Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

I assume Jordan Peterson is the driver on this one.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I assume Jordan Peterson is the driver on this one.

likely others too
https://music.amazon.ca/fr-ca/podcas...-william-makis

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I assume Jordan Peterson is the driver on this one.

On the news segment I watched this morning on CTV he and his case were cited as primary drivers to introduce this legislation.

Along with some doctor who wrote a book on Gaza/Israel complaining it affected his job...as he stood in his office still doing his job.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

The restraint on professional regulatory bodies is overall I good idea. Think of it as similar to academic freedom. All view points are free to be expressed and explored. Professionals are no less diverse in their thoughts than the rest of the population, I expect, so it seems proper in a democratic society that they should be allowed to speak freely without having to hew to regulatory orthodoxy, short of malpractice.

Edit: Also law professor worrying that it will allow "misinformation" is a bit rich. Like LAWYERS of all people have been restrained from twisting facts.

[Fuzz]

It's not "rich" it's a fact that is happening. Misinformation is one of the primary drivers of our rapidly collapsing ability to hold discourse. When facts aren't reality anymore, how can you even have a reasonable discussion? You may as well argue with a potato. At least you won't get dumber.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

The restraint on professional regulatory bodies is overall I good idea. Think of it as similar to academic freedom. All view points are free to be expressed and explored. Professionals are no less diverse in their thoughts than the rest of the population, I expect, so it seems proper in a democratic society that they should be allowed to speak freely without having to hew to regulatory orthodoxy, short of malpractice.

Edit: Also law professor worrying that it will allow "misinformation" is a bit rich. Like LAWYERS of all people have been restrained from twisting facts.

No it’s not. The public relies on these professional bodies to ensure the practitioners they hire are qualified and meet standards. All members have free speech, but if you choose to state views that are completely not supported by any facts and you do so as a member of your profession representing that profession then your professional body better hold you accountable. Trust me you’ve gotta go way over the line to get caught in this way, and the people the government are trying to protect here represent the absolute fringes of their professions.

There is nothing noble about the UCP cause here and it will only lessen the professional bodies we have in place.

*spoken as a nearly 3 decade member of APEGA. I have no love for the organization for other reasons, but I have their back on this one in most cases.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not "rich" it's a fact that is happening. Misinformation is one of the primary drivers of our rapidly collapsing ability to hold discourse. When facts aren't reality anymore, how can you even have a reasonable discussion? You may as well argue with a potato. At least you won't get dumber.

#bigwater and #MSM don't want us to know that mixing John Ellis Living Water with normal drinking water actually energizes and purifies normal drinking water to make it healthier and safer for human consumption

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

The restraint on professional regulatory bodies is overall I good idea. Think of it as similar to academic freedom. All view points are free to be expressed and explored. Professionals are no less diverse in their thoughts than the rest of the population, I expect, so it seems proper in a democratic society that they should be allowed to speak freely without having to hew to regulatory orthodoxy, short of malpractice.

Edit: Also law professor worrying that it will allow "misinformation" is a bit rich. Like LAWYERS of all people have been restrained from twisting facts.

In the clip I saw, Smith said that different viewpoints should be expressed and the public should decide which to believe. I'm sorry, but that's total BS when it comes to professional knowledge and standards.

I'm a bit more sympathetic to people who get punished for making inappropriate statements not related to their profession but that could damage the reputation of the profession. Let them speak - generally it's their own reputation that they are hurting. But giving advice that is contrary to the standards of the profession? Get lost.

Edit: and I don't buy the argument that there have always been pioneers and rebels who end up advancing the knowledge or disproving the prevailing wisdom. Sure there have been, and this can be done in their practice of the profession and in processes, conferences, papers, etc. within the profession. Getting on Twitter to spout your beliefs is just self-aggrandizing, belligerent behaviour.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

The restraint on professional regulatory bodies is overall I good idea. Think of it as similar to academic freedom. All view points are free to be expressed and explored. Professionals are no less diverse in their thoughts than the rest of the population, I expect, so it seems proper in a democratic society that they should be allowed to speak freely without having to hew to regulatory orthodoxy, short of malpractice.

Edit: Also law professor worrying that it will allow "misinformation" is a bit rich. Like LAWYERS of all people have been restrained from twisting facts.

I mean, I guess, but c'mon. We all know this has less to do about taking a political stance on economics and more to do with a collection of idiots that were held accountable for their backwards and bats### crazy opinions on vaccines, the pandemic, and trans or gender issues and threw a temper tantrum when their colleagues told them to knock it off.

