I am reading the Edmonton Journal piece today by Trish Audette and Sarah McGinnis on Bill 44. Given the quotes in the story attributed to Brian Rushfeldt of the Calgary-based Canada Family Action Coalition, my worst fears about the implication of section 11.1 of Bill are reaffirmed.
The Stelmach government is naively clinging to mistaken delusion that the insertion of the word “exclusively” to pertain to education around religion, sexuality and sexual orientation somehow inoculates this inept law from a legal challenge. The defense the government offers are rhetoric about the role of parents in education, which is not disputed nor undermined in the current School Act provisions.
Mr Rushfeldt says he thinks the proposed human rights provisions “can be more widely interpreted. I agree with him. That is exactly what is going to happen and some poor teacher is going to be made an example of for the purposes of promoting intolerance. Mr. Rushfeldt is quoted as saying “it’s up to the parent to make (the legislation) as broad or as narrow as they want.” If that isn’t a foreshadowing of some aggressive advocates taking on the place and purpose of the school system and victimizing teachers and trustees in the process, I can’t imagine how it could be made any clearer.
The question is ought these section 11.1 provisions in the proposed Human Rights Act be more widely interpreted? If the government of Alberta intends otherwise, they have not been clear enough in the working of this section to ensure a narrow interpretation. This is the kind of fuzzy headed vaguely worded law making that invites legal challenges.
The government side debaters are reported as saying that fears about teachers being dragged before the Human Rights Commission by disgruntled or religious activitist out to prove a point as mere “conjecture and nonsense.” If the GOA was so confident in that assertion why are they declining to indemnify teachers and trustees for legal costs and other expenses in the event such unlikely events actually occurred? If the GOA is right that this would not happen, they have no risk in providing such indemnification, so why not offer it now. The reality is the legislation is flawed, reasonably intelligent and clear thinking members of the PC Caucus know this. So why are they are holding their noses and letting this litigation in waiting become law? Albertans are entitled to know.
We saw the same ineptness in 2006 with the Ted Morton private member’s sponsorship of Bill 206 entitled “Protection of Fundamental Freedoms (Marriage) Statues Amendment Act 2006.” Here the social conservatives, were trying to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, specifically the freedom of religion, to exempt clergy and licensed marriage commissioners in Alberta from being required to perform same sex marriages based on their personal “religious beliefs and moral values.”
The Morton Private Member’s Bill also attempted to amend the School Act to exempt students and teachers from attending or being required to teach “…that part of a course that has in its curriculum that marriage may be a union between person of the same sex.” There was a further requirement of advanced notice to parents is the subject of same sex marriage were going to be part of course material and class discussion.
That private members bill caused a public stir and was defeated for good reason. If you are licensed to perform marriages under Alberta law, then any one legally entitled to be married in Canada, and that included same sex couples, is entitled to expect you to perform the solemnization of the marriage. End of story.
This Morton Private Members Bill is also the Genesis of the current section 11.1 proposed new “Human Rights Act (sic). But some newly Stelmach government so-cons have taken up the cause again but this time it is even more pervasive and distasteful. The topics now go beyond same prejudice over sex marriage and include religion, sexuality and sexual orientation as topics. Are those merely code words for some fundamentalists for evolution, homosexuality, and same sex marriage? It would sure appear so.
I have not listened to the debate yesterday on Second Reading yet. Relying on media reports all we see is red herrings quoted from the government defenders of the proposed law. This faulty and unnecessary law is not undermining existing parental rights in the School Act to exempt children from “religious instruction.” It expands and elevates parental rights to the point where prejudice is normalized and makes allegations of breaches or perceived breaches legally actionable through complaints in the Alberta Human Right processes. This is an invitation to religious fundamentalist to impose their values on the rest of us. I support freedom of religion just as much as much as I support freedom from religion.
Of course parents are central to the education of their children and have the right to be informed and have personal religious beliefs tolerated. That toleration also extends equally to homosexuals and same sex couples. That is the law of the land in Canada. One head of tolerance is not more equal than the other in the Canadian Carter of Rights and Freedoms.
We have significant funding for charter, religious based and private schools in Alberta where parents can opt to educate their children and escape from the messiness of inclusiveness, differences, plurality and diversity. The public school system is just the opposite of that isolationist inclination. It is designed and intended to be all inclusive and all encompassing in its teaching and content. Alberta’s tolerant, inclusive and adaptive public school system is one of the great strengths of Alberta society. But we taxpayers contribute significantly to funding alternative schools as we show our respect for choice, but not for intolerance.
