Unclear on the concept

Some people seem a little unclear on some basic concepts. Firstly we have MP Jim Karygiannis rushing in to defend our health care system from the Supreme Court. Yet the essence of the Supreme Court ruling was that if the Government doesn't adequately fund the public system then it shouldn't be allowed to deny people access to private treatment.

Far be it from me to criticise anyone who wants to protect our public system, but where was he for the last 13 years when his Liberal government slowly choked off the funds to the Provinces, creating our current national crisis? Good to finally see you onboard, Jim!

Next we have Anthony Sharp's claim that Kyoto is about politics, not science. Sorry Sharp, but science is about going where the evidence leads, not where you want to go. No serious climatologist disputes human activity is a major factor in global climate change. Kyoto is not a cure but a tentative first step towards effective international action. If we can't take this step, how can we go the rest of the way?

Finally, we have Alison D'Souza backing up an earlier "Right Angle" column on freedom of religion! Freedom of religion means that the state does not interfere in your right to practice your religion. It does not mean that the state grants your religion a license to ignore the law. For example, in Canada human sacrifice, child abuse and polygamy are all illegal. No matter what your religion says on the subject, you cannot kill someone, abuse a child or have more than one marital partner at a time just because your religion allows it.

Withholding necessary and effective medical treatment is as much child abuse as beating your children - which some also have claimed as a religious right. And what would they make of a group of child molesters claiming to be religious group?

The "freedom of religion" that D'Souza and Barnett want would require that the state decide which religious beliefs it should sanction. Apparently they don't see the absurdity in that position!

Gary Dale