Voter’s Guide: 2012 Alberta Election
As part of our education and constructive activism goals, we sent out a questionnaire to the Edmonton & area candidates. This is intended to achieve two things: let candidates, and future MLAs, know that our organization exists, and to provide our members with information on their candidate’s positions on secular issues.
Candidates were asked to answer the following nine statements with Strongly Agree (SA) / Agree (A) / Neutral (N) / Disagree (D) / Strongly Disagree (SD). Most also chose to include more detail in their responses.
Print Version – Text document – If you are a candidate and would like an email version, please contact us.
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction.
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, enacted by Bill 44 in 2009, requires teachers to notify parents of class instructions dealing with religion, human sexuality or sexual orientation. Failing to do so could result in a human rights act complaint, investigation and penalty against the teacher. This section should be repealed.
Responses Received:
Click a riding to read the responses.
Athabasca-Sturgeon-Redwater (3 sent, 0 received)
Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock (4 sent, 1 received)
Battle River Wainwright(1 received)
Drayton Valley-Devon (3 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview (3 sent, 1 received)
Edmonton-Calder (3 sent, 1 received)
Edmonton-Castle Downs (3 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Centre (4 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Decore (4 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Ellerslie (4 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Glenora (5 sent, 1 received)
Edmonton-Gold Bar (6 sent, 2 received)
Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood (4 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Manning (5 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-McClung (5 sent, 1 received)
Edmonton-Meadowlark (3 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Mill Creek (2 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Mill Woods (2 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Riverview (5 sent, 1 received)
Edmonton-Rutherford (5 sent, 1 received)
Edmonton-South West (3 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Strathcona (2 sent, 0 received)
Edmonton-Whitemud (5 sent, 1 received)
Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville (3 sent, 0 received)
Leduc Beaumont (4 sent, 0 received)
St. Albert (5 sent, 1 received)
Sherwood Park (4 sent, 0 received)
Spruce Grove-St. Albert (3 sent, 1 received)
Stony Plain (5 sent, 0 received)
Strathcona-Sherwood Park (3 sent, 0 received)
Athabasca-Sturgeon-Redwater
Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): D, sometimes those criticisms cross the hate-speech line. Plus, I have to wonder at the motivation of someone who feels the need to impose thier religious opinion on others, regardless of that opinion.
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): SA, unless their religion is in some way preventing them from performing their duties.
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction.
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): SA, students should not be penalized for opting out of any instruction based on moral objections, but most especially when it comes to a topic that should be taught by parents and preachers, not teachers.
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): SA, health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of all options, regardless of the health issue, or the beliefs of either provider or patient.
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): SA, nobody should be able to impose religious morals on anyone, but most especially in a publicly funded facility.
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): N, or rather, I’m a bit of a fence-sitter. I believe that as long as the parents have been provided all the information on both sides of the argument, and the child has been given a say (assuming the child is old enough *to* have a say), that it shouldn’t matter what the reason for their objection is, the parents should have the final say in any treatment. Problem comes in when the child is not fully informed (or not old enough), and/or the parents are not fully informed of *all* relevant facts. And it’s near impossible to make rules fair that are to be enforced on a case-by-case basis.
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): D, these topics all have to do with human biology, something children should learn anyways, so they should be a natural part of any health education. Plus, many parents don’t give their children the facts, so someone needs to. As long as it maintains a level of impartiality. Teachers should not be giving their personal moral feelings on the topic. That part *is* up to the parents.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): SA
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Lisa Grant (EverGreen Party): D, but only insofar as I believe parents should have the right to excuse their children from ANY instruction, and as such, should have some sort of advance notice of what is being taught. Since it’s near impossible to provide advance warning of *every* topic, the hot-button issues will have to suffice for now.
Battle River Wainwright
Additional comments:
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Please see the attached document that represents my personal responses to your questions. However, please be assured that I would not support in any way any political party that advocates for discrimination against any one on any grounds. Please see the Alberta Party comments on so-called “conscience rights” http://www.albertaparty.ca/strong_stand_on_conscience_rights
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Strongly Disagree
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction.
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Disagree
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Strongly Disagree
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree or dismissed
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Midge Lambert (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
Drayton Valley-Devon
Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Don Martin (Wild Rose): Criticism of religion and ideas is perfectly fine and ought to be protected along with all speech. All religions happen to criticize each other in one way or another, protecting religion and speech will always mean also protecting its criticism. Speech that insights violence for hatred for another group of people (not ideas) is where you must draw the line in a civil society.
