Anti-Transgender Hate Arguments

So, the other day, I ran across a new anti-trans group here in Alberta (shocker, I know).  This one calls itself "Women and Girls Alberta".  As you might expect, they make the usual assortment of arguments as to why transgender women have to be shoved out of society.  

Now, a few things caught my attention, and I think warrant a moment or two of my time to comment on.  

First is their discussion about crime and in particular violence towards women.

The opening assertion here is that recognizing trans women somehow erodes women's safety.  I want to be clear here:  I don't think anybody is here to discount the impact of violence on women - least of transgender women.  There's a "yabbut" here though: they are going to proceed to claim that transgender women present unique dangers to women because ... they had a penis once. 

There are a series of claims made in this type of argument to establish alleged danger, and I'm going to go through them and explain the problems with the claim and the evidence upon which that claim is based.  

Claim 1:  Males are more likely to engage in violence

Alright, one can use criminal statistics to establish that it's far more likely for a male offender to have committed a violent offence than a female offender.  That's a fairly easy correlation to establish.  Certainly more men are incarcerated than women in our prisons, and a higher percentage have committed violent crimes.  There are plenty of papers that demonstrate this.

Claim 2:  Transgender women are more likely to engage in violent criminal behaviour 

Here, we run into the claim that transgender women are more likely to have committed violent crimes, and in particular, violent sexual crimes.  Superficially, this appears to be borne out by Corrections Canada's report on Gender Diverse Offenders published in 2022 (MacDonald, Smith, Cram, Garrel, & Derkzen, 2022).  Similarly, an often cited Swedish cohort study from 2011 makes a similar observation:  

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.  (Dhejne, Lichtenstein, Boman, Johansson, Långström, & Landén, 2011).  

Fair enough ... but we have to be a bit cautious here around making a correlation fallacy error.  There are numerous well known problems with the so-called "Swedish Study" by Dhejne and colleagues (2011), and its criminality analysis is at best a peripheral aspect of the overall study - so the first thing to take here is that it is unlikely to be definitive in the area of discussion.

The Corrections Canada study (MacDonald, Smith, Cram, Garrel, & Derkzen, 2022), while interesting, does not address a host of relevant (to this discussion) questions.  First, it does not interrogate whether the offence(s) occurred before or after beginning to transition - this is more important than you might first think.  Second, it does not examine issues of potential bias in the criminal justice system resulting in a higher rate of certain types of conviction resulting in incarceration.  Third, although it presents a set of statistics that describe the incarcerated population, there is no examination of whether the statistics apply in any meaningful sense outside of the incarcerated population.  

All of the above questions merely point out that the Corrections Canada study is intended to inform policy regarding transgender inmates, and does not provide any insight into the population of transgender people in general.  

Claim 3: Transgender Women Are Likely Sexual Predators 

This is an implicit claim that stems from Claim 1.  Basically, the logic is this:  If you saw a man in the women's bathroom, you would assume that they are there for prurient reasons.  Since a transgender woman was born with a penis, they assume that the person is a man, and therefore should be seen as a danger. 

If this seems a bit of a leap to you, it's because it is.  First, it relies on a twofold claim:  namely that transgender women aren't really women (they're just men wearing dresses), and that men commit the majority of sexual predator crimes.  

This is, of course, a set of unsubstantiated claims.  The first part involves rejecting the transgender person's statement of their identity as valid.  The second part involves drawing on the reasoning that if the identity is not valid, then the person before you is in fact a predator.  There is no evidence in the research literature that I have examined that suggests that this correlation is in fact substantiated. 

At a guess, I would suspect that transgender women in particular are subject to accusations of being sexual predators at a far higher rate simply because of the construct I have just described.  

 Claimed Harm 1:  Women Are Uncomfortable With Transgender Women

There are two claims made to buttress this allegation.  First,  is the assumption that all transgender women basically look like "hulking men in a dress", and are therefore intimidating to the physically smaller women around them.  Second is a claim that so many women have been traumatized by male violence that even the presence of a transgender woman is a reminder of that violence.  

This is often cited as a primary reason for banning transgender women from washrooms and changing rooms.  The problem with it is this:  it holds the transgender person responsible for other people's reactions to their presence.  As a transgender person, how am I responsible for what another person has experienced or their reactions to me?  

Let's take a look at a few things.   

First, in what other circumstances do we hold a person responsible for the emotional state of others?  I am going to argue that in reasonable law systems, that simply isn't the case.  Further to that, this rapidly descends into "body policing" - the person who isn't "gender conforming enough" finds themselves subjected to scrutiny and outright hostility even more so because of rigid linking of gendered behaviour and bodily appearance (Schilt, & Westbrook, 2015). 

The second part of this is the idea that as a whole, transgender woman must bear some global responsibility for the impact of male violence perpetrated against women.  Again, this hinges upon a generalized invalidation of the transgender woman's identity and tying it to their presumed bodily structure.  Again, in the research literature, I have seen no evidence that transgender women as a group are necessarily more likely to commit sexual violence against women.

Claimed Harm 2: Transgender Women Are A Danger To Other Women and Children

In the absence of any direct proof that a transgender woman is an actual risk, the next claim is that even being in the same room as a transgender woman is somehow dangerous.  This one is a bit perplexing, since it is rather devoid of actual evidence to support it.  

Does exposure to a transgender person have any actual adverse impact on others?  Not that I can identify.  It seems to me that this is pure fear-mongering.  I periodically hear arguments that boil down to "but I might see a pen*s".  This is, of course, little more than a return to the idea that somehow that organ is the root of all evil in women's worlds.   

Claimed Harm 3:  Erosion of Women's Rights and Safety

This gets into a discussion of "competing rights".  If you take the position that transgender women are not valid women, there is perhaps some validity to this claim.  However, there is a distinct lack of evidence to suggest that there is a widespread problem (or any problem at all).  Most of the arguments are, at best emotional supposition claims that are not borne out by any kind of meaningful research.  

For example, as Schilt and Westbrook (2015) point out, the odds of a transgender woman being assaulted in a washroom are far greater than the odds of that transgender woman being a sexual predator and attacking other users of that space.  

The argument gets made that "self-id" means that any man can decide that he's a woman and prance on into the women's room and do whatever he likes.  This rapidly gets extended to "then the sexual predators will start putting on dresses so they can gain access to women" ... except that hyperbolic claim is so rare that I cannot even find any examples of it occurring.  I'm pretty certain that the psychology of a sexual predator is such that "cross dressing to gain access to prey would be symbolically castrating themselves" - so it's not merely unlikely, it would be so rare as to make transgender people seem commonplace.  In either case, the complaint about self-id makes the fundamental error of holding transgender women accountable as a group for the actions of predatory men - we already have laws for that purpose. 

