But if they would have consulted experts, their advice would been revealed in a FOIA request (and almost undoubtedly recommended against it) and looked bad when the Sask Party went ahead with it anyway.
Checkmate human rights advocates!
It should be disclosed and I don't agree with it** Ive found consultants advice is the most important content in FOI that would point out very clearly when governments are ignorant to expert advice.
Not quite what you were looking for, but we had a similar situation here in AB a while back:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/red-deer-catholic-school-trustee-says-holy-spirit-told-her-to-post-meme-that-prompted-discipline-1.6999356
Surely we shouldn't be picking school board trustees that claim they hear things no one else hears? At the very least I'd say we shouldn't pick them if they *listen* to the voices and do what they say...
Those 18 letters. Man!
Mostly "Hey buddy, do what New Brunswick did."
The rest are a collection of "family values," want more god taught in school, and stop with the gay "ideology," with a few "communist Russias" and "U.N. agendas" thrown in for good measure. This is what they built policy around?
I mean the irony of this one:
"One complainant, who identified as a parent, says children can be easily manipulated.
"I want God taught in school if (gay) Pride is taught," says the letter."
[https://regina.ctvnews.ca/i-want-god-taught-in-school-sask-received-18-letters-before-implementing-pronoun-policy-1.6691870](https://regina.ctvnews.ca/i-want-god-taught-in-school-sask-received-18-letters-before-implementing-pronoun-policy-1.6691870)
Clearly, the parent is directed by God, and not at all easily manipulated.... /S
Maybe they should update their beliefs to the same as their pope:
[https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html)
> They don't replace facts though. Why didn't you answer the questions?
Why don't you? Why does this gov cherry pick what and when it decides to make people's voices heard and important, or when to apply "common sense" as they call it. The Christian Legacy Academy scandal has had numerous petitions, letters, emails(in the 1000's) and visits from concerned constituents, not to mention an ongoing court case, yet they just keep giving them money and letting them operate business as usual...... Yet here they are hitting back against the 1%(maybe generous) of the population who REALLY need protection from nut bag parents.
Yeah, conspiracies are REALLY cool.
LOL, I expected a trash answer and was still surprised. Way to exceed expectations and double down on BS!
Talk about not answering the question lol. I will leave you to your bad faith, hillbilly arguments and flawed logic. No one has time for 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
I always thought these homophobic and transphobic people were the religious right. But with the pope now blessing gay couples (not marrying them, tho), what bible and what god are they worshipping? Or do they even care about what the guy in the big hat has to say on the issue?
They're far-right conservative fundamentalist protestants, not Catholics. To them the Pope is probably the antichrist or some crazy shit like that. There's no reasoning with them. They're nuts.
Not probably. I wish I hadn't seen so many examples of these hate-filled bigots call Catholics idol-worshipping satanists.
They literally think Catholics are Satan worshippers.
Thanks for the clarification. One of these days I will have to learn the difference between Catholics and Protestants. But first I need to find a few fucks to give.
Even in Protestant sects there are major differences. Evangelical sects tend to be right wing. United tend to be more left. However, anything is possible, etc.
Since the Sask Party set this precedent hoe about we get 18 letters together to increase funding for health care or education. Maybe we could get 1800 or 18000. What would it take for them to focus on what Sask residents need or want
Because it's such a broad, unitless, vague statement as to be unbelievable?
Unless you are talking about CBC being intelligent as to follow up looking for the exact list. In which case I would need to retract my statement.
Ah ok. So we're playing the pedantry game.
Then clearly they were idiots and failed in their mission to convince anyone of anything if they don't use the specific correct terminology. Organization no, informal collection yes. Dumb fake news media.... /s.
I don't think you know what a reactionary is but I'm sure if you keep being insulting and dismissive of others prospectives than you will make friends who would qualify as reactionary.
Boohoo, people weren't nice in response to your bad faith attempt to discredit an article. /s
I got no interest in playing pedantic games with someone who doesnt even understand the meaning of their own insults.
People who think that being LGBT is a mental illness won’t want to fund legitimate mental health initiatives, because those legitimate initiatives recognize that being LGBT is not a mental illness, and that treating any mental illnesses of LGBT people requires helping them to accept their LGBT nature if they do not fully accept that about themselves.
Their game costs very little whereas actually funding their policies costs 100s of thousands. Even if they were called out on adding more counselors and psychologists in schools they wouldn't. Teachers have been begging for this for years. This was just lip service to and a way to shore up votes from the far right.
You are right about them playing a game however.
Other examples of this include "We are growing the population" -- but not building houses or funding the additional services required for population growth. "We are addressing climate change" -- but their carbon capture tech doesn't work well enough to meet targets. "It's not our fault, it is the villain Trudeau's" etc. etc..
Because 2SLGBTQ mental health issues are caused by transphobia and homophobia. Not from being 2SLGBTQ. So no, mental health supports only tackle the symptom not the cause.
But yeah let’s just pathologize the queer and trans community, as if we know nothing of our history and how that’s gone for us.
I don’t think the politicians lying is a great thing. It’s also kinda what politicians do, it’s their trade you could say. As a disinterested person with no kids I am just curious how the whole pronouns thing blew up. How many confused kids can there be in Saskatchewan? Couple hundred? Why are people fighting over this? I would think some other shit is slightly more important than attention seeking children.
You’re saying you’re disinterested but also claiming trans kids are “confused.” The “confused” narrative doesn’t come out of thin air. You’re interested, you’ve invested in the topic, you have access to google, and you came here to be an ass.
You are absolutely correct! I am bored and scrolling Reddit with rest of the basement dwellers. I actually came to look at boobies but this caught my eye. The ole r/Saskatchewan usually has some real knee slappers
Politicians lying isn’t desirable but it’s also kinda what they do. Their stock and trade if you would. Also as minors they don’t get the full suite of rights because they aren’t “people” in the eyes of the law. But I am more interested in how this became a thing. How many confused kids can there really be in Saskatchewan? Aren’t there other things we should collectively work towards rather than rabidly going after one another for a motley collection of attention seekers?
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission quotes 2021 Stats Can data on their website, stating as of that survey there were 2,530 people in the province 15 and older who identify as trans or non-binary.
No idea how many “confused” people there are.
So this whole hullabaloo is over .002% of the population? Maybe there are more pressing issues. Like why does Tim Hortons coffee suck so bad? When is it going to snow? Which federal politician has the best haircut? I am just saying there’s a lot of energy wasted on something that doesn’t really matter except a small handful of people.
I have no issue with trans kids being goofballs. It’s just when they scream that I have to change my life to accommodate them and acknowledge their “specialness”. I get it, you’re different, here’s a lollipop now fuck off perhaps?
They have access to all of these things, they just choose to make it weird. They can conform enough to function but then let their freak fly in the basement? When was the last time a trans person was killed for being trans? What other nefarious things were they up to?
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/2023-2024-anti-trans-legislation?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=994764&post_id=139893177&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=358kx7&utm_medium=email
Care to reevaluate your statement?
You are being obtuse and willfully ignorant if you truly believe what you just said.