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Don Martin (Wild Rose): I strongly agree.
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction
Don Martin (Wild Rose): This depends entirely on several factors. First, parents should have the choice to send their children to the school of their choice. All publically funded schools should teach a baseline curriculum, however charter schools under our policy may be religious entirely secular by nature. If baseline curricular standards are met, funding should follow the student into the school of choice. If that school teaches baseline curriculum, and if, it is religious, then this is private matter between the contractee (parent) and the contractor (school). Marks for religious education should not reflect on a student’s GPA or application to higher learning.
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Don Martin (Wild Rose): The public hospital is, and always will be, secular. An alternative hospital, offering publically funded services under another banner may choose to offer services under different terms. It is not the place for government to state what terms are in these relations. A private hospital that offers publicly funded medicare services should receive compensation for care it provides to patients because no patient in Canada should have to swipe a Visa Card nor pull out cash. That said, the terms under which this care is offered are a matter of contract between patient and hospital. In remote regions where only one hospital is provided, it is my opinion that care be secular as there can be no basis for contract between patient and provider, in emergency situations, nor is there a basis for contract for someone who just happens to have no choice in care. This may be a consideration for rural-run religious hospitals. In this case they would have to be accommodating. A patient with no choice should be treated in a secular matter as the state itself, and publically offered services, should not have to accept terms of service that are against their beliefs.
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Don Martin (Wild Rose): Such facilities should be able to do this if it is included in their contractual terms of service. It is not the domain of government to write and determine contractual terms between private providers and clients so long as public services are available. Where the only reasonable choice for a client is privately run, contractual terms of a moral nature, if public funding is involved, should not be imposed.
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Don Martin (Wild Rose): A parent can not risk the life of their child on the basis of their faith. This is a constitutional violation of the rights of a child and an imposition on the child that is unfair. A medically life-saving treatment should be offered irrespective of the will of parent as clearly that parent does not have the best interests of the child at heart.
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Don Martin (Wild Rose): This question is not clear, perhaps I do not understand it on grammar because the normal line of questioning is that parents can opt children out. Parents do have the right to have their children opt out. This right should be protected. Parents are the primary educators of their children and have the right to morally guide their children as they see fit. Children may remove themselves from the values of their parents on their own when they are of age. Children individuate naturally irresespective of their parents anyways – this is a normal psychological process that begins in later childhood.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Don Martin (Wild Rose): The definition of “promotes” is vague and not good in this question. A government employee who uses his official capacity to further the organizational aims of a specific faith ought to be reprimanded as his/her office demands that he or she uphold the rights of all Albertans and should be using that office to further the interests of all Albertans. Government employees come from many faiths, but in the workplace these ought to be private. There should be a wall of separation between church and state in matters of policy and promotion.
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Don Martin (Wild Rose): This section should be repealed. It is my opinion that this should be both repealed and re-drafted. Under current wording it has the potential to undermine all curriculum including math, biology, physics. e.t.c. It should be re-drafted to give parents the right to pull out of materials that raise questions of moral conduct or the imposition of moral religious or spiritual values on children. Children should be taught facts, as they are, in the schools system (or base curriculum). They should also be taught the history and origins of religions, have a social and scientific grounding that enables them to function and understand those they share Albertan society with. To be clear, children should be taught facts; values remain the domain of the parents and/or the household and guardians.
Edmonton-Calder
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): I don’t understand the question
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): Strongly agree
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction.
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): Strongly agree
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): Strongly agree
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): Strongly agree
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): Neutral
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): Disagree
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): Strongly agree
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Alex V Bossé (Liberal): Neutral
Edmonton-Castle Downs
Edmonton-Centre
Edmonton-Decore
Edmonton-Ellerslie
Edmonton-Glenora
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): My answers are my own, as the Alberta Party does not have a formal position on many of these complex and multi-faceted topics.
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Agree – I would apply the same legal limits to any speech- it must be respectful and not cross the line to hate speech. I am a strong supporter of the freedom of speech and see healthy debate, where different opinions are shared openly, to be a key to civil society. We must strive to be clear, constructive and accurate in our criticisms; we must remain open to new ideas and not simply reject things out-of-hand that contradict our own views. Within these guidelines, constructive conversations can happen, but clearly, hate speech is not to be tolerated.