I must point out that while the current anti-transgender panic has been at full boil for the last 4 or 5 years (depending on where you look), transgender women have been safely using "female only" spaces for decades without there being problems.

Prisons and Sport 

There are areas of argument such as prisons and sport where I think any "erosion" has to be dealt with on an individual basis using appropriate policy instruments. 

Sport 

I have written about the issue of transgender women in sports many times on this blog.  To put it kindly, absolute claims that "transgender women have huge advantages in sport" simply don't hold up to scrutiny, and further to that, there are significant public policy questions around the goals of sports and participation that need to be considered. 

Absolute bans are, ill-informed policy that ultimately causes unnecessary harm without anywhere near enough evidence to justify the action.  At so-called "elite" levels, there might be a case for highly individualized assessment but that has to be done on with respect to the individual athlete, and not simply on the basis of "belonging to a category of people".  

When the last Canadian Census showed that 0.33% of the Canadian population was transgender (Statistics Canada, 2022), one can surmise that the numbers of transgender people participating in sport (especially organized sport) is vanishingly small - I doubt that in Alberta you could find more than a handful distributed around the organized sports, and I have seen no evidence that they are "dominating their sports" whatsoever. 

Prisons and Incarceration 

This is a thornier issue, and again I am going to argue that it has to be treated situationally.  Inmates have to housed in a manner that is appropriate and reflects both their needs as well as the legitimate needs of those whom they would be housed with.  

A blanket "transgender women must be housed in men's prisons" is simply creating an environment which would inevitably result on those prisoners becoming repeated victims of sexual assault, or forced to endure long periods held in isolation from other prisoners who actually would be dangerous to them.

On the other hand, transgender prisoners whose record includes violence against women need to be housed away from those they might victimize again.  Now, here I have to raise additional questions because we have to recognize that there is such a thing as a female predator that victimizes other women, and how are they housed in the correctional system?

Individual characteristics also matter.  Someone who has been socially and medically transitioned for a long period of time is a very different case than someone who is incarcerated shortly after beginning to transition (or begins transition while incarcerated).  Those are different situations with legitimately different factors to be considered.  

Again, remember that the numbers here are small.  In a period covering 2018, 2019, and Q1 of 2020, Corrections Canada had a total of 99 transgender prisoners.  This is a relatively tiny number and reasonably processed individually.  

Given that the numbers of transgender people involved are very low, and the science around the key factors in both sport and criminal justice domains is at best limited, I argue that blanket approaches which do not consider the individual involved are sufficiently problematic that they in fact would cause harms that are not justified in the situation. 

Closing Thoughts

Claimed harms from transgender women using "female only" gendered spaces really aren't borne out by actual evidence.  Mostly, they boil down to emotional arguments that simply are fears whipped up by the anti-transgender lobby that simply have no real basis.  

Blanket bans will have significant perverse consequences not merely for transgender individuals, but also for society at large.  Those consequences have been observed before when specific populations are targeted for segregation and isolation, and the scope of those impacts is far greater and more corrosive than actual inclusion.  

References

Dhejne, C., Lichtenstein, P., Boman, M., Johansson, A. L., Långström, N., & Landén, M. (2011). Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden. PloS one, 6(2), e16885.

MacDonald, S.F., Smith, A., Cram, S., Garrel, S., & Derkzen, D. (2022). Examination of Gender Diverse Offenders. Correctional Service of Canada.

Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2015). Bathroom battlegrounds and penis panics. Contexts, 14(3), 26-31.

Statistics Canada (2022). Filling gaps in gender diversity data in Canada. Retrieved July 15, 2026 from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220427/dq220427b-eng.htm

Alberta, BC, and Ottawa All Walk Into A Bar ...

This is mostly going to be me processing yesterday's announcements in Alberta and BC.  I haven't quite worked out what I think of it all yet, and maybe by the end of this I will have come to some kind of conclusion ... I'm not sure.  What follows is going to be, at best, slightly ordered stream of consciousness writing.  

So, what was announced?  Well, basically, BC got a whole bunch of Federal funding for some major infrastructure projects with a guarantee that the Tanker Ban would remain in place; and Alberta got a commitment to build what amounts to a third line along the TransMountain pipeline route.  

But that's far from the whole story here.

Charter Challenges Of An Anti-Transgender Law

This is part of a series on potential paths of legal challenge for anti-transgender laws in Canada: 

1. Anti-Transgender Laws Are Jim Crow Laws
2. Legal Challenges of an Anti-Transgender Law

In the first post of this series, I claimed that anti-transgender laws are in many respects about segregation and humiliation much like the racist Jim Crow Laws were.  Yes, I realize that the US legal environment is quite different from Canada's - the point here is to draw a comparison that I think is broadly understood by most. 

In this post, I will explore several avenues through which the law can in fact be challenged, both in the presence of, and in the absence of, the invocation of the NotwithStanding Clause (S33).  

Anti-Transgender Laws Are "Jim Crow" Laws

This is part of a series of posts sketching out legal paths for challenging anti-transgender laws in Canada.

1. Anti-Transgender Laws Are Jim Crow Laws
2. Charter Challenges of an Anti-Transgender Law

Laws do not exist in a vacuum - the cleverest of legal arguments are often decoupled from the human experience and day to day lives of people.  Therefore, laws must be understood in the context of the society in which they exist, as well as the legal frameworks in place. 

"Jim Crow" laws were laws passed in various states to create a segregation between white people and people of colour in the United States.  These were the laws that forced black people to sit at the back of the public transit bus, or required them to use specific bathrooms (sound familiar?) or drinking fountains.  They also enabled businesses to refuse service to people based on such characteristics. 

I would hope, that in today's world, such laws are seen as the injustices they are - laws designed to target people based on characteristics - humiliating, segregating, and ultimately criminalizing their existence.  In today's Canada, S15 of The Charter specifically prohibits that kind of legislation.  

Anti-transgender laws are, in this writer's opinion, very much the "new Jim Crow" laws.  Largely they are based on ginned up fears of the "dangers" that the targeted group represents for society.  I'm going to walk through why these laws should be invalidated in Canada, and I will do so by deriving a possible test that could be used to objectively identify a "Jim Crow" law, regardless of whom is targeted. 

