April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again....then why not show a simple example in canada where it has occurred?

The Herald article yesterday pointed to a number and I've referenced that at least a few times now. Care to tell me which use you agree with?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again....then why not show a simple example in canada where it has occurred?

Has anyone else even tried to pull this kind of stunt? I don't know. I'd never heard of this euphemism before.

Alberta is the most conservative place in the country, possibly about to boot out a conservative government for a more conservative government. Maybe we'll be the guinea pigs.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again....then why not show a simple example in canada where it has occurred?

I already provided an example of the government of Saskatchewan attempting to pass "conscience rights" legislation.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Has anyone else even tried to pull this kind of stunt? I don't know. I'd never heard of this euphemism before.

Alberta is the most conservative place in the country, possibly about to boot out a conservative government for a more conservative government. Maybe we'll be the guinea pigs.

Even if we're first, since this isn't anything to fear, I'm sure that their supporters can just show a simple and rational reason to legislate this? Surely, because this is obvious witch hunt, there is not only reasonable justification for both the conscience rights policy as well as the increased cost of setting up a court to deal with the fall-out.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I'll toss one back at you. Some ndp members are anti oilsands, referring to them as tar sands and supporting the radicalism of mulclair. If the ndp were to form government, how long before they shut down the oilsands

(it can go both ways)

I agree there are a lot of NDP supporters who are quite radical in their views regarding the oilsands as well as the viability of Canada to exist without them and still offer anywhere near the services currently offered to the citizens of the country.. Seeing as though you really didn't ask a question and more just made a statement that I agree in large part with and I hope never happens (the NDP getting into actual power).

The issue of personal freedoms is an interesting one - where do you propose that the line in the sand be drawn? There will inevitably be a clash of two persons rights at some point in time, such as is the case with marriage commissioners, it is naive to think otherwise. I think that the scary thing is that the line in the sand seems to be drawn for some reason at religious freedoms being what is valued above the rights associated with not being descriminated against. For a party which right or wrong has the stigma associated with it of being a right wing christian conservative political party it sure does raise a lot of question marks regarding the views of the party regarding contentious issues such as abortion... which granted I think would be the stupidest move for any political party to touch.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I'm sure that since conscience rights are so innocuous that you can just provide a simple example where its fine to deny service?

I think the reason yoj don't want to is because you know exactly what it amounts to; legalized discrimination.

Outright denying service is the extreme end of conscience rights and likely beyond the rights proposed by the wild rose. In all likely hood it would be something closer to this. "You have the right to not perform a service so long as you can make alternative arrangements for the person requesting the service, can do so in a timely fashion, and a small delay in providing the service won't cause any harm." Writing this up to be specific enough to not be exploited would be extremely difficult of course, but its likely what is intended when the wild rose talks about conscience rights. This is all speculation of course, but it's approximately what I'd expect.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Outright denying service is the extreme end of conscience rights and likely beyond the rights proposed by the wild rose. In all likely hood it would be something closer to this. "You have the right to not perform a service so long as you can make alternative arrangements for the person requesting the service, can do so in a timely fashion, and a small delay in providing the service won't cause any harm." Writing this up to be specific enough to not be exploited would be extremely difficult of course, but its likely what is intended when the wild rose talks about conscience rights. This is all speculation of course, but it's approximately what I'd expect.

And even that is still clearly discrimination.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Outright denying service is the extreme end of conscience rights and likely beyond the rights proposed by the wild rose. In all likely hood it would be something closer to this. "You have the right to not perform a service so long as you can make alternative arrangements for the person requesting the service, can do so in a timely fashion, and a small delay in providing the service won't cause any harm." Writing this up to be specific enough to not be exploited would be extremely difficult of course, but its likely what is intended when the wild rose talks about conscience rights. This is all speculation of course, but it's approximately what I'd expect.

I don't buy that. Would a doctor who objects to abortion not have the same objections to referring someone for one? It's only logical that they would.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Outright denying service is the extreme end of conscience rights and likely beyond the rights proposed by the wild rose. In all likely hood it would be something closer to this. "You have the right to not perform a service so long as you can make alternative arrangements for the person requesting the service, can do so in a timely fashion, and a small delay in providing the service won't cause any harm." Writing this up to be specific enough to not be exploited would be extremely difficult of course, but its likely what is intended when the wild rose talks about conscience rights.

