April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's weird though...why do they constantly have to defend against these things? I suppose its a birds of a feather sort of thing.

Because their opponents are backed into a corner and are attacking with every means possible. Same with the federal level where Harper is accused of ending abortion, bringing back the death penalty and squashing gay rights EVERY ELECTION even though he has governed moderately for years.

[Fire]

The Liberals and PC supporters need to keep this "hidden agenda" stuff going. It worked so well in the Federal elections.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

The Liberals and PC supporters need to keep this "hidden agenda" stuff going. It worked so well in the Federal elections.

Who said anything about a hidden agenda? To their credit its right there in their policy for all to see.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I guess some feel it's okay for healthcare workers religious rights to be trampled on. And I believe they can co-exist along side everyone else's rights.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Yes, religious freedoms should get trampled on each and every time when it infringes on someone else rights. They can do what they want inside the four walls of there own house, but that is that absolute extent of religious freedoms. We can not allow religious freedoms to co-exist with our basic human rights. If taken literally religious freedoms would literally kill people, allow for subjugation of genders/races/sexual orientation, etc.

Religious freedom is at the very bottom of the barrel. And there is a massive difference between rights and freedoms. People should be free to do what they want provided it has no impact on anyone's rights. And being able to marry who you want and get the health care treatment of your choice is a right. No religious freedom should ever, EVER, trump that.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I guess some feel it's okay for healthcare workers religious rights to be trampled on. And I believe they can co-exist along side everyone else's rights.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Can you give an example of when its fine for a physician to decline a service to a patient?

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Because their opponents are backed into a corner and are attacking with every means possible. Same with the federal level where Harper is accused of ending abortion, bringing back the death penalty and squashing gay rights EVERY ELECTION even though he has governed moderately for years.

But the thing with the Conscience Rights issue and this Abortion question is that they were brought up by regular Albertan citizens. (The conscience rights issues was brought up a WRP member and the Abortion question was through a citizen asking what all parties stances were on abortion via email). Have opponents used these initial questions to try and discredit the Wildrose, of course. About the same amount that any other party would use to discredit say the PCs, Liberals or NDPs.

The Wildrose is the untested new kid on the block, everyone in Alberta has a pretty general idea of where the PC, Libs, and NDP stand on these sort of social issues, so I as a voter don't think it's wrong for people to ask these questions of the new kid - especially if the new kid is potentially poised to become the majority in the legislature. To me it's the system working at it's best if we can question all elements of each party, then why bother with this whole election process.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

and you wonder why there is a shortage of health care professionals in this province?

Do you think this "conscience rights" nonsense is the reason for that?

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im sorry but there is no way anyone should be forced to do anything against their beliefs.

If you jump through all sorts of hoops to get a job, and then refuse to do certain aspects of that job, what exactly are you being forced to do?

If I take a job with Suncor, and refuse to have anything to do with oilsands production because it goes against my conscience, what do you think should happen to me? If you are consistent with your "conscience rights" business, obviously I should be able to keep my job.

But we all goddamn well know that I'd be turfed, and rightly so.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im against any and all discrimination without question,

Obviously this is not true. You believe that some public servants should be allowed to discriminate against gay people if their "conscience" dictates.

[killer_carlson]

I think the average, employed tax paying albertan knows that this conscience rights issue is garbage. I'm actually shocked red ford is trying to run with it. This will back fire on I think.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

First Lady, one claim that you've made that I'm interested in is this notion that 'conscience rights' are enshrined in the Charter. Can you tell me more about this? I'll grant I'm no expert but that seems wrong to me.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

First Lady, one claim that you've made that I'm interested in is this notion that 'conscience rights' are enshrined in the Charter. Can you tell me more about this? I'll grant I'm no expert but that seems wrong to me.

I don't think it is. However how one can choose to interpret the spirit of the document it might contain certain elements of how First Lady defines 'conscience rights'.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I think the average, employed tax paying albertan knows that this conscience rights issue is garbage. I'm actually shocked red ford is trying to run with it. This will back fire on I think.

I am am an average, employed tax paying Albertan and I think its garbage. Probably not in the same way you do though.

[transplant99]

Do you think this "conscience rights" nonsense is the reason for that?

No i dont....but go ahead and tell people they have to do something against their beliefs and tell me it wont make the shortage worse.

If you jump through all sorts of hoops to get a job, and then refuse to do certain aspects of that job, what exactly are you being forced to do?

If I take a job with Suncor, and refuse to have anything to do with oilsands production because it goes against my conscience, what do you think should happen to me? If you are consistent with your "conscience rights" business, obviously I should be able to keep my job.

But we all goddamn well know that I'd be turfed, and rightly so.

Why would you get a job with an oil company if ou didnt believe in the production of it?

So you think people who are against gay marriage should be forced to do exactly that? How about doctors who are against abortion ( a number i think would be incredibly small btw)....should they not be allowed to treat any other malady or illness because of a belief system? Just fire them all?

