[Thunderball]

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what the Eastern media and Liberal syncophant Warren Kinsella think about Alberta and the Wildrose Party. Its a well loved myth here that Alberta is hard social right republican, and it would be a shame for Ontario to have to think any different.

Good for him to cherrypick a few quotes (likely out of context since Danielle was a columnist and journalist) and spin them into some good old fashioned fearmongery. I notice he didn't think her stance on legalizing red light districts was scary, nor her openly stating she was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, but that sort of runs counter to a hard right social agenda.

First, there is certainly an argument to de-list abortion when essentials like optometry, ambulatory care, physiotherapy and dentistry have been at the mercy of secondary insurance for years. Personal choice, personal cost. I personally don't think that should be the case, but its not a "scary" viewpoint at all. I don't think you'd find a doctor in Canada who would do a third trimester abortion anyway, since the concept is horrifying.

Second, university behavior codes. I assume this is discussing private universities, not imposing them on Canadian public schools, but since Kinsella loves assumption and hyperbole, lets assume I'm right. If I want to go to a religious institute, I should have to agree to abide by their rules. Why else would I go there if not to embrace their morality? If I don't want to, I don't go (and save my money by going to a public institution). The army has a moral code too, including things like hair length. If I don't feel I want to abide by it, I don't sign up. I rejected offers from American schools with moral codes because I don't want to adhere to it. I didn't consider it discrimination, just rules they had that I don't like. They have the right to be backwards and ignorant, I have the right to call it that, and refuse.

On the courts. A lot of people feel the judiciary is there to enforce and interpret laws handed down by the legislative branch, not to create new laws. (of course interpretation can easily create new ones). She's not necessarily agreeing with anything here, just saying there's a case that can be made. Especially if you are of the belief that societal change should not be dictated, but evolved through society. Misguided, sure. Hard right? possibly. But nothing wrong with judicial scrutiny and maintaining a check and balance.

On overriding charter rights. The notwithstanding clause can't even be used on equality, liberty or conscience rights anyway. So in a way she has a very jaded point, probably not a well researched one anyway. Politicians can and do stick handle around these by their interpretation of s. 1 amongst other things. This is a jaded view, but again, not a particularly dangerous one.

Essentially, this is the rambling of a very biased person whose raison d'etre is to try and ressurect his dead party. I think the Toronto Star and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix should keep their opinions of Alberta politics to themselves, since the ignorance displayed in this article, and the Star-Phoenix's attack on Alison Redford were embarassing.