Democracy is a particularly messy form of governance but, as Winston Churchill once remarked, it sure beats the alternative.

Take the recent election of Craig Chandler as Progressive Conservative nominee in Calgary-Egmont and the subsequent controversy and decision by the Progressive Conservative’s Executive. The Calgary-Egmont Progressive Conservative Riding Association voted to have Chandler as their candidate in the next provincial election. He won the nomination by a sizeable majority. Chandler, of course, is well known for his intemperate, certainly controversial, and sometimes outright homophobic comments - and for being linked to what many would classify as “extreme right wing.”

Premier Ed Stelmach faced a particularly sensitive situation. If he endorsed Chandler in Calgary-Egmont then he not only ran the risk of Chandler possibly embarrassing the party at some future date if elected as an MLA but, it could be argued, he could have been seen as at least tacitly endorsing Chandler’s controversial views and past tactics. On the other hand, by refusing to endorse him for those or other reasons, he could be accused of being undemocratic. In fact, this was exactly – and predictably – the tact taken by Chandler and his supporters.

Chandler is a self-avowed Right Wing Christian. He was, at one time, the CEO of the Concerned Christians Coalition (now Concerned Christians Canada Inc.), which vehemently opposed equal marriage. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However, where Chandler and his lieutenant, Stephen Boissoin, got into serious trouble was via a letter Boissoin sent to the Red Deer Advocate a few years ago accusing homosexuals and homosexual activists of all sorts of evil and comparing us to murderers, pedophiles and terrorists. Chandler, who claimed he had no prior knowledge of the letter is on record as saying he supported Boissoin in this matter.

The whole situation around Boissoin’s letter got messier when the leading GLBT rights organization, Egale Canada (for which I was then Vice-President and Regional Co-director in the Prairies/NWT/Nunavut Region), spoke out against the original complaint filed by Professor Darren Lund, citing freedom of speech concerns.

Predictably, Egale Canada came under considerable fire for that position, as did I as their representative (despite having argued at Board level for Egale to come out strongly against Boissoin and in support of Lund’s complaint). The Board opted to issue a public statement condemning the “language and tone” of Boissoin’s letter but upholding his right to say the things he said in order to expose such odious ideas to the “cleansing light of day” and “the marketplace of public opinion.”

As Voltaire once said “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Well, one can hardly fault Chandler for what Boissoin said, right? True. Chandler has managed to chomp down on his own foot on more than one occasion.

Chandler is also involved with a right wing radio program called the Freedom Radio Network. On both it’s and Concerned Christian Canada’s websites, Chandler declared that “God sees murder as equal to homosexuality” and has on more than one occasion likened gay activists to Nazis, claiming activists are “the new Nazis out to silence Christians.” Lovely….

Chandler was also involved in a rather poorly produced documentary on same-sex marriage a couple of years ago called “God Only Knows: Same-Sex Marriage.” The documentary pit proponents of same-sex marriage, in this case a gay male couple in Vancouver one of whom is the pastor of the Vancouver Rainbow Community Church, against opponents of same-sex marriage, in this case Craig Chandler, his wife and his compatriots from Concerned Christians Canada.

The film premiered at the 2005 Calgary Film Festival. I say it was poorly produced because of the false premise allowed to stand unchallenged that religious institutions and clerics would be forced to marry same-sex couples if same-sex marriage were legalized. The “resolution” saw Chandler agreeing to accept Rainbow Community Church’s right to marry same-sex couples as long as his church’s right to not marry was likewise respected. Thing is, that was never the issue.

Throughout the three years-long debate around same-sex marriage, the Right and other social conservatives repeatedly trotted out this falsehood as a way to create fear and opposition to same-sex couples having a civil marriage ceremony legally recognized.

The documentary did highlight one thing, however. Craig Chandler is adept at twisting things around to fit his agenda and he is a bombastic bully.

In one scene, a barbeque held “in honour” of Dylan, the gay man favouring same-sex marriage, revealed several individuals making not only anti-gay remarks, but racist and anti-Semitic remarks as well. Chandler does nothing.

In another scene, Chandler berated his wife for “daring” to question some of the ideas Chandler is promulgating regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage after listening to the reasoning of the gay man who is a guest in their home during this segment (as Chandler was to be in the gay household later in the film).

According to Dylan, once the camera crews were gone Chandler “lost it” and became verbally abusive towards his wife, physically intimidated her (but not, it should be noted, to actual physical violence), threatened her with divorce if she didn’t shut up, shouted he was head of the household and she was to obey him, etc. There is a tape-recording of Chandler leaving an apology on the other man’s answering machine for having subjected him to this “domestic squabble” while a guest in Chandler’s home.

