Wildrose party: socially conservative (Gay-Straight Alliances)

[SebC]

Here's something that's unlikely to surprise anyone other than First Lady... the Wildrose Party are not "fiscally conservative, socially liberal".

Here's proof:

Kent Hehr presented to the legistlature a non-binding motion to encourage "all school boards to develop policies to support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations".

All Liberals and NDP were for. The PCs were split: 12 for, 23 against. All Wildroses were against.

Seems like it's pretty clear who fits where on the social axis of the political spectrum.

Link: Edmonton Journal

[formulate]

lib·er·al adjective \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\


- given, used, or occurring in generous amounts.

'Socially Liberal' = 'We like to talk, a lot'

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by SebC

Seems like it's pretty clear who fits where on the social axis of the political spectrum.

It's a bit foolish to make that conclusion from a vote on an inconsequential non-binding resolution. Especially considering that less than half of Wildrose MLAs were present and that PC members voted against it 2 to 1 as well.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by SebC

Here's something that's unlikely to surprise anyone other than First Lady... the Wildrose Party are not "fiscally conservative, socially liberal".

Here's proof:

Kent Hehr presented to the legistlature a non-binding motion to encourage "all school boards to develop policies to support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations".

All Liberals and NDP were for. The PCs were split: 12 for, 23 against. All Wildroses were against.

Seems like it's pretty clear who fits where on the social axis of the political spectrum.

Link: Edmonton Journal

Nice how you go right after the Wildrose but ignore that the government made up of ahem "Progressive" Conservatives was the main reason it was defeated.
Did you even read or try and dig around why the Wildrose defeated it? ZOMG they want to burn homosexuals see see!
Do you check under your bed at night for Wildrose members?

[Slava]

I can see the argument against the PC's, but the Wildrose had every single member vote against this on the basis that it's 'redundant'. Frankly speaking, if it's redundant that's all the more reason to be in favour because you aren't making a major change! The Wildrose could've passed this motion though. Instead they are hiding behind lame excuses to say it was unnecessary and one MLA told me he was worried about the potential precedence... which is amusing because if it's redundant than surely the precedence was already set. It's a giant cop-out and failure to act.

It does make me laugh that the Wildrose supporters have trotted out the 'well some PC's voted against it to' line. Great. So one week they're a train wreck and can't be trusted to do anything right, and the week later they justify your votes? Even so, because they are ignorant and wrong, that makes it OK for them to act that way? It's just so disgraceful.

The other reason to note The Wildrose position here is because we all know that in 2016 all we are going to hear is how moderate and progressive they are. How they learned from their past mistakes and cleaned up their act. Clearly they didn't and it hasn't happened.

[Rerun]

Yes, this motion clearly illustrates that 100% of WR MLA's are anti-gay while only 66% of PC MLA's are too.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Yes, this motion clearly illustrates that 100% of WR MLA's are anti-gay while only 66% of PC MLA's are too.

It's a good measure of their tolerance and feelings on inclusion and minority protections. You really have no other defence for this though?

[ComixZone]

edit - ah nvm, don't care enough to comment.

[Maccalus]

Isn't this something that is best handled at a school board level? Why do we elect them if they can't handle something as simple as this?

[19Yzerman19]

^It would be naive to see this as anything but a political move intended to point the finger at WR and others and call them homophobes. And as far as I'm concerned if that tactic works, more power to you, because I legitimately will not vote for bigots. This isn't a deal breaker on voting for them in itself, but if they intend to run the province with a divisive social agenda of any kind, particularly this unforgivably awful one, I'll do everything I can to help someone else get elected.

Consequently, everything like this needs to be flagged and catalogued and presented to the WR leadership next go-around... pressure must be exerted for them to make an unequivocal statement that they are not a party of bigots and want no bigots among them. I required a similar litmus test to vote for a party led by the now PM, and I'll require it again here. It's not a major request: keep this BS out of your politics and spend your energy elsewhere.

Clever move by Kent Hehr though, no?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

^It would be naive to see this as anything but a political move intended to point the finger at WR and others and call them homophobes. And as far as I'm concerned if that tactic works, more power to you, because I legitimately will not vote for bigots. This isn't a deal breaker on voting for them in itself, but if they intend to run the province with a divisive social agenda of any kind, particularly this unforgivably awful one, I'll do everything I can to help someone else get elected.

