In recent years, there’s a pattern of controversies involving Conservative politicians having their picture taken with people who represent some pretty tawdry views – such as Pierre Poilievre shaking hands with Jeremy Mackenzie. Often, the response is to the effect that politicians take lots of photos with lots of members of the public and can’t be expected to vet them all in advance – an excuse that sometimes sounds plausible, though there’s plenty of reason for Canadians to wonder why white supremacists and their ilk are so drawn to Canada’s conservative parties.

In this episode of “What Did Danielle Smith Do Now”, however, the individual in question literally wore his tawdry views on his chest.

At Stampede, Danielle Smith (and Pierre Poilievre, separately) posed for a photo with a guy wearing a bright neon “Straight Pride” shirt. The back of the shirt, in large print, went on to state that “GOOD PEOPLE DISOBEY BAD LAWS”, a sentiment near and dear to Premier Smith’s heart, if her many commentaries about COVID restriction prosecutions are any indication.

She has been thoroughly criticized on social media for this choice, and while her office claims that she didn’t read the shirt, many commentators, both NDP and otherwise, find that explanation lacking, highlighting that political leaders at public events travel with an entourage of staffers whose jobs are, in part, to keep their politicians safe from people trying to advance an adverse agenda.

“It’s impossible to believe that neither she nor anyone in her staff read the T-shirt worn by her supporter,” said NDP Critic for LGBTQ issues Lizette Tejada.

Political scientist Duane Bratt noted that Smith has an “entire group of people”, and that the guy wearing the shirt should not have been able to get close to the Premier.

Political Tweeter Kristin Raworth – formerly an employee with Alberta’s public service, and currently employed in a municipal councillor’s office – highlighted that this is not your typical ‘gotcha’ photo, and either represents a “stupid decision or a dog whistle“.

Columnist Max Fawcett describes the photo as being “what happens when you’re staffed by people who a) aren’t good at their jobs, b) are ideologues, or c) are both.“

Of Poilievre’s photo, former Liberal politician and pundit Warren Kinsella remarked that the “staffer who allowed this to happen needs to be sent away“.

Many other people make observations that, if the person in question were wearing an anti-conservative or anti-oil shirt, there’s no way Smith would have posed for the photo with them. These observations seem plausible, because these interactions, while not necessarily pre-vetted, are nonetheless managed and curated in real time by staffers.

The observations by Fawcett and Raworth are worth paying attention to: It’s likely that the staffers Smith surrounded herself with chose to let this photo op happen, meaning they, at minimum, didn’t see what was wrong with a “straight pride” shirt, and didn’t regard it as part of their job to help Smith avoid being associated with that message.

Whether Smith herself noticed the shirt is largely beside the point. The point is that this message is clearly not understood, within Smith’s office, to be one to be kept at arm’s length. Bratt pointed out that she and her staffers should have immediately understood the issue with this shirt.