62
submitted 1 year ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca

Saskatchewan's premier says he'll use the notwithstanding clause to override a court injunction that has paused the province's new pronoun policy for students. But a professor says the clause is meant to be used as a tool of last resort.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Crankpork@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Using the Notwithstanding clause is an admission by the government that it’s trying to pass legislation that goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It should at the very least require a full explanation and apology by the Premier, as to why he felt citizens’ rights were unimportant.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The explanation is well understood. A segment of the population believe that a change in one's identity is a symptom of mental illness, and as such see it as the duty of educators to open up about the signs and symptoms they are seeing, just as they would for any other illness. The contention is that the other segment of the population see changing identity as being a healthy expression of the human experience.

The Premier does not understand that there is a violation of rights. From his point of view, it is an illness not properly recognized, and is no different than letting it be known that a child is sick with a fever – something that is expected to be shared under what is considered to be for the best interests of the child.

[-] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

The Premier does not understand that there is a violation of rights.

If this was true, they could pass the legislation without the notwithstanding clause.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, he fully understands that, from his point of view, the illness is misclassified – in other words, it is not considered an illness by all. This is no doubt a Charter violation when changing identity is not considered an illness by the courts. Hence the preemptive notwithstanding call. But he understands it to be an illness, and therefore no rights are violated from his point of view.

[-] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Elegant argument. Hear hear!

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

No. Not necessarily.

In this particular case, yes. But not always.

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
62 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
337 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS