Connect with us

Opinion

John Carpay: Claiming That Children Have Adult Rights Is a Perversion of the Canadian Charter

Published

7 minute read

From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

By John Carpay 

In August of 2023, the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity filed a court application seeking to strike down Saskatchewan’s “Use of Preferred First Name and Pronouns by Students” policy. The policy requires parental consent when children under the age of 16 wish to use opposite-sex names and pronouns at school, referred to as “social transition.” This “social transition” can lead to children receiving puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones, and eventually life-altering surgeries that will render them permanently infertile.

In September, UR Pride persuaded the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench to grant an interim injunction to suspend the policy pending a full court hearing, which would not take place until February of 2024. UR Pride claims that the parental consent policy will violate children’s charter rights and will irreparably harm them.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has introduced Bill 137, which uses Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to keep his government’s parental rights policy in place, following the September court decision to suspend the policy temporarily, or any future court rulings to strike it down. Section 33 gives our federal Parliament and provincial legislatures the ability, through the passage of a law, to override a judge’s interpretation of certain charter rights for a renewable five-year term.

Opponents of Section 33 argue that politicians should not be allowed to violate our rights and freedoms. However, Section 33 is not all that different from Section 1 of the charter, which allows judges to override our charter rights and freedoms in much the same way that Section 33 allows politicians to do so. Section 1 empowers judges to approve and endorse the government’s violation of constitutional rights, if a judge in his or her personal opinion deems the violation to be reasonable and “demonstrably justified.”

In theory, Section 1 requires judges to force governments to justify any violation of charter rights and freedoms “demonstrably,” with persuasive evidence. According to the test laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Oakes (1986), governments must show that their violations of charter freedoms are actually doing more good than harm. Theory aside, judges have repeatedly used Section 1 to rubber stamp the government’s lockdowns and vaccine passports. This necessarily raises the question: who is more competent to understand, interpret, and protect our rights and freedoms—politicians or judges?

In striking down the Saskatchewan policy, the court seems to have assumed that all parents are somehow dangerous, abusive, and untrustworthy. The court believes that all parents should be kept in the dark when their own children embark on a dangerous and futile quest to become the opposite sex.

The court also assumes that the best way (or the only way) to help gender-confused children is to affirm any and all steps that a child may wish to take to adopt opposite-sex pronouns, names, clothing, etc.

This completely ignores the success achieved by Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, who helped hundreds of children and teenagers to accept their biological sex while working for decades at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health as head of its Gender Identity Service. The vast majority of gender-confused children, when protected from political activists and ideologues and when supported by their parents, will be at peace with their sex by the time they reach the age of 18. Dr. Zucker saved these children from a lifetime of drugs and surgeries that would need to be administered in the futile quest to acquire a biological body of the opposite sex.

UR Pride claims that Saskatchewan’s new policy violates the rights of gender-diverse students under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But in fact, children do not enjoy privacy rights vis-à-vis their own parents. Because children are not adults, they legitimately have no right to drive, vote, get married, join the military, purchase liquor, get a tattoo, etc. Children are entitled to the love, support, guidance, and nurturing of their own parents. When parents are kept in the dark, they are severely hindered in providing these necessities. Claiming that children have adult rights is a perversion of the charter.

Placing great reliance on testimony from Dr. Travers, a Simon Fraser University sociology professor who uses “they/them” pronouns, the court appeared to embrace fear-mongering that children who are not “affirmed” in their “social transition” are at risk of suicide. This ignores a comprehensive Swedish study showing that “fully transitioned” transgender adults, after having had healthy body parts removed and new artificial ones created, have higher suicide rates than the general population.

The court considered irreparable harm to children only in relation to the very small number of children who might have truly abusive parents. Sadly, the court ignored the irreparable harm that is likely to result from keeping all parents in the dark, disregarding harm to children who are pressured, manipulated, and misinformed by political activists at school.

All in all, the court provided no compelling reason as to why or how it benefits children to keep all parents (not just the very small number of abusive ones) in the dark about their own children.

The Saskatchewan government should be applauded for using charter Section 33 to opt out of this court ruling.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

Now Is A Great Time To Be Out Of America’s Offshore Wind Business

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Is the push and pull in the energy and climate regulatory environment hurting the ability for companies to finance and complete energy projects in the United States? The head of Shell in the United States, Colette Hirstius, said she believes it is in a recent interview.

“I think uncertainty in the regulatory environment is very damaging,” Hirstius said, adding, “However far the pendulum swings one way, it’s likely that it’s going to swing just as far the other way.”

Hirstius was addressing the moves made by the Trump administration to slow the progress of the offshore wind industry, which was the crown jewel of the Biden administration’s headlong rush into a government-subsidized energy transition. Trump’s regulators, led by Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have taken a series of actions in compliance with executive orders signed by Trump since January to halt several projects that were under construction, roll back federal subsidies, and review permits they believe were hastily issued in non-compliance with legally required processes.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“I certainly would like to see those [offshore wind] projects that have been permitted in the past continue to be developed,” Hirstius said.

