An open letter to the Wild Rose Party Faithful

Dear Wildrosers:

Odds are, you don't really care about what this "socialist" (who isn;t really a socialist) or "Communist" (who also isn't a Communist) has to say. But I'm gonna say it anyways, because "Free Speech! Fuck yeah!"

You have to make an important decision. Do you want to form government, or die on your hill of Grassroots? Because at the rate you're going, your party will be going the way of the SoCreds. The Wild Rose Party made a great grassroots movement, and gave a voice to those who felt left out of the post-Klein era, but had no chance of forming government until it was built by leaders who saw the big picture and needed to expand the Wild Rose tent.

Sadly, you are about to throw your second consecutive party leader under the bus.

Danielle Smith brought you from Obscurity and Virtual Non-Existence to 16 sitting legislative members, the largest opposition in Alberta since the mid-90's. Her Libertarian values appealed to many PC members and brought them into the fold. But the thing about Libertarians is, in addition to standing up for their liberties, they also respect others, and you had some troubles with that.

Daggers out, you essentially chased her out of your party for that very Libertarian idea, leading to the first time in history a party leader crossed the floor to join another party. And took 8 other MLAs with her. Oh, we all thought it was horrible back then. She single-handedly decimated the opposition, and left the Prentice cons virtually unopposed. Oh, how everyone crucified her, even PC supporters who were suspicious of her motives and how undemocratic we felt the exodus was.

But it turns out you didn't want a Libertarian, you wanted a religious nut with lakes of fire and misogynistic pies, and a hatred of gays and natives. You needed to rebuild and selected Brian Jean as your new leader to help you do so. And how did he ever. You went from five seats to 21, and then another seat in a byelection. But he learned from Harper to keep his members on a leash. When he began declaring that saying certain things was unnacceptable, you started turning on him. When he actually disciplined an MLA over (accidentally) agreeing with a homophobic tweet, you went ballistic. You turn against him for his constant apologies for the behaviour of your elected members because it shows he has no control as leader. And then you complain when he exercises control over his members. He is the one member at least constantly being accountable for not only his actions, but also those of all your other elected representatives. He's shown himself willing to be responsible, and like Smith before him, he realizes that the Wild Rose Party will not form government as long as it is the party of Homophobics and Old White Men ways.

And now, after losing his son during the leadership race, losing his house in the Fort Mac fire and STILL coming into work every day, and working to make his party more appealing, you're getting set to throw him under the bus too.

I want to do a quick lesson with you folks. You gained 7 seats in the last election, but your percentage of the popular vote dropped overall. Now, seats are clearly the more important number, as they are what counts when trying to form government, but without votes, you don't get the seats. At this point, unless you make your party appealing to more people, like Smith and Jean had been trying to do, you won't ever see many more seats. You're close to your limit. Recent polls put you in the lead ahead of PCs and NDP, but remember, PC's came ahead of you in Popular Vote in 2015 and it didn't translate into more seats from them. You need to appeal and get percentages beyond your hardline base. You need to be willing to sacrifice your principles of homophobia and white rights vs aboriginal rights. You need to say "These things aren't as important as low taxes, so we can support low taxes and gays and indigenous peoples."

Or you can keep being the Health and Wealth ultra-religious tent. But that tent is getting even smaller every day. And people are noticing.

Brian Jean may not be the guy you hoped for at the grassroots level. But he could be the guy that if you listen to him, would ensure you actually win in 2019.

But hey, it's your party, your choice. If you don't want to form government that's up to you.

Read more ...

Bill 9. A Step Left, not a Step Forward

Yesterday, the Alberta Legislature introduced Bill 9, "An Act to Modernize Enforcement of Provincial Offences." This bill, sponsored by Hon. Kathleen Ganley, has been touted as a way to end criminalization of those living in poverty and homelessness. And I do think trying to remove jail from the list of things people in poverty with minor offences have to worry about, what it proposes replacing it with is not much better.

What Bill 9 seeks to do, is replace issuing arrest warrants for minor offences with alternative proposals, so that no one faces jail time for a minor offence, such as smoking where they shouldn't be, or a transit fare evasion, or the many bylaws that specifically target the homeless community. That much is admirable. But of course, offenders should be held to account. So the proposals for replacing a warrant include preventing those with outstanding fines from registering a motor vehicle to garnishing wages or income tax and GST.