In yet another scene, Chandler nonchalantly ‘outs’ a former business partner and apparently close friend, who suicided in Chandler’s garage, as evidence he is not prejudiced against homosexuals.

I’ve had my own experiences with Chandler. At a reception following the screening of God Only Knows, Chandler approached me. During our conversation, I politely and calmly pointed out to him some of the errors he made in his arguments. He immediately started yelling and leaning in towards me, called me a “fucking bigot,” and storming off.

This is what he does…he shouts down his opposition. He refuses to engage in reasonable debate and he attempts to bully and intimidate.

Regardless of what I, or others, may think of him, Chandler managed to garner 945 votes - beating his rival by 460 votes - to land the nomination. Did Chandler rally his supporters from the Concerned Christians and the equally right wing Progressive Group for Independent Business (of which he was Executive Director at one time), in order to stack the vote? I don’t know. All I do know is he won the nomination.

The fact is, Chandler has plenty of support amongst the right wing, many of whom see “Lib-left” conspiracies everywhere, including within the Progressive Conservative Party which is often viewed as having sold out its conservative values and moved too close to the centre. That is certainly the position Chandler and his supporters are taking now, following the party’s decision to not endorse his candidacy.

Of course, the Progressive Conservative Party, even in Alberta, has always been a centrist right party - “conservative” rather than “right wing” - so in actuality, the PC’s haven’t significantly “moved” anywhere; they remain where they have always been on the political spectrum; a few steps right of centre.

Certain elements within the Party take issue with that. And that’s fine. All political parties have a position on the political spectrum and, within the party itself, there exists a microcosm of that spectrum with party members ranging all the way from highly liberal, through the centre, to very conservative members. The Liberals, NDP, you name it; they all experience this phenomenon.

We have also seen individuals who have been aligned with such avowedly right wing parties as the Reform, Alberta Alliance and Western Heritage Parties join the provincial Tories. Does anyone actually believe it’s because they have all mellowed in their political views and now found their true home within the ranks of the Progressive Conservatives? If one can’t change the system from without, then change it from within.

Anyone who has followed Craig Chandler’s arc can’t help but suspect that is exactly what he is up to, despite his assurances of becoming a “team player.” Chandler is also on record as having said he and his supporters were planning on “infiltrating” the party in order to return it to its truly conservative roots. The assurances of becoming a team player, for those familiar with Chandler’s style, just never rang quite true. Chandler seeks to be out in front, carrying the banner. I doubt he could handle being just “part of the team” for very long.

David Crutcher, former president of the riding association and a long-time associate of Chandler, has come out against the party that the association represents with guns blazing.

He claimed he was “disgusted with what [was] going on” when it came to Stelmach and other party executives examining whether to endorse Chandler’s nomination or not and stated he would resign in protest if the party decided to not recognize Chandler’s candidacy. He didn’t get the opportunity. The Calgary Egmont Riding Association voted to remove him as president.

However, he had a point, as do the party bigwigs.

His point was members of the riding association elected Chandler and therefore his candidacy should have stood with Chandler being allowed to take his chances in a provincial election. Apparently, the PC Party was not prepared to run the risk of losing that riding, which some pundits have stated was likely if Chandler were allowed to run.

Stelmach’s point, on the other hand, was he, and those close to him, had legitimate concerns about Chandler’s agenda, to say nothing of concerns about his politics. As party leader, Stelmach, and the party’s Executive, have a responsibility to ensure that all those purporting to represent the party adhere to party policies and principles.

Returning to the Boissoin-Lund controversy mentioned earlier – as a director and the representative of Egale Canada, I had a responsibility to represent the views of Egale Canada to the best of my ability, even if I was not in 100 percent agreement with those views at the time. The place to make known any opposition I may have had was at board meetings. Once a decision is reached, each director is duty-bound to speak on behalf of the organization, and not use their position to further their own agenda or points of view.

Chandler had the same responsibility.

He stated he was willing to pull in his horns on various issues and that he understood and accepted he would have to “fall into place” with the party’s positions and vowed he would be a “team player.”

Right, wrong, or indifferent he was not given that chance. His past behaviour ensured that.

In classic Chandler fashion, he is now claiming it was he who was discriminated against and it is he who is the victim. He has mused in the press about why the party allowed him to run for the nomination and, in the process, spend $127,000.00 on his campaign if they had no intention of allowing him to represent the party. He apparently intends to sue the party for reimbursement.

We have not heard the last of Craig Chandler.