Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Slava]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

This sums it nicely.

I have a finance background and work in the energy industry. Fiscal policy and the economy meaningfully impact my life, and are naturally areas that I follow closely and value highly.

That doesn't mean I don't consider other things, like social policies, when determining where my vote will go.

But, given imperfect options, one has to make choices.

If there was a fiscally conservative, socially liberal option, that had a realistic shot of winning, they would receive my vote.

It is comforting to know though, that should the UCP form government, the sun will rise the next day and that equal rights for all Albertan's will continue to be protected by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, among other things.

Great post and it leads me to my struggle in deciding who to vote for. It’s not lost on me that basically everyone I know with financial credentials is voting UCP. I also believe that equality and acceptance has never been better in Canada; we’ve made enormous leaps in the past decade or two.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Slava

Great post and it leads me to my struggle in deciding who to vote for. It’s not lost on me that basically everyone I know with financial credentials is voting UCP. I also believe that equality and acceptance has never been better in Canada; we’ve made enormous leaps in the past decade or two.

Alberta after the election will be what it was before, and what it was under the PCs: One of the best places in the Western world for Gays and Minorities. Which is to say, one of the best places in the entirety of human history for those two groups whose actual human rights are enshrined in federal law that 99% of the populace supports. A school having the OPTION to inform parents of their child joining a group is not a human rights violation. We leave all kinds of things up to the discretion of our capable educators, from benign student issues all the way to reporting possible sexual or physical assault of students by family to the police. If someone outs a student who joined this group to their belligerent and homophobic parents that seems more on that educator and not this law change. Conversely, if I was a parent who had a child join this group for at-risk, possibly suicidal students and they ended up taking their own life and I was forbidden to be notified that they were at risk I would be absolutely livid. This isn't as one sided as the hyperbolic alarmist crew likes to pretend it is but that's their schtick.

[Muta]

While not a human rights violation, a school even having the option to inform parents of their childrens' sexual orientation will be enough to prevent kids from feeling safe and secure, in an environment that they should be able to feel safe and secure. I know have friends in the LGBTQ community who tell me exactly this.

The UCP's policy on GSAs is not something they need to turn back the clock on. It just isn't necessary, unless they're placating to a part of their voter base that prefers this.

[Dion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1116460848388689920

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by robbie111

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/former-u...raud-1.4374894

Great, if this is true we are electing one of the most corrupt politicians in Alberta's history. All he needed to do was stay out of his own way and he would have been elected to the leadership of the UCP easily and won a huge landslide in the election. Hopefully the RCMP hauls him off and we get Jean instead.

If? Is there any doubt at this point?

Just a reminder but Prab Gill brought this up in February - including going to the RCMP - and was hit with a cease and desist letter by Kenney's team.

Prab Gill also brought up the Callaway campaign last year.

Originally Posted by Prab Gill, 2018

Mr. Speaker, given that it appears that there were more than $40,000 in very suspicious donations made to a UCP leadership candidate who attacked Brian Jean in the UCP leadership race and who ultimately endorsed the Leader of the Opposition and given that there are rumours that this money actually came from a PAC associated with the Leader of the Opposition, can the government confirm that the Election Commissioner is investigating this PAC and these questionable donations?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5135921/u...cfo-jail-time/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tion-1.5034732
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...raud-1.5066753

Callaway's campaign manager, Cameron Davies, would end up being fined for his involved in obstructing the investigation. Happy Mann - who was in Kenney's inner circle - would also end up being fined. While Lenore Eaton is not just facing fines but jailtime.

It's safe to say that Gill's allegations against the Callaway's campaign have ended up true. Why wouldn't we believe his allegation's of voter fraud by Kenney?

Alberta's election commissioner has ruled that Hardyal Mann made irregular political contributions, and the Calgary political operative alleges the existence of a plan to commit voter fraud in order to secure the election of Jason Kenney as United Conservative Party leader — a controversy that's erupting in the midst of a provincial election.

"Mr. Kenney and his associates, who were equal participants, will assume high elected seats in our government," he wrote.

