Alberta, we have a problem.
A few of them, actually.
The UCP AGM begins today here in Alberta. Yet while Albertans should be rejoicing in the fact that we’re leading the way in Canada across a plethora of issues, we find ourselves plagued with concerns. The largest point of distress is stemming from Bill 24, a bill set to hit provincial legislature on Monday November 4th, aimed at revising the original Alberta Bill of Rights (ABOR) to bolster the protection of our rights and freedom when it comes to land, firearms and medical autonomy. Yet the distress I’m referring to, isn’t regarding NDP’s interpretation of the bill. The distress is actually coming from conservatives, libertarians, and all around freedom-loving Albertans.
(h) the right of the individual with capacity not to be subjected to, or coerced into receiving, medical care, medical treatment or a medical procedure without the consent of that individual, unless that individual is likely to cause substantial harm to that individual or to others;
The concern here is the room for interpretation of “substantial harm” and who gets to define it. In the hands of the wrong government or judge, we could easily see a repeat of Covid-19 vaccine policies, if their interpretation of “substantial harm” was met, because it was allowed to remain objective. It’s likely that this section is referring to psychiatric medical intervention, in which case, the Mental Health Act should be clearly referenced.
(2) The rights and freedoms recognized and declared by this Act are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic Alberta.
1. (3) For greater certainty, a reasonable limit on the rights and freedoms recognized and declared by this Act that is prescribed by law and demonstrably justified under subsection (2) is not an infringement or denial of those rights and freedoms.
X threads have gone bananas over these two sections, and it’s understandable as to why because there is room for interpretation, and political & judicial subjectivity, due to vague wording. Who defines reasonable limits, or how something is demonstrably justifiable? Is it, in fact, the law versus legal opinions, or case law established prior to the Alberta Bill Of Rights amendments?
An article titled “Between the rock of the status quo and the hard place of Bill 24” was written by John Carpay on October 31. Carpay is a columnist for The Western Standard, the President of the Justice for Constitutional Freedoms, and formerly, the Alberta Director for the Canadian Tax payers Federation.
In this article, Carpay notes a very serious point of concern in the example of Lewis v Alberta Health Services (AHS). This is the case of Sheila Annette Lewis, who died while waiting for a life-saving organ transplant as she refused to meet AHS criteria of receiving the Covid-19 vaccines prior to surgery. The concern in this case being that the judge basically ignored the Alberta Bill of Rights, because Section 1 of the Charter of Rights did not protect her, therefore the Alberta Bill of Rights wouldn’t either.
Why?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Sound familiar?
The Charter of Rights itself is also designed with the protection of what’s in the best interest of society in mind, too. This is the deadly grey zone that our personal rights and freedoms hangs upon, as we’re at the mercy of the subjectivity of the Federal & Provincial governments and the courts and any potential direction or pressure they may be facing from external sources.
So what’s the solution?
Carpay’s suggestion, and I agree with him, is for Bill 24 to be:
“amended so that it spells out the need for government to provide persuasive and cogent evidence to prove in court that its law or policy is reasonable, rational, truly necessary, and producing more harm than good. To win in court, the government would need to provide empirical, scientific and compelling evidence to justify a law or policy that violated one or more of the rights and freedoms set out in the Alberta Bill of Rights. In other words, the somewhat vague and very misused language of “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic Alberta” should be replaced with a clear indication that government must provide evidence in court that is clearly more persuasive than the evidence presented in court by citizens who assert their freedoms under the Alberta Bill of Rights.”1
As I mentioned, today kicks off the AGM for the United Conservative Party led by Danielle Smith, set to have record-breaking attendance. Bill 24 is set to be a tipping point for Danielle Smith’s leadership review & vote. With new parties forming, actively working to dethrone Smith, this weekend could be volatile for the United Conservative Party.
The imminent need for us to dig deep into our EQ and clear thinking abilities is higher than ever. We’re running a marathon here in Alberta, not a sprint. Many people have just begun to politically activate and it’s beyond refreshing and exciting to bear witness to. And, being mindful of how to truly enact change, and the due processes required for that to occur, will continue to be an exciting learning curve for us all. The changes we wish to see will not happen overnight. We have a long, long road ahead.
On one hand, we can feel shocked that anyone would want to dismantle what Smith is attempting to do as she pushes through nonsensical politics, media attacks and bureaucratic red tape that no other Conservative leader seems to have the courage to do, on the levels at which she is pushing forth. It leaves a pit in your stomach, when you think about losing someone like her in the political arena.