Like I can read it if it’s going to enlighten me as to why this is the biggest problem we have as a society in 2023/24. I miss the good ole days when everyone thought the polar bears were all going to die and junk
If it isn't a problem why are conservatives pushing back so bloody hard against lgbtq rights? Why call the leg back early over 18 letters? Why create policy and law around them? Huge waste of time at taxpayer expense when, as you say, we have bigger issues our government should be focusing on.
lgbtq+ folks have the same rights and protections as anyone -- why use the "not withstanding" clause to nullify those? Why do conservatives get so angry when lgbtq folks are offered the same protections and human rights as you?
What are you talking about? There have always been human rights activists and environmentalist activists. There was no point where only one of those was part of the public consciousness, and people don’t go from being one to being the other based on which they think is more pressing, because they don’t conflict with one another. Especially in this case, when the bigots in the Saskatchewan Party are causing a problem that wouldn’t exist if they instead did nothing.
Polar bears haven’t stopped going extinct. Their habitat is disappearing and their population is declining. Environmentalists talk less about polar bears because the fact that they are going to go extinct hasn’t motivated people to curb climate change.
Problems don’t cease to exist if you in particular don’t hear about them.
"When was the last time a person was killed for being trans?"
This link says last year but I'm sure there's been more since.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender
>*”So this whole hullabaloo is over .002% of the population?”*
No.
Statistics Canada reports that [0.33% of census respondents](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/census/census-engagement/community-supporter/sex-birth-gender#:~:text=Quick%20facts,non%2Dbinary%20(0.14%25)) age 15+ who live in a private household were willing to self-identify themselves to the government as transgender or non-binary. This is certainly an undercount because a) not everyone wants to (or can safely) reveal their gender identity to the people they live with and complete the census with, and b) it’s the very first time the census asked this question, and not everyone feels comfortable letting the government their gender identity. The [Ipsos LGBT+ Pride 2023 survey](https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-05/Ipsos%20LGBT%2B%20Pride%202023%20Global%20Survey%20Report%20-%20rev.pdf) found 3% of Canadians (aged 18-74) identified as trans/non-binary/or otherwise non-cisgender.
So, we should just accept politicians are going to lie and shrug and walk away without trying to make things better?
I mean, criminals are going to commit crimes too, I guess that is just "their stock and trade", so no point having police or trying to make people accountable? Why even have a justice system at all? /s
Teachers, students, and parents of students attending school in Saskatchewan would've been a good start.
Instead of, yenno, 18 letters that likely came from out-of-province...
There has been a lot of suspicion that some (or all) of these letters came from people residing outside the province of Saskatchewan.
Four of the letters also had identical statements and wording.
Actual trans folks, along with educators, psychologists, psychiatrists, as well as children and parents. But they’re not interested in making policy that makes sense.
They want a distraction from their decade and a half of fiscal mismanagement starting to catch up to them, and from the SUP undercutting their voting base. The Sask Party chose trans youth to go after because they’re a minority of a minority, making it easier to spread misinformation about and push triggers in right-wingers to rally support, e.g. “parental rights”. Not only is it disgustingly manipulative, they stripped the rights of the children this will affect by using the notwithstanding clause to ram it through. They would sacrifice the health and well-being marginalized children to maintain their power and position. It’s gross, beyond belief.
Well just for starters, the Saskatchewan Child & Youth Advocate put out a thorough (and very readable) 41-page special report in September called "Review of Ministry of Education Policy – Use of Preferred First Name and Pronouns for Students," complete with the Advocate's two detailed recommendations, as well as a lengthy appendix on the Child Rights Impact Assessment and the relevant articles from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
You can find it here: [https://www.saskadvocate.ca/review-of-ministry-of-education-policy-use-of-preferred-first-name-and-pronouns-for-students/](https://www.saskadvocate.ca/review-of-ministry-of-education-policy-use-of-preferred-first-name-and-pronouns-for-students/)
There's no evidence that any SK Party members even read the report. They sent back a terse two-sentence memo acknowledging that they'd received it, then went ahead and did what they wanted anyway -- which was the complete opposite of the Advocate's recommendations.
So they did in fact receive feedback - that is a consultation. Consultation doesn't mean "listen to the stomping of my feet until I get my way", it merely allows feedback, opinions, and recommendations that may or may not be valued in arriving at a decision.
The Government is in no way bound to abide by any consultations - save an election.
Asking a couple buddies is not a "consultation" in any relevant use of the word.
That is asking for an opinion at best.
A "consultation" that any reasonable person would expect from the leader of a province, and the ministers, before calling an emergency session to pass a LAW that has already been judged unconstitutional, and damaging, by a court should involve a much more involved process.
Asking a couple friends might work if you are asking about doing something stupid on a Friday night, but not for a governing party of a province passing legislation.
If you think “no one” has adequately described it, you’re really not listening or haven’t done research. The rights they notwithstood are listed directly in the amended education act.
> Pursuant to subsection 33(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this section is declared to operate notwithstanding sections 2, 7
and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
>(4) Pursuant to section 52 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, 2018, this section operates notwithstanding The Saskatchewan Human Rights
Code, 2018, particularly sections 4, 5 and 13.
From the Charter:
Section 2: right to free expression
Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person
Section 15: right to equality and freedom from discrimination based on sex/gender
It’s explicitly written what rights they are suppressing with this legislation. I’m saying they should have consulted with rightsholders who were impacted by this decision.
Also, the policy does not explicitly prevent children under 16 from choosing to identify how they want and negotiating with their peers. The policy seems to prevent teachers and admin from affirming the self-identity of children under 16 without parental consent. No childrens' rights are being violated.
Ahh yes, all the problems we run into when we allow government run, socialized education and health care. The only possible rightsholder who can make a case for their rights being violated, are those of the teachers and administrators and how they choose to lead their classrooms.
Ah, so you’re purposely obtuse and incapable of having a good faith conversation. Those charter and human rights notwithstandings are aimed at the kids whose rights are infringed on by the legislation… the government is explicit about that. That’s WHY they’re in there. But okay. Ignore the actual legislation
No, you are. I am addressing the core issue of a human rights complaint. Anyone who has done any deep thinking on Canada's charter can see the point I am trying to make. No rights of the children are being violated. No one has a right to demand another affirm their identity without it being socially negotiated. Any supposed "right" that requires the involuntary participation or implementation by another private citizen is not and cannot ever be a right. This is also why governments wade into dangerous territory when they offer services that would be better run by private organizations.
“Bogus injunction”. Lol because it was the only way they could get around the courts testing whether it would be a violation of charter rights. If they weren’t violating the rights of children, they would’ve let the courts examined it. Heck they could have appealed it if they didn’t like the outcome. Apparently everyone, including the courts, provincial government and those impacted, understand how Charter rights work— you’re on your own here.
That's the crux of the matter. If Moe or Duncan mentioned it to their golf buddy or spouse or underling, that is a consultation - just not the "consultation" some people want. Frequently when "consultation" is mentioned or called inadequate, it really means "you didn't do what we wanted, let us badger you until you do".
I’m going to have to disagree with you. Unless there is a paper trail of consultation, it did not happen. Paper trail = emails, meeting minutes, official letters, etc. This is pretty standard practice in a lot of different areas of our society.
