An Oakes Test Analysis: UR Pride Centre
Constitutionality of Saskatchewan’s Parental Inclusion Policy
Note to readers: This stuff takes a lot of research and intellectual resources. The article is without a paywall as a service to Canadians. I am asking you to please support this work with a paid subscription, a donation via Buy Me a Coffee, or a donation to the Donorbox Genderwang Legal Research Fund. I have created a Founding Member level of support, which includes a monthly zoom meeting with me to discuss editorial content and story direction and ideas and whatever you would like to discuss about the publication and its editorial direction. If you like what you read, please spread the word by sharing this post and publication with your friends and colleagues and family. You support independent and intellectually sound writing and through paid subscriptions. Throughout the piece you will see button linking to the donation options I mentioned above as well as to the subscription landing page.
I am launching a podcast this fall! Stay tuned for Can We Talk: Conversations with Smart + Thoughtful People.
Introductory Notes :: Setting the Landscape
The word Gender functions as a placeholder for Sex Denialism in Canadian law. No satisfactory - ie valid + reliable - legal definition of Gender exists. After spending time perusing the Government of Canada website I can provide the following definition: gender is the inner experience or feeling of being a man or a woman. Clearly Gender emanates from Sex. Sex determines or underlies Gender. Conventionally our society has used Gender and Sex interchangeably. Gender currently stands as this ambiguous ill-defined category which subverts Sex and disrupts embodied awareness.
In the early 90s feminists and educators sought to eradicate gender + gender-stereotyping in the classroom. In the 2023 we seek to impose gender stereotypes with an iron fist and state mandated sterilisation masquerading as “Paediatric Gender Affirming Care” for any kid who does not fit into the Gender Boxes which GenderWangists have constructed for the non conformists. In regime states like Iran kids who hit puberty get hijab and purdah1 and in regime states like Canada kids who hit puberty get a suicide contagion and puberty blockers aka chemical castration. Where Iran values fertility, Canada does not even value that. The vast majority of gender non conforming kids are gay or autistic.
Currently in Western Canada the leading causes of death in children and youth aged 10 to 18 is OD deaths. Paediatricians link the high numbers to a dearth of evidence-based paediatric health care, in particular responsible responsive efficacious embodied emotional + psychological care. Children need brain savvy care and a brain savvy culture to grow into adulthood. Allied paediatric professionals fighting parents in the state’s politicisation of kids seems like a harmful society for children. Bill C-6 has created a climate of fear amongst therapists and allied health paediatric professionals, who fear questioning and exploring a child’s thinking about presenting a dissociate state now equates to conversion therapy. It has terrified parents, who fear the state will apprehend their child if they question the validity and legitimacy of “gender affirming care”, the GenderWang euphemism for paediatric sex changes.
The cult of GenderWang has attached itself to the gay rights movement, and thus have come to categorise any questioning of their Sex Denialism as hatred. It feels to many Canadians as thought the Human Rights Act has become the dagger on Fae Johnstone’s t-shirt. Shame and fear keep the masses from speaking freely in a measured manner that defines the Canadian way We are not eunuchs though, simply thoughtful and worrying and collectively overthinking.
About the Application. The UR Pride Centre for Sexuality Gender Diversity, housed in the University of Regina, has launched a legal proceeding to strike the Parental Inclusion Policy as unconstitutional. With the help of Egale, a federally funded LGBTQ+ nonprofit organisation, UR Pride hopes to stop parental inclusion in the social transitioning of their children. The federally funded Egale has provided legal representation from McCarthy-Tetrault LLP. The Application seeks an injunction suspending the implementation of The Policy until the adjudication of UR Pride’s Charter challenge of The Policy.
