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.
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.
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.
Excellent, totally with you. There is a special session on Saturday that'll address a lot of this wording, allegedly, and the “black hats” have made their recommended wording improvements (it's pretty good).
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
This is an excellent summary. Would you object to anyone (myself) copying this for an e-mail to the Premier (& MPs) and sourcing to here?
Be my guest! Always feel free to use any of my content here for political communication.
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.
Excellent, totally with you. There is a special session on Saturday that'll address a lot of this wording, allegedly, and the “black hats” have made their recommended wording improvements (it's pretty good).