Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 04-06-2012, 01:24 PM

I agree, with the stipulation that given the relatively narrow language in Amselem, I think they'd have virtually no chance. However, I certainly agree that on an individual level there should be (and there isn't, as far as I know) no obstacle to a person's challenging a policy of the government under 2(a).

However, this is (as I understand it--and FL, feel free to set me straight on this) a Party Policy being put forward by some members of the Wild Rose, which makes it somewhat different than Charter litigation on an individual level--the Alberta government would be, if it went through, enacting policy with respect to "conscience rights" in a manner that requires a much broader reading of 2(a) to contain, firstly, an implementational component (presumably, the government must now act to protect your conscience rights, something that even private entities were not required to do in Amselem, and that the Courts have been unwilling to do) and furthermore, the government would then be placing, as a matter of policy, the 2(a) freedom on even footing with the s. 15 equality right, which could lead down a very sticky path. In essence, by elevating the 2(a) liberty to an implementational right, the government would then expose itself to s. 15 litigation, and if the result of their policy was that people could not exercise certain legal rights, or access medical services that are lawful on the basis of some protected ground under s. 15, this policy would be struck down.

So I'd say--as a matter of policy, sure. A marriage commissioner should be permitted to bring litigation under 2(a) to ask the courts to enjoin the government from requiring them to perform certain marriages, for instance. A doctor could do the same thing for abortions, I suppose, though that seems goofy--why would you be practicing in that area if you had moral objections? There has never been any obstacle to this practice and it should continue--we must always be testing the scope and content of our Charter rights and freedoms.

But it doesn't follow that the Alberta Government should formally adopt some "conscience rights" policy--that would lead down a very problematic path.

04-06-2012, 01:24 PM	#1092
Iowa_Flames_Fan Referee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Over the hill Exp:	I agree, with the stipulation that given the relatively narrow language in Amselem, I think they'd have virtually no chance. However, I certainly agree that on an individual level there should be (and there isn't, as far as I know) no obstacle to a person's challenging a policy of the government under 2(a). However, this is (as I understand it--and FL, feel free to set me straight on this) a Party Policy being put forward by some members of the Wild Rose, which makes it somewhat different than Charter litigation on an individual level--the Alberta government would be, if it went through, enacting policy with respect to "conscience rights" in a manner that requires a much broader reading of 2(a) to contain, firstly, an implementational component (presumably, the government must now act to protect your conscience rights, something that even private entities were not required to do in Amselem, and that the Courts have been unwilling to do) and furthermore, the government would then be placing, as a matter of policy, the 2(a) freedom on even footing with the s. 15 equality right, which could lead down a very sticky path. In essence, by elevating the 2(a) liberty to an implementational right, the government would then expose itself to s. 15 litigation, and if the result of their policy was that people could not exercise certain legal rights, or access medical services that are lawful on the basis of some protected ground under s. 15, this policy would be struck down. So I'd say--as a matter of policy, sure. A marriage commissioner should be permitted to bring litigation under 2(a) to ask the courts to enjoin the government from requiring them to perform certain marriages, for instance. A doctor could do the same thing for abortions, I suppose, though that seems goofy--why would you be practicing in that area if you had moral objections? There has never been any obstacle to this practice and it should continue--we must always be testing the scope and content of our Charter rights and freedoms. But it doesn't follow that the Alberta Government should formally adopt some "conscience rights" policy--that would lead down a very problematic path.