One topic on every ballot is freedom. Casting a ballot is a free act, but as April 23 approaches, it is sorely disappointing only one party includes a concrete plan to address the out of control free speech police known as the Alberta Human Rights Commission. That party is the Wildrose, which would abolish the commission and run claims through small claims court. While I don't expect it high on the list of priorities for the NDP or Liberals, from the PCs, an allegedly conservative party, I expected more.
In fact, Premier Alison Redford promised in her party's leadership election to review the act, specifically the section that has been used to prosecute journalists and Christian pastors for using their God-given right to free speech. By the time the election rolled out, no legislation came forward to remove the bad section and the status of a review could not be confirmed. Free speech, apparently, just isn't a priority for the PCs.
Even worse, the PC government planned to incorporate the unfixed Human Rights Act into the Education Act before the election, which sparked anger from home school supporters and failed to pass before the election. The bill would enable the Human Rights Commission to enforce "respect" for the flawed Act, leading home schoolers to believe they could be targeted by the commissions.
The PCs brought in the ill-named “human rights” laws many years ago and all signs point to the party continuing to champion this completely unworthy cause. I will continue to pay close attention to whether the PCs or any other party comes out clearly and strongly in favour of freedom by amending the Human Rights Act. As of now, the Wildrose is looking pretty lonely on the ballot as a party that cares about free speech.
I shouldn’t be surprised of the lack of priority the PCs have placed on free speech. It follows a long line of bad decisions worthy of the name “progressive” but certainly not “conservative.”
At the Lac La Biche forum, the incumbent MLA used the non-argument of being a farmer with a heritage in the province as proof the government didn’t steal property rights, which caused laughter from the audience. Each candidate seized upon it for some comedic relief. If the incumbent uses such a non-argument, the three challengers surely can too, and it still doesn't settle the matter of whether PC land bills are good or not. For that, one actually must investigate – and when one does, they'll see the amended bills still limit and contravene traditional rights of landowners.
The local NDP candidate made a great point at the St. Paul forum. Even though amendments were made, the problem is the government tried to get away with it. How can they be trusted now with another four years? They were forced to admit they erred on Bills 19 and 36, only after furor erupted in the countryside. It speaks volumes that Liberals, NDP and Wildrose agree on repealing the bills.
The St. Paul forum exposed some bizarre election tactics, such as the threat that if people don’t vote for the incumbent, project funding will disappear. Other rumours abound, like that the new Mennonite School in Two Hills would be cancelled or that rural hospitals will close, as if a different government would turn its back on the people that elected it. Others have informed the Journal of receiving unwelcome correspondence over the choice of political sign displayed on their lawn.
While voting is a sign of a free country, freedom itself appears to be on the ballot this time. Voters are free to chose between Ontario/Joe Clark-style socialism of the PCs, or Albertan-style freedom. Fortunately, voters aren't stupid. Alberta voted strongly in favour of the Reform party when it existed – a strong sign that common sense reigned not too long ago and that one day soon it may return.
