April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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.

Well since it can never see the light of day...what difference will it make to anyone?

Is it "good policy"? probably not, but since it doesnt matter....its doesnt matter.

Thank god they have other policies that Albertans actually care about though eh.?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

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.

Would it allow for non-provision to a person who smokes or drinks alcohol? Would it allow for doctors to not provide birth control?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

Haha, debate over? I asked for a simple example of the policy in use. Rather than give me one though you basically explain what it hopes to achieve and then run back to the federal election, hidden agenda defence. Chewbaca should be making an appearance anytime now.

I'll just ask again. Can you give me a clear example of where this would be used? I just want to know in what situation this is important and would be applied.

I have no idea why that is so difficult to provide an answer to.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Slava

Would it allow for non-provision to a person who smokes or drinks alcohol? Would it allow for doctors to not provide birth control?

On the first issue, the answer would be a big no, as that's not a conscience issue. Conscience only prevents you from doing something that is against what you believe, not prevent you from providing a service to someone because they do something which is against what you believe.

I'm not sure if birth control is something that requires a prescription, but if it is, it wouldn't change anything. They would have to sign off on it if the prescription is requested as conscience rights don't allow you to prevent another person from acting against your conscience (assuming the action is within the law), but it would allow them to avoid recommending it to the patient if they believe it is wrong. The doctor could warn them of the side effects (that's ethically expected anyways), and if the patient uses the birth control anyways, that would be on the patients conscience, not the doctors. If a doctor believes it is wrong though, they will already be doing this. Essentially, in many ways, we already have conscience rights, they just aren't written law.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, debate over? I asked for a simple example of the policy in use. Rather than give me one though you basically explain what it hopes to achieve and then run back to the federal election, hidden agenda defence. Chewbaca should be making an appearance anytime now.

I'll just ask again. Can you give me a clear example of where this would be used? I just want to know in what situation this is important and would be applied.

I have no idea why that is so difficult to provide an answer to.

Now your being an obtuse ass...was wondering when that would show up.

I explained quite clearly in the very first paragraph where it would come into play...whether it be a doctor or whoever.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Now your being an obtuse ass...was wondering when that would show up.

I explained quite clearly in the very first paragraph where it would come into play...whether it be a doctor or whoever.

I'm really just wanting to see a specific example of what this entails. I can show what I think are legitimate examples such as gay marriage and abortion, but rather than jump to hot button issues I figured there must be others. How thats "obtuse" or being an "ass" I have no idea. I just want specifics to justify setting up a new court and going through this whole exercise.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

On the first issue, the answer would be a big no, as that's not a conscience issue. Conscience only prevents you from doing something that is against what you believe, not prevent you from providing a service to someone because they do something which is against what you believe.

I'm not sure if birth control is something that requires a prescription, but if it is, it wouldn't change anything. They would have to sign off on it if the prescription is requested as conscience rights don't allow you to prevent another person from acting against your conscience (assuming the action is within the law), but it would allow them to avoid recommending it to the patient if they believe it is wrong. If a doctor believes it is wrong though, they will already be doing this. Essentially, in many ways, we already have conscience rights, they just aren't written law.

So give me a case where it applies then?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

We didn't make this stuff up. You can call it fearmongering all you want, but that's a copout, and a weak-kneed one at that. If they don't have the balls to answer questions about this "conscience rights" crap, it's their own fault.

Sorry, the ones without balls are those now resorting to name calling, mixed metaphors, and arguing non-issues like "conscience rights" into the ground.

This thread has become unreadable in the past few days. Almost no one is advocating their party's policies. No one is discussing real issues.

On the left wing we have bunch of people who've realized the polls aren't going the way they'd like who've resorted to high fiving each other on the internet for making non-points about non-existant situations to make themselves feel better.

On the right wing we've got... nothing. It's like they don't try anymore.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Sorry, the ones without balls are those now resorting to name calling, mixed metaphors, and arguing non-issues like "conscience rights" into the ground.

This thread has become unreadable in the past few days. Almost no one is advocating their party's policies. No one is discussing real issues.

On the left wing we have bunch of people who've realized the polls aren't going the way they'd like who've resorted to high fiving each other on the internet for making non-points about non-existant situations to make themselves feel better.

On the right wing we've got... nothing. It's like they don't try anymore.

I agree with and I'm part of the problem! I apologize for that; its actually a really irritating topic in general as well.

Here's something new; Redford pledges $500 kids physical activity credit.

I hate these tax credits. They cost too much to administer and are just pure vote buying schemes.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Slava

So give me a case where it applies then?

The big one is non medically necessary abortions. A doctor could refuse to perform the abortion and recommend the patient to another doctor would be one. I'm sure this already happens all the time, and it's well within pretty much every ethics framework I've seen. It also wouldn't be harmful to the patient as a Doctor against abortion wont be good at them and probably not qualified to perform them anyways and as such would have to refer them for ethics reasons anyways.

