What a difference a couple of weeks make. On November 6^th CAPCS stormed city hall and accused 51 local businesses with making “adult” material available to children (Sound the alarm – the sky IS falling!)

City Alderman were flabbergasted by the steamrolling tactics, the Medicine Hat News penned a very flattering article about the CAPCS position and the whole issue seemed as though it would pass our collective selves going unquestioned – but it seems the tide it turning.

I think Medhatblog deserves some of the credit. Over 12,000 unique visitors read our complaint, several hundred concerned citizens e-mailed their support and all of the sudden the watch dogs that are supposed to stand up to CAPCS found something they didn’t have before. Courage.

Maybe they saw they weren’t alone in their outrage and suddenly decided it was “safe” to stand up to the bullies. A blog discussion here, a letter to the editor there, a morning radio discussion and suddenly a spotlight shines on the outrageous claims of the CAPCS group. Let’s look at some key examples.

On November 8^th the Medicine Hat News wrote:

“Stitger explained that a survey done by CAPCS in 2005 found that only two out of 53 businesses (a four-per cent compliance rate) placed their adult magazines behind a counter and took reasonable steps to control the display of entry level magazines” – Medicine Hat News Nov 8

Back then there was no questioning of the source, no doubting its veracity. Interesting how a couple weeks goes by and the News makes a subtle change in reporting that statement.

From the Nov 27^th News story

A survey done by CAPCS in 2005 found that only two out of 53 businesses were compliant in their view.

Ahhh there we go – “in their view”. Subtle but the CAPCS bias is clearly leaking out of News reporting. Suddenly now it should be noted that their view isn’t confirmed or even accurate. Granted there were different journalists writing the articles, but it’s clear that suddenly the News discovered there are two sides to the story and started asking the tough questions and reporting some clear conflicts of interest between CAPCS and Cathy Smith.

Again from the Nov 27^th News article:

Mutschler’s comments stemmed from a Nov. 6 council meeting when the Citizens of Alberta for Positive Community Standards (Medicine Hat) lobbied council for a bylaw to legislate the display of adult materials (particularly magazines) in public venues. CAPCS’ vice president and its legal counsel, Daniel J. Smith, is the husband of city councillor Cathy Smith, who supports the bid

Yeah, Maybe CAPCS isn’t arms length enough from Cathy Smith to be on the committee reviewing the need for a bylaw – when NO LOCAL BUSINESSES AFFECTED are invited to participate.

Read the rest of this entry »

The few times I have met Rob Renner, he seemed like a pleasant man. I haven’t followed him as close I have followed Monte Solberg or some other local politicians. But Rick Bell does not mince his words in an editorial a couple weeks back. Check it out:

“Renner, a well-respected Medicine Hat florist but a woefully underperforming cabinet minister, did a lousy job revamping the auto insurance system and is handling his new file with equal mediocrity.

The last good plan he had was whether to put the stargazer lilies next to the carnations or the roses in the bouquet.”

Article

Dirty Politics 101 – If you want to push a contentious issue past the general population its important the you be as deceptive as possible. In Canada we control access to pornographic or “adult” material and its sale - yet in Medicine Hat – a city of over 50,000 people a very small group (100s?) of Medicine Hatters feel that the definition of pornography is too narrow and that you thoughtful citizens should be limited in your exposure to some of the best selling non pornographic publications in the world - how can they do that? By redefining the word pornography as it suits them and trying to bully local retailers into complying with their narrow agenda.

CAPCS (Citizens of Alberta for Positive Community Standards - Medicine Hat) believe that all magazines that even discuss issues of sex or feature women in bathing suits should controlled as any other Pornographic content. My complaint is that they use their own definition of “adult magazine” without informing the news media outlets that their definition of “pornography” is much different than the legal version of the word. In this way their loud demands; which many thoughtful Medicine Hatter might object to, are more easily swallowed to the detriment of local businesses.

Its like - we all agree Murder is wrong - but I have redefined “murder” to include any time somebody takes my parking spot at the mall. So lets make a bylaw to help crack down on “murder” so that parking is more to my tastes. Its deceptive to redefine the words in a debate without telling, but hey its “for the children”

From the CAPCS website: (there own words)
CAPCS-Medicine Hat defines “adult magazine” as “Any magazine, the content of which is designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites through the pictorial or other graphic depiction of persons engaging in sexual activities, or by and emphasis on the display of certain sensitive areas of the human body.”

Sounds nice – but what does that mean? they alone define what it means. Cleavage in a bathing suit = pornography? I guess - how we will know if its appropriate material? I guess CAPCS will just tell us. Further in their website they acknowledge such:

Read the rest of this entry »

Anyone know what happened yet? The News is reporting there was a fatality and has a picture of a van involved in the accident but doesn’t say much else.

I wondered because of the first snow fall overnight …and the sand isnt all on the roads yet etc..
This is a sad story - seems like there has been an increase in serious accidents in our area this year.