Truth in the talk of Dignity

So the Supreme Court of Canada has once again struck down a law that provides protection to human life. By striking down the ban on assisted suicide they aren't protecting society, the opposite is true, this will hurt society even more.
Do we as Canadians not hold the value of all life as sacred?
Is it not self-evident that human beings, by virtue of their humanity, are objectively valuable? Does that value makes them equal in worth to one another?
In every state of life should we not support that value?
The argument people use is the fact that they want to die with dignity. This argument is disingenuous, can you still not have dignity even if you have lost everything else including your health? This is not just an issue for those seeking assisted suicide but also an issue for the vulnerable of society, of which will be the next on the list as is proven by cases in other countries that have opened the door to this. But we can also look closer to home.
One example of this exploitation of the vulnerable is evident in the case of Robert and Tracy Latimer. Because she was severely handicapped he did not think her life should continue so he killed her.
However, because he made the case that it was an act of mercy, he was only found guilty of second degree murder (thought it was clearly premeditated) and given only a two-year sentence (of which only one would be spent in prison).
Eventually his sentence was appealed and he received the minimum ten year sentence.
Because he was in minimum security he was able to complete apprenticeships in prison and still managed his farm.
Apparently disabled people like Tracy are not protected by the law to the same extent as fully autonomous people because they do not demonstrate the same degree of autonomy as others. Understood this way, human dignity is not really for humans – it is dignity for autonomous agents.
If removing choice and control (autonomy) is tantamount to removing dignity, than dignity is subjective and easily lost. Infants, the disabled, seniors, and even people who are sleeping have lost control over themselves.
Another example is a prisoner of war in a concentration camp – what dignity would they have if they lost the ability to make choices in accordance with their aspirations?
If the court is going to be consistent, it would have to conclude that these people have also lost their dignity.
Yet this is contrary to reality. We recognize prisoners of war with medals of bravery and hold them in high esteem for what they went through.
Rather than hoping that their lives be extinguished to preserve them further suffering, we rejoice when they persevere against all odds.
Likewise we treat our grandparents with even greater care when they lose some of the functioning that makes it more difficult to look after themselves.
We also applaud the disabled for their determination. In all of these situations, it is apparent that dignity is not about making a choice to give up.
Rather, it is about facing life with courage, gentleness, kindness, decency, hope, determination, and faith in spite of the circumstances of life.
Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide further will weaken the legal protection for Canada‘s most vulnerable people.
The sad reality is that in countries where euthanasia is legalized, a large percentage of those who die never give their consent.
Others decide for them that their life isn‘t worth living.
For example, the 2009 statistics from the Netherlands that were released show that 550 deaths happened without explicit request or consent.
To add to that, the overall number of euthanasia deaths increased by an astounding 13% over 2008.
Why are these numbers skyrocketing? Who decides when someone no longer has the dignity to continue to live?
In an aging welfare society where seniors and the disabled are increasingly seen as a burden on the state, it is hard to believe that the patient‘s dignity is what determines whether they live.
Using dignity talk to justify this shameful reality reveals that the concept itself is being exploited.
We need to hold truth, respect, and the value of human life paramount in our lives.

Parental rights at risk...

Laurie Blakeman's has introduced 

 "Bill 202, the Safe and Inclusive School Act, is aimed at making all Alberta schools safe, inclusive, and supportive learning environments for every student regardless of sexuality, sexual orientation, or gender identity by:

• Requiring all school boards to develop policies to support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations.
• Repealing section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, which requires a parent or guardian be notified if sexual orientation will be discussed in the classroom.
• Referencing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and theAlberta Human Rights Act in Alberta’s Education Act." 

 I thought I would take some time and share with you some concerns I have with Laurie Blakeman's bill 202. 

  This bill is being presented as a bill to make schools safer for kids of the LGTBQ community but through this bill I fear that it might make things worse for other students.  Add this to the fact that this bill includes other statements and exclusions that put parental duties, responsibility, and rights in danger.  I hope that you will see my point and come to the same conclusion that this bill is not a piece of legislation that is required to make schools safer, but actually it undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and serves to remove Parental rights and bestow more power to the state as liberal socialists are in favour of, and may possibly make schools more hostile for other students if passed. 

  The issues I have are as follows 

1) forcing GSAs on schools boards and parents that may not support clubs of a sexual nature to be part of the school environment. 

2) removal of Parental rights by striking Sec 11.1 from the Education Act. 

