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.

  • AngryMulbear@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

    • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      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.