Tell everyone. There is no Charter right for a biological male to compete against females in women’s sports. Nor is there a constitutional right for children to be maimed and rendered sterile in service to self-proclaimed identities. And there is certainly no excuse for a government in Ottawa to interfere with provinces’ ability to defend women and girls from the fallout of sexual fetishism dressed in federalist drags.

Yet here we are.

Albertans are being invited to ask an important question. When rights collide, should we trust the flawed judgment of elected officials who face the people every few years, or surrender that authority to similarly flawed judges selected in near secrecy, immune to removal, and uninterested in the lived realities of the citizens they affect?

Section 33 of the Charter—the “notwithstanding clause”—exists for precisely this purpose. It was never a loophole. It was a constitutional safeguard demanded by Premiers like Alberta’s Peter Lougheed and Saskatchewan’s Allan Blakeney. It was their condition for agreeing to the Trudeau Charter in 1982, a shield for legislatures to retain sovereignty in cases where Ottawa-appointed, unelected courts would push too far into political life. It was a tool to defend provincial uniqueness against Ottawa’s homogenizing power.

Blakeney explained it plainly. Where judicial rulings lead to outcomes that might cause undue harm, for example, legislatures must retain the right to legislate, even if a court believes a Charter right has been breached. It was an elegant way to deal with the inevitable tension between rights adjudicated by judges and those protected by governments chosen by the people. It was a way to guarantee democracy over legal technocracy. The hysterical NDP machine will have people believe it is also the legislation of cruelty.

Section 33 is a temporary mechanism—suitable for five years, renewable only through re-legislation. Whatever the progressives say, it does not override or erase any rights. It cannot be used in secret, and any government that invokes it must defend its choice publicly. That is democratic accountability. The people can debate it (and we now where the contemporary left stands on debating), throw the government out, or demand that the law be changed, if they so choose.

This safeguard is now essential. Alberta is acting to protect the integrity of women’s sports and spaces. Who would be against protecting their daughters? Girls have lost competitions, lost scholarships, and in some cases been physically injured competing against males who claim to be female. These are not hypotheticals. They are real, measurable harms—harms progressive politicians and the courts are at times unwilling to recognize. Alberta’s proposed protections have drawn fierce opposition from progressive ideological activists and their allies in the press and the federal parliament, who now claim that such laws are contrary to the Charter. They seek to keep imposing without open debate the fiction that there is a Charter right for a biological male to compete against females in women’s sports.

There is no such right, and it doesn’t exist in the Charter. The Charter was not drafted to validate identity fantasies. It was not written to erase biological sex or enshrine the right of middle-aged men to force immigrant women to handle their genitals. It was not intended to give minors access to irreversible surgeries without the knowledge or consent of their parents. These things are being “read into” the Charter by tribunals and activist judges trained in Laurentian law schools with no democratic mandate, often under pressure from a woke federal government happy to let the courts advance policies it wants but is afraid to pass through Parliament.

Naheed Nenshi has made it clear where he stands. He bluntly opposes the use of Section 33 to protect Alberta women and girls. His allegiance is to the same cultural current that waddles through Ottawa. He speaks the language of progress but misses the point entirely. This isn’t about political posturing. It is about protecting girls and women from being injured, marginalized, and erased to satisfy the ideological demands of his political base.

It is about affirming the constitutional prerogative of Alberta’s legislature to protect its jurisdictional sphere. This is about facing anti-scientific postures with courage and preserving truth: men aren’t women, no matter how much ideological poultry progressive voodoo priests sacrifice to affirm it.

Ottawa’s interest in neutering Section 33 is not born of a deep commitment to human rights. It is a power play. The Trudeau-era delusional policies and its Carney-extended government see in Section 33 an obstacle to the court-driven social revolution it has vigorously encouraged. It wants provinces disarmed. Not through constitutional amendment, which would require tough negotiating, broad agreement and transparency, but through attrition—by shaming any use of the clause and suggesting that invoking it is inherently illegitimate. But that federal poodle won’t hunt in Alberta.

Ottawa already has the power to disallow provincial legislation outright under Section 90 of the BNA Act, 1867. That power—known as disallowance—allows the federal cabinet to kill any provincial law within a year of its passage. It has not been used since 1943, not because it is illegal, but because it is politically toxic. If Ottawa were to disallow an Alberta or Saskatchewan law protecting girls’ sports or parental rights, the backlash would be immediate and overwhelming. Progressives prefer pushing their ideological agendas in the dark, through political smoke curtains, behind close doors.

The federal government would rather pretend it lacks power while trying to strip away the strongest tool provinces have to protect their constitutional space. Section 33 is a scalpel compared to Ottawa’s sledgehammer, but it is a scalpel that Ottawa doesn’t want the provinces to use because it limits the power of the judges they appoint.

And let us not pretend this kind of judicial overreach is limited to social policy. Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to strike down Canada’s tangle of interprovincial trade barriers in the Comeau case (2018). The question was straightforward: does Section 121 of the Constitution, which says goods “shall be admitted free” between provinces, actually mean what it says?

The Court answered no. It chose legal technicalities over the clear, economic intent of the BNA Act. In doing so, it upheld a regime of trade barriers that make Canada’s internal economy more balkanized. Donald Trump’s tariffs have nothing on the now court-preserved domestic trade barriers.

While the courts did not impose the regime of inter provincial blockages, it was the last to endorse it, weakening the country. Canadians cannot freely ship beer or wine across provincial lines. Businesses face duplicated regulations and supply chains carved up by provincial restrictions. The result is a sluggish, over-regulated economy that punishes ordinary citizens while rewarding monopolies and gatekeepers.

The Comeau decision was a betrayal of Confederation. It was also a reminder of the deeper problem: judges, however skilled, are not elected. That doesn’t make them bad people, but they are not accountable. The current Chief Justice, who condemned the truckers’ protest knowing legal cases would be coming active challenging the COVID lockdowns, openly advocated for stronger federal power. He is not neutral. And even if he were, he remains unaccountable to the people of Alberta. His political judgment carries no democratic legitimacy, yet it shapes the rules under which we are expected to live.

This is why Section 33 must be preserved—and used. But whether or not it is used legitimately in Alberta, it is for Albertans to determine. Not Ottawa. The threat isn’t coming from Alberta’s legislature—it’s coming from courts and bureaucrats choosing to advance male fetish desire as sacred while erasing female safety.

Premier Danielle Smith understands this. So does Premier Scott Moe. That is not judicial defiance. That is democratic responsibility. When Ottawa and the NDP opposition in both provinces seek to override parental rights, deny biology, and impose ideology on children, women, and families, it is the perfect time for legislatures to act. And if not legislatures, then who?

Albertans should not have to ask permission from Ottawa to protect their daughters. They should not have to wait years for a judge’s approval to define women’s places and spaces. They should not be ruled by edicts from individuals who have never faced a voter in their lives.

Section 33 is a lawful democratic instrument. It exists to ensure that provinces do not lose control over essential provincial matters. Alberta is using it for precisely the reason it was designed—to uphold the will of its people in the face of potential judicial activism that favours anti-scientific ideology above reality.

No permission is required. Alberta will protect its daughters.