Randy Hillier: Kingmaker in Cattle Country?

Hillier picks a horse in Wildrose Alliance race

Fresh out of helping Tim Hudak become the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party, Randy Hillier has apparently decided to try his hand at kingmaking in another province.

Hillier has endorced Mark Dyrholm for the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance.

The Wildrose Alliance has been steadily picking up steam as the polish continues to wear off the governing Progressive Conservative party of Alberta. Four hundred people showed up to witness a debate in Calgary this week, as the party continues to collect supporters like Tom Flanagan, Phil Klein, and possibly another MLA in Guy Boutilier.

The Western Standard's Hugh MacIntyre reports that Hillier has sent emails endorsing Mark Dyrholm for the leadership of the party.

It may not seem intuitive to suggest that Randy Hillier may be able to exert some pull in this race. However, many observers of the Ontario PC leadership campaign credited Hillier for making the Ontario Human Rights Commission an issue Tim Hudak could capitalize on.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission is, likewise, an issue of some controversy among Albertan conservative circles. The Alberta Tories have provoked displasure among conservatives by conributing further material support for the activities of the AHRC, including the services of government-employed lawyers.

Dyrholm's principal opponent in the leadership contest, Danielle Smith, has taken a stance on the matter that seems very similar to the position that Christine Elliott took, favouring reform over abolition.

She has, however, offered far greater detail regarding what her reforms would entail, calling for an end to the censorship powers detailed in section three of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

"Now it's been perverted so that the human rights commission is delving into an area they shouldn't," said Smith. "They need to be reined in and get back to their original mandate."

Smith is also critical of Bill 44 -- the human rights legislation that would allow parents to withdraw their children from classrooms where religion or sexuality are being taught.

"The Minister [Lindsay Blackett] started out trying to make the human rights commission less powerful and ended up making it more powerful," Smith explained. "You'd think Alberta would be a leader in things like free speech, citizen participation in decision-making and democratic reform. But recent developments like Bill 44 suggest just the opposite."

Mark Dyrholm's position on Alberta's Human Rights Tribunal seems a little more ambiguous. He criticises section three, but doesn't seem to offer any particular prescription for how the HRC issue should be handled.

This, naturally, should make many Albertans wonder if Hillier has been in touch with Dyrholm on the subject and knows something about his position that the rest of Alberta doesn't.

To pretend that Randy Hillier's endorsement is going to decide the Wildrose Alliance leadership race is likely excessive. But it could certainly become a factor.

Just as Hillier helped Tim Hudak win the Ontario PC leadership by virtue of second-choice preference, Hillier could well help Mark Dyrholm win the Wildrose Alliance leadership on the strength of the Human Rights Commission controversy.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Brian Dell - "Canadian Teabaggers"

MJ Murphy - "WAP Leadership Wannabe Endorsed By Rural Separatist"

Charting a Tenuous Course for Human Rights Commissions

From Alberta and Ontario: different conservative visions for the CHRC

From across Canada, different courses are being proposed for the country's contentious Human Rights Commissions.

Some, like Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership candidates Tim Hudak and Randy Hillier, are proposing that such commissions should be abolished.

Others have proposed a radical new course for the HRCs -- a course that Alberta's Progressive Conservative government has chosen to follow with the passage of Bill 44.

Certainly, there are many practical issues with Bill 44. As some have noted, teachers could find themselves facing charges in an Alberta Human Rights Tribunal if a parent decides that they didn't receive sufficient warning about an upcoming lesson on almost anything. This is a serious problem with the legislation.

But as Lafleche notes, Bill 44 is only the most recent move in a political chess game over how Canada's Human Rights Commissions should function -- or if they should exist at all.

In Ontario, as Lafleche notes, the Ontario Human Rights Commission "has been all about the right not to be offended". In many cases it's been the same in Alberta. But in noting that Bill 44 seems to reinforce the "right to be a dullard", Lafleche misses one key point: the "right to be a dullard" seems not only to be about "the right not to be offended", but also about a parent's right to make decisions about their childrens' education.

Parents have long been lectured about the need to manage what their children are or are not exposed to. Disclaimers on television shows warning parents that "viewer discretion is advised", film rating schemes and parental advisory stickers on CDs have long been part of efforts to empower parents to control the extent to which their children are being exposed to violence, foul language or controversial subjects.

Now, for good or for ill, parents are being given an opportunity to make similar decisions in regard to their childrens' education.

Not all Canadians -- and certainly not all Albertans -- will empathize much with the religious conservative who pulls their children out of class because they insist that their children be given abstinence-only sex education. Nor should should they.

But many would agree that morality should not be taught in the classroom. If anyone has the right to teach morality to their children, most people would agree that a child's parents are the only ones who possess that right.