"However, those of us who did the work for them are left with fines, charges and shame. That is not fair."

The document says Mann told the commissioner that both "the finances for Jeff Callaway's campaign and voter fraud were identified as tactics that would be employed."
-------------------------
The campaign manager for former UCP leadership candidate Jeff Callaway has been fined $15,000 by Alberta's election commissioner for obstruction of an investigation.
-----------------
He said his investigation found Eaton, who was also CFO of Energize Alberta, co-signed a $2,010 cheque to Callaway’s then-communications director Cameron Davies and another worth $3,000 to staffer Jeffrey Park in September 2017. Energize Alberta, however, was prohibited under the act from making contributions.

Gibson said in lieu of a jail sentence, Eaton could face a $50,000 fine and said that his investigation is ongoing.

Multiple people, including former MLA's and Kenney staffers have said that he was involved in this.

This isn't the NDP throwing mud. It's UCP members (and former).

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There is quite obviously no pressing reason to rollback LGBTQ protections, and no such lateral improvement on the economy and pipelines exists in doing so.



This was unnecessary, dangerous, and an ideological move which makes Kenny and the UCP hypocritical when they say they are focusing on the important things.



Just sheer arrogance and hypocrisy by that group in their actions versus their words.

There is indeed prevailing reason to adjust the GSA’s. I believe it was revealed that the current GSA regulations in Alberta are not replicated in any other jurisdiction in North America. This does not automatically equate to being the leader in best practices. I assume this primarily has to do with the law preventing Teachers and administrators from discussing kids involvement in these clubs with parents AT ALL. The UCP position is to allow some discretion in this regard, they’re not saying take them away all together, or even tell every parent everything. How terrible of a society have we become that you can’t even have a contrary opinion to improve a law or regulation, without being jumped all over as being a bigot, or against LGBTQ2 rights.

I’d be surprised if any parent reads this and would be okay if this was their child (a 13 year old):

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/calgaryh...-of-appeal/amp

Cameron pointed out that at the off-site GSA conference, the boy said he “watched a demonstration on how to put a condom on a banana; he was given materials with a space ship shaped like a giant penis with a caption “explore your anus”; (and), he was given a 50-page flip book with step-by-step instructions on how to have sex, with what appears to be an older individual,” Cameron told the court packed with about 60 people inside the room and another 60 outside, where the proceedings could be followed on a screen.

Court heard the boy was also given 153 condoms. Cameron said the boy did not learn about sexually transmitted infections at the conference but had to learn that information from his mother once she found the graphic materials in his room.

I’m sure this (and other example from the article) are rare, or extreme situations that are abnormal from most of these clubs, but the fact is the current regulations allowed this circumstance to exist, and woe to us that we can’t discuss improving the regulations without being called out as going backwards, or prejudice, or whatever.

Seems obvious to me that a very simple amendment needs to be passed that says these clubs must meet on school property, or affirming the already legal rights that the school must notify parents if their kids are taken off site. But to say such a thing would get immediately translated into wanting to take away LGBT2Q youth rights and protections, when in fact the intent would be to protect those very kids.

Yeah it’s pretty easy and common perception to just say all progress when it comes to LGBTQ2 is good, and everyone should just jump on board and say yes no matter what, but there are all levels of consideration, and we’re only better for taking the time to do just that.

So as a parent I don’t agree with the extent that the school can override my rights as a parent, and I’m glad that instead of the UCP hiding their intent to improve the regulations by addressing this issue, they have added it to their platform for all to see; this in-spite of the fact they knew the NDP would squeeze every ounce of ‘bigotry’ talk they could because of this.

Quite the opposite approach of the NDP who brought in the largest tax increase in the provinces history without any mention of it whatsoever.

So I completely reject the premise of your statement: “ This was unnecessary, dangerous, and an ideological move which makes Kenny and the UCP hypocritical when they say they are focusing on the important things.”