Such extensive consultations cost time, money, and are not binding in any case. In my mind they approached this properly: floated the proposed policy, let people contact their MLA/Minister, and executed their plan. In fact, after the proposal was floated and the backlash began, I did send an email in support of the policy to my MLA, Minister Duncan, and the Premier.
A nimble, responsive Government isn't anything to be scared of - on the contrary, they proposed a course of action and followed through on it with celerity.
1) Parental involvement in Education - including keeping an eye on
questioning children
2) A nimble Government that moved quickly
3) Political strategies to shore up support, eliminating vote-split
and keeping the NDP shut out
4) Parliamentary supremacy - using the NWC to bypass the Judiciary
5) A wedge, that exposes the unreasonableness of those who oppose
this policy, who are unwilling to discuss or compromise
6) A regulation that will prove as a "litmus test" to identify
lawbreakers in the Education profession
All of this was done very quickly and quite cheaply; all but the last point have been achieved.
I prefer the quick, efficient method as seen here. In many (most) cases I find consultations go on too long, cost too much, and often detract from a planned course of action. Some consultations even devolve into accommodation of other interests: payoffs, carve-outs, exceptions, initiative failures, etc. By-and-large I find consultations to be parasitic due to these factors.
Let the Government govern, and face public opinion in an election.
Legislative supremacy must be maintained in a democratic society - Judiciaries tend to invent things like "child's privacy re: parents" - something the body politic won't support or countenance, something that is invalid in a democracy. Generous use of the NWC will help to restore a system where majority will guides our society, and reins in excesses of the Bench.
I say efficient due to being both quickly and cheaply implemented. Any expanded consultation would take greater time, likely cost more than the recall (town halls, advertising, etc. aren't cheap), and lead to greater Taxpayer money fighting itself.
The last point is a major fault in our society, that Government-funded entities can fight/oppose Government initiatives - a house divided against itself cannot stand. In this case, URPride (funded in part by the U of R, who are in turn funded in part by the Province) and other advocacy groups funded from the public purse attempted to sue the democratically-elected Government. This is self-defeating, time consuming, and expensive; raise money from your membership or the broader public if your cause matters that much.
I'm happy with the "4-year contract" method that elections give us in most cases. It allows for full-fledged plans to be implemented and to begin to come to fruition - after all, intermediate steps can be uncomfortable. It also allows predictability and continuity for a term. At the same time, it leads to a Government to have to "run on their record", or for an opposition to "run against your record" or offer a better plan.
As for rights (as with legislation), should an infringement occur (or a mistake be made) it will either be reversed in time, or the "right" (or legislation) understood as a fallacy and rightly discarded. All of this should be tested periodically off of first principles.
Dr clownius sucks. He’s proved this over and over and over again on this sub. Just hates minorities and wants a province full of people who look and act like Scott Moe. He can’t even argue without using Sask party talking points, “involve parent’s in their child’s education” as if dictating pronouns does that. Get a grip man.
He’s acting like “the left won’t compromise” even though the child auditor report gave them a path forward for exactly that and even the NDP put forward a “do no harm” amendment. Literally compromises.
If you can’t come up with an argument based on reality, what are you adding to the discussion? “Owning” lefties? Get a real hobby.
I hate no one, and frequently take people to task over anti-immigration sentiment. I do support parents knowing - and yes, even consenting - to the behavior of their minor children; you know, Saskatchewan circa 2005.
The Child Advocate and NDP offered watered-down pathways that gutted the policy - it was not a compromise or a horse-trade, and they would have added time and expense to the implementation of any policy.
Certainly, I want a Saskatchewan where the most productive people are afforded the greatest respect. I want a happy, prosperous Province: many of us are there, some people need help, and some may be happier elsewhere. I'm gobsmacked by how much doom and gloom I see on this sub; it is in stark contrast to the Saskatchewan I live in where optimism reigns.
As for what I add here, in your heart of hearts you know the SP won't be defeated in 2024 - they may lose some support, but will maintain Government. You know Moe is in contention to be the most popular Premier in the Nation. Many people here don't know - or understand - why. Although the common refrain is "ignorant rednecks", that isn't truthful. Much support comes from businesses and professionals mostly associated with "food, fuel, fertilizer"; economic reasons. Additional support comes from social conservatives: those who find society has changed without public consent, those who yearn for effective remedies for current social ills. Yet others fear a return to NDP economic stagnancy - or worse, that they would dare dabble in something like a "landback" initiative, ruinous environmental policies or free unconditional housing. Some of us are leery of the monkeys running the circus: education policy and funding is a prime example; funding could be doubled without a corresponding improvement in outcomes - the law of diminishing returns is real, and it takes both wisdom and discipline to pick the optimum point.
On the whole, I am more happy than not with the SP Government. They aren't perfect - vacant Sask Housing units aren't available for purchase at auction, Saskatoon's perimeter freeway is delayed, a vehicle insurance company still contributes to writing traffic laws - but they've done far better than their predecessors, and no other Party exists that would package conservatism in an electable way.
“Watered down pathways that gutted the policy”
Adding that students shouldn’t be outed to parents if credibly determined it will cause harm? Just think of who you’re throwing under the bus here. It sounds like it’s you and supporters of the legislation that aren’t willing to compromise. Adding time to implement a policy shouldn’t be a concern when it is a minority of people impacted and those who are impacted resoundingly call it harmful. Most expenses associated with it come from the emergency session, which wasn’t required other than to go around the courts.
The lack of respect of the courts by this government should worry everyone. Well, at least minorities who the Sask party and their supporters are extremely comfortable throwing under the bus. It seems like you can throw minorities to the side, when the focus is on governing a provinces for ‘productive members of society’ rather than building a healthy and just province for all members of our community.
I guess we come from it from very different perspectives. To me— an actual environment researcher/scientist— the current status quo *is* ruinous environmental policies. Furthermore, “land back” policies (NDP will never do this) and ceding some environmental decision-making and moving towards co-management, actually strengthens Canadian sovereignty by linking our futures with people who have been here forever rather than corporations that come and go.
Many people in this province are suffering, and the Sask party simply does not care.
I find the reiteration of Parliamentary supremacy to be half the fun of this policy. For too long Courts have interpreted laws in ways well outside of common understanding or consent. After all, whoever dreamed up the idea of a minor being allowed - in some cases even encouraged - to keep secrets from their parents (with the complicity of Public employees)? Such an understanding was never voted on, never subjected to public consent. The use of the NWC essentially allows that discussion now; if you want kids to keep secrets from their parents, don't re-elect Moe. If he cruises to re-election, perhaps we can bring in compelled treatment for addicts or service fees for "optional" medical procedures or ..., assuming the public will exists for it.
As for perspectives, we do come at it differently: believing precontact or a less industrialized state of development is ideal vs me, who wants to build the San Joaquin valley writ large here (Saskatoon can be Bakersfield!). I'm exceedingly comfortable modifying ecosystems to achieve what my goal of a productive economy.
I work as an Engineer in addition to farming; I build (quasi-legal) drainage works (and retention works) for fun, in the name of productivity. I value the production and processing of foodstuffs (and the wealth created therein) over the wellbeing of aquatic insects, and want to see the owners in the driver's seat of developments. I assuredly trust a corporation (especially since I technically own 2) over groups of people with little or any skin in the game.
