Latest news with #ParentsBillOfRights
CTV News
7 hours ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Sask. court rules that legal challenge of province's pronoun policy can move forward
People hold signs while attending a rally against the Saskatchewan government's proposed legislation on pronoun policy in front of Saskatchewan legislature in Regina, on Tuesday, October 10, 2023. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Heywood Yu) Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal has ruled that invoking the notwithstanding clause cannot stop a court from ruling whether a law violates the Charter. In a Monday decision on an appeal that saw a host of groups join as intervenors, the province's highest court determined a judge can hear the Charter case against Saskatchewan's controversial pronoun law — even if a King's Bench judge is barred from striking it down. Known as Bill 137 or the Parents' Bill of Rights, the legislation requires students under the age of 16 to have parental permission before they can change their pronouns or names in school. The court's decision will allow the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity to pursue whether the amendments to the province's education act violates two sections of the Charter, mainly the right to life, liberty, security of the person (Section 7) and equality rights (Section 15). The Government of Saskatchewan first introduced a pronoun policy in August of 2023 – which was legally challenged by UR Pride. The University of Regina-based centre requested and was granted a court injunction which halted the use of the policy. In response, the Government of Saskatchewan recalled the legislature in October of 2023 to enshrine the policy into law and stop the court challenge. In response, the Government of Saskatchewan recalled the legislature to enshrine the policy into law and stop the court challenge. Utilizing Section 33 of the Charter, otherwise known as the 'notwithstanding clause,' the government passed Bill 137 amid heavy criticism from advocacy groups and the Opposition NDP. UR Pride amended its legal challenge to say the law violated Section 12 of the Charter, which protects Canadians from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. In February of 2024, a Court of King's Bench judge ruled that UR Pride's amended challenge should be heard. The province appealed that decision, arguing that since the original policy was no longer in place, and the law was protected by the notwithstanding clause, the question of whether the law violates the Charter rights of children was essentially irrelevant. Since the provincial government's constitutional maneuver to sidestep the ability of a court to strike the pronoun law down, the government's lawyers have argued it would be an abuse of process for a court to even hear the case or make a judgment on the potential Charter issues. During the two days of arguments, the Court of Appeal panel heard from nine interveners that supported a decision to continue the legal challenge against the bill – ranging from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the John Howard Society. The Governments of Alberta and New Brunswick served as intervenors on behalf of the provincial government. Monday's verdict will allow UR Pride's challenge to be heard at the Court of King's Bench at a later date — even though the law will remain in place regardless of what the court rules due to the protections of the notwithstanding clause. Reaction Egale Canada, which launched the legal challenge alongside UR Pride, shared its enthusiasm over the court's decision Monday. 'At the base of this case is a government policy that the Court of King's Bench found – on the basis of expert evidence – would cause irreparable harm to vulnerable young people in Saskatchewan," the organization shared. 'Rather than reverse course, the Government of Saskatchewan has doubled down at every turn, using the notwithstanding clause to intentionally limit the constitutional rights of youth, and implement a law that will cause them harm.' Egale ended off by urging the government to end its defence of 'harmful legislation' and to prioritize creating safe and welcome school environments. Organizations from across the province shared similar sentiments following the decision. 'Today sends a clear message: rights matter, children matter, and the Sask. Party government cannot simply legislate away accountability,' CUPE Sask. president Kent Peterson said in a statement. 'Instead of a serious response to tariffs, wildfires, or understaffed hospitals, the Sask. Party keeps fighting students and educators in court. Wasting hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of taxpayer dollars on this fight is bizarre,' SLF president Lori Johb said in her own news release.
