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.

    • communication [they]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’m not sure that matters when the question is about whether children are eligible for human rights. Unfortunately, we live in a world where we put many children in danger by telling parents who their child is.

      Higher Priority: Basic rights of the child

      Lower Priority : Parent’s access to the internal lives of another human

      • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        As per the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

        Article 5

        States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

        • communication [they]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith, but I’m not going to engage with that because I don’t want to get lost in a semantic argument.

          Have you ever been bullied before? When you were young, did kids ever call you names? It sucked, right? Even in kindergarten you were smart enough to be hurt by it.

          Now, imagine the teacher started calling you mean names as well.

          And your parents.

          And everyone you love.

          And now imagine that you tried to carve out a small part of your life where you weren’t being called something horrible.

          Wouldn’t you have deserved that? Weren’t you smart enough to know you didn’t deserve to be called names?

    • snoons@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      They certainly can, though the proper term is bias. In that respect, something I find particularly egregious is ARI’s use of loaded terminology in it’s articles describing the ‘issues’ it’s ostensibly doing surveys on (“Culture wars”, “Canadians not convinced”, etc.). These are the first thing users see when they navigate to the website which almost certainly influences their opinions before they even start the survey. Even if the survey is emailed to them, some of them will likely navigate to their site anyway to brush up on facts.

      Another potential issue (though this is present in all psychology/sociology research; majority of psych papers are done on university students), is that their sample population is only people that have taken the time to register in their forum. Even though they’re ostensibly paid for it, there aren’t many people that will do that, or even think of it and given how some of their articles are titled I can get a fairly clear picture of the kind of person that would want to make an account on that website.

      Lastly, I’m not a psych major, but when a paper’s methodology section basically amounts to “We surveyed random users on our website at this date” and nothing else of substance, I tend to not take it seriously.

      Not surprised a newspaper picked it up though. A really good clicky headline, and they didn’t even have to think it up.

      Also:

      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/angus-reid-institute/

      Labelled mid-right because of the terminology they use.

      •́ε•̀٥ *Waiting for the psych major to correct me on something.

      • Someone@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It’s also a question that doesn’t ask about the law, but it sounds close enough that it makes sense in the same sentence. Would I want to know if my kid decided to change their pronouns or name? Absolutely. Do I think their teacher should be legally required to tell me about it, let alone ask me for permission first? Absolutely not. I would hope my kid would want to tell me themself, and if not that’s my issue to deal with and not the government’s.

        As you said, it’s absolutely a loaded question, and with that wording I’m honestly surprised it’s not higher than 78%. What kind of parent wouldn’t want to know what’s going on in their child’s life?

        Edit: I am ashamed to admit I based my facts off the previous comment, and after reading through the link the questions seemed like they may have been slightly more clear. That being said, I support knowing, I do not support this law or any other requirement for the teacher to inform me or ask my permission.