Sask. Premier Scott Moe Invokes Notwithstanding Clause

[Canadian_Cavalier]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-saskatchewan-pronoun-policy-notwithstanding-clause/

Saskatchewan's conservative Premier made the right choice. Unelected liberal judges do not have the right to tell parents how to raise their children. This is exactly why the NWS Clause exists in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Liberals do not own Saskatchewan and this is evident in the fact that every seat there is represented by a CPC MP.

[TreeBeard]

48 minutes ago, Canadian_Cavalier said:

liberal judges

The judge was appointed by Conservatives.  
 

What is your definition of a liberal judge?  One who makes decisions that you don’t like?

[Canadian_Cavalier]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The judge was appointed by Conservatives.  
 

What is your definition of a liberal judge?  One who makes decisions that you don’t like?

Canada's judge selections are thankfully less partisan than in the US, but that also allows for that to happen.

If a judge doesn't believe parents should know what gender their underage child identifies as, yes, that's a liberal judge regardless of who appointed them. Judicial activism is a cancer upon our nation.

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

  One who makes decisions that you don’t like?

Yes.  Anybody who can't see that the Notwithstanding Clause is being abused here probably hates politics.

It's very difficult for those of us who value objectivity in the public sphere to deal with chuds.  What ends up happening is you have to allow them to engage in dialogue for a bit, until they out themselves then you ahve to put them on ignore.

Their methods are evolving, and their end goal is to eliminate all politics that would allow for compromise 

[TreeBeard]

33 minutes ago, Canadian_Cavalier said:

Canada's judge selections are thankfully less partisan than in the US, but that also allows for that to happen.

If a judge doesn't believe parents should know what gender their underage child identifies as, yes, that's a liberal judge regardless of who appointed them. Judicial activism is a cancer upon our nation.

How do you know that the judge doesn’t think the opposite of what they ruled, but they ruled that way because they believe it follows Canadian law as written?
 

You are assuming this judge has no legal basis and that they are ruling by their own feelings.  You’re projecting.  “If I was a judge, I’d rule the “conservative way” regardless of the law”.  

Edited September 29, 2023 by TreeBeard

[herbie]

Nominating Scott Moe for Assh0le of the Month.

The notwithstanding clause is exclusively for knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway.

[Canadian_Cavalier]

22 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

How do you know that the judge doesn’t think the opposite of what they ruled, but they ruled that way because they believe it follows Canadian law as written?
 

You are assuming this judge has no legal basis and that they are ruling by their own feelings.  You’re projecting.  “If I was a judge, I’d rule the “conservative way” regardless of the law”.  

"Canadian Law" also grants Scott Moe the ability to do what's in the best interests of Saskatchewan parents. I thought it was common sense that the rights of children are limited because, well, they're children. They can't smoke, drink, drive, consent to sex, etc. Why should they be able to decide what gender they are? Why should parents not even know that?

7 minutes ago, herbie said:

Nominating Scott Moe for Assh0le of the Month.

The notwithstanding clause is exclusively for knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway.

You know he's a legend if herbie is triggered over him.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

How do you know that the judge doesn’t think the opposite of what they ruled, but they ruled that way because they believe it follows Canadian law as written?
 

You are assuming this judge has no legal basis and that they are ruling by their own feelings.  You’re projecting.  “If I was a judge, I’d rule the “conservative way” regardless of the law”.  

These folks don't have any concept of objectivity 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The judge was appointed by Conservatives.  
 

What is your definition of a liberal judge?  One who makes decisions that you don’t like?

Just because someone considers or calls themselves a conservative, that does not mean that they really are conservative. The judge is probably a liberal in conservative clothing for all we know. 

How can any judge deny the rights of parents to be informed about what some of those Marxist teachers in schools are teaching their children? Parents should be informed about what school teachers are teaching their kids. 