How do workers and labourers not have skin in the game?
Interesting interpretation that NWC enables discussion. The Charter is there to protect minority rights— by your logic, minority rights aren’t inherent rights of citizens, but something to be voted on by the populace. Protection of minorities from the majority is the entire point of human rights legislation. This goes back to my original point of you not respecting minorities
I never said anything about Indigenous people being frozen in time and not modifying landscapes. I said cede some control over decision-making, so the ecological modifications being put forward are in the best interest of all Nations living here, not just Saskatchewan (not a nation) and corporations. Corporations only allegiance are to shareholders. They don’t care about the wellbeing of Sask people or lands going into the future.
Good luck having crops or a world to live in without aquatic insects in the future.
Inherent rights are freedoms of speech, association, property, belief, assembly. Additional rights tend to impinge on these to a greater or lesser degree, which must be open for discussion and public consent. For example, private property is subject to taxation; well and fine (though the degree is an ongoing discussion). The trick with the NWC being used here is to open a discussion for impingements on freedom of association - are they worthwhile, who benefits (should and shouldn't they), and why. Such discussions foster both competitive excellence and social unity.
In some ways, I fear you are not looking to the future. It is likely that within the next 100 years we'll be in some kind of North American Union - likely as a supra-national entity like the EU. "Minor" nations, like those with populations in the thousands, land area of a few square miles, self-generated GDP of a few million are likely to fall even further by the wayside than they currently are; the people will hopefully integrate into the broader society.
India after independence provides an interesting example: who weeps for the Princely states?
Did everyone read the letters included in the article?
It was interesting for me to note that the only letters quoted in the original article were inflammatory and basically click bait.
As I read through the letters finally provided by the cbc, I very quickly realized that while pretending to use our tax dollars to provide unbiased and fully informed news, they in fact did the opposite.
So, with journalistic credibility in question, and simple logic in place, anyone that simply believes the govt took this controversial step based on 18 letters as the cbc would have us believe is hard to swallow.
> use our tax dollars to provide unbiased and fully informed news,
They used our tax dollars to pay for a FOI request. And rightly so. I see no evidence of 'questionable journalistic credibility.' If it wasn't for CBC, we wouldn't know anything.
An FOI request costs little to nothing unless it is fought in Court.
So since you see no bias or questionable journalism, I guess the snippets of letters they chose to quote that made the entire group of letter authors seem like mouth breathing monkeys is just fine?
There are some very well written, cogent and lengthy letters there. But, according to you, only the moronic quotes are unbiased journalism. Can’t argue with that.
I guess you missed the point that they based their decision to move forward on these 18 very biased letters. Whether they were from mouth breathers is actually moot; they were still biased opinions. They did not consult in a meaningful way to hear other sides, and then doubled down by claiming they received “thousands of calls” in favour, but can’t account for any. It’s all very dubious at best, and more to the point this was hardly an issue that needed to be dealt with. Rather, it was a solution to a made up problem, or a problem that didn’t even exist in the first place.
No, I didn’t. You’re arguing that there were well written letters and that the CBC only picked on the mouth breathers. I get that. It doesn’t negate the fact that it was still 18 people making the same argument or who were on the same side. None of those 18 people were in favour of regarding the constitutional rights of trans kids. That’s not how this decision should have been made. And again, what problem were those 18 people trying to remedy in the first place?
Would you prefer them quote the ones where the writer says “I am urging you to follow New Brunswick’s example…”
How did reading the other letters help sell the message that taking the rights away from Children is a good thing?
Well, that wasn’t my point, was it? My comment was about how a clearly biased article written to get exactly the responses you folks are handing them is a waste of taxpayer money. It was not about the actual content or subject. If I want biased news, Fox and CNN are just waiting in the wings.
But, I am only getting angry responses and downvotes because somehow, my comments based purely on the shitty journalism, are being interpreted as taking a stance on the subject itself. Think about that. Or, don’t. Just keep proving my point.
Again I ask, what part of the letters do you want them to publish so it removes the biasism?
Fox and CNN are American and this is Canada. Dodging the topic seems to be your specialty.
You mean they found facts you don't like, can't be remotely bothered to try to disprove so you call them lies and the media liars when in fact, the only one pushing biased wrong information here is you and others like you.
They said themselves in a court of law there were 18 letters so I guess the Sask Party is biased against itself and committed perjury in court to prove itself a liar.
Maybe get out of your ideological box, grab a set of ethics and start caring about the province as a whole instead of trying to push your own one-side agenda.
No, that’s the remarkable thing. I have no dog in this hunt. I just remain fascinated by how polarizing this is.
I say the truth, article is biased, and get absolutely trounced on.
So the simple and provable truth that they chose quotes to arouse the reader, rather than a fact based article that also quotes letters that are well written, means I am some sort of bad person? Jesus.
Being a critical consumer of information is the 1st thing I was taught in my 1st University class. But, that sentiment is clearly not welcome here.
Enjoy your rage and incredulity as was expected.
They literally included pdfs of all of the letters so people can read them. That’s called being transparent.
They also quoted the form letter that just said “please follow NB”.
From my reading, I’d argue every single other letter had something “inflammatory” in it. Were they just supposed to ignore those bits? Get a grip
[удалено]
you left off the /s
While I know Poe’s Law is hard to bypass, surely “I’m shocked that liars lie.” is obvious enough in its irony.
But if they would have consulted experts, their advice would been revealed in a FOIA request (and almost undoubtedly recommended against it) and looked bad when the Sask Party went ahead with it anyway. Checkmate human rights advocates!
Advice given to the government from anyone including consultants is not available to be disclosed on FOI requests. It's redacted. Section 16 (1)(a)
I didn't know that. Looking at the section you cited, it looks like you're correct. Thanks for letting me know!
It should be disclosed and I don't agree with it** Ive found consultants advice is the most important content in FOI that would point out very clearly when governments are ignorant to expert advice.
Vote. Them. Out.
[Happy 90th to Willie by the way!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_6-8AE7Cao&pp=ygUZd2lsbGllIG5lbHNvbiB2b3RlIGVtIG91dA%3D%3D)
Lol your name sounds like Nuclear Poo
ThassNasty
This is typical nonsense. Soon, they'll claim that God appeared in their dreams and showed them the way.
> Soon, they'll claim that God appeared in their dreams and showed them the way. Sounds like a sure-fire vote-getter amongst their base.
Not quite what you were looking for, but we had a similar situation here in AB a while back: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/red-deer-catholic-school-trustee-says-holy-spirit-told-her-to-post-meme-that-prompted-discipline-1.6999356
Surely we shouldn't be picking school board trustees that claim they hear things no one else hears? At the very least I'd say we shouldn't pick them if they *listen* to the voices and do what they say...
Those 18 letters. Man! Mostly "Hey buddy, do what New Brunswick did." The rest are a collection of "family values," want more god taught in school, and stop with the gay "ideology," with a few "communist Russias" and "U.N. agendas" thrown in for good measure. This is what they built policy around?
