Sask. Premier Scott Moe Invokes Notwithstanding Clause

[Moonlight Graham]

5 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.

 

Nothing was decided on this case from what i read.   It was an injunction to further explore if the law is constitutional.

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Nothing was decided on this case from what i read.   It was an injunction to further explore if the law is constitutional.

Ok and they trumped the injunction I guess 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Nexii said:

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. 

I don't know that there will be or should be.

Cancer treatments aren't life altering, they're life saving. And you're not likely to permanently alter your body form an abortion either.

I know you won't like this and don't take it the wrong way - but this would be more like a kid consenting to sex with an adult. They just can't.  Pedophilia orgs often argue along the same lines.  "let children make their own choice' etc.  But the damage is permanent and severe.  This isn't a 'morality' issue like abortion, this is a permanent change to a person that could very easily screw up the rest of their lives both physically and emotionally and they're just children.

Some things there can be little compromise on.  I would say ZERO hormones or ANY treatments for anyone under 16 by law, and 16-18 if two doctors agree that the kid really needs it for health reasons.. After 18 - it's their call as it should be.

That's about the closest we can come to a compromise i think.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Nothing was decided on this case from what i read.   It was an injunction to further explore if the law is constitutional.

That in and of itself is a judgement.

What the judge said is that it does harm to parents to deny them information about their kids, and it does harm to kids to violate their privacy and rat them out to their parents, and of the two the greater harm is definitely to the kids not the parents so the injunction is passed. Future judges may rule that the law IS constitutional - but this ruling does set precedent.

which means the province is breaking out the notwithstanding clause and moving forward that'll likely be automatic with all these laws and you're going to see setting aside 'gay' and 'trans' rights under the charter more normalized.

They should not have pushed this.

[Nexii]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I don't know that there will be or should be.

Cancer treatments aren't life altering, they're life saving. And you're not likely to permanently alter your body form an abortion either.

I know you won't like this and don't take it the wrong way - but this would be more like a kid consenting to sex with an adult. They just can't.  Pedophilia orgs often argue along the same lines.  "let children make their own choice' etc.  But the damage is permanent and severe.  This isn't a 'morality' issue like abortion, this is a permanent change to a person that could very easily screw up the rest of their lives both physically and emotionally and they're just children.

Some things there can be little compromise on.  I would say ZERO hormones or ANY treatments for anyone under 16 by law, and 16-18 if two doctors agree that the kid really needs it for health reasons.. After 18 - it's their call as it should be.

That's about the closest we can come to a compromise i think.

See the case of Makayla Sault. The courts have already ruled that minors can refuse life-saving treatment if they are deemed to have the capacity to consent.

Chemotherapy can be brutal and some people would rather just live out the time they have left

[Army Guy]

On 9/30/2023 at 9:16 AM, Nexii said:

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

 

I don't think anyone is talking about property rights, but rather parental responsibilities, such providing the Childs basic needs, their health care , dental care, ensuring their education needs are meet, and the many other things that a parent provides for their child to ensure they become a productive member of society...

With this responsibility comes many things that are a two way street... following the rules set out by the parents, like bed time, what time to be in the house, can they have a cell phone....and the million other things that come from parenting.... not to mention major decisions such as health care why is it a parents decisions are accepted in 99 % of the all the rest of the cases, with two exceptions that i know of, getting birth control prescribed, or abortion...all others are left up to the parents why is that ?

Your argument suggests that the child is now responsible for these decisions, what name they wish to be called, what gender they want... what time they go to bed, when to come home, what they are going to eat, when to eat it...where does parental responsibilities stop... and child responsibilities start according to law,.as you quote. ...I mean lets drive a wedge between the family unit..

Why is it a "matter of life and death", when it comes down to keeping parents from being informed on their Childs mental health status, becasue thats what this is all about right. LGBTQ community has already posted that suicide rates increase dramatically when the family unit does not support them... and yet here we are looking to drive a wedge in there by not informing one half of the family inti there is a problem that needs to be addressed....I know this is to much for most on this forum to absorb or understand...."Parents are such as$holes", that are not able to understand this issue , just teachers, and the LGBTQ community....

And some how many on this forum seem to think that parents don't deserve to be part of the equation, " it is to dangerous, they don't have any rights, "and they are hiding behind the parents might not react that well...well the less than 1 % of parents who have already proven to be less than stellar parents...Much like gun control issue, it does not effect most Canadians so they swallow the government message...same here, most this topic is not going to effect them, so we will keep with the government line...

