On January 31, 2024, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith makes a statement on X (Twitter) outlining the government’s stance on parental rights. Screenshot taken from the film.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1998 in Vriend v. Alberta that Alberta’s refusal to give the 2SLGBTQ area access to the awning of anti-discrimination privileges was illegal. According to the court, this refusal had a significant negative impact on gays and lesbians because it “strongly and sinisterly messaged to all Albertans that it was lawful, and possibly even suitable, to discriminate against people on the basis of their intimate orientation.”
Traditional activists pushed the government to bypass the Vriend ruling by using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding section. Cooler heads finally won out.
People of Alberta’s 2SLGBTQ society were for the first time ever shielded from being fired, evicted from their rooms, or denied access to healthcare because of their sexual orientation. They were allowed to come out of hiding and live their authentic life. In Alberta, community became more inclusive.
On April 2, 1998, about 500 people gathered outside the Alberta government to celebrate a Supreme Court decision granting gays and lesbians safety from discrimination. Delwin Vriend hugs his friend Andrew Gagnon during the protest.
Nearly 26 years afterwards, history is repeating itself. The human rights of vulnerable people, this time trans community members, are undermined by policies proposed by another Alberta state that violate Charter equality rights.
According to this proposal, trans children would not be allowed to attend school or, for those over 15, to use preferred names and pronouns without parental permission. Acceptance and warning are not required when trans children have familial support because their parents are probably the second, not the last, to know about their child’s gender identity.
However, trans children who are hesitant to tell their parents about their gender identification will be forced to make the unavoidable decision of either coming out to them or suffering in silence in the wardrobe, risking the loss of loved ones, their home, or even physical violence.
According to this plan, parental consent and opt-in are necessary for intimate orientation, gender identity, and human sexuality education in schools. Some individuals would choose not to learn about important topics like safe sex, the requirement for consent to sexual activity, and gender identity differences that may help prevent or lessen prejudice.
Familial rights are used to support the need for acceptance and opt-in. To be sure, families have corresponding rights and obligations and play a crucial role in raising kids. But, Loyola High School v. Quebec, which was just reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that kids are free to share their personal views with their children if they so choose. However, it is a fact of life in society for children to be exposed to realities that are different from those in their immediate family atmosphere at an early age.
With potentially horrible results, trans youth may be denied certain medical treatments that their doctors, parents, and established guidelines had recommended, according to this proposal. It is incredibly biased to single out trans children and their families for such government interference.
This proposal would forbid transgender women and girls from participating in “women’s-only” sports, demonstrating to this government that they are not women.
All of this conveys to Albertans a powerful and ominous message that discrimination based on gender identity is acceptable, if not downright acceptable, by paraphrasing the words of the judge in Vriend. The message to people of the transgender community is that they are not treated equally in our society.
The jury in Vriend called Alberta’s claims “disingenuous.” It is also false to say that this plan is meant to safeguard trans children. The fierce opposition from community, health, and educational leaders demonstrates this. In actuality, this is unadulterated politics, enacting a United Conservative Party convention quality.
It is heartbreaking to see our government attempt to violate both the individual rights of a resilient team and the justice right outlined in the Charter once more. As a society, this is not who we are. We’re superior to this. Regardless of gender identity, we must defend the basic right of all Canadians.
The jury clearly stated in Vriend, “If fairness rights for minority had been recognized, the all-too-common tragedies of history might have been avoided.” It is impossible to forget that prejudice is the epitome of fairness and that promoting justice may promote each person’s dignity.
In Vriend v. Alberta, Sheila Greckol and Douglas Stollery provided pro bono constitutional representation.
