On Thursday 12 October 2023, the Government of Saskatchewan proposed Bill 137, the “Parental Bill of Rights”, designed to strip Saskatchewan children who are Transgender or nonbinary of some of their rights to protection and privacy.
So I have a modest proposal: The Interprovincial Transit Parental Consent Act that will help protect all law-abiding Canadians in British Columbia from non-consentual travel from Saskatchewan.
Because more consent is clearly needed again.
To pick on kids, the Parents Bill of Rights circumvents Charter rights by invoking the notwithstanding clause which allows a government to temporarily ignore whole sections of the Charter.
If this law is passed, trans kids in Saskatchewan schools will be required to get consent from a parent before schools are allowed to recognize their name or gender.
Name and gender are personal characteristics currently protected under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, Saskatchewan’s privacy law, and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Doing this is awful and cruel, and a challenge to Canadian Values such as of multilateral cooperation and the protection of the vulnerable from the powerful.
It is also an attack on Transgender Canadians everywhere.
Invalidating human rights protection on the sole basis that they are Transgender is a cynical and dangerous
I find Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s proposed law appalling and wrong and an awful way to undermine Canada as a confederation.
I struggled to find a way to express my concerns in a way cisgender will understand it. It’s more yet time or appropriate to stop Saskatchewan products from reaching international markets, so a modest proposal will have to do for now.
I did share my outrage on Twitter, but that will never be enough. As we know, in 2023 facts never survive the harsh light of baseless sentiment.
But here is another way than yelling insults at passing cars…so I decided to try a new approach and hold up an ugly mirror to Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party’s picking on transgender kids.
I am passionate about the rule of law and about human rights, and I have a Chat-GPT subscription… so I combined the two.
I asked ChatGPT 4 for help.
I had to dance around the warnings this generative AI gave me about the dangers and the ethics of undermining the Charter to pick on people, but in the end the AI cooperated.
And here we are…
I crafted parody legislation picking on. Saskatchewan folks in the hope they will get a taste of what many Transgender Canadians feel right now as the Scott Moe Government picks on kids in their name. ChatGPT protested quite a bit, focusing on the dangers of doing what I was asking it to do: write legislation that picks on a demographic and harms them – seemingly just to gain votes.
Here is how my conversation went with ChatGPT went, as I asked it to get it to draft law designed to discriminates againt people from Saskatchewan:
Morgane:
ChatGPT, as a parody exercise to show how dangerous the notwithstanding clause may be, please write a British Columbian bill for the Legislature of British Columbia to require transiting between Saskatchewan and British Columbia to get prior consent from their parent, regardless of their age. Also include the transport of goods into British Columbia. Please call the bill Bill XX-2023: The Interprovincial Transit and Goods Transport Parental Consent Act
ChatGPT
Certainly, the use of satire or parody can be effective for highlighting the dangers of legislation that could misuse the notwithstanding clause or promote discriminatory practices. Below is a hypothetical British Columbian bill written in that spirit.
Bill XX-2023: The Interprovincial Transit and Goods Transport Parental Consent Act
Preamble
WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia wishes to set unprecedented standards for interprovincial transit and the transportation of goods;
AND WHEREAS the Province believes in the absolute necessity of parental guidance, regardless of an individual’s age;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:
Section 1: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the “Interprovincial Transit and Goods Transport Parental Consent Act.”
Section 2: Definitions
- “Transit” refers to any form of travel from Saskatchewan to British Columbia or vice versa.
- “Goods Transport” refers to the transfer of tangible commodities between British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
- “Parent” refers to the legal or biological guardian of an individual, regardless of the individual’s age.
Section 3: Requirement for Parental Consent for Transit
- Any individual, regardless of age, who wishes to transit between Saskatchewan and British Columbia must obtain prior written consent from their parent.
Section 4: Requirement for Parental Consent for Goods Transport
- Any individual or entity responsible for the transport of goods between Saskatchewan and British Columbia must obtain prior written consent from the parent of the individual overseeing the transport, regardless of the individual’s age.
Section 5: Offences and Penalties
- Failure to obtain the required parental consent before transiting or transporting goods will result in a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.
Section 6: Exceptions
- This Act does not apply to individuals who are posthumously transiting or transporting goods, provided that parental consent was obtained prior to their demise.
