Here you go courtesy of ChatGPT.

Summary

Alberta’s United Conservative government has repeatedly invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield controversial laws from Charter scrutiny—first to end teachers’ strikes, then to restrict transgender youth’s access to gender-affirming care, limit social transition in schools, and bar trans women and girls from sports. Critics argue these moves reflect an authoritarian trend that sidelines constitutional checks and balances and limits judicial review.

Despite the notwithstanding clause blocking most Charter challenges, legal advocates see a new path through federalism. Organizations challenging Alberta’s ban on gender-affirming care plan to argue the law is ultra vires (outside provincial authority) because it functions as criminal law, a domain reserved exclusively for the federal government under the Constitution Act, 1867—something the notwithstanding clause cannot override.

Applying Supreme Court precedent, particularly R v Morgentaler (1993), the argument is that Alberta’s law, in its pith and substance, seeks to prohibit a morally disfavoured medical practice, imposes penalties (including fines and imprisonment), and arises from moral panic rather than health regulation. Such features align with criminal law, not provincial health regulation.

If courts accept this analysis, Alberta’s gender-affirming care ban could be struck down on federalism grounds—showing that even aggressive use of the notwithstanding clause does not place provincial legislation beyond constitutional limits.

Yup, the intelligent people, who need to parent the kids and old folks.

Speaking for myself, social media can go fuck itself. I wouldn’t shed a tear if all of this bullshit was banned entirely in Canada. Wishful thinking though.

Ignorance is no excuse.

I thought the payout was a compensation for not getting your bag on time, not “funding to tide you over until your stuff appears” so you can hit the dollar store for clothing on your vacation or business trip.

I’d love a ban in Canada. There’s nothing compelling in these arguments, protecting kids from online garbage is more important than any of them.

I’d also like to see it banned for those over 60.

Well no child I know could’ve ever found porn if an adult had only blocked access…lol. The more forbidden it is, the bigger the thrill/reward of getting it.

When I was a kid, my parents always had big summer parties at our house and there was alcohol all over the place. I could try whatever I wanted (with lots of adults around - if not supervising, at least being nearby). I never cared about alcohol because casual “sampling” was never prohibited so who cares?

My kids (both under 10) have both tried mild alcoholic drinks.

When they get older into their teens, I’m making sure that as long as they are supervised, they can try any legal substance they want.

lol. Cons eating their own. Figures.

The FOI wasn’t the issue, it was the contents. Doctors should understand that patients can get this info and always be very careful about what they include.

Bike how you want, but if you fail to follow the established rules for vehicles on the road and get injured, it’s totally on you.

Do you believe what the felon says? Joke is on you.

NDP.

I propose that the leader of the opposition no longer needs a residence at taxpayer expense. No housing for losers.

I love DST. It lets me identify clueless whiners so quickly. If they whine about DST I have no time for someone because it’s literally the easiest thing in the world.