I’m monitoring the exciting election in Alberta between radical leftist Alison Redford and moderate conservative/libertarian Danielle Smith. The Progressive Conservative party has been dominating the province for years, but their new leader Alison Redford is a liberal extremist on social policy and fiscal policy.
In a list of party principles approved at the Wildrose annual general meeting last year, members voted in a clause that reads: “Wildrose members believe the Government of Alberta should…implement legislation protecting the ‘conscience rights’ of health-care professionals.” Ms. Smith also told the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association that “Wildrose will ensure conscience rights for marriage commissioners and health professionals,” according to a summary of candidate positions published by the association in August, 2011.
Ms. Redford, who opposes the notion of conscience rights, eagerly responded to a reporter when asked about it Wednesday, hoping it will cast the Wildrose as a hard-right party and win back supporters.
“I was very frightened to hear the discussion today.… I certainly respect people’s personal beliefs, but I believe in a province where we have to treat individuals with dignity and respect. We have to live in a community where we respect diversity and we understand that everyone feels safe and included,” Ms. Redford said.
She said doctors would be expected to prescribe birth control and perform abortions, regardless of personal beliefs, to ensure that “all of the unique families in this province have the opportunity to know that when they’re accessing services, they can trust those services can be provided. And when they take on professional responsibilities, I expect them to be able to meet those professional responsibilities. I think it’s a critical discussion in this election.”
[…]The Wildrose says conscience rights cases will be among those heard by justices in a new Human Rights Division of the Alberta provincial court. Anyone filing a complaint and needing legal aid will be referred to a roster of “human rights advocates.”
These advocates will have specialized training in human rights law and be in good standing with the Law Society of Alberta. The division will be funded with money currently used for the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which Wildrose plans to scrap.
Danielle Smith’s view is a moderate view – it’s more moderate than Redford’s leftist view.
On fiscal issues, Danielle Smith has proposed returning some of the money from budget surpluses to taxpayers, but the leftist Alison Redford opposes that.
[…]…Alison Redford wondered whether or not Albertans could be trusted to spend such bonuses wisely.
Redford and the tut-tutting experts reveal one thing with their criticisms: They believe all money belongs to governments and you and I should be grateful for whatever crumbs we are permitted to keep. If you cannot demonstrate you have a higher purpose for the money you earn than the schemes proposed by politicians, bureaucrats and academics, then you have no right to complain if government taxes away giant gobs of your income to spend on the “public good.”
On the other hand, the proposal by Smith to send each Albertan a cheque whenever the provincial budget is in surplus is an indication that Wildrose believes what you earn is yours and government should tax away only as much as is necessary to fund essential services. If a government finds itself with more money on its hands than it needs to cover the spending it budgeted for in a given year, it should be obliged to return the overage to taxpayers rather than rub its hands with glee and look for new ways to spend.
Again, Danielle’s view is a moderate view – it only returns money to taxpayers if there is a surplus. Redford, on the other hand, has been spending like a drunken sailor since she took office, and most Albertans I know think that tax increases are just around the corner.
The latest poll shows the Wildrose with a 13-point lead over the Alison Redford’s leftist Progressive Conservative party.
Details:
Wildrose: 43% (+10)
PC: 30% (-6)
Danielle Smith: 56% approve, 32% disapprove (57-30 in Calgary, 50-42 in Edmonton)
Alison Redford: 48% approve, 43% disapprove (45-45 in Calgary, 45-43 in Edmonton)
An Alberta judge ruled last week that universities are not entities deserving of independence and protection from the state, but rather that they are part of the state. In her decision, involving a case where twin brothers challenged being punished by the University of Calgary for negative Facebook posts about an instructor, Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf ruled that the university violated the Charter right to free expression. The landmark decision may have legal precedence, but it will unnecessarily handicap universities when acting as universities.
As only Parliament and provincial legislatures are subject to the Charter, Strekaf has confirmed that at least some policies held and enforced by universities are on par with government legislation when certain Charter rights are concerned.
In 1990, a Supreme Court ruling concluded that, despite government regulation and funding, universities “control their own affairs and enjoy independence from government regarding all important internal matters.” That ruling, long cited by universities accused of violating the Charter, did leave open the possibility that some university activities could be subject to Charter review.
Strekaf’s contribution is, briefly, that when dealing with the hiring and firing of staff, universities are not government. With respect to students, however, universities educate them according to a government mandate and, therefore, are government.
While the university argued that its disciplinary policies are part of a private contract between the U of C and students, Strekaf concluded that those policies are too closely related to the school’s educational mandate to not be considered government action.
Strekaf could have only ruled that the punishment (six months’ probation) was excessive, or inconsistent with university policy, or that the students’ comments were not defamatory, and left it at that. But no, the judge went all the way, and whittled Ivory Tower autonomy down to a pathetic nub.
[…]If Strekaf’s ruling holds, it will prove popular among any number of campus protest groups, and anti-abortion clubs in particular. Such groups have been denied campus space for their activities at schools across the country, and have even been arrested and charged with trespassing. They may now have a remedy.
I hope this decision will help the Canadian pro-life students who have to deal with censorship and coercion all the time. You’ll recall that the Canadian pro-life students face censorship, expulsion and even imprisonment from left-wing university administrators.
Neonatal survival after withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition can last up to 26 days, according to a case series presented here at the 18th International Congress on Palliative Care. Although physical distress is not apparent in the infants, the psychological distress of parents and clinicians builds with the length of survival, said Hal Siden, MD, from Canuck Place Children’s Hospice in Vancouver, British Columbia.
“These babies live much, much longer than anybody expects. I think that neonatologists and nurses and palliative care clinicians need to be alerted to this,” he said. “The time between withdrawal of feeding and end of life is something that is not predictable, and you need to be cautioned very strongly about that if you are going to do this work.” He presented a series of 5 cases that clinicians at his hospice had overseen over a 5-year period.
WINTERY KNIGHT 