US Senator Josh Hawley Compares Life in Alberta Under Jason Kenney’s UCP Government to ‘Communist China’
Pro-Trump Senator thinks Jason Kenney is persecuting Christians
pressprogress.ca
US Senator Hawley says life under Jason Kenney's UCP is like 'Communist China'
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
pressprogress.ca
A christian's biggest fear is arriving at the gates of heaven and not being let in, not for actual sins but because during the pandemic they missed church.
A right-winger calling another right-winger a communist is hysterical. The US has no jurisdiction here in Canada so Josh can fuck off.
I hate Kenney, but Hawley can fuck right off.
I am not religious, and I would support the Alberta Conservatives ahead of all the alternatives on most issues, but arresting clergymen for holding services contrary to unscientific and arbitrary covid regulations is a national disgrace. The courts could put an end to it, but they haven't. Another demonstration of the fact that the courts are just another manifestation of politics, instead of being the most important institution to check government overreach. When the constitution is commonly used to constrain personal freedoms but is not used to preserve them, it is exposed as the worthless piece of paper that it is. Send the Constitution back to England!
Public safety trumps outlandish beliefs of gullible folks. It's actually very simple. I'm sure the preachers/pastors found a way to bleed their flock of their green by having secret bible-thumping congregations.
Public safety CONCERNS don't simply trump Charter rights. When a government seeks to rely on s. 1 of the Charter, they are obliged to PROVE that their infringement of Charter rights is minimally intrusive and that there is actual EVIDENCE to support the significant public interest that they purport to be acting upon. The courts are simply not demanding that governments prove the PRECISE public health risk posed by in-person religious services, or prove that masking or other measures would not be as substantially effective in managing the risk. Add to that the clear intellectual contradiction in their approach to mass gatherings for more popular political protests, and it becomes indefensible that courts are simply giving governments a pass on this.
Whatever your prejudices against religion (and those prejudices are quite apparent), religious freedom is an express right under our so-called Charter and it doesn't make any sense that a fundamental freedom could be so casually overridden. Nor does it make any sense that anyone, even you, would cheer on such government overreach.
Again, public safety trumps it all. On a personal note, I really don't care if folks want to practice their beliefs as long as it doesn't affect me. Gathering indoors to pray during a pandemic directly affects me and the population. It affects business, schools, etc...
The judges obviously get it! Judges seem to be acting responsibly in dealing with the nutbags trying to circumvent Public Health as the judges did in the US when the Trump administration was attempting to fraudulently overthrow an election.
Not just now, all of a sudden. I have been an expert on the Charter for quite some time. As to public health, I would contend that I'm as expert on the transmission of Covid 19 as most public health authorities (that is - not very expert), since they really have no solid understanding of how it is transmitted at this point, or of any signficant health consequences of contracting the disease if you don't have significant co-mordities. I am an expert in detecting bullshit, which I think is my expertise that offends you the most.
Let me guess, you have a different view of how s. 1 applies? Wouldn't surprise me, given your other half-baked legal views.
You have been an expert on many, many things for quite some time, Dutch. And you certainly know more about law than the judges and more about COVID than the public health authorities.
Seriously, you do.
Ah, the "judges are right because I like their ruling" argument! A staple here at TERB.
If it was so easy to conclusively demonstrate the significant public health risks posed by religious gatherings, governments would be clamouring to introduce such evidence and it would be lavishly supplied to the press. Instead, governments go to court relying on the pronouncements of their own employees and empty platitudes about public safety.
I am not knocking doctors. Medical problems are not easy to understand and are especially difficult to solve. I am knocking bureaucrats and governments who pretend to know more than they do, and rely on their own ignorance to limit personal freedoms.
Last edited:
Do you mean the ones listening to the doctors and professionals? Those are the ones you are blaming???
In all fairness we do discuss their politics a great deal...they are very entertaining after all.
Read the full essays from synopsis below...
The Hart–Fuller debate is an exchange between Lon Fuller and H. L. A. Hart published in the Harvard Law Review in 1958 on morality and law, which demonstrated the divide between the positivist and natural law philosophy. Hart took the positivist view in arguing that morality and law were separate
I'm certainly more expert about constitutional legal principles than some judges. Some people are appointed to the bench with very little practice experience relating to constitutional matters. In comparison to public health authorities, I know equally little about Covid 19, as I've already said.
However, like in many legal discussions on this forum, you tend to obfuscate just how much discretion judges feel entitled to exercise, and how their political views tend to inform their exercise of discretion. The chief thing we want from judges is JUDGEMENT. Judgement is not just a knowledge of legal precedent - anyone can read caselaw. Legal judgement is understanding the core values that are manifested by the law, and by our society as a whole. Religious freedom is a central tenet of Canadian society. Good judgement means demanding the most stringent proof of a competing public interest to justify curtailment of that freedom. Instead, we get judges who think "what's the big deal - other churches bowed to the will of government, so why don't these people"? That's not legal judgement. That's politics playing out in a legal forum.
They aren't listening to all doctors and professionals. They are choosing who to listen to, and they aren't asking tough questions about the advice they are getting.
They are mostly interested in pleasing the press (who are, in the great majority of cases, morons unfit to be making such decisions).
I see, so the doctors/scientists who believe to let COVID run wild through the population to accomplish herd immunity are the ones to be taken seriously?
Is that the only view contrary to government policy that you have heard about? Says a lot about the closed information bubble you live in.
