Alberta Politics Thread

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can't tell if you're unwilling or unable to distinguish between criticism and threats though. Politicians being criticized is absolutely fair game and no one seems to dispute that. But over the top threats of violence (and clearly they have been there) have no place. Wasn't Bill 6 about the time when people were basically making death threats on social media towards MLAs? I would be concerned for myself in that position as well, and no I don't think that is "just part of the job".

What I am saying is its unavoidable, there will always be something that is crossing the line if there is a large enough population of responses.

So to make it as excuse to say that receiving these threats isnt fair for politicians to endure, is not a valid excuse. We can all agree that it shouldn't happen, but again referring to my previous post it is mathematically impossible to avoid. So as a matter of pragmatism we let law enforcement deal with those issues. No matter where we move the goal posts of what is and is not acceptable there will always be a small portion that lies outside of these goals.

Unless your willing to accept a total thought police environment, where every single individual is controlled as per a set of authoritarian rules we will never see a world where these threats dont exist.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Unfortunately social license has some bearing, since it is about public optics on what you're doing and having that support. Pipelines having some of the most scrutinizing sets of eyes on it coast to coast and these types of projects draw in public perception now more than ever.

Okay, I havent seen it. How does one 'acquire' Social Licence? How do you measure it? Are there examples of it ever actually existing or being acquired or used in the past?

I hear the term a lot but so far examples have been few and far between. Non-existent actually.

How come Saudi Arabia and China dont need Social Licence to sell us their Oil and products or build huge Coal Plants?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Locke

How come Saudi Arabia and China dont need Social Licence to sell us their Oil and products or build huge Coal Plants?

Well for one thing those aren't democratic societies, nor do the people have as much say there as they do here.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Unfortunately social license has some bearing, since it is about public optics on what you're doing and having that support. Pipelines having some of the most scrutinizing sets of eyes on it coast to coast and these types of projects draw in public perception now more than ever.

It is a term used to justify a never-ending flow of cash to various "stakeholders."

It's just like being forced to pay off the Mafia before opening up your casino in Atlantic City, except much worse.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well for one thing those aren't democratic societies, nor do the people have as much say there as they do here.

What does democracy have anything to do with pipeline construction?

Polls say that 60% of Canadians support pipelines. Done. Build them.

Or poll communities that live along the ROW. Let's say... 60 km wide corridor. Bet you'd get an even bigger majority.

This is a joke. It's mob politics infringing upon private contracts and property rights.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can't tell if you're unwilling or unable to distinguish between criticism and threats though.

I can't tell if you're unwilling or unable to distinguish between someone saying "this is an inevitable reality" and saying "this is acceptable behaviour".

[Ozy_Flame]

It is. But the point was made as to why Canada can't be more like China or Saudi Arabia. The people's expectation of input and say is much different than it is there. And that's not going to change whether we want it or not. Public perception matters in this country.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The idea is that if hateful comments on social media are bad when they're aimed at politicians, they're bad when they're aimed at all politicians. Not just women, and not just the politicians we like.

I doubt any politician in this country received more social media abuse in the last 10 years than Harper. Which isn't surprising - he was prime minister. Still, I don't recall any public outcries over how Harper was treated.

And of course, this goes beyond politicians. If you have any kind of public profile, you're going to get nasty things said to and about you in social media. The fact it's everywhere doesn't make it right, but it does raise the question of who deserves special protection or sympathy. I think we're agreed on children, but I don't see the point in singling out other groups of people. Especially when there isn't a whole lot we can do about anything short of death threats.

You have completely missed the point save for your very last sentence.

The point is, male politicians DO NOT have to put up with this level of harassment and threatening language. It's just below the surface on some of the commentary on this board too, aside from some of the posts that I've seen removed as well.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley faces a much higher level of threatened violence and personal attack in posts online in the past week — and since her election — than her male counterparts ever get, says a University of Calgary professor.

In the past week, there have been angry social media posts that Notley should be shot, stabbed, or even thrown into a tree grinder. Some of the posts have referred to her as a b---h and other offensive terms.

"It's a whole class of crap that men in politics don't have to think about, much less address," said Melanee Thomas, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Calgary.

Many of the comments stem from the controversy over Bill 6, which extends occupational health and safety rules and workers compensation coverage to paid farm workers in the province.

Even when people fundamentally disagreed with male politicians of a similar level — such as former premiers Ralph Klein and Jim Prentice or former prime minister Stephen Harper — they didn't attack them online with nearly this level of violence, said Thomas, who studies gender-based political inequality.

"We see nastiness that is directed at politicians all of the time, and they deal a lot with that," said Thomas. "It's the level of the nastiness that's directed toward women, particularly the NDP in this case, that we find to be rather alarming. Not surprising, but certainly alarming."

Notley's team made rare move of posting Facebook rules in spring

In the spring, Notley's social media team posted guidelines on Facebook telling people how to conduct themselves in the comments. Among the requirements were restrictions on violent speech and pornographic language.

Thomas can't recall a time that any other Canadian premier had to do the same.

"It is exceptional," said Thomas. "For a premier of the economic engine of the country to say not only, 'Please be respectful,' but 'Stop using pornographic language.' Like — which men in politics ever [have] to deal with that?"

Some have questioned whether the threats against Notley and her cabinet members are "real" security concerns, but Thomas says that doesn't matter.

"It's not harmless, especially in a province that has a terrible track record for violence against women. They might be empty threats and a lot of the bombastic political rhetoric is kind of empty but it's not okay to say, 'I don't like you as a politician therefore I want to kill you.'".