The Smith Referenda In October

Albertans face a daunting prospect on October 19 - not one, but 10 referendum questions that they will vote on.  On the agenda are a passel of manufactured issues ranging from "control over immigration" to "appointing judges", all topped off with a whipped turd froth of a separation question. 

There are good reasons to be skeptical of all of these referendum questions.  Not the least of which is the complexity of them.  Each one is lengthy reading on its own, and is crafted to confuse the average person reading them.  My intuitive reaction is to suggest that on the basis of the wording being less than clear, that it is utterly appropriate to vote 'No' on the first 9 questions and "A" on the separation question.   That is basically voting for status quo. 

The Formation of The UCP Sowed The Seeds of Its Failure

When Jason Kenney created the UCP he set up the preconditions for the party to get to where it is today, and its eventual demise.  What do I mean by this?  Kenney may have believed that he could control the extreme elements in the UCP in much the same way that Harper did so as leader of the CPC. 

Harper allowed the extremist factions in the CPC to exist and even to have something of a voice in the party, but at the moment that a given push looked like it would have a political cost for him, he would shut it down.  This was done through a combination of tools - Harper exercised considerable personal control over the party apparatus.  That meant that in large part, if you kept him happy, your career was secure.  The leader's office had the power to quash constituency decisions such as new nominees, and the "public face" of the party was carefully protected.  So, while the extremist wings of the CPC could make a certain level of noise - it was never enough to do more than keep their followers believing the party was aligned with them.  

However, Harper was able to do this because the Federal CPC is a much bigger entity than the UCP in Alberta - and although the Prairie Reform rump of the party clearly dominates it today, the party needs votes from outside the Prairies in order to have any hope of ever forming government.  Harper understood this, and was very careful to keep the extremes in check even though his own leadership depended on them. 

A party of the scale of the UCP is a much different animal, and that's where Kenney's choices failed. 

The Clarity Act and Alberta's Tricksy Question

This October, Albertans will vote on a referendum question that arguably rivals the word salad that René Levesque imposed on Quebeckers in 1980 for obfuscation and confusing wording: 

“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”

I have seen a number of people argue that because Alberta's question does not directly entertain separation, that the Clarity Act does not apply.  I beg to differ.  I think that not only does the Clarity Act apply, but that there is a compelling set of arguments the can be made that would require principles similar to The Clarity Act to apply to all referendums in Canada.

An Exhausting Week In Alberta Politics

This week has been a whirlwind in politics, especially in Alberta. On Thursday, the Premier of Alberta announced what I can only call a farce of a referendum on separating Alberta from Canada.  Then the next day, Premier Smith started talking about rewriting S35 of The Constitution.  

The referendum question Smith proposes is annoying in its obfuscating language, and I think Albertans should be incredibly angry about it.  The question reads: 

“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”

Reasonably intelligent readers should have already noticed this isn't a "yes/no" kind of question, it's actually two conflicting questions slammed together.  Rumour has it this will be a "select option A or option B" thing on the ballot, but that is still misleading and disingenuous because the second option actively contemplates separation, while simultaneously trying very hard not to look like it does.

Separatists Lose In Court

Alberta's rump of separatists suffered a major setback last week, when a judge overturned the Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta (CEO-A) decision that set the signature gathering process for the "Stay Free Alberta" petition.   If you're interested, the full ruling is here (warning: it's lengthy, and full of legal technical language).

I'm not going to spend a pile of time here dissecting the ruling - while I understand most of what's written in it (I think), a deep dive would be tedious and relatively uninteresting.  At the end of it all, the ruling has the net effect of rendering the entire signature gathering process that has gone on since January this year to be a legal fiction which "never happened".  

How does that work?  Central to the judge's ruling is the declaration that the decision of the CEO-A to grant the petition was "unreasonable", and that the crown had failed to execute any kind of consultation with affected First Nations, therefore the decision itself was quashed.  In doing so, the judge effectively turned the next 4 months of signature gathering into a legal ghost - the paper exists, but the authorization to gather those signatures doesn't and therefore the signatures themselves cannot be considered. 

This is unlikely to be the last we hear of this nonsense though.  

No, The SCC Won't Rule Along The Lines Alberta Wants

 I've seen a few people arguing that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is obliged to rule in favour of the Provinces like Alberta (the ones that want to use the Notwithstanding Clause (NWC, S33) any old way they wish).  The argument generally relies on the idea that the NWC is very broadly written and there are no explicit limits to its application in the text.  

Both of those claims are true.  I don't think any reasonable lawyer or judge would argue otherwise.  That analysis is also a very narrow analysis and ignores the rest of The Charter, as well as the role of The Constitution as a whole in Canadian law and government.  

Alberta argues that the NWC does not require any "substantive requirements" and that the courts have no role once it is invoked.  The Alberta argument depends heavily on the case Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General) 1988 (Ford).  However, the Ford case talks about the invocation of S33, and does not interrogate the questions that are before the court in Montreal English School Board et al v. Quebec Attorney General.  The questions before the court now are much bigger in scope, and the impact of those questions is much greater. 

Alberta relies heavily on the notion of "Legislative Sovereignty".  As I argued back here, this concept is an unwritten convention in Canadian law, and while important, not one that is laid out in any meaningful way in The Constitution.  While the legislatures are sovereign in that they are the only body which may enact laws, that doesn't extend to being able to arbitrarily rewrite laws further up the hierarchy of Canadian law.  The Constitution has amending formulas specifically for that purpose.  

Alberta's argument extends the conventions in Ford for using the NWC to argue that not only is there no cause for the courts to examine an invocation of the NWC, but in fact the court has no power to examine a law that is protected by the invocation of S33.  While Ford does set out a set of legal requirements for the "proper legal invocation of the NWC", the case itself did not raise the questions that are now before the court in Montreal English School Board et al - those questions are much more about not merely the invocation of the NWC, but they go more fundamentally to the intended role of the NWC, and the fundamental purpose of The Charter and Constitution, as well as the role of the courts and legislatures in our system of government. 

Alberta in particular seems to argue that "Legislative Sovereignty" is so broad that it actually extends well into the domain of arbitrarily ignoring The Constitution if it so chooses.  The Alberta argument demands that the SCC reject what it calls "Creative Arguments" regarding the NWC.  Unfortunately for Alberta, this requires demanding the SCC ignore contextual and purposeful readings of The Constitution, as well as decades of important precedent cases that guide the manner in which the courts interpret The Constitution, and in particular The Charter.