That's where I have the problem. These people are in poverty. They might not be paying their fines because of their financial situation. Preventing them from owning a vehicle that may be necessary for work, garnishing their wages, or hitting them on their rebates helps keep these people in financial stress, rather than alleviate them. If they were financially able, they would likely pay their fines. They may be waiting to be in a better situation financially to pay them. Most people facing a low-income crisis with fines aren't ignoring them out of rebellion. They're ignoring them out of necessity, and this bill doesn't address that. It actually makes the situation even worse for them.

I get the feeling that this is a dual cost-saving/revenue generating measure. Save costs in the penal system by avoiding jail - which is a good idea honestly, but then generates revenue by prying the money from the hands of those who are unable to pay.

Prevention is the best alternative. Agencies and service providers should be trying to reach out to acquire transit tickets for guests and clients whenever they do calls for donations, when able to do so, agencies should also be more generous. Obviously, consider reasonable need and priorities, but don't be looking for any reason to specifically deny clients tickets. If anyone reading this is able, please donate bus tickets or even passes to any and all agencies you are affiliated with, please!

And also, we should eliminate bylaws that specifically target the homeless population, and make transit transfers transferable. If I buy a 20 pack of socks from Walmart and give away 18 pairs, Walmart doesn't complain because those people then don't buy socks from them. If I purchase 90 minutes of transit fare, and only need to go two train stations, what I do with the remaining time is my business, and that should include giving it to someone in need. Ending bylaws and allowing consumers the right to do what they want their purchased product not only reduces bureaucracy in the system, but also increases the freedom for everyone, including those in low income, and a freedom-based approach is best.

These proposals of mine won't end all minor offences among those living in poverty and homelessness, but go a lot further than Bill 9, and unlike Bill 9, actually attempt to help those who need it most rather than draw blood from a stone.

Read more ...

Notley and Dirks: Blue Apples and Orange Oranges.

As if Premier Notley wasn't already in enough hot water. Rachel Notley has been under fire for calling a byelection in Calgary-Greenway too soon. So soon, in fact, that her party - the New Democratic Party - was the only party to have a nominee selected to run in that constituency, forcing other parties to push their nomination meetings up in the schedule, and to give her the only party equipped to campaign the full race.

The byelection comes on March 22nd, just 92 days after the death of popular Progressive Conservative MLA Manmeet Bhullar, who was killed a roadside accident while helping someone stuck on the roadside.

To contrast that, Notley's father Grant Notley also died in a tragedy while serving in Alberta's legislature in 1984. Peter Lougheed, arguably the greatest Premier in Alberta history, called the byelection to replace Notley Sr. in just 96 days. Of course, there were fewer major player parties at that time, but in addition to seeking candidates, the NDP also had the unfortunate role of being left without a permanent leader at the time.

The Progressive Conservatives are also without a permanent leader this time around, however, Ric McIver has been leading the party as an interim leader for almost a year, and has taken the role of leader quite well, though how capable he has actually been as leader is up for debate, I would argue he has done an effective job leading the party - even if I don't personally agree with his policies or viewpoints or temper.

Now the timing is just the first thing she's under fire for, though she is fully legally within her right to call the byelection at any time of her choosing before May.

The other was the announcement of public transit funding in Calgary coming from an old fund former Premier Ed Stelmach implemented, just two days into the byelection. Now, for those not familiar with why this is controversial (I assume you don't use social media or read newspapers if this is the case) is it's seen as trying to buy a seat. And it possibly partially is, after all, the by-election is in Calgary, and the bulk of the funding is going to Calgary, with little bits for surrounding suburban cities like Airdrie or Okotoks.

People have even compared it to Gordon Dirk's modular schools announcement in the 2014 by-election.

When then Premier Jim Prentice announced his Provincial cabinet, he appointed two cabinet ministers who had not yet been elected. One of them was Gordon Dirks as Minister of Education. During the October byelection, Minister Dirks announced modular classrooms to be added to a school in the riding where he was seeking election.

These comparisons are not actually fair.

First, these announcements from the NDP are coming from ministers who have already been elected. They themselves aren't fighting for the seat in question. There's also no guarantee that the money will be spent in Greenway, as the City will have a role in deciding how some of the money gets spent. On the other hand, Minister Dirks used his position as unelected Cabinet Minister to approve something in the riding where he was seeking election. He quite directly attempted to bribe his electorate.