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Strongly agree – I’m not currently in the position to hire/fire anyone, but I consider freedom of religion (or freedom to be non religious) an important right and in Canadian society, this would not be a factor in any staffing decisions I make. However, if there are extenuating circumstances, where the job is inherently religious in nature (teaching in a Catholic School, being a priest, etc), it would seem to be a logical prerequisite for the job.
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Agree – Public schools need to be open, accessible and inclusive. In the public schools in Edmonton, we have provisions to allow students to opt in or opt out of certain classes which may not be in keeping with their beliefs. This willingness to accommodate different beliefs and values should extend both ways, when the funds are publicly generated. If the funding comes from a religious organization, for specific religious education, they may set the conditions.
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Agree – I think the healthcare workers’ oath of care necessitates an open discussion about the health options for patients. They may refuse to perform certain procedures, for religious reasons, but they must be willing to refer patients to the appropriate facilities. Refusing to discuss options doesn’t seem ethical or fair to me.
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Agree – Facilities that are publicly funded should conform to the values set out by Canadians. If they are unclear as to what the “public” stance is on an issue, Canadian law is the best source of information. Homosexuality is not against the law. Drinking is not against the law. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, however, against the law. So it would seem to me that a publicly funded facility that did not respect these facts, is not reflecting Canadian (or public) values and perhaps they should not be publicly funded. People have the right to create nursing homes, clubs, schools, organizations, etc. that reflect their religious views, but they do not necessarily have the right to be funded by public dollars. So, for me, it’s really an issue of funding, not morality.
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Neutral – This is a very difficult question. The rights of the child, the rights of the parent, the role of the courts, the age of the child, and the specific medical condition all need to be considered. I can’t imagine any parent letting their child die, when there was a medical procedure that would prevent it and yet, I know some parents have in fear that the child’s soul will be eternally damned and damnation is worse than death. It must be an excruciating experience. I am sure none enter it with cold-blooded intent, none are cavalier about the decision, so my intuition is that prosecution is not going to repair the damage, nor will it undo the tragedy or prevent future tragedies. A parent who would watch their child die on religious grounds is not going to swayed by courts, jail-time or any other measures we might impose. I’m not sure the courts are always the best place to address these challenges. I don’t really believe in punitive measures simply for the purpose of punishing. If the child’s life can be saved, save it, but the question was about prosecution, which assumes that the child has already died. What a hard question!
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Neutral – I think students should have knowledge about their own bodies and their sexual health; these topics should be covered in schools. I think parents need clear information about what will be discussed, how it will be discussed and at what age. If they have concerns, parents should be encouraged to discuss it with their school; the option should remain for parents to “opt out” for religious reasons, but I’m not sure the average parent feels the need to “opt in”. I didn’t. I appreciated being informed, so I could have follow up conversations at home, but I trust the teachers to handle the subject with sensitivity and awareness.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Neutral – Again, I’m not a fan of “reprimands”. I think it’s better to discuss the issue, seek to understand and educate. Promoting your religion in a way that makes others feel uncomfortable is not really appropriate in a work setting. But placing a small cross in your work station is no different than putting up a photo of your child, to me. Is that what you mean by promoting? We need to be balanced, fair and reasonable with each other.
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Sue Huff (Alberta Party): Strongly agree – I was a vocal opponent of this section when it was introduced, while I was still a trustee on the Edmonton Public School Board. I continue to think it is wrong and the Alberta Party has included repealing this section in its Education Policy.
Edmonton-Gold Bar
David Parker (EverGreen): I am personally Buddhist and have no qualms with other religious beliefs of no such beliefs.
I firmly believe that there must be separation of church and state and no one must be coerced into doing anything which their conscience opposes.
Thank you for your interest.
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): (Disagree) You can’t stifle freedom of speech. Discourse should not be limited as long as it is fair and balanced or not constitute “hate” speech.
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction.
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): (Agree) If you don’t have the right to inform people of options then people will not have appropriate knowledge of what care
Is available.
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): (Neutral) If an individual willingly opts to go to a nursing home with a strong religious perspective then they have also opted to be exposed to that type of morality.
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): (Strongly Disagree) Life is a precious thing and all options to save or enhance life need to be explored. Especially when the individuals involved may not know of, or understand, all the options available to them.
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): Strongly Disagree
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): Agree
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Dennis O’Neill (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood
Edmonton-Manning
Edmonton-McClung
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (A), I am a strong believer in freedom of speech and thought but we have to draw the line on hate speech and speech which is intended to incite hatred.