3) by tying the Charter of Rights, and the Alberta Human rights Act to the education act undermine the right of home schoolers, private schools, and Public Religious schools to free speech, and also bestow special status to certain groups of people while excluding others. 

Parental duty: 

- we as society have set 18 years of age as legally becoming an adult

- most parents continue to make decisions for their kids as long as they live at home as is their duty to raise and guide them into adulthood. 

-the raising or Education of a child is the fundamental right and duty of parents, not the state nor that of the child being raised. 

- legislating the right of kids to set up GSAs sounds like a good idea but in a country where the rule of the majority is the standard, and that parents, not the kids are responsible for the children's education, having a small number of kids having the right to force a club to be endorsed by a school that the majority of parents may not support is wrong.  Should students, supported by the school board and the majority of the parents of the kids attending that school, wish to set up a club of a sexual nature then yes the club should be allowed. But then the opposite is true as well.  Should students of a school, not supported by the school board nor the majority of the parents of the kids attending that school, wish to set up a club of a sexual nature then the club should not be allowed nor be forced to be allowed. This allows for freedom, parental say, and the principles of democracy to be paramount. 

- we as society have set up an education system to help in the professional education of kids, that being said it is still the Right of parents to have the final say in what their child is being educated on. Should a parent have a problem with any subject they  deem their responsibility to teach, the school system can not and should not interfere with that right. Some topics such as religion, morality, and sexuality are sensitive subjects, ones that many parents deem the responsibility of parent. Thus the clause in Sec. 11.1 must remain in order to legally protect a parents fundamental right to have the final say on what is taught. 

- Sec. 11.1 dictates that the teacher must notify parents prior to discussing religion, human sexuality, or sexual orientation.  

(2) doesn't say anything about informing parents of when it will be discussed. 

The question comes up how will the parent give instruction to leave if they don't know when it will be discussed? 

 By not having prior knowledge to this, a student may only be excused when the discussion comes up rather than not showing up prior to discussion. This can put said student on the spot to leave as per parental request,  and open that student up to ridicule and unneeded peer pressure. This doesn't make the school safer for those students.

- The following is an excerpt from the Albert Home School Assosiation website in regards to Bill 2  a couple years ago that was presented and failed due to vast opposition in which the same issue was presented. 

"Due to the potential legal impact ... , AHEA has taken a strong position denouncing the inclusion of the Alberta Human Rights Act in the Education Act.

Provincial Human Rights Legislations have been studied at length and have been severely criticized by the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca) According to the March 2011 study conducted by John Carpay and Carol Crosson, From Bad to Worse - Examining Restrictions on Speech and Procedural Fairness in Human Rights

Legislation in Fourteen Canadian Jurisdictions ( http://www.jccf.ca/images/From%20Bad%20to%20Worse%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf  ), Canadian human rights  legislation has, at best, a ‘bad’ rating for procedural fairness.  Alberta’s human rights legislation is described as among the worst in Canada as a result of its lack of procedural

fairness and its violation of free speech rights.

    The paper discusses Human Rights Commissions and how they function, what they cover, areas of fairness, how complaints occur and how they are treated. The weaknesses

in the Alberta Human Rights Act and how they impede freedom of speech confirm  the legitimacy of concerns expressed by Alberta’s parents regarding imbedding the Alberta Human Rights Act being in the Education Act are legitimate.  

    Finally, an extended column on free speech, posted by Brad Trost, provides clear examples of how Canada’s Human Rights Commissions ‘selectively oppress Canadians who hold small “c” conservative political or religious views.” http://ezralevant.com/Free%20Speech%20by%20MP%20Brad%20Trost%2023JUN08%20.pdf

 This information, taken collectively, provides clear evidence which supports the argument for not enshrining the Alberta Human Rights Act within the Education Act."

If the term " the common values and beliefs of Albertans" isn't clear enough and has the public will to be changed, perhaps rather than entrenching the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the AHRA within the education act, perhaps the more realistic thing would be to entrench the freedoms spelled out in section 2. 

 Bill 202 would then read 

(2) Section 16(1) is amended by striking out “the common values and beliefs of Albertans” and substituting “Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act”. 

Sec 2.

 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

It's my conclusion that in order to protect Parental rights, ensure that ALL students are protected from mistreatment, and to ensure that our freedoms and fights are protected, this bill can not and should not be supported in its current form or any form similar to it. The right to form an extra curricular club can't trump a Parents fundamental right to dictate what, how and when things are taught to their children. 

I'll see you again.