UR Pride has designated parental involvement in social transitioning as ‘Outing’, as if a child feeling dissociated and disembodied and believing they are the opposite sex trapped in a wrong body is anything like being gay, which is where the term Outing comes from. UR Pride has designated using sex-based pronouns as ‘Misgendering’, as if, in perceiving another person’s sex as we are hardwired to do, we commit an offence. UR Pride has designated using the name given at birth and appearing on legal documents as ‘Deadnaming’. In 9 paragraphs the word harm appears 3 times, the word safe appears 5 times, and the word risk appears twice. The words Misgendering and Outing appear 8 times in these same 9 paragraphs. The interest of the child does not extend beyond the language symbols of the identity for UR Pride Centre. UR Pride came to court to protect gender identity not any child’s best interest.
Humans have a hardwired ability to discern male from female from very young. Humans have complex brain wiring for social connection. In a free and democratic society we do not allow the tyranny of the minority. Can any child demand on a whim that those around him/her shut off an innate hardwired instinct, on pain of committing a grievous human right offense? Can any child demand that those around them refrain from disclosing to their parents a potentially dangerous behaviour the child has chosen to perform? Teachers and school administrators have a duty to the bests interest of the child and not to an identity or political lobby group.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects humans. The Human Rights Acts protect humans. They do not protect identities, they protect human rights. According to a United Nations primer on the Foundations of International Human Law, human rights represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and equally applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights … Whatever our nationality, place of residence … or any other status. Human rights centre humans, they do no sacrifice human best interest for a construct. The protected characteristics in these human rights statutes across Canada must represent + protect human beings, or they do not belong. Children cannot have their best interest take a back seat to a constructed identity because a group of ambivalent university students decided to hijaack the public education system in order to project their own identity struggles onto other people’s kids!
With respect to the matter at hand, The Parental Inclusion Policy, does UR Pride Centre meet the criteria for a person having a sufficient interest? This means a person designated by the court to be have a sufficient interest in a child pursuant to section 23 of The Child and Family Services Act.
About Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan immigrant population has risen significantly over the past decade with top countries of origin being India, Philippines, China — the education needs of immigrant children are not met by the extravagant amounts of funding and resources devoted to GenderWang. Canada scores 36 in literacy and 47 in numeracy globally. Saskatchewan sits below the national average in literacy. For all the talk of diversity, Canadian GenderWang presents a white upper middle class + dualistic + materialistic vision of humans and human society — morally arrogant and colonial. the Fraser Institute reports that Saskatchewan pupil enrolment has risen since 2014, whilst per pupil funding fallen.
The Oakes Test
What is The Oakes Test?
The Oakes Test helps a judge decide whether a law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. R. v. Oakes involves a bloke named Oakes, caught with hash oil in his possession. Under the Act those charged with possession had to prove they did not possess with the intent to traffick. Oakes challenged that s. 8 of the Narcotics Act violated s. 11(d) presumption of innocence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and won his challenge. Justice Dickson devised a proportionality test for the case analysis and we call this The Oakes Test.
Is the provision unconstitutional?
a. Possibly it violates section 15(1). The judiciary conventionally considers protected traits in the Human Rights Act, such as “gender expression + gender identity”, quasi-constitutional, so even though “gender expression + gender identity” isn’t in the Charter it would receive Charter-like protection. Has the harm mentioned in the application been sufficiently defined and demonstrated for the Court or the Crown?
b. The policy discriminates against gender non conforming children, singles them out because of their gender.
c. The policy sets a precedent—other parent minority groups would want their own parental inclusion policy, for instance religious parents to monitor their children’s adherence to dress-code.
If so, can it be justified?
If it’s discriminatory YES it is justified under section 1, reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.2 The Crown has statutory obligations to fulfill in delivering public education to the children and youth of Saskatchewan, including legislation and regulations governing teachers, education, child safety. Children occupy a particular human rights situation, because of the mitigating effects of development the child’s best interest must always limit their Charter freedoms. Protecting the life of physical integrity of a child overrides protecting the right of a mature minor to make his/her own choices.
a. The benefit of protecting the the physical + emotional + psychological integrity of the child via affirming natural puberty outweighs the harm of not affirming gender identity and expression as experienced by mandating sex based pronouns and name.
b. The discriminatory nature of the policy can be justified.
c. As such the policy doesn’t provide a precedent for parents of religious fundamentalists.