Those demonstrating against the premier of Saskatchewan are nothing more than a bunch of gay and trans radical Marxists activists. Those buffoons have no right to deny parents their rights to do and know what is best for their own children. Children belong to their parents and not the Marxist state. 

The amount of Marxists in so many Canadian institutions has gotten way out of hand. These Marxist have infiltrated and are running just about everything in Canada today. This needs to end now. Freedom must reign in Canada and not tyranny. 

 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Canadian_Cavalier said:

Canada's judge selections are thankfully less partisan than in the US, but that also allows for that to happen.

If a judge doesn't believe parents should know what gender their underage child identifies as, yes, that's a liberal judge regardless of who appointed them. Judicial activism is a cancer upon our nation.

Just about every institution in Canada today has now been taken over by a bunch of radical Marxist activists. Pretty much all judges today in Canada were appointed to the bench. Judicial Marxism and left wing activism is truly a cancer on society. Liberalism is a disease that must be eradicated. We need a conservative vaccine to be injected into their dumb azz brains and bodies to smarten therm up. Only true conservatism will save us all from those screwball liberals. ?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The judge was appointed by Conservatives.  
 

What is your definition of a liberal judge?  One who makes decisions that you don’t like?

Are you claiming this judge, given his judgement history, doesn't lean to the left?

[taxme]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  Anybody who can't see that the Notwithstanding Clause is being abused here probably hates politics.

It's very difficult for those of us who value objectivity in the public sphere to deal with chuds.  What ends up happening is you have to allow them to engage in dialogue for a bit, until they out themselves then you ahve to put them on ignore.

Their methods are evolving, and their end goal is to eliminate all politics that would allow for compromise 

The COR was abused by the french socialists of Quebec when the french separatist government decided to override the COR and use the NWC to now treat Anglophones in Quebec as second hand citizens. and their rights were violated and taken away from them. So, don't go jumping on the premier of Saskatchewan because he wants to use the NWC. It's his right and the people of Saskatchewan right to do so. If it is good for Quebec, than it should be good for Saskatchewan. ? 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, taxme said:

Just because someone considers or calls themselves a conservative, that does not mean that they really are conservative. The judge is probably a liberal in conservative clothing for all we know.

Don't let him suck you in.  Conservatives don't historically pick judges based on their political leanings - the libs do but the conservatives dont'.  In fact harper set up a system specifically to prevent that and justin took it apart immediately on winning power.

Conservatives will appoint left leaning  judges. The problem is that liberals won't appoint right leaning judges.

He's trying to pretend that because the judge was picked by conservatives he can't be left wing - and that's just not true. Don't buy into his left wing thinking.

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Are you claiming this judge, given his judgement history, doesn't lean to the left?

That leftist judge probably leans so far to the left that he is just about ready to fall over on his leftist face. I would like to be there to see that happen. ?

[TreeBeard]

15 minutes ago, taxme said:

How can any judge deny the rights

They didn’t.  You didn’t read the judgement, did you?  You entered into a conversation about what the judge did, and you don’t even know what he did.  
 

The judge issued an injunction until it can be determined whether the Saskatchewan law is constitutional or not.  So the judge didn’t rule on the rights of the parents….   
 

However, judges weigh the rights of one group of people against another’s all the time.  They will do so for this law too sometime in November, I believe.  
 

Try and at least read an article or two about what you’re jumping in to discuss next time, hey?

1 minute ago, taxme said:

That leftist judge probably leans so far to the left that he is just about ready to fall over on his leftist face. I would like to be there to see that happen. ?

Why would a Conservative government have appointed a leftist judge?

Edited September 29, 2023 by TreeBeard

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

How do you know that the judge doesn’t think the opposite of what they ruled, but they ruled that way because they believe it follows Canadian law as written?
 

How do you know that the judge DIDN"T rule that way because of 'muh feels'?  Judges have their rulings overturned all the time for making bad judgements.

[TreeBeard]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

These folks don't have any concept of objectivity 

They don’t even know that this is an injunction until the actual case can be heard.   They see headlines and then screech about “parental rights” and “leftist judges”.  

