Former Little Bow Riding Executive Responds to Wild Rose Alliance Statement

There are a number of discrepancies with the statement provided by Hal Walker, President of the Provincial Executive for the Wildrose Party (bolded in parentheses).  Below is a rebuttal by Kevin Van Lagen, former Chair of the Little Bow Nomination Committee tasked with running the Wildrose nomination contest:

Hal Walker: “At three nomination events on Saturday November 20th, 414 Wildrose Alliance members in Little Bow cast ballots to select their candidate in the next provincial election.”

True, although only 406 have been verified by the Returning Officer, and there were at least 7 other paid members who were not allowed to vote due to some type of error at the central office. In fact at least two of these had their credit cards charged prior to the cutoff date, but were not on the list.

What do the rules say?

7.6.1 A membership is effective on the date that a legible, complete and acceptable membership application and the membership fee arrive at party headquarters.

Hal Walker: “The nomination process was run in accordance with the candidate nomination rules and procedures as approved by the Party.”

The nomination committee attempted to follow the rules and procedures but was met with resistance by the Provincial Executive on a number of key issues.  Firstly, it was discovered that candidate Ian Donovan had purchased memberships for individuals thus making those memberships invalid.  There were a number of people that tried to pay poll clerks for their memberships hoping that the poll clerks would give the money to Mr. Donovan on their behalf.  This was witnessed by the party official present. Others witnessed Mr. Donovan taking money from individuals outside the voting station in Vulcan.

What do the rules say?

11.1 The following offences will be reported to the PCSC, will be investigated, and may result in the disqualification of an Applicant, Nomination Contestant, or Candidate as the case may be:

11.1.4 Buying of Party memberships for individuals who are not immediate family members;

The party’s response was that Mr. Donovan was simply providing these individuals with a loan.  There is a reason memberships cannot be purchased by anyone other than family members.  It is to prevent abuse and it blurs the clear lines of open, honest, transparent democracy.  Regardless of the intent, Mr. Donovan clearly violated this rule when he purchased memberships for “friends”, to which the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee ignored.

So once again, who is breaking the rules?

There was an issue with the eight (8) mail in ballots that were mysteriously left in Calgary.  As the Returning Officer, I have yet to see these ballots or supporting identification, therefore it was impossible for me to declare them valid and include them in the count.

What do the rules say?

7.8.2 The RO shall supervise the voting and vote count and declare the winner.

7.8.3 The RO shall retain possession and custody of the ballots for fourteen (14) calendar days for delivery, if requested, to the Party. If not so requested, the ballots shall be fully and completely destroyed after the expiration of the fourteen (14) calendar day period. If so requested, confirmation of destruction shall be provided by the RO.

As the RO, it was my responsibility to ensure that the ballots counted were valid.  It would not have been responsible for me to take the word of a staff member from Calgary that he had mail in ballots in his possession.  Further, the staff member was not authorized to validate the mail in ballots.  Those ballots were required to be at the “designated location before the close of voting”.  This did not happen therefore, those ballots could not be counted as they did not meet the requirements as set out in the rules.

7.14 An eligible voter who will be unable to attend the nomination meeting(s) may, by personal individual application to the Party headquarters, request an absentee mail – back ballot.

7.14.1 The signed request must be made no later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the first nomination meeting and must be accompanied by photocopies of the accrediting identification specified in subsection 7.8.1.

7.14.2 The Executive Director shall forward concerns about possible abuse of the absentee mail – back ballots to the Chair of the LCNC, the President, and the PCSC.

7.14.3 The voter must mail back the ballot package (Outer envelope and form, inner privacy envelope with ballot, and photocopies of the accrediting identification specified in subsection 7.8.1) to the designated location before the close of voting.

7.14.4 The Party shall provide supplementary rules and instructions for absentee ballots.

Hal Walker: “The Little Bow Local Candidate Nominating Committee (LCNC), in many instances, failed to follow these rules or maintain neutrality in the race.”

Here is where they go after locally elected volunteers. On multiple occasions the decisions made by the local nomination committee were overruled by the Provincial committee.  It was the local nomination committee’s decision to hold one (1) vote in a central location (Nobleford) and have a convention style vote.  After a complaint by Mr. Donovan we were overruled by the PCSC and forced to have three (3) voting stations throughout the riding.  This was still fair but forced a greater expense and more volunteer time.