CTV News
10 hours ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Sask. court to deliver decision on legal challenge against province's pronoun policy
People hold signs while attending rally against the Saskatchewan government's proposed legislation on pronoun policy in front of Saskatchewan legislature in Regina, on Tuesday, October 10, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Heywood Yu Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal is expected to deliver a decision today, in a matter concerning the Ministry of Education, UR Pride and the province's pronoun policy. Saskatchewan's highest court will determine if a legal challenge against the province's Parents' Bill of Rights can continue. A panel of five justices reserved its decision after hearing closing arguments last September. Known as Bill 137 or the Parents' Bill of Rights, the legislation requires students under the age of 16 to have parental permission before they can change their pronouns or names in school. The Government of Saskatchewan first introduced a pronoun policy in August of 2023. UR Pride, a LGBTQ2S+ advocacy organization based in Regina, legally challenged the policy – arguing it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. UR Pride requested and was granted a court injunction which halted the use of the policy. In response, the Government of Saskatchewan recalled the legislature to enshrine the policy into law and stop the court challenge. Utilizing the notwithstanding clause, the government passed Bill 137 amid heavy criticism from advocacy groups and the Opposition NDP. During the two days of arguments, the Court of Appeal panel heard from nine interveners that supported a decision to continue the legal challenge against the bill – ranging from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the John Howard Society. The Governments of Alberta and New Brunswick served as intervenors on behalf of the provincial government. The court is set to deliver its decision at 10 a.m. -With files from Caitlin Brezinski and Donovan Maess
CTV News
18 hours ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Sask. court hears arguments from province, UR Pride in pronoun law appeal
WATCH: Donovan Maess has the details on the first day of proceedings of the pronoun policy appeal launched by the Sask. Gov't. The Saskatchewan Government is in the province's highest court fighting to prevent a Court of King's Bench judge from determining if its Parents' Bill of Rights actually violates the Charter. In August 2023, the government announced a policy requiring students under 16 years of age to have parental permission before they change their pronouns or names in school. LGBTQ2S+ advocates then requested and were granted a court injunction which halted the use of the policy. In response, the Sask Party government enacted the use of the notwithstanding clause into Bill 137, better known as the Parents' Bill of Rights in attempt to stop the court challenge. Download the CTV News app to get breaking news alerts sent to your device In February, Justice Michael Megaw ruled UR Pride should still get the chance to have the court review the law's impacts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Megaw's decision would allow UR Pride and the government to present all their evidence and arguments in court, although the invocation of Section 33 of the Charter, also known as the notwithstanding clause, means a judge could not strike it down. The government is making the case that its use of Section 33 means that since the court has no power to strike the law down, it should not be allowed to review whether the law violates the Charter. Three Arguments The government's appeal relied on three main arguments: There was an error of law for allowing the challenge to proceed, the issue is moot because of the use of the notwithstanding clause and UR Pride is abusing the judicial process. Government counsel believed Justice Megaw made an error of law in allowing UR Pride to amend its application to include a constitutional challenge. 'Jurisdiction of the court is removed when the notwithstanding clause in invoked,' lawyer Milad Alishahi argued in court Monday. 'The ability of the court completely to deal with the question [whether a law violates a charter provision] doesn't exist.' The province also believes the challenge is moot because of the use of the clause. 'The learning judge made an error of law in failing to find the declaration sought to find Sections 7 and 15 [of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms] raised in the issue,' said government lawyer Bennet Misskey. 'To determine whether a matter is moot, it is necessary to assess what practical remedies are available to both parties.' Court of Appeal Justice Georgina Jackson challenged Misskey's comment. 'Would it have been better for the learn judge not to have passed on the issue of jurisdiction and focused on the issue of mootness?' she asked. 'Certainly,' Misskey replied. 'Had the court found they had jurisdiction to issue some sort of declaration it was incumbent to then address the question of mootness.' 'By deferring the issue, it almost renders the question of mootness itself in a certain way,' he added. Finally, lawyers say UR Pride is abusing the court process in trying to hold the government to account. 