Ratio - Proportionality Test
4 Step to the Oakes Test
1. Pressing and Substantial Objective
Is it a pressing and substantial objective in a free and democratic society, enough to warrant overriding a constitutional right?
⚖️Provincial Statutes :: The Child and Family Services Act | The Education Act | Education Regulations | The Registered Teachers Act | Teacher’s Federation Act | The Human Rights Act ⚖️
The Child and Family Services Act. It is in The Child’s Best Interest to protect the right to experience natural puberty, that is to experience natural and normal growth undisturbed by unnecessary experimental treatments. Puberty suppression is a highly experimental and deeply authoritarian approach to paediatrics care. Section 4(b) of Saskatchewan’s Child and Family Services Act mandates the appropriate care or treatment to meet mental-emotional-physical-educational needs. Section 4(c) mandates taking into account upbringing, Section 4(a) mandates taking consideration of close relationships to the child — further support for Parental Inclusion.
A Parental Inclusion Policy fulfils the Child’s Best Interest requirements of The Act.
Child’s best interests
4 If a person or court is required by any provision of this Act other than
subsection 49(2) to determine the best interests of a child, the person or court must
take into account:
(a) the quality of the relationship that the child has with any person who
may have a close connection with the child;
(b) the mental, emotional, physical and educational needs of the child and
the appropriate care or treatment, or both, to meet those needs;
(c) the child’s cultural and spiritual heritage and upbringing;
(d) the home environment proposed to be provided for the child;
(e) the plans, with respect to the care of the child, of the person to whom it
is proposed that the custody of the child be entrusted;
(f) if practicable, the child’s wishes, having regard to the age and level of the
child’s development;
(g) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on
the child of disruption of that continuity; and
(h) the effect on the child of a delay in making a decision.
2018, c 8, s.4.
The Education Act. Section 190(3) of The Education Act states that no treatment mentioned in subsection (1) [medical and dental examination and treatment of pupils] shall be given without the consent of the parent or guardian of the pupil or child. Social transitioning, that is allowing opposite sexual preferred pronouns and names, is a medical treatment.
Education Regulations. Educations Regulations Part XIII(1) sets out the criteria and guidelines for teacher misconduct. With respect to sexual exploitation as outlined in the Criminal Code, does the SOGI curriculum, the sexually suggestive nature of the lessons, + the zealous anti-parent Pride culture surrounding them + the policy of parental exclusion = a classroom situation than lends itself to sexual exploitation?
Professional misconduct 59.1(1) Without restricting the generality of clause 209.4(a) of the act, the following conduct on the part of a teacher is harmful to the best interests of pupils or other members of the public and constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of the act: (a) emotionally abusive conduct, which is any intentional act or omission designed to humiliate or cause distress or loss of dignity, and which may include verbal or non-verbal behaviour; (b) physically abusive conduct, which is any physical force that is excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances; (c) sexually abusive conduct, which is inappropriate touching of a sexual nature that violates a person’s sexual integrity, whether consensual or not, and which includes sexual exploitation as defined in the Criminal Code. (2) Without restricting the generality of clause 209.4(b) of the act, the following conduct on the part of a teacher tends to harm the standing of the profession and constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of the act: (a) an act or omission that, in the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional; (b) being in violation of a law if the violation is relevant to the teacher’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification or if the violation would reasonably be regarded as placing one or more pupils in danger; (c) signing or issuing a document in the teacher’s professional capacity that the teacher knows or ought to know contains a false, improper or misleading statement; (d) falsifying a record relating to the teacher’s professional responsibilities; (e) providing false information or documents to the minister or to any other person with respect to the teacher’s professional qualifications. 10 Jne 2011 SR 37/2011 s7.
The Registered Teachers Act. The Registered Teacher’s Act provides the following guidelines for professional misconduct.
