Jump to content

The woke police going after nurse for believing in biology


blackbird

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They do it plenty of other places and it gets lots of coverage.

That does not excuse it. "Wokeism" can be modern witchhunt. If it's illegal, prove it. If you disagree with it, argue with it and prove your point in an opened and fair dispute. And if you don't like it you shouldn't be able to use shady commissions and tribunals to damage or destroy people's lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, myata said:

1. That does not excuse it.
2. "Wokeism" can be modern witchhunt.
3. If it's illegal, prove it.
4. If you disagree with it, argue with it and prove your point in an opened and fair dispute.
5. And if you don't like it you shouldn't be able to use shady commissions and tribunals to damage or destroy people's lives.

1. No, but it nullifies your reasoning - which is why I pointed it out.
2. The name is indeed used to identify witches, as witch hunts tend to do.
3. I opined that the policy makers within the organizations would likely align their policies to avoid legal challenges.  I think that stands to reason.
4. I'm just trying to see if we can come up with ways to discuss this on level ground.  What are the considerations ?  What does agreement, vs. agreement-to-disagree look like ?  We're not going to convince everyone, nor are we going to solve the disagreements but this would make it easier for me to understand the various viewpoints.
5. I would say your problem is with the policies themselves.  Which is fine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

Do we really need b-dy f-ing "tribunals" to allow us to have independent opinions? We will wake up in China one day. And why wouldn't we?

You don't need to join a professional association if you don't want to.  You don't have to take a job either.  If you do, you have to agree to certain things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provinces are working on luring nurses to their provinces because of the huge shortage of nurses.  Meanwhile a woke BC nurses association can afford to cancel a nurse because they are controlled by woke activists and don't like a nurse's personal beliefs and comments on social media.  Maybe Alberta, Saskatchewan or another province would be happy to take her on staff.  A nurses association, which is nothing more than a union, should not have the power to remove nurses from their jobs.  That could be the Socialist NDP government relinguishing control of the health care system to union.  Not sure if all provinces operate in that manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

A nurses association, which is nothing more than a union

You clearly do not understand what a professional association is if you think it’s a union.  

Professional associations set standards and govern its members based on those set standards.   This could mean sanctioning members for unprofessional conduct.  They do not bargain with employers.

Lawyers have a professional association called the Canadian Bar Association.  Definitely not a union.

You can be in a professional association without being in a union (Ike most lawyers are)
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a couple of issues missing in this thread. No none has mentioned F2M transgender people using mens rooms. A friend of mine has been using mens rooms for years without anyone taking issue.

The other point is no one has mentioned lesbians using women's change rooms. Would you want your daughter sharing a change room with lesbians. Why don't we ban lesbians from using women's change rooms.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BCCNM has incurred the displeasure of their members with their extremely high annual fees they charge.

"As their union negotiates with the provincial government on a new contract, B.C. nurses are also pleading with their professional college to reconsider a significant hike in registration fees.

The board of the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives approved the college's fee schedule for 2023-24 last month, raising the cost of registration for each type of college member by at least 15 per cent.

Practicing registered nurses, for example, are expected to pay an additional $78.29, for a total of $600.24 for the year, which begins April 1. And that total doesn't include the cost of liability protection (which is required), or membership in a professional association (which is optional).

More than 6,000 people have signed an online petition against the college's fee increases, and the BC Nurses Union has also come out against them."

B.C. nurses frustrated by professional college fee hike | CTV News

I can't imagine too many of their members would be particularly happy with their actions in going after the freedom of expression of one of their members either. 

Seriously, $600 per year for membership??  What do they need to charge their members that kind of money for?  Where is all the money going?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the news report on the BCCNM it says 6,000 nurses signed a petition opposing the fee increase.  They responded to news media inquiries with a long list of talking points.

One thing they mentioned is:

" Cultural safety and humility: The BCCNM says it "upheld its commitment to making our health system more culturally safe for Indigenous clients, including the publication of a new practice standard and learning resources to support registrants."

It appears they are into woke politics for indigenous.  This sheds more light on where they are coming from.  Might help explain why we spent six hours waiting in an emergency department a couple months ago before being seen while a native fella walked in, played on his smart phone for 20 minutes and was taken in to be seen.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You clearly do not understand what a professional association is if you think it’s a union.  