THERE will be no discussion, anyone not following the provided narrative will be placed into a group and forever silenced...it is what we as Canadians do, we place people into small groups and banish them.

And yet we have no issues with phoning these same parent about any other school problem , getting kicked out of school, bad marks, fighting with a teacher... Some how these issues they can phone about and not worry about the parents over reacting...or injuring their children...why?, becasue teachers are instructed on the signs to watch out for when parents are abusing their kids, and report them to the authorities... But in this one percent of cases, we can not trust teachers to report or parents for doing the right thing...

I get it this whole matter would be a shock to anyone receiving the news their child is not happy in the sex with what they were born with...and it might not be received or go as everyone plans it to go... lots of crying, maybe some yelling...heated arguments, but over time I'm pretty sure for the most part things work out...and if they don't then that unconditional love was not their to start with...

 

[Army Guy]

58 minutes ago, Nexii said:

See the case of Makayla Sault. The courts have already ruled that minors can refuse life-saving treatment if they are deemed to have the capacity to consent.

Chemotherapy can be brutal and some people would rather just live out the time they have left

Do you really think at age 11 she is was capable of making that decision ?   what i find disturbing is that everyone else allowed her to go through with it.... or she did not want to go through the pain of the rest of her treatment, according to her doctor people have a 75 % chance of surviving with the treatment... I guess traditional treatments are not as high...

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Army Guy

[Zeitgeist]

As our federal government gets more interventionist, expensive, and illustrates its incompetence on basic federal responsibilities like providing passports, I can see more provinces using the notwithstanding clause more often and the value of the federal government diminishing further and further in the public eye. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Nexii said:

See the case of Makayla Sault. The courts have already ruled that minors can refuse life-saving treatment if they are deemed to have the capacity to consent.

 

That is still not the same as deciding TO have NON life saving surgery.  There are a lot of things they cannot consent to.

Quote

Chemotherapy can be brutal and some people would rather just live out the time they have left

And that would be a reasonable argument - but at the end of the day that person is going to die either way.  Choosing not to have a medical proceedure that's torture is not the same thing.

You're looking for an equivalency here were one doesn't really exist. Children for example can't arbitrarily decide which parent they want to live with. They would first have to apply for what is essentially a 'divorce' from the parent they didn't want to and that's not guaranteed to succeed at all. 

What you're talking about here is an operation that they 'want', but that they will live just fine without until they're older. However - if they have it they will be permanently altered and damaged. Even hormones are too far.

They can make that decision when they're older - it's not like cancer.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I don’t have much of a dog in this fight either way but the notwithstanding clause was one of those things about Canada that took me a while to digest even a little bit. Up there with Progressive Conservative and the equalization formula. 

Edited October 2, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[Nexii]

Children can already decide which parent they want to live with in custody cases. Their stated preference carries a lot of weight by the teen years. It's not absolute but judges do consider it as a factor. 

The Makayla case, I'm not sure about her capacity without knowing more. That she was Indigenous had a lot of influence on the case. It was just cited as an example. 

The law reflects the reality that teens are not the same as younger children. As we grow up capacity is gained. It's not like we hit 18 and magically are as mature as any adult.

Anyways, it does cut both ways. Parents can't be responsible if they don't have agency. And they are not in the eyes of the law. So it seems like the issue really is about having control.

Overall I do agree that it's unlikely that transition will go well without family help. But what's the school to do if the parents don't consent to a preferred name change? Just keep calling the child a name they despise, and go along with pushing them back in the closet? That's pretty disgusting to even think about.

I think a lot of these policies aren't really thought out in terms of how they play out in reality. Whether it's ill-informed politicians or school board employees. Just as it's ridiculous to assume a child could transition at school only, so is the idea that parents should have this much agency. The Angus Reid poll did say that 20% of parents would not be supportive.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Nexii said:

Children can already decide which parent they want to live with in custody cases. Their stated preference carries a lot of weight by the teen years. It's not absolute but judges do consider it as a factor. 

Not remotely true.  In fact - a close friend of mine just went through this recently and paid an insane amount of money fighting their ex in court, He's a bad guy and the kid wants nothing to so with him. I had the dubious pleasure of looking through the laws and judgements closely you're just plain wrong.