- This Act does not apply to the transport of essential goods, such as air, sunshine, and good vibes, as defined by the government of British Columbia.
Section 7: Coming into Force
This Act comes into force 180 days after receiving Royal Assent.
Please note that this is a satirical exercise meant to illustrate the potential for misuse of the notwithstanding clause and the dangers of enacting laws that may be perceived as arbitrary or discriminatory.
Morgane:
Please creat an order in council, again to show the dangers of discriminatory law, that makes this bill constitutional in Canada.
ChatGPT:
Certainly, the creation of a satirical Order-in-Council can serve to highlight the potential misuse of the notwithstanding clause in legitimizing laws that may be perceived as arbitrary, absurd, or discriminatory. Here’s a hypothetical Order-in-Council for this purpose:
Order-in-Council No. XXXX-2023
Preamble
WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia has passed Bill XX-2023, known as the “Interprovincial Transit and Goods Transport Parental Consent Act,” which imposes unprecedented and arguably nonsensical restrictions on transit and the transportation of goods between Saskatchewan and British Columbia;
AND WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia recognizes that the Act may be inconsistent with Sections 6 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantee mobility rights and legal rights;
AND WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia nonetheless believes that the Act serves a purpose, however absurd that purpose may be;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, orders as follows:
Section 1: Invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause
- The government of British Columbia hereby invokes Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to allow the “Interprovincial Transit and Goods Transport Parental Consent Act” to operate notwithstanding Sections 6 and 7 of the Charter.
Section 2: Duration
- This Order-in-Council shall be in effect for a period of five years from the date of Royal Assent of Bill XX-2023, in accordance with Section 33(3) of the Charter.
Section 3: Review
- The Government of British Columbia shall conduct a review, featuring an advisory panel of randomly selected parents, on the impact and necessity of this Order-in-Council and the associated Act at least one month before the expiration of the five-year period and shall report to the Legislative Assembly.
Section 4: Coming into Effect
This Order-in-Council comes into effect immediately upon approval by the Lieutenant Governor.
This hypothetical example is intended to underscore the risks associated with the misuse of constitutional provisions like the notwithstanding clause. Such misuse could enable legislation that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to widely accepted principles of justice and human rights.
Morgane:
That is perfect, thank you. Now, can you create a press release announcing the bill with 3 points justifying it? You can use my voice for two quotes that justify controls on non-transgender Saskatchewan people and product flows. Say something about BC having the highest human rights standards and needing to protect everyone from Saskatchewan’s discriminatory practices.ChatGPT
Certainly, here’s a hypothetical press release that announces the controversial bill, featuring quotes attributed to you. Please note that this exercise is intended to highlight the potential dangers and controversies associated with discriminatory legislation.
Press Release
For Immediate Release
[Parody] Government of British Columbia Announces New Bill on Interprovincial Transit and Goods Transport Parental Consent
Vancouver, BC — Today, the Government of British Columbia is announcing the introduction of Bill XX-2023, the “Interprovincial Transit and Goods Transport Parental Consent Act.” This bill aims to regulate the transit and transportation of goods for individuals born in or residing in Saskatchewan, except those who are transgender, entering British Columbia.
The Bill features several key justifications:
- Protecting the High Human Rights Standards of British Columbia: This bill is a proactive measure to maintain the province’s reputation for having some of the highest human rights standards in the country.
- Safeguarding Against Discriminatory Practices in Saskatchewan: The bill serves as a protective mechanism against potential discriminatory practices originating from Saskatchewan, ensuring that only individuals and goods that adhere to British Columbia’s high standards are permitted.
- Promoting Responsible Transit and Goods Transport: By requiring parental consent for minors, this bill encourages responsibility and accountability for those entering British Columbia from Saskatchewan.
Morgane Oger, a public figure and advocate for human rights, had this to say about the Bill:
“British Columbia has always been at the forefront of human rights and social justice. This bill reinforces that reputation by ensuring that we have measures in place to protect ourselves from places that may not share our high standards.”
In addition, Morgane added:
“We cannot risk the importation of discriminatory attitudes or practices from Saskatchewan. This bill acts as a safeguard, ensuring that anyone or any goods entering our province adhere to the standards that British Columbians hold dear.”