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (SA) as an employer I would never consider religion (or lack thereof) in any hiring. It should not even be asked at an interview.
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (A) If there is public funding involved there should be no penalty if someone wants to opt out of religious instruction.
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (A) We have a public health care system and therefore all options should be discussed in an honest and frank way.
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (A) As long a people are not breaking the law there is no reason to ban their legal activities and relationships.
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (N) A very difficult question.
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (D) I don’t believe in forcing people to do things. If people have strong objections to their children being taught certain subjects then I believe that is their right. It also may not be a question of religion but morality.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (A) An employee of the government is there to serve the people of Alberta and therefore can not “promote” their religion at work. There is no other option but to reprimand them.
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
John Hudson (Alberta Party): (SA) The Alberta Party is for repealing this section of bill 44. I am fully behind that decision.
Edmonton-Meadowlark
Edmonton-Mill Creek
Edmonton-Mill Woods
Edmonton-Riverview
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Strongly Disagree. The Liberal Party and by extension Arif are big supporters of free speech. A key part of any Democracy is the free exchange of ideas and Criticism is certainly an idea. We would not support a initiative to have the Government silence or hamper free expression within the reasonable limits of the Charter.
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Strongly Agree. Arif’s company is small equal opportunity business who hires and promotes on merit. His employees and campaign volunteers come from diverse backgrounds. I am in fact an atheist as well; this has no effect on our relationship. Arif believes religion or there lack of is a personal matter and has no bearing on a persons merit.
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction.
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Strongly Agree. Every child deserves a fair shot at an education and to the opportunity an education provides regardless of any other factors.
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Agree. As a publicly funded service; hospitals and healthcare providers in general should strive to provide the best care for their patients. Although we respect the personal stances of the doctors and their own personal limits; we feel Patients should be aware of their options.
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Neutral. The government has no place in peoples bedrooms; but we also feel religious people have a right to their convictions. We would like to provide quality care to all people regardless of creed and to support that we would strive to have facilities that can accommodate both.
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Disagree. Within reason parents are responsible to provide the necessities of life. The judiciary is tasked with determining what is reasonable and there should not be blanked immunity from responsibility based on any criteria. The laws of the land are interpreted by the Judiciary and they are best able to determine when the individual interpretations of religious beliefs.
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Disagree. Education on reproduction is important and has many benefits both to the individual students as well as society as a whole. Education on sexual orientation is important to help promote tolerance and understanding. The current opt-out system allows parents a way to assert their beliefs without diminishing the overall good such programs have.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Agree. Arif and the Liberal party believe in the separation of church and state.
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Arif Khan Campaign (Liberal): Agree. Parents do have the right to raise their children as they see fit within reasonable limits however the application and scope of the Act is flawed and options for Parents already existed.
Edmonton-Rutherford
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
David Toner (EverGreen): I don’t think there should be any legal limits on any type of free speech
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
David Toner (EverGreen): Strongly agree
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction
David Toner (EverGreen): Strongly agree
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
David Toner (EverGreen): Strongly agree
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
David Toner (EverGreen): Strongly agree
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
David Toner (EverGreen): Strongly disagree – As much as I disagree with legal prosecution, I strongly disagree with allowing parents to prevent their children from receiving medical care. Medical care is a matter of science whereas religious conviction is solely based on beliefs and opinions, which should have no bearing on medical care and life or death situations.
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
David Toner (EverGreen): Disagree – The statement “should need to opt in” suggests that this program would be compulsory. I don’t agree with society imposing standards and obligations on people, and this program should, in my opinion, remain optional.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
David Toner (EverGreen): Strongly agree
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
David Toner (EverGreen): Strongly agree – Parents should have access to the full content of a curriculum before they enroll their child in it, but no special consideration should be given to certain parts of that curriculum over others, and there should be no talk of penalties against teachers in any case, at least this is the way I see it.
Edmonton-South West
Edmonton-Strathcona
Edmonton-Whitemud
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Agree. (I believe legal limits on freedom of speech can be demonstrably justified in a democratic society when it is applied to hate speech in the public realm. However, people do and should have the right to publicly criticize religious opinion if it does not cross this line to hate speech.)
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree. (This would never factor into any decision of mine to hire, promote, demote or fire a member of my staff.)
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction.