Questions Before The Court

I have examined this case in depth, and I continue to do so.  Unlike in Ford, the SCC is now having to weigh multiple questions that are arguably much more important: 

1.  What is the context of The Charter as a whole?

Before you say "nah, that's not an issue", consider the arguments put forward by The Attorney General of Canada which argues that the NWC is limited by its context within The Constitution.  Since the Constitution has an amending formula, that the NWC should not be used to arbitrarily amend The Charter through legislation.  This is a huge issue, and the court has never been asked to examine The Charter (and the NWC in particular) in such a manner before.

13.  The text of s. 33 must then be interpreted in light of its context and the scheme of the Charter and the Constitution as a whole. This interpretation, it is submitted, brings to light the constitutional limits on the use of s. 33.

2.  Does the context of The Charter place "natural" limits on the application of the NWC?

Again, the courts haven't really been asked to engage with this question previously.  Legislators have not used the powers in the NWC in the manner that Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have in the last few years.  All three provinces have used the NWC in a manner which narrows rights in some political social engineering - in Quebec, it's to quash religious symbols; in Alberta and Saskatchewan, it's to quash the existence of transgender people. 

3. In the Canadian hierarchy of law does the NWC allow provinces to place their laws outside the framework of the Constitution?

This is a much more insidious question to consider.  If we accept the Alberta position that the NWC is an all purpose "sledgehammer", then legislation like Alberta's so-called "Sovereignty Act" suddenly moves from being ultra vires to being normal and understandable.  More concerning is that it effectively undermines The Constitution and Charter as defining the legal framework of the country.  

This question itself isn't directly before the courts, but it is a matter which arises from whatever ruling the court does come up with.  However, the way that Alberta and Quebec are utilizing the NWC places laws written in those provinces outside the framework of Canadian law - a reality which could result a much more dangerous context for Canada where the provinces redefine themselves as highly fractured fiefdoms all with dramatically different approaches to law and rights in Canada.

Consider the prospect of a province writing its own "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" which is much narrower and more hierarchical than The Charter, and simply invoking the NWC to insulate their "unique" Charter from scrutiny.  Alberta has already demonstrated that it takes a very different view of rights and law (or at least the current UCP government does), and would quite happily use the NWC to legislate away the rights of many, or make rights conditional on compliance with some religious standard (depending on who has what beliefs). 

4. Does the use of the word "Guarantee" throughout The Charter have any practical weight?

Central to the wording of The Charter is the word guarantee, and it is used a dozen times throughout The Charter.  I've argued previously that this is a very important aspect of the discussion around the NWC.  The repeated use of the word Guarantee provides key insights into the intent of the authors of The Charter.  As the intervener Egale Canada argues, the principle of Minority Protection suggests strongly that in fact there can be limits on the application of the NWC: 

Just as, outside the public law context, discretionary powers may not lawfully be exercised for an improper or extraneous purpose, so too may the extraordinary power of the notwithstanding clause not be used to protect the operation of a law the very purpose of which is incompatible with the principle of minority protection — and thus with the core commitments of a liberal, democratic society.

If, as Alberta seems to desire, the NWC operates without limits, then effectively the courts will have discarded not only the principle of Minority Protection, but more seriously it will have rendered the meaning of the word guarantee moot within the Canadian Constitution.  I cannot emphasize enough how this reaches beyond The Charter and into the broader world of Canadian constitutional law by effectively changing the meaning and importance of a word. 

5.  To what extent do provinces have the power to further constrain the rights enjoyed by their citizens, and for what reasons?

I don't see this as an explicit aspect of this case, it is an implicit one.  The provinces are arguing that the NWC grants them sweeping powers in this regard, and in doing so they appear to be engaging in a serious power grab.  If the NWC is allowed to function without boundaries on it, then we find ourselves in a situation where both The Charter and the courts are rendered moot.

It's this last point that makes me think the courts are unlikely to simply lob the ball to the politicians.  Why would the courts choose not only to negate The Charter, but also to make themselves irrelevant in the interpretation of The Charter, and potentially The Constitution itself?  Doing so would fundamentally change the role of the courts in our system of government - rendering the courts completely unable to make any kind of ruling on legislative violations of The Constitution, and opening all Canadians up to laws which violate their fundamental rights simply because some politician decides they want to. 

How Do I Think The Court Will Rule?

This one is complicated, because there's the answer I'd like to see, and then there's the probability that the SCC will rule somewhat away from that ideal. 

The ruling I'd like to see is for the SCC to adopt the arguments made by the Federal Attorney General fully.  That would restrain provinces from many of the more abusive applications of the NWC that we have seen, if not render the NWC functionally moot. 

Of course, I expect the SCC to be quite circumspect in its analysis, threading something of a line between the provincial notions of "legislative sovereignty" and creating a formula surrounding the NWC that is almost impossible to navigate.  

Across the submissions to the SCC in this matter, the absolute floor ruling will be that even when the NWC has been invoked, that the courts will have the power to examine and make a declaratory ruling on the legislation itself.  While provinces might argue that such cases are moot, I do not see the court taking the position that no law protected by the NWC can be inspected as that would make the courts irrelevant in the processes around rights law in Canada. 

I further anticipate that the court will find that a renewal of an invocation of the NWC is really starting the process of an amendment, and therefore a renewal itself could in fact be subject to direct challenge in the courts on those grounds.  This still creates significant problems for people who find themselves under attack by government laws that infringe upon their rights for at least 5 years.  

As poetic as it is, the Federal argument around long lasting harm caused by the invocation of the NWC may not garner the attention from the SCC that perhaps it actually deserves:

3. ... Accordingly, any right or freedom referred to in an express declaration made under s. 33 must retain its integrity so that it can be fully exercised when the declaration expires—just as a lightbulb should shine as brightly as it did before being temporarily turned off.

5. The constitutional limits of the s. 33 power preclude it from being used to distort or annihilate the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, or to reduce them to des peaux de chagrin, that is, to shrivel them beyond recognition, if not transform them into mere legal fictions. Courts have the responsibility to ensure that these limits – which were neither considered nor rejected by this Court in Ford – are respected.

As much as I personally think this is a brilliant piece of legal reasoning, it could rely a little too heavily on the arguments around the application of the NWC being an instrument for temporary situations.  I think that the SCC may well sidestep the issue somewhat, and push it back to the politicians to sort out.  Given the current provincial legislative picture, this would not be a good thing. 