On the other hand, it is entirely unsafe for people to take their foot off the gas and their eyes off the road, simply because we have a more desirable government and party leader in place. Which means the job that Danielle Smith faces is difficult beyond our comprehension, as she battles the NDP, the media, the Federal government - and the members within her own party, too. My appreciation for her is immense. My empathy for the position she is in runs deeps. And in no way, shape or form, will I sit back and simply hope that everything works out for us here in Alberta. Democracy is simply not that easy.
In my personal opinion, ousting Danielle Smith is not the answer, nor do I believe she has been compromised by the deep state. I want that on record. Working with Smith, specifically through the MLAs that represent us as constituents is the answer. I will be contacting my MLA Jason Nixon for Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre, Minister of Justice Mickey Amery, & Danielle Smith, leader of the United Conservative Party to express my concerns and preference for further amendments to be made to the ABOR, in line with suggestions made by John Carpay.
I will continue to watch this Bill like a hawk as it moves through our provincial legislature, and advocate for the revisions we need until I lose the air in my lungs, or this Bill gets passed the way we need it to get passed - whichever comes first - so it can actually hold a candle to the wind from the forces that are working against us all.
Source: Between the rock of the status quo and the hard place of Bill 24, John Carpay, https://www.jccf.ca/between-the-rock-of-the-status-quo-and-the-hard-place-of-bill-24/
My email to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, MLA Jason Nixon and Justice Minister Mickey Amery re: Bill 24:
Good afternoon, I hope this email finds you well.
My name is Sarah Swain, and I reside in the Sundre, Ab area. While I am unable to attend the AGM this weekend, I wanted to put forth my concerns around Bill 24.
I want to first express my gratitude that Alberta is taking such a step, after being at the mercy of terrifying public health policies in 2021/2022, and having my rights and freedoms entirely infringed upon at the local, provincial and federal levels as I chose not to take the Covid-19 vaccines.
This Bill is an important one. So much so that we can't afford to get it wrong, and I fear that the current wording of the Bill is not positioning us from a place of clarity, strength or protection.
In reference to Section:
1. (2) The rights and freedoms recognized and declared by this Act are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic Alberta.
1. (3) For greater certainty, a reasonable limit on the rights and freedoms recognized and declared by this Act that is prescribed by law and demonstrably justified under subsection (2) is not an infringement or denial of those rights and freedoms.
I am putting forth the same recommendation that John Carpay put forth in his well-penned article.https://www.jccf.ca/between-the-rock-of-the-status-quo-and-the-hard-place-of-bill-24/
This bill must be “amended so that it spells out the need for government to provide persuasive and cogent evidence to prove in court that its law or policy is reasonable, rational, truly necessary, and producing more harm than good. To win in court, the government would need to provide empirical, scientific and compelling evidence to justify a law or policy that violated one or more of the rights and freedoms set out in the Alberta Bill of Rights. In other words, the somewhat vague and very misused language of “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic Alberta” should be replaced with a clear indication that government must provide evidence in court that is clearly more persuasive than the evidence presented in court by citizens who assert their freedoms under the Alberta Bill of Rights.”
If this section is not clearly amended, Albertans are left no further ahead under this Bill when push comes to shove. We need true protection against subjective judges and politicians. If the law itself were definitive in the eyes of the courts, we would be able to rely solely on the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms - yet we can't, and we have seen the terrifying evidence of these in the past few years.
I would also like to draw attention to section:
1. (h) the right of the individual with capacity not to be subjected to, or coerced into receiving, medical care, medical treatment or a medical procedure without the consent of that individual, unless that individual is likely to cause substantial harm to that individual or to others;
The concern here is the room for interpretation of “substantial harm” and who gets to define it. In the hands of the wrong government or judge, we could easily see a repeat of Covid-19 vaccine policies, if their interpretation of “substantial harm” was met, because it was allowed to remain objective. It’s likely that this section is referring to psychiatric medical intervention, in which case, the Mental Health Act should be clearly referenced.
Thank you for your timer and consideration. I do have an active and engaged political following on social media and would like to share your response, when you deliver.
Sarah
Thanks Sarah for this important update and fine-grained detail on the new bill. As a British Columbian, I and many of my friends are watching Alberta closely as our own province goes further down the tubes thanks to the idiotic policies of our NDP government on carbon taxes, "safe access" for hard drugs, and of course healthcare. We now have a crisis in BC healthcare as more and more hospitals and clinics are forced to ration their Emergency ward hours due to all the nurses fired for refusing the Covid jab, thanks to our Chief Healthcare Overlord Bonnie Henry, who seems immune to all scientific evidence that contradicts her policies. A sane government would have fired Henry just as Deena Hinshaw in Alberta was rightfully fired. Many of us are strongly considering a move to Alberta, hopeful that Danielle Smith's tenure isn't just a flash in the pan due to the oppositional forces you mention.