This is Accountability?

What's the matter Stephen? Scared that the bogeyman you call the public might learn something about your crooked government?

What was that about making government accountable in your speeches last election?

Or is it just your true colours showing through?

Harper The Micromanager Strikes Again

For a government that claimed it was going to "clean up" in Ottawa, watching the Iron Curtain of secrecy descend is quite worrisome.

Now we have Harper trying to muzzle the Auditor General.

Fortunately, our current Auditor General isn't exactly a 'shrinking violet' type:

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser found allies yesterday who condemned the Conservative proposal, which could mean that Parliament's officers must vet their public statements through a wing of the Prime Minister's Office, as an unprecedented attack on the independence of the officers, who are supposed to work at arm's length.

I wonder how long it will be before PMSH finds an excuse to get into a pissing match with Ms. Fraser so that he can justify firing her and replacing her with someone more compliant with his wishes control everything with an iron fist. Harper isn't a democratic leader, he's a totalitarian.

- This has been another entry in the TAG file...

Questioning McVety's Money Trail...

I don't have much time for Charles McVety on good days. I think he is an unpleasant little man who will stoop to anything to turn Canada into a Theocracy - but that's just my opinion.

Fortunately, the keepers of the Shuffl blog are a little more patient than I about the man and have done an outstanding job of tracing through McVety's little lobbying empire and revealing quite a bit about how money apparently moves around his world. (There's much that we can't see without access to McVety's books, but I imagine a forensic accountant would have a grand old time with them.)

The upshot of it all is that an awful lot of the contact pages from various organizations affiliated with McVety (CFAC, Word.ca, Institute for Canadian Values and Canadians United for Israel) all ultimately point back to telephone numbers and an address that mysteriously corresponds to Canada Christian College.

Of particular interest are observations such as how the "donations" page from Word.ca mysteriously links to the "donations" page for the "Institute for Canadian Values".

All of this doesn't actually prove that McVety is engaging in a shell game with donor's money, but one does have to wonder about how "arm's length" the relationship between known political lobby organizations (such as CVI) and McVety's college (which is a registered charity) really are. CFAC is a bit of an oddity here, since its offices are in Calgary, and I believe that Rushfeldt founded CFAC locally - although McVety is the titular President. The details of the relationship between Rushfeldt and McVety are unknown to me, but their names keep popping up together on various organizations McVety runs.

I can only imagine what would turn up if Revenue Canada actually did an audit of the books for the various organizations that McVety is affiliated with - and the financial shell-games that are being played to fund the various political lobby organizations.

In any case, the donation pages along with the suspicious collision of offices makes me wonder aloud about whether or not donations actually go where people think they are going in the first place.

No Sympathy For Victoria

For decades, Victoria's sewage has been dumped into the ocean slightly offshore - raw and untreated. I'm sure that they must be the last major municipality in Canada which doesn't have a sewage treatment system in place. Even the ever-parsimonious Calgary has invested in sewage treatment - quite aggressively, actually.

Well, it seems that the Provincial Government in B.C. finally got its head around the fact that Victoria wasn't going to do anything on its own, so they ordered the city to take steps.

The cost of the project is now approaching $1.2 Billion, and homeowners are crying the blues about a levy that they will have to shell out to pay for the project:

"I question these figures," said Oak Bay Mayor Chris Causton, addressing the discrepancy between ratepayers in his municipality - who will pay the extra $713 a year - and the rest of the region. "I'm not convinced there's four times the flow coming from Oak Bay."

Mr. Causton said that despite the province's dictate, an environmental impact study hasn't even been done.

"I think there's a lot of residents that need to be convinced."

Too bad. The rest of us have been paying for our civic water and wastewater treatment for decades, pal. Victoria's been hemming and hawing over putting in a sewage treatment system for at least 20 odd years that I know of. Meanwhile, it continues to dump its raw sewage straight into the ocean. Like Calgary in so many ways, there's a huge amount of "NIMBY" happening, and now the price is steeper than a lot of residents are willing to pay. Had Victoria started this process in the 1980s, the basic project would have cost a fraction of the $1.2 Billion being discussed now.