The flip side is that the Attorney General of Canada does tie this argument back to the 1998 reference ruling on Quebec Secession, which specifically addresses matters of both rule of law, and protection of minorities.  The SCC may choose to recognize that link to the Quebec Secession reference as significant and be unwilling to discard one of the court's seminal rulings in Canadian constitutional law.  

A final possibility in how the SCC might rule is basically to declare the NWC to be too ambiguous in its role relative to the rest of the Constitution that there is no apparent valid test that the court can come up with that would reasonably guide its application, and therefore it is inoperative until such times as Canada's political leadership is able to agree upon a framework in which it could operate.  

A ruling of this nature would basically be throwing the entire thing back into the hands of politicians, and potentially is even more destructive to Canada's constitutional system than a highly restrictive ruling such as what the Attorney General of Canada is seeking.  If you will, consider the uproar over aspects of both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, and then apply it to today's context where a sizeable number of premiers seem disinclined to actually engage in any kind of good faith negotiation.

How Will The Provinces React?

While I have no doubt that most provinces will be less than happy with any constraints on the NWC, it will be Alberta that makes the most noise about it.  Danielle Smith has already signalled her likely reaction and avenues of response.  

First, she will attack the courts, complaining that "unelected judges" are "making law".  This is a reprise of the "activist judge" meme that gets dragged out every time conservatives don't like a court ruling.  It's not new, nor is it particularly noteworthy.  She will no doubt extend this to claim that the judges are "frustrating the will of the majority" - in spite of the fact that the legislation she has used the NWC to protect is a "concern" only to a small group of people, with most of the public unaware of the topic, much less having any real opinion on it.  

Smith has already begun attacking the judiciary and the courts.  Demanding more political control over judicial appointments, and complaining loudly about not being able to "direct the courts".  As a citizen of Canada, the idea of a politician "directing the courts" is horrifying to me.  The potential for gross miscarriages of justice is enormous when a politician decides that a particular case should be used to their advantage in getting re-elected. 

On the matter of "an elected judiciary", I am firmly opposed to the concept.  The idea of a judge interpreting/applying the law whilst simultaneously having to concern themselves with how "the public" might perceive what they do is simply putting the judge in a position of a direct conflict of interest between their job and their desire to keep that job.  As I have learned in my own relatively casual study of law and in particular constitutional law in Canada, it is a job far more akin to that of a surgeon than it is that of an elected politician.  Surgeons often do things which "the average person on the street" would see as unpalatable, but they do it because it's necessary in the moment for the patient.  Likewise, judges have to read and apply law in a manner that much of the public will not fully understand.  I don't "vote" on who becomes a surgeon, nor do I think it wise to vote on who gets to be a judge. 

I would not be surprised to see Smith pull out her much vaunted "Alberta Sovereignty Act" and declare that Alberta will simply disregard The Charter because it infringes on her "legislative sovereignty".  I have long argued that this legislation is ultra vires - the province of Alberta does not possess the power to simply declare itself exempt from a federal law that it doesn't like.  There is nothing in our Constitution which permits that kind of "I turn my back on you" action.  The province always has the right and resources to challenge a Federal law that infringes on its powers in the courts. That is the correct path for these issues.  

Smith has already begun lobbying other Premiers to garner support to push for revisions to the current judicial appointments processes.  This will create pressure on the Federal Government to open a Constitutional Amendment process, which is no doubt where provinces like Alberta would demand expanding the scope of the NWC, as well as seizing further powers for themselves in an effort to make any kind of federal oversight of the provinces even more difficult. 

Addendum

I would like to draw your attention to the above quote from paragraph 40(iii) of the Attorney General of Canada's submission.  It raises several very extreme, but important hypotheticals that the Attorney General of Canada wishes the court to consider in its deliberations over the NWC.  These might seem extreme today, but they are important analogues to very real situations emerging today.  

Let's consider the prospect of a province tabling a US-style "bathroom bill" excluding trans women from using female gendered washrooms and locker room facilities.  These types of bills are very much "Jim Crow Laws" - designed to separate, segregate, and humiliate their targets.  They are not just laws in any real sense of the word "just".  These are laws with a particular social engineering goal in mind, and it is a goal that attacks a group on the basis of assumed characteristics rather than demonstrable characteristics. 

The SCC has a very real issue to consider here.  If they rule that the NWC is an unbounded tool, the question becomes "what is there to stay the hand of a government that chooses to pass any law it wishes, no matter how much damage it does to the notion of Canada as a Free and Democratic Society?". 

In particular, given Alberta's recent heavy handed applications of the NWC, the SCC should be considering this type of hypothetical scenario very carefully - because it's really not that hypothetical. 

Novel Arguments For Challenging Anti-Transgender Laws In Canada

Since Alberta has decided to make itself the beachhead in bringing an "American-Style" attack on transgender people through legislation that is largely unconstitutional in Canada unless the province invokes The Notwithstanding Clause (S33), I thought I would address some potential arguments that could be used where the Notwithstanding Clause remains an "escape hatch".  

For the most part, the key parts of The Charter which anti-transgender laws violate would be S2, S7, and S15.  These all fall under the scope of S33.  For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has not expressed an opinion which substantively limits the ability of provinces to use S33.  

Argument 1:  Section 1 Extends Broadly To Encompass S33

S1 of The Charter enjoins the invocation of S33 is an extension reading of The Charter.  S1 is the so-called "reasonable limits" clause that allows the legislature to pass laws which infringe upon the rights guaranteed in the rest of The Charter, "within reason".  

The SCC Ruling On Quebec's Secularism Law Will Be More Profound Than You Think

We've had a few weeks now since the hearings at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the matter of Montreal English School Board, et al v. Quebec Attorney General, and I expect that it will be some months before we see a ruling from the SCC.  

However, the importance and scope of the ruling in this case needs to be discussed, because this case may fundamentally change our understanding of The Charter, as well as the powers of legislatures.  Much has been made of the impact this case may have on the rules around the application of the Notwithstanding Clause (S33).  I've written at length about it on this blog. 

However, while its impact on the ability of legislature to use S33 will undoubtedly be profound, it also will have significant implications for the concept of "legislative/parliamentary sovereignty" or "legislative supremacy" (pick your term - they seem to be used somewhat interchangeably).  

What Exactly Does The Alberta UCP Mean By "Neutrality" In Schools?

 When the Alberta government tabled Bill 25 last week, they made much ado about "bias" in the classroom - complaining that teachers were "telling students what to think", and engaging in "ideology".  Anytime a politician starts yammering on about "those guys are engaging in ideology", you should be suspicious.  When it's a UCP politician, we should absolutely suspect that this is far more insidious.   