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Agree. (By their very nature, public schools must be inclusive and accepting of all people. If a school district receives public funding, it follows that accommodations must be made so that students can opt out of religious instruction and not be penalized or disadvantaged in any way for doing so.)
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Agree. And I oppose the legislation of so-called “conscience rights.”
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Agree. If the facility is publicly funded it should not impose its religious or moral values on its residents. If it receives no public funding then it can set its own rules.
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Disagree. (I do not believe these parents should automatically be immune from prosecution on religious grounds, but I’m not sure what public purpose would be served by actively pursuing a policy of prosecuting these cases. I think it should depend on the circumstances of each case.)
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Disagree. I think parents should be informed in advance, though, and be given the chance to pull their child from the class if they so wish, without the child being penalized or disadvantaged in any way.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Agree with the principle underlying the statement above, but not necessarily with the reprimand. (It is inappropriate for a government employee to promote a specific religion in his/her official capacity. The employee should first be asked to refrain from this activity. If the employee continues the activity after being asked by his/her supervisor to stop, then the next step would be a reprimand.)
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Julia Necheff (Alberta Party): Agree. (I did not agree with Bill 44, and believe that Section 11.1 of the Human Rights Act should be repealed.)
Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville
Leduc Beaumont
St. Albert
Additional comments:
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Each of these questions likely deserves a short essay in response. Wish I could provide it, but time is extremely limited right now. I hope that my answers do provide a sense as to where I am coming from. Also, to be clear, my answers reflect my own personal views as the Alberta Party does not have official policy in most areas, with the exception of repealing Section 11.1.
1. There should be legal limits on the criticism of religious opinion in the public square.
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Disagree – As long as criticism is respectful and does not promote intolerance, then I am comfortable with it.
2. I will not consider religion (or lack thereof) in any decision to hire, promote, demote, or fire a member of my staff.
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
3. Publicly funded school districts have an obligation to ensure that children are not penalized for opting-out of religious instruction.
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
4. Hospitals and health care providers have an obligation to inform patients of reproductive and/or end-of-life options even if they are religious hospitals.
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Agree
5. Publicly funded nursing homes run by religious organizations should not be able to impose religious morals on the residents (such as banning alcohol or discouraging homosexual relationships).
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Agree
6. There should be immunity from prosecution for parents who, on account of religion, prevent their children from receiving life-saving medical treatment.
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Neutral – Far too complex a question for a scaled response!
7. Parents should need to opt-in to health classes discussing reproduction, birth control, and sexual orientation.
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Disagree – I believe that opting out would be more appropriate in this situation.
8. A government employee who promotes, rather than accommodates, a specific religion in his/her official capacity should be reprimanded.
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Neutral
9. Section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act
Tim Osborne (Alberta Party): Strongly Agree
Sherwood Park
Spruce Grove-St. Albert
Stony Plain
Strathcona-Sherwood Park
Just to be clear, Don Martin (who is running in Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview for the Wildrose) is actually the same person as Travis Martin, who used to be a member of the Society of Edmonton Atheists.
Even though he and I have disagreed vehemently about politics (and I’m campaigning for the NDP in his riding), he’s not a bad guy overall.
Are you saying that Don Martin changed his name from Travis Martin? And he attended the SEA? That’s kind of odd for someone who thinks patients don’t have the right to be informed because the doctor has religious objections.
No, he was on the other side with that issue, reread it.
There is no reason to assume he changed his name. It isn’t uncommon for people to go by their middle name if they dislike their first name, but then when they need to be official like for their resume they have to use their legal name. My own father in law lives that way.
Was he using an alias, and if so, why?
I heard directly from 2 other previous classmates that Don Martin attended Law School and went by Travis, and was not well received by his former classmates.
As a former classmate of his, I can confirm that “Don” Martin is indeed Travis Martin and he definitely was not the most well-liked individual in law school, not by a country mile. Travis is his real name, Don Martin is an alias, as for why he’s using it? Might have something to do with the reputation one Travis Martin developed for himself (http://realwildrose.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/don-martin-wildrose-candidate-for-edmonton-beverly-clareview/).
He attended law school for one year and then abruptly disappeared, nobody knew why, and frankly nobody cared. It’s not so much that Travis had his fair share of unpopular beliefs, it’s how he treated those who didn’t agree. And at other times, he would say things for no reason other than to provide some sort of ‘shock value.’ I’m honestly pretty disturbed that the Wildrose is letting him run under a different name (I’m assuming they know). Really makes me wonder what other secrets they’re hiding.