Another one would be something like Female Circumcision. This isn't really an issue today as it's not a government funded procedure and is considered medically harmful and therefore ethically wrong and exempt anyways, but if it did become government funded and supported procedure after a lot of pressure from a religious group, it would allow you to refuse to perform the service.

[Resolute 14]

Meanwhile in the polls, the PCs are getting decimated in Calgary and rural Alberta. Shame 308's riding estimates are so untrustworthy... He doesn't even have Redford holding her seat right now.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Sorry, the ones without balls are those now resorting to name calling, mixed metaphors, and arguing non-issues like "conscience rights" into the ground.

This thread has become unreadable in the past few days. Almost no one is advocating their party's policies. No one is discussing real issues.

Agreed. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and read (or re-read) my post on policy vs legislation.... http://janemorgan.blogspot.ca/2012/0...gislation.html

On the right wing we've got... nothing. It's like they don't try anymore.

That's right. Because it's not going to happen (see above reading). That and we are all out working on campaigns....

'cept for me, today going to visit with family and tonight going to a mid-campaign "cease fire soiree" with friends from PC's, Libs & AB Party.

Later peeps.... don't kill each other.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

The big one is non medically necessary abortions. A doctor could refuse to perform the abortion and recommend the patient to another doctor would be one. I'm sure this already happens all the time, and it's well within pretty much every ethics framework I've seen. It also wouldn't be harmful to the patient as a Doctor against abortion wont be good at them and probably not qualified to perform them anyways and as such would have to refer them for ethics reasons anyways.

Fair enough, but do we need new law to cover something already existing? I think there is more to this.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree with and I'm part of the problem! I apologize for that; its actually a really irritating topic in general as well.

Here's something new; Redford pledges $500 kids physical activity credit.

I hate these tax credits. They cost too much to administer and are just pure vote buying schemes.

I like the principle behind a physical activity credit, make it more feasable for parents to put their kids into sports, keep them active which does have obvious long term advantages.

What are some other ways that people can think of to get parents to motivate their kids to get them active? Should the provincial government use advertising in order to get the message out, something similar to Barb Tarbox? I do think that a foods class should be manditory in Junior High, teach kids how to cook and what healthy food is.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Slava

Here's something new; Redford pledges $500 kids physical activity credit.

I hate these tax credits. They cost too much to administer and are just pure vote buying schemes.

Another good idea, but poor execution. Keep the $500 and give it to the schools so that gym is mandated from kindergarten through grade 12. Or pay teachers to stay after school and coach teams. I know I wouldnt put my kids into something athletic simply so I can get a $500 rebate.

Agreed 100% that they're cumbersome + difficult to administer.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Slava

Fair enough, but do we need new law to cover something already existing? I think there is more to this.

That's kind of my point. There isn't really anything in a conscience rights law that would be upheld by the courts that isn't already provided for with ethics codes and existing law. It's would end up being nothing more than a redundant law used to gain the support of social conservatives that don't think the issue all the way through.

I added another example, but it too is covered by existing ethics frameworks IMO.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

That's kind of my point. There isn't really anything in a conscience rights law that would be upheld by the courts that isn't already provided for with ethics codes and existing law.

So why has Danielle Smith argued for them and why are they a WRA policy?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Meanwhile in the polls, the PCs are getting decimated in Calgary and rural Alberta. Shame 308's riding estimates are so untrustworthy... He doesn't even have Redford holding her seat right now.

yeah....IFF brought this up yesterday as to how he/she arrives at the conclusions they do...its a bit awkward for sure.

One thing is for certain though....no matter what particular ridings go which way, the WRA will be forming the next gov't, but its just a matter of by how much. Again unless a huge mis-step occurs by Smith in the debates...this will be one of the more remarkable campaigns by a party that i can ever remember at any level of politics.

The only comparable was Ralph when he ran for mayor in 1980.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Slava

So why has Danielle Smith argued for them and why are they a WRA policy?

To pander to social conservatives in Alberta who think we need this protection without realizing that, really, it wouldn't change a thing, at least medically. I believe that this is why she pretty much refuses to talk about it or make it an election issue. It's a vague comment meant to appease social conservatives including those within her party, but recognizing that it won't really change anything.

The marriage commissioner issue is a different debate and is where the real implications are, but that would the thrown out by the courts so it's likely of little consequence.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I like the principle behind a physical activity credit, make it more feasable for parents to put their kids into sports, keep them active which does have obvious long term advantages.

What are some other ways that people can think of to get parents to motivate their kids to get them active? Should the provincial government use advertising in order to get the message out, something similar to Barb Tarbox? I do think that a foods class should be manditory in Junior High, teach kids how to cook and what healthy food is.

Also, a tax credit aimed at a broad spectrum of Alberta's population, with health benefits attached, is a far sight better than a tax credit aimed at the people who supported Allison Redford's leadership bid.