Smith Attempting To Rule By Decree

Under Danielle Smith, Alberta is rapidly being transformed into a place where there are no guardrails on the exercise of power.  In this sitting of the legislature, the government has introduced a pile of legislation that in one way or another is a massive attack on everything from basic rights to division of powers in the Constitution. 

Consider the following: 

Bill 18 - "Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act"

Imposes arbitrary limitations on MAiD by abusing the Health Professions act to impose hard restrictions on practitioners, creating ethical double-binds and imposing "mandatory sanctions" which effectively turn regulators into policing bodies. 

Bill 23 - "Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026"

Not only does this once again rewrite the rules for citizen initiatives (what is this - the third go-around for the UCP?), and allows the government to simply sit on, or ignore petitions it doesn't like.  

The bill also includes prohibitions on AI-generated "deepfakes" that go after politicians (fair enough - to a point), but it is so broad that it gives the government the power to go after people for parody and other long held "acceptable use" expression.  This will have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly during elections.

Bill 24 - "An Act to Remove Politics and Ideology from Classrooms and Amend the Education Act, 2026"

Again, this is another censorship bill.  Now the government is going to dictate to teachers what topics they can talk about.  If the government decides that a topic is "too political" (whatever that means), they can order teachers not to talk about it.  We all know what this really is - it's an import of the US "Don't Say Gay" legislation - although it's been broadly written so the UCP can simply write new regulations for anything they decide they don't like.  

Expect it to be used to attack 2SLGBTQ topics first (gotta keep the SoCons happy), followed by abortion, feminism, trade unions, and other subjects that conservatives have come to hate.

Bill 25 - "Immigration Oversight Act"

This is part of the government's attack on immigration.  In this case, it creates impediments to workers moving from other provinces by indirectly imposing controls on the hiring of foreign workers by Alberta companies.

The law is clearly designed to undermine the Federal legislation around immigrant workers, and tries to impose some bizarre "Alberta Standard".  

Over and above that, we have a Premier who seems all too willing to limit the rights of those she "disagrees" with, and willing to move the goalposts for those she favours (e.g. Alberta Separatists).  This isn't an accident. It's intentional, and it's meant to tie things up in the courts for years to come.  

Every piece of legislation I've enumerated here can be challenged on constitutional grounds ranging from unreasonable infringements on rights to breaches of the powers of the province.  The goal is to drive wedges into the bedrock of Canadian law by directly challenging The Constitution and demanding that it be changed to suit her desires.  

If you don't think you've seen this before, I invite you to consider the approach that the GOP has taken for _AT LEAST_ the least 26 years in the United States.  Obstruct everything your political rivals propose, and when you do gain power, do everything you can to polarize things further.  I could make longer ranging arguments here, but I think if you start with GWB's presidency and the approach taken to everything by the GOP then, and roll forward through the GOP's approach to both Obama and Biden, I think the pattern is clear enough.  Smith is engaging in very similar strategies here.

Smith's approach is basically daring the Federal Government to challenge her directly, which she will immediately weaponize by claiming the mean old Feds are trying to strangle Alberta.  It's a lie, and she knows it - but she has the backing of enough of Alberta's idiot class to make it a viable political strategy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now She Wants To Amend The Constitution

 So, having had her public temper tantrum over appointing judges, Smith now wants to amend the Constitution so that the decision about who gets to sit as a judge is made by her alone. 

To be abundantly clear - painfully so - this is a power grab.  Worse, given Smith's track record, this would ultimately turn out to be nothing less than the politicization of the judiciary.  

She claims that Alberta doesn't have a say in appointing judges to the senior courts in Alberta.  This is false - Alberta very much has a seat at the table, but the political seat at the table is not the controlling seat, and that's what Smith is actually upset about.  

A Rant About Media Coverage of SCC Hearings

I want to take a moment to express my disappointment in Canada's media and how they have chosen to cover this week's hearings at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the matter of Montreal English School Board, et al v. Quebec Attorney General.  This is likely the most significant constitutional case in Canada since the reference case that resulted in The Clarity Act.  

Overall, national media barely covered the case, and for the most part reduced it to a simplistic "dust up" over powers between the Federal and Provincial governments.  I wish it were so straightforward.  Some news outlets tried to frame it as "mean old Ottawa trying to restrict what provinces can do" (you can guess which ones I'm talking about).  Others talked about it in such milquetoast language that you would think the argument was over shades of the colour beige.

Did any of them bother to really explain the implications of how the Notwithstanding Clause (S33) has come to be used by the provinces?  No, they did not.  The implications are far more serious than you might expect.  If you adopt the position that Quebec and other provinces have, S33 turns into a political weapon used to strip rights from Canadians, resulting in a nation with a "patchwork" of rights defined by the provinces not by The Charter.  

The media had enormous opportunities to educate the public on how The Charter is interpreted by the courts, and the relevant cases over the last 4 decades that have been used to develop reasonable methods to interpret it.  Did they bother to do any of that?  Again, the answer is largely no.  Instead we got a small number of talking bobble-heads that have always hated The Charter spouting off and misleading people. 

Did the media take any time to explain the different positions and arguments put forth by intervenors in this case?  Not really.  I've done far deeper work on this blog trying to explain the legal arguments in layman's terms.  Sadly, the media took the coward's approach and did little more than "both sides" the matter without providing any kind of useful critical analysis.

At a time when the very fabric of rights law in Canada - and your ability to be confident that no matter where you live in Canada that you will enjoy the same rights as your fellow citizens - is under siege, Canada's media chose to treat the whole affair as if it was a relatively minor spectacle of little import.  

Canadian media:  You failed all of us this week. 

On "Novel" Readings Of The Constitution

One of the loudest criticisms of the Federal Attorney General's submission in English Montreal School Board, et al v. Quebec Attorney General is that it relies on "novel" interpretations of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter) and the Canadian Constitution (The Constitution).  

I am going to explain why I think that line of reasoning is incorrect, and why the more "linear" interpretations that the critics are advocating for are in fact the "novel" interpretations which should be examined with suspicion.  

Supreme Court Hearings on Quebec Bill 21

 The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is holding hearings in the matter English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al.  Before you yawn and walk away, this is probably the single most important SCC case in 20 years.  I've written about the arguments in some depth here.

Among the issues on the table is very much the question "Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms truly apply to all Canadians, or do we have a patchwork of rights where provinces decide what rights are available to Canadians living in their borders?".  Do I have your attention yet? 