Further to this, the LCNC did not want to have a nomination event this fall as it was not prepared to hold a nomination contest at this time.  We did not feel that we could meet many of the party requirements to have such an event on such short notice.  Once again, that recommendation was disregarded by the Provincial committee and a nomination contest date was determined for us.

Lastly there were some issues regarding communication of the Provincial committee’s interpretation of some of the rules.  One thing was said to the Nomination committee while different information was given directly to a candidate.  ALL communication regarding rules and procedures for the nomination process should have been filtered through the LCNC ONLY.  Any concerns or questions by any of the candidates should be asked directly to nomination committee.  Otherwise, why have a local nomination committee?

Hal Walker: “Party staff attended the nomination events in Little Bow to ensure that a fair and unbiased nomination process was run, despite the actions of the LCNC.”

This is conjecture and if there had been a concern about the neutrality of the LCNC, it was not addressed by the Provincial committee during their “thorough investigation” or by either of the candidates.

Hal Walker: “After a thorough review by the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee (PCSC), the PCSC unanimously upheld the results of Saturday’s nomination event which saw Ian Donovan elected as our candidate in Little Bow.”

The LCNC seriously questions how “thorough” the review was and what criteria they based their final decision on.

Hal Walker: “The provision for absentee ballots is specifically written into the candidate nomination rules and procedures in order to ensure that any grassroots member who wishes to vote in the nomination race will have the opportunity to do so – both nomination contestants and the Little Bow LCNC were made aware of this provision”

The LCNC is not questioning whether absentee ballots should be allowed at this time.  However, it is necessary that the proper procedure as outlined in the rules be followed when counting these ballots.  Declaring ballots left in an office somewhere as admissible does not fall within the guidelines.

Hal Walker: “It is regrettable that members of the Little Bow CA and the LCNC do not accept the decision of the grassroots members in this nomination process.”

The LCNC believes in grassroots as we are unpaid volunteers that supported the supposed principals the Wildrose claims to represent.  Local boards ARE grassroots and the election of our representative is fundamental to the democratic process.  This process should not be dictated and manipulated by a few paid employees that are disconnected from the local constituency.  If Danielle Smith wants to lead a party that allows this type of manipulation which shakes the very core of everything the Wildrose purports to believe, than that is a party the executive of the Little Bow Constituency Association cannot stand by.

On behalf of the former executive of the Little Bow Constituency Association, thank you for having this conversation with us.

Won’t back down

QOTW, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, via Stephen Edwards.

“We will not back down from our principles that form the basis of our great country, and we will continue to pursue them on the international stage,” Cannon said. “Some would even say that, because of our attachment to those values, we lost a seat on the council. If that’s the case, then so be it.”

Also at Nat Po…

Kelly McParland: It’s Canada’s foreign policy, stupid!

Getting rejected by this lot is no embarrassment; if anything it’s something to be proud of. It illustrates exactly how the UN works: You start with a set of beliefs, and then you compromise them over time, currying favour with other countries. The mystery remains why the Conservatives took such a belated interest in the council in the first place. Its most recent display of international leadership was … uh … well, I’m sure we’ll think of something. Given the anti-Israel bias that pervades the UN, campaigning for a seat on the Security Council — if it requires the OIC’s approval — is the international equivalent of applying for membership at a club that bans Jews.

John Ivison: You can’t blame it on Ignatieff. (I agree.)

Canada’s foreign policy should not be held to ransom by attempts to bribe small countries into voting for us at the United Nations.

The Conservatives are proud of what they call their “principled” foreign policy — an agenda driven by “right-wing ideology,” according to the Liberals.

But the lesson from this loss is that you can be “principled” or you can be popular. The Prime Minister should have figured out much earlier that you can’t be both.

Lorne Gunter: a meaningless seat in a dysfunctional organization.

Too much to quote. Read it all.

Update Oct 20, 2010: Wall Street Journal – “Bravo, Canada”. And, Charles Adler, you need to run for office. H/T

Is the wind blowing that way now?

With Quebec struggling through reasonable accomodation issues in order to preserve their heritage, France has just voted 335 to 1 on a total ban on of face-covering veils in public spaces.

Similar laws are pending in Belgium, Spain and some Italian municipalities.

Is this the way the wind is beginning to blow in Western Societies? I’m both encouraged and dismayed if this is true. Not specifically about the veils, but rather by the attitudes behind it.

