Sask. Premier Scott Moe Invokes Notwithstanding Clause

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

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

 

Who are you even talking to?  Every time i think you've gotten as pathetic as possible you find a way to prove me wrong.

But sure - leftie types NEVER think judicial appointments are political  *Cough*Kavanaugh*Cough*

[herbie]

I know it came get confusing which they is them when there's more than one them in the same sentence but it must be  near impossible to someone who can't even remember what side of the border the conversation is about.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't understand how it could be unconstitutional to prevent the state from using the gender and name of a child's choice if they're under age 16 without parental consent.  Kids don't have any freedom in school.  They certainly don't have freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, association etc.

A teacher has no rights here, no right to call a student child by a name that isn't their legal name.  They work for the state and the parents.  Who makes the call here?  It's the parents.

[TreeBeard]

23 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A teacher has no rights here, no right to call a student child by a name that isn't their legal name. 

How long have you been an activist against nicknames?  Can a Joseph be Joe, or does the teacher need permission from the parent?  What should be the consequences for the teacher if they call them Joe?

Edited September 30, 2023 by TreeBeard

[blackbird]

6 hours 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”.  

Come on, the judge issued an injunction because he agrees with SOGI teaching without informing the parents about the pronouns, not parental rights.

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Come on, the judge issued an injunction because he agrees with SOGI teaching without informing the parents about the pronouns, not parental rights.

If a judge finds someone not guilty of a murder, does that mean the judge is pro-murder?

 

Im sorry this is a difficult question for you to answer. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by TreeBeard

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

I know it came get confusing

so it would seem - you're clearly confused

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

How long have you been an activist against nicknames?  Can a Joseph be Joe, or does the teacher need permission from the parent?  What should be the consequences for the teacher if they call them Joe?

How dishonest. See - the left has to lie and be dishonest to prove their point.

A nickname or shortened name has nothing to do with gender identity.  Gender identity issues are often an indicator of gender dysphoria, which is a serious medical issue.

Are you trying to claim that if little johnny got a concussion it would be ok for the school to treat him and never tell the parents?

Are you trying to suggest that a person's preferred pronouns are just a 'nickname' and have nothing to do with gender?

This kind of twisted bullcrap is precisely why we need laws - left wing lunatics will justify their actions in the most ridiculous of ways if given a chance.

[Nexii]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't understand how it could be unconstitutional to prevent the state from using the gender and name of a child's choice if they're under age 16 without parental consent.  Kids don't have any freedom in school.  They certainly don't have freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, association etc.

A teacher has no rights here, no right to call a student child by a name that isn't their legal name.  They work for the state and the parents.  Who makes the call here?  It's the parents.

Minors have many of the same Charter rights as adults. In fact the Charter was intended to protect those that can't vote from those that do. 

Whew, this is quite the thread. People talking about law that understand nothing of it. Just what they believe the law to be.

In the end the courts will determine an age at which minors can determine their own name and gender. Like many other things (custody, medical care, driving a car etc). Contrary to the chud wing's wishes, children are not property of their parents and haven't been for a very long time under Canadian law

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Nexii

[herbie]

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

A teacher has no rights here, no right to call a student child by a name that isn't their legal name. 

Oh FFS my mother, my sister and I all use our 2nd names since birth. My kindergarten teacher didn't need permission from my parents to call me by the same name my classmates did. They certainly didn't need a LAW in 1959, and they don't need one now. Just like if my name was Lee Ching Fat they don't need a law and a note from home to call me "Tony" if I ask them to.

Just like the very thought that if your 7yr old son wanted the teacher to call him "Shirley" that teacher wouldn't ask his parents why the first time they met. The whole argument for this so called movement is based on bullshit. Another conspiracy, plot, us and them paranoia based on the "I heard it happened once, so it happens all the time" claim.

I can base on my own anectdotal experience that over 50% of the protesting parents never once attended Parent Teacher Night because the hockey game was on, FFS. The same parents were there and the same parents were missing at every one I ever attended. Just as the same one was at every school bard meet protesting sex ed.

[Nexii]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS my mother, my sister and I all use our 2nd names since birth. My kindergarten teacher didn't need permission from my parents to call me by the same name my classmates did. They certainly didn't need a LAW in 1959, and they don't need one now. Just like if my name was Lee Ching Fat they don't need a law and a note from home to call me "Tony" if I ask them to.

Just like the very thought that if your 7yr old son wanted the teacher to call him "Shirley" that teacher wouldn't ask his parents why the first time they met. The whole argument for this so called movement is based on bullshit. Another conspiracy, plot, us and them paranoia based on the "I heard it happened once, so it happens all the time" claim.