Let's talk about that:

The Dangers Of The UCP's MAID Legislation

I have lots to say about the UCP's Bill 18, which is clearly another piece of red meat legislation for the slavering Social Conservative base, but I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time critiquing the legislation for its declared purpose.  Beyond stating the obvious that this is the UCP stepping in between a patient and their care team, and removing personal autonomy from the patient - others will no doubt point out those issues (and probably already have).  

What I want to address is the much darker, more insidious aspect of this legislation.  

What Is Gender Ideology?

I have long asserted that Gender Ideology is fundamentally a "straw man" construct that the political right has co-opted and turned into a bucket that they fill with all of their fears about transgender people (in much the same way that the word "transgenderism" is another term they love to throw around to invalidate transgender people).  

This morning, I went to Google and asked its AI to define "Gender Ideology", here's what it came back with: 

"Gender ideology" is a term primarily used by conservative, religious, and anti-LGBTQ+ groups to describe, and criticize, a set of beliefs regarding gender identity, sexual orientation, and reproductive rights. It is largely employed as a pejorative, catch-all phrase to frame modern understandings of gender—particularly those that decouple gender from biological sex—as a dangerous, artificial, or fabricated construct. 

Core Beliefs Criticized as "Gender Ideology"
Those who use the term "gender ideology" often argue it encompasses the following ideas: 

• Social Construction of Gender: The belief that gender roles and identities are not fixed by nature or biology, but are constructed by society and culture.
• Gender Identity over Biology: The assertion that a person's internal sense of their gender ("gender identity") is more definitive than their assigned sex at birth.
• Gender Fluidity: The concept that gender can be fluid, non-binary, or chosen, rather than strictly male or female.
• Separation of Sex and Gender: The distinction between biological sex (chromosomes/anatomy) and gender (socially constructed roles), which is foundational to gender studies.

Unsurprisingly, GLAAD notes that this is a term which is used not by either academic researchers in the area, nor by actual transgender people.  It is used primarily by the same actors who used the term "gay agenda" (similarly devoid of meaning for the people it is intended to attack).  

Looking closer at the broad ideas that "Gender Ideology" is charitably intended to encompass, we see a pattern that in domains like psychology and sociology we call "biopsychosocial" (BPS), where the concepts involved encompass the domains of biology (the physical), psychology (the individual), and sociological (the social) dimensions in a manner where they intersect with each other.  

About Those "Violent" Trans People

Over at The Western Standard, flag bearer for their anti-transgender propaganda Christopher Oldcorn wrote a column titled "The Transgender Shooter Epidemic - When Ideology Turns Violent". (Again, I'm not going to link to the article, I will provide screenshots of it at the end of this column. 

Mr. Oldcorn subtitles his column as "demanding honest discussion".  So, let's take him at his word for now.  

Well, Mr. Oldcorn, that's nice - you have a list of mass shootings where the perpetrators were transgender.  So what?  That's a handful of events over multiple years - the vast majority of mass shootings are carried out by cisgender, white, males.  Are you also advocating for an "honest discussion" of those events, or is it just about the transgender people? 

Oh, I see - even living with someone who is transgender is dangerous now, is it?  Oh, and watch out for those Furries - that's just one step removed from being transgender, isn't it? 

"... connected to a specific ideology" - that's quite a loaded phrase.  Except what Mr. Oldcorn is referring to is a political canard dreamed up by the political right - specifically "gender ideology".  I've argued repeatedly that gender ideology is largely a straw man construct that the right wing fills with all of their fears, misconceptions and ignorance about transgender people.  Mr. Oldcorn's version of gender ideology contains a specific fear that transgender people are "mentally unstable".  

What he is doing, of course, is whipping up the old bogeyman that anyone who experiences mental health concerns is "unstable" (and therefore "dangerous").  

Here is where I would start with insisting that Mr. Oldcorn provide citations to support his claims, and more specifically to spell out in detail what he means by "other serious mental health conditions", because he's being extremely broad here and making some inferences that may or may not be supported by his claims. 

For example, while we are aware that anxiety and depression occur at elevated rates among transgender people, but we also know that when those same people are treated with kindness and respect (including having access to gender affirming medical care), that concerns around suicide drop off significantly (Allen, Dodd, Moser, & Knoll, 2026).  (See how easy it is to provide actual evidence to support your claims, Christopher?)

We already know that when you start with the premise that the person's stated gender identity is valid, that things work a whole lot better.  But, let's go a little further here, because mental health concerns are much more complex than Mr. Oldcorn's simplistic view of them is.  For example, Mr. Oldcorn implies that if someone says they are transgender that no attention is given to other comorbid mental health conditions is given.  This is simply false.  

Gender Affirming Care (GAC) is about dealing with the experiences of someone's gender dysphoria.  If a particular individual's anxiety or depression symptoms are driven by their gender dysphoria (either in whole or in part), then yes, there is a reason to expect that GAC will alleviate those symptoms to some extent.  However, anxiety or depression are often more complex and driven by multiple factors in the person's life.  So, yes, there are certainly reasons that you would address those issues concurrently with providing GAC.  Unfortunately, Mr. Oldcorn seems to be stuck in the idea that you deal with these things "one at a time", and in his apparent way of thinking, you deal with gender last (because ... reasons?)

Further, Mr. Oldcorn wants us to think that there's an "epidemic" of transgender violence going around.  There isn't - even if I add up all of these cases, they still don't even add up to a drop in the bucket of mass shootings when you add in those conducted by straight, white, cisgender males.  Worse, Mr. Oldcorn has fallen into making a correlation fallacy.  In his argument, the shooters were transgender, and therefore that was the reason for their actions.  Using that same logic, should we not be extremely concerned about cisgender men who are in possession of firearms - after all they are by far the most common perpetrators of mass shootings?  

The tell on the dishonesty of Oldcorns argument is that he hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that tells us that these events had anything at all to do with the shooter's gender identity beyond coincidence.  

Of course Oldcorn has to pull out questions about the characteristics of the victims.  As if mass shooters are picking out targets based on beliefs and ideology.  Again, Mr. Oldcorn might want to spend some quality time looking at mass shooting cases and the motives of the shooters.  

I am not going to speculate on what drove any one person to violence here.  The reality is that every story is unique.  We should strive to understand the broad picture of what is going on that provokes mass shootings, rather than grasping at straws.  As I pointed out earlier, if Mr. Oldcorn is so concerned about transgender shooters, where is his concern about cisgender male shooters who are by far the vast majority of shooters. 

