Alberta's New Premier

Alison Redford is the new premier of Alberta, after winning an upset election to determine the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, over Gary Mar.  I am disappointed in the result, as Redford promises to put "progressive" back in Progressive Conservative Party.  In other words, she will likely move the party leftward.  She also promises "change."

I haven't been paying very much attention to Alberta politics, but I didn't really think change was necessary in Alberta.  Given Alberta's relative success (relative to the other provinces) and conservative politics, the concept of "change" makes me uneasy.  Will a less conservative premier more heavily regulate the oil industry, thus weakening Alberta's economy?

Here's a chilling passage from the Edmonton Journal:

Jacquie Eales voted for Alison Redford on her way home from her 13-year-old daughter’s basketball game.
The 47-year-old Edmontonian, a liberal at heart, didn’t vote on the first ballot. In truth, she says, the Progressive Conservative leadership race wasn’t on her radar. 

Then, on the way into work one morning, she heard Redford on the radio.
“She talked about the importance of education and health care, and those are two things that are important to me,” Eales said Monday. 

“It’s unlikely that there will ever be a Liberal leader in Alberta, so I thought, if I want to make a difference in terms of education and health care, perhaps I need to buy a PC membership and vote for a candidate who might have a chance.” 

But she didn’t immediately buy a membership. That point came when a friend involved with the advocacy group Friends of Medicare sent her an email highlighting Redford’s support for public health care. “I thought, if I want to make a difference, I have to vote.”

Redford might as well be a Liberal.  The thought of a Liberal leading Alberta is frightening.  One of my favorite things about Alberta is its relatively conservative politics.  Here's an even more chilling passage (from the same article):

“I don’t think Mar did himself any favours musing about having a debate about privatizing health care,” Duffy said. “I don’t know which is worse, talking about it or trying to run away from it, but that’s the worst of both worlds.” 

He said Redford’s campaign ran on a classic public-services platform. 

“So here you’ve got Redford talking about education, reaching out to soccer moms, and then Mar starts talking about privatizing medicare,” he said.
“At that point, you’ve got a classic set up between an in touch, family-responsive candidate who wants to deliver public services, and an out-of-touch business guy. ... It’s a perfect contrast.

So, not only does Alberta now have a CINO (Conservative in Name Only) premier, but the favourite would have considered privatizing health care.  Think about what Alberta could have had!

Hopefully, Redford's premiership ends after the next election, which will apparently be soon.  While the Progressive Conservative Party has governed Alberta for about 40 years, that is because Alberta is a conservative place.  Fortunately, conservatives in Alberta have another option, the Wildrose Party, a formerly minor party, that has been making significant gains in polls, even winning one by a wide margin (in 2009).  To me, this party resembles the Tea Party movement.  It is a fiscally conservative, right-libertarian party with a social conservative branch.  With the Progressive Conservative Party moving leftward, the Wildrose Party's niche is expanding, and the Progressive Conservative dynasty in Alberta may hopefully end soon.  It is worth mentioning that the election Redford won had two parts.  Voters wrote two names on their ballots.  In the first part, only the first name on each ballot was counted.  If there was not a majority, the third place candidate's votes were given to the candidate whose name appeared on the ballots that originally went to the third place candidate.  After the first round, Gary Mar had a plurality of the votes, while Alison Redford gained a narrow majority after the second round.  What this means is that Redford did not win the election convincingly, which is good for the Wildrose Party, which will likely attract disgruntled Conservatives next election.  It is also worth mentioning that many people apparently joined the Progressive Conservative Party just to vote for Redford.  

Here are some Wildrose Party ideas/observations that I particularly like:

