Two Tory MLAs crossing to Wildrose Alliance

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Money, power, clout, favouritism...

Although with the WRA, it would be a "future consideration". I am sure there are a few people who support the party with deep pockets who wouldn't mind buying a few high profile candidates.

We don't have any of that? And you can view donors on the Elections Alberta website... So I'm not so sure that flies.

Potential future considerations that may or may not come to fruition aren't really high on anyone's must have lists...

That's a lot of straws.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by troutman

How can anyone love or hate a party that has no policies or candidates yet?

Actually, we have more listed policies than the PCs do and they're doing fairly well.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by troutman

Pre-law!

Forgive my miseducation on how to become a lawyer because quite frankly I have zero interest in the field but to become a lawyer I'd have no option but to acquire a Political Sciences degree?

[PyramidsofMars]

I don't like this WRA policy to basically legalize hate speech in the name of protecting free speech rights. Groups like the Aryan Guard can already go out and say horrible things and spread hate as long as they choose their words wisely, do we really want an Alberta in which there are no limits on free speech whatsoever?

In every other way, the WRA seems like they will basically replace the PC's. Smith will probably be pretty incompetent as well. I have met Dr. Swann multiple times and I think he's a stand-up guy, but I don't think he would do a better job of leading the province than the other candidates (although I guess we don't know who the Tory candidate is just yet). I will not vote in the upcoming provincial election. It's unlike me, but I can't bring myself to give half a crap about any of these guys.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by troutman

Pre-law!

Political Science seems one of the least interesting things you could do as a precursor to law school.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Exhibit A - Stephen Harper's 'conservative' government, which is for all intents and purposes is indistinguishable in policy from the governing liberals of the late 1990s - minus some of the lethargy and political scandal).

One of the more admirable things about Harper's government is its confrontation and discussion of a Canadian identity, and attempt, which may or may not be futile, to foster this through the new citizenship booklet and other things. They also pay far more attention to the West- they are a truly nationwide party. This is a far cry from the Liberals, IMO, for whom the Eastern bias holds true in my eyes. The Liberals, if they were still in power, would be almost unconsciously continuing to divide Canada into racial/ethnic groupings, while the Tories are taking the far nobler line of action of speaking to Canadians at large, and immigrants within the context of becoming Canadian and contributing to Canada.

As for most of the policy being pretty pragmatic and centrist, that's the way Canada always should be, and it's the way I always hope it will be. The moment this country is dominated by ideologues is the moment it ceases to really be Canada to me. Hopefully not in my lifetime.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

I don't like this WRA policy to basically legalize hate speech in the name of protecting free speech rights. Groups like the Aryan Guard can already go out and say horrible things and spread hate as long as they choose their words wisely, do we really want an Alberta in which there are no limits on free speech whatsoever?

Isn't that an oxy moron. As long as there are limits on what I can say, how I can say it, and to whom I can say it to, free speech does not exist.

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Forgive my miseducation on how to become a lawyer because quite frankly I have zero interest in the field but to become a lawyer I'd have no option but to acquire a Political Sciences degree?

Nope, there's a few prior degrees you can take...I'm in Law and Society, my roommate is in Poli Sci. Then there's Canadian Studies and a few others to...Although if you look at the U of C Law program, they say that there is no specific degree for entry into school...it's just some are more likely than others haha.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Actually, we have more listed policies than the PCs do and they're doing fairly well.

http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/our-policies

That is true, the WRA does have policies, and they are specific and well thought out, this is my favourite policy

collect the Alberta personal income tax.

That is the change we need, a party that puts down as an official policy that it will collect the income tax from Albertans.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

I put a political party named after a flower right up there with the Rainbow Party.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Isn't that an oxy moron. As long as there are limits on what I can say, how I can say it, and to whom I can say it to, free speech does not exist.

so if you're getting basic cable (limited cable), are you not getting cable at all?

I realize it's a complicated ideological question and I've spent too much time arguing it anyway, but it all comes down to this: do you want to see bigots spreading their filthy hate speech?

We can already have white pride marches and talk about the "wickedness" and "horrendous atrocities" of gay culture under the current laws. What good could possibly come from altering the Albertan law as it is, which only goes against publication of material which "is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt"?

it's an ideological stance and not remotely a practical one to go for 'FREE SPEECH'. It's a nice dream, but the reality is that unlimited free speech can get really, really ugly. We don't live in a pleasant world, as fortunate as we are to be living in a relatively nice corner of it. It's the same problem all other ideological stances suffer from- they're principles, not pragmatic policies. That's why the NDP as they currently are will never govern Canada and if they do god help us all.

