On August 22, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Education Minister Dustin Duncan introduced a new policy impacting the LGBTQ+ community, particularly students of the community. This policy, which has been shaped as a ‘parental rights’ policy, ultimately requires teachers to ask for parental consent when a student under 16 asks to use different pronouns or a different name within the school environment.
Numerous human rights groups condemn this policy and highlight its harmful character towards LGBTQ+ students who are gender-diverse, trans, or non-binary. Indeed, teachers who do not obtain parental consent are prohibited from using the student’s preferred name and pronouns. As a result, gender-diverse students will be subject to outing, misgendering and deadnaming. This will have direct effects on these students’ mental health and participates in fostering an unsafe environment for them at school.
Human rights groups argue that, for LGBTQ+ students, this policy makes the ability to question their gender identity complicated as various students are not out about their gender identification at home. If home is not a comfortable place for them, school can be an environment where they feel safe and affirm their gender identity more freely. This new policy in Saskatchewan undermines the ability to feel safe at school, which is why many organizations have come forth and condemned the policy.
In Saskatchewan, legal measures are being launched by UR Pride, an organization that supports and promotes the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Within these legal measures, UR Pride is being represented by LBGTQ+ advocacy group Egale Canada, and the McCarthy Tétrault LLP law firm, who are planning on filing a lawsuit at the Court of King’s Bench. The Daily was able to speak to Bennet Jensen, the Director of Legal at Egale. Jensen gave us an insight on what Egale is challenging within these legal measures. He spoke to the unconstitutionality of this anti-trans policy in regards to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. Jensen put forth the fact that the policy violates the ‘security of the person’ clause of Section 7. This policy fosters an unsafe environment for gender-diverse and trans students, which jeopardizes the safeguards that Section 7 normally enables. Additionally, the policy is said to violate Section 15 of the Charter due to its discriminatory nature. Indeed, this policy only targets trans and gender-diverse students who wish to go by another name or pronoun at school. Other students that wish to use a nickname (i.e., Rob instead of Robert) or who go by an anglicized version of their name at school, do not need parental consent. Hence, this singles out gender-diverse students, constituting a form of discrimination.
For now, Egale has demanded a court injunction. In other words, the organization wants the court to halt the policy until there is a trial. They are waiting to hear back on the injunction request and also have some court hearings planned for November.
The Daily was also able to speak with Harini Sivalingam, the Director of the Equality Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), an intervenor in these legal measures. Sivalingam said that the CCLA is intervening to highlight, amongst other ideas, “that the messaging that this is an issue of parents rights is really a false dichotomy that pits parents rights against students rights.” She emphasized the idea that through this policy, the government is “dictating when, where and whether a student comes out to their parents,” meaning students either have to come out to their parents, or deal with the psychological stress associated with deadnaming and misgendering.
“Identity has a social dimension,” she said. This is a main part in the distress this policy causes: “If the identity that you feel internally is not reciprocated externally, through your peers and through your social settings, it can cause significant harm to oneself.” This constitutes a cognitive dissonance that could lead to intense gender dysphoria, anxiety and more. Sivalingam also noted that the implementation of this policy is part of a bigger issue and that there is an “alarming trend that we are seeing right across the country.” Effectively, this policy in Saskatchewan appears not long after changes made to legislation 713 in New Brunswick, which forbids teachers to use a student’s preferred name or pronoun without parental consent, if they are under 16. There have also been rumors of other provinces that might want to “test the waters” regarding anti-trans policies like these. However, Sivalingam did highlight the numerous counter-protests to these policies that still leave hope. She said that the CCLA sees a shining light in that “most people in Canada believe in the Charter and believe in equality of all people.”
Abe Berglas from Queer McGill provided insight on gender-diversity within the educational environment. They mention that this policy displays a “misunderstanding that if a kid is allowed to experiment with their gender, they will turn trans.” Berglas added that this is a “false logic that has implications at every age level,” and “it shows that fundamentally, these people don’t believe in transness.” This policy thus undermines the fact that “being able to control your name and your pronouns is a very empowering experience” for trans people, and that the ability to experiment with one’s gender identity in a place that is safe should be valued.
Ultimately, advocates say that this new policy in Saskatchewan has important implications for the LGBTQ+ community and puts them, especially students of the community, in a vulnerable position. For now, trans and gender-diverse students will be subject to the consequences this policy entails, mentally and physically. Nonetheless, many counter-protests have been started against policies like these and legal measures put forth by Egale continue to play out in court.