Our misguided premier must be stopped! She is wading into authoritarianism very slowly but that is the direction she is going.
What is it going to take to stop this crazy? I’m a permanent resident and I’m afraid of what is coming. I have never felt afraid to live in Canada, I am now and that scares me.
Danielle Smith began her cultural crusade by claiming for herself the honourable mantle of Protector of Children from Grievous Harm. She has claimed that their legislation was never meant to harm anyone, but to make sure they were protected from their own immaturity.
But make no mistake, she's betrayed her own lies by using the Notwithstanding Clause, for it does only one thing: it takes someone's rights away. That's it. That's the only thing it can do, so you know when it's used, someone, or some group, is losing.
As usual, the lawyers are gonna get paaaaid and Albertans will foot multiple, outrageous bills—and probably all for nothing considering that test. Imagine the salary hours in legislature time. Meetings with lobbyists. Lawyers' prep. Court costs. Comms people selling the idea. The list goes on. And all in the name of legally circumventing the rights of approx. 0.5% of Albertans. SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE. SUCH FREEDOM.
I would suggest that anyone in opposition tally up an estimate of the the expected costs, line by line, and wrap it up in a tight lil' TikTok, so people actually understand the fiscal implication of these kinds of court challenges.
I mean, I'd love to argue that Albertans will be up in arms over people's rights being trampled but, we all know rights only apply to certain communities. In this case, it's far more effective to talk money and, to this day, I've never seen a good attack ad that shows just how much taxpayer money is actually wasted on principle-based posturing in the form of court challenges. See carbon tax.
Sadly, the polls suggest a sizeable majority of my fellow Albertans are willing to trade away those rights, and that the NDP risk falling into a "think of the children" trap. Maybe you're right.
Pretending that a group of people in our society either don’t exist or don’t have a right to exist does not keep them from existing. How does their existence remove any of the rights that the rest of us have? Why is it so important for some in our society, especially our government, to take away their rights to medical care? Is this really our priority as a society? How about putting the same effort into improving our education system and our healthcare system?
Isn’t it better to be generous in spirit than to be mean-spirited?
I agree with Jess. Look at the costs involved in this petty exercise by our government! And shame on them for using the power of the government and the notwithstanding clause on a small minority that has limited power! Are we rooting for David or for Goliath?
The purpose of the Notwithstanding Clause is to retain the Westminster tradition of parliamentary supremacy over against the American (and French) ideas of constitutional or judicial supremacy.
Which you acknowledge in your penultimate paragraph: “Over to us, Albertans, as the last line of defence. “
That's as I recall my parents explaining it to 15-year-old me during the patriation debates.
Somehow, though, I'm not sure Mr Lougheed and others envisioned it being used to protect the privileges of the majority from the rights of minorities, which seems to be its most common usage.
I would like to see it expunged from the Constitution and Charter, since bigoted small-minded provincial politicians use it to harm people.
Especially with the criminals governing south of the border who are setting a horrendous example of ignoring and abusing human rights and killing innocents with no accountability.
Yes, the UCP's stupid law harms all girls. I've seen a number of parents tweeting their fury at having to provide their daughters' private information when the gov't has no business prying. A six year old who can't join the swim team unless her father assures the gov't she was born female? That is perverse and perverted.
One of the three laws that Danielle Smith intends to use the notwithstanding clause for is to ban transgender women and girls from playing in amateur female sports. I sincerely ask why you would oppose this.
Women and girls deserve sex-based spaces and sex-based rights. When you allow transgender people to join women's sports, then by definition, women's sports cease to exist. Don't ask women and girls to give up their rights in the name of being kind and inclusive, because the outcome is unkind and non-inclusive to women themselves.