• Restore the role of elected MLAs by mandating that all votes in the Legislature and caucus be free and reported to the public
• Non-confidence votes would be held as separate and stand-alone votes, allowing MLAs to vote on proposed legislation based on the interests of their constituents
• Implement legislation allowing for citizen-initiated referenda and voter recall (support thresholds to instigate both processes must be sufficiently high to eliminate frivolous initiatives)
• Institute fixed dates for general elections, senate elections, budgets, legislative sessions, and Speeches from the Throne
• Establish an independent Cabinet and MLA pay and benefits review process that prevents the Premier, Cabinet, and MLAs from setting their own salaries
• Create transparency in finances and budgets by ensuring government debts and cash deficits are reported accurately and in a timely manner
• Post MLA expenses online
• Take an aggressive stance with the federal government in regards to the equalization program in order to ensure that billions more of Albertans’ hard-earned tax dollars remain in the province, working for the benefit of Albertans
• Exercise our provincial constitutional rights by demanding that the federal government not regulate our industry or property in the name of “environmental protection”
• We will dismantle Alberta Health Services and gradually decentralize the delivery of health care to locally managed and integrated hospitals, Primary Care Networks, family physicians, specialty centres, long-term care facilities and other health services
• We will reduce wait times for specialists and procedures by opening delivery of publicly paid services to any accredited private and non-profit provider
• In terms of policing, our province is facing significant challenges as it tries to deal with organized crime, gangs, child exploitation, identity theft, and white collar crime. Too often, the rights of the accused and convicted criminals seem to supersede the rights of victims.
• Protect the rights of victims by advocating for federal legislation that would see convicted criminals financially compensate the victims of their crimes without the need for costly civil trials
• Over the last 20 years, the Human Rights Commissions in Alberta have probably been the single worst offender of Rights: i.e. freedom of speech; politically correct activists have used them to punish religious and right-wing social commentators. Even when found not guilty, its expensive and time-consuming
• Restrain per capita infrastructure spending to a level consistent with the national average.
• Streamline and decentralize procedures to ensure more funding flows directly to individuals and families in need, and would phase out regional PDD boards in favour of a more localized approach to funding decision-making
• Encourage small and medium business investment and growth by ensuring Alberta is the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in North America
• End the current government’s failed strategy of picking winners and losers by handing out corporate welfare grants to hand-picked corporations
• CFIB say over-regulation costs Alberta $4B per year. Their 2010 report says Alberta and Manitoba are ranked the lowest among the provinces when it comes to reducing this burden
• According to a Fraser Institute report, a sweet gas well that should take 10 days and $1,000 to get regulatory approval takes almost three years and cost $100,000
• Actively review and reduce the unnecessary regulatory burdens that compromise the competitiveness of our key industries

There were some ideas I didn't like, and many more that I did, but I like the party's overall message.  

Perhaps the election of Alison Redford is a blessing in disguise, as one-party dynasties tend to engender corruption.  Hopefully, the Wildrose Party will continue to gain momentum and make Alberta politics more competitive.

Is Canada Becoming a Police State?

To answer the question that constitutes the title of this post, no.  Of course not.  What an absurd thought.  To those that believe it is, may I suggest moving to Myanmar?  Perhaps that will allow you to see what an actual police state is.  I am a strong believer in “infringing” on people’s rights.  Not their fundamental, inalienable human rights, but the rights that allow them to get away with crime (such as the “right” to privacy).  A reason for jeopardizing that right should be necessary, but it is simply too easy to commit crime because it is too difficult for police to do their jobs. 

It is said that it is preferable for one thousand guilty men to be free than for one innocent man to be incarcerated.  To that, I say, “Huh?”.  If one thousand guilty men were free, as well as one innocent man, then there is the potential for at least one innocent person to become something worse than incarcerated.  The point of a criminal justice system is to lock criminals away from society (to keep society safe), not to keep innocent people from being locked away from society.  At least one possible solution to this is to rid of all these technicalities that free obviously guilty people.  And if someone is probably guilty (beyond reasonable doubt), then it makes sense not to free them.  I reckon the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” has become meaningless (or its meaning has transformed into “beyond the slightest possibility of doubt”). 

Some actual possible solutions: install conspicuous cameras everywhere (in public, of course), allow for random locker searches (lockers are the property of the school, after all), allow for random drug tests, and give police more power in general, while also limiting it.  Personally, I see no harm in any of this.  I welcome any arguments as to why it may be harmful. 

When I hear of accusations of police brutality, or other such accusations against the police, I am usually skeptical.  That someone would make such an accusation for political gain is quite easy to believe.  I do think that there should be an independent agency that performs investigations into police conduct, because sometimes these accusations are genuine, but I would conjecture that some people just have an unreasonable sense of what “rights” they are entitled to, and how the police should treat suspects (as if they were their grandmothers, or something).  And, given what the police do, I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt.  

Is the Death Penalty Outdated?

That the death penalty is outdated is an absurd notion, in my opinion.  What exactly makes something outdated?  I would say that something becomes outdated when a superior alternative is available.  It bothers me when people use the term “outdated” in a sociological context because it is basically a way of saying “traditional” with a negative connotation (even though “traditional” is seemingly gaining a negative connotation of is own), while there are more accurate adjectives available.  What I am trying to say is that “outdated,” in a sociological context, is really nothing more than a buzzword designed to add a negative connotation to a traditional custom or behaviour.  Which, it seems, is basically a way of saying anything short of progressivism (or constant social change) is inherently a bad thing. 