Infrastructure is a "pay me now, or pay me later" proposition. Victoria chose "later", and now is obliged to pay with interest. Calgary went through a similar debacle with the south end of Deerfoot Trail. As new developments came in, developers were permitted to simply install traffic lights at intersection points on Deerfoot - turning a highway into a high speed parking lot. In the last five years, we've replaced all of the traffic lights with interchanges - at a cost several times what it would have cost had those interchanges been put in place when the new developments were being created.

Sewage treatment plants aren't pretty things, and few people ever "see" the benefit they deliver. Consequently, in the very "tourist centric" mindset in Victoria, such infrastructure gets pretty low billing for most people, and very few people understand just how much damage dropping raw sewage from 330,000 people into the ocean year after year really does.

Up to this point, I've been somewhat ambivalent to Victoria's waste water issues. However, when the issue is not that the plant needs to be built, but rather the fact that the residents of the city will have pay for it, just as the rest of us do, I lose what patience I do have. The politics have allowed this issue to languish for decades, and now the pigeons have come home to roost. Suck it up, and get on with the damn job.

The Next TheoCon Talking Point

I've heard this story before.

It seems that Connie Heintz used to work for an Evangelical Ministry that provided services to the developmentally handicapped, and then she was fired when they found out she was a Lesbian.

According the the shrieking wingnut crowd over at Lifesite (and their affiliates), this is another example of HRC's compromising "Freedom of Religion" rights.

Connie Heintz, an employee who signed onto the "morality statement" as a condition of employment, promised not to engage in "homosexual relationships", among other anti-Christian activities such as "extra-marital sexual relationships (adultery)", "pre-marital sexual relationships (fornication)", "viewing or reading pornographic material" and "lying".

Really...how interesting.

Then there's reality:

For five years, Heintz was a support worker at a Waterloo residential home for five developmentally delayed adults.

She quit her job in September 2000, after employees and supervisors made her final months there "the worst time of my life."

After revealing she was a lesbian, "they said this would be grounds for dismissal," she said.

"On a regular basis, I was told to look elsewhere for work . . . I was harassed.

"I constantly had to watch my back," Heintz said in an interview. "They made allegations about me."

Heintz said some co-workers made unfounded accusations that she abused residents.

No, we're not finished with this yet, because the ruling itself gives us even more details:

[4] Ms. Heintz is an individual of deep Christian faith. She is also a lesbian. Ms. Heintz came to an understanding of who she was, and her sexual orientation during her tenure as an employee of Christian Horizons. The Lifestyle and Morality Statement prohibits homosexual relationships, and the faith belief adopted by Christian Horizon views homosexuality as unnatural, immoral and contrary to the scriptures. Because she was not in compliance with the Lifestyle and Morality Statement, Ms. Heintz was required to leave her employment in the fall of 2000.

[5] The Commission and Ms. Heintz allege that Ms. Heintz was terminated from employment because of her sexual orientation, and the requirement that all employees sign the Lifestyle and Morality Statement is a violation of the Human Rights Code. They also allege that the manner in which Ms. Heintz was treated, after she came out as a lesbian, constitutes discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Ah - so, the reality is that she went through a period of self-discovery, and eventually determined that she was a Lesbian. Okay, fair enough. At this point, this starts to remind me of the way that Julie Nemecek was treated, or in some respects, Delwin Vriend's case in Alberta.

There's a couple of problems I see here. First of all, I have real problems with so-called "conduct codes" that attempt to regulate employees behaviour outside of the workplace along "moral" lines. Such codes often extend well into what I consider to be private life spaces. No employer has any right to know anything about my private life that I choose not to disclose to them; and further, they have no right whatsoever to take punitive action against me on the basis of that private life, even if they do know about something they consider "immoral".

Second, these kinds of "contracts" have the unfortunate consequence of being largely unenforceable because of their highly moralistic content, but also because they tend to make some suppositions that do not recognize the enormous variety of human experience that exists in our world. Someone like Ms. Heintz may well have denied her own sexual identity so deeply that at the time she signed the agreement she did so in perfectly good faith. The fact that her self-perception and circumstances changed so dramatically is perhaps unusual, but hardly implausible.

However, it is the way in which Christian Horizons conducted itself that is deeply troubling:

[75] In April 2000, two co-workers, Sophie Odhiambo and Jennifer Ward, confronted Ms. Heinz and asked whether she was a lesbian. A few days later, on April 26, 2000, Ms. Dorothy Girling, Ms. Heintz’s immediate supervisor, met with Ms. Heintz to advise there were rumours she was in a same sex relationship. Ms. Heintz admitted this to Ms. Girling. Ms. Girling said she would have to speak with Michael Alemu, who was the Administrator of District Services, West Region at the time.

