EDMONTON - As Danielle Smith laid out her party’s plan for balancing competing human rights complaints, PC Leader Alison Redford said she’s “frightened” to hear of Wildrose support for the thorny tenet of “conscience rights” — which would allow marriage commissioners and health professionals to refuse services based on their personal beliefs.
As polls show an increasing likelihood Smith could become Alberta’s next premier, she dodged queries on whether she personally believes in conscience rights that would allow a marriage commissioner to opt-out of wedding a same-sex couple, or a Catholic doctor from prescribing birth control.
Asked about her stance by reporters, Smith said only that her party believes there should be a mechanism in the court system to “balance” competing rights. The party’s platform calls for the cases now heard by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to instead be handled by a new division in the provincial court system.
“If anyone is ever denied service for any reason then our new proposal for how we would deal with that is with a separate division of the provincial court,” she said Wednesday during a campaign event at Concordia University College in Edmonton.
“All we’re doing is providing a process, so that in the event that rights come into conflict, we have the ability for them to be adjudicated.”
In a separate interview on Wednesday, Smith said “we will not legislate in this area. . .we do not have positions of morality in our platform.”
However in a survey conducted by the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association last August, Smith spoke directly to the concept of conscience rights.
“The Wildrose will ensure conscience rights for marriage commissioners and health professionals,” she said in response to a question asking leaders what human rights issues they would address. “This would ensure the protection of personal expression for individuals, while also ensuring that personal beliefs are respected for all Albertans.”
As well, the party’s 2010 policy handbook says a Wildrose government “will implement legislation protecting the ‘conscience rights’ of health care professionals.” The 2011 policy book is slightly changed, saying the government “should” implement conscience rights.
Speaking to reporters in Calgary, Redford said the conscience rights issue is a “critical discussion point in the election” and suggested the Wildrose has been intentionally avoiding the topic.
“I was very frightened to hear the discussion today and I’ve been quite frightened to hear the development of that in the last month,” Redford said.
“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.”
Redford said when people take on a job, “I expect them to be able to meet those professional responsibilities.”
Dan Shapiro, a research associate with the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, said all Canadians have freedom of conscience rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But he said the Saskatchewan government gave up in its attempt to allow marriage commissioners to opt out of performing marriages for same-sex couples after the province’s Court of Appeal ruled the proposal unconstitutional in a reference case last year. The judges in the case found concern about the detrimental impact on same-sex couples far outweighed the proposed laws’ aim of accommodating the commissioners’ religious views.
“The main objective of being a marriage commissioner is to do civil marriages, which are granted by the state – that’s basically what your job is,” said Shapiro, whose research focuses on ethics, human rights and civil liberties.
He said under Canadian law, marriage commissioners are put in a separate category from religious leaders.
“I would be opposed to forcing any religious authority to have to perform a same-sex marriage, because that would violate their freedom of religion.”
Shapiro added that if a conscience rights law was broadly worded to say a commissioner can refused to perform a marriage that violates his religious beliefs, “what if those beliefs include, for example, that there shouldn’t be mixed race marriages?”
“There’s a slippery slope problem.”
As for health-care professionals, University of Alberta health law expert Timothy Caulfield said physicians should disclose their personal values if they have objections to certain patients or treatments.
The problem comes when denial of treatment limits a patient’s access and choice. Caulfield said doctors should refer the patient to another practitioner in a timely manner, although some argue this is also problematic since alternate physicians can sometimes be difficult to find.
“Law and ethics tries to strike a balance between the physician’s duty to the patient while still respecting the physician’s personal values,” he said. “In general, however, it is the duty to the patients I believe, that — if forced — will prevail.”
The Wildrose party has lost a least one supporter as a result of their position.
Kathleen Smith, who blogs at KikkiPlanet.com, said she had been an “extremely vocal” online supporter of the Wildrose until last weekend, when she realized the party’s position on conscience rights.
“I discovered that there was policy I was not privy to, that went against everything I believe in. I had to say something publicly,” the Edmonton mother of four said in an interview.