As far as being encouraged goes, I’m pleased to see countries and societies standing up for their own way of life and culture and protecting it from being trampled over by the stampede of Cultural (Reasonable) Accommodation.  I’ve previously discussed this issue in other aspects here, and here.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The reason why so many people want to come to Canada is because it was such a wonderful, stable, and respectful country. We had clear values and respect for one another’s differences. What brought us to that status was a legacy inherited from Britain and France of a predominately Christian philosophy and a structured but flexible legal system based on basic Christian values.

Just as Quebec and France and other countries have been trying to do, I agree that if faced with protecting my culture (which is what has made Canada for example, a wonderful place to live and why people want to come here) that there should be conditions upon migrating to my country.

Foremost, I want to ensure that migrants understand that when they come to Canada, it is to pursue a better life in a Canadian manner, not to seek to rebuild the country in an image of how they would have rather seen their country of origin under those cultural rules.

Increasingly, other countries are saying ‘We are not some place to be considered a tolerant blank-slate-state that you can come in and change to suit your own beliefs’.

I say that there is nothing wrong with this.

I appreciate the differences that other cultures and individuals bring with them, but I recognize that not all of it can, or should be tolerated in Canada. (see Sharia Law, Honor “Crimes”,  etc). Those things are not Canadian and have no place in Canadian Society or Culture. Time and again, I’ve seen other countries stomp on those who say “In my country…” with an immediate and sometimes hostile “You are not in your country!”.

Why are we in Western Societies so afraid to do the same? Is this some form of White Guilt/Wealth Guilt/Survivor Guilt etc? Are we so ashamed of our own cultures and ways of life that we are unwilling as citizens to stand up and defend it?

And why should I be dismayed by this? Frankly, I’m dismayed that there is only a small handful of countries getting on board with protecting themselves and their own ways of life and culture from outside influences.

Personally, I’m willing to say “This is my country and my way of life and my home. If you choose to come to live in my house, there are different rules you’ll have to live by. If that’s unacceptable to you, then I respectfully suggest you find someplace else more to your liking.”

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Accommodating Honour Murder

With Aqsa Parvez finally resting peacefully, her murderers — her very own father and brother — sentenced to the Canadian-style “life in prison” with no chance of parole for 18 years, it’s time for the religious equivalence and multiculturalist types to step forward again and declare that “honour killing,” which I more accurately define as honour murder, is not just Islam’s problem.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP – it’s the bloody patriarchy, stupid!

There is a huge misconception that these crimes occur because of certain religious beliefs. There is no religion that condones the murder of women. It’s the feudal/patriarchal culture of male dominance and control that’s the culprit.

Dr. Amin Muhammad, Professor of Psychiatry at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador – it’s not just Islam, stupid!

While many recent cases in Western society involve Muslims, Dr. Muhammad said honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity.

To which I say: While it may be true that “honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity,” the numbers pale in comparison to the thousands of females murdered each year around the world in the name of Islam for the sake of family honour.

United Nations Population Fund:

Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the “dishonour” of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.

It is dishonest at best to survey the numbers of honour murders committed by Muslims, along with the allowances for honour murder within the legal structures of Islamic nations, such as Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, which can be seen as a tacit endorsement of the practice, and then suggest equivalency among faiths when a handful of honour murders are committed by members of other faiths. Honour murder is a much greater problem for Islam than it is for other faiths and it is ludicrous to even suggest otherwise.

As for endorsement within religious texts, Dosanjh and Muhammed are correct that no religion condones honour murder per se, but they should have been more careful to point out the caveats under Islam that have led to the widespread acceptance of honour murder within Islamic tradition. As an example, Christianity, the faith I know best, provides no justification whatsoever to murder one’s own children or one’s wife, whereas the Qur’an Sura 18 arguably allows for the killing of children not even your own as long as you’ve accurately determined a child will grow up as a non-believer. (How that determination is made, I have no clue.)

Does honour murder occur in other faiths? Yes. Under which faith is it most prevalent, by far? Islam. Which nations tacitly endorse the practice through caveats of law? Islamic nations. That’s the point that must be accepted before reform can be realized, and it’s the critical point that Dosanjh and others prefer to gloss over to our collective detriment.

I credit Dosanjh in one respect, though; his reference to the role political correctness in shaping the response to honour murder.

… political correctness prevents us from demanding that the cultural norms that justify such heinous practices as honour killings have no place anywhere in the world. We must never be too sensitive to call a spade a spade.

