Women of ABpoli Hot flashes: Freedom-challenged
This week in AB
Forced birth movement is alive and well in Alberta (and Canada), too
With Roe v Wade officially overturned in the United States, some elected officials (who would deign to make public statements) in Canada heralded the reduction of women's access to healthcare. Far too many were men.
There were women, as well, who publicly came out in support of restricting women's access to healthcare, and a few who came out against.
UCP leadership contender Leela Aheer spoke out against denying women access to healthcare, as did Rebecca Schulz. However, both Schulz and Rajan Sawhney said a government under their leadership would not make any changes to existing barriers to access.
Danielle Smith used the elimination of Roe to stump for vaccine hesitancy because they're totally the same to someone who doesn't really give a damn about healthcare or whether women have access.
Speaking of which, Brian Jean said he would make no changes to current barriers, and no other male candidate could be bothered to answer.
Hmmmm.
Leslyn Lewis, Conservative Party of Canada leadership contender said Canadians should "have a conversation" about restricting women's access to healthcare in Canada as well because of her feelings.
Like all good sales people, Lewis is proposing a "foot in the door" technique, which is to say that in order to get where you want to be, you need to start with some restrictions.
Lewis and her forced birther cult members have chosen to begin with restricting access to safe medical procedures if that decision is based on a fetus's sex.
Many Canadians, I'm sure, can think of reasons why a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy but in western societies, the biological sex is generally not one of them (this is what racially-and-religious-biased policies actually look like).
So, you start with something that a majority of people would, or could, agree with.
Lewis also said that a government under her leadership would end "coerced" abortion, which is all kinds of ironic from someone who believes it's perfectly acceptable to coerce birth; but I digress.
For today, anyway.
Crypto-berta is open for business
The "joke" here is that Jason Kenney said men just "understand tactical politics better than women"; because he's a creep.
Anyways, Alberta is hoping to become the Canadian hub for cryptocurrencies! Because: why not?
Sure, crypto is an extensive drain on energy and we have lots so it's totally a great deal, right?
Well, crypto is tanking but apparently Alberta is the place to be if you want to screw your neighbour (all the puns intended).
Remember that $150 rebate for your winter gas and electricity bills that the UCP promised? Well, they're coming soon, maybe! (But the scams have been here for months).
First, don't click on links from unknown numbers in your text messages -- like, ever.
Second, if Jason Kenney's government really moved "at the speed of business", this would have been done months ago (unless they're the kind of business that starves contractors for 150 days before paying their bills).
Sundre Pro-Rodeo opens with racism and general dumb-fuckery
Conservative supporters in 2022: TRUDEAU DID BLACKFACE!
Also conservative supporters in 2022:
I'm sure we all remember the "embarrassing cousins" comment from Rachel Notley back in 2015.
This is why.
Because we have halfwits who think racism is still a form of entertainment.
The Sundre Pro-Rodeo organizers were reportedly shocked that this "float" made it into the parade and promise it will "never happen again".
But hey -- that twatwaffle in the background is getting a good laugh and isn't that what racism is all about?
(Huge levels of sarcasm there).
Rempel-Garner out of UCP leadership race and also, maybe, CPC caucus
I will not deny in any way that I was disappointed Michelle Rempel-Garner wasn't actually going to run for the leadership.
Her candidacy would have made the race so much more competitive.
In the end, she released a statement saying that while she was more than qualified, the UCP caucus is (like the CPC) too divided and wounded to come together before the next election.
That little comparison had some of her caucus mates in the CPC demanding her conservative cred be cancelled.
Never a dull moment.
There was also a Free Alberta Strategy panel
This panel was held by Free Alberta Strategy. It may sound familiar because Danielle Smith has been touting it for the better part of a month. I was initially expecting it to be like passing roadkill -- you don't really want to have the visual, but you look as you're driving by all the same.
However, this wasn't just an opportunity for Danielle Smith to lay it on as thick as possible, but also for the other candidates to point out how ridiculous it was to suggest Alberta shouldn't be obligated to follow Canadian law.
