MacEwan University child and youth care professor Kristopher Wells said Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is wrong for wanting to use the notwithstanding clause for his pronouns policy. .“We have a Charter to protect minority rights from government overreach and abuse,” tweeted Wells on Thursday. .“Only a dictator would try and exempt a government from having to follow the law and respect the human rights of the most vulnerable.”.Moe recalled the Saskatchewan Legislature early on Thursday to push through legislation to protect parental rights when it comes to their children’s gender identity..READ MORE: Moe recalls legislature to use ‘notwithstanding clause’ over pronouns policy.“Our government is extremely dismayed by the judicial overreach of the court blocking implementation of the parental inclusion and consent policy, which has the strong support of a majority of Saskatchewan residents, in particular, Saskatchewan parents,” said Moe. .The Saskatchewan government is prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to protect parental rights. .Wells said it is “a dark day for democracy when a government leader believes they are above the law.”.“Every minority in Canada should be alarmed by this blatant disregard for human rights,” he said. .“Who will they target next?”.Jordan Honickman Barristers partner Asher Honickman said the law is legislatures can specify laws remain valid and legal notwithstanding the court’s interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. .“The Constitution is not a buffet from which we may select only those provisions to our liking,” said Honickman. .Canadian Constitution Foundation counsel Josh Dehaas admitted the notwithstanding clause “should be used cautiously, but there is nothing inherently illegal or dictatorial about invoking Section 33.”.“Section 33 exists in recognition of parliamentary supremacy and as a necessary corrective when courts get it wrong,” said Dehaas.
MacEwan University child and youth care professor Kristopher Wells said Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is wrong for wanting to use the notwithstanding clause for his pronouns policy. .“We have a Charter to protect minority rights from government overreach and abuse,” tweeted Wells on Thursday. .“Only a dictator would try and exempt a government from having to follow the law and respect the human rights of the most vulnerable.”.Moe recalled the Saskatchewan Legislature early on Thursday to push through legislation to protect parental rights when it comes to their children’s gender identity..READ MORE: Moe recalls legislature to use ‘notwithstanding clause’ over pronouns policy.“Our government is extremely dismayed by the judicial overreach of the court blocking implementation of the parental inclusion and consent policy, which has the strong support of a majority of Saskatchewan residents, in particular, Saskatchewan parents,” said Moe. .The Saskatchewan government is prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to protect parental rights. .Wells said it is “a dark day for democracy when a government leader believes they are above the law.”.“Every minority in Canada should be alarmed by this blatant disregard for human rights,” he said. .“Who will they target next?”.Jordan Honickman Barristers partner Asher Honickman said the law is legislatures can specify laws remain valid and legal notwithstanding the court’s interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. .“The Constitution is not a buffet from which we may select only those provisions to our liking,” said Honickman. .Canadian Constitution Foundation counsel Josh Dehaas admitted the notwithstanding clause “should be used cautiously, but there is nothing inherently illegal or dictatorial about invoking Section 33.”.“Section 33 exists in recognition of parliamentary supremacy and as a necessary corrective when courts get it wrong,” said Dehaas.