The PC party won all four of the byelections that year. Calgary Elbow however, would not be fooled twice as Dirk's lost his seat and the PCs lost the general election seven months later.

Apples and NDP Oranges.

That said, at the time Dirks had made his announcement, Notley did state that no announcements should be held during a byelection unless there is an emergency. She did as much during the Calgary Foothills byelection last fall. What she said was very specific: It wasn't "no conflict of interest announcements." It was no announcements. Period. Full Stop.

So is it unfair to compare Notley's announcement to that of Dirks'? Yes, absolutely. Personally, I don't think the government should cease to function during a byelection, so long as they don't treat constituencies up for election with favoritism, and so long as ministers involved in the byelection aren't involved in announcements.

Is it unfair to criticize Notley's announcement, period? No. Premier Notley said she wouldn't make major funding announcement's during a byelection, and she reneged on that.

Criticize her for breaking her word, but don't say it's what Gordon Dirks' did all over again, because it isn't the same thing at all. Otherwise, we aren't much better than the Official Opposition, criticizing without substance. But that's a story for another blog.

Read more ...

Sorry Jim, Albertans Know Better

DAMMIT, JIM!

Jim Prentice doesn't get it. And we're not sure he will. During an interview on Calgary's AM770 (CHQR) he turned on his interviewers and said the media needs to focus on issues that matter to Albertans, rather than issues like the disqualification of Jamie Lall over a restraining order stemming back from 2007 (a matter that had been resolved privately between Lall and his ex), yet allowing a member who solicited a prostitute in public. Also, not important to Albertans is Gordon Dirks' saying Albertans "Don't get it" and his condescending "Math is Hard" comment during the debates.

But, regardless of Mr. Dirks' assertions, it appears the PC leadership is the ones who don't get it. Mr. Prentice doesn't get to decide what issues matters to Albertans. Albertans decide. And if the governing party is acting completely irresponsible, condescending, entitled, or like characters in a mafia movie, then that is probably something Albertans should be concerned about. And if Prentice thinks blackballing deserving candidates to ensure your hand-picked guy doesn't have to contest a nomination, then maybe Prentice should look in the mirror.

THE PROGRESSIVE PROBLEM

Now, in light of that issue, that doesn't mean Prentice has to agree with Albertans on what's important. And I'll admit, there are some cases where I don't either. Maybe if I was more hardline, I would agree with some of them. A few examples that I could cite include the progressive Twitterverse constantly bringing up Christine Cusanelli's Olympic vacation. Now, people who follow me on Twitter probably view me as a Cusanelli apologist, and I'm not sorry that I'm proud to call her a friend and have the pleasure of working with her on poverty issues. Of course, I don't defend her spending decisions as a cabinet minister, but let's face the facts. She paid the money back before the press even broke the story. By the time it was reported, the matter had been completely resolved.

Now, if that Olympic decision is truly important to progressives, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. But sadly, the view I get on social media is that progressives are looking for any reason to attack any PC MLA or Candidate. I mean, really, we already have "Look in the Mirror," "Math is hard," "Albertans don't get it," "Buddy you're being set up..." We have the original bill 10, we have Prentice attempting to cut the charity tax benefit, we as progressives have lots of reasons to throw out Jim Prentice and the governing PC's. Bringing up something that happened 3 and a half years ago, was resolved AT THAT TIME, and then not even found by the media until two years ago... If it's important to you, then fine. Vote based on that premise. But the constant bringing it up on social media really makes progressives look scared and desperate. And that is the opposite of the message we want to send.

And for the record, to the guys who dropped the flyer in my mailbox mentioning "Was removed from Cabinet for spending taxpayer dollars on an Olympic Vacation." That's not correct. She paid it back within ten days upon returning. So everyone in the PCAA party knew already about it. While using the government expenditure as a credit card isn't responsible, even I'll admit that, she wasn't removed from cabinet for that. She was removed because the media reported it after the issue was resolved. Basically, she was thrown under the bus by Allison Redford. A premier who herself had her own share of taxpayer spending issues. And it is THAT kind of mafia-family government we don't want. And that is exactly why people have plenty of reasons to vote progressive.

