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.

  • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          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.