'It's such a different case,' Deron Kuski said. 'They are saying they want a decision that will hold the government to account.' Kuski added he believes it is not up to the court to allow the process. 'The court should not concern itself with the issue of accountability,' he said. 'Public accountability comes at the ballot box, not from the judiciary.' UR Pride on defense For over a year, UR Pride and multiple other advocate groups have been on the offensive in trying to halt the pronoun policies included in the Parents' Bill of Rights. But now, they are defending the decision to allow their connotational challenge. 'The issue of this case from day zero has been whether this law is constitutional,' said Adam Goldenberg, co-counsel for UR Pride. 'I have real concerns with the suggestion its abusive and improper for a party challenging the constitutionality of a law to seek the determination whether the law is.' 'The government has taken the position the effect of section 33 is unaffected by the rights of the groups in question,' Chief Justice Robert Leurer said. 'Are being asked to decide an issue on a factual pattern?' 'No one is questioning the legislative policy in this case,' Goldenberg said. 'You can't look at which rights are being overridden and whether it was a wise or unwise legislative choice.' 'As long as the full requirements are met, the law operates,' he added. 'None of that is being disputed in this case.' Goldenberg went on to submit there is a real need to inform the Saskatchewan electorate and elected officials of the provisions which the government has sought to infringe with the use of the notwithstanding clause. 'The purpose of every charter claim is ultimately to educate the legislatures who have the power to change the law of their constitutional obligations,' he said. 'None of that is improper. None of that is abusive.' Setting the precedent The looming appeal decision stands to set the precedent for similar cases across the country. 'The court has an important role when the government chooses to violate the charter rights of young people or any part of the population,' said UR Pride co-counsel and Director of Legal for Egale Canada Bennett Jensen. Both the provinces of New Brunswick and Alberta have enacted similar pronoun policy laws and were granted intervener status in this case. Representatives from both provinces made submissions Monday in support of the Sask Party government's position. Legal battles in each province are also expected in the near future. Sask. Minister of Justice and Attorney General Bronwyn Eyre asserted the government's support for parental rights. 'It is important to include parents in these crucial decisions,' she told reporters at a media conference in Saskatoon Monday. 'We've always been clear we'll use every tool at our disposal to do that.' 'The notwithstanding clause is an integral part of the Charter of Rights [and Freedoms] and was long fought for … as a means for a balance between the legislative and judicial [branches],' Eyre added. Jensen responded by saying it is disappointing to see the Saskatchewan government continue to defend policies he says target the province's most vulnerable. 'When political leaders are telling young people it's not okay to be themselves, that it's not okay to be different at school, that has a devastating effect on young people,' he said. 'The fact the policy has continued to be in effect this whole time continues to cause real harm across the population.' More arguments in support of UR Pride's challenge will continue Tuesday. -With files from Rory MacLean
CTV News
21 hours ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Saskatchewan's Parents' Bill of Rights back in court today, here's a timeline of events
WATCH: Saskatchewan's new Parents' Bill of Rights was back in court on Wednesday. Donovan Maess has the details. More than a year after the Government of Saskatchewan introduced the pronoun policy, the constitutionality of it continues to be questioned. Eventually introduced as Bill 137, the Parents' Bill of Rights was legally challenged by UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity. On Monday morning, the two sides will go to the Court of Appeal to have their arguments heard by a judge. Here is a timeline laying out the events leading up to this point. Aug. 22, 2023 The Government of Saskatchewan introduced policy changes in schools, which include requiring parents to be informed of third-party education and being able to opt their children out of sex-ed. This particular policy change stemmed from the provincial government banning Planned Parenthood in schools following the distribution of 'ABC sex cards' to Grade 9 students in a Lumsden, Sask. school. The Sask. United Party, who took a considerable amount of votes in a by-election in the constituency of Lumsden-Morse earlier in August, campaigned on the controversy sparked by Planned Parenthood. The day after that, Premier Scott Moe holds a news conference where he said the ruling Saskatchewan Party heard a 'message' by voters. Ultimately, Planned Parenthood is suspended, leading to the pause of other third-party groups in schools. The new policy announced by then Education Minister Dustin Duncan also requires