And of note this is just one platform issue in a 117 page document. So in that regard they are also not over-emphasizing it either. That is just the NDP grabbing at what they can to spur their rhetoric about the UCP bigots. And this is just my opinion: but this was entirely orchestrated by the NDP for political gain primarily, GSA’s were already solidly in place, but they chose to make the amendment to remove completely the schools ability to discuss this with parents knowing full well that would not play well with parent advocate groups, and would force the UCP to address it in some way. I hope that in reflection you will appreciate that they have prior to the election as opposed to avoiding it all together to just “get elected”.

[Weitz]

I feel like if the story about the GSA facilitator that wasn’t affiliated with the school that took students who were members of the GSA away from the school including to their home didn’t break there wouldn’t be any mention of this.

[GGG]

That case appears to have nothing to do with GSAs. It’s likely never appropriate to remove children from the school with a random adult without a school representative.

This sounds like the failure of a school to properly supervise and vette field trips and conferences it’s clubs attended. If the soccer team went off with out a school representive to get special coaching that would be inappropriate.

Also the repeal of Bill 24 does nothing to stop this from occurring as schools will still have discretion not to inform parents.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by GGG

That case appears to have nothing to do with GSAs. It’s likely never appropriate to remove children from the school with a random adult without a school representative.

This sounds like the failure of a school to properly supervise and vette field trips and conferences it’s clubs attended. If the soccer team went off with out a school representive to get special coaching that would be inappropriate.

Also the repeal of Bill 24 does nothing to stop this from occurring as schools will still have discretion not to inform parents.

In the article it outlines that the student was asked, do you want to attend a conference, and you’ll miss school all day and your parents won’t know. Weather this is a failing of the bill or not, that is how it was represented, and my point is that we should be able to discuss and make amendments on these things without being labeled as “going backwards”.

[Ozy_Flame]

Ace:

I appreciate your side of the story, but I very much disagree with you.

Providing protections for students through GSA's is more critical to individual lives than I think you are giving credit for. You can ask a number of formally at-risk youth coming out of the school system.

Most of what goes on in GSA's is literally just kids, having lunch, discussing normal things in their lives, and using it as a safe spot to avoid bullying and social pressures that come with the territory. Please keep in mind the "S" in this, which includes straight students. It is a general safe spot for all.

You have used an extreme case of actions inside a GSA to represent what goes on inside these groups.

What happens when LGBTQ youth are outed when they are not ready to do so can have severe consequences. There are youth who have been ostricized by their parents and family because its considered shameful, or because they have genuine problem with homosexuality. Here's comments from a recent CBC article that may help articulate some of that fear sentiment.

Perhaps you should ask the LGBTQ2 community about what goes on in these rooms, and what the atmosphere is like to get a real sense. You would probably find very strong opinions that they feel they can open up in those rooms and share with like-minded individuals feelings and information they do not feel comfortable telling educators and moreso parents. I think you'll find quite a support reactive for privacy in these settings.

Whether a GSA is on-site or not is not really the point in this problem; it is the idea of whistleblowing on kids that are in GSAs is left to the school to decide if that is appropriate. There should be no room for a school to pick and choose which clubs a student joins should be relayed to parents.


You have to understand - there are things that some youth can only speak to other youth or trusted confidantes about; not talking about it with parents is not a bad thing, what matters is they talk to the right people that can listen and understand; parents are not therapists nor should they force themselves to be.


This is where I have fundamentally different views than you do on this. And that's OK. Rag on the NDP too if you want. My point about Kenny doing this being dangerous is that he said he wouldn't do this last year, and he completely did, amidst all the fire and fury over economy and pipelines. Telling people not be concerned is covering up his own fallacy like a coward.

[robbie111]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Why wouldn't we believe his allegation's of voter fraud by Kenney?

The fake candidate was bad enough but then to top it off by making up fake email addresses for UCP members and then have those fake accounts vote for Kenney, that's ridiculously corrupt.

Maybe next time they can peruse the local funeral announcements for new Kenney supporters.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ace:

I appreciate your side of the story, but I very much disagree with you.