In my opinion, a few of the candidates did a fine job of dismissing the grandstanding.
Tamara Lich was arrested and ordered back to Ottawa for breaching bail conditions
Tamara Lich, if you haven't been following along, is an Alberta resident and one of the self-identified organizers of the occupation of Ottawa back in February. She was released to a surety (voluntary babysitter) with conditions of bail that included a no-contact order with her fellow convoy people.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, who has since taken over funding her defence, invited Lich to receive a "Freedom Award" at their annual news and government disdain gala.
Of course, the room, as well as her table, were full of convoy proponents and Lich's attendance and proximity were well documented and published widely in a successful attempt to draw attention to Lich breaching her bail conditions. The JCCF then proceeded to fundraise off the alleged injustice they created for her.
I suppose another six days in remand is a small price to pay for "free" legal services.
Whatever game she and her lawyers are playing is between them. Outside of those conversations, though, is another conversation about how "unfairly" Lich is being treated by the enforcement agencies and the courts.
The thing is, she's being treated much like other activists who have broken the law in the same way.
Saying so, however, didn't seem to draw the ire of the right so much as the left. Apparently, more than a few were chuffed at the comparison because those "other activists" possess a moral authority that makes their causes "worthy", while Lich's cause, to their way of thinking, is not.
It probably shouldn't be surprising because the same people who think Lich's cause is highly worthy never said a thing while "left" activists were being charged with breaking laws.
Aristotle is credited with saying "the law is reason unaffected by desire", meaning that the law is not conditional based on personal feelings.
While that is a great segue into a conversation about whether the law is, in fact, just, it's a separate conversation entirely.
In Canada, the law is supposed to be applied equally. If you want to argue that activism should be exempt from the law, go ahead -- just remember that the exemption would also apply to activism you don't like.
Related:
I remember seeing commentary during the rail blockades in 2020 about how protest only works when others are forced into acknowledging the protest through inconvenience.
Logically, I understand why this makes sense; it's the reason unions strike, people march to City Hall or the Legislatures, convoys plug main roadways, and people set up rail and pipeline blockades; screaming into the void is unproductive.
Create an inconvenience for enough people, though, and suddenly you've got attention.
The issue though, isn't that people aren't being heard - there have been so many debates in the House of Commons, provincial Legislatures, and municipal councils over COVID that every side has been heard (over, and over, and over, again).
What people are angry at is they aren't getting their way. Consultation doesn't mean capitulation. Having your say doesn't mean others will be swayed to agree.
Instead, there's a lot of grown adults having temper tantrums because a majority of the population doesn't agree with them.
The people they've allowed to speak on their behalf have their own agenda, and none of their actual concerns are being addressed but they have yet to consider an alternate course of action.
They're little Barry Bees smacking their heads while trying to get through a closed window saying "this time! This time! This time!"
Both-sides-ing us to death (literally)
Kathleen and I had a conversation about journalism back in 2020 with Sheila Pratt (Edmonton Journal) and Catherine Griwkowsky (Alberta Today). Sheila said that the template for reporting did a grave disservice to the public when it came to science, adding it started with climate change coverage decades ago and was rearing its ugly head again during COVID.
Reporting is supposed to include "both sides" of an issue. It's an established template that was meant to remove bias from contentious issues.
That reporting model, while it may work wonders in matters of public policy and government, is kindling for a dumpster fire when it comes to science.
Imagine, for a moment, if reporters felt pressured to report break-ins or homicides in the same way.
"Police say the suspect entered through the front door but we spoke with Ron Smith who is an expert criminal and he said that entry from that point was unlikely due to its visibility from the street."
I mean, that's obviously ridiculous.
Dr. Gunter's point is the same. Why would she accept being on a panel about women's healthcare with someone who is more concerned about morality than healthcare?
As before, I'm not saying the conversation shouldn't happen, but let's make sure we're all having the same conversation; morality of healthcare is a separate discussion from provision of healthcare -- book your guests accordingly.