FINAL WORD

Like my views or hate it, I am trying to raise money to attend the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness. I had six years of lived experience in Calgary's shelter system and have been an advocating for better treatment of our city's most vulnerable, including discrimination. Please take the time to donate by clicking on the box on the top right side of the page, so I can attend the conference as a person with lived experience. If, after budgeting is done and my estimate is too high - or if I go beyond my fundraising goal - extra funds will go towards gifts for the Montreal Homeless Community.

Read more ...

Oh, What an Exciting Time to be a Calgarian or Albertan

Wildwoes Party?

According to the internet - so you know it's an absolutely reliable source - Rob Anderson is set to defect to the Progressive Conservative Party. Also rumored to defect is every single member of the Wild Rose caucus except Danielle Smith, who is set to take up the position of head coach of the Edmonton Oilers. Upon hearing of Danielle Smith leaving to turn the woeful franchise around, Anderson then announced that he is defecting back to the Wild Rose Party and shall be seeking a leadership position as the only sitting MLA of the party plagued with troubles recently over the by-election and Bill 10 and Bill 202.

Also rumored is a merger between the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta and the Wild Rose Party, likely to be called either the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta or "Jim's Kingdom." With two members of the Alberta Liberals set to step down, Ms. Rachel Notley is said to be "enthusiastic" about forming the official opposition.

Bittersuite

Today, Calgary City Council once again debated Secondary Suites, for the 37th time. I swear, it's Christmas at the City Hall Household.. They just love debating secondary suites - since it's the 37th time they have done so since 2005. It brings the family together long enough to find a tiny glimpse of common ground until everything collapses and everyone is miserable and it's all they can do to avoid killing each other. Then everyone goes home and agrees to do it again next year.

Despite the best efforts of SuiteYYC and other organizations, the debate resulted in what one reporter referred to as a "Cluster****" and broke down. The debate was then tabled to the end of the agenda and then brought back at 7.45 pm, and defeated 8-7. Then, thanks to Cllr. Farrel, a motion was raised to... direct administration to perform three more studies and come back to council in the middle of the new year, Grumpily and weary, this motion passed, and the family at City Hall had set a time for the next reunion. The 38th, 39th, and 40th reunion.

Sadly, this means Suiteday will not become a civic holiday as previously anticipated. Union workers and city contract holders are holding a press announcement tomorrow to express their disappointment.

Last Word

Also, this seems like an excellent opportunity to shamelessly promote my crowd-sourcing campaign to raise money to go to Montreal for a week and take part in the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness' 2015 conference. Costs of French lessons and translator not included. So click that link on the right side of this page. You may need to scroll up to see it. Go ahead and click it, and donate what you can.

Read more ...

Bill 10, Bill 202, and the Melodrama.

Warning: this is an unusually long post!!

This week was a very bittersweet. As a supporter of gay rights, I was extremely frustrated and disappointed. As a blogger with a sense of humour, I was extremely overjoyed. Premier Jim Prentice gave comedians across Canada an amazing Christmas gift this year in the form of Bill 10. Bill 10, The Act to Amend the Bill of Rights to Protect our Children was Prentice's attempt, to play bobbing for eggs without getting egg on his face. The end result was... well, it was Prentice getting a lot of egg on his face.

To start, a little background. It's been common practice since the dawn of time that students taking sexual education may be removed from the class if parents don't give written consent. I honestly don't know how common that is in other provinces, as I've lived my whole life in Alberta. However, Alberta took it one step further in 2010. As of September 1st 2010, Parents had to be notified if sexual orientation would be discussed in classes, and that parents had the right to exempt their children from participating in these classes. Presumably on religious grounds, I would imagine. As far as I know, Alberta is THE only province that does that.

Then this fall, Alberta Liberal MLA for Edmonton-Centre, Laurie Blakeman announced that she would propose a bill that did three things:

1. Reference the Alberta Human Rights Act and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the Alberta Education Act.
2. Repeal Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act that allowed parents to remove their children from classes that discussed sexual orientation
3. Legislate that school boards provide Gay-Straight Alliances on site where students request them.

Of course, that third objective was the point that brought the most contention. Ms. Blakeman introduced her Private Members Bill on November 20th and the Progressive Conservatives - well most of them at least - panicked. By Most, I should mention there was one PC MLA who supported the bill. The runner-up in the leadership race behind Prentice, Thomas Lukaszuc. This is where it gets weird.