That hope seems discordant, coming as it does amid Shell’s ongoing effort to step back from offshore wind and refocus more of its capital budget back to its core oil and gas business following years of unprofitable ventures into renewables. It also seems fair to point out that the political pendulum about which Hirstius warns already swung wildly in favor of offshore wind and other wind and solar projects in the Biden administration. It is odd that Shell only now decides to roll out that particular warning.

Shell was pulling back from its major offshore wind investments while Trump was still fighting off efforts by an array of Democratic prosecutors to put him in prison. In June 2023, for example, the company announced its intent to offload its 50% share in the Southcoast project offshore Connecticut amid Biden era high inflation and supply chain challenges that were already rocking the industry at the time. Nine months later, Shell sold the interest to another party.

The company announced last December that it was “stepping back from new offshore wind investments” as part of a company-wide review implemented by then-new CEO Wael Sawan in mid-2023. A month later, it cancelled its interest in the Atlantic Shores project, writing off $1 billion in investments in the process. Shell’s ventures into the U.S. offshore wind arena had run head-long into economic reality long before the second Trump presidency came along.

That Atlantic Shores project has become an item of special interest inside the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in recent days. In a court filing last Friday, BOEM Deputy Director Matthew Giacona said the Bureau plans to conduct a full review of the process that went into approving Atlantic Shores during the Biden presidency. He also said the review would likely expand to other offshore wind projects given the administration’s concerns that Biden’s regulators failed to properly assess the true environmental impacts these major industrial installations create.

In addition to that, the Daily Caller’s Audrey Streb reported on Monday that Biden regulators gave the go-ahead to some of these offshore projects despite internal concerns expressed as early as 2021 that granting long delays in their decommissioning processes “increases risk to the federal taxpayer.” Offshore developers are normally required to provide financial assurance to pre-fund such costs, but big Danish developer Orsted and others were requesting delays as long as 15 years in that requirement to make their project economics work.

Hirstius’s concerns about regulation are absolutely valid: Having such certainty is a crucial element for any company to be able to plan its future business endeavors. But every presidency has a duty to ensure that actions by prior administrations meet the mandates of prevailing laws. It has long been feared that the Biden regulators cut important corners related to environmental and marine mammal protections to speed some offshore wind projects through the process.

As this current review process plays itself out, Shell might well find itself glad it cut its losses in this failing offshore wind sector when it did.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

The Trials of Liberty: What the Truckers Taught Canada About Power and Protest

Published on

Half the country still believes the convoy was a menace; the other half thinks it was a mirror that showed how fragile our freedoms had become.

This Thanksgiving I am grateful for many things. The truckers who stood up to injustice are among them.

When the first rigs rolled toward Ottawa in January 2022, the air was sharp, but not as sharp as the mood of the men and women behind the wheels. They were not radicals. Seeing a CBC a campaign of disinformation about them begin as soon as their trek started, even when Ottawa political operatives hadn’t yet heard, I started following several of them on their social media.

They were truckers, small business owners, independent contractors, and working Canadians who had spent two years hauling the essentials that kept a paralyzed nation alive. They were the same people politicians, including Prime Minister Trudeau, had called “heroes” in 2020. By 2022, they had become “threats.”

The Freedom Convoy was born from exhaustion with naked hypocrisy. The federal government that praised them for risking exposure on the road now barred the unvaccinated from crossing borders or even earning a living. Many in provincial governments cheered Ottawa on. The same officials who flew to foreign conferences maskless or sat in private terraces to dine, let’s recall, still forced toddlers to wear masks in daycare. Public servants worked from home while police fined citizens for walking in parks.

These contradictions were not trivial; they were models of tyrannical rule. They told ordinary people that rules were for the ruled, not for rulers.

By late 2021, Canada’s pandemic response had hardened into a hysterical moral regime. Compliance became a measure of virtue, not prudence. Citizens who questioned the mandates were mocked as conspiracy theorists. Those who questioned vaccine efficacy were treated as fools; those who refused vaccination were treated as contagious heretics. Even science was no longer scientific. When data showed that vaccines did not prevent transmission, officials changed definitions instead of policies. The regime confused authority with truth. One former provincial premier just this week was still hailing the miracle of “life-saving” COVID vaccines.

For truckers, the breaking point came with the federal vaccine mandate for cross-border transport. Many had already complied with provincial rules and workplace testing. Others had recovered from COVID and had natural immunity that the government refused to recognize. To them, the new rule was not about safety; it was about humiliation. It said, “Obey, or you are unfit to work.”

So they drove.

Donna Laframboise, one of the rare journalists who works for citizens instead of sponsors, described the convoy in her book Thank You, Truckers! with gratitude and awe. She saw not a mob but a moral statement. She showcased for us Canadians who refused to live by lies. Their horns announced what polite society whispered: the emergency had become a creepy habit, and the habit had become a tool of control.

When the convoy reached Ottawa, it was messy, loud, and human. There was singing, prayer, laughter, dancing and some foolishness, but also remarkable discipline. For three weeks, amid frigid temperatures and rising tension, there were no riots, no arsons, no looting. In a country that once prized civility, that should have earned respect.

Instead, it attracted the media’s and government’s contempt.