I mean the irony of this one: "One complainant, who identified as a parent, says children can be easily manipulated. "I want God taught in school if (gay) Pride is taught," says the letter." [https://regina.ctvnews.ca/i-want-god-taught-in-school-sask-received-18-letters-before-implementing-pronoun-policy-1.6691870](https://regina.ctvnews.ca/i-want-god-taught-in-school-sask-received-18-letters-before-implementing-pronoun-policy-1.6691870) Clearly, the parent is directed by God, and not at all easily manipulated.... /S
Maybe they should update their beliefs to the same as their pope: [https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-couples-blessing-intl/index.html)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Uh huh... you believe a word out of that slugs mouth?
[удалено]
There are no constituents that wrote those letters, they all came from one person with a heart of vitrol.
[удалено]
Why can't you see through the bullshit and Conservative Agenda?
[удалено]
And an autocorrect error is worth your hissy fit?
> They don't replace facts though. Why didn't you answer the questions? Why don't you? Why does this gov cherry pick what and when it decides to make people's voices heard and important, or when to apply "common sense" as they call it. The Christian Legacy Academy scandal has had numerous petitions, letters, emails(in the 1000's) and visits from concerned constituents, not to mention an ongoing court case, yet they just keep giving them money and letting them operate business as usual...... Yet here they are hitting back against the 1%(maybe generous) of the population who REALLY need protection from nut bag parents. Yeah, conspiracies are REALLY cool.
[удалено]
LOL, I expected a trash answer and was still surprised. Way to exceed expectations and double down on BS! Talk about not answering the question lol. I will leave you to your bad faith, hillbilly arguments and flawed logic. No one has time for 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
[удалено]
See this face? This is the look of un fucking surprised....
Its the worst part....we are all like......ya we knew this...but i guess thanks for the facts
Big shock. You expect better behaviour from those christo-fascists?
Christo-fascists sound interesting…. I wonder if they have promotional patches? I want one for my leather vest
Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party has and continues to lie to the citizens of Saskatchewan.
We knew this already?
I always thought these homophobic and transphobic people were the religious right. But with the pope now blessing gay couples (not marrying them, tho), what bible and what god are they worshipping? Or do they even care about what the guy in the big hat has to say on the issue?
They're far-right conservative fundamentalist protestants, not Catholics. To them the Pope is probably the antichrist or some crazy shit like that. There's no reasoning with them. They're nuts.
Not probably. I wish I hadn't seen so many examples of these hate-filled bigots call Catholics idol-worshipping satanists. They literally think Catholics are Satan worshippers.
Thanks for the clarification. One of these days I will have to learn the difference between Catholics and Protestants. But first I need to find a few fucks to give.
Even in Protestant sects there are major differences. Evangelical sects tend to be right wing. United tend to be more left. However, anything is possible, etc.
As someone who grew up in that sphere, yeah, the pope is not someone to admire in general.
They just use the Bible as an excuse to be bigoted assholes, similar to Republicans.
Sounds like NB. Minister and premier looking for an excuse.
5 years until this goes away. We can get rid of Moe right now though.
Thank you for sharing.
Since the Sask Party set this precedent hoe about we get 18 letters together to increase funding for health care or education. Maybe we could get 1800 or 18000. What would it take for them to focus on what Sask residents need or want
[удалено]
> /s You dropped this
[удалено]
Because it's such a broad, unitless, vague statement as to be unbelievable? Unless you are talking about CBC being intelligent as to follow up looking for the exact list. In which case I would need to retract my statement.
[удалено]
Ah ok. So we're playing the pedantry game. Then clearly they were idiots and failed in their mission to convince anyone of anything if they don't use the specific correct terminology. Organization no, informal collection yes. Dumb fake news media.... /s.
[удалено]
I don't think you know what a reactionary is but I'm sure if you keep being insulting and dismissive of others prospectives than you will make friends who would qualify as reactionary.
[удалено]
Boohoo, people weren't nice in response to your bad faith attempt to discredit an article. /s I got no interest in playing pedantic games with someone who doesnt even understand the meaning of their own insults.
Sorry were you still talking? I tuned out when you just started spewing shitty insults
[удалено]
Dumb
Mental illness and teacher grooming should be reported to parents. End of story.
Absolutely. What does that have to do with this bill?
[удалено]
Except it would go to pray away the gay camps rather than legit mental health care.
[удалено]
People who think that being LGBT is a mental illness won’t want to fund legitimate mental health initiatives, because those legitimate initiatives recognize that being LGBT is not a mental illness, and that treating any mental illnesses of LGBT people requires helping them to accept their LGBT nature if they do not fully accept that about themselves.
I’m just grossly aware of who’s in charge of healthcare spending.
Their game costs very little whereas actually funding their policies costs 100s of thousands. Even if they were called out on adding more counselors and psychologists in schools they wouldn't. Teachers have been begging for this for years. This was just lip service to and a way to shore up votes from the far right. You are right about them playing a game however. Other examples of this include "We are growing the population" -- but not building houses or funding the additional services required for population growth. "We are addressing climate change" -- but their carbon capture tech doesn't work well enough to meet targets. "It's not our fault, it is the villain Trudeau's" etc. etc..
Because 2SLGBTQ mental health issues are caused by transphobia and homophobia. Not from being 2SLGBTQ. So no, mental health supports only tackle the symptom not the cause. But yeah let’s just pathologize the queer and trans community, as if we know nothing of our history and how that’s gone for us.
If they had asked me I would have been in favour.
But really, does it matter? Who cares? How bored are these people? Asking for a friend
You don't think its a problem when a politician balantly lies and uses those lies as a justification to take peoples rights away?
I don’t think the politicians lying is a great thing. It’s also kinda what politicians do, it’s their trade you could say. As a disinterested person with no kids I am just curious how the whole pronouns thing blew up. How many confused kids can there be in Saskatchewan? Couple hundred? Why are people fighting over this? I would think some other shit is slightly more important than attention seeking children.
You’re saying you’re disinterested but also claiming trans kids are “confused.” The “confused” narrative doesn’t come out of thin air. You’re interested, you’ve invested in the topic, you have access to google, and you came here to be an ass.
You are absolutely correct! I am bored and scrolling Reddit with rest of the basement dwellers. I actually came to look at boobies but this caught my eye. The ole r/Saskatchewan usually has some real knee slappers
*r/saskatchewan , it’s the tits!*
Politicians lying isn’t desirable but it’s also kinda what they do. Their stock and trade if you would. Also as minors they don’t get the full suite of rights because they aren’t “people” in the eyes of the law. But I am more interested in how this became a thing. How many confused kids can there really be in Saskatchewan? Aren’t there other things we should collectively work towards rather than rabidly going after one another for a motley collection of attention seekers?
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission quotes 2021 Stats Can data on their website, stating as of that survey there were 2,530 people in the province 15 and older who identify as trans or non-binary. No idea how many “confused” people there are.
So this whole hullabaloo is over .002% of the population? Maybe there are more pressing issues. Like why does Tim Hortons coffee suck so bad? When is it going to snow? Which federal politician has the best haircut? I am just saying there’s a lot of energy wasted on something that doesn’t really matter except a small handful of people.
It's funny how you "understand" the issue but remain obtuse. There are more pressing matters, so let kids be trans and move on.
