Reason to vote Red Redford out of office: abridging your right to criticize an offensive lifestyle choice

(Bonus link for new visitors: this post is part of a series. You can read the other entries from this portal page if you enjoyed this one)

As you may or may not know, an Alberta election is underway. As its looking like there's a real solid chance that the Wildrose party can seize the reigns of power away from Alison "Red" Redford and her "Progressive" "Conservative" Party, I felt this would be a good time to bring up some of the disastrous legislation enacted by Red Redford's party.

Today this trip down memory lane takes us to 2009 (boy that was a lousy year!), and you can read the disgusting legislation here, but that's the day that the Alberta Government, well...there's no polite way to say this:

They enshrined fake rights for faggots.

That's really the thing you need to remember about the infamous "Bill 44". Fudge packers now have the "right" not to be criticized. That's right folks, no matter what your opinion of their disgusting lifestyle, no matter what you think a tiny minority who (typically as a reaction to sexual abuse) chose a course of action you fundamentally disagree with, you're not allowed to say anything about it.

You cannot decide that you don't want them in your home (well, officially). Your freedom of association is just a nasty old artifact of a bygone era in the Ed Stelmach/Red Redford universe.

The mistake, of course, was shoving government into the private sphere in the first place. Whatever you may think about legislation letting the government decide if you could refuse to rent your downstairs suite to a blind person or whether you could hire a Chinaman, the end result of it was that the government has now taken control of your downstairs suite, taken control of your place of business. It was only a matter of time before their next flavour-of-the-week, faggotry, was added to the list of prohibitions to which you had lost sovereignty over your realm.

That's where Bill 44 came in. All of the good work being done in Alberta to keep the Vriend case at bay, and Stelmach's soft-left PC party goes and ruins it in a stroke. One of the big beefs about Klein was that on social issues he reverted way too quickly to his Trudopean instincts: he would take a good game about putting up legislative fences, then refuse to actually put them up. His failure led to the Stelmach mishandling of the Bill 44 file. Again:

Fake rights for faggots.

Probably the craziest thing about this bill was how the sodomite-lovers were agonizing over one specific section of the bill: one that simply stated that parents had the right to exclude their child from classroom discussions of moral issues. Seeing as how the school system and their far-left teachers union (the ATA) only give your children one side -- the wrong one -- of those issues, it was only the smallest of olive branches for parents that, at the same time as ass pirates were getting special rights protecting their sick perversions from criticism, they at least had the power to tell the education bureaucrats to go suck a lemon. Libertarians argue that schools are reeducation centres devoted to instilling in children an unholy belief in the good and great powers of government, indoctrinating the nation's kids into their own narrow ideological framework. With the opposition to Bill 44, the ATA basically said "uh, yeah, that's pretty much accurate". They wanted their teachers to be able to teach children their perspective. Not "share" or "tell"...teach. Hence, teachers freaked out with the provisions that from here on in, if they taught material in the classroom designed to clash with traditional religious or cultural beliefs, they would become subject to investigation and prosecution from Alberta's Human Rights Commission.

Oh no, not the Human Rights Commission!
Yet oddly enough, the teachers and their union goon friends and their idiots from far-far-left parties like the Alberta NDP and Alberta Liberals and their buddies in the media were huge fans of the HRC and its quasi-judicial kangaroo-court style method of meting out justice. They still are! Raj Sherman glowingly mentioned the HRC twice during the leadership debate, for example, a fact that was not lost on myself and a few others. This wonderful HRC that with a gentle gloved hand strokes smooth a few of the minor rough bristles of the people of the province, but it always completely fair and impartial, where a hearing is barely of any effort on concern to undertake.

Yet it's so onerous and nefarious and unfair that being under its influence scared the living shit out of teachers.

Of course, I'm being facetious: we know the real reason that teachers were scared of Bill 44: because the Human Rights Commission is dangerous, it is onerous, it is a living nightmare to be under their gaze for so much as a quarter second. We've all seen the chilling video of Ezra Levant forced to justify his speech before an inquisitor of the Alberta Human Rights Commission and breathed a silent sigh of relief that it wasn't us having to justify why we talked about a worldwide news story. As I said at the time:
Why should teachers not have to live in mortal fear of being hauled in front of tribunals that don't require facts (which Alberta Teachers are notoriously short on anyways) while everybody else does.
Now that teachers have fallen under the same yoke, has there been any derision of the HRC itself? Of course not: they just want their exemption back. Red Redford once claimed that she was in favour of repealing Section 3 of the HRC's charter entirely. That, by the way, would have given you back your rights to say things about ass pirates that they disagree with (a right which has already been lost forever in England, birthplace of our liberties). Redford has since reneged on her promise, which should surprise precisely nobody: she doesn't believe in individuals having rights, only allowances that she, our noble state master, will confer upon as at her whim.

The reclaiming of our rights in Canada will be a difficult road, though in Alberta we come with a natural advantage: we are Albertan, and Albertans still have a large enough segment of the population [that's you, our wised and learned reader! -ed] who understand the danger of positive rights being doled out by Redford-style state overseers, who have figured out that those who are fearful and mistrusting of a Wildrose government are just too dense to realize that it was their "progressive" ideas to give government more and more power in the first place, and are the brave yeomen who know that our government exists as a convenience for we the people.

We have the power. Not the mace that sits in the assembly chamber, not pederast special interest groups, and not a 30-year old piece of paper on display in Ottawa. We have it.

Fortunately, there is a way to punish the "Progressive" "Conservative" Party and Alison "Red" Redford for this (and other) bad pieces of legislation put out by her party since the dawn of the millennium: vote them out.

There is a strong right-wing alternative: Danielle Smith's Wildrose Party of Alberta. Every journey begins with a single step, and Wildrose has pledged to repeal the offensive Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. We've heard (seemingly endlessly) about how a Wildrose Government will be doing no more than that. That's fine. That's a much needed step, keeping people with valid religious objections and strong personal feelings able to express and discuss them: from there, that provides the springboard to be able to speak out against the sodomite agenda and rewin the fights in our homes, our places of business, and our associations.

From a single acorn can span the mighty oak. Tomorrow, that Wildrose acorn can break out of the dung hill that the Red Redford "Progressive" "Conservative" party is festering in, and one vote can help restore your real rights.

(Bonus link for new visitors: this post is part of a series. You can read the other entries from this portal page if you enjoyed this one)