Heres the thing, Trans women, are, women. And once hormone therapy is started, so much changes. Body mass, muscle mass changes. Loss of strength etc. And also,
"Rules about eligibility (e.g. hormone therapy, testosterone suppression, time since transition, etc.) differ across governing bodies and sports, which affect when and how a trans woman is allowed to compete. Some wins are under more relaxed rules; others under stricter ones." From Chat GPT for clarity
Also, why has she not been inclusive about Trans Men? (I actually believe they'd need more protection)
Interesting to see you are ‘upset’ about the layoffs at Imperial Oil but support all anti oil bills to support your eastern buddies. Duly noted. We all know Danielle’s new oil pipeline will be rejected by Carney. Which means you are against good jobs and prosperity in the province you claim to represent. Can’t make this stuff up.
First off: Don't say "intends to introduce three bills" and make us try to figure out which three bills you find objectionable. I am assuming (bad thing to do, I know) from the comments that these have to do with "transgender rights". Despite being a "libertarian with water wings" I don't believe the Constitution includes "something I want to be" as a category. And it should not.
But assuming you and the government of which you are now a part DO believe that my self-identification makes me the thing I self-identify as, can I start a medical practice if I self Identify as a doctor? Can I decorate my car with flashing lights and a siren because I self identify as a cop? Can I quit paying taxes because I self identify as a church?
Secondly: "It continues a troubling trend of big government “solutions” that stigmatize and penalize small populations that are seen as easy targets." This is something the government of which you are now a part does consistently. I believe, and as Charlie Kirk would challenge: "Prove me wrong", that I have a right to defend myself, my family and my property, yet your government insists I do not. You set out to "stigmatize and penalize" a segment of the population who own firearms. We are "easy targets" because we are "law-abiding" as evidenced by our taking courses, passing exams, and applying for licenses.
Thirdly: If transgendered people wish to participate in sporting events that are not unisex already, they can do, as women's sporting groups have done, organize their own. Let's see how quickly the ex-males exclude the now stronger ex-females from their games.
Our misguided premier must be stopped! She is wading into authoritarianism very slowly but that is the direction she is going.
What is it going to take to stop this crazy? I’m a permanent resident and I’m afraid of what is coming. I have never felt afraid to live in Canada, I am now and that scares me.
Danielle Smith began her cultural crusade by claiming for herself the honourable mantle of Protector of Children from Grievous Harm. She has claimed that their legislation was never meant to harm anyone, but to make sure they were protected from their own immaturity.
But make no mistake, she's betrayed her own lies by using the Notwithstanding Clause, for it does only one thing: it takes someone's rights away. That's it. That's the only thing it can do, so you know when it's used, someone, or some group, is losing.
She and the UCP have also failed to fund the public schools adequately, which harms the children's ability to learn and their safety.
As usual, the lawyers are gonna get paaaaid and Albertans will foot multiple, outrageous bills—and probably all for nothing considering that test. Imagine the salary hours in legislature time. Meetings with lobbyists. Lawyers' prep. Court costs. Comms people selling the idea. The list goes on. And all in the name of legally circumventing the rights of approx. 0.5% of Albertans. SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE. SUCH FREEDOM.
I would suggest that anyone in opposition tally up an estimate of the the expected costs, line by line, and wrap it up in a tight lil' TikTok, so people actually understand the fiscal implication of these kinds of court challenges.
I mean, I'd love to argue that Albertans will be up in arms over people's rights being trampled but, we all know rights only apply to certain communities. In this case, it's far more effective to talk money and, to this day, I've never seen a good attack ad that shows just how much taxpayer money is actually wasted on principle-based posturing in the form of court challenges. See carbon tax.
Sadly, the polls suggest a sizeable majority of my fellow Albertans are willing to trade away those rights, and that the NDP risk falling into a "think of the children" trap. Maybe you're right.
Pretending that a group of people in our society either don’t exist or don’t have a right to exist does not keep them from existing. How does their existence remove any of the rights that the rest of us have? Why is it so important for some in our society, especially our government, to take away their rights to medical care? Is this really our priority as a society? How about putting the same effort into improving our education system and our healthcare system?