[Locke]

Originally Posted by peter12

It is a term used to justify a never-ending flow of cash to various "stakeholders."

It's just like being forced to pay off the Mafia before opening up your casino in Atlantic City, except much worse.

Yeah, it seems like the right palms need to be greased but instead of money they only accept Bio-Diesel or something equally ridiculous.

[PaperBagger'14]

Flash, even though this is only 1 example of Harper being insulted sexually includes a member of Notleys legislature. The one who posted a picture of Harper and Trudeau that said Gay Boys.

Certainly she's under scrutiny right now, and threats of physical violence are never ok, but it's absurd to compare the insults she's received compared to Klein. i guess John A Macdonald didn't receive vulgar messages on Facebook too because he's a man.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I can't tell if you're unwilling or unable to distinguish between someone saying "this is an inevitable reality" and saying "this is acceptable behaviour".

It was implied with the idea of having a thick skin and not getting too concerned about it. All I can say is that it would concern me!

[Flamenspiel]

Yea, you have to question why there was not any security at these NEB sessions, thugs trying to shutdown a democratic process is not democracy. I would question who exactly these people are? They certainly looked liked professionals, I would question exactly who these people are and their citizenship.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You have completely missed the point save for your very last sentence.

The point is, male politicians DO NOT have to put up with this level of harassment and threatening language. It's just below the surface on some of the commentary on this board too, aside from some of the posts that I've seen removed as well.

I would like to see the actual numbers that support the researchers claim. The reason I say this is because the researcher is only referring to online threats. The growth in access to the internet, as well as platforms that allow said threats to be directly directed to said politicians has dramatically changed over the past two decades. Thus changing sample sizes of the population, which can significantly skew results.

What about threats against Redford? That would be the closest comparable to see if its more driven from more of a political basis or a gender basis.

Ralph Klein was in power pre-social media, Prentice was in power during this social media era however for a significantly shorter time frame, both of which effect sample size.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Slava

It was implied with the idea of having a thick skin and not getting too concerned about it. All I can say is that it would concern me!

Thats a perfectly fine response and I think it would concern most people if they were in that position. But my point is dont go into politics, because "brushing" these off IS part of the job, whether we like it or not.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Flash, even though this is only 1 example of Harper being insulted sexually includes a member of Notleys legislature. The one who posted a picture of Harper and Trudeau that said Gay Boys.

Certainly she's under scrutiny right now, and threats of physical violence are never ok, but it's absurd to compare the insults she's received compared to Klein. i guess John A Macdonald didn't receive vulgar messages on Facebook too because he's a man.

That was actually directed at Jim Prentice and Ric McIver but your point still stands.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

That was actually directed at Jim Prentice and Ric McIver but your point still stands.

From the article:

Even when people fundamentally disagreed with male politicians of a similar level — such as former premiers Ralph Klein and Jim Prentice or former prime minister Stephen Harper — they didn't attack them online with nearly this level of violence, said Thomas, who studies gender-based political inequality.

I also don't remember the same levels of vitriol that people had for Prentice, Klein or McIvor as they have for Notley. McIvor never had the status of Notley, Prentice didn't have the same amount of time in power and Klein was divisive but seemed to have a lot of AB on his side. I know you said you agree and this isn't directed at you.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well for one thing those aren't democratic societies, nor do the people have as much say there as they do here.

Not there, no. But the question you were asked was why the Saudis have 'social license' to sell their oil in Canada.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

From the article:

Even when people fundamentally disagreed with male politicians of a similar level — such as former premiers Ralph Klein and Jim Prentice or former prime minister Stephen Harper — they didn't attack them online with nearly this level of violence, said Thomas, who studies gender-based political inequality.

I also don't remember the same levels of vitriol that people had for Prentice, Klein or McIvor as they have for Notley. McIvor never had the status of Notley, Prentice didn't have the same amount of time in power and Klein was divisive but seemed to have a lot of AB on his side. I know you said you agree and this isn't directed at you.

No they just attacked Klein in person with a pie.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

From the article:

Even when people fundamentally disagreed with male politicians of a similar level — such as former premiers Ralph Klein and Jim Prentice or former prime minister Stephen Harper — they didn't attack them online with nearly this level of violence, said Thomas, who studies gender-based political inequality.

I also don't remember the same levels of vitriol that people had for Prentice, Klein or McIvor as they have for Notley. McIvor never had the status of Notley, Prentice didn't have the same amount of time in power and Klein was divisive but seemed to have a lot of AB on his side. I know you said you agree and this isn't directed at you.

Klein came off as a lovable clown more often than not. Also, he had a persona and personality that none of those other examples, Notley included, could touch.

And if Mr. Thomas thinks Harper was never attacked quite the way Notley has been, he needs only to spend some time at /r/Canada. Especially in threads from before the election. He will be disabused of that notion in a damn hurry.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

From the article:



Even when people fundamentally disagreed with male politicians of a similar level — such as former premiers Ralph Klein and Jim Prentice or former prime minister Stephen Harper — they didn't attack them online with nearly this level of violence, said Thomas, who studies gender-based political inequality.



I also don't remember the same levels of vitriol that people had for Prentice, Klein or McIvor as they have for Notley. McIvor never had the status of Notley, Prentice didn't have the same amount of time in power and Klein was divisive but seemed to have a lot of AB on his side. I know you said you agree and this isn't directed at you.

Could it be because Notley is ramming through all sorts of things that no-one wanted or had even asked for? Her popularity outside the Edmonton Union crowd must be reaching staggeringly low levels by now.