Wildrose Party policies defile Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

by Bobbie Saga

Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith refused to say Wednesday whether she personally believes in the concept of "conscience rights."

It’s a concept whereby commissioners can opt-out of marrying same-sex couples, or doctors can opt-out from prescribing birth control pills to a patient, or family planning counselors can opt-out of referring women for appropriate family planning – all in the guise of freedom of conscience and guided by a person’s values or beliefs.

It seems an unbelievable concept, this twist of Canadian Charter rights that cloaks discrimination. Yet the specter of religious fanatics and their nefarious influence are pushing for such policies, most notably within Alberta’s far right of the political spectrum. And it’s become a familiar aspect of Alberta’s provincial election with home-schooling parents pushing for their "god given right" to pick and choose what’s taught to their children in a publicly funded education system, or the chant to limit access to justice by way of abolishing the Human Rights Commission (HRC).

These intolerant polices should scare anyone who believes in a respectful society whereby everyone's rights are taken seriously and are balanced with competing views and guided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not by one's personal values and beliefs. The whole concept smacks of state-sanctioned bigotry and justification for zealots imposing their views and values on the rest of society. Plus, it does so in tandem with another Wildrose policy that taints the purpose and value of HRCs and would limit access to justice for only those well-heeled enough to afford it. Indeed, in the November/December 2010 issue of Canadian Human Rights Reporter, it was noted that, "none of the last five full external reviews of human rights processes in Canada have seen any merit in abandoning human rights tribunal systems in favour of high courts!"

How is this "conscience rights" policy any different from the Jim Crow laws in the US that allowed systemic discrimination and widespread de jure racial segregation in all public facilities with a supposedly "separate but equal" status for black Americans? This separation led to unequal economic treatment in bank lending practices, in employment, in education, in housing with all leading to social disadvantages for one segment of the population.

It seems, however, Ms. Smith does not wish to publicly acknowledge the toned-down word -- that is, the government "should" implement conscience rights. The party's 2010 policy handbook says a Wildrose government "will implement legislation protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals." But the 2012 Wildrose platform has that one different word on the subject, which hopefully should put tarnish on a carefully polished campaign.

Conscience rights are hotly disputed in other jurisdictions, as they tend to involve medical professionals refusing to perform or counsel for procedures they have moral objections to. These procedures include abortion, sterilization or other forms of birth control. There have also been civil commissioners opting out of marrying same-sex couples. Just last year, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal upheld the principle that those sworn to carry out public duties cannot unilaterally pick and choose parts of their job they will perform. That case involved a marriage commissioner refusing to perform same-sex marriages because of his religious beliefs.

What’s disturbing is that since this story broke in the mainstream press, there are comments popping up on media boards and blogs suggesting those who question or oppose such policies should have more respect for politicians holding religious values. Ignorance is bliss, I gather.

Most reasonable people, I suggest, don’t have a problem with politicians of faith. Rather, they have a problem with those seeming to believe that their religion gives them greater moral authority than those who don’t share their particular set of values and beliefs. It should not – and does not – under Canada’s Charter. I would further suggest that most reasonable people would draw the line at politicians using their belief system to justify casting out those who don’t share their bigoted beliefs. Democratic policies are supposed to be inclusive and government is supposed to govern for all people.

Are we now so far distanced from the past that we have forgotten the mistakes of the past? I would hope not. But asked repeatedly about her stance, Ms. Smith dodged reporters' questions, stating only, "I'll tell you where I stand… I am fundamentally a populist… I fundamentally believe that Albertans should decide the direction of the province."

That is not good enough, Ms. Smith. It is blatant deflection on an exceedingly important question, a question of state-sanctioned discriminatory policy you have previously gone on record endorsing. It’s a simple question, so answer it and allow the people to decide if this is what is truly wanted for the future of Alberta.

Far right’s amplified web of deception

Update

Part 2 in a series (more posts to follow)

by Bobbie Saga

An amplified voice of the evangelical far right is leading the charge on Alberta’s education and human rights debate.

To give this more clarity and context, the Alberta Home Education Association (AHEA) first organized a rally on the steps of the Alberta Legislature March 5, which drew hundreds of protestors. It was reported the parents’ concern is Section 16 of Bill 2 "that enshrines the Alberta Human Rights Act into the Education Act" and infringes "on their right to teach their children what they want."

Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk, addressed the protestors (the writ was dropped Monday triggering the provincial election).

"What you do at home, your values, you will not be asked to develop any particular curriculum," Lukaszuk said according to Global TV Edmonton. "There is no reason to believe that you will be required to do anything differently than you have up to now. Not only the minister of education, but no ministry of this government will ever, ever venture into interfering with what we do at home, with what we practice at home, and what we believe in that home. That is our private lives and that will be respected."

Not appeased by Lukaszuk’s comments, the AHEA, which openly works in cooperation with another group, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), turned up the political heat. The two followed up by organizing a second rally March 19, set to work lobbying with a letter writing campaign, plus put out calls for people to contact the government.

