Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

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.

I really don't know anything about this stuff other than advertising is largely based on algorithms and history. The UCP aren't putting together a big list of podcasts or YouTube accounts that they want to advertise on and providing that to a marketing company.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that hates the Americanization of our politics. Three years out for ads is goddamn ridiculous, regardless of which party is doing it.

[holden]

I think the podcast was something innocuous and totally not political or about current events.


Its was either Stuff You Should Know, 99 Percent invisible, or Radiolab...one of them.


I'm sure the UCP doesn't do targeted ad buys on specific podcasts, but that was particularity enraging.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by direwolf

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

It was bad enough when we were considered the Texas of Canada. I don't know if we can go any lower than Florida. Alabama, maybe?

[D as in David]

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.

Or, in other words, the presentation of factual information that you disagree with. Conservatives be like:

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

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

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

And then the regulatory body came down so harshly as to disbar those members who spoke or voted in favor of the resolution.

Wait...

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by holden

I think the podcast was something innocuous and totally not political or about current events.


Its was either Stuff You Should Know, 99 Percent invisible, or Radiolab...one of them.


I'm sure the UCP doesn't do targeted ad buys on specific podcasts, but that was particularity enraging.

It doesn’t matter what podcast it is because many of them are on the networks who use targeted ads that get inserted into the file when you download it. I doubt Josh and Chuck from SYSK would go for that.

[FacePaint]

Originally Posted by holden

I think the podcast was something innocuous and totally not political or about current events.


Its was either Stuff You Should Know, 99 Percent invisible, or Radiolab...one of them.


I'm sure the UCP doesn't do targeted ad buys on specific podcasts, but that was particularity enraging.

I listen to CBC West of Centre- and it was on there last week so surely it's not targeted to the podcast and probably based on location.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Huh. I didn't think my comment would attract so many responses. I would have thought that freedom of expression short of malpractice was the expected norm. Perhaps my intended message was muddle by using "regulatory orthodoxy" instead if "regulated orthodoxy"; the latter of which I think better conveys the notion of a group of regulators establishing what all members of a profession must agree is the truth, regardless of individual views as opposed to setting standards for professional practice.

In any case, to each their own on these issues, I suppose.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

Huh. I didn't think my comment would attract so many responses. I would have thought that freedom of expression short of malpractice was the expected norm. Perhaps my intended message was muddle by using "regulatory orthodoxy" instead if "regulated orthodoxy"; the latter of which I think better conveys the notion of a group of regulators establishing what all members of a profession must agree is the truth, regardless of individual views as opposed to setting standards for professional practice.

In any case, to each their own on these issues, I suppose.

In say the case of vaccines is there a difference between setting the standards of the practice and agree to what is true? Like if you without proper scientific evidence shed doubt on the effectiveness of her immunity of a measles vaccine while representing yourself as a doctor it’s absolutely in the interests of public safety for that action to be censured.

Or in the law example above if indigenous relation has been deemed by the regulatory body that it’s important for people to have then ensuring the the practicing people meet the requirements.

The regulation of practice is the regulation of orthodoxy. It’s what the bodies do.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

Huh. I didn't think my comment would attract so many responses. I would have thought that freedom of expression short of malpractice was the expected norm. Perhaps my intended message was muddle by using "regulatory orthodoxy" instead if "regulated orthodoxy"; the latter of which I think better conveys the notion of a group of regulators establishing what all members of a profession must agree is the truth, regardless of individual views as opposed to setting standards for professional practice.

In any case, to each their own on these issues, I suppose.

With respect to you and your opinion, the statement you made isn't muddled at all. The problem isn't a matter of semantics, it's as you said: "freedom of expression short of malpractice".

Regulatory bodies aren't hovering over people with a hammer ready to drop for expressing a difference of opinion, or presenting a valid objection, or saying Friends is better than Seinfeld. They are trying to maintain a consistent and sustainable expression of industry or professional confidence.

When someone like Daniel Nagase starts farting out utter BS while a recognized member of these associations it is the absolute obligation of these bodies to let people know this man is a doctor in paperwork only, because their opinions and expressions are entirely divorced from reality and constitute malpractice, regardless of whether he is expressing them as a citizen or professional.

These idiots want to be protected from career outfall for saying ivermectin cures COVID, or trans persons are grooming children, or Russia is fighting fascism, or the residential school system was valid, or slavery had many benefits, or overwhelming carbon levels should be legally celebrated, or whatever the stupid f###ing #### these puddle brains come up with.