This Bill 44 fiasco is politically motivated and mostly about fault lines within the PC Caucus. As a result those caucus members who are giving it a pass for peace in the party are failing in their duty to the great good of Alberta. Blackett and Hancock as Cabinet members are caught having to defend this sloppy law making because it is a government Bill.
How about a free standing vote on this at Third Reading? It is not a confidence vote so defeat will not bring down the government. However, if it passes as is, that ineptness may stick to the Stelmach government and erode the public’s confidence in this government.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Alberta Venture Column on Business Ethics - May Edition
The May issue of Alberta Venture magazine is out. The business ethics column I participate in "The Right Call" tackled the question "Should a good corporate citizen go to any lengths to avoid taxes?" Leveraging loopholes and lax enforcement versus stepping up to the plate for the common good.
The Canadian Income Tax Act started about a century ago as a"temporary measure" to help pay for World War I. Things were simple them but now it is so complicated that mere mortals can't comprehend the tax laws.
The larger question is what are we paying for when the taxman take his chunk out of our hard earned dollars? Are we getting value for money. I scoff at the "self-made man" types who think they are the masters of the universe and their success is a result of their time, talent and risk taking.
All that is true but only part of the story. They are able to succeed because the public sector is there doing its job and that provides a stable society, with some serious certainty they tend to take for granted. I am talking things like a quality public education system that generates skilled talent they can lever but we all pay for. A justice system and the rule of law with an effective policy and fire protection system assures that private property can be expanded and protected and we all pay for that.
The free market system is a function of these universally provided public goods, not the other way around. The economy is there to serve the society, not the other way around. Enterprises have duties beyond the bottom line. Those in regulated industries like energy, forestry, telecommunications and broadcasting must earn public trust to continue with the all important "social license to operate."
There is more but you get my point. Paying taxes is no fun but it is necessary. As citizens our job is to be vigilant to make sure we get value for the money we pay.
The Canadian Income Tax Act started about a century ago as a"temporary measure" to help pay for World War I. Things were simple them but now it is so complicated that mere mortals can't comprehend the tax laws.
The larger question is what are we paying for when the taxman take his chunk out of our hard earned dollars? Are we getting value for money. I scoff at the "self-made man" types who think they are the masters of the universe and their success is a result of their time, talent and risk taking.
All that is true but only part of the story. They are able to succeed because the public sector is there doing its job and that provides a stable society, with some serious certainty they tend to take for granted. I am talking things like a quality public education system that generates skilled talent they can lever but we all pay for. A justice system and the rule of law with an effective policy and fire protection system assures that private property can be expanded and protected and we all pay for that.
The free market system is a function of these universally provided public goods, not the other way around. The economy is there to serve the society, not the other way around. Enterprises have duties beyond the bottom line. Those in regulated industries like energy, forestry, telecommunications and broadcasting must earn public trust to continue with the all important "social license to operate."
There is more but you get my point. Paying taxes is no fun but it is necessary. As citizens our job is to be vigilant to make sure we get value for the money we pay.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Bill 44 Amendments on Parental Exemption is Bad Law and a Political Sop to So-Cons
There is a significant and growing citizen's resistance movement to the so-called “parental exemption” proposed in the new Alberta Human Rights Act. I have been mulling this situation for a few days and my concerns have growen the more I reflect on the implications of this Bill 44 amendment. I also simply fail to see neither the need nor the wisdom in passing such a law.
It is pretty obvious that most of the Alberta Progressive Conservative caucus is "going along to get along" with the social conservative element. They are hoping that by being quiet this ill-conceived parental exemption amendment will pass unnoticed. By being benign they are reneging on their duty to Albertans as our political representatives. They are actually doing serious harm to many citizens, including children, parents, teachers and school board trustees – just to name a few.
This will be bad law. It will cause more problems for individual teachers and school boards trustees than they deserve. They should never be asked to shoulder such a burden because of such inept legislation. The PC caucus is setting up those hard working and innocent public servants for personal pain and anguish - just for doing their jobs.