[76] Ms. Heintz testified that, at the April 26, 2000 meeting, Ms. Girling said that Ms. Heintz would be terminated or would have to find work elsewhere because she was not in compliance with the Lifestyle and Morality Statement. Ms. Girling testified that she did not recall saying this at the initial meeting but spoke with Ms. Heintz about having signed the Lifestyle and Morality Statement, that she was not in compliance and this was “a matter of integrity.”

This is deeply troubling to me, as it is the early stages of a similar strategy that was played out with Julie Nemecek - and underscores a fundamental unwillingness on the part of the employer to even attempt 'reasonable accommodation' of any sort, but it gets better:

[79] On June 23, 2000, Ms. Girling received an occurrence report from Ms. Odhiambo alleging Ms. Heintz had assaulted one of the residents on May 24, 2000. Ms. Odhiambo’s report also stated:

Since October 1999, I have endured months of harassment and abuse from Ms. Heintz. There have been times I have feared for my physical safety. My health has been at times affected. Our Program Manager is aware of my fears/apprehensions.

A prior conversation with our Program Manager led me to understand that Ms. Heintz’s behaviour was not as important as another underlying matter and therefore any behavioural matters were to be dealt with in her performance appraisal….

… A conversation [with Ms. Heintz] about the occurrence was impossible – I was alone with her, the Program Manager was away. It may have escalated the situation. Ms. Heintz is a bully and can become explosive.

I mentioned this matter to trusted staff… No one wanted to touch it or get involved. I think there is some fear but it is mixed with confusion over the other matter … i.e. how to handle things. No one knows…

[80] Ms. Heintz did not know at the time that allegations of resident abuse had been made against her, and Christian Horizons management did not inform her. Ms. Heintz was also not made aware of the other allegations made in the occurrence report.

[81] Mr. Alemu held a series of “one-on-one” meetings with staff at the Waterloo 6 residence on June 26 and 27, 2000. Their purpose was to address what he recognized as a high level of stress at the Waterloo 6 program and a breakdown in the team dynamic and cohesiveness. He said he wanted to hear from staff on any conflicts, issues, disagreements or disputes that were affecting the program, including any complaints against staff, management or of mistreatment of the residents.

[82] Following the interviews, Mr. Alemu decided to set up a formal inquiry team to look into Ms. Odhiambo’s allegations of resident abuse. Ms. Heintz was suspended with pay pending the investigation by the inquiry team. The results of the investigation were “inconclusive”, though Ms. Heintz was issued a disciplinary letter for her behaviour during the staff interviews conducted by Mr. Alemu. Ms. Heintz returned to work on July 12, 2000.
...
[217] At that meeting Ms. Heintz expressed her upset and a concern about the manner in which Mr. Alemu was inquiring into the allegations against her. She told Mr. Alemu she felt it was unfair that she was not told of the allegations and was finding out from other staff. She felt that certain staff were being deceitful and that the organization would “prefer for me not to be working here.” She told Mr. Alemu she thought the organization was “biased and hypocritical”. Mr. Alemu took offence and indicated that her behaviour was grounds for termination.

Let me get this straight - someone makes an unverifiable complaint against Ms. Heintz, the investigation into the complaint results in Ms. Heintz being reprimanded - not for anything to do with the complaint, but for some issue to do with her "behaviour" during the interviews. At this point in time, the Director doing the interviews should have taken issue with the person who wrote the unverifiable complaint. It's pretty clear that the complaint itself is slanderous, and a poor attempt to undermine Ms. Heintz's credibility in the workplace.

In short, instead of dealing with the innuendo and slander being thrown about the workplace, Mr. Alemu chose to tacitly approve of it by NOT taking actions to stop it immediately.

[222] During the inquiry, the issue of Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation was raised. Ms. Odhiambo indicated that she was afraid of Ms. Heintz, that Ms. Heintz was stalking her, and she carried her car keys at all times in case she had to escape from the residence. Ms. Heintz told the inquiry team that she felt that Ms. Odhiambo was extremely uncomfortable with the fact that she (Ms. Heintz) was gay.

