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

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.

Related Topics:#JohnCarpay #JusticeCentreForConstitutionalFreedoms #NotwithstandingClause #SaskatchewanPremierScottMoe feature

Up Next

Supreme Court ruling on federal environmental law a step toward brighter industrial future

Don't Miss

The Post-Cold War Origins of the Surveillance State

Todayville

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

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Crime / 2 hours ago

Former UK MP says ‘nothing was done’ with child trafficking information given to police, MI5

National / 5 hours ago

Chrystia Freeland’s WEF page deleted after she announces bid to replace Trudeau

International

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Published on January 21, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Madeline Armstrong

While the greenhouse gas reduction programs that raise electricity rates are part of California’s climate goals, the increased prices actually discourage individuals from switching away from using fossil fuels impacting California’s ambitious climate goals.

California has completed yet another year with some of the highest electricity rates in the country – almost double the national average. The state’s electricity rates have been increasing rapidly, outpacing inflation in recent years by approximately 47% from 2019 to 2023. This is due largely to the high rates charged by the state’s three large investor-owned utilities (IOUs).

According to a report published by the California Legislative Analyst Office, the factors driving rate increases are wildfire-related costs, greenhouse gas reduction mandates, and policies and differences in utility operational structures and services territories. Ratepayers bear the brunt of these costs with those who earn lower incomes and live in hotter areas of the state the most severely affected.

The report points out that while the greenhouse gas reduction programs that raise electricity rates are part of California’s climate goals, the increased prices actually discourage individuals from switching away from using fossil fuels impacting California’s ambitious climate goals.

These programs include the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires utilities to provide a percentage of retail electricity sales from renewable sources, raising costs for ratepayers. Additionally, SB 350 directs the CPUC to authorize ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs to meet California’s goal of doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030.

“While many other states operate ratepayer-supported energy efficiency programs, on average, we estimate that Californians contribute a notably greater share of their rates to such programs than is typical across the country,” the report notes.

Electricity rates pay for numerous costs related to the construction, maintenance and operation of electricity systems including the generation, transmission and distribution components. However, these rates also pay for costs unrelated to servicing electricity.

“Most notably, the state and IOUs use revenue generated from electricity rates to support various state-mandated public purpose programs,” the report says. “These programs have goals such as increasing energy efficiency, expediting adoption of renewable energy sources, supporting the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), and providing lower-income customers with financial assistance.”

The largest public purpose program is the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), which provides discounts for lower-income customers. However, the report notes that while CARE benefits certain customers, it shifts the costs onto other slightly higher-income customers and that the majority of Californians spend a larger portion of their income on electricity compared to other states.

“According to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, California households in the lowest quintile of the income distribution typically spend about 6 percent of their before-tax incomes on electricity, compared to less than 1 percent for the highest-income quintile of households,” reads the report. “Notably, high electricity rates also can impose burdens on moderate-income earners, since they also pay a larger share of their household incomes toward electricity than their higher-income counterparts but typically are not able to qualify for bill assistance programs.”

Electricity bills also reflect other state and local tax charges including utility taxes that are used to support programs such as fire response and parks in addition to the state-assessed charge on electricity use that is put into the Energy Resources Programs Account (ERPA). This account is used to pay for energy programs and planning activities.

While many of the funds recovered through electricity rates are fixed costs for programs, these costs increased in 2022 following the repeal of a state law that limited fixed charges at $10, requiring the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to authorize fixed charges that vary by income. These come out to be around $24 per month for non-CARE customers and $6 per month for CARE customers.

Wildfire related costs have also been increasing. Before 2019, wildfire costs included in electricity rates charged by IOUs were negligible, but now it has grown between 7% and 13% of typical non-CARE customers. Reasons for this increase include California’s high wildfire risk and the state’s liability standard holding IOUs responsible for all costs associated with utility-caused wildfires.

“The magnitude of the damages and risks from utility-sparked wildfires have increased substantially in recent years,” reads the report. “Correspondingly, IOUs have spent unprecedented amounts in recent years on wildfire mitigation-related activities to try to reduce the likelihood of future utility-caused wildfires, with the associated costs often passed along to ratepayers. Furthermore, California IOUs and their ratepayers pay for insurance against future wildfires, including contributing to the California Wildfire Fund.”

According to the report, electricity use and rates for Claifornians are only expected to increase and the legislature will have to determine how to tackle the statewide climate goals while reducing the burden on ratepayers.

Madeline Armstrong

Reporter

Daily Caller

Pastor Lectures Trump and Vance On Trans People, Illegal Immigrants

Published on January 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nicole Silverio

President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance visibly rolled their eyes as the Episcopal bishop of Washington, Mariann Budde, lectured them on being kind to transgender people and immigrants at Tuesday’s National Prayer Service.

Budde requested that the newly sworn-in president and vice president “have mercy” on gay, lesbian and transgender people as well as illegal immigrants who are allegedly “scared” by the new administration. The new leaders did not appear amused by her lecture, with Vance repeatedly shooting looks to his wife, Second Lady Usha Vance.

“In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy on the people in our country who are scared now,” Budde said. “There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families, some who fear for their lives. And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants, who work the night shifts in hospitals. They may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors, they are faithful members of churches and our mosques, synagogues and temples.”

WATCH:

Trump and Vance attended the National Prayer Service along with Usha, First Lady Melania Trump and their families at the Washington National Cathedral. The interfaith service was held to “offer prayers of thanksgiving for our democracy” at the beginning of the new administration, according to a statement from the National Cathedral.

Budde, a staunch critic of Trump since his first term, said during a phone call in 2020 that she was “outraged” by the president’s speech about the importance of law and order at St. John’s Episcopal Church after it was set ablaze by Black Lives Matter protesters. She further seethed at Trump for allegedly being given no notice that the area surrounding the church would be cleared with tear gas.

Trump signed a slew of executive orders Monday evening to terminate birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, declare a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border and to direct the federal government to only recognize two sexes, male and female.

An Axios/Ipsos poll from Sunday found that 66% of Americans support deporting immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, an action that Trump had promised to enact throughout his campaign. The poll surveyed 1,025 adults between January 10 to 12 with a 3.2% margin of error.

A national poll by PPRI in June 2023 found that 65% of Americans believe there are only two genders. The poll surveyed 5,000 adults between March 9-23 with a 1.5% margin of error.