There will be the inevitable accusation of a violation of this new parental exemption head of human right our government is creating in Bill 44. This will be done by filing of formal human rights complaints against teachers and likely school boards, perhaps even against individual Trustees. It will be championed by some dogmatic zealot who will set out to make a name for themselves on the issues of religion, sexuality and sexual orientation. This will put some poor teacher right in the middle of the controversy and a nation-wide media feeding frenzy. Talk about unintended secondary consequences of political ineptness and poor governance.
This Bill 44 amendment also has all the markings of a court challenge written all over it. If is passed and applied it is undoubtedly on its way to the courts or its legality. My guess is it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. The Alberta government forced the Constitutional issue of french language education rights all the way to the Supreme Court in the more enlightened days of the Lougheed government. This Bill 44 stuff is going to be much more controversial.
The lawyer in me asks why we need this legislated change and this new legal status for a parental exemption right at all. What is the actual social mischief or mistake it is trying to solve? The School Act has already resolved the parental exemption issue quite satisfactorily and it has been working for years. The Preamble of the School Act also “explicitly” recognizes the role of parents in the education of their children. Here is the relevant parts of the Preamble and the key section of the School Act.
WHEREAS the best educational interests of the student are the paramount considerations in the exercise of any authority under this Act;
WHEREAS parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children;
Section 50 of the School Act already provides both the provision of religious and patriotic instruction and for the parental exemption from such religious and patriotic instruction. This provision has been working well since 1988. It reads as follows:
50 - Religious and patriotic instruction
(1) A board may
(a) prescribe religious instruction to be offered to its students;
(b) prescribe religious exercises for its students;
(c) prescribe patriotic instruction to be offered to its students;
(d) prescribe patriotic exercises for its students;
(e) permit persons other than teachers to provide religious instruction to its students.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing religious or patriotic instruction receives a written request signed by a parent of a student that the student be excluded from religious or patriotic instruction or exercises, or both, the teacher or other person shall permit the student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction or exercises are taking place for the duration of the instruction or exercises, or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part in the instruction or exercises.
Bill 44 makes Alberta the last province in the country to “explicitly” acknowledge, in statute, sexual orientation as a human right. Concurrently with this late coming enlightenment, Bill 44 also proposes the following amendment to extend and expand the power of parental exemption from the Alberta school curriculum:
Notice to parent or guardian
11.1(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide
notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of
study, educational programs or instructional materials, or
instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include
subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction,
teaching a course of study or educational program or using the
instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a
written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that
the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study,
educational program or use of instructional materials, the
teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of
the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the
student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction,
course of study or educational program is taking place or
the instructional materials are being used for the duration
of the part of the instruction, course of study or
educational program, or the use of the instructional
materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in
subsection (1), or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part
in the instruction, course of study or educational
program or using the instructional materials.
What is actually proposed in Bill 44 is much more disturbing and expansive than anything covered in Section 50 of the School Act. The official government line is Bill 44 is not proposing anything different that Section 50 of the School Act. If that is the truth, why amend Bill 44 at all. The matter has been well under control for over 20 years.
The real problem here is bad politics not good governance. The majority of the PC caucus appears to be pandering to the minority social conservative elements in their midst. It looks to me that the choosing-to-be-silent majority in the PC caucus are attempting to appease the social conservative with this over-reaching and unnecessary “parental exemption” provision. They are self-delusional if they believe it to be merely a symbolic gesture. Laws are more than mere symbolism. If your purpose is mere symbolism, please don't use the law as your symbolic vehicle.
The truth is the Bill 44 proposals go dangerously beyond mere symbolism. We already have a Charter giving citizens freedom of religion. That also means we have freedom from religion in Canada. Those are the two sides of religious freedom are handled in the current parental exemptions from religious instruction in the School Act. That is very different from the proposed Bill 44 parental exemptions contained in section 11.1 of Bill 44.
Bill 44 is not about an appropriate and respectful accommodation of an exemption from religious instruction as provided in the School Act. Bill 44 is about providing an explicit exempting option whereby a child can be removed from teachings about religion itself as a subject matter. This is hardly symbolic and very different from the School Act exemption. What's more that extended exemption in Bill 44 appears to be elevated in status. It is to become a legally enforceable right of the parent, who can then complain to the Alberta Human Rights Commission about any preceive breach, as they wish. Is that the stuff of symbolism?