I can base on my own anectdotal experience that over 50% of the protesting parents never once attended Parent Teacher Night because the hockey game was on, FFS. The same parents were there and the same parents were missing at every one I ever attended. Just as the same one was at every school bard meet protesting sex ed.

More and more laws but remember they're 'small-c' conservatives (supposedly)

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS my mother, my sister and I all use our 2nd names since birth. My kindergarten teacher didn't need permission from my parents to call me by the same name my classmates did. They certainly didn't need a LAW in 1959, and they don't need one now. Just like if my name was Lee Ching Fat they don't need a law and a note from home to call me "Tony" if I ask them to.

Just like the very thought that if your 7yr old son wanted the teacher to call him "Shirley" that teacher wouldn't ask his parents why the first time they met. The whole argument for this so called movement is based on bullshit. Another conspiracy, plot, us and them paranoia based on the "I heard it happened once, so it happens all the time" claim.

I can base on my own anectdotal experience that over 50% of the protesting parents never once attended Parent Teacher Night because the hockey game was on, FFS. The same parents were there and the same parents were missing at every one I ever attended. Just as the same one was at every school bard meet protesting sex ed.

Your second name is still one of your given names.

And it doesn't represent a change in your gender, Does it. Wanting to change your gender is an indication of gender dysphoria.  That's a medical condition. Parents have a right to know about their kids medical condition

 Nice attempt at false equivalency tho,  I'm sure the kids at recess think you're just wizard.

 

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Nexii said:

More and more laws but remember they're 'small-c' conservatives (supposedly)

Yeah - because saying that parents should know about their children's medical issues is pretty far right wing.  That's what hitler believed - kill the jews and parents have a right to know about their children's health.

Get your head out of your pronoun.  The sad thing here is that the far left edcuation system is forcing this to be a law instead of a simple policy. And all that's doing is driving anti-trans sentiment up.  Which is also what you do when you claim people are somehow evil for their 's VERY LEGIT feelings that  parents should be involved in raising their children and dismiss them like that.

Gee - i can't imagine why people feel the need to demonstrate in the streets and tear down pride flags.

[Nexii]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - because saying that parents should know about their children's medical issues is pretty far right wing.  That's what hitler believed - kill the jews and parents have a right to know about their children's health.

Get your head out of your pronoun.  The sad thing here is that the far left edcuation system is forcing this to be a law instead of a simple policy. And all that's doing is driving anti-trans sentiment up.  Which is also what you do when you claim people are somehow evil for their 's VERY LEGIT feelings that  parents should be involved in raising their children and dismiss them like that.

Gee - i can't imagine why people feel the need to demonstrate in the streets and tear down pride flags.

Education policy is a separate issue.

This is about trans kids just trying to be themselves. I'm not sure I understand the connection. 

[TreeBeard]

8 hours ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS my mother, my sister and I all use our 2nd names since birth. My kindergarten teacher didn't need permission from my parents to call me by the same name my classmates did. They certainly didn't need a LAW in 1959, and they don't need one now. Just like if my name was Lee Ching Fat they don't need a law and a note from home to call me "Tony" if I ask them to.

Just like the very thought that if your 7yr old son wanted the teacher to call him "Shirley" that teacher wouldn't ask his parents why the first time they met. The whole argument for this so called movement is based on bullshit. Another conspiracy, plot, us and them paranoia based on the "I heard it happened once, so it happens all the time" claim.

I can base on my own anectdotal experience that over 50% of the protesting parents never once attended Parent Teacher Night because the hockey game was on, FFS. The same parents were there and the same parents were missing at every one I ever attended. Just as the same one was at every school bard meet protesting sex ed.

You attributed a quote to me that wasn’t mine. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Nexii said:

Education policy is a separate issue.

 

It's  the very issue we're discussing. It's literally what this thread is about.

Quote

This is about trans kids just trying to be themselves. I'm not sure I understand the connection. 

This is a thread about passing laws, which you just complained about,  requiring teachers to advise parents when their kids exhibit signs of a mental health issue. Because the teachers feel they're better equipped to deal with it than parents and parents don't need to know. Some teachers have gone so far as to help the kids look into medical treatments that can have a permanent effect on the child without telling the parents.

This is not about 'kids being themselves'. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

On 9/29/2023 at 10:58 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't understand how it could be unconstitutional to prevent the state from using the gender and name of a child's choice if they're under age 16 without parental consent.  Kids don't have any freedom in school.  They certainly don't have freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, association etc.