But the AHEA and the HSLDA are supported in their lobbying efforts by other far right leaning and evangelical groups, including Concerned Christians Canada (CCC) that, for example, put out an e-alert (last updated February 23) about the first protest entitled Political Correctness Gone Mad (Alberta Alrt – Calls Needed Immediately). The alert states:

"The new Education Act (Bill 2) proposed in Alberta will force political correctness on parents in their own homes when teaching their children. Under this powerful new legislation, all homeschooling, including all material and teaching, must meet these requirements. It essentially makes parents subject to the Alberta Human Rights Act when they interact with their own children in their own homes. Furthermore, it requires this communication to promote understanding and respect as set out in the Alberta Human Rights Act: the same Act that has been responsible for repressing virtually all forms of religious expression that have come before the Human Rights Tribunal. How then, is a parent to read the bible to their child, or pray with them, or share any of their own religious beliefs without fearing the political correctness police."

Not by coincidence, no information is given on the CCC site clearly explaining its US roots or its affiliation with Progressive Group for Independent Business (PGIB). And most references to the infamous PGIB founder and CEO Craig Chandler were removed from the CCC site. His Wiki profile doesn’t do him justice!

Chandler, who founded the CCC, was replaced as National Chairman by Jim Blake who hails from Balzac. What is stated on the CCC site, however, and located on its "Christian Politics" page, is the following (direct quote with an archaic notation of "rhelm" included):

"Christians for too long have bought the lie from secular media and secular education, in short secular propaganda, that Christians should not take their Christian worldview to the rhelm of politics, but the time has come that Christians push back, that Christians understand that we are called to be overcommers in all the world. We are called to be salt and light in all the world. We are called to preach the gospel to all creation, not all creation but the world of politics. Check out these news items for updates on Christians who are not afraid to be involved in politics, as Christians, not by stealth, but unashamedly Christian all the time…"

Further, the CCC also boasts feeds to 20 other groups with evangelical orientations and is often quoted in LifeSite news that has ties to a site calling itself Concerned Christians Canada | No Apologies. And No Apologies is directly linked to another site Stand up for Freedom Canada (SFC), which appears to be a stand-alone "grassroots" lobby against Human Rights Commissions.

The content of Stand up for Freedom Canada is pure propaganda (more on that in my next post), without religious context or content. But as stated implicity on the site – without clarification, including the full name or a link to the affiliated organization – it is connected to the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada. That site has the caption, "Sharing the light of God’s word across our nation." And this group is connected to another group called ChristianGovernance.

But getting back to the Alberta debate, the AHEA and the HSLDA are working in stride with an umbrella group called Association and Citizens for Diversity in Education (ACDE). And this group sent a letter to the provincial government March 19 with an interesting list of 14 evangelical signatories. They include:

Association of Christian Schools International (or the Wikipedia version)
Strathcona Christian Academy Society
MCS Foundation (a registered name)
Millwoods Christian School Society (Calvary Community Church)
REAL Women of Canada (Or the Wikipedia version)
Congregations of the Living Church of God
Grace Point Church of God
Mill Woods Pentecostal Assembly
Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church
Olive Tree Fellowship
The Empty Tomb Ministries
Living Waters Christian Academy
Logos Society of Edmonton
Lighthouse Pentecostal Church

Although the Association claims representation of about 80,000, the above list is a fraction of churches in Alberta and represents a very small portion of Alberta’s voting population (3,653,840 latest statistics on total population). The Catholic Church, however, has weighed into the debate.

More problematic is the caption above the letter on the AHEA site. It states "Alberta Catholic School Trustees’ Association and Citizens for Diversity in Education write Letters." But all links to the supposed letter from the school board are broken or people are redirected to another page on the AHEA site. And the letter is not a feature on the school board’s site. This is not to say, however, the school board has not made its views known to the Alberta government.

Nor do the numbers game and alleged representation negate potential political influence in real and present in ways.

The request appearing on the AHEA site entitled Response from Education Minister and Education Critics has a link on the title that also goes nowhere. It, however, states, "ACDE would welcome a statement from the Ministry of Education and Education Critics from all political parties as to your position on parent’s roles in the education of their children, rationale for the votes you made. Your responses will be posted on our website. If you would like to provide a response, please address it to myself, and I will be sure to have it posted on our website."

The post appeared on the site March 26 – and the initial post was accompanied by a single, prominently featured partisan response from Rob Anderson, Wildrose Party education critic. At the time of this post, no other political party comments were posted to the site.

Again, it gets a little confusing with all the sites and names, but that is not without purpose. (see Part 1 in the series).