If I am right about Bill 44 creates an exemption from instruction about religion, well there goes a good portion of the history curriculum. How can you exclude the impact and influence of religion from the Crusades or the Reformation, or the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? They all relate to religion in one way or another. While we are at this, what qualifies as a religion to justify the exemption? How about aboriginal spiritualism? How about ancient and emerging alternative religious belief? How about Wicca? How ironic and idiotic this all becomes.
Wait, it gets worse. We have finally included sexual orientation as a protected status under the proposed new Alberta Human Rights Act. While Bill 44 now says sexual orientation is to be a protected human right in Alberta, just as it has been in every other province for some time now. It is also written into our proposed "human rights" law that sexual orientation is somehow not an acceptable topic for discussion in Alberta schools. So much for any evidence of an authentic effort by the Stelmach government at inclusion, acceptance and tolerance of differences when it comes to the sexual orientations of our citizens.
Here we go again feeding the Neanderthal stereotype of the socially backward Albertan yet again. We are the last province in all of Canada to put sexual orientation in our so-called Human Rights Act and then, right in the same legislation, we effectively legalize disdain for those Albertans with a “different” sexual orientation. Ironic yes, but it more like a shameful tragedy to my mind.
Looking at the specifics of the Bill 44 amendment we see it is not about School Act provisions about “religious instruction.” It is about exempting instruction about “religion” (a.k.a. evolution?) “sexuality” (a.k.a. homosexuality?) and “sexual orientation” (a.k.a. gay marriage?). Why are the so-cons being appeased by the deafening silence and insouciance of the PC Caucus? Do they actually agree with these provisions?
Please don’t tell me the appeasement is a quid pro quo for the insertion of sexual orientation in Bill 44 in the first place. That is not a negotiable item. It is the established and accepted law of the land. Alberta is finally catching up the rest of the country by explicitly including it in our Human Rights law. There is nothing to negotiate here. It is settled law.
Let’s call a spade a spade. This so-called “religion” and “sexual orientation” exemption is all about certain social conservative and religious creationists continuing to fight over our public schools teaching evolution and not creationism. I suggest it is also about the intolerant religious angst from some So-con over losing the battle for sexual orientation to be finally included as a legislated human right in Alberta. It is a thinly veiled effort to elevate an acceptable School Act parental exemption over “religious instruction” into a faux and ersatz human right enforceable by complaints and hearings before Human Rights Tribunals in Alberta.
Bill 44 section 11.1 is bad law because it is not only unnecessary but it will embolden social conservatives and religious fundamentalists to take a page out of the playbook of those radical Muslims who filed an ill founded human rights complaint against Ezra Levant. Mr. Levant was accused of encouraging discrimination, hate and contempt by virtue of his republishing the famous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. He was the victim of fundamentalist zealots using human rights provisions inappropriately. So it can and will happen if the opportunity is there.
Mr. Levant’s issue was with section 3 of the human rights legislation not the effects of the proposed section 11.1. He had a point, but his solution was not to eliminate section 3, an argument which has some merit, but to throw out all Human Rights Commissions in total. Mr. Levant offered a non-starter solution but he had a sound principle worth fighting for. In the end he won but it was no doubt an expensive, exasperating and exhaustive process.
Social Conservatives fundamentally detest and deplore what they perceive as judicial activism by the courts. They often accuse judges of making law and not just interpreting law. That happens, but it only happens when we have politicians passing vague, weasel-worded and ill-conceived laws in the first place.
Those bad laws are usually motivated by the blatant ideological attitudes of marginal, not main stream, politicians. As a result they are found to be contrary to the law of the land, most often due to a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill 44 section 11.1 is a perfect example of such an ideologically motivated failure to provide good governance.
If Bill 44 is passed as is, it's shortcomings will inevitably and expensively remedied by the courts.
This would not be judicial activism. It would be the courts fulfilling its role as the ultimate protector for citizens from abuse by the state. This abuse by the state happens when our duly elected democratic representatives fail to show courage of their convictions, exercise sound judgment, display real wisdom and demonstrate the strength of character needed to do their duty as public servants for the greater good of our society.
Citizens of Alberta are upset with these parental exemption provisions of Bill 44. Their public response is effectively serving notice on their government and their duly elected political representative that the Bill 44 amendments on parental exemptions are unnecessary, dangerous and ill-conceived and contrary to the greater public good. I trust they will all reassess their passivity on the matter, govern themselves accordingly, and delete section 11.1 of Bill 44 at Third Reading.