While I agree with the logistics of a policy such as this, it doesn't change the fact that an agent of the province is deciding not to offer a service to someone based upon their personal beliefs. If a cashier told you to go to the next till over because you were gay, you would still be able to purchase your food but what would your views of the service at the store be and the store in general? Would it still be that the store was preserving peoples freedoms? I am 99% sure you would call the manager and complain and likely request that the person be fired.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Herald article yesterday pointed to a number and I've referenced that at least a few times now. Care to tell me which use you agree with?

I looked...cant find what you are referring too.

I already provided an example of the government of Saskatchewan attempting to pass "conscience rights" legislation.

And how did that work out?

[Makarov]

I've looked through the wildrose platform and I can't find anything which addresses this problem:

In 2010, the Alberta per capita income is $70,826 (Statistics Canada, 2011); in 1999 the Alberta top 20% earned 14.5 times more than the lowest 20% (Penbina.org, 2000); in 2008, 32.4% of Alberta families total revenue is between $0 and $39.999, and the 42.1% of Alberta families total revenue is $80,000 or more (Statistics Canada, 2009); in 2011 Alberta has the fastest growing gap between rich and poor in Canada; the richest 1% in Alberta has as much wealth as the poorest 53% combined (Myles, 2011).

Unless of course handing out $300 cheques to every resident, regardless of need, is a strategy to address this?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I agree there are a lot of NDP supporters who are quite radical in their views regarding the oilsands as well as the viability of Canada to exist without them and still offer anywhere near the services currently offered to the citizens of the country.. Seeing as though you really didn't ask a question and more just made a statement that I agree in large part with and I hope never happens (the NDP getting into actual power).

The issue of personal freedoms is an interesting one - where do you propose that the line in the sand be drawn? There will inevitably be a clash of two persons rights at some point in time, such as is the case with marriage commissioners, it is naive to think otherwise. I think that the scary thing is that the line in the sand seems to be drawn for some reason at religious freedoms being what is valued above the rights associated with not being descriminated against. For a party which right or wrong has the stigma associated with it of being a right wing christian conservative political party it sure does raise a lot of question marks regarding the views of the party regarding contentious issues such as abortion... which granted I think would be the stupidest move for any political party to touch.

See!!!

The left is STILL banging this drum....abortion is a NON ISSUE...end of story....its like you have been brain washed into this stuff and even when faced with the reality of it, you still cant see the forest for the trees.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Makarov

And even that is still clearly discrimination.

Sure, but it doesn't cause any harm. Everyone discriminates, and discrimination on it's own is a good thing in every day life, just not when it relates to justice and government legislated services. Discrimination is what you use when you pick a life partner for example. The pharmacist that makes alternative arrangements under the existing code is discriminating too, but the service is still provided, just by a different person. Quite frankly, there are very few procedures that would be eligible for conscience rights as anything acute an time sensitive would still require immediate service.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I looked...cant find what you are referring too.




And how did that work out?

Well its from the Liberal/Eastern/Elite media anyway, so you'd probably just disregard it. Why don't you just provide a clear example of the use of conscience rights that you are prepared to argue for though? There must be dozens of reasons why this is useful and worth setting up a new court for it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

And how did that work out?

Wait, are you suggesting that the Wildrose Alliance's proposal for "conscience rights" legislation is a good idea (or even not a bad idea) because it won't withstand Charter scrutiny and is therefore impossible to actually implement? Is that the standard for good policy in Alberta now? Yikes.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

While I agree with the logistics of a policy such as this, it doesn't change the fact that an agent of the province is deciding not to offer a service to someone based upon their personal beliefs. If a cashier told you to go to the next till over because you were gay, you would still be able to purchase your food but what would your views of the service at the store be and the store in general? Would it still be that the store was preserving peoples freedoms? I am 99% sure you would call the manager and complain and likely request that the person be fired.

