Saturday, April 07, 2012

The Alberta Liberal Party is "firmly opposed to the concept" of a Charter Right!


Yes you read that correctly. The Alberta Liberal Party is "firmly opposed" to the concept of a specific charter right. In this case section 2.a of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which reads:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.   
The official Alberta Liberal Party press release on the subject:

"The Alberta Liberals are firmly opposed to the concept of conscience rights, and are deeply disturbed by the Wildrose Party's suggestion that there is a place for such a repugnant and antiquated notion in contemporary Alberta."

This is not about certain instances of an individual expressing their freedom of conscience, and I do not want to even get into that here, this is about not just being opposed, but firmly opposed to the concept of an existing Charter right. 

Now who are supposed to be the scary ones again?

Are they really opposed to the idea of it? I don't think so, it seems they are more likely to be the victim of a very poorly worded press release than actually against the concept of a charter right, but it did provide for some interesting discussion on the entire issue over the weekend.

Including a guest appearance from Justin Trudeau, whose father Pierre was instrumental in giving us our Constitution and Charter of Rights, and the weird part was that I was in agreement with him on both the Charter and the law.

The bottom line on all of this is that our Charter and our existing laws make all those claims that the Wildrose will somehow be able to take rights away due to conscience rights total BS. It hasn't happened in Alberta where someone has been denied a government service that they were entitled to and it will never happen because can't happen thanks to already existing laws.

Namely Section 15.1 of the Charter, and the law is very clear on this when it comes to individuals working on behalf of the government; they cannot discriminate.

And yes, that does include those that perform civil marriages. Because that is ALREADY the law of Canada and any law that is written that tries to change that will never survive a Charter challenge.

This is such a non issue I can't believe that sane people are buying the BS. It just will not happen.

Glad to go at it in the comments if you disagree but fair warning; the charter, the law and Justin Trudeau are on my side. ;-)


WTF said...

This is what eventually happens when the left plays up rights as opposed to rights and resposibilities. Sooner or later rights collide and then they promote themselves as arbitor of which rights are more important. There are no absolutes with these clowns and what is important to them changes with stunning frequency.

Anonymous said...

Good on the Alberta liberal Party; not for their position on the subject of conscientious objections but for their honesty in stating their position. Most political parties hide behind the buzz words of freedom while quietly stripping away those freedoms. The Liberals have laid it on the line: they are in favour of state control over individual rights. The Wildrose are in favour of the rights of the individual over those of the state. The battle lines between these two parties are clearly drawn and enunciated. My choice is Wildrose, but I do appreciate the fact that the liberals have stated their preferences clearly.

Alain said...

Any political party supporting collective/group rights over individual freedom is an enemy of a true liberal democracy. These parties go by various names be they Liberal, NDP, Green or Communist.

Joe said...

Actually WTF the problem began with the idea that any government anywhere could define human rights. Well that and we the governed failure to define/limit government roles.

NeoLuddite said...

Entropy is an immutable law of nature and time defined by some as "All Things Ultimately Resolve themselves to Their Most Random State and Lowest Energy Level"

Methinks that the Alberta PCs have been deluded into believing that the Law of Entropy doesn't apply to them or that it was repealed by an order-in-council years ago.

But there is some hope - I would suggest a "reverse entropy" by packing up this chaotic band of wastrels and scoundrels into a definable and clearly labeled mass and then abandoning it far away in the political hinterland.