It is pretty obvious that most of the Alberta Progressive Conservative caucus is "going along to get along" with the social conservative element. They are hoping that by being quiet this ill-conceived parental exemption amendment will pass unnoticed. By being benign they are reneging on their duty to Albertans as our political representatives. They are actually doing serious harm to many citizens, including children, parents, teachers and school board trustees – just to name a few.
This will be bad law. It will cause more problems for individual teachers and school boards trustees than they deserve. They should never be asked to shoulder such a burden because of such inept legislation. The PC caucus is setting up those hard working and innocent public servants for personal pain and anguish - just for doing their jobs.
There will be the inevitable accusation of a violation of this new parental exemption head of human right our government is creating in Bill 44. This will be done by filing of formal human rights complaints against teachers and likely school boards, perhaps even against individual Trustees. It will be championed by some dogmatic zealot who will set out to make a name for themselves on the issues of religion, sexuality and sexual orientation. This will put some poor teacher right in the middle of the controversy and a nation-wide media feeding frenzy. Talk about unintended secondary consequences of political ineptness and poor governance.
This Bill 44 amendment also has all the markings of a court challenge written all over it. If is passed and applied it is undoubtedly on its way to the courts or its legality. My guess is it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. The Alberta government forced the Constitutional issue of french language education rights all the way to the Supreme Court in the more enlightened days of the Lougheed government. This Bill 44 stuff is going to be much more controversial.
The lawyer in me asks why we need this legislated change and this new legal status for a parental exemption right at all. What is the actual social mischief or mistake it is trying to solve? The School Act has already resolved the parental exemption issue quite satisfactorily and it has been working for years. The Preamble of the School Act also “explicitly” recognizes the role of parents in the education of their children. Here is the relevant parts of the Preamble and the key section of the School Act.
WHEREAS the best educational interests of the student are the paramount considerations in the exercise of any authority under this Act;
WHEREAS parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children;
Section 50 of the School Act already provides both the provision of religious and patriotic instruction and for the parental exemption from such religious and patriotic instruction. This provision has been working well since 1988. It reads as follows:
50 - Religious and patriotic instruction
(1) A board may
(a) prescribe religious instruction to be offered to its students;
(b) prescribe religious exercises for its students;
(c) prescribe patriotic instruction to be offered to its students;
(d) prescribe patriotic exercises for its students;
(e) permit persons other than teachers to provide religious instruction to its students.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing religious or patriotic instruction receives a written request signed by a parent of a student that the student be excluded from religious or patriotic instruction or exercises, or both, the teacher or other person shall permit the student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction or exercises are taking place for the duration of the instruction or exercises, or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part in the instruction or exercises.
Bill 44 makes Alberta the last province in the country to “explicitly” acknowledge, in statute, sexual orientation as a human right. Concurrently with this late coming enlightenment, Bill 44 also proposes the following amendment to extend and expand the power of parental exemption from the Alberta school curriculum:
Notice to parent or guardian
11.1(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide
notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of
study, educational programs or instructional materials, or
instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include
subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction,
teaching a course of study or educational program or using the
instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a
written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that
the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study,
educational program or use of instructional materials, the
teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of
the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the
student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction,
course of study or educational program is taking place or
the instructional materials are being used for the duration
of the part of the instruction, course of study or
educational program, or the use of the instructional
materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in
subsection (1), or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part
in the instruction, course of study or educational
program or using the instructional materials.
What is actually proposed in Bill 44 is much more disturbing and expansive than anything covered in Section 50 of the School Act. The official government line is Bill 44 is not proposing anything different that Section 50 of the School Act. If that is the truth, why amend Bill 44 at all. The matter has been well under control for over 20 years.
The real problem here is bad politics not good governance. The majority of the PC caucus appears to be pandering to the minority social conservative elements in their midst. It looks to me that the choosing-to-be-silent majority in the PC caucus are attempting to appease the social conservative with this over-reaching and unnecessary “parental exemption” provision. They are self-delusional if they believe it to be merely a symbolic gesture. Laws are more than mere symbolism. If your purpose is mere symbolism, please don't use the law as your symbolic vehicle.