It's just a reality that when you are a professional member of a regulatory body your expressions - that fundamentally contradict or undermine wholly agreed upon standards of a said profession - are subject to scrutiny and condemnation.

It's utterly stupid and naïve to think otherwise. What reality are we ready to agree we live in?

[surferguy]

I’ve gotten the ad while listening to Stuff you Should Know.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

With respect to you and your opinion, the statement you made isn't muddled at all. The problem isn't a matter of semantics, it's as you said: "freedom of expression short of malpractice".

Regulatory bodies aren't hovering over people with a hammer ready to drop for expressing a difference of opinion, or presenting a valid objection, or saying Friends is better than Seinfeld. They are trying to maintain a consistent and sustainable expression of industry or professional confidence.

When someone like Daniel Nagase starts farting out utter BS while a recognized member of these associations it is the absolute obligation of these bodies to let people know this man is a doctor in paperwork only, because their opinions and expressions are entirely divorced from reality and constitute malpractice, regardless of whether he is expressing them as a citizen or professional.

These idiots want to be protected from career outfall for saying ivermectin cures COVID, or trans persons are grooming children, or Russia is fighting fascism, or the residential school system was valid, or slavery had many benefits, or overwhelming carbon levels should be legally celebrated, or whatever the stupid f###ing #### these puddle brains come up with.

It's just a reality that when you are a professional member of a regulatory body your expressions - that fundamentally contradict or undermine wholly agreed upon standards of a said profession - are subject to scrutiny and condemnation.

It's utterly stupid and naïve to think otherwise. What reality are we ready to agree we live in?

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....

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

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....

This was already pretty goofy to read without you adding this, but you’ve pushed it into the realm of parody with the complete lack of self awareness and thoughtfulness on the issue.

You realize you’re the example you’re describing, right? The government is coming after regulatory bodies, making something that isn’t political, political (despite your assertion that people are being punished based on their politics and not their views which go against and run contrary good practice) and you’re doing nothing because they aren’t coming for you. The reason you believe this is that the UCP and their supporters have made the right to malpractice and treating misinformation as fact as “political” because they are purposely destroying trust in academics and professionalism.

You’re the one supporting the nazis, in the saying. FYI.

Feel proud.

[Fuzz]

I think the members can hold whatever view they want, personally. It's when they publicly express or promote them that it is problematic. Particularly if it is in their field of expertise, because the title is used to lend authority to the point.

[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.

[Yamer]

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....

It was directed at the legislators and advocates for this legislation.

And although I believe I was abundantly clear regarding my point in my post, I'll say it again. Regulatory bodies already can't come after someone over their political expression or affiliation (besides likely not giving a fiddler's f### about it in the first place). They are holding their members accountable in accordance with their own professional obligations in order to maintain public trust and reputation.

There is nothing inherently political in regards to a medical practitioner saying vaccines will kill you and demanding Nuremberg 2.0, or a lawyer arguing verbiage with respect to educational material addressing Indigenous history and residential schools. For the former it's dumb, dangerous, and entirely antithetical to the whole of established medicine, but it's not political.

Nobody is coming after conservatives. Regulators are holding their members to account for violating the aforementioned standards and practices expected of them. It just so happens that a significant portion of these people with oatmeal leaking out of their ears either vote for political parties like the UCP or lead them.

Don't be surprised when nobody wants to employ an engineer that espouses the positive aspects of slavery, and we can't codify the ability for them to automatically keep their jobs because they are telling people to start building bridges with sugar cubes.

That's the reality.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by surferguy

I’ve gotten the ad while listening to Stuff you Should Know.

Now you know!

[Whynotnow]

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....

You are reaching in a big way when you say political purity test. As others have pointed out there’s no limit to regulated members being members of different parties and arguing different political positions. The regulator bodies within their codes of conduct, which you are fully advised of, restrict members from unprofessional practice. If I want to argue that the UCP is awesome, or Justin Trudeau is the best, APEGA could care less. There has been some great debates on certain things in engineering and as long as a member is practicing within their scope of practice, and following professional guidelines you can fill your boots, If however, as a civil engineer I begin to espouse that spaghetti is the best building material around for bridges and I represent that as a professional engineer, we have a problem.

Freedom of expression in the charter protects you from the government and legislation, it doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences for speech. For example, if I call up the media and outside of being a whistleblower I say incendiary, embarrassing things about my ceo and company, I will be unemployed. The charter doesn’t protect me from that, the employment agreement I signed governs the speech and conduct I am allowed.

[Monahammer]

The heel turn of the century lol