Cry not for me...
On second thought shed a tear
And let people see
For grief is not something to fear.
We smiled
We loved
We sang
We danced
Ups and downs
Forwards and back
We lived.
And I still do
Both in your heart and mind
But more than that
I reside in pure peace
No pain
No hurt
No sickness
No sadness
Love and joy
Peaceful and happy
Heaven
Our hearts were joined
Still they are
The love we both shared
Takes us home
In time
In faith
In love
In peace
We shall see one another
In the arms of the Light
Soon enough,
Now I ask
Smile
Cry not for me...

With regret

The nomination for the Wildrose party has opened for Stony Plain riding, after much deliberation I've come to the very hard thought out decision to step back and remove myself from contention at this time.
 This has not been an easy decision, circumstances in my life have arisen that makes this the only move that is right for me and my family at this time. Trying to raise a young family of four kids while balancing a booming business, staying evolved with church and community charities and trying to run a campaign have been too much and I must put the needs of my family first.
 I would like to thank all those who decided to support me, your words, support and well wishes were kind and generous! Perhaps one day when my family is a bit older and time restraints not so tough I can be privileged to serve my community as a public servant. I have been in contact with the Party and they have expressed their thanks and hope that I stay involved which I would be happy too!
 Once again I can't say thanks enough for all the support I received and look forward to continuing the relationships I've made in the community through this process!

Russ

Making it Official

I believe we can do better.

To me better means being different than what we have. We need honesty, fiscal responsibility, open clear communication, but more importantly caring for and helping each other

 Honesty is better, believing in honesty I won't give the typical political fluffy answers or try trick people with dishonest statements.
  Open communication is better, phone, email, and social media are all ways that I will be available to listen to those I wish to represent and to openly communicate with.
  I believe that the government also needs to start being more responsible with our tax dollars. It's not there for politicians to spend at their whim. It's there to help our society flourish. It's there so we can help and care for each other; that’s what better looks like. Cutting funding to front line health, education, seniors and society's most vulnerable isn't helping, it's hurting. Cutting where it hurts the most isn’t better.
Different is what we need. Better is what I offer!  That's why I'm seeking the nomination for the Wildrose Party in Stony Plain riding.

Going to get ugly...

Everyone's heard that you shouldn't corner a wild animal and how dangerous it is to do so.  I'm thinking that might be the same for political parties as well. As I sit back and feel the winds of change blow through AB for the first time in 40+ years I can't help but think that things will get ugly next election.
 We had a taste of it last election with the PC's fearmongering tactics. As those winds of change blow in and the PCs feel their empire crashing down around them  I don't think it's a stretch to think we will see it again.  Like a cornered animal they are going to lash out in ugly ways. How many lies will we hear? How many slanderous comments will be thrown out?  How desperate will they get to hold on to the power and to stay on the gravy train they've created?
 Mark my words... It's going to get ugly.

Reflections

I would just like to take a moment to reflect on the past week in Alberta politics.  With the resignation of Alison Redford I think we seen a fundamental shift in Alberta politics. The PCAA, a party that's been in power for over 40 years has clearly lost its way. Infighting and the power struggle that it has caused is clearly shown that they are no longer putting the needs of Albertans first. We live in one of the greatest provinces in Canada, it's hard to believe that we should see the kind of government that we have right now. I can't help but think that we can do better than what were doing. It's time that we sit back as citizens and analyze what we as people of this great province want.
 Here we have a leader that steps down after scandal after scandal, broken promise after broken promise. Yet for someone who campaigned on transparency and accountability she claimed none for herself.  In her announcement she took none of the blame, claimed no responsibility, only pushed forward more false facts and deflect blame on others. She did do the right thing in resigning, with her at the helm the distraction that she caused with her poor choices was impairing the governing process.   Alison could have done better but she chose not to, she could have admitted fault but chose not to. She could have kept her election promises but chose not to. But to fair lets not put all the blame on her. The PC caucus is to blame too. Where were they when after the party campaigned on not incurring debt moved Alberta back into debt? Where were they when they campaigned on fiscal responsibility and living within our means and yet voted themselves a raise, wasted money on government jets and so on? Where were they when they claimed to standup for Albertans put then cut funding to education and PDD funding?  Dave Hancock, Doug Horner and all the other MLAs are guilty in this as well. Only after they realized that their jobs were at stake did some dare to speak for their constituents, a job they were hired for. They could have done better by speaking up for the people right from the start. 
 It's time for change, it's time for something different because what we have now isn't working, we can do better.