[D as in David]

Maybe this will finally wake the engineers, accountants, other professionals who vote UCP in Calgary the #### up!

[direwolf]

Alberta has essentially become the Florida of Canada now thanks to the UCP. What a f***ing embarrassment.

[DownInFlames]

I hate that when I go out with my SO we just spend it bitching about the UCP.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by looooob

likely others too
https://music.amazon.ca/fr-ca/podcas...-william-makis

Haha. That guy is Larry Heather nuts.

[SebC]

I've always thought that "Is evolution real?" should be a question for med school entrance that disqualifies you if you get it wrong.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

The restraint on professional regulatory bodies is overall I good idea. Think of it as similar to academic freedom. All view points are free to be expressed and explored. Professionals are no less diverse in their thoughts than the rest of the population, I expect, so it seems proper in a democratic society that they should be allowed to speak freely without having to hew to regulatory orthodoxy, short of malpractice.

Edit: Also law professor worrying that it will allow "misinformation" is a bit rich. Like LAWYERS of all people have been restrained from twisting facts.

I think that there should be carve outs of when you clearly not representing your profession. Like you should be able to be a Doctor but if you don’t represent yourself as one on Twitter you should be able to spout whatever bull#### you want.

As soon as you use licensed titles in any of that information then your opinion should be regulated within the scope of practice of your profession. The whole point of regulating a profession is to ensure a standard of care is provided.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by SebC

I've always thought that "Is evolution real?" should be a question for med school entrance that disqualifies you if you get it wrong.

I have no doubt there are some practicing Apega geologists who believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

The restraint on professional regulatory bodies is overall I good idea. Think of it as similar to academic freedom. All view points are free to be expressed and explored. Professionals are no less diverse in their thoughts than the rest of the population, I expect, so it seems proper in a democratic society that they should be allowed to speak freely without having to hew to regulatory orthodoxy, short of malpractice.

Edit: Also law professor worrying that it will allow "misinformation" is a bit rich. Like LAWYERS of all people have been restrained from twisting facts.

The Lawyer example is one of the reasons this is being pushed in Alberta now.

In or around 2020, the Law Society of Alberta, introduced a mandatory lesson for all lawyers - Indigenous Cultural Competency Education - which was essentially a required professional development course.

The course itself was essentially a history of indigenous culture in Alberta, and Canada, and some of the hardships suffered today, with historical context, and how it relates to the law and legal professional.

50 lawyers signed a petition calling it "political indoctrination" and "wokeness". This lead to a special meeting where all lawyers could vote on whether it be maintained.

11,000 lawyers in Alberta
3,400 voted in 2023
864 voted for removal
2,600 voted for keeping it.

This chuffed a minority of lawyers, and as you know, lawyers like to litigate.

I wouldnt be surprised if this issue was in the ear of the Premier.

[holden]

There was an attack ad on Nenshi that I had to listen to on one of my favourite podcasts. A podcast that I listen to to relax and not have to worry about politics.


So the UCP paying for attack ads on benign podcasts, against Nenshi years ahead of an election, have guaranteed that I will do as much as I can to make sure they lose.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cappy

The Lawyer example is one of the reasons this is being pushed in Alberta now.

In or around 2020, the Law Society of Alberta, introduced a mandatory lesson for all lawyers - Indigenous Cultural Competency Education - which was essentially a required professional development course.

The course itself was essentially a history of indigenous culture in Alberta, and Canada, and some of the hardships suffered today, with historical context, and how it relates to the law and legal professional.

50 lawyers signed a petition calling it "political indoctrination" and "wokeness". This lead to a special meeting where all lawyers could vote on whether it be maintained.

11,000 lawyers in Alberta
3,400 voted in 2023
864 voted for removal
2,600 voted for keeping it.

This chuffed a minority of lawyers, and as you know, lawyers like to litigate.

I wouldnt be surprised if this issue was in the ear of the Premier.

I’m sure that’s part of it but it’s more likely this:

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7353999

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by holden

There was an attack ad on Nenshi that I had to listen to on one of my favourite podcasts. A podcast that I listen to to relax and not have to worry about politics.


So the UCP paying for attack ads on benign podcasts, against Nenshi years ahead of an election, have guaranteed that I will do as much as I can to make sure they lose.

If you don’t mind me asking what podcast? Not that I want to hear that ad but curious how the UCP is targeting its marketing campaigns.