As if on cue, some on the pro-dhimmi side are already suggesting Canadian judges should take “cultural practices,” such as honour killing, into consideration out of respect for (I say genuflection at the altar of) multiculturalism. Scaramouche, via Mark Steyn:

John Oakley is seriously entertaining the question of whether Canadian judges should give those who commit “honour” killings a break because they have different “cultural practices” and may not be aware of our norms and laws; defence attorney Lawrence Ben-Eliezer thinks judges should  take these differences into consideration because we have “multiculturalism”.

Canadians, of course, are already aware of what “taking these differences into consideration” means: preferential treatment of en vogue “victim” groups of the political left. What Canadians are less aware of, in my opinion, is the tangible threat posed to Western society by ardent multiculturalism, our Achilles heel.

Dead Babies

While the dumping of twenty-one babies in the Guangfu River, China, is appalling, I can’t help but wonder what people would think if 265 dead babies suddenly appeared on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, the approximate number of infants killed each and every day in Canada in the name of reproductive rights.

Yes, the disdain and contempt rising up toward the inhumane disposal of these children is laudable. But the improper disposal is not the problem; it’s merely evidence of the problem. The problem is these twenty-one Chinese infants are a minuscule portion of the thousands obliterated each day around the planet in the name of reproductive rights.

The world stands suddenly aghast when dead infants line the shores but pays little to no attention to the fact that thousands more like these are being buried in our landfills or flushed into our waterways each and every day of the year. Out of sight, out of mind, it seems.

Do we need any other illustration of the moral repugnance of abortion? What about the moral vacuity of a nation that seemingly prefers not to start an argument than to force its elected leaders to put limits on when and how infants are killed in utero? This even though 60% believe abortion is morally wrong.

Canada, can we start to talk about limits on abortion? And what might those limits be?

Some Thoughts on the Proposed Anthem Amendment

• I unequivocally loathe the suggestion.
• Is the CPC conservative or not? If so, should not a “conservative” government act to conserve or preserve the nation’s traditions?
• Following the thought line of a National Post commenter, the vast majority of people who have served and laid down their lives for this country are male, they are the nation’s sons. The vast majority of those who will further serve and lay down their lives for this great nation are male, they are the nation’s sons.  Do we change the anthem because women are now more prominent in the military and are becoming battle casualties? Is this reason enough?
• Isn’t the whole thing a bit like straightening the deck chairs on the Titanic? I mean, we’re in the hole up to our nostrils, we continue to be taxed on birth, life and death, government is no smaller than it was five years ago, we still involved in war in Afghanistan, and we’ve got people suggesting we should add air pistols to the list of licensed firearms. There are a thousand higher priorities than fiddling with the anthem.
• Misplaced priorities aside, what is there to gain in this enterprise?  Was there some sort of national outcry over the anthem that I didn’t hear about?  Seems to me Canadians sang the living heck of our anthem for two weeks in February, to the point of being hoarse, with tears on our cheeks and pride in our hearts, all of us — male and female and the transgendered/unknown/confused/experimenting.  I didn’t see or hear any females, full or quasi, having identity crises or feeling somehow slighted and emotionally damaged by singing “in all Thy sons’ command.” Tinkering with the anthem is likely to create more headaches for government than having left it completely alone. It causes me to wonder who is the imbecile whispering these dumb suggestions in the PM’s ear? Or is it the man himself?
• Speaking of sexual identity, how far would the government have to go to make a phrase completely sex neutral? And what certainty do we have that whatever is contrived will stand the test of sexual identity evolution, which seems to result in another letter being appended to the acronym each and every year?
• Are there any truly sacred national icons or traditions?  Seriously.

Of What Meaning, Canadian?

There’s a new guide for new Canadians, Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship.  It’s a change from the document that used to be handed out.  It’s more demanding, and, arguably, more political.

The 62-page guidebook, years in the making, replaces the “anemic, slim, stripped-down” version crafted by the Liberals in 1997 with a “more substantial treatment of Canadian history and civics,” said Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the Dominion Institute and among those consulted in the creation of the document.

Having not read the document, I cannot comment on the contents.  However, I fully support the principle.  It is demeaning to assume that new citizens can’t be expected to digest a robust document.  It is unfair to fail to provide them with an exhaustive account of the history and nature of Canada.  A document that demonstrates a healthy respect for the individual and the nation is the best tool we can offer our new Canadians as they build their lives in Canada.

Nonetheless, there is great room for impropriety in this document.  As a supporter of relatively open immigration (and fully supporting being open to refugees), but an opponent of institutionalized multiculturalism and grotesque patriotism (that which borders on, or becomes, nationalism), I am, naturally, concerned that this sort of document will be used to enforce a particular vision of Canada.

