this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
56 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
29 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
 

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
[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just so you know, judges are specifically not to look to the will of the people but to the law.

Legislators are the ones who are supposed to consider the will of the people.

If the will of the people really is to have a law like this, then the Sask Party is doing it's job in bringing forward the legislation. That, of course, assumes that our provincial government has appropriate jurisdiction over everything the law covers.

And that gets us to the injunction. An injunction is not about "no you can't do that" but about "hang on there, it doesn't look like you've covered all the bases".

[–] AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is the law..... Passed by politicians elected by the people.

This is simply the judges dumb interpretation that has no basis in reality.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not yet the law, because it hasn't even been introduced, because the legislature isn't even sitting.

The premier is directing that policy be changed in anticipation of forthcoming legislation, when that legislation hasn't even been put forward.

The premier is taking on the role of absolute dictator by directing people to act without first getting legislation in place. The judge is doing no more than upholding the rights of the citizens to be not bossed around without supporting legislation.

Really, it's not all that complicated. No regulation without legislation.

[–] Crankpork 4 points 1 year ago

If the judge is basing rulings on opinion rather than the word of the law the government could challenge it and have the ruling overruled.

Suspending the charter immediately before even filing for a reversal is only done when they have no standing to contest the ruling.

They wouldn’t have to remove the law if they weren’t breaking it.