Thursday 18 June 2009

Let the debate begin

The WAP's new policy set is now posted. I challenge all those who call us "radical right-wing", "far-right", redneck, etc, etc, to illustrate exactly what gives us those labels.

Read them here.

Tuesday 9 June 2009

Socons can also be libertarians

I received have received yet another anonymous comment. I seldom post them for two reasons. #1) I have developed a disdain for people who do not have the knackers to stand behind their statements. #2) they often bring the WAP into the conversation as if I somehow determine policy. I am but one member with an opinion. It carries no greater or lesser weight than another members’.

However, this one I have posted (in response to my May 26 entry) and will repeat it here as it warrants reply.


I agree with the fact the PC's have gone too far in trying to impose controls over too many things. But if the WAP is to be a force to be reckoned with we need to be careful not to overlook social conservatives as well. There are a lot of Wildrose supporters who are Fiscally conservative, but are also socially conservative and disagree with the PC fiscal side. But that does not mean they agree with the policies of PC's.

No one in my home smokes or drinks, and I feel it is not healthy and so I am not affected by the rulings on drinking and smoking. But I have a sister that owns a pub and is greatly impacted unfairly by both issues. My point is that I am a WAP supporter that disagrees with smoking and drinking personally, but disagrees with the PC stifling of the free enterprise. We cannot be on the fringes with our policy's, but we also don't want to distance those who agree fiscally but are not as moderate as others socially.

I think there is a compromise somewhere in there particularly in the rural areas where it is prevelant. Hope that makes sense and appreciate all your hard work you do.

If I have learned one thing about social conservatives over the years, (and I used to be one, but that is a post for another day) it is that even within that group there are two distinct groups.

One group has very strong convictions on two (sometimes three), very specific issues. Typically these include abortion and same sex marriage. This group not only is opposed to these things themselves; but they also feel everyone else should be opposed to them. In fact they feel so strongly about this, they want to legislate it. They feel it is the governments place to regulate morality.

The second group also has strong convictions on these issues. However the very important distinction is that they do not want to ram their beliefs down everyone’s’ throat; they do not want the government getting involved. They simply want to be free to hold their view and to be free to speak of them without fear of reprisal.

I would say over the past 30 years latter group has become by far, the larger one. Unfortunately, though all Socons get painted with the brush of the first group.

So to in response to the commenter; Stelmach has (in my opinion) started down the slippery slope of the first group. They are passing laws based on a moral compass, not on equality and freedom for all.

As for the WAP needing to find a compromise, I think we already have. We stand for protecting the freedoms of the larger group to practice their own personal beliefs and own moral convictions. And for the first smaller group, we support Citizens Initiated referenda. So if they ever get large enough to force a vote on the contentious moral issues; the means is there for them.