students under 16 years of age to have parental permission before they could change their pronouns or names in school. A similar decision made by the Government of New Brunswick earlier in August limited the use of preferred pronouns, which led to significant backlash. Aug. 23, 2023 Saskatchewan was not exempt from the backlash, as the Saskatchewan Advocate for Children and Youth announces an immediate review of the changes the following day, noting that the potential impact of the policy is 'deeply troubling.' As well, several school boards collectively ask the government for a 'reasonable pause' on the sudden policy change. Advocates who work with trans and gender-diverse youth in the province also say the policy shift could pose safety risks. Other third-party groups who present in schools, including the Regina Sexual Assault Centre, voice their concerns, saying their material is age appropriate and focused on assault prevention and safety. Aug. 29, 2023 UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity, a group within the University of Regina, prepares to take legal action against Saskatchewan's new policy for students' names and chosen pronouns. Represented by advocacy group Egale Canada and law firm McCarthy Tétrault LLP, UR Pride prepares to file a lawsuit against the policy at Saskatchewan's Court of King's Bench, citing violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. UR Pride asks the provincial government to suspend the policy by 5 p.m. on Aug. 30 and threatens to file an injunction to block the policy from coming into effect if the deadline is not met. The government does not suspend the policy, so UR Pride files the injunction. Sept. 28, 2023 Justice Michael Megaw issues the injunction, which effectively presses pause on the policy until the court rules on the legal challenge put forth by UR Pride. In his decision to grant the injunction, Megaw references testimony of an expert witness who pointed out potential harms of the policy. '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. However, in defiance of the King's Bench ruling, Premier Scott Moe issues a statement to say the Legislative Assembly would be recalled early to 'to pass legislation to protect parents' rights.' Premier Moe says he will turn to the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian constitution, which would delay potential Charter challenges after the policy becomes law. This was met with backlash from the NDP opposition, who said the policy will harm vulnerable students. Oct. 12, 2023 Premier Moe recalls the Legislature two weeks early, and the policy, thus known as Bill 137 or the Parents' Bill of Rights, is introduced and read for the first time in the Saskatchewan Legislature. The bill invokes the notwithstanding clause to override certain sections of the Charter and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Codes to ensure parents must consent if their child wants to change their gender identification in school. The introduction of the bill receives unanimous support by Saskatchewan Party MLAs and Saskatchewan United Party Leader Nadine Wilson. It was also unanimously opposed by all Saskatchewan NDP MLAs who are present for the vote. Oct. 19, 2023 The second reading of the Parent's Bill of Rights is passed in the Saskatchewan Legislature. Since Bill 137 is introduced, members of the opposition NDP take turns speaking for hours at a time in an attempt to stall the legislation. Oct. 20, 2023 The third and final reading of the Parents' Bill of Rights is passed in the Saskatchewan Legislature, it becomes law after being immediately granted Royal Assent. Oct. 26, 2023 During an intervention application at the Court of King's Bench, the government reveals what was known as the 'pronoun policy' has been rescinded since the Parents' Bill of Rights has become law. Egale Canada, one of the two organizations representing UR Pride, vows to continue legal action against the Parents' Bill of Rights. Feb. 16, 2024 Justice Megaw rules that UR Pride should still get the chance to challenge the law under the Charter. Megaw's decision would allow UR Pride and the government to present all their evidence and arguments in court. The judge would then be able to decide his next steps. The legal challenge is scheduled to be heard in court in ten days time on Feb. 26. The Saskatchewan government continues to defend the Parents' Bill of Rights and says the law may go to the Supreme Court. Feb. 26, 2024 The Saskatchewan government turns to the Court of Appeal to intervene which halts the legal battle. Attorney General Bronwyn Eyre says the Court of Appeal has agreed to hear the court's case. July 26, 2024 Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal denies a political group that opposes so-called 'gender ideology' intervener status in the legal dispute. Aug. 29, 2024 Nearing the start of the school year, school divisions say they are preparing to enforce the law. The Saskatchewan government prepares to make its case before the Court of Appeal in September, arguing that its use of the notwithstanding clause should prevent a judge from reviewing the law. Saskatchewan will be joined by the attorneys general of Alberta and New Brunswick in making its case to exclude the courts from the law. Eleven parties in total join as intervenors on the side of UR Pride, including labour groups, Amnesty International, and civil liberties organizations. Sept. 23, 2024 The legal battle is taken to the Court of Appeal. --With files from Josh Lynn, David Prisciak, Drew Postey, Laura Woodward, Rory MacLean, and the Canadian Press.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Texas ‘Parent's Bill of Rights' targets LGBTQ+ clubs, DEI programs in schools