Professional incompetence
32 Professional incompetence is a question of fact, but the display by a registered teacher of a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment or a disregard for the welfare of a student or other member of the public served by the profession of a nature or to an extent that demonstrates that the registered teacher is unfit to:
(a) continue in the practice of the profession; or (b) provide one or more services ordinarily provided as a part of the practice of the profession;
is professional incompetence within the meaning of this Act. 2015, c.R-15.1, s.32.
Professional misconduct
33 Professional misconduct is a question of fact, but any matter, conduct or thing, whether or not disgraceful or dishonourable, constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of this Act if:
(a) it is harmful to the best interests of students or other members of the public;
(b) it tends to harm the standing of the profession; (c) it is a breach of this Act or the bylaws; or (d) it is a failure to comply with an order of the professional conduct committee, the discipline committee or the board of directors.
2015, c.R-15.1, s.33.
The Teacher’s Federation Act. The Teacher’s Federation Act, section 38(d), certain conduct to be deemed unprofessional includes publishes or circulates any false or mischievous statement or enters into any collusive arrangement intended to circumvent or nullify any of the Acts of the Legislature pertaining to teachers or schools or the regulations of the department.
Policy Objective. Parental inclusion policy guards the safety + bodily integrity + psychological + emotional wellbeing of children against the dangers of paediatric sex change.
Federal Statutes + Jurisprudence :: Criminal Code | Charter of Rights and Freedoms | Mature Minor Doctrine |
Criminal Code, section 153(1) and (1.2). Criminal Code, section 153(1) and (1.2). Do SOGI lessons such as the Planned Parenthood sex cards meet the Criminal Code for Sexual Exploitation? Could secretly counselling a child to believe s/he needs a sex change procedure constitute sexual exploitation? Persons in a position of trust and influence, adult-child age and power differential, engaging in incitation to adopt a sexual identity, secrecy from parental authority—that could create an exploitation scenario.
Sexual exploitation
153 (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.
Inference of sexual exploitation
(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including
(a) the age of the young person;
(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;
(c) the evolution of the relationship; and
(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.
Mature Minor Jurisprudence. David Day, writing in the Canadian Law Review, wrote, a global common law definition of a “child,” termed the “Rule of Sevens,” comprises multiples of seven, each signifying a stage of a child’s capacity and concomitant privileges and disabilities. Basically, at common law, a child lacks capacity until seven years old; is subject to a rebuttable presumption of incapacity from seven to fourteen years old (fourteen being the commencement of the age of discretion); and a rebuttable presumption of capacity from fourteen to twenty-one years old (twenty-one years being the common law age of majority). I don’t imagine Day anticipated a time when the public education would promote child sex change to students, for let’s not lose sight of reality — gender transitioning for children means sex change for children: at best highly experimental, at worst sexual exploitation and a crime against humanity.
A child who believes s/he is the opposite sex trapped inside his/her body is not just like a gay kid. A child who feels disembodied and dissociated from his or herself does not need a secret sex change or any body modification coaching, such a child needs intensive assessment by an ethical and reality based paediatric practitioner, not a GenderWang Cult Leader.
In a discussion of Rozovsky’s The Canadian Law of Consent to Treatment, Day notes attainment of a particular numerical age in and of itself, whether prescribed statutorily or at common law, affords no warranty—legally or practically—of capacity to furnish effective consent to medical treatment. Day discusses Lord Nathan’s Medical Negligence, mentioning the “mature minor” rule, which contemplates that a person under the common law age of majority who is capable of appreciating the nature and consequences of a particular operation or other treatment, whether recommended by the treating physician or chosen by the capable young person, can give an effective consent without anyone else’s approval being required. Where the young person lacks that capacity, however, any apparent consent by her or him will be a nullity, in which event consent is required from the young person’s personal guardian(s) or from the state.
