A Regina judge has ruled that the Saskatchewan government's naming and pronoun policy should be paused for the time being, but Premier Scott Moe says he'll use the notwithstanding clause to override it.
Moe, responding to today's injunction issued by a Regina Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw, said he intends to recall the legislature Oct. 10 to "pass legislation to protect parents' rights."
"Our government is extremely dismayed by the judicial overreach of the court blocking implementation of the Parental Inclusion and Consent policy - a policy which has the strong support of a majority of Saskatchewan residents, in particular, Saskatchewan parents," Moe said in a written statement Thursday afternoon. "The default position should never be to keep a child's information from their parents."
Last month, the province announced that all students under 16 needed parental consent to change their names or pronouns.
The Notwithstanding Clause is an admission that what they are doing is an unconstitutional christofascist virtue signaling attack on a vulnerable minority.
Fuck all christofascists. Get out and vote these assholes out the next chance you get.
Children have a right to education. Parents do not have a right to keep their children ignorant. It is Orwellian doublespeak to say that they are "protecting parent's rights" by invoking the NWC. The NWC has no capacity to grant rights, it can only take them away.
Exactly. This legislation is a violation of children's Charter Rights.
The Notwithstanding Clause is the only way to legally violate Charter Rights in emergency situations like… *checks notes*… Children expressing their gender and sexual identity.
The notwithstanding clause is only ever used to suppress the rights of groups a given provincial government doesn't like. It's inclusion in the Charter was a mistake and as long as it remains all of our 'rights' are merely privileges.
My understanding was that it was intended as an “emergency brake” - a circuit breaker that could be tripped in an urgent situation, at the cost of the user’s career. But, that requires a politically literate population that would discourage its use.
So, instead we have strongman premiers using it as a hammer to point their profoundly unpopular policies through, and an apathetic and disengaged voter base willing to look the other way.
I see it as part of the broader erosion of the “checks and balances” we were assured would prevent this type of creeping dismantling of democracy.
and an apathetic and disengaged voter base willing to look the other way.
In my opinion, and personal experience, it also has a lot to do with not having enough time and energy to think about anything other then putting food on the table, or even where your next meal is coming from. Certainly there are people that just don't give a fuck, but I think that would be the minority if more people weren't living paycheque to paycheque.
In my opinion, and personal experience, it also has a lot to do with not having enough time and energy to think about anything other then putting food on the table
On the other hand, let's not pretend that we don't all waste time on Kardashians, Lemmy and other inane activities. I think the bigger problem is that we are overwhelmed with information, much of it inconsequential stuff, and that detracts from our ability to focus on and prioritize important but difficult topics.
For me at that time, the "inane" activities were sleep, rarely I had time to go on my shitty computer some evenings.
Not to be a dick, but do you watch television? A sports fan? Do you go out for entertainment, ever?
You have time for what you make time for. I understand the grind is crippling but at the end of the day the onus is on us to be politically literate and vote. If you find excuses to not do that, of course the slime balls who are attracted to power will take advantage of that.
but do you watch television? A sports fan? Do you go out for entertainment, ever?
At that time in my life, no, to all of those. I was literally almost homeless.
Who knew we'd have more than a few semi neo-nazis as premiers tho?
Actually, withholding Assent is the circuit breaker. The NWC is a mechanism to ensure that parliament makes the law, not judges. A judge may have a perfectly reason for making their verdict, and it totally makes sense to do so by a good number of the populous, but parliament is in charge and they're allowed to set the rules.
If they have to suspend the rules to make the rules, what does that mean?
Technically, what it's the parliament saying "this is the law, no matter what anyone else thinks of it." It's not suspension of law - an equal legal branch forming government is a feature of the United States. Here, like a lot of Westminster Parliamentary style governments, democracy is supreme to any rise of a kritarchy.
Except that the Notwithstanding clause literally suspends part of the charter of rights and freedoms in order to pass a law that the government deems more important than citizens’ rights, like in war time, or during a pandemic (which they didn’t even use the clause for), not to push through right wing identity politics that have been deemed unconstitutional.
