Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13 ... 19  Next

That's just good politics on the part of a governing minority government. It's what it takes to make government work for everyone. I can't possibly see it as a downside when a sitting government is forced to play nice in order to get something done. Just remember that third party members are still elected officials so they still represent a portion of the population who want to see at least some of their policies brought forward. In Canada at least if a minority doesn't like the terms one party brings up for support of a bill then they can always try and court another.
The NDP has been quite successful in this position over the years because they know how to work with others.

Harper never seemed to understand that as a minority government, which is why his minorities never really got much work done. His claim to need a majority to get anything done was bull but he got one anyway.

   

You mean her reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Article 2.(a)

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#l_I:s_2

No, I don't have any serious problem with allowing all citizens to use that clause equally.

Will it cause some initial disruptions? Absolutely, but I have every confidence that our market (even in the areas that are not 'free') is more than capable of adapting and servicing all willing customers.

Edit to add:

I'm more shocked that we have been able to restrict this particular right, when it is expressly identified, this long without challenge.

   

I don't see how it's being restricted now.

   

As it currently stands, they are a couple of careers that allow the career credos or oaths to supercede the Charter.

Most notable is Doctors, Pharmacists, etc.

For doctors, they must abide by the Hippocratic and serve all people to the best of their ability, even if the treatment recommended would go against their religion or conscience.

Pharmacists must hand out prescribed medicines whether they agree or not.

Etc.

It must not be a very big deal for them, though, I don't think it has been challenged.

This is just a classic example of political, much ado about nothingness, being used to placate those to stupid to know that we already have the legalities in place. Have for a long time too.

This is purely my personal opinion, but if we have rights that must be 'overlooked', to produce wanted results in society, we have a problem with how the right is written...not necessarily with the idea of the right, just how it is written.

   

I agree 100% with you Thanos, Rutherford has pretty well turned me off of the WR. Now it's getting to the point where I just want to vote PC just to piss him off, it's a way past nauseating.

For as much as I'm unhappy with the orange and blue, I can't vote for the soccer mom in my riding. We've got new roads that have been on the 20 year plan, some for close to 40 years, my mother is in a brand new assisted living facility in our home town, we have a new Middle School, our little rural hospital is being turn into the new eye surgery center for central Alberta, all thanks to the PC's. I got to vote for them one more time.

   

They aren't overlooking rights at all i think. I'm no lawyer but just glancing at the charter I would say in the case of doctors their oaths are in keeping with 7 (see below) and couldn't possibly.



To allow doctors to refuse on the basis of conscience or religious objection to treating a patient could deny that patient the right to life.

   

What it will do is allow Marriage commissioners to refuse to marry same sex couple: to allow Pharmacists to refuse to sell condoms. You can probably come up with more examples.

could it apply to abortion?

   

Hmm, than which right is more important?

Is it the individuals right of freedom and conscience or the individuals right to life, liberty and security, or will it be the right to fair and equal treatment?

Do we give weight based on their numerical listing? I jest...kind of.

   

We've pretty well settled that, I thought. You can't discriminate just because your conscience tells you to do so.

   

andyt,

I don't so much disagree with that, as think that if that is the case, it should be removed from the charter.

You should know by now that I like clean, simple rights and laws. I know, not that probable in a complex world.

   

Can't agree. Aren't you part black? (In the US at least that would make you all black). Are you really OK with somebody not wanting to rent to you, or operate on you for that matter, because their conscience says not to?

   

andyt,

Am I okay with it? What do you think.

I'm not okay with half the stuff that gets covered by freedom of speech either.

Should we get rid of that too, because it can hurt my feelings?

   

Plain as day? Methinks thou dost protest too much. Are you Rob Anders in real life? Is every Calgarian Rob Anders?

   

Knock it off, pothead. You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. You don't live here and no one who does cares what you think or say, so just piss off already with your bigotted anti-Alberta bullshit routine.

   

They can yabble all they want, it doesn't have anything to do with them and everything to do with us.

Our province, our choice.

   

Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13 ... 19  Next