[223] The inquiry team noted that “Sophie’s fears must be taken seriously, and steps need to be taken to ensure that she can maintain a sense of well-being and safety in the workplace”. The inquiry team made no comments about Ms. Heintz’s well-being, nor did it recommend management take steps to address the apparent tension in the workplace related to some staff’s discomfort with Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation.

Can you spot the "Spanish Inquisition" taking place here? The allegations being made against Ms. Heintz are not verifiable or substantiated in any way, yet she is being held as the person who must "change" things? Put in simple terms - what's up with that? Any rational person will recognize that there is little, if anything that she could do that would satisfy the moralizing ninnies she was working with. The fact that Christian Horizons chose to disregard the obvious problems with the allegations being made is disgusting.

[230] In my view, the course of events described above demonstrates a complete failure of Christian Horizons to deal with Ms. Heintz in a way that is consistent with an employer’s obligation under the Code. First, it is apparent that the investigation and inquiry into allegations of abuse and harassment by Ms. Heintz were biased and tainted by discrimination. Mr. Alemu testified that Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation was not relevant to his investigation and he did not ask staff about Ms. Heintz being gay during the interviews. He indicated that it never occurred to him that Ms. Odhiambo’s allegations might have been related to Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation, or that Ms. Odhiambo was homophobic. Rather, he said he thought that Ms. Odhiambo’s fears were well-founded. During his testimony, he did not accept any shortcomings on his, or the organization’s, part in how the matter was handled. He laid all the blame on Ms. Heintz and on her “hostile” attitude during the investigation process and her negativity toward Christian Horizons. As he put it, just because Ms. Heintz’s lifestyle had changed, did not mean that “all of a sudden the organization, the management is all of a sudden, is a rotten one.”

[231] I have difficulty accepting Mr. Alemu’s contentions. The contents of his notes do not bear out his assertions that he did not consider Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation relevant and did not raise it with staff during the interviews. Ms. Odhiambo’s June 23, 2000 occurrence report should have, at a minimum, caused Mr. Alemu to question whether it was motivated by a fear or dislike of homosexuals. Beyond this, it is inconceivable that, in an organization where one of the core beliefs is that homosexuality is immoral, and fundamentally incompatible with “Christian ministry”, Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation played no role in Mr. Alemu’s consideration of a “breakdown in the team dynamics.”

In short - Mr. Alemu set out to find what he wanted to claim, and he wasn't going to consider any evidence to the contrary. (Shades of standard inquisitional logic - we are going start from the supposition of someone's guilt, and move forward from there...argh!)

[235] Rev. Dr. Stiller also described how having a gay or lesbian employee was completely antithetical to an Evangelical organization:

And I must tell you that within the Evangelical community, this is not a -- this is not a knee-jerk response to social trends. But it, at the very heart, is our understanding of who we are in Christ as his creation and in his image. And sexuality is a very critical part of that. And so to go outside of what we think is normative sexuality, male/female, take a homosexual lesbian, it isn't that those persons aren't cared for loved, but to have a person like that salaried by the organization, what -- that strikes at the very heart of its -- of its identity and its commitment.
(. . .)
What I was referring to was that our understanding of sexuality strikes at the very heart of our theology, which is that we are created in God's image and that he has created within human civilization and within human life a particular – what we call normal sexuality which is the male/female relationship. And that's critical to our theology.

Now, if "Christian Horizons" was a church, I'd perhaps be more willing to accept this. It isn't. It is a social support organization funded by the government (primarily) whose role is to provide care for those who cannot provide for themselves. To claim that they are "purely" a religious organization runs at dramatic odds with their undertakings and the degree of funding they receive from the government. Furthermore, they are employers in the public workforce.