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Don't let him suck you in.  Conservatives don't historically pick judges based on their political leanings - the libs do but the conservatives dont'.  In fact harper set up a system specifically to prevent that and justin took it apart immediately on winning power.

Conservatives will appoint left leaning  judges. The problem is that liberals won't appoint right leaning judges.

He's trying to pretend that because the judge was picked by conservatives he can't be left wing - and that's just not true. Don't buy into his left wing thinking.

This lefty liberal will never be able to suck me into anything. But this is why and where the conservatives do things all wrong. Trump appointed only conservatives to the Supreme Court and other lower courts in America, not liberals.

Conservatives must realize that to appoint a liberal to any appointment is to be inviting that liberal to eventually kick them in their arses down the road. Conservatives must think like a liberal does. Appoint your own people into power, and not your enemy. Conservatives can be and do so many dumb things to try and defeat themselves. 

I just hope that Pierre Poilevre will show us all that he truly is a real and true conservative, and not another liberal all dressed up in conservative clothing. Only time will tell if he wins the next election. ?

 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, taxme said:

That leftist judge probably leans so far to the left that he is just about ready to fall over on his leftist face. I would like to be there to see that happen. ?

He might very well. 

These two !diots know they're in the wrong. They immediately turned to attacking you and conservatives rather than discussing the issue.

When left wingers get THAT smarmy and desperate it's usually because they really don't have any defense for the actions.

Putting the law aside like that IS IN FACT a judgement about the rights of the parents. The judge essentally ruled that the rights of the kids to privacy was stronger than parental rights and therefore allowing this could lead to harm.

He says it right here"

Justice Megaw wrote that the public interest expressed by the government in introducing the 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.”

That is a ruling on parental rights.  It is a clear statement that it's more important for kids to be allowed to hide information from their parents.

That it is in the 'public interest' to allow schools to keep information from or lie to parents.

So Treebeard is - as usual - full of shit and doesn't understand what he's reading while accusing others  of the same thing.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, taxme said:

This lefty liberal will never be able to suck me into anything. But this is why and where the conservatives do things all wrong. Trump appointed only conservatives to the Supreme Court and other lower courts in America, not liberals.

Conservatives must realize that to appoint a liberal to any appointment is to be inviting that liberal to eventually kick them in their arses down the road. Conservatives must think like a liberal does. Appoint your own people into power, and not your enemy. Conservatives can be and do so many dumb things to try and defeat themselves. 

I just hope that Pierre Poilevre will show us all that he truly is a real and true conservative, and not another liberal all dressed up in conservative clothing. Only time will tell if he wins the next election. ?

 

The fact is the day will come when conservatives get tired of playing by the rules while the other side doesn't and starts stacking political positions with right leaning people.

Expect to hear a caterwauling from the left the likes of which has rarely been heard, and if it's pointed out that they've ALWAYS done that they'll complain about whataboutism

[taxme]

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

They didn’t.  You didn’t read the judgement, did you?  You entered into a conversation about what the judge did, and you don’t even know what he did.  
 

The judge issued an injunction until it can be determined whether the Saskatchewan law is constitutional or not.  So the judge didn’t rule on the rights of the parents….   
 

However, judges weigh the rights of one group of people against another’s all the time.  They will do so for this law too sometime in November, I believe.  
 

Try and at least read an article or two about what you’re jumping in to discuss next time, hey?

Why would a Conservative government have appointed a leftist judge?

There was no need for that liberal judge to apply an injunction. The judge in my own words is just fkn around. There can be no way a judge would want to deny any parents their right to know what their children are being taught in schools. The Premier invoked the law and it should be adhered to. What makes those gay and trans physco and activist Marxists think that the schools should bring up the children and not the parents themselves? 