Any document we give to immigrants must outline what it has meant to be Canadian, but it could be awfully difficult to outline what it means to be Canadian.  What we need to teach new Canadians is that in liberal society, the individual is paramount; the individual is more important than the nation, than parliament, than the collective, than any particular ethnic group – the individual is more important than any concept or group that looks to subvert one’s personal autonomy.

But still we are left with the question, of what significance is it to be Canadian?  What is the essence of ‘Canadianism’?  Do we look to our founding, to the British North America Act, the last spike, D’Arcy McGee and the like?  Does it take into account the fur trade, the National Policy or the Quiet Revolution?  Does it reflect our newest ‘traditional’ values and institutions: universal health care, ‘peacekeeping’, or a charter that is younger than I?

Geez, is it now based in pop culture?  Does being Canadian mean Tim Hortons, Alexander Keith’s and This Hour Has 22 Minutes?

I submit that we are a nation without a sufficient identity.  Perversely, I think it is our pre-occupation with having, or obtaining, an identity that fosters this deficiency.  The roots of Canada – the societies of Britain and France, the aboriginals – are worth cherishing.  The incarnation and growth of this nation in the context of our southern neighbour, rather than in contrast to her, warrants pride.  The accomplishments of this young nation, so many of which achieved free from anxiety about a ‘national identity’, should have been enough to sustain us.

Is it our collective neurosis that defines us?  Is that the insight that we owe new Canadians?

Why Barack Obama is Better than Stephen Harper

He is head of state.

A trivial controversy makes Canada look like a trivial nation, as the Prime Minister schools the Governor General on her role:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada’s head of state.”Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement issued to Canwest News Service on Thursday. “The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada.”

The extraordinary reminder from the country’s head of government to its top viceregal representative follows an uproar over Jean’s use of the phrase “head of state” when referring to herself during a speech in Paris on Monday.

Stephen Harper is, of course, correct, but I don’t really care.  The nation of Canada is over 100 years old; it’s about time that we move away from an archaic form of governance that is a mere relic from our colonial era.  Canadians deserve the ability to select their own head of state rather than accepting a hereditary monarchy and an appointed representative.  We’re not children.

It is bad enough that we must endure an appointed senate and a head of government that only a handful of citizens get to choose.  Why must we suffer the indignity of being royal subjects as well?

National Post: Legalize Prostitution, Condemn Pornography

The Editorial Board of the National Post today called for legalizing prostitution.  (To be more precise, they call it the “sex trade,” invoking a politically correct term that equates whoring with plumbing or carpentry, as examples, and subtly adds legitimacy to prostitution.)  Legalizing the “sex trade” and introducing “regulatory oversight,” the board proffers, will provide protection for prostitutes and greatly mitigate the likelihood of another Robert Pickton.  The board contends anything is better than what we have today.

A stunning irony (at least to me) is that in the very same paper on the very same day two writers offer extensive condemnations of the pornography industry, reporting that the “adult entertainment” business — despite its multi-billion dollar revenues and legalization — damages its female participants both physically and psychologically.  STDs are rampant in the biz and its contracted female workers are routinely verbally and physically abused, with many exhibiting symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Drug and alcohol abuse/addiction are commonplace reasons for entering the “business” and/or coping within it.  Suicide is not uncommon.  The female “stars” feel forced to perform on the set, that they must accept degradation as part of the job.  They are often not paid what they are promised for their labour.   The consistent message from women who manage to escape the vicious cycle of the established porn industry is that it is no less a meat grinder than Robert Pickton’s herd of pigs.

In almost every respect, save its legality at present, prostitution and pornography are one and the same beast.  Both are built upon the debasement and exploitation of women.  Both have willing and coerced participants who engage in limited contract work.  Both are marked by addiction, abuse and exploitation.  Both have markedly negative effects on society, particularly its key building block, the family.  Neither are models for society.

Why, then, should we think that legalized prostitution and government regulation (of all things) will yield a better result for women and/or society as a whole than has legalized pornography?

G8 Leaders are Delusional

And, yes, that includes Prime Minister Stephen Harper. An alternative headline would be, “Stephen Harper and the CPC are drunk on anthropogenic global warming kool-aid.”

Leaders of the world’s eight foremost industrialized economies have established an aggressive new marker in the battle against climate change: holding the global temperature to a two-degree-Celsius increase.

Good luck with that.

Next Page »