https://leaderpost.com/opinion/columnists/mandryk-moe-sask-party-care-little-about-irre
Murray Mandryk: Moe ignores 'irreparable harm' to kids in Saskatchewan
After declaring 'judicial overreach,' Moe engaged in political and moral overreach by declaring he will use the notwithstanding clause.
Author of the article:
Murray Mandryk
Published Oct 01, 2023 • Last updated 21 hours ago • 3 minute read
Justice Michael Megaw couldn’t have been more clear:
“On the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied that those individuals affected by this policy, youth under the age of 16 who are unable to have their name, pronouns, gender diversity, or gender identity, observed in the school will suffer irreparable harm,†Megaw wrote in his 56-page decision granting an injunction against the Saskatchewan Party government for is pronoun policies in schools.
“Judicial overreach,†Premier Scott Moe proclaimed in an immediate statement — so suspiciously quick that one might conclude his government had prepared in advance after legal minds told them they would lose this decision.
After declaring “judicial overreach,†Moe engaged in political and moral overreach by declaring he will use the notwithstanding clause to override Megaw’s ruling … or any future court ruling that may raise similar concerns that this government’s pronoun policy, enabling bullying or abusing already vulnerable kids.
Judicial overreach? Seriously?
For starters, what Justice Megaw offered in his ruling felt less like a legal decision than what you would expect a good dad to do.
Good dads protect kids from “irreparable harm†caused by those who would bully and abuse them. That’s not a “judicial overreach†that Moe or anyone else should feel dismayed about.
Of course, Moe and company argue this is all about being good dads … or, as he frames it, protecting “parental rights.â€
However, the problem remains that the government is still offering no evidence in court or even in public that any parent has legitimately been aggrieved by teachers or anyone when it comes to hiding information about their kids.
Judicial overreach? Again, if you think Megaw’s judgment did not have proper judicial reasoning or analysis, you can appeal the ruling.
This is — as the lawyer for UR Pride so aptly put it — “a policy in search of a problem.â€
It would be nice to think this is simply an honest difference of opinion on parental rights and that Moe and his Sask. Party government are as concerned about “irreparable harm†to children as Megaw.
Notwithstanding that government lawyer Mitchell McAdam’s arguments were largely rejected by Megaw, the notion McAdam articulated, that the government intends “to support students who wish to change their pronouns and/or preferred first name to align with their gender identity†did provide some solace to the notion that this policy could have been well-meaning.
If Moe said his government was taking some time to review Megaw’s words and make sure the policy actually helps all kids, we might believe that someone appealed to better angels in government.
Alas, the ink wasn’t dry on Megaw’s judgment before Moe was already recalling the legislature to force his bill through early and use the notwithstanding clause so that it could no longer be legally challenged.
If that weren’t telling enough, consider the phraseology, borrowed from U.S. Republicans, that Moe used to make what is the only political case for what he is doing:
Judicial overreach. Parental rights. Activist judges.
In the name of “parental rights,†the Sask. Party government has decided to ignore all legal or moral arguments as to why it might be bad to strip away rights from kids who may already be outcasts.
But, politically, it sells.
It echoes the same never-quite-defined grievances used by those who contemplate support for the Saskatchewan United Party that Moe most fears.
Since the dawn of Sask. United, and especially since the Lumsden-Morse byelection, Moe has refused to do anything to displease them for fear of political ramifications on or from his own rural Sask. Party MLAs.
So they have simply become part of Moe’s echo chamber, where terms like “parental rights†reverberate with little consideration of how they might hurt.
The voices telling them there may be a problem — even when a voice belongs to a judge — don’t seem to matter … even when the judge is saying the noise might be doing “irreparable harm†to kids.
Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
Murray Mandryk: Moe ignores 'irreparable harm' to kids in Saskatchewan
After declaring 'judicial overreach,' Moe engaged in political and moral overreach by declaring he will use the notwithstanding clause.
Author of the article:
Murray Mandryk
Published Oct 01, 2023 • Last updated 21 hours ago • 3 minute read
Justice Michael Megaw couldn’t have been more clear:
“On the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied that those individuals affected by this policy, youth under the age of 16 who are unable to have their name, pronouns, gender diversity, or gender identity, observed in the school will suffer irreparable harm,†Megaw wrote in his 56-page decision granting an injunction against the Saskatchewan Party government for is pronoun policies in schools.
“Judicial overreach,†Premier Scott Moe proclaimed in an immediate statement — so suspiciously quick that one might conclude his government had prepared in advance after legal minds told them they would lose this decision.
After declaring “judicial overreach,†Moe engaged in political and moral overreach by declaring he will use the notwithstanding clause to override Megaw’s ruling … or any future court ruling that may raise similar concerns that this government’s pronoun policy, enabling bullying or abusing already vulnerable kids.
Judicial overreach? Seriously?
For starters, what Justice Megaw offered in his ruling felt less like a legal decision than what you would expect a good dad to do.
Good dads protect kids from “irreparable harm†caused by those who would bully and abuse them. That’s not a “judicial overreach†that Moe or anyone else should feel dismayed about.
Of course, Moe and company argue this is all about being good dads … or, as he frames it, protecting “parental rights.â€
However, the problem remains that the government is still offering no evidence in court or even in public that any parent has legitimately been aggrieved by teachers or anyone when it comes to hiding information about their kids.
Judicial overreach? Again, if you think Megaw’s judgment did not have proper judicial reasoning or analysis, you can appeal the ruling.
This is — as the lawyer for UR Pride so aptly put it — “a policy in search of a problem.â€
It would be nice to think this is simply an honest difference of opinion on parental rights and that Moe and his Sask. Party government are as concerned about “irreparable harm†to children as Megaw.
Notwithstanding that government lawyer Mitchell McAdam’s arguments were largely rejected by Megaw, the notion McAdam articulated, that the government intends “to support students who wish to change their pronouns and/or preferred first name to align with their gender identity†did provide some solace to the notion that this policy could have been well-meaning.
If Moe said his government was taking some time to review Megaw’s words and make sure the policy actually helps all kids, we might believe that someone appealed to better angels in government.
Alas, the ink wasn’t dry on Megaw’s judgment before Moe was already recalling the legislature to force his bill through early and use the notwithstanding clause so that it could no longer be legally challenged.
If that weren’t telling enough, consider the phraseology, borrowed from U.S. Republicans, that Moe used to make what is the only political case for what he is doing:
Judicial overreach. Parental rights. Activist judges.
In the name of “parental rights,†the Sask. Party government has decided to ignore all legal or moral arguments as to why it might be bad to strip away rights from kids who may already be outcasts.
But, politically, it sells.
It echoes the same never-quite-defined grievances used by those who contemplate support for the Saskatchewan United Party that Moe most fears.
Since the dawn of Sask. United, and especially since the Lumsden-Morse byelection, Moe has refused to do anything to displease them for fear of political ramifications on or from his own rural Sask. Party MLAs.
So they have simply become part of Moe’s echo chamber, where terms like “parental rights†reverberate with little consideration of how they might hurt.
The voices telling them there may be a problem — even when a voice belongs to a judge — don’t seem to matter … even when the judge is saying the noise might be doing “irreparable harm†to kids.
Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
Comment