A teacher has no rights here, no right to call a student child by a name that isn't their legal name.  They work for the state and the parents.  Who makes the call here?  It's the parents.

The courts have determined that children have some agency over their personal health choices, and hence privacy.

I didn't know that until this case.

 

[Nexii]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The courts have determined that children have some agency over their personal health choices, and hence privacy.

I didn't know that until this case.

 

Yea it's come up before re: cancer treatments. And minors can get abortions without parental consent, generally speaking.

That's why I say there will be more of a middle ground in the end. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nexii said:

That's why I say there will be more of a middle ground in the end. 

That remains to be seen.  If politicians start using the notwithstanding clause liberally then governance will break.  The judicial aspect of government and the elected one have traditionally balanced each other out.

[I am Groot]

On 9/29/2023 at 4:26 PM, 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?

People suggest judges must be unbiased if they were appointed under the conservatives, but it's not like there's a lot of choice available to them. The law societies, even more than the rest of the liberal arts faculties in universities, are irredeemably woke. Sometimes it seems to me they regard actual training in the law as secondary to their mission of churning out social justice warriors. We see this now in law societies trying to impose DEI views on their members and insist they sign pledges to that effect.

In short, Harper had a helluva time finding conservatives to appoint. He was reduced to trying to appoint a semi-retired judge in Quebec to the Supreme Court for lack of any conservative alternatives. And the liberals on the supreme court said no.

[I am Groot]

On 9/29/2023 at 4:58 PM, Michael Hardner said:

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

Abuse meaning being used for anything the Left doesn't like.

 

On 9/29/2023 at 4:58 PM, Michael Hardner said:

It's very difficult for those of us who value objectivity in the public sphere to deal with chuds. 

I think you can drop the mask now. I doubt there's more than one or two people still on this forum who are in much doubt about your extreme partisanship, especially on social justice issues. There isn't a sliver of daylight between you and Jagmeet Singh. The only difference is Singh can, if forced, discuss issues without throwing around blanket insults.

On 9/29/2023 at 4:58 PM, Michael Hardner said:

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.

This is what, the third or fourth such post of yours recently demanding anyone who disagrees with you be put on ignore? Wouldn't you honestly be happier somewhere else where there's no one to disagree with your extremism?

As an alternative, I suppose you can try to volunteer to be the moderator again and simply ban everyone who has ideas you don't approve of. I know that made you feel happy the last time.

[I am Groot]

On 9/29/2023 at 5:09 PM, 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”.  

For those who at least reluctantly and initially (and with suspicion) accepted the Charter, the issue is not simply something violating the actual Charter. It is the way the judiciary has extended and built on the actual words of the Charter over the years to 'interpret' in ways never imagined by its authors, guided in most respects by their own political and social views. In short, the Charter today, replete with the precedents and interpretations of the judiciary often bears little resemblance to the Charter as written.

Beverly McLachlan's view of the Charter as a living instrument which could grow included the idea of the judiciary as the gardeners deciding how it would grow. Then again, she's still contentedly working for the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong, which makes her lack of interest in individual freedom and democracy rather apparent.

Edited October 1, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

On 9/29/2023 at 6:23 PM, Michael Hardner said:

These folks don't have any concept of objectivity 

Hardner, the noble and objective arbiter of all that is good. ?

[I am Groot]

On 9/29/2023 at 8:44 PM, herbie said:

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

Perhaps these people aren't as divorced from reality as you extremists on the far left.

Legal prowess has virtually nothing to do with judicial appointments. Witness our last supreme court appointment.

On 9/29/2023 at 10:58 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't understand how it could be unconstitutional to prevent the state from using the gender and name of a child's choice if they're under age 16 without parental consent.  Kids don't have any freedom in school.  They certainly don't have freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, association etc.

A teacher has no rights here, no right to call a student child by a name that isn't their legal name.  They work for the state and the parents.  Who makes the call here?  It's the parents.

The way illiberal judges have 'interpreted' the Charter makes it unconstitutional to do just about anything they disapprove of.

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS my mother, my sister and I all use our 2nd names since birth. My kindergarten teacher didn't need permission from my parents to call me by the same name my classmates did. They certainly didn't need a LAW in 1959, and they don't need one now. Just like if my name was Lee Ching Fat they don't need a law and a note from home to call me "Tony" if I ask them to.

Changing genders is not simply adding a nickname, you silly twat.

If it was, you and the other lefties here, like Hardner wouldn't be in such a frenzy over it.

Edited October 1, 2023 by I am Groot