Professional associations set standards and govern its members based on those set standards.   This could mean sanctioning members for unprofessional conduct.  They do not bargain with employers.

Lawyers have a professional association called the Canadian Bar Association.  Definitely not a union.

You can be in a professional association without being in a union (Ike most lawyers are)
 

 

Professional associations should never have the power to remove employees from the job.  That should be strictly an employer's business not some association which is driven by politics and ideology.

The Law society of B.C. also barred Trinity Western University from training and certifying lawyers simply because it disagrees with their moral beliefs on sexual matters.  That is wrong.  Again a professional association is controlling the profession in relation to politics or differences of beliefs on religious moral issues.  Denial of freedom of religion.  What TWU believes on sexual matters has no bearing on their job as lawyers.  People are free to choose any lawyer they wish.  Nobody is forced to go to a TWU lawyer.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, but it nullifies your reasoning - which is why I pointed it out

Absolutely not. If someone else doing a wrong thing how would it nullify a valid objection?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

align their policies to avoid legal challenges. 

It's their problem and in a robust democratic society they would be responsible for it (with outrageous, guessing, compensations) instead of passing it as absolutely unreasonable demands and/or restrictions on the members.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm just trying

Not hard enough? Restricting natural undeniable rights of citizens should not be considered whatever your problem is or may be. In a democracy that is. In China, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Absolutely not. If someone else doing a wrong thing how would it nullify a valid objection?

2. It's their problem and in a robust democratic society they would be responsible for it (with outrageous, guessing, compensations) instead of passing it as absolutely unreasonable demands and/or restrictions on the members.

3. Not hard enough? Restricting natural undeniable rights of citizens should not be considered whatever your problem is or may be. In a democracy that is. In China, sure.

1. Here's a recap: Groot asks "Why does a professional organization have a moral code" and you reply "And one more time, here in Canada here the answer has three words: because-we-can. Because there's no checks, controls or limits to what they can do."  I point out that this is NOT strictly a Canadian format and you reply "it doesn't excuse it"... 

You may be right about it not being excused but your reasoning that this happens in Canada because we can has been refuted, and you haven't replied to that.  Instead you said "it's not an excuse", which is a different point.

2. It is their problem, and that's what they came up with.  It just seems like you are learning that Doctors, Lawyers, Project Managers, Federal Employees, and probably - I don't know - Dog Catchers have restrictions on their speech.  I'm glad to hear you're on our side though, since I myself am in a professional organization.

3. Your natural rights are restricted pretty much everywhere you go.  That includes this website, where your right to express yourself can be retracted for no reason at all.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It is their problem, and that's what they came up with. 

You missing the point entirely. At issue is exactly that what they come up with restrictions, free of any controls or balances, regardless of constitutional rights of citizens or even openly violating them. That would be an obvious problem, in a democracy. In a real democracy this shouldn't be allowed. An employer or some sideways manager should not be able to reduce or compromise our core rights as free citizens. It's only because, in your mind you already heading to China, you fail to see and understand this obvious conclusion.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, myata said:

1. You missing the point entirely. At issue is exactly that what they come up with any controls or balances, regardless of constitutional rights of citizens or even openly violating them.

2. That is a problem in a democracy. In a real democracy this shouldn't be allowed. An employer or some sideways manager should not be able to reduce or compromise our core rights as free citizens.

3. It's only because, in your mind you already heading to China, you fail to see and understand this obvious conclusion.

1. You're missing the point.  Giving up rights is part of the deal, necessasrily.  I am only trying to establish how to frame a discussion so we understand what is a healthy trade off.  Your "constitutional rights" are not violated if someone asks you to not speak in some context.  You have a choice.

2. I can come up with all kinds of reasons why your pure solution wouldn't work.  Would you be ok with a NAMBLA proponent being a teacher ?  A porn star ?  How about a Flat Earther being a scientist ?  Of course not.  So what would your solution be to a situation like that ?  You would have no rules at all but have a person with your political leanings judging whether things are ok or not.

Otherwise, I can't imagine what your answer would be.

3. You really don't like China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, herbie said:

Well you'd be amazed at how an ex-GF who was a CGA forgot an entry on a title page and they not just suspended her for 3 months, they published her name in the local paper with a suspension notice and the explanation Violation of Chapter XYZ23.

She got to walk around getting sneered at and the be the subject of rumours as if she'd committed fraud or something. Who's going to hunt down what Chapter XYZ23 is, they'll just "assume".

