Lise Merle is a parents rights advocate and lives in SaskatchewanSaskatchewan’s government has been accused of trampling child rights by invoking the notwithstanding clause to uphold its Parents Bill of Rights, a law requiring schools to inform parents if a child uses a different name or pronouns.Sarah Niman’s critique in the Canadian Bar Association's National Magazine paints this as an authoritarian “because I said so” move that flouts international law and the Charter.But her argument collapses like a cheap tent under even a modicum of scrutiny—it’s a flimsy mix of moral posturing (a beloved tactic of young ideologues and the far left) and legal overreach that ignores practical realities and parental authority.Niman’s core claim is that Saskatchewan’s law violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically a child’s right to preserve their identity, including names and pronouns. She argues that forcing disclosure to parents breaches this right, positioning Saskatchewan as a rogue actor on the global stage. This is a smidge more than a stretch. The Convention, while affirming identity rights, doesn’t enshrine pronouns as a sacred, untouchable category. Identity historically refers to broader markers like nationality or family ties—not the fluid, self-determined gender expressions Niman and other unhinged gender activists are so quick to imply. Saskatchewan’s law doesn’t erase a child’s identity; it ensures parents stay in the loop about significant changes. If anything, the Convention supports parental involvement—Article 5 emphasizes parents’ rights to guide their children, a detail Niman conveniently sidesteps.Her appeal to international law also falls flat. Canada’s provinces aren’t directly bound by treaties like the UN Convention unless implemented through domestic legislation.Saskatchewan’s Children’s Law Act nods to child rights, sure, but it doesn’t elevate international norms above provincial jurisdiction. Niman’s assertion that the notwithstanding clause can’t override international obligations misreads Canada’s constitutional framework. The clause, under Section 33 of the Charter, explicitly lets legislatures bypass certain rights for five years. How can Sarah, a representative of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (CCRC), not know this? It’s not a loophole — it’s a deliberate feature of Canadian democracy, reflecting the balance between judicial oversight and elected governance. Saskatchewan’s use of it here is lawful, not a violation of some higher moral code.Niman’s Charter argument is equally shaky. She laments that the law might be “cruel and unusual punishment,” but offers no evidence beyond limp-wristed hand-wringing so common for the professional grievance collector classes. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will rule on its constitutionality, yet even if it finds a breach, the notwithstanding clause renders that moot. That’s not “because I said so” — it’s the province exercising its democratic prerogative. Critics like UR Pride Centre argue it harms vulnerable kids, but where’s the data? No studies show parental notification inherently causes harm; it’s just as plausible that uninformed parents could unintentionally exacerbate a child’s struggles. Transparency isn’t punishment — it’s accountability.The fatal flaw in Niman’s piece is its dismissal of parental rights. She frames the law as an attack on children, ignoring that parents, not schools or courts, are responsible for raising them.Saskatchewan’s policy reflects a practical truth: most parents want to support their kids through complex identity questions, not obstruct them.Niman’s vision — where kids and courts override family dynamics—undermines that bond. If a child’s pronoun shift signals deeper distress, shouldn’t parents know?The alternative is a system where educators and activists continue to play gatekeeper, sidelining the very people best positioned to help.Saskatchewan isn’t dodging accountability; it’s asserting its jurisdiction against overblown legalism. Niman’s sanctimonious tone—casting the province as a rights-violating villain—relies on slippery interpretations of law and emotion-driven assumptions. The Parents Bill of Rights isn’t perfect (I'd argue it already requires amendments to further protect parents from vexatious educators,) but it’s a defensible stance in a messy debate. Calling it a “because I said so” power grab isn't only offensive, it's lazy. It’s a policy choice, not a tantrum. Niman’s argument, like all of those from the left, is what’s unraveling here. Saskatchewan's Parental Rights law remains solid. Lise Merle is a parents rights advocate and lives in Saskatchewan.
