Danielle Smith may be the leader of a conservative party, but her core beliefs are libertarian through and through. That’s why she’s always been an outlier among Canadian conservatives when it comes to LGBTQ rights, and why some people expected her to refrain from the sort of anti-trans policies (and politics) that have animated other conservative premiers in Canada like Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe and New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs.
They were wrong. Her government’s new package of policies aimed at the trans community is the most aggressive and restrictive in Canada and will only amplify the fear and loathing that is already being directed at its members. As former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi said about Smith during a rally on Saturday, “I’ve known you for 30 years. You’re better than this. You need to be better than this.”
Maybe. Until now, Smith has been conspicuously reluctant to participate in the sort of red-meat culture wars that have animated other conservatives. She supports access to abortion, for example, and has spoken out passionately in the past in support of the LGBTQ community. As she said in 2022, "I have a non-binary family member and I believe these decisions are very personal, and it should not be debated in public.”
So much for that.
Ironically, the last time “parental rights” were being talked about in Alberta politics, it was Smith pushing back against them. When the Prentice government introduced Bill 10, which would have let school boards decide whether to allow so-called “gay-straight alliances,” Smith was part of a small group of MLAs who voted against it. Her unlikely allies included NDP Leader Rachel Notley, Liberal Leader Raj Sherman and PC MLA Thomas Lukaszuk.
In a powerful speech delivered in the legislature, Smith said, “In the case of these mature youths, this really is a case of life or death for some of them. We really do have a number of youths who have nowhere else to go if they’re not accepted by their community, not accepted in their home environment.” Sound familiar?
Now, almost a decade later, Smith is deliberately putting the same group at risk. It’s tempting to suggest it’s the result of spending a day with Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson — Smith, by her own admission, does not have a “crazy radar” — but this policy has been in the works for a while now. Her biggest applause line at last fall’s UCP convention was reserved for her promise to protect parental rights, and the issue clearly animates the power behind her throne. As Take Back Alberta (TBA) leader David Parker said at the time, “Those who do not listen to the grassroots, or attempt to thwart their involvement in the decision-making process, will be removed from power.”
Smith must believe that the political threat posed by her own personal Rasputin is far more urgent than anything the general public can muster. After all, she has a majority and the next election is three years away. And while Saturday’s massive rallies in Edmonton and Calgary were a heartening display of support for the LGBTQ community, the broader public is probably still on her side here. A recent Angus Reid poll showed that 35 per cent of Alberta parents think they need to be informed if their child wants to identify differently, while 43 per cent think they should be informed and have to give consent for that change. That’s nearly 80 per cent of the public that supports some version of what Smith is doing, at least in theory.
This isn’t the first time she’s betrayed her supposed allies to advance her own interests. Back in 2014, after all, she crossed the floor to join the governing Progressive Conservatives in one of the most stunning moves in Canadian political history. It didn’t take long for that decision to backfire, with the NDP defeating the PCs just a few months later to form the first non-conservative government in Alberta's history.
There are all sorts of ways this latest act of political cowardice could still come back to haunt her, like enticing Nenshi into the NDP leadership race and provincial politics. Even so, that bill won’t come due until 2027. The one the rest of us should be worried about is the debt she clearly still owes to Parker. Now that he’s got what he so clearly and vocally wanted on this issue, what will he ask for next? An attack on access to abortion rights, maybe? How about a broader war against teachers, school boards and post-secondary institutions?
After all, if Smith is willing to sell the LGBTQ community out to placate Parker and TBA, there probably aren’t many people she wouldn’t betray to stay in power.
Comments
And as we expected the federal Conservative leader has told his MP's to zip their lip on this subject, just like his master Steven Harper did regarding the abortion issue.
There is no way to win over both sides of this LGBTQ2+ issue other than to stay completely out of it.
Danielle Smith has step in it and has found there is no way to wash the stain out, I do not believe that Smith campaigned on this issue, along with others she has brought to light, it is a get elected then drop the hammer style of politics.
It's best that politicians just stay out of this, it truly is none of their business when it comes to personal choices. I may not agree with everything, but again, it's a personal choice and I respect that choice. Of course, with Pierre Poilievre hushing his misfit group of MPs on the subject, speaks volumes with their silence. It doesn't take the sharpest tool in the shed to know where his party stands on LGBTQ, Women's rights, religion and climate change. The silence by the CPC on these topics is deafening, it shows their true colours.
With regard to the reference to Danielle Smith slogan of "Take Back Alberta", I'd like Smith to explain from what. It seems her oil & gas buddies are the only ones who have taken Alberta away as they rape and pillage the province, not the good people of Alberta or Federal government. I believe the slogan is more in reference to oil & gas taking over Alberta than anything else. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Smith works for oil & gas and not the people of Alberta.
Fawcett: "Danielle Smith may be the leader of a conservative party, but her core beliefs are libertarian through and through."
Not true.
Max Fawcett is prone to easy generalizations, not all of which withstand scrutiny.
Fawcett's frequent characterization of this tragi-comedy's RStar actor is inaccurate and misleading.
Smith's consistent interventionism on behalf of the O&G industry and repression of renewables is the opposite of libertarian. Smith is a rank neoliberal and corporate welfare queen, while her TBA puppet masters are radical social conservatives.
Is any government more interventionist?
Doesn't really matter what label you apply to her though because most people don't understand them anyway, and most people defy pat categorization.
But since you're such a stickler for accuracy, why do you describe lake-of-fire evangelical religion's followers not as the scarily delusional cultists they actually ARE, but as simply anodyne "radical social conservatives?" The key word needed here isn't "radical," it's RELIGION, with all that conjures. They are daring us to call them out on that, but we still shrink away from criticizing their insanity, even when we KNOW what "TBA" (how stupid can you be) wants to take the province back FROM and that's US, the majority, who are modern, secular and progressive!
Everyone I've seen on the media still calls him and his righteous, punitive, god-fearing bunch, "an extreme right wing group." (The only exception has been the Canadian Anti-Hate group guy who called it "Christian Nationalism," but without explaining what that actually is.)
So that doesn't exactly get the word out does it? Which is exactly what the right has been able to consistently count on, making progressives complicit in the upending taking place right now.
Take careful heed of the strategies used by the US evangelical cult promoters. They operate on several levels but all with the ultimate aim of taking control of the government and thwarting democracy in service of their wet dream of theocracy
It's very hard to see where "Love thy neighbour" and "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" fit into the "Christian" Right's lexicon. Their narrative is distinctly Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye stuff which predates the tolerant and forgiving teachings of Christ. The humanist approach would be to love your kids unconditionally. Period.
It's all a little tiring, all these authoritarian men and women telling others what to think, who to vote for and how to punish their gay and sexuality questioning kids too often out of fear of the unknown, but also too often in the name of Jesus. Now the unethical moral crusade has contaminated the public education system in certain jurisdictions. The psychological damage to LGBTQ2 youth moving forward is too large and will follow them for a lifetime, not unlike the effects of violent Cro Magnon fathers who tried to beat the queer out of their sons and daughters a couple of generations ago.
How unchristian and inhuman.
So . . . she has a non-binary family member? All right, all ideology aside, should anyone vote for a person who would sell out their family for power?
Unfortunately I think it's common as hell.