Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

KRUGGEL: Disgusting but there is some good news here


 
A good political scientist is also, at the very least, a bit of an historian.

Alberta, like the rest of the western world, had not had gay rights in the mainstream for the vast majority of its history. Then in 1997 the Vriend Case was decided at the Supreme Court stating that a Catholic School Board was legally wrong to fire a teacher for the sole reason he was a homosexual. In other words, one's religion didn't trump another person's Charter rights.

This set off a firestorm of debate across the province. Premier Ralph Klein vowed at one point to use the Charter's Notwithstanding Clause, to stand up to the Courts pushing their wildly anti-family agenda. Many Alberta politicians were furious at the ruling. Many Albertans were disgusted and they let it be known.

That was in 1997.

Alberta has always been a socially backwards province. It is a province of three major cities: Grand Prairie, Edmonton, and Calgary and a pile of small towns and other smaller cities. These people have long tied their identity to working the soil and the land in farming, forestry, mining, and of course oil extraction.

My home town is in Northern Alberta. I spent many years of my early life there. I went back in 1997, the time of the Vriend Ruling for a job. By chance, I was back in my hometown. The place had not changed in the 10 years since my last visit. There were two new buildings. That was it. Everything else was as if the town were frozen in time.

That's what rural and small town Alberta has been like for generations: static and insular.

Barrhead follows in the footsteps of Westlock in banning the town from endorsing things like gay pride or any group. They claim they are doing this because a town government should be neutral.

Any student of history knows neutrality favors an oppressor.

Look, I am not surprised that these towns did vote in favor of banning rainbow flags and crosswalks. Oh, private citizens can fly any flag they want and they can paint any part of their property as they see fit. The ban only applies to public properties.

It is the vote totals that tell the important story. In 1997 or even 2007 these votes would have been 95-98% in favor of banning pride flags and crosswalks.

The pro-ban side managed 57% of the vote in Barrhead, and far less in Westlock though it was just over 50%. That is a majority. It is not a 98% majority nor even a 2/3rds majority.

While this issue shows the worst of Alberta it also shows the demographic transformation of the province. Alberta and Albertans are becoming more and more progressive. Leaders like Danielle Smith can stoke the flames of hate and intolerance but can they really? And for how long?

In less than 30 years Alberta has fundamentally changed. What will it look like 30 years from now? I suspect, 30 years from now, the last remnants of social conservatism will be on their collective deathbeds bemoaning the fall of western civilization or some rambling version of that.

As social conservatism recedes, albeit slowly, in Alberta we know that for the rest of Canada - social conservatism is a dead end ideology today.

To that I say, good riddance. We don't need social conservatism and the vast majority of us don't want it.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...

Labels

Show more