“Had I known, I would have never supported this party.”
Original Article
Source: calgary herald
Author: Keith Gerein and Kelly Cryderman
As polls show an increasing likelihood Smith could become Alberta’s next premier, she dodged queries on whether she personally believes in conscience rights that would allow a marriage commissioner to opt-out of wedding a same-sex couple, or a Catholic doctor from prescribing birth control.
Asked about her stance by reporters, Smith said only that her party believes there should be a mechanism in the court system to “balance” competing rights. The party’s platform calls for the cases now heard by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to instead be handled by a new division in the provincial court system.
“If anyone is ever denied service for any reason then our new proposal for how we would deal with that is with a separate division of the provincial court,” she said Wednesday during a campaign event at Concordia University College in Edmonton.
“All we’re doing is providing a process, so that in the event that rights come into conflict, we have the ability for them to be adjudicated.”
In a separate interview on Wednesday, Smith said “we will not legislate in this area. . .we do not have positions of morality in our platform.”
However in a survey conducted by the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association last August, Smith spoke directly to the concept of conscience rights.
“The Wildrose will ensure conscience rights for marriage commissioners and health professionals,” she said in response to a question asking leaders what human rights issues they would address. “This would ensure the protection of personal expression for individuals, while also ensuring that personal beliefs are respected for all Albertans.”
As well, the party’s 2010 policy handbook says a Wildrose government “will implement legislation protecting the ‘conscience rights’ of health care professionals.” The 2011 policy book is slightly changed, saying the government “should” implement conscience rights.
Speaking to reporters in Calgary, Redford said the conscience rights issue is a “critical discussion point in the election” and suggested the Wildrose has been intentionally avoiding the topic.
“I was very frightened to hear the discussion today and I’ve been quite frightened to hear the development of that in the last month,” Redford said.
“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.”
Redford said when people take on a job, “I expect them to be able to meet those professional responsibilities.”
Dan Shapiro, a research associate with the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, said all Canadians have freedom of conscience rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But he said the Saskatchewan government gave up in its attempt to allow marriage commissioners to opt out of performing marriages for same-sex couples after the province’s Court of Appeal ruled the proposal unconstitutional in a reference case last year. The judges in the case found concern about the detrimental impact on same-sex couples far outweighed the proposed laws’ aim of accommodating the commissioners’ religious views.
“The main objective of being a marriage commissioner is to do civil marriages, which are granted by the state – that’s basically what your job is,” said Shapiro, whose research focuses on ethics, human rights and civil liberties.
He said under Canadian law, marriage commissioners are put in a separate category from religious leaders.
“I would be opposed to forcing any religious authority to have to perform a same-sex marriage, because that would violate their freedom of religion.”
Shapiro added that if a conscience rights law was broadly worded to say a commissioner can refused to perform a marriage that violates his religious beliefs, “what if those beliefs include, for example, that there shouldn’t be mixed race marriages?”
“There’s a slippery slope problem.”
As for health-care professionals, University of Alberta health law expert Timothy Caulfield said physicians should disclose their personal values if they have objections to certain patients or treatments.
The problem comes when denial of treatment limits a patient’s access and choice. Caulfield said doctors should refer the patient to another practitioner in a timely manner, although some argue this is also problematic since alternate physicians can sometimes be difficult to find.
“Law and ethics tries to strike a balance between the physician’s duty to the patient while still respecting the physician’s personal values,” he said. “In general, however, it is the duty to the patients I believe, that — if forced — will prevail.”
The Wildrose party has lost a least one supporter as a result of their position.
Kathleen Smith, who blogs at KikkiPlanet.com, said she had been an “extremely vocal” online supporter of the Wildrose until last weekend, when she realized the party’s position on conscience rights.
“I discovered that there was policy I was not privy to, that went against everything I believe in. I had to say something publicly,” the Edmonton mother of four said in an interview.
“Had I known, I would have never supported this party.”
Original Article
Source: calgary herald
Author: Keith Gerein and Kelly Cryderman
No comments:
Post a Comment