[237] Christian Horizons says that its core beliefs require adherents to treat all persons, particularly those who are marginalized, with care and compassion. The ultimate goal of human rights legislation is not about caring for the marginalized, or treating them with compassion, it is about removing the barriers and discriminatory attitudes that cause individuals to be marginalized in society. The obligation placed on employers by the Code is to ensure that the working environment under their control does not become a place where discriminatory attitudes are permitted to poison the atmosphere and require employees, as a condition of their employment, to endure attacks on their dignity and self-respect. In Hinds, supra, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal framed the obligation of an employer this way:

(,,,) there is a duty upon an employer to take prompt and effectual action when it knows or should know of co-employees' conduct in the workplace amounting to racial harassment ... To satisfy the burden upon it, the employer's response should bear some relationship to the seriousness of the incident itself ... To avoid liability, the employer is obliged to take reasonable steps to alleviate, as best it can, the distress arising within the work environment and to reassure those concerned that it is committed to the maintenance of a workplace free of racial harassment. A response that is both timely and corrective is called for and its degree must turn upon the circumstances of the harassment in each case. (para. 41611)

[238] Christian Horizons had a responsibility to respond to the rumours and allegations which were clearly tied to Ms. Heintz’s sexual orientation. It had an obligation to investigate, to inquire, and to take steps to put an end to the effects of the attitudes that were poisoning the workplace and having a detrimental impact on Ms. Heintz. Christian Horizons says, and Ms. Heintz agreed, there were a number of events and issues that where causing stress in the workplace in the spring and summer of 2000. But it is clear, and should have been clear to Christian Horizons, that the negative and discriminatory attitudes towards gays and lesbians that were being played out in a real and active way, was a central factor in the discord at Waterloo 6.

The issue, in short, is that theology is being used as a crutch here. Someone with outstanding performance reviews and other feedback in their history doesn't mysteriously become an underachiever overnight simply because they are gay. That doesn't make sense to me. Worse, the toxic use of innuendo and suggestion on the part of one or two staffers is deeply troubling. What if Ms. Heintz was in fact straight, and these allegations were suddenly being made about her? The simple fact is that it is calumny of the worst kind - and the most destructive kind. Instead of looking at the situation rationally, her employer set out a program of progressive harassment with the objective of making Ms. Heintz quit, or to create the necessary fiction with which to justify terminating her employment.

What's really interesting in the decision is the OHRC's investigation turns up a whole bunch of examples of deeply religious organizations finding ways to reach out to the GLBT populations in and around them:

[194] Mr. Cobrough testified that the Salvation Army is engaged in various social service activities, including hospitals and caring for individuals with developmental disabilities. In carrying out its work, it has approximately 1200 officers, 10,000 employees and 68,000 volunteers. Officers, who are ordained pastors of the church, and “soldiers”, are required to adopt the articles of faith of the organization and must agree to live by the values and lifestyle statement. For example, they are not permitted to engage in homosexual relationships.

[195] The Salvation Army does not require all employees to sign a lifestyle and morality statement. Individuals who are not officers or soldiers are not required to sign a lifestyle statement. Adherence to lifestyle and morality standards is considered to be a qualification for some positions, such as youth pastor, but other positions, such as registered nurse, do not have such a requirement.
...
[196] In his testimony, Rev. Dr. Hawkes spoke about his experiences in the 1990’s and working to ensure that the gay and lesbian community in Toronto had proper access to health care. He explained that several hospitals in downtown Toronto that had traditionally served the gay and lesbian community were slated for closure. As Dr. Hawkes put it, “in the height of the AIDS crisis, the only hospital that was going to be left was St. Mike’s Hospital, a Roman Catholic hospital, a Roman Catholic institution with a terrible reputation [within the gay and lesbian community].”

[197] Rev. Dr. Hawkes testified:

So I went and met with them and I said what are you going to do because we don't feel we're going to be safe here. And they were amazing. This is a Catholic institution. They educated their staff on gay and lesbian issues, they started to treat gay and lesbian couples as full couples before the law required them. They put a rainbow flag into the foyer, they put signs up for Pride Day. They did all kinds of things to make it a safe environment, not only for gays and lesbians but for their partners as well. So there is a public institution -- sorry, a Roman Catholic institution that's probably 100 percent public funded or pretty close, that set aside the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which said you're not to treat gay and lesbian couples as couples. Set that aside to say we have a greater public good here. We are serving the public here and so we have to move past what our priest might teach in the Church to say. We are a public institution, we are an institution serving the public, and we need to be able to have public policies that welcome everybody.

And so they have gay and lesbian staff that are fully welcome, where they get benefits even before it was required in law, and they welcome the gay and lesbian community. So we have a wonderful -- now I hear great stories about St. Mike's Hospital and how they're accommodating the gay and lesbian community.

These are delightful examples of how such situations can be handled the religious organization constructively rather than at the cost of tearing another human being apart and shredding their lives so publicly. Nobody deserves the kind of narrow minded treatment that Ms. Heintz received at the hands of her employer and her colleagues.

