[GGG]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

A little snotty of you at the end there, Yamer. I'll take as an expression of your passion about the subject here, and less of an insult directed at me.



As to the reality we agree to live in, it's the one where there is a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.


So while regulatory bodies set standards for professional practice, that authority should not extend to sanctioning members for holding wrong, false, offensive or deeply unpopular views. Where those views don't relate to professional practice. To use one of the examples you provided above, why is an engineer less of an engineer for believing slavery had beneftis, which I agree is a truly wrong take for many reason, but it doesn't mean that the person expressing them couldn't build a bridge.


The idea that anyone wishing to pursue a professional should have to pass a political expression purity test is abhorrent to me. That guarantee of freedom of expression doesn't get shuffled off to the side just because someone wants to pursue a certain career. Now if the engineer convinces a town that it ought build a bridge out of sugar cubes, that is a different matter.


On a related note, it occured to me that the sort of legislation the UCP is proposing here is the sort that those with fringe views might hope for. If we can agree on something, I expect it is that the UCP has taken to catering to those with views outside of the popular main stream. Perhaps the difference in opinion about the propriety of restraining professional organizations' regulatory powers is reflective of a discomfort on the part of the mainstream that arises from seeing those historically on the fringe have some real political representation for once.


As citizens of Alberta, are they too not entitled to representation now and again? Here I expect we will disagree again: I find that (somewhat surprisingly, I admit) comforting in a way. But then, I have a bit a contrarian streak that arises by rote from time to time, so perhaps I just have more to think about in terms of government empower other to curtail speech.


What's the saying on CP these days?


First, they came for the conservatives and I said nothing...
because I was one of the ones doing the coming for....

Do you have a specific example of regulatory overreach that you think should have been protected?

The current legislation requires the regulator to publish a code of ethics. Do you object to having a code of ethics for a profession? How would you make changes to the bodies without neutering the regulation of practice.