Not fair, but the world ain't fair, is it?

That's the way it is and why I'm not getting my panties in a knot and shrieking BS about 'woke police'.

Since the BCCNM was created by statute (obtaining its authority from the provincial government) it has to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If Hamm feels her constitutional rights to free speech have been violated or the BCCNM has exceeded its jurisdiction she can take it to the courts. You're comparing apples to oranges. Anyone who believes this decision won't ever affect them, might be very naive in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Giving up rights is part of the deal, necessasrily.

In China (only an example) not in a true democracy. In a democracy the right is guaranteed to all citizens and livelihood or job does not have to be the cost of exercising it. Just proved my point, again. In China, you will be an exemplary citizen, understand what is required from you before it's even stated by The Manager.

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can come up with all kinds of reasons

Only because you are an esteemed if not yet honorary citizen of the virtual state of Great China. Generally, there's no conflict between competent execution of one's duties at a workplace and their opinions as of free citizens (conditions and reservations for professionals were stated earlier) expressed in their free time. Any cases where such conflict could be identified as real and present risk, would need to meet the same criteria we apply to cases where citizens rights are serious limited: robust and impartial consideration and questioning and a strong standard of confidence.

Some shady witchhunt "tribunals" clearly don't meet that standard or anywhere near so why do we want to go there? That already happened so many times before so why couldn't we just learn?

There's a reason though. Because they can. Because we let them, didn't care, didn't bother and never lifted a finger to make, create anything better, more intelligent or even common sense here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Jordan Peterson has a right to voice his opinion about issues we face, not just in Canada but around the world. He tells it like it is and these groups feel offended by his truths.

For far too long we’ve been told we can’t say this or that because it might hurt someone’s feelings. Seems having a very thin skin gets you what you want … control over others.

I also don’t mince words and, yes, I can be a little blunt, but I speak my mind because it’s my right to do so. The simple solution to deal with Mr. Peterson’s engagement at the Canadian Tire Centre? If you don’t like him or what he says, then don’t go. You have no right to deny others the chance to hear him speak.

Trying to control what others say or listen to doesn’t win you any friends and probably will result in the opposite."

YOU SAID IT: Silencing free speech (msn.com)

This article says it exactly.  If someone doesn't like the views of an individual, just don't go.  Go somewhere else.  But shutting down other people's right to speak their belief doesn't cut it.  It is a violation of basic human rights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Professional associations should never have the power to remove employees from the job.  That should be strictly an employer's business not some association which is driven by politics and ideology.

They don’t remove people from their jobs.  Employers do. 
 

Part of being employed as a lawyer is having certification from a provincial bar.  If you do not, then you’re not a lawyer.  
 

A person can still hire you as their representative, but you have no authority as a lawyer. 
 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The Law society of B.C. also barred Trinity Western University from training and certifying lawyers simply because it disagrees with their moral beliefs on sexual matters.  That is wrong.  Again a professional association is controlling the profession in relation to politics or differences of beliefs on religious moral issues.  Denial of freedom of religion.  What TWU believes on sexual matters has no bearing on their job as lawyers.  People are free to choose any lawyer they wish.  Nobody is forced to go to a TWU lawyer.

The law society certifies schools.  Part of the certification is following the law.  If a school says “you can’t be gay married” but the law says they can, that is the school denying the fundamental freedoms of their students.  This is an issue for a professional association that advocates for following laws and the Constitution (Charter).  

The Supreme Court agreed with the Law Society. 

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the Law Society of British Columbia’s decision not to approve a proposed law school at Trinity Western University in Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University.

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/about-us/news-and-publications/news/2018/supreme-court-of-canada-rules-on-proposed-trinity/

The Law Society’s position is that everyone should have equal access to law school, which is the entry point for the legal profession and the judiciary. A covenant that students of Trinity Western University must sign infringes the access of those in the LGBTQ community and those in committed common-law relationships.

 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The Supreme Court agreed with the Law Society. 

The TWU is a private Christian university and therefore according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms they have freedom of religion.  If their religious beliefs means they cannot accept LGBTQ students or people living in common-law, that is there right according to the Charter freedom of religion clause.  The Supreme Court often does not follow the Charter themselves.  By denying the university the right to their freedom of religion they are proving they only follow the Charter when it fits their own liberal-progressive ideology.  