If someone were to be treated the way Ms. Heintz was as a result of their religious convictions, I can only imagine the outrage that these same people would be expressing. At some point in the future, they might start to get the idea that these issues cut both ways.

However, I can imagine Alberta's Ted Morton popping up and quoting this one the next time he decides to reintroduce his anti-gay rights bill in the Alberta legislature.

H/T: Mark @ Slap Upside The Head

The Logical Consequences of C-537

If the brain-damaged rantings of Maurice Vellacott become law, we can look forward to scenes like this tragedy in India happening here.

Why? because bill C-537 creates an environment where a practitioner's religious beliefs trump the patient. Is bill C-537 as sweeping as the societal attitudes towards India's "untouchables"? No, but it is rooted in the same class of stupidity - where someone allows their superstition to guide their treatment of somebody else down a path that will be damaging to the patient.

Truly sad is that C-537 makes women Canada's "Untouchables" when it comes to health care.

Wingnut Legislation - Bill C-537

Remember Maurice Vellacott - the MP who asked Harper not to put him in cabinet so he wouldn't have to compromise his beliefs?

Well, right on the heels of Bill C-484 (the criminalize abortions act), we find Vellacott putting Bill C-537 before the House of Commons.

So, just what is Bill C-537, you may ask? Well, it seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada S.425 to protect the "conscience rights" of educators and medical practitioners with respect to subjects they "object to". (e.g. Distributing contraceptives for example)

Section 425(1) deals primarily with what most of us understand to be "whistleblower" situations:

425.1 (1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer or in a position of authority in respect of an employee of the employer shall take a disciplinary measure against, demote, terminate or otherwise adversely affect the employment of such an employee, or threaten to do so,

(a) with the intent to compel the employee to abstain from providing information to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law, respecting an offence that the employee believes has been or is being committed contrary to this or any other federal or provincial Act or regulation by the employer or an officer or employee of the employer or, if the employer is a corporation, by one or more of its directors; or

(b) with the intent to retaliate against the employee because the employee has provided information referred to in paragraph (a) to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law.

Punishment
(2) Any one who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

2004, c. 3, s. 6.

Vellacott's legislative dropping isn't even "on topic", but rather attempts to add "non-compulsion" clauses regarding "matters of conscience" worded as follows:

(2) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an employer or the agent of an employer,


(a) refuses to employ a health care practitioner,


(b) refuses to advance or promote a qualified health care practitioner, or


(c) dismisses, or threatens to dismiss, a health care practitioner from employment,


because the health care practitioner is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet of the practitioner’s religion, or the belief of the practitioner that human life is inviolable.

(3) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an educator or the agent of an educator in any field of health care in Canada,


(a) refuses to admit any person to courses in a field of health care, or


(b) refuses to grant accreditation in a field of health care to any person,

because the person is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet of the person’s religion, or the belief of the person that human life is inviolable.

(4) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an officer of a professional association of health care practitioners, or the agent of any such officer,


(a) refuses to admit a person to membership in the professional association,


(b) refuses to advance or promote the standing of a person as a member of the professional association, or


(c) excludes a person from, or threatens to exclude a person from, the professional association,


because the person is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet in the person’s religion, or the belief of the person that human life is inviolable.

So...in Maurice Vellacott's world, there is an equivalence between an employer who retaliates against an employee who has reported violations of Federal Law to law enforcement authorities, and moralizing pharmacists who refuse to do their job. Wow - that's quite a leap.

Like Epp's ever-so transparent attempt to set the foundation for banning abortion in Bill C-484, the wording that Vellacott uses is so astoundingly broad that it could be used (or abused) in a plethora of unhappy ways.

Consider the following phrase which ripples through Vellacott's legislation:

...that offends a tenet of the person’s religion

I have a huge problem with this phrase. First off, in the context of S.425 overall, it declares an equivalence between codified Federal Law, and its interpretation through the various agencies of government including the judiciary and religious "tenets" - written or unwritten as interpreted primarily by the individual.

