More Historical Revisionism with a dash of threat. Love it or Leave It. And vote Conservative or else. According to Craig Chandler, who is running to be the Alberta PC Candidate for MLA in Calgary Egmont.
"To those of you who have come to our great land from out of province, you need to remember that you came here to our home and we vote conservative. You came here to enjoy our economy, our natural beauty and more. This is our home and if you wish to live here, you must adapt to our rules and our voting patterns, or leave. Conservatism is our culture. Do not destroy what we have created."
The graphic from his web page its entitled "Wanna Fight."
I guess he can be forgiven for not knowing that Alberta was home to the founding convention of the socialist CCF, the radical industrial syndicalist union the OBU, and the original farmers workers government the UFA, it was the origin of socialized medicine in Canada, even before Tommy Douglas. Even the right wing Social Credit party was result of left wing farmer worker discontent in Alberta.Like the rest of the Conservative historical revisionists in Alberta Chandler forgets that Alberta politics were based on populism and producerism.
Like those he threatens Craig is not originally from Alberta.
Chandler moved to Alberta, and ran in the 1997 provincial election as a candidate for the Social Credit Party of Alberta, led at that time by future Alberta Alliance party leader Randy Thorsteinson. Chandler ran in the riding of Calgary West, finishing with 1,100 votes, or 7.5% of the electorate. He later rejoined the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and endorsed United Alternative candidate Brian Pallister in the party's 1998 Progressive Conservative leadership convention.
Nor is the right wing political business lobby front group he represents.
The Progressive Group for Independent Business (PGIB) was founded in 1992, in Burlington Ontario as a voice for small 'c' conservative business owners and individuals who were rapidly becoming economic refugees in their own country.
And he is proudly paleo-conservative. Which is how he makes his money. Through setting up political front groups. Which he then services. All very Republican.
Craig Chandler is chief executive officer of Concerned Christians Canada Inc., and a former pro-merger leadership candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
You will remember him from the Conservative Party leadership Convention.
In 2003, Chandler took out a membership in the Progressive Conservative Party in order to run in that party's 2003 leadership race. He ran on a platform of creating a coalition between the PC and Alliance party caucuses. He withdrew prior to voting in order to endorse the only other candidate that was open to tangible cooperation on the right, Calgary lawyer Jim Prentice.The night before the PC leadership convention, Chandler delivered a platform that the Canadian Press described as homophobic, fundamentalist and "neoconservative to the bone." James Muldoon, a fundraiser for front runner Peter MacKay, described Chandler as "the true black face of neoconservatism. He could live to be 100 and he'll never know the meaning of, I am my brother's keeper." Chandler's statements were called "bitter and resentful" by MacKay, whom Chandler criticized for supporting of the passage of Criminal Code of Canada amendment Bill C-250 that added homosexuals to the list of groups protected by hate crimes legislation. Chandler suggested that the amendment would lead to the banning of the Bible and other religious texts in schools and public libraries. Chandler complimented Tory MP Elsie Wayne on her "honest statements" about homosexuals, suggesting that no one has to apologize for having an opinion, even if it is not politically correct. This section of his twenty minute speech was booed by many delegates.
And his political campaign against gays and lesbians resulted in this.
Canadian broadcast standards council PRAIRIE regional panel Decided January 9, 2007 The Prairie Regional Panel examined the complaint under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics: CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 2 – Human Rights Recognizing that every person has the right to full and equal recognition and to enjoy certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability. CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers. CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 7 – Controversial Public Issues Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. Time shall be allotted with due regard to all the other elements of balanced program schedules, and the degree of public interest in the questions presented. Recognizing that healthy controversy is essential to the maintenance of democratic institutions, broadcasters will endeavour to encourage the presentation of news and opinion on any controversy which contains an element of the public interest. The Prairie Regional Panel Adjudicators reviewed all of the correspondence and listened to a recording of the challenged episode. The Panel concludes that the broadcast was in violation of Clauses 6 and 7 but not Clause 2. The Panel does not find that the co-hosts fared as well in terms of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Code. To begin, essentially all of the half hour was consumed with a one-sided attack on the complainant, who was a private, not a public, individual. This constituted, in and of itself, an unanswered application of the powerful microphone which broadcasters are licensed to use for the purposes laid down in the Broadcasting Act. This opportunity creates a disparity of power between the person(s) on the transmitting side of the microphone and those on the receiving end of the radio waves. There is, therefore, a need for those whose transmissions are to all extent untrammelled to exercise their licensed authority with a particular appreciation of the responsibility that that privilege bestows upon them. In the view of the Panel, the co-hosts exceeded reasonable bounds in this episode. Among other things, they distorted the nature of the acts of the complainant in a serious way. They said that they had been accused of a “hate crime”. The Panel considers that the cumulative effect of the comments discussed in the previous paragraphs of this section constitutes a breach of the obligation of broadcasters to present opinion, comment and editorial matter fully, fairly and properly, as required by Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics. The Panel is also mindful of the not unrelated obligation established in Clause 7 to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. In this respect, it also finds the broadcaster in breach. Not only has Freedom Radio stacked the odds against the complainant by directing virtually the entire half hour against the complainant, it has boasted that it will not only sue him and take the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary (which is their right to do), but it will not pay any fines that may be levied (in apparent disregard of the anticipated order of the duly constituted judicial authorities). It is rather arrogant to state baldly that “We won’t pay those.” The Panel considers the judicial assertions unfair and an example of electronic bullying, which is precisely the opposite of what is anticipated by the requirement of fairness in Clause 7.Edmontonian Rob Wells was pleased when the Canadian Human Rights Commission investigated his complaint against Craig Chandler, a Calgary-based “family values” activist. But Wells is not impressed with the actions the federal body is taking to remedy the situation.
Wells had alleged that three websites linked to Chandler—freetospeak.ca, concernedchristians.ca and freedomradionetwork.ca—contained material that is “likely to expose persons of an identifiable group to hatred or contempt.”
The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s investigation, received by the complainant in early July, agreed with Wells.
CBSC File # 05/06-1959 – Complaint regarding a Freedom Radio Network program which was broadcast at 6:30 pm on Saturday, July 29, 2006 on AM 1140 Radio Station CHRB from High River, Alberta.
Freedom Radio Network is a talk show broadcast on CHRB-AM (
After failing to lead the Conservative Party, he went back to being a third party lobbyist in the 2004 Federal Election.
Craig Chandler, chief executive officer of Concerned Christians Canada, says some of his membership are worried there won’t be any surprises behind the curtain should the Conservatives get elected.
“I’m getting lots of calls from people thinking Stephen might be abandoning them for the sake of appearing moderate,” said Chandler, who says he has faith in the Conservative leader. “I’m hearing from some people who are not going to vote. What I’m trying to tell them is that’s crazy. We’ve never been this close to getting rid of the Liberals.”
While Harper, by all accounts, doesn’t rank social issues at the top of his agenda – “He’s never ever given two hoots about social issues,” says REAL Women’s Gwen Landolt – groups like Chander’s and Landolt’s believe he will have to listen to his caucus. And their goal is to get MPs who share their beliefs elected.
“Harper is busy distancing himself from social issues, but who is in his caucus? They can put pressure on him. We have to get them in,” says Landolt, who stresses there are candidates they support in all three main parties. “Individual MPs carry more weight. He’ll have to listen to them.”
Chandler says he’s been stressing to his organization that this is an election, and that their best opportunity to influence the party’s direction will come at the policy convention.
“I tell them to get involved, become delegates and then we can make a difference,” he says. “There will be huge pressure from social conservatives at the policy convention.
“We have to stick to the game plan. It’s all in the follow through.”
Ever the political opportunist he supported the creation of the Alberta Alliance.
Alberta Alliance Party leadership election, 2005
Now he is running for Eddie Stelmach's Tired Old Tories. With friends like these Eddies in big trouble.David Crutcher
Campaign slogan: "A new Alberta"
David Crutcher, a member of the Progressive Group for Independent business, backed by Craig Chandler, ran in Calgary Egmont, and won the largerst percentage of the popular vote of any Alliance candidate in Calgary in the 2004 election.
- Supports an Alberta provincial tax on consumer goods
- Supports publicly funded alternative medicine in order to save money and resources
- Supports traditional marriage and is pro-life
- Supports Alberta's separation from Canada if the Conservative Party of Canada does not win in the upcoming federal election
H/T to Idealist Pragmatist and Daveberta
g posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Alberta, Premier,Ed Stelmach,
Social Credit,Socreds, PC, Calgary, Party of Calgary, politics, leadership, Conservatives, Edmonton, One Party State,History, Politics, Economics,Craig Chandler, social conservatives, PGIB,
Alberta, MLA,
No comments:
Post a Comment