Bill 101 exists to protect the culture of a minority in Canada so what you're saying isn't true.
#DrugFraud used it to shrink TO city council (the courts reversed it later) … so Bill 101 doesn't apply all the time.
Drug Ford passed a law shrinking city council after the whole 'election thing' kinda started. People got a judge to say that's unconstitutional (and reading the reasons to the verdict - it was all sorts of crazy talk about how it was unconstitutional. Drug Ford said he would use the NWC to pass a replacement law doing the same thing, but that wasn't necessary as the next level of courts looked at the original ruling, went "yeah, the Government is TOTALLY going to win on appealing this - let's just say they're allowed to resize the council and call it a day."
Bill 101 is Quebec's French protection law that was enacted in the late 70s, don't know what it has to do with Ford and Toronto…
strong support of a majority of Saskatchewan residents
Sure, a majority of people who are old enough to vote, anyway.
Eroding the rights of people who can't even vote is straight up tyrannical. Doubly so when the courts say "hey maybe you shouldn't do that" and you invoke the notwithstanding clause to do it anyway.
Does anyone know if the notwithstanding clause has actually been used to do anything other than prop up racism and hatred?
Yes. Ontario's government has used it for good old-fashioned profiteering.
New Brunswick tried to use it to mandate vaccination in schools, but the law didn't pass. In Saskatchewan, they briefly used it to override a court ruling that held that the government couldn't provide funding for non-Catholic students to attend Catholic schools, but the case was overturned on appeal so the notwithstanding clause became moot.
Bill 101 in Quebec was/is a way to fight the assimilation of French Canadians and to integrate immigrants to the local culture instead of seeing them integrate the culture of the country's majority.
Bring in the downvotes!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A Regina judge has ruled that the Saskatchewan government's naming and pronoun policy should be paused for the time being, but Premier Scott Moe says he'll use the notwithstanding clause to override it.
Moe, responding to today's injunction issued by a Regina Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw, said he intends to recall the legislature Oct. 10 to "pass legislation to protect parents' rights."
Earlier Thursday, Megaw issued his 56-page ruling ordering the policy be put on hold until a full hearing can take place.
"I determine the protection of these youth surpasses that interest expressed by the government, pending a full and complete hearing," Megaw wrote.
Megaw wrote that until there can be a full hearing, "the importance of the governmental policy is outweighed by the public interest of not exposing that minority of students to exposure to the potentially irreparable harm and mental health difficulty of being unable to find expression for their gender identity."
Megaw also said the government "does not appear to advance an argument that such treatment of the younger students is in their best interests or will, necessarily, lead to better outcomes for them from a mental health perspective.
The original article contains 609 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Nice
Good. Tired of these activist judges going against the will of the people.
Just so you know, judges are specifically not to look to the will of the people but to the law.
Legislators are the ones who are supposed to consider the will of the people.
If the will of the people really is to have a law like this, then the Sask Party is doing it's job in bringing forward the legislation. That, of course, assumes that our provincial government has appropriate jurisdiction over everything the law covers.
And that gets us to the injunction. An injunction is not about "no you can't do that" but about "hang on there, it doesn't look like you've covered all the bases".
It is the law… Passed by politicians elected by the people.
This is simply the judges dumb interpretation that has no basis in reality.
It's not yet the law, because it hasn't even been introduced, because the legislature isn't even sitting.
The premier is directing that policy be changed in anticipation of forthcoming legislation, when that legislation hasn't even been put forward.
The premier is taking on the role of absolute dictator by directing people to act without first getting legislation in place. The judge is doing no more than upholding the rights of the citizens to be not bossed around without supporting legislation.
Really, it's not all that complicated. No regulation without legislation.
Don’t waste your time on that contrarian idiot. Do yourself a favour and block them.
If the judge is basing rulings on opinion rather than the word of the law the government could challenge it and have the ruling overruled.
Suspending the charter immediately before even filing for a reversal is only done when they have no standing to contest the ruling.
They wouldn’t have to remove the law if they weren’t breaking it.
"I believe other people's human rights should be violated because I don't like them" is a great position to have right up until you're the disliked party.
