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.
Tales, truth in politics, and other noteworthy stuff
Showing posts with label Transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transparency. Show all posts
Friday, 6 April 2012
Thursday, 8 March 2012
The Commons: The yellow piece of paper
by Aaron Wherry on Macleans.ca, Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Scene. Immediately after Question Period, Dean Del Mastro stood to complain that the phrase "exaggerated prevarications," which had been directed at him by the NDP’s Charlie Angus, was unparliamentary.
Regardless of whether this was inbounds—Mr. Angus argued it was and offered to produce a dictionary definition to prove it—it was most certainly an attack, though perhaps not one that Mr. Del Mastro can claim to take personally.
At least so long as he seems to be merely the conduit for what is written on a yellow piece of paper.
On the yellow piece of paper that sat atop Mr. Del Mastro’s desk this day seemed to be written something like the following.
"These outrageous and exaggerated allegations made by the member opposite demean millions of voters who cast legitimate votes in the last election. The opposition paid millions of dollars to make hundreds of thousands of phone calls … Before continuing these baseless smears, they should prove their own callers are not behind these reports." Read full story here
The Scene. Immediately after Question Period, Dean Del Mastro stood to complain that the phrase "exaggerated prevarications," which had been directed at him by the NDP’s Charlie Angus, was unparliamentary.
Regardless of whether this was inbounds—Mr. Angus argued it was and offered to produce a dictionary definition to prove it—it was most certainly an attack, though perhaps not one that Mr. Del Mastro can claim to take personally.
At least so long as he seems to be merely the conduit for what is written on a yellow piece of paper.
On the yellow piece of paper that sat atop Mr. Del Mastro’s desk this day seemed to be written something like the following.
"These outrageous and exaggerated allegations made by the member opposite demean millions of voters who cast legitimate votes in the last election. The opposition paid millions of dollars to make hundreds of thousands of phone calls … Before continuing these baseless smears, they should prove their own callers are not behind these reports." Read full story here
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Canadians want an independent investigation into robocalls, Angus Reid survey suggests
by Bobbie Saga
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.
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.
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.
Calls for action increases amid Conservative denials, deflections and blame games
Action Alert:
Avaaz.org has posted the following to encourage Canadians to ask the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Commissioner of the RCMP for an expanded investigation into election fraud:
"As concerned citizens we urge you to expand your investigation to seek court orders for all the correspondence, directions, and orders placed between customers and Racknine and RMG for calling services on election day and the 5 days leading up to May 2, 2011 to help restore Canada’s democracy."
Over 58,000 people have put their names forward on Avaaz.org . Click here to Sign the petition please!
Avaaz.org has posted the following to encourage Canadians to ask the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Commissioner of the RCMP for an expanded investigation into election fraud:
"As concerned citizens we urge you to expand your investigation to seek court orders for all the correspondence, directions, and orders placed between customers and Racknine and RMG for calling services on election day and the 5 days leading up to May 2, 2011 to help restore Canada’s democracy."
Over 58,000 people have put their names forward on Avaaz.org . Click here to Sign the petition please!
Monday, 5 March 2012
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.
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.
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.
Conservatives foster a culture of secrecy with more committee meetings going in camera
iPolitics analysis: Behind closed doors?
Posted on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, 5:00 am by Elizabeth Thompson
"The opposition points fingers at the Conservatives. The Conservatives point fingers at previous Liberal governments. They each accuse the other of fostering a culture of secrecy that takes committee meetings in camera and leaves Canadians to wonder what is going on behind closed doors." Click here for more.
Posted on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, 5:00 am by Elizabeth Thompson
"The opposition points fingers at the Conservatives. The Conservatives point fingers at previous Liberal governments. They each accuse the other of fostering a culture of secrecy that takes committee meetings in camera and leaves Canadians to wonder what is going on behind closed doors." Click here for more.
Other related stories:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/01/in-camera-watch-open-government-closed-committee-meetings.htmlLeading journal demands Harper set Canada’s scientists free
HELEN BRANSWELL-TORONTO— The Canadian Press/Globe and Mail-Mar 1'12
"One of the world's leading scientific journals has criticized the federal government for policies that limit its scientists from speaking publicly about their research." Full story here.
Nature criticized the government's approach to openness in the past and argues that strict control on what federal researchers can reveal about their work is a disservice to science and the public.
For more information:
Nature | Canada's government should free its scientists to speak to the press
Webcast of panel discussion
Open letter on iPolitics.ca
Canadian Science Writers' Association open letter
"One of the world's leading scientific journals has criticized the federal government for policies that limit its scientists from speaking publicly about their research." Full story here.
Nature criticized the government's approach to openness in the past and argues that strict control on what federal researchers can reveal about their work is a disservice to science and the public.
For more information:
Nature | Canada's government should free its scientists to speak to the press
Webcast of panel discussion
Open letter on iPolitics.ca
Canadian Science Writers' Association open letter
Other related stories:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/03/02/nature-science-canada.htmlTuesday, 31 May 2011
Hamilton's City Hall media policy and review has community journalists’ ire up
By Bobbie Saga
Hamilton community journalists, bloggers and engaged citizens issued a joint statement today calling on the City of Hamilton to adopt a policy of openness and transparency following disparaging comments against some media by a top City official.
The group issued the joint statement on local media access at City Hall to the Mayor and Council, specifically requesting the Office of the Mayor and other city officials recognize the rights of all citizens to have access to information and to speak with local officials.