The truth is the Bill 44 proposals go dangerously beyond mere symbolism. We already have a Charter giving citizens freedom of religion. That also means we have freedom from religion in Canada. Those are the two sides of religious freedom are handled in the current parental exemptions from religious instruction in the School Act. That is very different from the proposed Bill 44 parental exemptions contained in section 11.1 of Bill 44.
Bill 44 is not about an appropriate and respectful accommodation of an exemption from religious instruction as provided in the School Act. Bill 44 is about providing an explicit exempting option whereby a child can be removed from teachings about religion itself as a subject matter. This is hardly symbolic and very different from the School Act exemption. What's more that extended exemption in Bill 44 appears to be elevated in status. It is to become a legally enforceable right of the parent, who can then complain to the Alberta Human Rights Commission about any preceive breach, as they wish. Is that the stuff of symbolism?
If I am right about Bill 44 creates an exemption from instruction about religion, well there goes a good portion of the history curriculum. How can you exclude the impact and influence of religion from the Crusades or the Reformation, or the Renaissance and the Enlightenment? They all relate to religion in one way or another. While we are at this, what qualifies as a religion to justify the exemption? How about aboriginal spiritualism? How about ancient and emerging alternative religious belief? How about Wicca? How ironic and idiotic this all becomes.
Wait, it gets worse. We have finally included sexual orientation as a protected status under the proposed new Alberta Human Rights Act. While Bill 44 now says sexual orientation is to be a protected human right in Alberta, just as it has been in every other province for some time now. It is also written into our proposed "human rights" law that sexual orientation is somehow not an acceptable topic for discussion in Alberta schools. So much for any evidence of an authentic effort by the Stelmach government at inclusion, acceptance and tolerance of differences when it comes to the sexual orientations of our citizens.
Here we go again feeding the Neanderthal stereotype of the socially backward Albertan yet again. We are the last province in all of Canada to put sexual orientation in our so-called Human Rights Act and then, right in the same legislation, we effectively legalize disdain for those Albertans with a “different” sexual orientation. Ironic yes, but it more like a shameful tragedy to my mind.
Looking at the specifics of the Bill 44 amendment we see it is not about School Act provisions about “religious instruction.” It is about exempting instruction about “religion” (a.k.a. evolution?) “sexuality” (a.k.a. homosexuality?) and “sexual orientation” (a.k.a. gay marriage?). Why are the so-cons being appeased by the deafening silence and insouciance of the PC Caucus? Do they actually agree with these provisions?
Please don’t tell me the appeasement is a quid pro quo for the insertion of sexual orientation in Bill 44 in the first place. That is not a negotiable item. It is the established and accepted law of the land. Alberta is finally catching up the rest of the country by explicitly including it in our Human Rights law. There is nothing to negotiate here. It is settled law.
Let’s call a spade a spade. This so-called “religion” and “sexual orientation” exemption is all about certain social conservative and religious creationists continuing to fight over our public schools teaching evolution and not creationism. I suggest it is also about the intolerant religious angst from some So-con over losing the battle for sexual orientation to be finally included as a legislated human right in Alberta. It is a thinly veiled effort to elevate an acceptable School Act parental exemption over “religious instruction” into a faux and ersatz human right enforceable by complaints and hearings before Human Rights Tribunals in Alberta.
Bill 44 section 11.1 is bad law because it is not only unnecessary but it will embolden social conservatives and religious fundamentalists to take a page out of the playbook of those radical Muslims who filed an ill founded human rights complaint against Ezra Levant. Mr. Levant was accused of encouraging discrimination, hate and contempt by virtue of his republishing the famous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. He was the victim of fundamentalist zealots using human rights provisions inappropriately. So it can and will happen if the opportunity is there.
Mr. Levant’s issue was with section 3 of the human rights legislation not the effects of the proposed section 11.1. He had a point, but his solution was not to eliminate section 3, an argument which has some merit, but to throw out all Human Rights Commissions in total. Mr. Levant offered a non-starter solution but he had a sound principle worth fighting for. In the end he won but it was no doubt an expensive, exasperating and exhaustive process.
Social Conservatives fundamentally detest and deplore what they perceive as judicial activism by the courts. They often accuse judges of making law and not just interpreting law. That happens, but it only happens when we have politicians passing vague, weasel-worded and ill-conceived laws in the first place.
Those bad laws are usually motivated by the blatant ideological attitudes of marginal, not main stream, politicians. As a result they are found to be contrary to the law of the land, most often due to a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill 44 section 11.1 is a perfect example of such an ideologically motivated failure to provide good governance.