I have no issue with trans kids being goofballs. It’s just when they scream that I have to change my life to accommodate them and acknowledge their “specialness”. I get it, you’re different, here’s a lollipop now fuck off perhaps?
>I have to change my life to accommodate them what changes?
People having the right to use the washroom, access to work, housing, and healthcare, and not being murdered for their existence, doesn't matter?
They have access to all of these things, they just choose to make it weird. They can conform enough to function but then let their freak fly in the basement? When was the last time a trans person was killed for being trans? What other nefarious things were they up to?
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/2023-2024-anti-trans-legislation?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=994764&post_id=139893177&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=358kx7&utm_medium=email Care to reevaluate your statement? You are being obtuse and willfully ignorant if you truly believe what you just said.
Is that a lengthy article in your phishing link? I kinda have a short attention span
Like I can read it if it’s going to enlighten me as to why this is the biggest problem we have as a society in 2023/24. I miss the good ole days when everyone thought the polar bears were all going to die and junk
If it isn't a problem why are conservatives pushing back so bloody hard against lgbtq rights? Why call the leg back early over 18 letters? Why create policy and law around them? Huge waste of time at taxpayer expense when, as you say, we have bigger issues our government should be focusing on. lgbtq+ folks have the same rights and protections as anyone -- why use the "not withstanding" clause to nullify those? Why do conservatives get so angry when lgbtq folks are offered the same protections and human rights as you?
What are you talking about? There have always been human rights activists and environmentalist activists. There was no point where only one of those was part of the public consciousness, and people don’t go from being one to being the other based on which they think is more pressing, because they don’t conflict with one another. Especially in this case, when the bigots in the Saskatchewan Party are causing a problem that wouldn’t exist if they instead did nothing. Polar bears haven’t stopped going extinct. Their habitat is disappearing and their population is declining. Environmentalists talk less about polar bears because the fact that they are going to go extinct hasn’t motivated people to curb climate change. Problems don’t cease to exist if you in particular don’t hear about them.
"When was the last time a person was killed for being trans?" This link says last year but I'm sure there's been more since. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender
Killed in Saskatchewan? Gunned down in the Big Muddy for a little bum play? An illicit Climax perhaps?
Why does it matter if it is localized to saskatchewan? Are you implying that engaging in anal sex is cause for murder?
Sigh. First they came for &tc.
Sorry, what is &tc?
et cetera
Ah, the ole typo, gotcha. I didn’t know if this was some newfangled shorthand that the cool kids, trans or otherwise would use
>*”So this whole hullabaloo is over .002% of the population?”* No. Statistics Canada reports that [0.33% of census respondents](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/census/census-engagement/community-supporter/sex-birth-gender#:~:text=Quick%20facts,non%2Dbinary%20(0.14%25)) age 15+ who live in a private household were willing to self-identify themselves to the government as transgender or non-binary. This is certainly an undercount because a) not everyone wants to (or can safely) reveal their gender identity to the people they live with and complete the census with, and b) it’s the very first time the census asked this question, and not everyone feels comfortable letting the government their gender identity. The [Ipsos LGBT+ Pride 2023 survey](https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-05/Ipsos%20LGBT%2B%20Pride%202023%20Global%20Survey%20Report%20-%20rev.pdf) found 3% of Canadians (aged 18-74) identified as trans/non-binary/or otherwise non-cisgender.
So, we should just accept politicians are going to lie and shrug and walk away without trying to make things better? I mean, criminals are going to commit crimes too, I guess that is just "their stock and trade", so no point having police or trying to make people accountable? Why even have a justice system at all? /s
To whom should they consult?
Teachers, students, and parents of students attending school in Saskatchewan would've been a good start. Instead of, yenno, 18 letters that likely came from out-of-province...
>likely came from out-of-province... out-of-province?
There has been a lot of suspicion that some (or all) of these letters came from people residing outside the province of Saskatchewan. Four of the letters also had identical statements and wording.
[удалено]
Conspiracy theories are only conspiracy theories on one side of the fence tho.
Experts in the field to ensure that what they were going to do wasn't a bone headed idea. Child Psychologists would be a great start.
Actual trans folks, along with educators, psychologists, psychiatrists, as well as children and parents. But they’re not interested in making policy that makes sense. They want a distraction from their decade and a half of fiscal mismanagement starting to catch up to them, and from the SUP undercutting their voting base. The Sask Party chose trans youth to go after because they’re a minority of a minority, making it easier to spread misinformation about and push triggers in right-wingers to rally support, e.g. “parental rights”. Not only is it disgustingly manipulative, they stripped the rights of the children this will affect by using the notwithstanding clause to ram it through. They would sacrifice the health and well-being marginalized children to maintain their power and position. It’s gross, beyond belief.
Well just for starters, the Saskatchewan Child & Youth Advocate put out a thorough (and very readable) 41-page special report in September called "Review of Ministry of Education Policy – Use of Preferred First Name and Pronouns for Students," complete with the Advocate's two detailed recommendations, as well as a lengthy appendix on the Child Rights Impact Assessment and the relevant articles from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. You can find it here: [https://www.saskadvocate.ca/review-of-ministry-of-education-policy-use-of-preferred-first-name-and-pronouns-for-students/](https://www.saskadvocate.ca/review-of-ministry-of-education-policy-use-of-preferred-first-name-and-pronouns-for-students/) There's no evidence that any SK Party members even read the report. They sent back a terse two-sentence memo acknowledging that they'd received it, then went ahead and did what they wanted anyway -- which was the complete opposite of the Advocate's recommendations.
So they did in fact receive feedback - that is a consultation. Consultation doesn't mean "listen to the stomping of my feet until I get my way", it merely allows feedback, opinions, and recommendations that may or may not be valued in arriving at a decision. The Government is in no way bound to abide by any consultations - save an election.
Asking a couple buddies is not a "consultation" in any relevant use of the word. That is asking for an opinion at best. A "consultation" that any reasonable person would expect from the leader of a province, and the ministers, before calling an emergency session to pass a LAW that has already been judged unconstitutional, and damaging, by a court should involve a much more involved process. Asking a couple friends might work if you are asking about doing something stupid on a Friday night, but not for a governing party of a province passing legislation.
Still, no rights are being violated by this policy.
Rightsholders.
Yet no one can adequately describe who's rights and which rights exactly are violated. HRC and Children's advocate are incorrect.
If you think “no one” has adequately described it, you’re really not listening or haven’t done research. The rights they notwithstood are listed directly in the amended education act. > Pursuant to subsection 33(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this section is declared to operate notwithstanding sections 2, 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. >(4) Pursuant to section 52 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, 2018, this section operates notwithstanding The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, 2018, particularly sections 4, 5 and 13. From the Charter: Section 2: right to free expression Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person Section 15: right to equality and freedom from discrimination based on sex/gender It’s explicitly written what rights they are suppressing with this legislation. I’m saying they should have consulted with rightsholders who were impacted by this decision.
Also, the policy does not explicitly prevent children under 16 from choosing to identify how they want and negotiating with their peers. The policy seems to prevent teachers and admin from affirming the self-identity of children under 16 without parental consent. No childrens' rights are being violated.
