In the battle for the hearts and minds of Alberta’s children, a line has been drawn. Premier Danielle Smith’s government has taken a courageous stand by moving to use the notwithstanding clause to protect three common sense laws shielding children from radical gender ideology. This isn’t about politics; it’s about preserving the fundamental rights of parents and the well-being of vulnerable kids caught in the crossfire of a cultural war they never asked for. At the heart of this debate is a simple question: who decides what’s best for children? The answer, confirmed by centuries of tradition and law, is parents. Schools have no business withholding critical information about a child’s well-being from mothers and fathers. Yet across Canada, activists embedded in education systems are pushing policies that deliberately exclude parents from decisions about "gender identity". This isn’t inclusivity. It’s ideological indoctrination that undermines parental authority. .EDITORIAL: Alberta’s bold stand: Citizenship markers on provincial IDs and the defence of provincial rights .Alberta’s laws are reasonable and proportionate. They require parental consent for students under 16 to change names or pronouns at school, protect female athletics by banning biological males to ensure fair competition, and restrict irreversible medical interventions for minors. These measures align with the Supreme Court of Canada’s recognition that parents are “in the best position to take care of their children and make all the decisions necessary to ensure their well-being.” Yet despite this, groups like EGALE Canada are suing to overturn these protections, claiming they violate Charter rights. .This is where the notwithstanding clause becomes essential. Contrary to the hysteria of activists, Section 33 of the Charter is a legitimate constitutional tool — a “hard-fought and hard-won compromise” that allows jurisdictions like Alberta to legislate on matters of provincial sovereignty. Saskatchewan has already used it to shield its parental consent policy from judicial activism. Alberta must now do the same to prevent federally appointed judges from overriding the will of elected representatives and the families they represent. Critics scream about “rights,” but whose rights are they defending? Children’s? The Canadian government’s own guidance on children’s rights explicitly states that the Convention on the Rights of the Child “does not interfere with parents' right and responsibility to express their views on matters affecting their children.” Yet activists demand that schools hide information from parents based on the dangerous assumption that families are inherently hostile to their children’s well-being. This is not only insulting but factually wrong. As the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms notes, “parental abuse is rare,” and the law should not presume parents are threats to their kids. .EDITORIAL: If Nenshi says the pornographic books are fine in school libraries, bring them to the mic.The evidence supporting parental involvement is overwhelming. Studies show that social transition practices — like using opposite-sex pronouns or names — are not neutral acts but therapeutic interventions that can lock children into a path toward medicalization. Parental guidance and support provide stability and protection during a child’s development. Schools that conceal information from parents are not only violating constitutional rights but also potentially putting children at risk. .Alberta’s move is part of a broader pushback against ideological overreach. In the United States, the Supreme Court recently sided with parents who objected to classroom materials on "gender identity", affirming their right to direct their children’s religious upbringing, with over 1,000 school districts in the US with policies that withhold gender-related information from parents, still. This is a transnational struggle between parents and activists, and Alberta and Saskatchewan are leading the resistance in Canada. Prime Minister Mark Carney may oppose the “pre-emptive use” of the notwithstanding clause, but whose children is he talking about? Not Alberta’s. Parents here have the right to raise their kids without state interference, and the government has the duty to protect that right. The notwithstanding clause is the shield that will ensure these protections remain intact. Alberta must stand firm. The future of our children — and the integrity of the family — depends on it.