Ms. Blakeman announced her intentions to present Bill 202 on October 15th. That gave Prentice and his at the time not-yet-elected Education Minister Gordon Dirks a lot of time to come up with a response. Granted, both the Premier and the Education Minister were involved in by-elections trying to win their own seats (Spoiler: They did). But I figured, ince they weren't at debates, and there were many times where as many as 14 PC MLA's were in town to try to help Dirks win his seat in Calgary Elbow, there was plenty of time where all of them could have been huddled up at campaign headquarters and at least mentioning possible responses in passing. After all, it's not like they were busy campaigning:

With Apologies to Martin Hanford.

That aside, Ms. Blakeman's Bill passed first reading in the Legislative Assembly.

Now, while all this was happening, the Wildrose Party (Sometimes called the "We really miss Ralph Klein and want to go back to the days of running the province on autopilot during an economic boom" party) was having it's own little fun times. After a disappointing by-election, party leader Danielle Smith requested a leadership review. Then withdrew her request because of overwhelming support. The Wildrose went ahead with it's convention and voted against broadening it's definition of equality beyond "all Albertans" Leaving some minorities - including members of the LGBTQ community wondering if "all" included them. After all, it certainly did not include them during the Klein Era.

Smith supported expanding the definition to include gender, race, and sexual orientation. The Convention however, did not. And when Laurie Blakeman announced Bill 202, Smith again said she supported it. It seems however, most Wildrose MLA's did not, most vocally, hard-line social conservative Rob Anderson (though he did say he would support second reading, and add amendments to make it more to his liking in committee, so they had that going for them).

Yet, Danielle Smith still has the overwhelming support of the Party! Despite, you know, not being able to agree with them on anything.

Back to the Progressive Conservative ruckus. A week after Blakeman introduced her bill, Prentice called a hasty press conference announcing that Bill 202 was essentially moot, because he had an even better bill, that presumably was not written yet at that time. Less than a week later, in Prentice's absence, Bill 10, The Act to Amend the Bill of Rights to Protect our Children was introduced by three Progressive Conservative Members. Sandra Jansen, Mr. Dirks, and Justice Minister Jonathan Denis.

Now why the ruckus? Bill 10 does... well, it does absolutely nothing! It was championed by Jansen with the now viral quote "We're moving forward incrementally" on the subject of gay rights, and by "incrementally" the meant "enshrine status quo into law."

Now how does Bill 10 do nothing? Firstly, the one bright spot on it all was that it would officially add sexual orientation to the human rights act as protected from discrimination. Now, while I do think that is important, it is also important to note that this is really a formality, since courts have already declared it as protected and that to discriminate against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation is indeed a form of discrimination. So, while the gesture is nice, it doesn't change much. especially since the rest of the bill itself - and all Alberta Laws are supposed to be done within the confines of the Alberta Human Rights Act - continues to discriminate against the LGBTQ community.

The second part of the bill that does absolutely nothing but was highly trumpeted by the Progressive Conservatives is that - like Blakeman's original private member's bill, it removed the controversial section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act that allows parents to remove children from classes where sexual orientation is discussed. Sounds great, right? Well, it would be amazing, and a victory in itself, if not for the fact that one of the other things Bill 10 does is introduce an amendment to the Alberta Education Act that - you guessed it - allows parents to remove their children from classes discussing sexual orientation! Thus, not only completely nullifying the removal of section 11.1 from the original act, but also violating the portion of Bill 10 that is supposed to prevent the government passing laws that discriminate against the LGBTQ community.

Thirdly, the bill went on to state that students could request a Gay-Straight Alliance in their schools. If the school refused, they could appeal to the school board. If the school board refused, then students could appeal the decision before the courts, up to the Queen's Bench.

Now, of course, therein lies the largest problem: Firstly, I'm not sure how many students have an understanding of the complexities of the legal system, in particular elementary and middle school students. I'm also unsure of how many have the resources to take up such a challenge. Or how many might have parents that may be opposed to the thought their child joining a Gay-Straight Alliance, thus removing parental support in the process. Or maybe a student is in the closet to their parents. There are a million reasons why this is a bad process.

That's not why this does nothing though. The reason why this does nothing, is that I'm pretty sure if a student had the resources, supports and knowledge to appeal to the courts, I'm pretty sure the courts were already an existing option. I mean, when there is a human rights issue, the courts are always an option! This bill, essentially spelled out the practice that in reality was already in place! So again, more status quo.

