The issue of “Conscience Rights” has come up in the Alberta Election campaign, and I for one think this is a very good thing. Why? Because it draws a distinct line between those who support individual freedom, and those who support groupthink.
Only Wildrose and leader Danielle Smith have spoken out in favour of letting doctors and marriage commissioners exercise their right of conscience (which is guaranteed in the Constitution Act of 1967, by the way). Both Alison Redford of the PCs and Raj Sherman of the Liberals have come out against this constitutionally guaranteed right.
Here is a question for both Redford and Sherman – would you oppose the rights of non-government paid/regulated persons to have this right? Would you mandate that Mosques must respect Catholic holidays? That Catholic Churchs conduct same-sex marriages? Or does this only apply when the state is paying people, like the doctors and marriage commissioners?
If an individual doctor wants to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right, but the patient can obtain the service from another doctor who does not have those moral issues, then the patient has not suffered any discrimination from the state. The service was provided. Similarly with marriage commissioners or pharmacists.
Hat tip to Alberta Aardvark for his excellent summaries (PCs, Libs) of this issue.
10 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Alain
7 April 2012 at 20:38 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You are right. The moment collective rights trumps individual freedom, it is no longer a free society. Collectivists remain opposed to individual rights and freedom and should be rejected by freedom loving people.
Powell Lucas
8 April 2012 at 11:12 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The Wilrose is dead on the money with this initiative. I’m always concerned when the goverment does something to coerce any group or individua,l who refuses to follow the law of the land, In the case of doctors, I always wonder how far this will go: should euthanasia ever becom legal, does that mean doctors would be forced to kill patients, or if the death penalty was ever reinstated would doctors be obliged to inject the deadly drugs?
The opposition parties are all in favour of the state telling you “YOU MUST CONFORM!” Sorry, just ain’t my style.
Harebell
8 April 2012 at 14:16 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The reason why marriage commissioners/doctors etc should provide services to all those who legally are entitled to that service is because the state has taken it upon itself to provide those services. They are regarded as state provided services. Therefore anybody applying to become a state official does so knowing that the service they will provide on completion of the process is one that is available to everybody who is legally entitled to it. Those legally entitled to it are as determined by the democratically elected government of the day, not each individual state employee.
To then, after qualifying, turn around and demand that they can pick and chose who they provide that service too is a refusal to carry out the tasks you knew your post would entail when you decided that that was the life you wished to follow. The honest thing to do should you have a change of principles is to resign and choose another calling more compatible with your new mindset.
This isn’t a hard concept to follow. It would be like a soldier refusing to go into theatre because they had suddenly become a pacifist via religious conversion. If the soldier decided that being a Quaker was their new calling, then they should resign from the military, not insist that the military keep them on board but not insist that they fight.
Taliesyn
8 April 2012 at 21:37 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The real problem is that the government SHOULDN’T be in charge of providing health care or marriage services. Before the 20th century, they weren’t. Worse, they have made it illegal for doctors to offer their services in the free market, and thereby prevent people from being able to be “free to choose”.
Dollops Eric Doll
9 April 2012 at 0:07 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The larger point, Harebell, is that because of government overreach people of conscience are put in a conflict between their beliefs and their duties. The army example is a straw man argument because armies obviously are formed and joined to fight the nation’s wars and anyone with pacifist inclinations has no business joining the army. Spare the arguments against conscription for another thread. There is no merit to the notion that a democratic vote can override a doctor’s or teacher’s conscience in matters of a moral nature precisely because such matters are beyond any sane person’s expectations of government.
Harebell
9 April 2012 at 18:13 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Whether you have a problem with the state reserving some service provision for itself or not is another question. Right now the only way that folk can legally be married is via state regulation. Even church folk have to have state approval to conduct a ceremony (http://www.servicealberta.ca/1151.cfm) but the law allows them the freedom to exhibit intolerance as long as their superstition has it written into the doctrine. So your point regarding this is moot. Catholic priests can still refuse to marry folk in love because they don’t approve of their lifestyle; yeay for tolerance.
The only recourse gay folk and other religiously unacceptable people have to get married is via non-religious channels and that is the marriage commissioner system. If you are anti-gay because of religious reasons then stick to the religious route for conducting marriages, don’t shut down the only route couples whom religions hate can use.
Ira
10 April 2012 at 11:50 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I’m inclined to allow employers to tell their employees what to do. If you don’t want to perform the duties of the job, don’t take the job.
I agree that the government shouldn’t be the employer in these areas, but they are. Your position here allows employees to decide that they’re not going to do part of their jobs because they find them distasteful. You’re taking the power to determine job descriptions away from employers and handing it to the employees.
If you want to see how that turns out, check out BC’s public school system.
Taliesyn
10 April 2012 at 21:40 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You make a good point. The real problem is in the government monopoly over these services and the prohibition of free citizens to offer their skills and services on the open market to those with whom they can come to mutual agreement. I agree with your statement that employees shouldn’t be able to decide how the job is done – but the government monopoly and diktats regarding morality offend.
The marriage commissioner issue is special because the government doesn’t have a “monopoly”, only a monopoly over non-religious versions, and the rules are applied unfairly simply due to religion.
Cynical Bard
10 April 2012 at 21:24 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If I am a Doctor who refuses to do an abortion on moral grounds, I wonder if Harebell would require that I do it even though I have no training or experience. Who would be liable for any untoward incident, such as death of the patient?
Harebell?
Shouldn’t be me.
I said I was not qualified.
And why are any of us obligated to pay for procedures we feel are morally repugnant?
Only because big government always knows best?
Why is it that we, as common citizens, unfit to run our own lives and make out own decisions, but if we manage to get a degree in Bitterness Studies, and a job with the Government, then we are qualified to tell everyone else how to run their lives, but still not our own. ?
Why is that
Harebell
10 April 2012 at 23:58 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Only saw your questions to me by accident. You should really answer on the thread if you want me to answer.
Why are any of us obligated to pay for procedures we find morally repugnant? A great question and the answer is that we live in a community of many different people with many different points of view. For it to work, compromise is usually necessary by everybody in that community.
A lot of people object to paying for wars, but not the military for defence purposes. Afghanistan was morally repugnant to these folk. Some people find paying for education a burden and having two school systems a waste of resources. Why should religious institutions get tax breaks is a pet peeve of mine. But do I get to opt out via exercising my conscience rights to refuse to support what is in my opinion a ludicrous world view? Nope. It’s the price I pay for a health service and being a member of the community.
As for the doctor, not all doctors carry out safe, clean abortions and some specialise in it because their world view is such that they understand that the alternative is horrible. I believe that the medical profession and the way the health services organise such a service is on a voluntary basis. What would be unnacceptable to me is a bunch of folk who object to abortion, volunteering to do so, then refusing to provide the service on the grounds of belief. That is deceitful and is purely a way of blocking an otherwise legal and necessary service.
Conscience Rights Advocates really need to think it through – The militray angle. | voice from the pack
8 April 2012 at 14:48 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
[...] on the right are pushing the idea of Conscience Rights as a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom. I don’t [...]