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — On Saturday night, the Texas Legislature sent Senate Bill 12 — unofficially titled the Parent's Bill of Rights — to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk. If signed, the bill would ban diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts from the Texas public schools, including banning DEI student groups. When the Texas House first heard SB 12 on May 24, the bill's sponsor State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-McKinney, added what's commonly-known as a 'perfecting amendment.' The term is typically used for amendments the bill's author puts forward at the beginning of the floor debate to address any late concerns they have with the bill. Like most perfecting amendments, Leach's passed overwhelmingly with only two votes against. Leach said his amendment was to clarify language after a similar bill in Florida led to a lawsuit. Both sides reached a settlement, which reinstated the rights of teachers to talk about LGBTQ+ issues in the classroom and protected LGBTQ+ student organizations. ''Classroom instruction' means the provision of information as part of a curriculum by a teacher, or other person designated by a school district to serve in the role of a teacher, in an academic instructional setting,' the amendment says. 'The term does not include… the sponsorship of or participation in a club or other extracurricular activity.' However, the language defining classroom instruction was removed from the bill during conference committee — a process where five members of each chamber meet to hash out the differences between their versions of a passed bill. 'Does this bill, or does it not, now have language to explicitly deny students from being able to organize Gay-Straight Alliance clubs?,' State Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Hays County, asked Leach. Zwiener is openly bisexual. 'Our bill does put a ban in that would prevent a — let's say a fourth grader or an eighth grader from joining a club that is sexual in nature,' Leach responded. 'I'm sorry Representative Leach, are you saying the fact that sexual orientation exists is more sexual than straight people existing?' Zwiener responded. 'If a student is struggling with their sexuality or their identity and they want to talk to their friends at school about it or talk to a teacher or talk to a counselor, that's fine if they have the parent's consent,' Leach said. 'But we do not need to have school-sponsored and school-sanctioned sex clubs, period.' 'I don't know what you all think happens in [LGBTQ+ student organizations], but for them to be described as sex clubs is astonishing to me,' State. Rep. Rafael Anchía, D-Dallas, said. 'It equates a child's orientation or identity with sex. Let me tell you, these clubs are no more about sex that 4-H or ROTC (Reserve Officers' Training Corps) or the basketball team.' 'Would you call a homecoming king and a homecoming queen a heterosexual couple? Would you call that a sex act? No. What about a prom king and a prom queen? No. So why is it that when there are gay kids that get together to form a club that's called a sex club,' State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin, rhetorically asked Anchía. 'Because it's a freaking double standard,' Anchía replied. 'And the fact that grown-ass people on this House floor will say (LGBTQ+ organizations are sex clubs) is a problem, and that's not okay.' When Leach got the chance to respond, he apologized for his characterization. 'Especially to you Representative Anchía,' Leach said. 'I misspoke and I apologize for that word blunder.' On social media, Zwiener pointed out that Leach personally apologized to Anchía, a straight man, and not her. 'The tone on the House Floor has gotten more and more callous this session. Texas deserves better. Texas kids deserve better,' she said in a following post. 'Instead of a bunch of overgrown frat boys looking to score a point on the microphone, we should be able to have robust debates on the House Floor.' In addition to banning student clubs based around sexual orientation, the final version of SB 12 removes a House protection to ban targeted recruitment to encourage a diverse applicant pool, includes a House provision banning public schools from helping with social transitioning and allows parents to inspect what library books their children have signed out. 'SB 12 imposes a 'Don't Say LGBTQIA+' rule that mimics Florida's widely criticized law. It also requires school districts to adopt policies that could 'out' transgender students to unsupportive parents or guardians, putting them at risk of abuse or homelessness,' Ash Hall with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas, said. 'Our students and educators deserve so much better.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