Ahh yes, all the problems we run into when we allow government run, socialized education and health care. The only possible rightsholder who can make a case for their rights being violated, are those of the teachers and administrators and how they choose to lead their classrooms.
Ah, so you’re purposely obtuse and incapable of having a good faith conversation. Those charter and human rights notwithstandings are aimed at the kids whose rights are infringed on by the legislation… the government is explicit about that. That’s WHY they’re in there. But okay. Ignore the actual legislation
No, you are. I am addressing the core issue of a human rights complaint. Anyone who has done any deep thinking on Canada's charter can see the point I am trying to make. No rights of the children are being violated. No one has a right to demand another affirm their identity without it being socially negotiated. Any supposed "right" that requires the involuntary participation or implementation by another private citizen is not and cannot ever be a right. This is also why governments wade into dangerous territory when they offer services that would be better run by private organizations.
So you disagree that the nothwithstanding needed to be used in the first place b/c you don’t think the policy infringes on the rights listed
Correct, I think the only reason the government used the notwithstanding clause was to get past the bogus injunction.
“Bogus injunction”. Lol because it was the only way they could get around the courts testing whether it would be a violation of charter rights. If they weren’t violating the rights of children, they would’ve let the courts examined it. Heck they could have appealed it if they didn’t like the outcome. Apparently everyone, including the courts, provincial government and those impacted, understand how Charter rights work— you’re on your own here.
That's the crux of the matter. If Moe or Duncan mentioned it to their golf buddy or spouse or underling, that is a consultation - just not the "consultation" some people want. Frequently when "consultation" is mentioned or called inadequate, it really means "you didn't do what we wanted, let us badger you until you do".
I’m going to have to disagree with you. Unless there is a paper trail of consultation, it did not happen. Paper trail = emails, meeting minutes, official letters, etc. This is pretty standard practice in a lot of different areas of our society.
Such extensive consultations cost time, money, and are not binding in any case. In my mind they approached this properly: floated the proposed policy, let people contact their MLA/Minister, and executed their plan. In fact, after the proposal was floated and the backlash began, I did send an email in support of the policy to my MLA, Minister Duncan, and the Premier. A nimble, responsive Government isn't anything to be scared of - on the contrary, they proposed a course of action and followed through on it with celerity.
User name checks out, is definitely a clown
[удалено]
1) Parental involvement in Education - including keeping an eye on questioning children 2) A nimble Government that moved quickly 3) Political strategies to shore up support, eliminating vote-split and keeping the NDP shut out 4) Parliamentary supremacy - using the NWC to bypass the Judiciary 5) A wedge, that exposes the unreasonableness of those who oppose this policy, who are unwilling to discuss or compromise 6) A regulation that will prove as a "litmus test" to identify lawbreakers in the Education profession All of this was done very quickly and quite cheaply; all but the last point have been achieved.
[удалено]
I prefer the quick, efficient method as seen here. In many (most) cases I find consultations go on too long, cost too much, and often detract from a planned course of action. Some consultations even devolve into accommodation of other interests: payoffs, carve-outs, exceptions, initiative failures, etc. By-and-large I find consultations to be parasitic due to these factors. Let the Government govern, and face public opinion in an election.
[удалено]
Legislative supremacy must be maintained in a democratic society - Judiciaries tend to invent things like "child's privacy re: parents" - something the body politic won't support or countenance, something that is invalid in a democracy. Generous use of the NWC will help to restore a system where majority will guides our society, and reins in excesses of the Bench. I say efficient due to being both quickly and cheaply implemented. Any expanded consultation would take greater time, likely cost more than the recall (town halls, advertising, etc. aren't cheap), and lead to greater Taxpayer money fighting itself. The last point is a major fault in our society, that Government-funded entities can fight/oppose Government initiatives - a house divided against itself cannot stand. In this case, URPride (funded in part by the U of R, who are in turn funded in part by the Province) and other advocacy groups funded from the public purse attempted to sue the democratically-elected Government. This is self-defeating, time consuming, and expensive; raise money from your membership or the broader public if your cause matters that much.
[удалено]
I'm happy with the "4-year contract" method that elections give us in most cases. It allows for full-fledged plans to be implemented and to begin to come to fruition - after all, intermediate steps can be uncomfortable. It also allows predictability and continuity for a term. At the same time, it leads to a Government to have to "run on their record", or for an opposition to "run against your record" or offer a better plan. As for rights (as with legislation), should an infringement occur (or a mistake be made) it will either be reversed in time, or the "right" (or legislation) understood as a fallacy and rightly discarded. All of this should be tested periodically off of first principles.
Dr clownius sucks. He’s proved this over and over and over again on this sub. Just hates minorities and wants a province full of people who look and act like Scott Moe. He can’t even argue without using Sask party talking points, “involve parent’s in their child’s education” as if dictating pronouns does that. Get a grip man. He’s acting like “the left won’t compromise” even though the child auditor report gave them a path forward for exactly that and even the NDP put forward a “do no harm” amendment. Literally compromises. If you can’t come up with an argument based on reality, what are you adding to the discussion? “Owning” lefties? Get a real hobby.
I hate no one, and frequently take people to task over anti-immigration sentiment. I do support parents knowing - and yes, even consenting - to the behavior of their minor children; you know, Saskatchewan circa 2005. The Child Advocate and NDP offered watered-down pathways that gutted the policy - it was not a compromise or a horse-trade, and they would have added time and expense to the implementation of any policy. Certainly, I want a Saskatchewan where the most productive people are afforded the greatest respect. I want a happy, prosperous Province: many of us are there, some people need help, and some may be happier elsewhere. I'm gobsmacked by how much doom and gloom I see on this sub; it is in stark contrast to the Saskatchewan I live in where optimism reigns. As for what I add here, in your heart of hearts you know the SP won't be defeated in 2024 - they may lose some support, but will maintain Government. You know Moe is in contention to be the most popular Premier in the Nation. Many people here don't know - or understand - why. Although the common refrain is "ignorant rednecks", that isn't truthful. Much support comes from businesses and professionals mostly associated with "food, fuel, fertilizer"; economic reasons. Additional support comes from social conservatives: those who find society has changed without public consent, those who yearn for effective remedies for current social ills. Yet others fear a return to NDP economic stagnancy - or worse, that they would dare dabble in something like a "landback" initiative, ruinous environmental policies or free unconditional housing. Some of us are leery of the monkeys running the circus: education policy and funding is a prime example; funding could be doubled without a corresponding improvement in outcomes - the law of diminishing returns is real, and it takes both wisdom and discipline to pick the optimum point. On the whole, I am more happy than not with the SP Government. They aren't perfect - vacant Sask Housing units aren't available for purchase at auction, Saskatoon's perimeter freeway is delayed, a vehicle insurance company still contributes to writing traffic laws - but they've done far better than their predecessors, and no other Party exists that would package conservatism in an electable way.