Consequently, everything like this needs to be flagged and catalogued and presented to the WR leadership next go-around... pressure must be exerted for them to make an unequivocal statement that they are not a party of bigots and want no bigots among them. I required a similar litmus test to vote for a party led by the now PM, and I'll require it again here. It's not a major request: keep this BS out of your politics and spend your energy elsewhere.

Clever move by Kent Hehr though, no?

Or it could be just that Kent feels that the province should support these initiatives? I mean sure, it could be clever, but it could also be a principled stand on an issue facing a number of students.

It really is perplexing to me that some of the opposing votes went that way though. Bridget Pastoor for example, who was a Liberal and crossed the floor to the PCs. Even Greg Weadick in West Lethbridge seemed to be "more progressive" minded than others to me, and he voted against it.

In general, it just seems like a strange thing to oppose though. I would likely never join a GSA or really care personally, but why not support students who want them?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

Isn't this something that is best handled at a school board level? Why do we elect them if they can't handle something as simple as this?

This sounds rational and all, but the problem is that you will get one school board to go ahead and support it and another that won't. That and we really ought not to elect these boards anyway because they've become neutered and useless as a result, but thats a whole other problem.

[Maccalus]

I think the people who opposed it, who usually vote more liberal, are using the justification that it should be up to the school boards themselves. CBC had an MLA on Monday (I think, around noon) who said that exact thing.

[19Yzerman19]

I agree, Slava, I don't see the downside. The argument that it's "redundant" is specious, but is there some other reason to vote against this that I'm not seeing? Besides "Pro gay measure? I vote no!" I mean. I'm actually curious because politically I see no good reason to vote against this and this thread is a good example of why you'd vote for it.

EDIT: Okay, I can see room for an argument about this being a school-board level decision rather than a province wide one. Although in my view there should be no school board that doesn't support this in any event so maybe I'm not totally convinced. Is the argument that if you have a school board in a rural town with, shall we say, more ass-backwards views on gays, they should be able to put the nix on supportive measures for kids who in that environment would probably struggle even more than they would elsewhere? Not sure I buy it.

[GGG]

Why would the government pass any non-binding resolution regardless of topic? Isn't this just a big waste of time.

I mean Hehr should either want to add it to be a requirement of school boards to support LGBT individuals and activities in schools or do nothing. This tokenism does nothing and wastes time. So either it is politically motivated or useless. I believe that Hehr is an intelligent person so that leads me to believe it is politically motivated. I don't apprectiate politicians using issues and people purely to advance themselves politically.

The problem here is that progressive school boards already will adopt these types of measures and backwoods school boards and religious school boards will ignore it. So it does nothing. If you want something like this to happen make it mandatory and force the school boards who disagree to fight it publicly. Instead Hehr just used an issue to gain material for attack adds in the next election.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't apprectiate politicians using issues and people purely to advance themselves politically.

Here is where we part ways. Exposing and highlighting the views of your opponents on social issues is absolutely a legitimate political move. As I said, if this vote reflects the position of the WR on gay issues, I will not vote for them. It's perfectly fair for Kent or anyone to raise that question because it's important to me as a voter, and to a lot of people, and in my view it should be important.

I also don't really agree that public shows of support do nothing. Some confused 14 year old kid sees his MLA standing up for him (or her), it does have some significance. It also acts as an implied censure for school boards who elect to ignore it. Kids get bullied, this might help, not a waste of time imo.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Here is where we part ways. Exposing and highlighting the views of your opponents on social issues is absolutely a legitimate political move. As I said, if this vote reflects the position of the WR on gay issues, I will not vote for them. It's perfectly fair for Kent or anyone to raise that question because it's important to me as a voter, and to a lot of people, and in my view it should be important.

I also don't really agree that public shows of support do nothing. Some confused 14 year old kid sees his MLA standing up for him (or her), it does have some significance. It also acts as an implied censure for school boards who elect to ignore it. Kids get bullied, this might help, not a waste of time imo.

I am sure that there is lots of good well thought out binding legislation that could be created to acutally help LGBT individuals AND expose bigotry in party ranks.

If Hehr actually believes in this bill why not make it mandatory rather than encouraged?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

Isn't this something that is best handled at a school board level? Why do we elect them if they can't handle something as simple as this?

