Saturday, May 09, 2009
The Social Market Economy is Coming
I hardly ever just link to a news story or opinion piece from mainstream media without some analysis or commentary. This Globe and Mail op-ed by Timothy Garton Ash is so totally aligned with my view and beliefs about the role and relationship between society and economy. I hope you find value in the piece as well
Is Bill 44 to Stelmach What 500 Dead Ducks Were to Oil Sands?
Here is a wonderfully illustrative and instructive Letter to the Editor in today's Edmonton Journal. It captures the concern behind the expanded and extended opting-out provisions in Bill 44 eloquently and almost poetically.
Here is another that is equally as insightful about what we should allow and expect of our public education system. This letter it totally aligned with the recent research finding we did for the Edmonton Public School Board on what the citizens of Edmonton what from their public education system.
There was a comment in the Edmonton Journal Venting column today that said to the effect if evolution were real then why are there still apes? If a comedian said that, I would have context enough to laugh. Without that context this comment is also enough to make one weep.
By not exposing our children to the full array of thought and inquiry, be it science or faith, past, present and potential, we stifle human curiosity and exploration. We rob our youth of the means to develop their own minds and to find their own meanings. Mankind, like nature, thrives on diversity.
This is not the stuff of the law or legal processes like Bill44 enables. The law is too blunt an instrument to decide such things.
The fallout for Bill 44 is to the integrity of the Stelmach government like 500 dead ducks were to the oil sands industry. It is time to put away these "fundamentalist principles" Premier Stelmach and do the right thing for Alberta's children and our society.
Here is another that is equally as insightful about what we should allow and expect of our public education system. This letter it totally aligned with the recent research finding we did for the Edmonton Public School Board on what the citizens of Edmonton what from their public education system.
There was a comment in the Edmonton Journal Venting column today that said to the effect if evolution were real then why are there still apes? If a comedian said that, I would have context enough to laugh. Without that context this comment is also enough to make one weep.
By not exposing our children to the full array of thought and inquiry, be it science or faith, past, present and potential, we stifle human curiosity and exploration. We rob our youth of the means to develop their own minds and to find their own meanings. Mankind, like nature, thrives on diversity.
This is not the stuff of the law or legal processes like Bill44 enables. The law is too blunt an instrument to decide such things.
The fallout for Bill 44 is to the integrity of the Stelmach government like 500 dead ducks were to the oil sands industry. It is time to put away these "fundamentalist principles" Premier Stelmach and do the right thing for Alberta's children and our society.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Taking Your Calls on CBC Radio May 11 on Bill 44
I am doing the open line portion of Wildrose on CBC Radio One Monday May 11th from 12:30 pm to 1:00 pm all on Bill 44 - Alberta's proposed new Human Rights Act. It promises to be interesting so tune in and call in. Let me know your thoughts to the program by comments on this blog post starting Monday.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Canada Family Action Coalition Says Bill 44 to be Interpreted Broadly
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)