Equality and Charter of "Rights"

[August1991]

Supreme Court decision

We've all seen this. It costs about $60,000/year to treat a child, according to the method preferred by parents, but the BC government refused to cover this cost. (Ironically, if I understand properly, this coverage is available in the US.)

In my mind, the issue is how much others in society must share our individual burden. To what degree should we strive for equality?

Should we take from the beautiful to compensate the ugly?

How did the Charter of Rights get mixed up in this question anyway?

The original US Bill of Rights was designed specifically to protect the individual against the majority will expressed through the State. It was not intended for use in regulating disputes between individuals. It expressly limits the powers of the State.

It seems to me that much of English constitutional law strives to restrict the power of the Sovereign.

Discrimination and choice are fundamental to freedom. We discriminate when we choose a spouse, an employer or a brand of soft drink. It is absurd to say that we should be equal since we are all different in different ways.

[Newfie Canadian]

The program is available in the US through the school system, as opposed to the health system

In my mind, the issue is how much others in society must share our individual burden. To what degree should we strive for equality?

Good question.

Should we take from the beautiful to compensate the ugly?

Yes. How much and to what practical extent is the question.

How did the Charter of Rights get mixed up in this question anyway?

The B.C. Supreme Court and later the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the children's constitutional rights were violated by the province's refusal to cover the cost of a treatment called applied behavioral analysis, or ABA.

It is absurd to say that we should be equal since we are all different in different ways.

And that August my friend, if I may be so bold, is the rub.

[August1991]

The program is available in the US through the school system, as opposed to the health system

[Laughing out loud]Greg, the System Admin Guy, should create a category for bon-mots where we can preserve such comments...

[Newfie Canadian]

I kid you not.

Lewis said: "I've had parents call me about the possibility of refugee status to the United States. Can you believe it? Canadian refugees to the United States where they don't discriminate against disabled children."

Autism therapy is covered by public schools there, not the health system.

[Guest eureka]

Do you have any detils on how the treatment is available in teh US? What does the school system do?

This is an extraordinarily difficult question and, I too, fail to see how the Charter should be mixed up in it. T o treat this as a Charter issue opens up all sorts of situations that society is ill equipped to cope with both financially and ethically.

[Newfie Canadian]

Do you have any detils on how the treatment is available in teh US? What does the school system do?

http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageSer...r?pagename=IDEA

The state must provide an appropriate educational program, one that meets the needs of the individual student.

I guess the basic premise is the schools are required to provide whatever programs are available to help a disabled child, in this case an autistic child, learn.

That's the way I read it anyway. I may be incorrect.

[caesar]

What I read in the article provided is that parents do not choose the type of program that they want for autistic children; the school decides on a case by case basis what it believes is in the child's best interests,

Are we offering any other help for these children in BC??

[chezfiero]

Well I see this page has been asleep for some time.

Not sure if anyone will ever read this.

Whereas Canada is founded on the principles that recognise the supremecy of God and the rule of law.

In regards to the Canadian Charter of Rights

All babies and children are amongst the most innocent and fragile in our world.

Autism or not they need and deserve our greatest nurturing.

Our Charter and associated statutes have elements built into them to protect those who are the most vulnerable in our country.

I believe this is the core mandate of a document like this.

The Canadian govenment is attempting to assemble a National Autism Strategy

here is the link for the full transcript

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus...es=1&comm_id=47

I read it and I liked the fact that the Senators are hearing from many factions in the ASD world.

That's all for now.

[August1991]

I read it and I liked the fact that the Senators are hearing from many factions in the ASD world.

That's all for now.

There are people born ugly, and others born beautiful. Blue-eyed people earn more on average than brown-eyed people. Most politicians are tall - Harper is 6'3, Blair is 6', Bush Jr. 5'11 (His brother Jeb is 6'3.) All four have blue-eyes. Short people, and brown-eyed people, do not succeed in life so well. And politicians tend to be men.

So, how far should we as a society try to correct for these differences, to change the rules and take from some and give to others, even when the differences are due purely to chance genetics?

I don't mean to ignore how difficult it is to deal with autism - my question is more general.