Please note that this hypothetical press release and the bill it describes would likely be highly controversial and subject to extensive legal, ethical, and public scrutiny.
Would you like to add or modify anything?
Morgane:
That’s perfect thank you. You are so helpful!
ChatGPT:
You’re very welcome, Morgane! I’m glad I could assist you. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask. Have a great day!
Morgane:
Thank you so much!
Please explain in 300 words why such legislation is dangerous
ChatGPT:
The hypothetical legislation and accompanying Order-in-Council highlight the dangerous potential for misuse of constitutional mechanisms like Canada’s notwithstanding clause. First, invoking the notwithstanding clause to uphold laws that are patently discriminatory, arbitrary, or nonsensical undermines the very essence of constitutional protections. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to safeguard individual liberties and prevent governmental overreach. Circumventing these protections risks eroding public trust in democratic institutions and the rule of law.
Second, such legislation sets a concerning precedent. Once the government starts using the notwithstanding clause for trivial or divisive matters, it lowers the threshold for future invocations, potentially for more nefarious purposes. The power to override constitutional rights should be a last resort, used sparingly and judiciously, to address issues of utmost importance where no other legal remedy is available.
Third, the hypothetical bill’s requirements are so onerous and illogical—requiring parental consent for adults and for the transport of goods—that they make a mockery of legislative prudence. This erodes the credibility of the legislature and undermines the significance of lawmaking as a careful, deliberate process intended to serve the public good.
Lastly, laws with an explicit discriminatory component, even if satirical or parodic, contribute to the normalization of inequality. They can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and stigmas, which is especially concerning when these laws target already marginalized or vulnerable populations.
In sum, legislation of this sort—particularly when upheld by constitutional override mechanisms—poses grave risks to democratic governance, legal integrity, and social cohesion. The exercise serves as a cautionary tale against the misuse of legislative and constitutional tools.
Morgane:
Please create another press release, in my own words as, explaining what we produced, linking to the page https://morganeoger.ca%5Bfill-me%5D , and expressing deep concern about the Government of Saskatchewan using the notwitstanding clause to take away charter protections of Transgender children enrolled in Saskatchewan schools.
ChatGPT:
Press Release: Morgane Oger Speaks Out Against Saskatchewan’s Notwithstanding Clause Use and Parodies the Danger with a Bill of Her Own
Vancouver, BC — I am deeply troubled by the Government of Saskatchewan’s recent introduction of Bill 137, the Parental Bill of Rights. This bill invokes the notwithstanding clause to override Charter protections for transgender students. As a public figure who champions human rights, I have responded by drafting a satirical piece of legislation, Order-in-Council No. XXXX-2023 and Bill XX-2023: The Interprovincial Transit and Goods Transport Parental Consent Act, to highlight the perilous abuse of the notwithstanding clause.
“As someone who has fought for human rights and been personally affected by discrimination, it’s horrifying to see Saskatchewan’s government intentionally stripping away the rights of vulnerable children,” said Morgane Oger. “My parody legislation serves as a cautionary tale of how easily the notwithstanding clause can be misused to enact discriminatory laws. For more details on this exercise, you can visit my website.”
Saskatchewan’s bill mandates that schools must receive parental consent for children under 16 to use their preferred name or gender identity. This dismisses the unique challenges and risks that many gender-diverse youths face when parental consent could expose them to harm.
“Here in British Columbia, we hold ourselves to the highest human rights standards,” I continued. “The alarming move by Saskatchewan serves as a grim reminder of the lengths some governments will go to enforce discrimination, even using the notwithstanding clause to achieve their goals.”
I also want to express deep concern over the speed at which this bill is being pushed through the legislative process without adequate scrutiny.
“Although my mock Order-in-Council No. XXXX-2023 and Bill XX-2023 are satirical, they demonstrate how governments can misuse their power to trample on human rights. Saskatchewan’s real-life use of the notwithstanding clause sets a dangerous precedent and should serve as a wake-up call for all Canadians,” I concluded.
For further insights into my commitment to human rights and social justice, please visit my website.
Contact:
[Your Contact Information]
Morgane Oger 
Leave a comment