Providing protections for students through GSA's is more critical to individual lives than I think you are giving credit for. You can ask a number of formally at-risk youth coming out of the school system.

Most of what goes on in GSA's is literally just kids, having lunch, discussing normal things in their lives, and using it as a safe spot to avoid bullying and social pressures that come with the territory. Please keep in mind the "S" in this, which includes straight students. It is a general safe spot for all.

You have used an extreme case of actions inside a GSA to represent what goes on inside these groups.

What happens when LGBTQ youth are outed when they are not ready to do so can have severe consequences. There are youth who have been ostricized by their parents and family because its considered shameful, or because they have genuine problem with homosexuality. Here's comments from a recent CBC article that may help articulate some of that fear sentiment.

Perhaps you should ask the LGBTQ2 community about what goes on in these rooms, and what the atmosphere is like to get a real sense. You would probably find very strong opinions that they feel they can open up in those rooms and share with like-minded individuals feelings and information they do not feel comfortable telling educators and moreso parents. I think you'll find quite a support reactive for privacy in these settings.

Whether a GSA is on-site or not is not really the point in this problem; it is the idea of whistleblowing on kids that are in GSAs is left to the school to decide if that is appropriate. There should be no room for a school to pick and choose which clubs a student joins should be relayed to parents.


You have to understand - there are things that some youth can only speak to other youth or trusted confidantes about; not talking about it with parents is not a bad thing, what matters is they talk to the right people that can listen and understand; parents are not therapists nor should they force themselves to be.


This is where I have fundamentally different views than you do on this. And that's OK. Rag on the NDP too if you want. My point about Kenny doing this being dangerous is that he said he wouldn't do this last year, and he completely did, amidst all the fire and fury over economy and pipelines. Telling people not be concerned is covering up his own fallacy like a coward.

I guess the difference here, is that I’m taking the situation at their word. Nobody is campaigning on eliminating GSA’s. The UCP is campaigning on giving discretion back to those directly involved, for some circumstances; perhaps some of these extreme circumstances. What’s being portrayed instead is they want to “out” all the kids.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Ace

I guess the difference here, is that I’m taking the situation at their word. Nobody is campaigning on eliminating GSA’s. The UCP is campaigning on giving discretion back to those directly involved, for some circumstances; perhaps some of these extreme circumstances. What’s being portrayed instead is they want to “out” all the kids.

I never said anyone was campaigning on eliminating GSAs, and no one is saying teachers are going to out all the kids - that is hyperbole. What is happening is that the legal protection from that happening because of involvements in GSA's is now removed.

Basically if a principal feels like outing a child due to biblical or discriminatory purposes, they can. This was illegal with Bill 24.

I fear for youth now in GSA's. Not from other students, but from people who are supposed to be ensuring protection for them in a safe spot.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ace

In the article it outlines that the student was asked, do you want to attend a conference, and you’ll miss school all day and your parents won’t know. Weather this is a failing of the bill or not, that is how it was represented, and my point is that we should be able to discuss and make amendments on these things without being labeled as “going backwards”.

I realize that, but what does repealing 24 do to prevent that? It restores notification at the discretion of the teacher or school. If the teacher or school chooses not to this still happens and at most schools the default position will be no notification. It’s also unclear from the article when this incident occurred relative to the timing of bill 24.

By the same token Bill 24 does essentially nothing to prevent parents from being notified. If school officials used to have a policy to notify parents in an effort to stamp out a GSA from forming and then sue for their right to continue such policy the next logical step is refusal to comply with the law until their funding is threatened. After that it will be to “accidentally” out kids. This is a paper law that won’t stop bigots.

Who’s behaviour is changed by this law in place or not it place.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The NDP fairy came to visit in Calgary today:

NSFW!

Notley is somehow to blame for what one random spraypainter does?

That's kind of like saying if someone with wearing a Flames hat commits a crime, the Flames have to answer for it.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

NDP Government being sued by small business owners hurt by the inept changes made by NDP ideology:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...oadblocks-grow

That's about as frivolous as it gets. Suing a government because their policies don't serve your interests as much as you want them to? That's a can of worms...