I imagine you picture yourself as always the top dog. Protected, even, by the belief that even if you find yourself face down in the mud, the people you gleefully abuse will not step on your head to let you drown in the muck.
And you're probably right that they wouldn't. Because they're probably better people than you are, having had to learn empathy in a world that doesn't think much of them.
But I kind of hope you choke on dirt.
I don't need a bunch of strangers hiding what they are teaching my 8 year old in school. Gender identity is a advanced topic that children don't have the ability to rationalize.
It is my job to protect my child from harm. I have a right to know.
I don’t need a bunch of strangers hiding what they are teaching my 8 year old in school.
Where are you getting this from, the worms in your brain???
Apparently they just think that their own disengagement with their kids' education is a conspiracy against them personally.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Gender identity is a advanced topic that children don’t have the ability to rationalize.
If you believe that children cannot comprehend "boy" and "girl", then I don't know what to tell you.
Other than we know what all of this is really about. None of y'all are at all subtle about it, nor are you even a quarter as smart as you think you are.
Your personal opinion ≠ everyone else's opinion
Get your head out of your ass and look around for once.
The polls don't lie my dude. 78% of parents want to be informed if their child changes pronouns or name.
I'm not sure that matters when the question is about whether children are eligible for human rights. Unfortunately, we live in a world where we put many children in danger by telling parents who their child is.
Higher Priority: Basic rights of the child
Lower Priority : Parent's access to the internal lives of another human
As per the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 5
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
I don't think you're arguing in bad faith, but I'm not going to engage with that because I don't want to get lost in a semantic argument.
Have you ever been bullied before? When you were young, did kids ever call you names? It sucked, right? Even in kindergarten you were smart enough to be hurt by it.
Now, imagine the teacher started calling you mean names as well.
And your parents.
And everyone you love.
And now imagine that you tried to carve out a small part of your life where you weren't being called something horrible.
Wouldn't you have deserved that? Weren't you smart enough to know you didn't deserve to be called names?
They certainly can, though the proper term is bias. In that respect, something I find particularly egregious is ARI's use of loaded terminology in it's articles describing the 'issues' it's ostensibly doing surveys on ("Culture wars", "Canadians not convinced", etc.). These are the first thing users see when they navigate to the website which almost certainly influences their opinions before they even start the survey. Even if the survey is emailed to them, some of them will likely navigate to their site anyway to brush up on facts.
Another potential issue (though this is present in all psychology/sociology research; majority of psych papers are done on university students), is that their sample population is only people that have taken the time to register in their forum. Even though they're ostensibly paid for it, there aren't many people that will do that, or even think of it and given how some of their articles are titled I can get a fairly clear picture of the kind of person that would want to make an account on that website.
Lastly, I'm not a psych major, but when a paper's methodology section basically amounts to "We surveyed random users on our website at this date" and nothing else of substance, I tend to not take it seriously.
Not surprised a newspaper picked it up though. A really good clicky headline, and they didn't even have to think it up.
Also:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/angus-reid-institute/
Labelled mid-right because of the terminology they use.
•́ε•̀٥ *Waiting for the psych major to correct me on something.
It's also a question that doesn't ask about the law, but it sounds close enough that it makes sense in the same sentence. Would I want to know if my kid decided to change their pronouns or name? Absolutely. Do I think their teacher should be legally required to tell me about it, let alone ask me for permission first? Absolutely not. I would hope my kid would want to tell me themself, and if not that's my issue to deal with and not the government's.
As you said, it's absolutely a loaded question, and with that wording I'm honestly surprised it's not higher than 78%. What kind of parent wouldn't want to know what's going on in their child's life?
Edit: I am ashamed to admit I based my facts off the previous comment, and after reading through the link the questions seemed like they may have been slightly more clear. That being said, I support knowing, I do not support this law or any other requirement for the teacher to inform me or ask my permission.
AcTiViSt JuDgEs
Ah, I see you skipped the "tyranny of the majority" section during social studies…
If the charter of rights and freedoms needs to be suspended to pass a law, that means the law is in violation of the charter of rights and freedoms.