The concept of 'religious tenet' is contentious even among theologians, and to place such an ambiguous concept at the same level of importance as someone reporting possible violations of law to the government is troubling. I'm sure just about anything could be declared a violation of someone's religious tenets, depending on how one reads various tidbits of scripture.

the belief of the person that human life is inviolable

Again, this is very troublesome wording. Superficially, this is intended to protect people who object to procedures such as abortion from being punished for refusing to participate. However, again, the overall wording is exceptionally broad and all too easily could be read to include topics such as contraceptives or even dispensing information about STIs.

There are some serious problems with this legislation. It opens up the possibility where a practitioner could easily refuse service to someone even under emergency conditions.

Consider the possibility that as a result of a late night traffic accident, a woman is brought into the emergency with serious, life threatening injuries. Not only is she seriously injured, but she is also pregnant. Surgery is required, but it is also likely to result in the termination of the pregnancy. So, the doctor(s) on shift abstain from participating in the surgery because it might "violate the tenets of their religion" to be involved in a medical procedure that would result in the termination of the pregnancy.

We aren't talking about a procedure that can wait here, but rather a situation where action must be taken immediately. In this circumstance, Vellacott's law could be read to imply that the appropriate professional organizations involved could not take disciplinary action against the doctors involved even though the decision to refuse to participate would stand in violation of the ethical guidelines and regulations of the profession.

*Note: The above scenario is hypothetical, and intended to be illustrative of the possible consequences of this legislation. It is however, rooted in an amalgam of real-life situations where needed treatment has been arbitrarily refused on what amount to moral grounds

Vellacott's legislation is vastly out of line with the intent of S.425(1) in the first place. Second, like Epp's bill C-484, it is overly broad in its wording to the extent that it actually puts someone's interpretation of their religion above and ahead of their obligation to do their job.

Further, Bill C-537 is rooted in the assertion that "god-fearing Christians" are being "forced" to do things against their will or faith. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Except in the festering imaginations of people like Maurice Vellacott and Charles McVety, no such thing is happening. Typically, the cases that they point to as examples actually wind up being a reflection of someone being completely intransigent - or worse - with respect to doing their jobs; or arbitrarily denying service to people on what amounts to whim.

If, for example, a pharmacist wishes the right to refuse to dispense certain medications based on their religious beliefs, the clients have a right to know that up front. It should not be a matter of finding out by having your prescription refused at the desk, or a phone call left 'on hold' forever. If that means posting a sign by the dispensary that says "Christian Pharmacist on Duty - Limited Service Available" - fine. Do it. Just don't put me as a patient in the awkward position of having to find out by getting a moralizing lecture from said pharmacist.

Further, I would argue that in situations where the practitioner has specific religious objections, that the areas of treatment that will be curtailed be listed where a prospective client will be able to see them. The issue is not one of religious discrimination at all, but rather one of clarity. People should not have to guess whether or not they will be "granted" service from day to day.

In more sensitive areas, such as emergency treatment, such situations are less voluntary for the client and similarly, there are moral and ethical duties that the practitioner must be held accountable to. In practical terms, Vellacott's approach to the laws involved would effectively oblige the Federal Government to become the owner of topics such as medical ethics, as Vellacott has proposed making it a criminal offense for the existing regulatory bodies (such as the Colleges of Physicians) to enforce their ethics rules.

During the fall 2005 election, I predicted that Harper was going allow his back-benchers to write the truly wingnutty garbage legislation, and I wasn't disappointed.

Now, just to follow through, let's take a look how the various Con$ervative MPs voted on Bill C-484:

Stephen Harper	Y
Jason Kenney	Y
Dianne Ablonczy	Y

This is just a random sample, but having gone through much of the "front bench" in Harper's Cabinet over at How'd They Vote Canada, I'm seeing a remarkable level of consistency in the Conservative party voting pattern on Bill C-484, and I imagine a similar pattern will emerge in the as C-537 approaches vote time. Why? Because we already have considerable evidence that Harper is a Micromanager, which tells me that the odds are pretty high that the caucus is finding themselves ordered to vote a particular way on every issue. (For example, I was a little surprised to see Ablonczy vote for C-484 - she's a pretty smart lady, and I would have expected her to vote against such an open-ended and dangerous piece of legislation).

In my opinion, this is another piece which underscores the fundamental dishonesty of the HarperCon$. Harper hasn't got the basic honesty as a politician to state what he really wants to do, so he leaves it to the obvious wingnut politicians to write the most vile legislation - he just votes for it. Think about this.