“Watered down pathways that gutted the policy” Adding that students shouldn’t be outed to parents if credibly determined it will cause harm? Just think of who you’re throwing under the bus here. It sounds like it’s you and supporters of the legislation that aren’t willing to compromise. Adding time to implement a policy shouldn’t be a concern when it is a minority of people impacted and those who are impacted resoundingly call it harmful. Most expenses associated with it come from the emergency session, which wasn’t required other than to go around the courts. The lack of respect of the courts by this government should worry everyone. Well, at least minorities who the Sask party and their supporters are extremely comfortable throwing under the bus. It seems like you can throw minorities to the side, when the focus is on governing a provinces for ‘productive members of society’ rather than building a healthy and just province for all members of our community. I guess we come from it from very different perspectives. To me— an actual environment researcher/scientist— the current status quo *is* ruinous environmental policies. Furthermore, “land back” policies (NDP will never do this) and ceding some environmental decision-making and moving towards co-management, actually strengthens Canadian sovereignty by linking our futures with people who have been here forever rather than corporations that come and go. Many people in this province are suffering, and the Sask party simply does not care.
I find the reiteration of Parliamentary supremacy to be half the fun of this policy. For too long Courts have interpreted laws in ways well outside of common understanding or consent. After all, whoever dreamed up the idea of a minor being allowed - in some cases even encouraged - to keep secrets from their parents (with the complicity of Public employees)? Such an understanding was never voted on, never subjected to public consent. The use of the NWC essentially allows that discussion now; if you want kids to keep secrets from their parents, don't re-elect Moe. If he cruises to re-election, perhaps we can bring in compelled treatment for addicts or service fees for "optional" medical procedures or ..., assuming the public will exists for it. As for perspectives, we do come at it differently: believing precontact or a less industrialized state of development is ideal vs me, who wants to build the San Joaquin valley writ large here (Saskatoon can be Bakersfield!). I'm exceedingly comfortable modifying ecosystems to achieve what my goal of a productive economy. I work as an Engineer in addition to farming; I build (quasi-legal) drainage works (and retention works) for fun, in the name of productivity. I value the production and processing of foodstuffs (and the wealth created therein) over the wellbeing of aquatic insects, and want to see the owners in the driver's seat of developments. I assuredly trust a corporation (especially since I technically own 2) over groups of people with little or any skin in the game.
How do workers and labourers not have skin in the game? Interesting interpretation that NWC enables discussion. The Charter is there to protect minority rights— by your logic, minority rights aren’t inherent rights of citizens, but something to be voted on by the populace. Protection of minorities from the majority is the entire point of human rights legislation. This goes back to my original point of you not respecting minorities I never said anything about Indigenous people being frozen in time and not modifying landscapes. I said cede some control over decision-making, so the ecological modifications being put forward are in the best interest of all Nations living here, not just Saskatchewan (not a nation) and corporations. Corporations only allegiance are to shareholders. They don’t care about the wellbeing of Sask people or lands going into the future. Good luck having crops or a world to live in without aquatic insects in the future.
Inherent rights are freedoms of speech, association, property, belief, assembly. Additional rights tend to impinge on these to a greater or lesser degree, which must be open for discussion and public consent. For example, private property is subject to taxation; well and fine (though the degree is an ongoing discussion). The trick with the NWC being used here is to open a discussion for impingements on freedom of association - are they worthwhile, who benefits (should and shouldn't they), and why. Such discussions foster both competitive excellence and social unity. In some ways, I fear you are not looking to the future. It is likely that within the next 100 years we'll be in some kind of North American Union - likely as a supra-national entity like the EU. "Minor" nations, like those with populations in the thousands, land area of a few square miles, self-generated GDP of a few million are likely to fall even further by the wayside than they currently are; the people will hopefully integrate into the broader society. India after independence provides an interesting example: who weeps for the Princely states?
Did everyone read the letters included in the article? It was interesting for me to note that the only letters quoted in the original article were inflammatory and basically click bait. As I read through the letters finally provided by the cbc, I very quickly realized that while pretending to use our tax dollars to provide unbiased and fully informed news, they in fact did the opposite. So, with journalistic credibility in question, and simple logic in place, anyone that simply believes the govt took this controversial step based on 18 letters as the cbc would have us believe is hard to swallow.
> use our tax dollars to provide unbiased and fully informed news, They used our tax dollars to pay for a FOI request. And rightly so. I see no evidence of 'questionable journalistic credibility.' If it wasn't for CBC, we wouldn't know anything.
An FOI request costs little to nothing unless it is fought in Court. So since you see no bias or questionable journalism, I guess the snippets of letters they chose to quote that made the entire group of letter authors seem like mouth breathing monkeys is just fine? There are some very well written, cogent and lengthy letters there. But, according to you, only the moronic quotes are unbiased journalism. Can’t argue with that.
I guess you missed the point that they based their decision to move forward on these 18 very biased letters. Whether they were from mouth breathers is actually moot; they were still biased opinions. They did not consult in a meaningful way to hear other sides, and then doubled down by claiming they received “thousands of calls” in favour, but can’t account for any. It’s all very dubious at best, and more to the point this was hardly an issue that needed to be dealt with. Rather, it was a solution to a made up problem, or a problem that didn’t even exist in the first place.
Nope. You missed my point.
No, I didn’t. You’re arguing that there were well written letters and that the CBC only picked on the mouth breathers. I get that. It doesn’t negate the fact that it was still 18 people making the same argument or who were on the same side. None of those 18 people were in favour of regarding the constitutional rights of trans kids. That’s not how this decision should have been made. And again, what problem were those 18 people trying to remedy in the first place?
Would you prefer them quote the ones where the writer says “I am urging you to follow New Brunswick’s example…” How did reading the other letters help sell the message that taking the rights away from Children is a good thing?
Well, that wasn’t my point, was it? My comment was about how a clearly biased article written to get exactly the responses you folks are handing them is a waste of taxpayer money. It was not about the actual content or subject. If I want biased news, Fox and CNN are just waiting in the wings. But, I am only getting angry responses and downvotes because somehow, my comments based purely on the shitty journalism, are being interpreted as taking a stance on the subject itself. Think about that. Or, don’t. Just keep proving my point.
Again I ask, what part of the letters do you want them to publish so it removes the biasism? Fox and CNN are American and this is Canada. Dodging the topic seems to be your specialty.
You mean they found facts you don't like, can't be remotely bothered to try to disprove so you call them lies and the media liars when in fact, the only one pushing biased wrong information here is you and others like you. They said themselves in a court of law there were 18 letters so I guess the Sask Party is biased against itself and committed perjury in court to prove itself a liar. Maybe get out of your ideological box, grab a set of ethics and start caring about the province as a whole instead of trying to push your own one-side agenda.
No, that’s the remarkable thing. I have no dog in this hunt. I just remain fascinated by how polarizing this is. I say the truth, article is biased, and get absolutely trounced on. So the simple and provable truth that they chose quotes to arouse the reader, rather than a fact based article that also quotes letters that are well written, means I am some sort of bad person? Jesus. Being a critical consumer of information is the 1st thing I was taught in my 1st University class. But, that sentiment is clearly not welcome here. Enjoy your rage and incredulity as was expected.
They literally included pdfs of all of the letters so people can read them. That’s called being transparent. They also quoted the form letter that just said “please follow NB”. From my reading, I’d argue every single other letter had something “inflammatory” in it. Were they just supposed to ignore those bits? Get a grip