General comments: I see the oddity, one shared by more than a million Canadians, and an estimated two million more who have native/ethnic names which they substitute with English names (I did not get the privilege of naming myself) was used by the PCs to raise some sort of election controversy. I first had the choice of which name to use many years ago when I lived abroad It is easier to register a business oversees on what foreigners perceive as your first name – for me Donald which appears first on my passport, followed by Gregory and then Travis. As such I have done business and paid taxes with my first name for the better part of a decade. Since I have worked and done business under Donald for years I again had a choice to make when I ran and I stuck with the name I have used on all official identification and banking for years. This is a safer bet because, on the flip side, had I ran with Travis, a name relatively few people know me as and which appears on no official documentation save for my high school diploma (if I recall correctly) I would have been asked what I am hiding on business and tax. People paranoid about such matters should consider the dire amount of paperwork one has to go through to both win a nomination and to register as a candidate. I am surprised that I was not asked by the PCs to provide my birth certificate and to tell Glen Beck that I am not a Muslim ;0)
On the SEA: As I recall it I was never a member of the Society of Edmonton Atheists – I never paid the ten dollars required. I did attend a few events and even a couple of board meetings, I believe I even made comments at a few, but I never took on any role nor participated in any activism advocated by the Society. I generally avoid memberships as is my habit and I avoid activism in general. I enjoyed many discussions, however, with many of you.
To address Clayton’s comments specifically, I believe he misunderstands conscience rights as they currently are and Wildrose policy. Currently the AMA and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allow for conscience rights – namely that when a procedure is against the ethics of a particular person’s religious faith they have the right to opt out of providing service if reasonable notice is given and a reasonable medical alternative available. This does not endorse any scenario, as Clayton suggested, that “patients don’t have the right to be informed [or presumably given access to a procedure] because the[a] doctor has religious objections.” Conscience rights simply are the right to refrain from providing service on the basis of religion (access to information is not a service and a medical service has to be reasonably available to the patient if the right to refuse is granted). As such, Clayton’s comments are not grounded in an understanding of either Wildrose Policy or of current governmental policy. Indeed there is really nothing controversial about this position taken by the Wildrose in light of current existing government policies, seeing as there is not a single party that could, in good conscience, table an alternative that wouldn’t, by its own design also infringe on the Charter rights of some other Canadians. This legal fact did not stop the media from quasi-legal speculation and accusation of hidden agenda and weird mentions of the notwithstanding clause (a clause that because of current case law could not be applied) but then skeptics have just as much to fear from journalists than they do from snake oil salesmen these days. Sadly journalist skepticism is not as widely advocated in skeptical communities as it ought to be.
The delisting of controversial services, like abortion, is simply not possible since case law (we are a common law jurisdiction) upholds reasonable access to abortion as a fundamental right. Furthermore, to uphold conscience rights is to uphold the rights of many minorities – including atheists who could, inpotentia conscientiously object to medical circumcision of an infant, which is also a publically-funded elective procedure not recommended by the College of Pediatricians . To negate conscience rights would be an affront to the Charter and provisions that protects them are the same ones that protect many of the rights of the LGBTQ community and other minorities. Establishing case law here to take away conscious rights would be more dangerous to minorities as precedents could potentially be set that would undermine freedoms for all.
While I realize there may be the wish among many [Atheism in Alberta is now estimated to be 17% and outgrowing any religion in the province] to secularize the medical profession, this is simply not possible to do through political policy. Incidentally the separation of Church and State also demands the separation of philosophical and ontological agendas from the state. Thus the secularization or non-secularization of any group within society must be fought in the domain of the public sphere – not the political one. In the case of the medical community it is up to educators, patients and those working in the system to steer the culture of that system to best serve the population. It is the role of the political sphere only to ensure freedom of speech and freedom of debate. Trends in the zeitgeist are to be left up to the citizenry and not engineered top down the way that more cynical, impatient persons seem to desire. Defending the rights of everyone often involves defending the rights of those you deeply disagree with. Given the history of Atheism in general, the fundamental freedoms of speech, association, conscience, religion, and inquiry are precursors to the flourishing of your movement. They are also the precursors to the flourishing of those you share opposite views with, faith healers, mystics, those of traditional faith groups. It is best to try to win over by superior argumentation and by good character, than it is by force of law because through force of law you will bind your own ears and your own mouths with the same mechanisms by which you bind others.
Cheers,
Don.