this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
29 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7280 readers
160 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says using the notwithstanding clause to shield her government's transgender health restrictions is on the table as a "last resort."

A provincial law will ban doctors from providing gender-affirming treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 16. A surgical prohibition already in effect will halt gender-affirming "top" surgeries for minors.

Speaking on her radio call-in show this weekend, Smith said she is willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, a measure that allows governments to override certain Charter rights for up to five years.

"Because I feel so strongly about protecting kids' right to preserve their fertility until they're adults, we would, as a last resort, have to use the notwithstanding clause."

all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Because I feel so strongly about protecting kids' right to preserve their fertility until they're adults

Puberty blockers don't damage fertility! They just delay things. If those kids decide they want kids they simply stop taking the blockers and everything proceeds normally.

Fucking ignorant bigots spreading bullshit!

[–] morbidcactus@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

The wording around "preserving their fertility" just feels creepy on top of the transphobia to me.

Are they going the extra mile to prevent children from being exposed to reproductive toxins because she feels so strongly about it? Make sure no child can be exposed to heavy metals or industrial solvents for example, that on the table?

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Another lie added to the pile.

Nothing can be considered a lie without proof which you guys most likely don't have.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

They are also commonly used for children with precocious puberty.

Just another example of being so anti-trans they hurt cis people.

[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Didn't it come out that they do have some non-zero risks? Dunno if it's worth panicking about though.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

Every medication on the planet has some "None 0 risks".

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

The "parents rights" "libertarian" in action.

[–] Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Conservatives: "Freedom from government fuckery for everyone who thinks exactly like me."

[–] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The notwithstanding clause show be usable by government bodies exactly once in history.

Bonus point: they would be able to reuse it if they cancel the law that required it the first time around.

Edit: to be honest, it should not exist at all.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@infosec.pub 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Way to go, Smith!

The "right to preserve fertility" is kind of a weird and wrong reason here but the intention and the implementation are great so still good enough. Letting minors make decisions like that is crazy and stupid. I'd say the legal age of adulthood (18 in most countries) is not big enough nowadays for this particular kind of decisions but it's a completely different story.