Now, I don't know how much of the discussion surrounded wasting taxpayer dollars on a Bill that would change absolutely nothing in practice and implement a series of formalities that were already the practice of the land was done in "the Ledge." Politicians aren't exactly know for pointing out the obvious. After all, if it was obvious to politicians, Bill 10 would not have even come forward. But here's where the fun really begins:

Prentice was out of the province during the entire discussion, and the Education Minister has been conspicuously silent both during question period and during press conferences and media interviews. So the entire week of debate between Bill 202 and Bill 10 happened during another time when our Vanishing Ministers were busy performing an encore of their famous by-election performance. Granted, Dirks was in attendance at the Legislature. He was just awfully silent and seemingly invisible.

During this period, Bill 202 was completely removed from the legislative agenda, essentially ending any further debate on the bill and killing it before second reading. Bill 10 passed first reading, and passed second reading with an amendment that actually changed something... and not exactly for the better. It gave our invisible/silent Education Minister the power to intervene if a school board refused to support a Gay-Straight Alliance. There was one small problem: There is no guarantee it would be on school grounds or have affiliation with the school.

This was the death-knoll on Bill 10. There were several things wrong with this amendment:

1. The whole point of Gay-Straight Alliances is to provide students a safe place on school grounds for students. Students should not have to leave school to feel safe.
2. The intention of Bill 202 is that Gay-Straight alliances would have the same support as other clubs at the school. This isn't much to ask really. A room to meet in, a teacher to preside, A budget isn't really that necessary (most of the clubs I was part of had no budget) . A page in the yearbook, and the opportunity to hold the odd event about bullying and gay rights. If gay rights are THAT big of a problem, they could at the very least hold events to raise awareness about bullying, but I prefer to not have to hide things just cause a few people don't like them.
3. Giving the power to the Education Minister. Yeah... look at the background of the current Minister. Tried to introduce religion classes into public schools as Chair of the board of Trustees of the Calgary Board of Education. Was the President of one of the most successful bible colleges in Alberta (at the time of his tenure). A college that made students sign a contract saying that they could be expelled if they practiced homosexuality or premarital sex. An Associate Pastor at one of Alberta's largest megachurches. A church that goes to painstakingly long lengths to identify in it's articles of faith that it's views on homosexuality and transgender persons.
   
   Here's a small hint. It's not a very flattering view.

Now, I don't really want to flat out declare that the Minister would not be fair or otherwise be unable to perform his duties as minister. But I do think the LGBTQ community has a few good reasons for thinking he might not. I've met the guy before, as I was a student at his college. He's kind, compassionate, friendly and vibrant. Then again, I'm straight and was paying him money to go to his school so maybe it's my privilege speaking.

Besides, if he isn't even speaking up in support of LGBTQ students now in the legislature on a bill that is directly involved in his portfolio, why would we expect him to do so if he is given the job of negotiating Gay Straight Alliances?

Anyways, as I stated, Bill 10 passed second reading with the amendment. Oh, and also they halted debate on the bill at the end of the day and forced a vote. Because, you know, human rights and such nonsense aren't quite so important as to be debated until things are right. It's better to pass a bill that went from making zero changes to not accomplishing at all what it was intended to do in the beginning.

And then swoops in Prentice.

To his credit, the Premier apologized and took responsibility. But half of it almost seemed as if he was trying to appear like some sort of PCAA saviour. He was absent during almost all of the Bill 10 debacle, and suddenly shows up out of nowhere and suspends the third reading indefinitely. For a bill he wanted. A Bill that should never have been introduced in the first place. He cited the bill's "clear divisiveness" and admitted it's become more dividing than Blakeman's original bill. He cited that the bill failed to strike a balance between parental rights and those of the LGBTQ community. He said the bill needs more consultation, because apparently, the parents should decide the rights for the children, instead letting children discover their rights on their own.

All I can say is that hopefully, his consultation determines that he should give Blakeman's bill a second reading. Because killing a bill in the Legislature is hardly a "free vote" that he promised everyone.

And maybe, while we're on the subject of rights we could say something about youth as a visible minority, since apparently, parents should decide the rights of the youth, instead of giving the youth enough agency to determine their rights themselves.

Read more ...