If Bill 44 is passed as is, it's shortcomings will inevitably and expensively remedied by the courts.
This would not be judicial activism. It would be the courts fulfilling its role as the ultimate protector for citizens from abuse by the state. This abuse by the state happens when our duly elected democratic representatives fail to show courage of their convictions, exercise sound judgment, display real wisdom and demonstrate the strength of character needed to do their duty as public servants for the greater good of our society.
Citizens of Alberta are upset with these parental exemption provisions of Bill 44. Their public response is effectively serving notice on their government and their duly elected political representative that the Bill 44 amendments on parental exemptions are unnecessary, dangerous and ill-conceived and contrary to the greater public good. I trust they will all reassess their passivity on the matter, govern themselves accordingly, and delete section 11.1 of Bill 44 at Third Reading.
Friday, May 01, 2009
What Has Your Government Done to You This Week?
Here is a link to Fusedlogic, a smart social media strategy company. This is a blog post showing some of the topical traffic issues in and around the Government of Alberta for the last week. It has not been a good week for the strategically incoherent Stelmach government. These numbers show that cyberspace has been engaged.
Let me know what you think about the barring of opposition MLAs from a new conference on a new pharmacy policy, or the misleading beach picture from England in the $25m ALBERTA branding campaign or the weird amendments on Human Rights legislation to make it a human rights violation for a teacher to allow discussion on things like evolution or human sexuality where parents of kids in the class might object.
Parents now receive advanced notice when such topics are scheduled to be taught as part of the provincial course content. They can legitimately keep their kids out of those classes and that is fine. But what will religious fundamentalists do if thees issues come up spontanously in unscheduled classroom discussion. Dangerous to make this a human rights offence. Parents can teach their religious beliefs at home and in chosen places of worship. They should not be entitled to stifle free speech and expression for the rest of us.
What do you think?
Let me know what you think about the barring of opposition MLAs from a new conference on a new pharmacy policy, or the misleading beach picture from England in the $25m ALBERTA branding campaign or the weird amendments on Human Rights legislation to make it a human rights violation for a teacher to allow discussion on things like evolution or human sexuality where parents of kids in the class might object.
Parents now receive advanced notice when such topics are scheduled to be taught as part of the provincial course content. They can legitimately keep their kids out of those classes and that is fine. But what will religious fundamentalists do if thees issues come up spontanously in unscheduled classroom discussion. Dangerous to make this a human rights offence. Parents can teach their religious beliefs at home and in chosen places of worship. They should not be entitled to stifle free speech and expression for the rest of us.
What do you think?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Canadian Bar Association Calls for Omar to Come Home.
It is incomprehensible why the Harper government continues to refuse to respect the Charter Rights of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen. Many on the right side of the political spectrum use Khadr’s family attitude in support of terrorism as a reason to refuse him his rights as a Canadian citizen. This is wrong at so many levels.
When such attitudes prevail the Rule of Law gets set aside by our democracies and we all become vulnerable. That is the best was to ensure the terrorists win. Look at the wide spread and illegal use of torture plus the illegal wiretapping and internet monitoring of private citizens by the US government all done without due process protections by the Bush White House. This is further evidence of this same dangerous decline in the democratic rights of citizens. When you consider how little has achieved from these tactics and how much foreign and domestic harm they have done you have to fear and regret the consequences.
The latest positive expression of the erosion of democratic rights and erosion of protections in the Khadr case comes from the Canadian Bar Association. This letter from the President to our Prime Minister and the President of the United States is written on behalf of 38,000 Canadian lawyers and speaks for itself.
April 24, 2009
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
The President of the United States
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Re: Repatriation of Omar Khadr
Dear Prime Minister and Mr. President:
On behalf of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), I write to you to urge the U.S. and Canadian
governments to work together to facilitate the repatriation of Omar Khadr, the only Western citizen who continues to be detained at Guantánamo Bay.
The CBA is a national association representing 38,000 jurists across Canada. We work to promote the Rule of Law and improve the administration of justice in Canada and around the world. It is in this light that we have protested Mr. Khadr’s subjection to the military tribunal process in Guantánamo Bay and called for his repatriation. We take no position on Mr. Khadr’s guilt or innocence. Our concern is that he receive a fair trial in accordance with all procedural protections and special considerations to be afforded a minor, as required by domestic and international law. Canada’s justice system is well equipped to fairly and openly assess Mr. Khadr’s criminal culpability, in a manner that reflects his status as a minor at the relevant time.