This is how Christians are being persecuted and discriminated against in Canada.  It is sad but true.  If people don't believe in the Bible or are opposed to what the TWU stands for they are free to choose not to go there and the TWU as a private institution has the right to accept whoever they wish as students.  Canadians are losing their fundamental freedoms.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

By denying the university the right to their freedom of religion they are proving they only follow the Charter when it fits their own liberal-progressive ideology.  

Their right to religion interfered with students’ rights.  I think it is fair to say that you don’t care about gay student’s rights to marry and be intimate with their partner free of interference.  
 

However, the Court has to look at their rights in addition to the rights of TWU, where you do not.  You ONLY care about TWU’s rights. 
 

 The court found that the Law Society balanced the rights in a correct and fair fashion.  
 

All TWU would have to do to have a law school is to mind their own business.  

From the decision:

In the end, it cannot be said that the denial of approval is a serious limitation on the religious rights of members of the TWU community. The LSBC’s decision does not suppress TWU’s religious difference. Except for the limitation we have identified, no evangelical Christian is denied the right to practise his or her religion as and where they choose.

 

The refusal to approve the proposed law school means that members of the TWU religious community are not free to impose those religious beliefs on fellow law students, since they have an inequitable impact and can cause significant harm. The LSBC chose an interpretation of the public interest in the administration of justice which mandates access to law schools based on merit and diversity, not exclusionary religious practices. The refusal to approve TWU’s proposed law school prevents concrete, not abstract, harms to LGBTQ people and to the public in general. The LSBC’s decision ensures that equal access to the legal profession is not undermined and prevents the risk of significant harm to LGBTQ people who feel they have no choice but to attend TWU’s proposed law school. It also maintains public confidence in the legal profession, which could be undermined by the LSBC’s decision to approve a law school that forces LGBTQ people to deny who they are for three years to receive a legal education.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah but it's their job to be outrageous.

2. If you deny the existence of trans women, though...

3. How can you be so sure?  Maybe they're trying to be accommodating?  Maybe they actually polled their members?  It would be like someone calling you a bigot without knowing your reasons.  I'm trying to lay out some parameters for this problem without jumping ahead to character assessments.

4. I don't think that making negative generalizations that condemn a group of people has been ok, acceptable or logical for a long time.  Even talking about racism in a white society is something that we have to tiptoe over, lest people get offended.  Even if it's a fact it's not the "fault" of people living today.  It's nobody's business to editorialize in their perceived issues with other groups.  

5. How do you know that somebody's comments on black people are truth versus feelings?  There may be some truth in what they say, but to put any group on a lower level than you is very much an exercise in feelings.

6. Well JK is wealthy, and able to speak her opinions without regard to her reputation I guess. Personally, I understand why people get prickly when somebody from another group puts them on a lower level. You just have to look at the immense white backlash against critical race theory on here to see a living example. What about your example above about black people? Doesn't that apply to trans people too?  I do think there could be a time when, like the past, there was more comfort and talking about our differences. But there's not enough energy to do that today, just look around and see.

I

If you say "I hate trans people" yeah there's a problem.  If you disagree with certain rights then it's fair game.   Jk Rowling hasn't said she hates trans people, she says biological women shouldn't have biological men in their changerooms and bathrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Another good question.  There's this traditional idea of 'reputation' that professional societies adhere to.  Basically if somebody in the profession acts outside certain bounds then the association is concerned that it makes the entire group seem disreputable and ununified.   If you want to erase the 'behaviour' clause exactly, or change it then maybe it has to be done. But it has to be legal and it has to fit the goals of having a professional association in the first place.

So you WON'T be able to say "unprofessional comments do not include criticism of trans rights or their new status as women" because that won't stand up in court.  And - yes - you can complain about that but in the context of this thread that's like admitting there's no way to change things IMO.

It's hard for me to believe it's realistic to suggest this woman's statements would damage the reputation of nursing, especially when the majority of Canadians almost certainly agree with her. It's one thing to make a reputational rule with regard to opinions or views which are wildly against the common culture and values. If she said she believes in slavery or sex with children that would be entirely different. But this is an opinion shared by huge numbers of Canadians. Suppose the nurses association says it damages their reputation if she says she supports conservatives? Is that acceptable as well? Suppose she says that as a nurse she believes in private healthcare? Is that punishable?

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...