Why invoke a law where the Premier can override the COR and constitution at his will and implement the Notwithstanding clause, which he says he will do. It's just more time and taxes being wasting once again by another bunch of pathetic Marxist activist fools. 

I have watched and listened to what is going on in Saskatchewan and I bloody well don't like it. This is just more Marxist bull chit in action. 

Well, maybe the conservative party thought that they were appointing a conservative, but instead, the judge turned out to be another Marxist activist liberal judge. The lieberals would make bloody sure that they would never appoint a conservative to the bench. ?

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  Anybody who can't see that the Notwithstanding Clause is being abused here probably hates politics.

It's very difficult for those of us who value objectivity in the public sphere to deal with chuds.  What ends up happening is you have to allow them to engage in dialogue for a bit, until they out themselves then you ahve to put them on ignore.

Their methods are evolving, and their end goal is to eliminate all politics that would allow for compromise 

Yes becasue letting parents have knowledge of what their kids are doing while at school is absolutely disgusting...how dare they ask for permission to be involved in major life choices in their Childs lives...

You call it objectivity, you don't value any thing that is objectivity in this issue, what you do value is the LGBTQ narrative is not to be question it is law from the heavens, and anyone that does not agree must be shouted down... compromise from this crowd is a joke... their is not going to be any compromise...as their is no debate or conversation...

Tell us all what is wrong with informing parents before allowing students to change names or genders, where is the harm in that, i would have thought this would bring conversation between both parents and child... nope can't have that people are going to die...according to your side of the issue....There is only one side of this issue, no room to debate, no room for compromise, you sir have already made up your mind, and voting people off the island becasue they don't or won't uphold the party line..

That is parents do not deserve to know what their kids are doing at school...

Edited September 29, 2023 by Army Guy

[taxme]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He might very well. 

These two !diots know they're in the wrong. They immediately turned to attacking you and conservatives rather than discussing the issue.

When left wingers get THAT smarmy and desperate it's usually because they really don't have any defense for the actions.

Putting the law aside like that IS IN FACT a judgement about the rights of the parents. The judge essentally ruled that the rights of the kids to privacy was stronger than parental rights and therefore allowing this could lead to harm.

He says it right here"

Justice Megaw wrote that the public interest expressed by the government in introducing the 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.”

That is a ruling on parental rights.  It is a clear statement that it's more important for kids to be allowed to hide information from their parents.

That it is in the 'public interest' to allow schools to keep information from or lie to parents.

So Treebeard is - as usual - full of shit and doesn't understand what he's reading while accusing others  of the same thing.

This judge has to be just another Marxist activist appointed to the bench. This should have been a done deal. But the gay and trans Marxist activists once again try to force their ideology on someone else. They think that they own the children and not the parents. We must try and eradicate liberalism once and for all from everything because it truly is a cancer in our society. Parents must know as to what is going on with their children in schools. After all, it is their children and not the Marxists children. Works for me. 

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, taxme said:

This judge has to be just another Marxist activist appointed to the bench. This should have been a done deal. But the gay and trans Marxist activists once again try to force their ideology on someone else. They think that they own the children and not the parents. We must try and eradicate liberalism once and for all from everything because it truly is a cancer in our society. Parents must know as to what is going on with their children in schools. After all, it is their children and not the Marxists children. Works for me. 

Well at the end of the day i think that it's pretty obvious that he gave too much weight to the idea that somehow if parents know their kids are struggling with their gender identity the parents will slaughter them in cold blood and burn their corpses in a pizza oven.  Because that's what parents do.

Meanwhile teachers NEVER abuse kids so they're perfectly safe being allowed to hold what is apperently black mail quality information over the kids.

But - that's judges for you.  With the notwithstanding clause being invoked that ends the debate.

[herbie]

You're never going to convince these peopl that Judges are appointed for their legal prowess and not their politics.

Just like you'll never convince them a Judge is a judge because they're smarter than their own dumb ass. They can't even figure out that if it violates the Constitution, it's wrong regardless of what they think.