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.

    • jadero@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”.

      • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is the law… Passed by politicians elected by the people.

        This is simply the judges dumb interpretation that has no basis in reality.

        • jadero@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Kichae@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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.

      • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          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???

        • Kichae@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • snoons@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your personal opinion ≠ everyone else’s opinion

      Get your head out of your ass and look around for once.

        • communication [they]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

          • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • communication [they]@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

        • snoons@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Someone@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

    • zaphod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah, I see you skipped the “tyranny of the majority” section during social studies…

    • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.