[PyramidsofMars]

just in case people are not quite familiar with Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights and Multiculturalism Act, here it is:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...o_know/720.asp

Take note of the cases and examples discussed and I fail to see why anyone would want it gone unless burning crosses and 'Aryan fests' in Alberta are things you want to see.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

I believe it is disingenuous to believe that the majority of politicians in history have been anything different then what I have bolded in your quote.

Cicero preferred to have his throat slit than live in a world without the republic.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

just in case people are not quite familiar with Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights and Multiculturalism Act, here it is:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...o_know/720.asp

Take note of the cases and examples discussed and I fail to see why anyone would want it gone unless burning crosses and 'Aryan fests' in Alberta are things you want to see.

The HRC should be abolished or at least limited to the intent they were created for which was employment discrimination.

These HRC do nothing but erode the fundementals of democracy and freedom of speech.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The HRC should be abolished or at least limited to the intent they were created for which was employment discrimination.

These HRC do nothing but erode the fundementals of democracy and freedom of speech.

I repeat:

We can already have white pride marches and talk about the "wickedness" and "horrendous atrocities" of gay culture under the current laws. What good could possibly come from altering the Albertan law as it is, which only goes against publication of material which "is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt"?

it's an ideological stance and not remotely a practical one to go for 'FREE SPEECH'. It's a nice dream, but the reality is that unlimited free speech can get really, really ugly. We don't live in a pleasant world, as fortunate as we are to be living in a relatively nice corner of it. It's the same problem all other ideological stances suffer from- they're principles, not pragmatic policies. That's why the NDP as they currently are will never govern Canada and if they do god help us all.

it's really nice that you have such strong principles, but until you explain to me what good it will actually do IN PRACTISE, I'm afraid you're not making much sense.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

just in case people are not quite familiar with Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights and Multiculturalism Act, here it is:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...o_know/720.asp

Take note of the cases and examples discussed and I fail to see why anyone would want it gone unless burning crosses and 'Aryan fests' in Alberta are things you want to see.

I'm pretty sure that hate speech is a part of a larger group of acts known as hate crimes which are included in the criminal code. Could someone with a law background correct me if I'm wrong?

The reason which we wish to abolish section three is not because we want to allow hate speech at all, rather so that people are not brought forth on charges for 'perceived intent'.

Ezra Levant was brought forth on charges under this code for publishing the Muhammed cartoons. Remember that? Do you think he was inciting hatred?

"likely to" and "indicates.. an intention" are fairly subjective.

It's taken away our freedom to disagree. Funny because a scathing article was published in Sherwood Park the day that Paul Hinman spoke out in the legislature against the hate crimes perpetrated on the Jewish community in Calgary - Glenmore. But feel free to listen to the fear-mongerers.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/our-policies

That is true, the WRA does have policies, and they are specific and well thought out, this is my favourite policy



That is the change we need, a party that puts down as an official policy that it will collect the income tax from Albertans.

So you would rather have a party with no set goals or policies? The principles the PCs have listed on their website haven't changed since 2002...

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So you would rather have a party with no set goals or policies? The principles the PCs have listed on their website haven't changed since 2002...

Well as a liberal supporter, I would venture a guess that he is used to such ways of doing things!!

( just a joke before anyone gets offended)

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The reason which we wish to abolish section three is not because we want to allow hate speech at all, rather so that people are not brought forth on charges for 'perceived intent'.

Ezra Levant was brought forth on charges under this code for publishing the Muhammed cartoons. Remember that? Do you think he was inciting hatred?

Nope, definitely not, and I was not aware of that.

It's taken away our freedom to disagree. Funny because a scathing article was published in Sherwood Park the day that Paul Hinman spoke out in the legislature against the hate crimes perpetrated on the Jewish community in Calgary - Glenmore. But feel free to listen to the fear-mongerers.

a scathing article on what?

anyhow, thank you for replying, and thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. Perhaps I did fall for fearmonger tactics.

However, since you seem to be involved with the party, I suggest you think of telling someone not to be so obscure in the meaning of striking this act in your list of policies, and also to give an explanation for something this controversial. As you were able to quickly and efficiently explain the policy, it would be perhaps wise to do so on your website and instantly respond to the fearmongering so perhaps people like myself won't be lead so easily to buying into it.

Not saying I suddenly agree with the policy, just that your reasoned response is appreciated and is food for thought.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Certainly is different than two MLAs crossing to join the fourth (now third) party because of dissatisfaction with the actions of their current party.

Or maybe they're political opportunists looking to get in front of what they hope is a tidal wave of support for their new party from dissatisfied Albertans.

I suspect, like most politicians of all parties, these 2 are more concerned about their personal futures than the future of Alberta.