Again this whole boogeyman argument is just nonsense. Are there whackos out there against such things? Of course there are and it is their RIGHT to believe what ever they like....but to deny them employment (particularly doctors and nurses) based on a procedure they do not want to be part of is assinine.

Obviously this is not true. You believe that some public servants should be allowed to discriminate against gay people if their "conscience" dictates.

No i think that no one should be forced to do something against their beliefs with the threat of dismissal if they dont...especially when other people would be readily available to supply the same service. Rights have to work both ways.

Seriously...lets look at the reality of what is being argued here...how many would truly not perform their sevices based on religious beliefs? 5% maybe?

Again this is all such a non-issue in real terms but this is what the left does.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I don't think it is. However how one can choose to interpret the spirit of the document it might contain certain elements of how First Lady defines 'conscience rights'.

If she means the right of a public employee to refuse to do certain things in their professional capacity for reasons of conscience, I'm at a loss to figure out the legal basis for this argument, frankly.

It seems to me that the spirit of the Charter is not what the Wild Rose thinks it is. They might want to look at hiring some lawyers to look at these policies a bit more carefully.

I can only assume that FL is referring to section 2(a) of the Charter, but the "freedom" contained therein clearly doesn't support the much broader and more voluminous "right" that the Wild Rose is asserting here.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Seriously...lets look at the reality of what is being argued here...how many would truly not perform their sevices based on religious beliefs? 5% maybe?

Again this is all such a non-issue in real terms but this is what the left does.

That is such a crock...I'm a centre-right voter in the typical political spectrum. It has nothing to do with the "left" or the "right". It has everything to do with what is right in a socially progressive society.

If it was 0.00001% that is too much because one person is having their rights trampled by some notion of freedom. If someone takes there religious ideology far enough to not treat patients in a public system (for any medical issue) or a public marriage commisioner refuses to marry a couple then they should be fired on the spot.

I was impressed by Smith + the WRA release last night, at least it tries to clear this issue up. But if there is ANY chance that something like conscience rights actually gets put to a referendum or voted on in the legislature etc then they immediately lose my vote.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

First Lady, one claim that you've made that I'm interested in is this notion that 'conscience rights' are enshrined in the Charter. Can you tell me more about this? I'll grant I'm no expert but that seems wrong to me.

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I don't think it is. However how one can choose to interpret the spirit of the document it might contain certain elements of how First Lady defines 'conscience rights'.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/c...1.html#l_I:s_2

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by First Lady

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/c...1.html#l_I:s_2

Can you point to any case law setting out your expansive interpretation of 2(a)? Remember, the document is the Charter of "Rights and Freedoms." Keep in mind, these are not synonyms; freedoms and rights are different.

What you're arguing is for a massive implementational component to 2(a), and I'm wondering if you can support that on some LEGAL basis. Pointing to the Charter isn't enough; I already know what it says.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Can you point to any case law setting out your expansive interpretation of 2(a)? Remember, the document is the Charter of "Rights and Freedoms." Keep in mind, these are not synonyms; freedoms and rights are different.

What you're arguing is for a massive implementational component to 2(a), and I'm wondering if you can support that on some LEGAL basis. Pointing to the Charter isn't enough; I already know what it says.

No, I can't. Not a lawyer and won't pretend to be one.

I do know there is very broad interpretation of every aspect of the charter. Thinking of the case where the McDonalds worker refused to wash her hands.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why would you get a job with an oil company if ou didnt believe in the production of it?

Exactly.

Why would you get a job as a marriage commissioner if you didn't believe in commissioning marriages?

But you don't think that guy at Suncor should be fired, because he has the right to refuse to do his job based on his "conscience rights". It's surprising, but it's right there...

Originally Posted by transplant99

No i think that no one should be forced to do something against their beliefs with the threat of dismissal if they dont

Originally Posted by transplant99

So you think people who are against gay marriage should be forced to do exactly that?

I don't know where you got that idea. I believe that people who are marriage commissioners should do their job.

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again this is all such a non-issue in real terms but this is what the left does.

I'd never heard of this "conscience rights" crap until probably Wednesday. I didn't make it up, and we have a Wildrose mouthpiece in here defending it.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why would you get a job with an oil company if ou didnt believe in the production of it?.

Why would you get a job as a civil servant if you didn't believe in what the government of alberta (or whatever laws - fed or prov or municipal) say you must do? Otherwise, how is the below not the outcome?

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If you jump through all sorts of hoops to get a job, and then refuse to do certain aspects of that job, what exactly are you being forced to do?

If I take a job with Suncor, and refuse to have anything to do with oilsands production because it goes against my conscience, what do you think should happen to me? If you are consistent with your "conscience rights" business, obviously I should be able to keep my job.

But we all goddamn well know that I'd be turfed, and rightly so.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

and we have a Wildrose mouthpiece in here defending it.

And this is directed at who ?

No, you know what it doesn't matter who it's directed at.

This election is clearly bringing out the best in people. They want to discuss policy, then don't like what they hear and resort to insults.