Charter Right. Charter section 7, 9, 15(1). Puberty is a fundamental human right for every child. Freedom for a child is in the context of their developmental situation — freedom to grow into adulthood unfettered by experimental treatments that interfere with growth and introduce profound irreversible iatrogenesis. Children have the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned in their pre-pubescent bodies or in unnatural bodies crafted out of a experimental hormone regimen combined with body and genital modification surgery. Children have the right to equal safeguarding and consent protection under the law, in all matters — this means they have a right to their parents’ full inclusion in decision relating to gender expression, because these often denote more serious issues that require careful and attentive and ethical care.
7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
9 Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Proportionality Questions. (1) Does depriving the child of the guidance and structure of parental inclusion spare the child from harm? (2) Does allowing the child agency to make decisions about social transitioning into a sex change provide relief to the psychological and emotional impairment which lead the child to identify as the opposite sex? (3) Does the protected category Gender Expression or Gender Identity mean the desire to change one’s sex has become a Human Right? (4) Do Sections 7 or 15 of the Charter mean that parents must allow a child to decide on a change sex? (4a) Do Sections 7 or 15 of the Charter mean that teacher can assist their students in implementing a sex change in secret from the parents?
Guiding Questions :: What is the harm done to the child? What is the potential for harm to the child? What is the best interest of the child?
2. Rational Connection to the Pressing + Substantial Obligation
[a.]The measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question + [b.] Must not be arbitrary, unfair, or irrationally based.
When a gender non conforming child decides to adopt an opposite sex name and pronoun, that child has embarked on a process called social transitioning, the first step in a sex reassignment. Social transitioning proves powerful as a therapeutic activity and 94% of children who socially transition end up choosing pubertal suppression chemicals castration and cross hormone sterilization. A trans-friendly cohort study Gender Identity 5 Years After Transition, conducted by Olson studied retransition rates in young people inadvertently showed that social transitioning locks children into a medical sex reassignment path. Cohen-Kettanis, the developers of the Dutch Protocol advise against early transitioning,
"Another reason we recommend against early transitions is that some children who have done so (sometimes as preschoolers) barely realize that they are of the other natal sex. They develop a sense of reality so different from their physical reality that acceptance of the multiple and protracted treatments they will later need is made unnecessarily difficult. Parents, too, who go along with this, often do not realize that they contribute to their child’s lack of awareness of these consequences." (de Vries and Cohen-Kettenis, 2012, p. 308).
In their analysis of the Olson paper, SEGM, Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine, write about the UK experience of Gender Identity Development Service, where they found because “we’re seeing much younger people socially transitioning … it then becomes almost impossible for them to think about the reality of their physical body. They are living totally the gender they feel they are, but of course their body doesn’t match that, and it becomes something that can’t be talked about or thought about. Clearly, it then becomes quite difficult in terms of keeping their options open and ensuring fully informed consent for any appropriate physical interventions.” (The Times, 29 August 2015).
Over 80% of children who experience emotional and psychological and dissociative distress r/t gender non conformity experience desistance as sexual maturity establishes itself, i.e. puberty presents a challenging time in a young person’s life and these challenges subsist as the young person grows into sexual maturity. There is no wrong puberty. Natural puberty happens as part of a normal course of growing up. Pubertal Suppression constitutes arbitrary detainment or imprisonment inside their pre-pubescent body, it impedes bone and other vital tissue growth during the physiologic maturation process. Pubertal Suppression locks a young person into their child body — social transitioning leads to pubertal suppression 94% of the time.
“What the Times does not tell its readers is that the high rates of mental-health comorbidities among teenage referrals creates a potential for “diagnostic overshadowing.” This happens when practitioners mistakenly interpret one of several co-occurring symptoms as the cause of the others. In simple terms, a teenage girl may express her distress in gendered ways—for instance, by insisting that she is really a boy. But if the cross-gender “identification” is not the cause of her distress, then using her proclamations to justify hormonal intervention and surgeries will not solve her problems and will likely make them worse.