It is being handled at the school board level.

This is instruction from the government that adopting these policies is necessary.

What those policies are is up to the school board to figure out, but the bill makes it mandatory that a school provide the resources necessary should they be requested.

Zero legitimate reasons for this to be voted against.

The motion put forward by Calgary Liberal MLA Kent Hehr would have made gay-straight alliances mandatory in schools where students have requested one.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ture-1.2602757

http://www.teachers.ab.ca/for%20memb...ges/Index.aspx

Mr. Hehr’s motion undoubtedly would have made some social conservatives uncomfortable, but it would have ultimately helped drag some of Alberta’s more stodgy school boards into the 21st century. The motion would not have forced any school board to form student-led gay-straight alliances, but it would have compelled the elected boards to accept the existence of the groups if students in their schools chose to organize them.

Passage of this motion would have sent a strong message that tolerance and acceptance are priorities Alberta’s provincial legislators.

Anti-bullying minister Sandra Jansen voted in favour but Education minister Jeff Johnson voted against it.

Missing from the vote were Premier Dave Hancock and NDP leader Brian Mason, who both later said they would have voted in favour had they been in the Assembly. Wildrose opposition leader Danielle Smith was not present for the vote and it is not clear if she would have voted differently than her party’s MLAs.

The divided PC government caucus also missed an opportunity to send a clear message that they embrace 21st century values by singling out the opposition Wildrose as the only party to unanimously vote against the motion – and remind Albertans of the infamous Lake of Fire. And for the Wildrose, a vote for the motion, even by one or two of that party’s MLAs, would have done a lot of demonstrate the party is more moderate on social issues than its opponents claim.

http://daveberta.ca/2014/04/gay-stra...-hehr-alberta/

GGG, I can't help but believe your indignation is completely misplaced.

There wasn't a single Wildrose MLA to vote for this legislation. Even ONE vote in the positive would have sent a different message than a blanket dismissal of a bill advocating for minority students and their heterosexual counterparts. That even a non-binding piece of legislation without teeth couldn't pass the Alberta legislature is an issue here, not the 'political motivations' of the MLA who proposed it. Let's be serious here.

If you can't even get 1 WildRose MLA and 2/3rds of the PC party to vote in favour of theoretical, lip-service approval, what hope would real legislation have?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

GGG, I can't help but believe your indignation is completely misplaced.

There wasn't a single Wildrose MLA to vote for this legislation. Even ONE vote in the positive would have sent a different message than a blanket dismissal of a bill advocating for minority students and their heterosexual counterparts. That even a non-binding piece of legislation without teeth couldn't pass the Alberta legislature is an issue here, not the 'political motivations' of the MLA who proposed it. Let's be serious here.

If you can't even get 1 WildRose MLA and 2/3rds of the PC party to vote in favour of theoretical, lip-service approval, what hope would real legislation have?

I am a little confused here about the reporting on the bill. The Edmonton Journal is saying the bill is non-binding which to me means the school boards can ignore it. Your quotes suggests that it would be a requirement to support. If it is an actual requirement that the schools would have to support groups if students request them then I absolutely agree with it and my above posts are completely incorrect and Hehr did a good job. If this bill would have forced school boards to do nothing then I stand by my stance.

Real Legislation would fail, but at least it would fail on its merits and not parties using loopholes to say why they are voting against it. It would make a real statement.

If this was a non binding bill for school boards to support groups that are against tobacco and drug use in schools it would be just as useless. If it was a non binding bill to promote birth control use in schools it would be just as useless. Useless legislation is still useless regardless of what issue it addresses. Create real bills that have real affects. Again if this bill would actually force the school boards to do something I withdraw all my comments.

Despite my comments I am still concerned with the Socially conservative bigoted ideas that still exist in the wild rose and PC ranks however this bill is not the way to go about exposing it.

[Kjesse]

While well intentioned I think these kinds of motions are a waste of time. What school board is going to say no if a group of students want to form such an alliance? An on that level, who could prevent it anyway? What's the issue here, use of school resources? Funding to the group? The students already have freedom of association, guaranteed by the Charter.

I find this more a bunch of posturing and an example of politicians being useless, while over-governing, and politicizing and issue that has already been politicized enough.