The joint statement is a response to recent public statements by Mayor Bob Bratina's Chief of Staff, Peggy Chapman whom the group says requested a review of the City's media policy.
"We are asking that Council and Staff develop a formal policy on media relations which is fair, clear, and does not allow political staff to unduly influence the free flow of information at City Hall," the letter states.
Group representative Ryan McGreal, editor of online publication Raise the Hammer (RTH), says Chapman made recent comments to media she will "recognize you and give you as much access to the mayor, as need be, or information that I have, and especially at council, if you have a boss.
"If you're a journalist that has a boss that I can complain to, if I think that information [information someone publishes] is incorrect," Chapman said on record.
The Hamilton Office of the Mayor was provided with copies of the joint statement. It is signed by Joey Coleman, freelance journalist/blogger with The Globe and Mail; Teresa DiFalco publisher; Adrian Duyzer, associate editor with RTH; Ryan McGreal, editor at RTH; Martinus Geleynse, Urbanicity editor and publisher; Matt Jelly, blogger; Dave Kuruc, publisher of H Magazine; James Tennant, program director at CFMU 93.3; and Matt Thompson, community organizer.
The group wants the City of Hamilton to, "adopt a policy of openness and transparency that recognizes the right of ordinary Hamiltonians to access information and speak to local officials, in the spirit of democracy and civic engagement that is one of the hallmarks of this city."
But so far, the group has not had a reasonable response from city officials, and no response from elected officials.
"We will provide parties an opportunity to comment at an appropriate time before being brought to Council for consideration," Chris Murray, City Manager, responded in an email to McGreal.
The current media policy specifically says the "Mayor or the Deputy-Mayor’s in the Mayor’s absence – shall be the chief spokesperson at all times for the City of Hamilton; representing both City Council and City staff…" Also, Chapman is listed as the media relations contact person for the Office of the Mayor on the City's website. She has not responded to multiple requests for comment from the group.
The City’s current media policy states the purpose of the policy and accompanying procedures is to ensure the City of Hamilton provides openness and accountability. It contains three key provisions for media.
They are 1) provides timely and accurate responses to media inquiries; 2) makes available the most appropriate spokesperson based on accountability and responsibility; 3) conducts media relations in a manner that is objective, understandable, open and transparent within the law.
More information:
The City of Hamilton current media relations policy [PDF link]
Source: accessed May 31, 2011
http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/2158/community_journalists_speak_out_on_city_hall_media_policy_review
© Saga Times 2011
Hamilton community journalists, bloggers and engaged citizens issued a joint statement today calling on the City of Hamilton to adopt a policy of openness and transparency following disparaging comments against some media by a top City official.
The group issued the joint statement on local media access at City Hall to the Mayor and Council, specifically requesting the Office of the Mayor and other city officials recognize the rights of all citizens to have access to information and to speak with local officials.
The joint statement is a response to recent public statements by Mayor Bob Bratina's Chief of Staff, Peggy Chapman whom the group says requested a review of the City's media policy.
"We are asking that Council and Staff develop a formal policy on media relations which is fair, clear, and does not allow political staff to unduly influence the free flow of information at City Hall," the letter states.
Group representative Ryan McGreal, editor of online publication Raise the Hammer (RTH), says Chapman made recent comments to media she will "recognize you and give you as much access to the mayor, as need be, or information that I have, and especially at council, if you have a boss.
"If you're a journalist that has a boss that I can complain to, if I think that information [information someone publishes] is incorrect," Chapman said on record.
The Hamilton Office of the Mayor was provided with copies of the joint statement. It is signed by Joey Coleman, freelance journalist/blogger with The Globe and Mail; Teresa DiFalco publisher; Adrian Duyzer, associate editor with RTH; Ryan McGreal, editor at RTH; Martinus Geleynse, Urbanicity editor and publisher; Matt Jelly, blogger; Dave Kuruc, publisher of H Magazine; James Tennant, program director at CFMU 93.3; and Matt Thompson, community organizer.
The group wants the City of Hamilton to, "adopt a policy of openness and transparency that recognizes the right of ordinary Hamiltonians to access information and speak to local officials, in the spirit of democracy and civic engagement that is one of the hallmarks of this city."
But so far, the group has not had a reasonable response from city officials, and no response from elected officials.
"We will provide parties an opportunity to comment at an appropriate time before being brought to Council for consideration," Chris Murray, City Manager, responded in an email to McGreal.
The current media policy specifically says the "Mayor or the Deputy-Mayor’s in the Mayor’s absence – shall be the chief spokesperson at all times for the City of Hamilton; representing both City Council and City staff…" Also, Chapman is listed as the media relations contact person for the Office of the Mayor on the City's website. She has not responded to multiple requests for comment from the group.
The City’s current media policy states the purpose of the policy and accompanying procedures is to ensure the City of Hamilton provides openness and accountability. It contains three key provisions for media.
They are 1) provides timely and accurate responses to media inquiries; 2) makes available the most appropriate spokesperson based on accountability and responsibility; 3) conducts media relations in a manner that is objective, understandable, open and transparent within the law.
More information:
The City of Hamilton current media relations policy [PDF link]
Source: accessed May 31, 2011
http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/2158/community_journalists_speak_out_on_city_hall_media_policy_review
© Saga Times 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)