It is not even clear whether the two patient cohorts—natal boys with early-onset symptoms and teenage girls with late-onset symptoms—belong under the same diagnostic category of “gender dysphoria.” Though both present with similar symptoms, these might reflect different aetiologies, have different development pathways and prognoses, and respond to different treatment protocols.” (Sapir 2022)3
3. Minimal Impairment of the Right
Even if rationally connected to the objective, the means should impair the right as little as possible: a). Fails if there is another reasonable path for the government that would impair the right less + b). Test usually fails at this stage.
Does the infringement fall within a range of reasonably supportable alternatives? Does it seem reasonable to infringe on a child’s right to self expression when that self expression has a 94% change of leading to irreparable physical harm and possibly serious life-altering medical conditions associated with shortened life expectancy? Does it seem reasonable to allow a child to engage in self expression when that self expression is a sex change?
Are other less intrusive means available to the Saskatchewan government to choose from in protecting children from the harm of falling into the gender affirmation tract? In para 200 of her recent ruling, Hardin & Avila [2023] FedCFamC2F 740, Justice Beckhouse wrote that it is possible that raising the children without adopting societal gender norms & expectations has led them to be confused & question their gender identity. Beckhouse also recommended parents be informed of all medical appointments, she recommended against denigrating parents to the child, as well as consistent approaches with care. Beckhouse noted that [problems of avoidance r/t school are] not assisted by both giving agency to the children to make decisions about school attendance combined with a lack of structure. To what degree does the school indulging a child’s social transitioning without parental inclusion undermine the child’s respect for authority?
In para 154 of her ruling Beckhouse points to the phenomenon of adults seeking diagnoses in children for affirmation. The father’s own diagnosis arguably has impacted on his approach to the children’s mental health treatment. The mother alleged that the father had unnecessarily sought an assessment of both Y and Z for ADHD. This was not viewed by Ms J to be an appropriate diagnosis for Y, as her symptoms were anxiety related. To what degree do teachers seek to influence students vis a vis gender expression and gender identity in way described above? How much does teachers and the public education system seek to recruit students versus educate students via SOGI?
What impact does this policy have on other minority groups? (Girls from fundamentalist Muslim + Christian families) On its face The Policy could appear to favour Muslim and Christian girls who remove their religious dress code at school in secret from their parents. Schools do not report Muslim girls who remove their headscarf to parents, nor do they report Christian girls who disobey their parents by wearing pants when they are only allowed to wear skirts. Does it seem discriminatory to single out gender diverse kids? Yes, it does. However not covering your hair or wearing pants does not have an equivalence deciding to undergo a sex change. So, The Policy has no impact on minority groups.
Is the discriminatory effect justifiable? Yes, see above.
4. Proportionality/Cost-Benefit Analysis
Must be a balancing of proportionality between the effects of the measures that are responsible for breaching the Charter and the objective that has been showed to be justified.
Do the policy’s beneficial effects outweigh its negative effects on the relevant Charter right(s)?
The court must balance the child’s right to Gender Expression and Gender Identity with the child’s right to Life and Liberty. The court must also balance the child’s right to make a decision as a Mature Minor with the Crown’s duty to In Loco Parentis and the Court’s duty to Parens Patriae.
In her ruling on B. (S.J.) v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service), 2005 BCSC 573 Justice Boyd rejected the appeal in a decision in which the judge overruled a mature minor’s decision to refuse a life saving blood transfusion. The case involved a 14 girl (mature minor) who refused a life saving blood transfusion due to religious reasons and whose parents supported her decision. The girl was overruled by the court (MB) via Parens Patriae and Justice Boyd found that initial ruling to be a justifiable infringement on the child’s Charter rights — guarding from known physical harm that hastens death is the ultimate protection of her guaranteed right to life. The proportionality test applied by Boyd has direct applications in the UR Pride versus Province of Saskatchewan case.