If a kid wants to deny a parent the right to see them after the court has recognized their rights (ie not a druggie etc) then the kid has to sue.  The kids' say has almost no weight at all.

So now that we've established you're not quite as up on the law as you thought, lets continue

Quote

 

The Makayla case, I'm not sure about her capacity without knowing more. That she was Indigenous had a lot of influence on the case. It was just cited as an example. 

The law reflects the reality that teens are not the same as younger children. As we grow up capacity is gained. It's not like we hit 18 and magically are as mature as any adult.

 

You still have to draw a line. The law recognizes age restrictions on booze and voting as being valid.  I'm sure some are quite mature enough to drink before that age and some aren't even when they hit that age. But you need a line.

You're pretending this isn't true. And i'm afraid it is.  You're pretending this doesn't involve parents, and it does. And you're pretending that these kids exist in a vacuum and that how this is handled won't have repercussions which could ruin them for the rest of their lives. And that's no accurate.

They are CHILDREN.  And their parents are their PARENTS. And until the age where the law says they no longer have to provide the necessaries for them they BETTER bloody well have a say in the kid's health.

The trans community better think about that.  There's a lot more of them than there are of you. Picking fights and pretending they dont matter is already leading to a backlash so large saskatchewan is using the notwithstanding clause to strip kids of their rights, and it gets worse from here.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

A legislature can override many of our basic human rights from the Charter and there's nothing anyone can do about it except vote them out and reserve the decision.  It's pretty scary.

It's also scary that judges can find ways to interpret many vague parts of the charter to fit their own idea of right vs wrong and essentially start lawmaking themselves.  ie: "life, liberty, security of the person..." or "free and democratic society"...these words are so vague.  For instance, what's stopping judges from making a case for or against government vaccine mandates?  They can interpret "life, liberty, and security of the person" in many different ways to suit whatever they personally believe in, so it comes down to the personal ideology of the judge rather than the proper interpretation of the constitution.   What's stopping judges from ignoring precedent?  They're the final decision on things anyways.

That said, I don't see anything in the Charter about parental rights or a child's rights.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

That said, I don't see anything in the Charter about parental rights or a child's rights.

That's fair... but there's nothing in the charter about LGBTQ either.  Not is there anything in the constitution about automatic weapons.

 

Judges have to be free to read rights in.  Those documents frame the legal system, they can't prescribe all legal protections into the future.

Notwithstanding was supposed to be used sparingly, but politicians are using it liberally to satisfy their electorate thereby supplanting the role of the courts and the constitution.

Populists might like it when politicians use the clause in this way, but what happens when a future "radical left government" decides to use it to force the Catholic Church to hire a lesbian trans priest?

 

Populists are not known for thinking ahead.

 

 

 

 

[herbie]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That said, I don't see anything in the Charter about parental rights or a child's rights.

It's the word "person". That means a person -them not your Boss or your parental rights over them. But you're correct, no 'parental rights' in the Constitution, just hundreds of years of 'parental responsibilities' in Common Law.

And the Notwithstanding Clause was never intended to be used for petty bullshit - it clearly points out that it is a temporary violation of the actual Constitution that must be periodically reviewed.
Not just for the use of pompous Premiers seeking to promote their personal agendas as it has been so far.

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's fair... but there's nothing in the charter about LGBTQ either.  Not is there anything in the constitution about automatic weapons.

 

Judges have to be free to read rights in.  Those documents frame the legal system, they can't prescribe all legal protections into the future.

Notwithstanding was supposed to be used sparingly, but politicians are using it liberally to satisfy their electorate thereby supplanting the role of the courts and the constitution.

Populists might like it when politicians use the clause in this way, but what happens when a future "radical left government" decides to use it to force the Catholic Church to hire a lesbian trans priest?

 

Populists are not known for thinking ahead.

I'm not defending the use of the notwithstanding clause.  Its a stupid clause. The Charter is badly designed, out of political necessity, because it includes opt outs for both governments and courts to ignore our Charter rights when they really want to.  The people don't have any guaranteed rights in key sections of the Charter.

If a "right" isn't included in the Charter then it should be up to lawmakers to decide what is allowed via legislation, since they are elected and accountable to the people.  Judges "reading in" rights based on vague notions in the Charter like "life, liberty, security of the person" etc is ridiculous.