Cashiers aren't eligible under the policy, and even if they were, this information is irrelevant to doing their job so it would not be grounds to discriminate. There is no reason they should have this info, and they don't have the right to ask, so they don't have the right to deny service.

Your conscience is not something that allows you to discriminate based on another persons actions, it's something that causes you to discriminate based on actions you are required to perform that go against your beliefs. As such, you could refuse to give someone a tattoo of a swastika, but could not refuse service because someone has such a tattoo showing.

FWIW, i'm opposed to having these rights extended to marriage commissioners, which is why i'm focused mostly on the medical side. There seems to be some misunderstanding of what a conscience is.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Sure, but it doesn't cause any harm. Everyone discriminates, and discrimination on it's own is a good thing in every day life, just not when it relates to justice and government legislated services. Discrimination is what you use when you pick a life partner for example. The pharmacist that makes alternative arrangements under the existing code is discriminating too, but the service is still provided, just by a different person. Quite frankly, there are very few procedures that would be eligible for conscience rights as anything acute an time sensitive would still require immediate service.

What? It doesn't cause any harm? I'll just repost this:

[41] First, and most importantly, this submission overlooks, or inappropriately discounts, the importance of the impact on gay or lesbian couples of being told by a marriage commissioner that he or she will not solemnize a same-sex union. As can be easily understood, such effects can be expected to be very significant and genuinely offensive. It is not difficult for most people to imagine the personal hurt involved in a situation where an individual is told by a governmental officer “I won’t help you because you are black (or Asian or First Nations) but someone else will” or “I won’t help you because you are Jewish (or Muslim or Buddist) but someone else will.” Being told “I won’t help you because you are gay/lesbian but someone else will” is no different.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Unless of course handing out $300 cheques to every resident, regardless of need, is a strategy to address this?

Haha Communist.

I do think that the quality of life is quite good in Alberta for 90% of citizens, to say otherwise is ignoring how great our province truly is. I think that big strides were made in raising the AISH payments to $1,588 per month which will help a lot of the people who are in the bottom rungs of society. It is difficult to actually institute programs to help the destitute though, homelessness and mental health initiatives are costly issues which the voting public doesn't want to acknowledge let alone contribute finances to and then there is the systemic racism which is still pretty common within society, particularly with regards to Aboriginals.

That being said the 10 year plan to end homelessness is seeing some positive effects and the numbers are decreasing, which actually does save money if you look at the stats. There does need to be less focus on shelters and more on harm prevention and affordable housing so that people can get actual treatment though. I really do wish that politicians trotted out an economist with their campaign promises and said this is what we will spend and this is what we anticipate the savings to be. It wouldn't be as sexy as buzzwords are but for those who are actually interested in the issues and want to see Alberta experience long term growth it would be a welcome change.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Makarov

What? It doesn't cause any harm? I'll just repost this:

Read my later posts and earlier posts. I'm opposed to providing this to marriage commissioners because they are 'agents of the state' and as such should provide whatever services the law allows.

The medical side of the issue isn't so clear though and this is why I've focused mostly on this.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well its from the Liberal/Eastern/Elite media anyway, so you'd probably just disregard it. Why don't you just provide a clear example of the use of conscience rights that you are prepared to argue for though? There must be dozens of reasons why this is useful and worth setting up a new court for it.

yes...really simple....so no one canadian citizen is forced to do something that goes against their belief system...its very straight forward and protects all. See I dont want anyone having to do something they feel is against what they stand for when in any instance there is an easy alternative...its just common sense and something all Canadians should be proud to acheive. You seem to want to force those you disagree with to have to do what they wish not to...which is against anything i thought the compassionate Liberal set feels they stand for. Its amazing to me actually.

I will be the first to say though that should some very rare case come about where its only one provider of any single service that is denying someone else that service and there are no other options, then yes they must be held accountable for it and do it or not be allowed in that position to begin with.

I truly cannot see a single possible situation where that would occur in REALITY in Alberta in this day and age however, and is why the whole thing seems so stupid to be making it an issue when it really quite simply isnt and wont be. I guess the left has to find something to try and stop the evil conservative train from steamrolling their way to power though. Its like the Federal election all over again. Didnt work then and it wont work now.

As for your first line...really? Debate over.