Isn’t it better to be generous in spirit than to be mean-spirited?
I agree with Jess. Look at the costs involved in this petty exercise by our government! And shame on them for using the power of the government and the notwithstanding clause on a small minority that has limited power! Are we rooting for David or for Goliath?
The purpose of the Notwithstanding Clause is to retain the Westminster tradition of parliamentary supremacy over against the American (and French) ideas of constitutional or judicial supremacy.
Which you acknowledge in your penultimate paragraph: “Over to us, Albertans, as the last line of defence. “
Exactly.
That's as I recall my parents explaining it to 15-year-old me during the patriation debates.
Somehow, though, I'm not sure Mr Lougheed and others envisioned it being used to protect the privileges of the majority from the rights of minorities, which seems to be its most common usage.
I would like to see it expunged from the Constitution and Charter, since bigoted small-minded provincial politicians use it to harm people.
Especially with the criminals governing south of the border who are setting a horrendous example of ignoring and abusing human rights and killing innocents with no accountability.
So far, this kind of abuse of Section 33 has not been subject to a court challenge.
But there is a first time for everything.
Buckle up.
Yes, the UCP's stupid law harms all girls. I've seen a number of parents tweeting their fury at having to provide their daughters' private information when the gov't has no business prying. A six year old who can't join the swim team unless her father assures the gov't she was born female? That is perverse and perverted.
One of the three laws that Danielle Smith intends to use the notwithstanding clause for is to ban transgender women and girls from playing in amateur female sports. I sincerely ask why you would oppose this.
Women and girls deserve sex-based spaces and sex-based rights. When you allow transgender people to join women's sports, then by definition, women's sports cease to exist. Don't ask women and girls to give up their rights in the name of being kind and inclusive, because the outcome is unkind and non-inclusive to women themselves.
Heres the thing, Trans women, are, women. And once hormone therapy is started, so much changes. Body mass, muscle mass changes. Loss of strength etc. And also,
"Rules about eligibility (e.g. hormone therapy, testosterone suppression, time since transition, etc.) differ across governing bodies and sports, which affect when and how a trans woman is allowed to compete. Some wins are under more relaxed rules; others under stricter ones." From Chat GPT for clarity
Also, why has she not been inclusive about Trans Men? (I actually believe they'd need more protection)
Interesting to see you are ‘upset’ about the layoffs at Imperial Oil but support all anti oil bills to support your eastern buddies. Duly noted. We all know Danielle’s new oil pipeline will be rejected by Carney. Which means you are against good jobs and prosperity in the province you claim to represent. Can’t make this stuff up.
First off: Don't say "intends to introduce three bills" and make us try to figure out which three bills you find objectionable. I am assuming (bad thing to do, I know) from the comments that these have to do with "transgender rights". Despite being a "libertarian with water wings" I don't believe the Constitution includes "something I want to be" as a category. And it should not.
But assuming you and the government of which you are now a part DO believe that my self-identification makes me the thing I self-identify as, can I start a medical practice if I self Identify as a doctor? Can I decorate my car with flashing lights and a siren because I self identify as a cop? Can I quit paying taxes because I self identify as a church?
Secondly: "It continues a troubling trend of big government “solutions” that stigmatize and penalize small populations that are seen as easy targets." This is something the government of which you are now a part does consistently. I believe, and as Charlie Kirk would challenge: "Prove me wrong", that I have a right to defend myself, my family and my property, yet your government insists I do not. You set out to "stigmatize and penalize" a segment of the population who own firearms. We are "easy targets" because we are "law-abiding" as evidenced by our taking courses, passing exams, and applying for licenses.
Thirdly: If transgendered people wish to participate in sporting events that are not unisex already, they can do, as women's sporting groups have done, organize their own. Let's see how quickly the ex-males exclude the now stronger ex-females from their games.