Semantics aside, the debate over the death penalty is becoming heated in the United States with the recent execution of Troy Davis.  I am pro-death penalty.  In fact, I would prefer to see it expanded to crimes such as sexual abuse of children and drug trafficking.  To me, it seems a perfectly ethical, reasonable, and practical option.  But only if it were limited to cases with strong evidence.  My believing in its ethicality is based upon the fact that the victims should be favoured in a criminal justice system.  Murder victims die.  They were not allowed the opportunity to be incarcerated and possibly paroled.  They’re dead.  So, why should their killers be allowed the opportunity not to be dead?  In many cases, the victim was relatively innocent, whereas the killer was not.  So, basically, a system devoid of the death penalty values the life of the killer over the life of the relatively innocent victim.  To me, that does not seem ethical; it, in fact, seems downright unethical.  Hence my belief that the death penalty is ethical.  With prisons ludicrously overcrowded, the death penalty is also practical (I agree with Homer).  It wouldn’t necessarily free up a lot of space, but that is beside the point.

I believe that anyone who believes that the death penalty, or violence, is outdated or barbaric (or, in other words, they believe that humanity has reached a point where everyone can get along without resorting to violence, or something) is living in a delusional fantasy-land.  

Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamist Found Guilty of Sexual Assault

Polygamist Warren Jeffs was found guilty of sexually assaulting two girls, aged 12 and 15, both of whom he joined in "spiritual marriage."  Warren Jeffs is the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), which is a fundamentalist Mormon church that practices polygamy.

Jeffs, who is 55, argued that his religious freedom was being infringed upon.  My question is, what is more important?  The right of an ephebophile to rape 12 and 15 year olds under the guise of religion or the right not to be raped and forced into a marriage with some pervert that is 43 years older than you?  I am glad that, in this case, common sense prevailed.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is the primary denomination of Mormonism.  Polygamy in the LDS Church was ceased in 1890.  About six years later, Utah was admitted to the United States.  The FLDS Church is not affiliated with the LDS Church.  Even when LDS practiced polygamy, it was practiced differently than as is in the FLDS Church:

The way FLDS currently practice polygamy differs in important ways from the way Mormons practiced polygamy in 19th-century Utah. A) Mormons always discouraged divorce, but Utah nevertheless had fairly liberal divorce laws so women could leave polygamous marriages if they so desired. B) Polygamous wives were encouraged to get a good education, and some early Mormon polygamist women became doctors and political activists. C) Polygamous marriages were not typically arranged or reassigned. Women were free to marry whoever they wished. Brigham Young stated the following in 1853: “I am free, and so are you. My advice to the sisters is, 'Never be [married] to any man unless you wish to be.' I say to you High Priests and Elders, 'Never from this time ask a woman to be [married] to you, unless she wants to be; but let the widows and children alone.'” D) Brigham Young came to detest the marriage of men with very young girls. In 1857, he stated, "I shall not [marry] the people as I have done. Old Father Alread brought three young girls 12 & 13 years old. I would not [marry] them to him. They would not be equally yoked together... this is the way that devils are made." E) Only an estimated 5%-30% of 19th-century Mormons were polygamists. The FLDS Church, on the other hand, has no liberal divorce laws, arranges and reassigns marriages, marries old men to young girls, and believes all members of the community should practice polygamy.

On a related note, Utah was the third state to grant women suffrage (after Wyoming and Colorado), which it did in 1895.  In contrast, Saudi Arabia does not allow women to vote.  

My Case for Judicial Reform

I do not know very much about law or the judicial process.  So everything in this post is based on what I do know about it or what I think I know about it. 

I am going to use the Casey Anthony trial as an excuse to make my case for judicial reform.  This case, where the defendant was found not guilty by the jury despite damning evidence, is an example of why such important decisions should not be left up to everyday people.  Several explanations have been given for why the defendant in this case was found not guilty by the jury.  I have not been following this case very closely.  I did watch the final verdict today, however.  I was aware of some of the evidence, and I would have guessed that that evidence would have been enough for a conviction.  If it was, in fact, the case that the evidence was sufficient for a conviction, then why wasn’t there one?  According to some analysts, it was due the human nature of the jury. 

A trial that can determine someone’s fate inovlves an important decision.  That decision is whether or not to convict that person, thereby determining their fate.  In my opinion, the evidence should by analyzed logically and mathematically (possibly by a jury of experts) and that decision should be based on that analysis.  I would imagine that some of the evidence, when presented, appears uninteresting to the jury.  It may not have much of an effect relative to more emotional testimony.  Such evidence may also have to be interpreted by an expert, which would theoretically give that person an opportunity to misrepresent its significance.  

A jury that can be capable of making this decision based on emotion should, in my opinion, not be trusted.  Something else about the current system that I dislike is that it involves lawyers.  Lawyers may have an agenda (i.e. they may get paid more if they win, or they may want to win for the sake of winning, et cetera) and they will do whatever they can to ensure that their agenda is enacted.  The lawyers can, thereby, use their charisma to sway the jury or play to the jury’s emotion. This may be a useful tactic in a lesser debate, but in the case where someone’s fate is at stake, it has no place.