There is nothing about automatic weapons or LGBT rights as you say, therefore lawmakers (the people) should decide.   Many progressives often don't agree because most judges in Canada share their progressive leanings.  Chuds aren't the only ones who value power over democracy.  It's depressing how many people only seem concerned with their own agenda over justice.  I call these people tyrants.

[Moonlight Graham]

I will also say that any judge whose personal ideological leanings determine how they interpret or implement the law is bad at their job.  Their job is to objectively interpret the law as is and nothing more.  Their own opinion about the law is irrelevant.  Judges should not be acting political, they are not paid to be activists, whether conservative or progressive.

Things like LGBT and abortion rights shouldn't be legal or illegal based on the political leanings of the judges currently in power.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Things like LGBT and abortion rights shouldn't be legal or illegal based on the political leanings of the judges currently in power.

Well judges are more conservative because they are part of conservative institutions. I suspect that they probably align right down the middle in terms of their politics.

How they interpret the law isn't the same as their politics, I actually believe that even if chuds don't know what objectivity is judges do.

[Moonlight Graham]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well judges are more conservative because they are part of conservative institutions. I suspect that they probably align right down the middle in terms of their politics.

How they interpret the law isn't the same as their politics, I actually believe that even if chuds don't know what objectivity is judges do.

I totally disagree.  Look at the SCOTUS in the US the last several decades including now, and the Supreme Court in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I totally disagree.  Look at the SCOTUS in the US the last several decades including now, and the Supreme Court in Canada.

Look at them for..?

[suds]

The Judge in this case only granted a request from a LGBTQ advocacy group for an injunction to put the government's policy on hold until a constitutional challenge to the policy could be heard. This 'constitutional challenge' (I believe) is in regards to the charter rights of students under 16 to choose their names and pronouns in the schools without parental consent. Good! Let's get this cleared up once and for all. The Premier of  Saskatchewan's opinion on this is that the default position (until this constitutional challenge can be heard and ruled on) should never be to keep a child's information from their parents. The Premier is against the injunction to put the government's policy on hold for how long?  2,3,4 years maybe?  So he fires a shot across the bow and says he will invoke the notwithstanding clause to make the policy exempt from any future court rulings on the charter rights of students under 16 for the next 5 years. Would anything have changed if the judge had not granted the injunction? Probably not, but the notwithstanding clause would likely not have been used, at least not at this time. But it's a good way to cause problems for the government.

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Look at them for..?

Ideological biases among the judges.  Many lean conservative, others liberal.

[BeaverFever]

Moe, Klein, Ford.
 

Funny how conservatives claim to be the party of rights and freedoms while also being the party that’s always invoking the notwithstanding clause to revoke people’s rights and Freedoms. 

Also the NWS clause is meant to be a temporary suspension of rights and has to be regularly renewed. Is that the plan from “the party of freedom” to just repeatedly suspend these rights forever?

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Moe, Klein, Ford.
 

Funny how conservatives claim to be the party of rights and freedoms while also being the party that’s always invoking the notwithstanding clause to revoke people’s rights and Freedoms. 

 

yeah - think you lost your right to gloat over that when your little potato declared the emergency act on a bunch of people with a bouncy castle and then started seizing bank accounts  

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

yeah - think you lost your right to gloat over that when your little potato declared the emergency act on a bunch of people with a bouncy castle and then started seizing bank accounts  

LMAO how did I know someone was going to say that.
 

Emergencies act isn’t the NWS and isn’t even part of the constitution. It doesn’t limit or suspend any charter rights, it is simply a 1980s act of parliament 

In fact just for the ill-informed, the legislation specifically clarifies that any measures taken under the act must be consistent with the charter and bill of rights. 
 

Also Emergencies act powers are temporary and were used by JT as response to a specific public order event. Meanwhile all 3 conservative uses of NWS were intended tonbe permanent restrictions of freedoms affecting how people live their private lives 

The people with bouncy castles laid siege to a city and blockaded major borders crossings for 3 weeks   Millions of dollars of trade and economic activity was lost, workers lost their jobs or shifts as a result and other citizens in Ottawa couldn’t leave their houses to get to work   Ford involved NWS simply because he had some personal unfounded ideas about how many people should be on city council  Klein did it because gay people make him feel icky and he wanted to ensure they knew they were not welcome in Alberta.   Moe os doing the same thing but this time it’s trannies, who are the “gay scare” of the current decade  

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by BeaverFever