In para 62, Boyd writes regarding Van Mol, I find that that decision is also of limited assistance to the appellants. While it confirms the common law rule regarding mature minors, it no way addresses the authority of child welfare authorities to intervene on a child’s behalf. Further the Court there specifically rejected the appellants’ submission here that the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction must fall away, in the face of a mature minor who seeks to exercise his rights to refuse [lifesaving] treatment. In para 63 she continues the Court held that the 16-year-old plaintiff, being a mature minor, was the only person who could have provided her informed consent to the surgery with the parents acting as no more than her advisors. For the purposes of The Policy, when researching case citations, I equate refusing lifesaving treatment with choosing a harmful course of treatment because both decisions have the same outcome — physical harm or hastened death. Therefore a mature minor choosing to undergo a sex change and a mature minor refusing a blood transfusion for religious reasons seem like equivalent cases involving equivalent levels of harm.
In para 65 Boyd writes
Lambert J.A. relied on the reasons of Huddart J. (as she then was) in Ney v. Canada (A.G.) (1993) 1993 CanLII 1301 (BC SC), 79 B.C.L.R. (2d) 47 (S.C.) at pages 53 and 57, who summarized the common law position in British Columbia in this way:
In sum, where a child has sufficient intelligence and understanding of the nature of proposed health care, he or she is capable at common law of consenting to such treatment. If a child does not meet this test, and as a result is incapable of consenting, the consent of the parents of that child will be required.
…
..neither the common law nor the statue interferes with the parens partriae jurisdiction of the court, which may override a minor’s refusal to consent to treatment that is in the minor’s best interests. Even if the parents do not have that power, as guardians they will be able to seek the exercise of such power from the court. (B. (S.J.) v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service), 2005 BCSC 573)
The Risk of Social Transitioning. 94 % of kids who choose social transitioning end up permanently chemically castrated + cross hormone sterilised.
The Challenge Facing Children + Youth. A desperate need for evidence based paediatric care to address psychological and emotional health needs of children and youth; the realities of Bill C-6 for exploratory therapies for children experiencing psychological and emotional distress; shunting children in need of assessment-dx-care into a sex reassignment tract fuelled by bill C-6 zealotry makes exploration tantamount to conversion therapy, contributes to the dearth of available psychological care for children + youth.
Benefit of Parental Inclusion. Prevention of iatrogenesis, providing opportunity for evidence-based + embodied and healthy psychological + emotional care for children + youth; promotion of family attachment, prevention of child trafficking and exploitation that typically rises when parents are excluded from their child’s vital life decisions.
I’m going to end this by stating that a child’s rights necessarily have limits, developmentally children need infringements on their freedoms in order to remain safe and have life and liberty.
Section 7 Charter Challenge:
[86] The appellants submit that the Director overriding the child’s choice of medical treatment constitutes a gross breach of her right to dignity, personal autonomy, privacy and choice in decision going to her fundamental being. They note that at trial, upon being questioned by Meyers P.C.J., the child said that if she was forced to be transfused she would feel “extremely, extremely violated” and that it was no different to her being the victim of a sexual assault, a rape or a robbery. The appellants submit that denying the child her right to decide her treatment merely because she has not yet attained the age of majority is unfair and arbitrary, and does not meet the requirements of substantive fundamental justice.
[87] Here the Attorney General concedes that when the Court makes an Order under s. 29 of the CFCSA, it has the potential to cause a breach of one’s s. 7 Charter rights. However the Attorney General’s counsel notes that such a breach would be for the purpose of preserving the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and the very important objective of safeguarding the child’s health.
[88] I reject the appellants’ submission that s. 29 of the CFCSA violates the substantive principles of fundamental justice.
Preserving the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and safeguarding the child’s health necessitates the safeguarding of natural puberty, and this means parental inclusion in decisions about social transition Gender Expression and Gender Identity.
Purdah, means curtain and refers to the system of secluding women and enforcing high standards of female modesty to appease misogynistic hyper-masculine cultures in many Islamic countries.
R. v. Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103, at para 62, retrieved on 2023-09-04
(Cause not a Cure in City Journal, Leon Sapir, May 10, 2022).
Brilliant...