Yet many attempts have been made to smuggle left-wing morality lessons into the classroom. Most Canadians would almost certainly roll their eyes at a religious conservative's complaints regarding a tolerance-minded lesson plan that may try to teach children that homosexuality is normal. But it's impossible to overlook the fact that teaching children that homosexuality isn't immoral -- and in this author's opinion, it most certainly isn't -- is still teaching morality in the classroom.

Any parent uncomfortable with this -- whether most Canadians agree with their reasons or not -- has the right to blow the whistle on this.

But there is a flip side to the entire affair. Bill 44 could be used by parents in Catholic school divisions to pull their children from classrooms in Catholic Schools whenever they are taught that Catholic doctrine dictates that abortion is wrong -- certainly a right that one would expect moderate Catholics to exercise. The same parents could use Bill 44 to pull their children from any lessons in which homosexuality is said to be wrong. Similarly, atheist parents could use Bill 44 to pull their children from lessons related to religion.

Again, Bill 44, in its application, could turn out to be a stalemate, in reality favouring neither side of the so-called "culture war".

This is how it should be considering that liberal democratic governments have no business taking sides in social or cultural affairs.

For Hudak and Hillier, meanwhile, their proposal to abolish Ontario's Human Rights Commission has opened a fissure within their own party. Some, like Christine Elliott -- who is now leading the leadership race -- have insisted that the commissions should be maintained out of political considerations. Others have reminded Ontario Tories that it was a Progressive Conservative government that instituted the HRC in the first place.

Elliott has joined fellow PC leadership candidate Frank Klees in calling for reform of the OHRC. Elliott has yet to articulate any concrete proposals for that reform. Klees, meanwhile, has proposed repealing Section 13 and taking away the Commission's ability to effectively act as a censor, and allow it to focus on clear cases of discrimination.

Of those out to chart a new course for the HRCs, Elliott and Klees are certainly the least radical among them. Alberta's Bill 44 may have charted a course into a pragmatically-tenuous position, but at least the Alberta PCs haven't charted them a course to oblivion.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Richard Shih - "Alberta's Bill 44"

Four Strong Winds - "Why Alberta's Bill 44 Represents a Blow for Alberta's Democracy"

The Begining of the End of the Alberta Conservative Party

When Ralph Klein stepped down as Premier of Alberta and leader of the Conservative Party of Alberta, I thought to myself “Thank god, that drunken asshole of a leader is finally gone.” Two years later I find myself thinking “Wow at least under Klein things were fun."

It’s difficult to admit that Klein is a better leader then Stemach. I mean, looking back on his history the honorable Klein had these gems under his belt.

-Barging into an Edmonton Homeless shelter, then telling homeless man, Mark Shea, to “get a job” while throwing money at him. It turned out Shea had a job, but was unable to afford a home in the Edmonton Area.

-Throwing a book at legislative paige Jennifer Huygen while yelling the immoral phrase “I don’t need this crap”. This incident becomes 100 times worse when people meet Huygen and realize that she is possibly the nicest person on the planet.

-Showing off a paper from a communications class in the legislature and bragged about the grade he received. Later people found out that Klein copied and pasted important sections of the paper from various sources. Since then Albertan students have had to deal with stricter anti-plagiarism laws.

Any one of these incidents would have ended most political careers, so it’s not surprising that Premier Stelmach acts as if Albertans will continue to vote for the Conservative Party till the end of time. However, Stelmach doesn’t seem to understand this simple truth about Albertans – they are a pragmatic people.

So long as his the books were balanced, cash continued to flow, jobs were created— Albertan’s would continue to support the Conservative Party. Klein could have sacrificed Jennifer Huygen to Satan on national television, then throw Mark Shea into a tailings pond and so long as he doled out another “Prosperity Bonus Check” he would have gained another majority government.

The thing when King Ralph began to indicate certain controversial political views such as private healthcare or banning gay marriage – he would eventually back down. He understood that while Albertans would support him on the managing of the economy, if he ever acted on his right wing rhetoric, he’d find a revolution on his hands.
Ed Stelmach doesn’t seem to understand this fact. Since he has taken the reigns he’s managed to redo the royalty system in such a way that he’s managed to anger corporations that felt the increase was unfair AND people that wanted an increase in royalty rates in the first place. Instead of convincing Albertans that nuclear power is safe and emphasizing the economic benefits of it, it feels like the government is ramming it down Albertans' throats. And then there is Bill 44, a bill that is an embarrassment to the Albertan Education system.

The recently passed Bill makes it possible for parents to withdraw their children from classes if a “controversial subject” is brought up— sending fears down everyone’s spine that it will be used to allow parents to pull their children out of class when subjects like evolution, homosexuality, and others are brought up with the justification of protection “human rights”.

Environmentalists, The Teachers' Union, Gay Rights Activists, Athiests, The Oil Industry, all are amazingly being systematically infuriated by the Stelmach Government. And while an election is still years away, legislation like Bill 44 will only serve to rally people against their government.