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Ace

In the article it outlines that the student was asked, do you want to attend a conference, and you’ll miss school all day and your parents won’t know. Weather this is a failing of the bill or not, that is how it was represented, and my point is that we should be able to discuss and make amendments on these things without being labeled as “going backwards”.

It wasn't a failing of the Bill though. It was a failing of the school.

Later, Crown attorney Kristan McLeod told the court that parents are supposed to be told when their children are taken off school grounds.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s03.pdf

must provide that the principal is responsible for ensuring
that notification, if any, respecting a voluntary student
organization or an activity referred to in section 16.1(1)
(i) is limited to the fact of the establishment of the
organization or the holding of the activity, and
(ii) is otherwise consistent with the usual practices
relating to notifications of other student
organizations and activities,

A principal must make sure that notification is in line with other activities.

So if the soccer team was going to be brought off-site by some random 'facilitator' and they would miss school, the school would notify parents. The principal must also make sure that parents are aware that those in the GSA would, just the same, be leaving school for an off-site conference. There's also really no limits on principals (and parents) from getting involved in what type of activities are being promoted within the GSA.

So if your argument comes down to "We need to make sure we know if our children might be removed from school and why" Congrats, we're already there! No need to change.

And finally, as is customary for me to point out, the ruling is available for you to read. Don't need to take some bias opinion from a fear monger:
https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploa.../DOC062718.pdf

"There is no evidence that any of these materials were ever promoted by the respondent or GSAs generally, or that the materials ever came into the hands of any students through a GSA. There is no evidence that there is a risk of the material being disseminated to students in GSAs."

And of course when it comes to the safety and health of students, there is a carte blanche responsibility for teachers and principals to get the parents involved.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I never said anyone was campaigning on eliminating GSAs, and no one is saying teachers are going to out all the kids - that is hyperbole. What is happening is that the legal protection from that happening because of involvements in GSA's is now removed.



Basically if a principal feels like outing a child due to biblical or discriminatory purposes, they can. This was illegal with Bill 24.



I fear for youth now in GSA's. Not from other students, but from people who are supposed to be ensuring protection for them in a safe spot.

This is the kind of dialogue I believe is getting shut out in the name of “bigotry”. That’s really my main concern about this. And of course this is the society we live in and both political spectrums have led to this.

I just think there has to be dialogue, and a recognition that improvement is valid. And that’s why my point was perhaps they need an amendment saying the clubs must only meet on site, if the regulation requires complete confidentiality. It doesn’t seem to me that you can open that discussion politically without it turning into immediate shut down as being “against” human rights. Honestly I would expect huge push back on even that as discriminatory, even if it’s root is in safety and protection.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I fear for youth now in GSA's. Not from other students, but from people who are supposed to be ensuring protection for them in a safe spot.

This, for me, misses the main point. It's not about kids in GSAs being outed by some malicious actor. Though there is a risk of that happening, I have to believe it will be rare in practice. The issue is that a kid who might otherwise join a GSA will see some risk of having to have this conversation with their parents and will not join in the first place. There will be fewer kids in GSAs as a result of this policy.

Because the stats show that GSAs contribute to lower suicide rates, this means that some proportion of kids who would otherwise have joined a GSA and reduced their risk of death will, instead, kill themselves.

The policy therefore will result in more dead children.

Unless there's some argument that holds water as to why the UCP policy will offset these deaths with saved lives, the decision to repeal bill 24 appears completely monstrous to me.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Notley is somehow to blame for what one random spraypainter does?

Yet when its racist grafitti, its automatically UCP, funny how that double standard works.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It wasn't a failing of the Bill though.

So if your argument comes down to "We need to make sure we know if our children might be removed from school and why" Congrats, we're already there! No need to change.

And finally, as is customary for me to point out, the ruling is available for you to read. Don't need to take some bias opinion from a fear monger:
https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploa.../DOC062718.pdf

So would that not be the dreaded "outing"?