See related story on the federal level and the environment:
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Harper-Evangelical-Mission/
See article posted by the Alberta Teachers Association
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20News/Volume%2046%202011-12/Number14/Pages/Home-educators-miss-the-point.aspx
See press release from the Public School Boards Assoication of Alberta
http://public-schools.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/News-Release-March-26-2012.pdf

Canadians want an independent investigation into robocalls, Angus Reid survey suggests

by Bobbie Saga

Most Canadians are calling for an independent investigation into robocalls, with a majority believing they are not isolated incidents limited to the riding of Guelph, a new Angus Reid poll shows.

The online survey, released today, reveals that most Canadians think Robocalls were used broadly in the last federal election, with four-in-five respondents calling for an independent investigation.

The survey shows respondents are divided on what impact robocalls may have had on the last federal ballot, with slightly less than half, or 44 per cent, agreeing that misleading messages definitely changed the outcome of the May 2011 federal election. Only 36 per cent of those polled disagreed that robocalls changed the outcome.

 

But half of those polled, or 50 per cent – including 61 per cent of Quebecers – believe every riding subjected to misleading robocalls should have a by-election as soon as possible. Moreover, four-in-five, or 81 per cent, want an independent investigation to find out exactly who was behind any misleading calls.

A breakdown of the poll, conducted from March 1 to 3, shows most opposition voters believe that robocalls definitely changed the outcome of the last federal ballot, a view shared by just 17 per cent of Conservative voters.

The survey also suggests almost two thirds of Canadians, or 64 per cent of those polled, think the Guelph occurrence is "probably" or "definitely" one of many that took place and where robocalls were a method used widely in the last federal campaign.

As well, 80 per cent of Canadians who voted for the Green Party, 78 per cent for the New Democratic Party, and 77 per cent for both the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois believe the robocalls extend beyond Guelph. Only 47 per cent of Conservative Party voters stated they believed the calls are an isolated incident.

Respondents were also asked which of the five major federal parties are likely to provide false and misleading information to voters through telephone calls with pre-recorded messages.

 

Only a third of respondents, or 32 per cent, think the Green Party and 33 per cent the New Democratic Party are "very likely" or "moderately likely" to rely on this tactic. In Quebec, 32 per cent of respondents think the Bloc Québécois is likely to use robocalls with misleading information.

A majority of Canadians, however, believe the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are most likely to provide false and misleading information to voters through telephone calls. The Liberal Party chalked up 55 per cent on this question, while the Conservative Party came in at 63 per cent. Indeed, two-in-five Canadians, or 39 per cent, think the Tories are "very likely" to rely on this tactic.

Another question put to respondents is that of holding by-elections in affected ridings. At least three-in-five Canadians who voted for any of the four opposition parties currently want to hold by-elections in the ridings that were subjected to misleading robocalls. Only 31 per cent of Tory voters concur.

The survey also shows half of respondents say they have followed stories related to robocalls made during the last federal election campaign "very closely" or "moderately closely."

Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted the online survey among 1,001 randomly selected Canadian adults. The margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Council of Canadians willing to take legal action to defend democratic rights

Reference: The Council of Canadians
Ottawa - The Council of Canadians announced today that it is canvassing its members and other Canadians to determine the extent to which the "robo-calls" and other dirty tricks during the May 2011 federal election may have undermined basic democratic principles in ridings across the country.

"We are deeply concerned about the recent media reports that many voters were misled, harassed or otherwise subjected to dirty tricks that may have impaired their ability to freely cast their ballots. While we applaud the fact that all parties are urging Elections Canada to investigate these serious allegations, we believe the victims here are the electors. We intend to find out from them the full extent of the nefarious campaigns," said Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians.

Members of the Council of Canadians are committed to preserving Canadian democracy. Being able to participate freely in elections is at the very heart of that democracy. To ensure the widest possible input, the Council is partnering with other social justice groups, including Leadnow and others, and thus the survey questionnaire will be made available to a significant number of Canadians in each of the affected ridings.

"The Council is committed to ensuring that victims of electoral dirty tricks understand their right to defend their democratic franchise, including by making an application to the Court to have the election in their riding declared null and void under the Canada Elections Act" said Steven Shrybman, a public interest lawyer who is legal counsel to the Council of Canadians in this matter.

"All Canadians should be concerned if the rights of any of them to freely participate in an election have been impaired. We invite Canadians who were affected by any of these dirty tricks to contact us immediately," concluded Mr. Neil.

The Council of Canadians is Canada’s largest social justice organization, with 75,000 supporters from coast to coast.

-30-

For more information:
Dylan Penner, media officer, Council of Canadians, 613-795-8685,
dpenner@canadians.org
Twitter: @CouncilOfCDNs, Facebook

Action Alert:

Mounting evidence of fraudulent robo-calls, impersonations of Elections Canada staff and other deliberate attempts to deceive voters in the 2011 federal election have struck at the very heart of our democracy and shaken Canadians to the core. Click below to learn more.
If you or someone you know has been the victim of misleading or harassing actions around the 2011 federal election, we want to hear from you now.