To the best of my knowledge, there is no clinical evidence that supports the idea that transgender identity is in any meaningful way connected to a person becoming violent.  Without more substantive evidence, all Mr. Oldcorn seems to be doing is making a supposition - which really isn't terribly useful.  

Further, one might want to consider the barrage of hate being directed at the transgender community overall, whether that is ill-informed columns like Mr. Oldcorn's which insinuate things about the transgender community that simply don't make any sense, street pastors who spread fear and ignorance about transgender people, or legislatures who choose to attack the transgender community because they make a convenient target to attack that throws a bit of "red meat" to a voter base that demands such.  

While it seems unlikely that the hate itself is a direct cause of the actions of a handful of shooters who happen to be transgender, it does speak to a broad pattern of public hostility towards a small group that is poorly understood.  Perhaps Mr. Oldcorn would like to reflect on the impact of his "oh-so-earnest" protestations that he "just wants a conversation" before he writes his next anti-transgender column. 

References

Allen, L. R., Dodd, C. G., Moser, C. N., Knoll, M. M. (2026) Changes in Suicidality among Transgender Adolescents Following Hormone Therapy: An Extended Study. Journal of Pediatrics 289.  

Appendix - Original Column

This column was published on February 17, 2026 and captured from the Western Standard's website on February 19, 2026.  

Barry Neufeld and the Wages of Being Evil

Two BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) decisions came down last week, and they're important for a number of reasons.  Both are in the matter of Chilliwack Teacher's Association v. Barry Neufeld.  

Decision 10

Decision 11

This all goes back to when Neufeld was a School Trustee in Chilliwack and began actively publishing anti-transgender, anti-2SLGBTQ material online.  I won't spend a bunch of time tearing into Neufeld's claims - they are in the large the usual assortment of bogus claims about 2SLGBTQ people and transgender people in particular.  

The case as framed by the original complaint is interesting because the Chilliwack Teacher's Association (CTA) filed a complaint on behalf of a class of its membership rather than individual complaints.  Given that Neufeld was a person in a position of public power, this is a bit different than your average discrimination case involving direct attacks on an individual.  Neufeld appears to have used his position as a public figure to amplify his messaging, and it had direct impact on staff working for the Chilliwack school system who were members of the 2SLGBTQ community as a whole.  Consequently, what we have is a form of "class action" human rights complaint which is a bit unusual. 

My goal here is not to "relitigate" the decisions of the BCHRT - I'm certain that Neufeld will be appealing these into the courts with the assistance of any number of right wing legal agitprop organizations like Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) that routinely take on these cases both to grift donation money and in the hopes of driving a wedge into the existing body of case law.  The outcome of those appeals remains to be seen. 

However, I'm seeing a lot of people expressing "shock and outrage" over the amount of the awards, which runs to some $750,000.  However, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the bigger issue.  Most discrimination cases involve actions that affect an individual, or possibly a couple of people.  

Here we have a case where the impact is much different because the actions taken by Neufeld affected teachers within the Chilliwack school system - not a single individual, but rather many individuals who were in the school system's employ at the time Neufeld was campaigning against 2SLGBTQ recognition in the schools.  

This is, to my knowledge, the first time in Canada that a discrimination case has been filed where the victims are not recorded as individuals who have been directly affected, but as members of a class of individuals who were directly and indirectly affected by the impugned activities.  This is what makes the amount of the fine so high.  Instead of the BCHRT assessing each case individually and handing out penalties, the amount is to be distributed by the CTA to its affected members.  This is not unlike a "class action lawsuit", where the amount of compensation per individual may not be a lot, but when there are a sizeable number of individuals in the Class, the gross amount can appear to be a "huge sum".  

Where this becomes interesting is in terms of its importance in future human rights case law.  It provides a means to pursue someone where they are attacking a class of individuals rather than actual individuals with their rhetoric.  In general, human rights law in Canada focuses on individual rights and has tended not to recognize attacks on identifiable groups very well.  

Neufeld made accusations in his publications that stated flat out that 2SLGBTQ people were pedophiles, or worse.  These aren't nuanced statements - they are cases where he deliberately associated 2SLGBTQ people as a whole with acts and behaviours that are both criminal and profoundly harmful to the victims.  It is not a small matter to accuse an individual of being a pedophile, it is no less harmful to accuse an entire class of people of such - especially from a person who is in a position of public power.

I have mused in the past about the need for some kind of "class libel" law in Canada where global aspersions against a class of people are often the tool of choice in justifying legislative attacks on those minorities.  In these cases, we often find - as we have seen with Barry Neufeld in BC, and certain pastors in Alberta, a tendency to claim that they are "merely expressing deeply held religious beliefs".  To me, these claims are the refuge of scoundrels - an escape hatch where anything can be justified by claiming it's "religious".  

"Deeply held religious beliefs" are fine - I don't actually care what a person believes.  However, there is a line that is crossed when those beliefs become justification for attacking the rights and freedoms of others in society.  If you want to believe that "all trans people are pedophiles", knock yourself out.  However, if you then turn around and demand that those same transgender people be banned from using public washrooms based on that belief, that's a different matter (especially when those "deeply held beliefs" have as much validity as claiming the world is flat).

Public figures need to understand that even if they "sincerely believe" something, there is a higher standard that they must hew to given their influence and sway.  Just because they "believe" something does not grant carte blanche to simply spew whatever they believe.  They have a duty and responsibility to ensure that their public utterances are in fact grounded in reason and fact, not supposition.  

Words continue to have great power, and can be used to cause great harm.  That is ultimately the underlying lesson here - and perhaps we have a precedent here that can be used in the future when other public figures use their position to foment hate and fear. 

Understanding Alberta Separatist Claims As Gaslighting

The arguments that the Alberta separatists make to justify their positions are carefully crafted to seem almost reasonable, while at the same time are actually distorting the picture entirely to support their claims of "legitimate grievances".  This is a form of gaslighting which Albertans are being subjected to on a scale most have never seen before.  Gaslighting is using manipulation to cause someone to question their own perception of reality (I have linked to the Wikipedia definition because it's in fairly straightforward language without getting bogged down in the details and nuances that you would find in more psychological analyses of the topic.) 

I think it's worth taking apart some of their complaints and explaining exactly how they are twisting things in order to create their arguments, in the hopes of convincing people that Alberta is really hard done by in confederation.  I'll explain in more detail why I see this as a form of manipulation through distortion as we go through the example.