due to their gender expression.
Arguably, all kids are risk of poor mental health outcomes when their families reject them for any reason, but this is one that has data to back it up. That’s why a Saskatchewan justice granted an injunction on the Ministry of Education’s pronoun policy enacted in August.
And the injunction is why Moe suggested his government should invoke the notwithstanding clause to override children’s rights.
If I haven’t made my position clear in the past, I believe children are blossoming people who have their own thoughts, feelings, and intentions. We, as parents and community members, have a responsibility and an expectation to provide guidance, not impose our will.