Mr. President, we welcomed the news of your decision to close Guantánamo Bay within the year and to assign officials to review the status of all detainees. Pursuant to your executive order, you have tasked review members to first consider “whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release.”
Yesterday, Canada’s Federal Court ruled the ongoing refusal of the Government of Canada to
request Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada “offends a principle of fundamental justice and violates Mr. Khadr’s rights under s. 7 of the Charter”. It ordered the government to seek Khadr’s repatriation as soon as practicable.
Mr. Khadr was 15 years old when he was wounded on the battlefield in Afghanistan, a child under the terms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Mr. Khadr has not been fully afforded the basic entitlements of due process under the Rule of Law, such as the right to counsel and the right to know the case against him. He has not been afforded any process that took into account his unique needs and status as a minor under the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. He has been detained in the general population of detainees in Guantánamo Bay and has not received any physical, psychological or educational services that would assist in his rehabilitation. The Federal Court of Canada found that the terms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment were violated in relation to Mr. Khadr’s treatment.
Prime Minister, the time has come for the Canadian government to advise the U.S. that it is willing to negotiate the terms of Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada to face Canadian justice. In turn, Mr. President, we urge the U.S. government to negotiate the terms of Mr. Khadr’s repatriation with the Canadian government and to transfer available evidence respecting his conduct to the Canadian government. We urge you to come to an agreement that recognizes international human rights obligations, due process and the Rule of Law, and the desirability of ensuring the national security of both countries.
Yours truly,
(Original signed by J. Guy Joubert)
J. Guy Joubert
c. The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice
H. Thomas Wells, Jr., President, American Bar Association
April 24, 2009
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
The President of the United States
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Re: Repatriation of Omar Khadr
Dear Prime Minister and Mr. President:
On behalf of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), I write to you to urge the U.S. and Canadian
governments to work together to facilitate the repatriation of Omar Khadr, the only Western citizen who continues to be detained at Guantánamo Bay.
The CBA is a national association representing 38,000 jurists across Canada. We work to promote the Rule of Law and improve the administration of justice in Canada and around the world. It is in this light that we have protested Mr. Khadr’s subjection to the military tribunal process in Guantánamo Bay and called for his repatriation. We take no position on Mr. Khadr’s guilt or innocence. Our concern is that he receive a fair trial in accordance with all procedural protections and special considerations to be afforded a minor, as required by domestic and international law. Canada’s justice system is well equipped to fairly and openly assess Mr. Khadr’s criminal culpability, in a manner that reflects his status as a minor at the relevant time.
Mr. President, we welcomed the news of your decision to close Guantánamo Bay within the year and to assign officials to review the status of all detainees. Pursuant to your executive order, you have tasked review members to first consider “whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release.”
Yesterday, Canada’s Federal Court ruled the ongoing refusal of the Government of Canada to
request Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada “offends a principle of fundamental justice and violates Mr. Khadr’s rights under s. 7 of the Charter”. It ordered the government to seek Khadr’s repatriation as soon as practicable.
Mr. Khadr was 15 years old when he was wounded on the battlefield in Afghanistan, a child under the terms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Mr. Khadr has not been fully afforded the basic entitlements of due process under the Rule of Law, such as the right to counsel and the right to know the case against him. He has not been afforded any process that took into account his unique needs and status as a minor under the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. He has been detained in the general population of detainees in Guantánamo Bay and has not received any physical, psychological or educational services that would assist in his rehabilitation. The Federal Court of Canada found that the terms of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment were violated in relation to Mr. Khadr’s treatment.
Prime Minister, the time has come for the Canadian government to advise the U.S. that it is willing to negotiate the terms of Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada to face Canadian justice. In turn, Mr. President, we urge the U.S. government to negotiate the terms of Mr. Khadr’s repatriation with the Canadian government and to transfer available evidence respecting his conduct to the Canadian government. We urge you to come to an agreement that recognizes international human rights obligations, due process and the Rule of Law, and the desirability of ensuring the national security of both countries.
Yours truly,
(Original signed by J. Guy Joubert)
J. Guy Joubert
c. The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice
H. Thomas Wells, Jr., President, American Bar Association
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)