The Trudeau government, rattled by its own public failures, sprung to portray the protest as a national security threat. Ministers invoked language fit for wartime. The Prime Minister, who had initially fled the city claiming to have tested positive, returned to declare that Canadians were under siege by “racists” and “misogynists.” The accusations were as reckless as they were false. The government’s real grievance was not chaos but defiance.

Then came the Emergencies Act. Designed for war, invasion, or insurrection, it was now deployed against citizens with flags and thermoses. Bank accounts were frozen without charge or trial. Insurance policies were suspended. Police weilding clubs were unleashed against unarmed citizens. The federal government did not enforce the law; it improvised it.

A faltering government declared itself the victim of its citizens. The Emergency declaration was not a reaction to danger; it was a confession of political insecurity. It exposed a leadership that could not tolerate dissent and recast obedience for peace.

Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts, express your gratitude and support our work, consider becoming a a paid subscriber.

The convoy’s organizers, who kept the protest largely peaceful, were arrested and prosecuted as though they had plotted sedition. They were charged for holding the line, not for breaking it. The state’s behaviour was vindictive, not judicial. Prosecutors went along with it, and so did courts.

In a healthy democracy, such political trials would have shaken Parliament to its core. Legislators would have demanded justification for the use of emergency powers. The press would have asked precisely which law had been broken. Citizens would have debated the limits of government in times of fear, times which seem to continue just under the radar.

Not much of that happened.

Canada’s institutions have grown timid. The press is subsidized and more subservient. The courts happily defer to the administrative state. Law enforcement has learned to follow politics before principle. Academics have been lost for about generation. Under such conditions, how can citizens object to unscientific and coercive policies? What options remain when every channel of dissent—media, science, judiciary, and law enforcement—is captured or cowed?

The convoy’s protest, let’s remember, was not the first major disruption in the Trudeau years. A year earlier, Indigenous activists blocked rail lines and highways in solidarity with Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs opposed to a pipeline. The blockades cost the economy millions. They were called “a national conversation.” Few arrests, no frozen accounts, no moral panic.

In 2020, Black Lives Matter marches were cheered by politicians and news anchors. Some protests were peaceful, others destructive. Yet they were treated as expressions of justice, not extremism.

Even today, pro-Hamas Palestinian demonstrations that include violence and intimidation of Jewish citizens are tolerated with a shrug. The police stand back, bring them coffee, citing “the right to protest.”

Why, then, was the Freedom Convoy treated as a crisis of state?

In a liberal democracy, protest is not rebellion. It is a civic instrument, a reminder that authority is contingent. When a government punishes peaceful protest because it disapproves of the message, it turns democracy into décor.

The trials of the convoy organizers are therefore not about law but about legitimacy. Each conviction signals that protest is permitted only when it pleases the powerful. This is the logic of every soft tyranny: it criminalizes opposition while decorating itself with the vocabulary of rights. I see this daily in Nicaragua, my native land.

The truckers’ protest revealed what the pandemic concealed. The COVID regime was unscientific and incoherent. It punished truckers who worked alone in their cabs while allowing politicians to mingle maskless at conferences. It barred unvaccinated Canadians from air travel but allowed infected citizens to cross borders with the proper paperwork. It closed playgrounds and churches while keeping liquor stores open.

These contradictions were not mistakes; they were instruments of obedience. Each absurd rule tested how much submission people would endure.

The truckers said, “Enough.” I am grateful that they did.

For that, Chris Barber (Big Red) and Tamara Lich 🇨🇦 are still being punished. Their trials have now concluded, save for possible appeals, yet their quiet defiance remains one of the few honest moments in recent Canadian history. It showed that courage is still possible, even the state seems to forbid reason.

The government’s response revealed the opposite: that fear, once politicized, is never surrendered willingly. The state that learned to rule through emergency will not soon unlearn it. They cling to its uses still.

Canada lives with the legacy of that winter today. The trials are finished, but the divisions persist. Half the country still believes the convoy was a menace; the other half thinks it was a mirror that showed how fragile our freedoms had become.

Trudeau’s government is no more, yet the spirit of his politics lingers. He did not create the divisions by accident. He cultivated them as a strategy of control. The country that left him behind is also less free, less trusting, and less united than it was before the horns sounded in Ottawa. Carney’s government is Trudeau’s heir.

The trials and sentencing measure the distance between the Canada we imagined and the one we inhabit.

The truckers’ convoy was imperfect, yet profoundly democratic. It stood for the right of citizens to say no to a government that had forgotten how to hear them. The echo of that refusal still moves down the Trans-Canada Highway. It is the sound of liberty idling in the cold, waiting for a green light that will not soon come.

This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for the abounding love and understanding in my life. I am grateful for my spirited children and their children. I am grateful for my nonagenarian father and for my siblings. I’m grateful for the legion of aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews on all sides of the family. I am grateful for loyal friendships and for my colleagues and coworkers who share the quest for a freer country. I’m grateful to my adoptive Alberta, and Albertans, also struggling to be strong and free.

I am grateful for the Truckers, wherever they came from, for their courage.

Share Haultain Research

Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts, express your gratitude and support our work, consider becoming a a paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X