English Articles

Judicial overreach and charter rights

TORONTO – Scott Moe, Premier of Saskatchewan seems to have had enough of woke/progressive ideologies that aim to curtail the inherent rights and obligations of those who form the building blocks of our society: mothers and fathers. Every elaboration of our social units, singularly or collectively, is premised on their partnership, be they successful or less so.

Parenting, by its nature, is a noble, gratifying and onerous life experience. It involves a complex and complicated set of relationships that are in a constant state of evolution, for reasons beyond the control and understanding of all involved. The family unit (nuclear, extended etc.) provides some support.

Passing fads du jour, based on some debatable interpretation of “charter rights” advanced by some select elements of lobby groups who represent a minute fraction of the Canadian demographic. The latest Statistics Canada estimate that group as representing one third of one percent (0.003 %) of the Canadian population above the age of fifteen. This demographic provides no evidence of documented support to those family units.

Yet, schools have become the “battleground” for this dialectic symbolic of the culture wars afflicting contemporary society. The Courts, which previously enjoyed the reputation of being the final arbiter of any transgression of the intent and letter of Constitutional and/or Charter-based Laws, have taken on an “activist role” that skews the balance.

Premier Moe refers to development as judicial overreach. A more brusque, less polite, description might involve any phrase suggesting that judges have no business in this and that, to put it mildly, they are doing more harm than good. To prevent that from happening, the Premier is invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to set aside the Court’s decision.

His Ministry of Education had passed Regulations making it mandatory for schools to consult with, and gain the approval of, parents whose under-aged children might agree to a change of pronoun addressing their “self-professed gender”. Clearly, such gender might not accord with their biological sex. Further, without that approval, the child might “ask for and be subject to gender-affirming” devices and strategies (including puberty blockers and surgery) to realize that change.

Teachers and school administrators who express the presumption that their rights over children supersede those of their parents have a unique interpretation of the term in loco parentis. And no, they do not know better than parents what is “best for the child”. Parents are constant in a child’s life, an on-going reference (a context) point for recognizing life’s changes and adapting to them.

Teachers come and go. As do the lobby groups who convince judges to even consider issues of such lasting gravity. Were they to suggest abolishing the mandatory age requirement for a driver’s license (16), to sign a legally enforceable contract, consume alcohol in public places, or to vote (18) they might justifiably be laughed out of Court.

Parents, on the other hand, are assumed to have the best interest of the child. Precedent and the Law are definitive on this. Premier Scot Moe is on the right track.

More Articles by the Same Author: