this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
1 points (66.7% liked)

Canada

7204 readers
287 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
otter@lemmy.ca
1
Sask. premier to use notwithstanding clause to veto judge ruling on school pronoun policy (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A Regina judge has ruled that the Saskatchewan government's naming and pronoun policy should be paused for the time being, but Premier Scott Moe says he'll use the notwithstanding clause to override it.

Moe, responding to today's injunction issued by a Regina Court of King's Bench Justice Michael Megaw, said he intends to recall the legislature Oct. 10 to "pass legislation to protect parents' rights."

"Our government is extremely dismayed by the judicial overreach of the court blocking implementation of the Parental Inclusion and Consent policy - a policy which has the strong support of a majority of Saskatchewan residents, in particular, Saskatchewan parents," Moe said in a written statement Thursday afternoon. "The default position should never be to keep a child's information from their parents."

Last month, the province announced that all students under 16 needed parental consent to change their names or pronouns.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The notwithstanding clause is only ever used to suppress the rights of groups a given provincial government doesn't like. It's inclusion in the Charter was a mistake and as long as it remains all of our 'rights' are merely privileges.

[–] nbailey@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My understanding was that it was intended as an “emergency brake” - a circuit breaker that could be tripped in an urgent situation, at the cost of the user’s career. But, that requires a politically literate population that would discourage its use.

So, instead we have strongman premiers using it as a hammer to point their profoundly unpopular policies through, and an apathetic and disengaged voter base willing to look the other way.

I see it as part of the broader erosion of the “checks and balances” we were assured would prevent this type of creeping dismantling of democracy.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

and an apathetic and disengaged voter base willing to look the other way.

In my opinion, and personal experience, it also has a lot to do with not having enough time and energy to think about anything other then putting food on the table, or even where your next meal is coming from. Certainly there are people that just don't give a fuck, but I think that would be the minority if more people weren't living paycheque to paycheque.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

In my opinion, and personal experience, it also has a lot to do with not having enough time and energy to think about anything other then putting food on the table

On the other hand, let's not pretend that we don't all waste time on Kardashians, Lemmy and other inane activities. I think the bigger problem is that we are overwhelmed with information, much of it inconsequential stuff, and that detracts from our ability to focus on and prioritize important but difficult topics.

[–] Splitdipless@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually, withholding Assent is the circuit breaker. The NWC is a mechanism to ensure that parliament makes the law, not judges. A judge may have a perfectly reason for making their verdict, and it totally makes sense to do so by a good number of the populous, but parliament is in charge and they're allowed to set the rules.

[–] Crankpork@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they have to suspend the rules to make the rules, what does that mean?

[–] Splitdipless@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Technically, what it's the parliament saying "this is the law, no matter what anyone else thinks of it." It's not suspension of law - an equal legal branch forming government is a feature of the United States. Here, like a lot of Westminster Parliamentary style governments, democracy is supreme to any rise of a kritarchy.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Who knew we'd have more than a few semi neo-nazis as premiers tho?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Bill 101 exists to protect the culture of a minority in Canada so what you're saying isn't true.

[–] girlfreddy@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago

@Kecessa @grte

#DrugFraud used it to shrink TO city council (the courts reversed it later) ... so Bill 101 doesn't apply all the time.