Latest news with #EgaleCanada
National Post
09-07-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Jamie Sarkonak: Liberal-funded charity stops Alberta from protecting minors from gender ideology
Article content The big-picture concerns were to be grappled with later on in the challenge, however: in granting an injunction, the judge considered only the potential harm that could be experienced by transgender youth receiving treatment. Article content The medical risks were of little interest: in the immediate term, she was primarily concerned about not limiting the choice of trans youth. She was clearly moved by the children who joined Egale Canada in the challenge: these included one 11-year-old male who was socially transitioned at age three, a 10-year-old male who'd been identifying as agender since Kindergarten, and a 12-year-old male, currently on puberty blockers, who had wanted to become a woman after seeing the film Moana. Article content In the judge's view, the only people who would benefit from the government's treatment restrictions were the minority of youth transitioners who would grow to regret their transition. Most trans youth, she figured, were better off under the status quo, with the province's professional standards for doctors serving as their primary safeguard. Article content 'I accept that some patients and their parents may have had a different experience and believe that treatment was initiated hastily and without a full understanding of the consequences,' she wrote. Article content 'However, based on my assessment of the evidence it would be a stretch to conclude that because that may have been the experience of some, every doctor who practices gender affirming care has abdicated their responsibilities and are choosing to ignore the strength of the science regarding gender affirming care such that the Ban is necessary to protect the public good.' Article content It appeared early on in the decision, long before the judge reached her conclusion, that she favoured the gender ideology of the progressive left: 'From the age of kindergarten and before they expressed a gender that was different from the sex they were assigned at birth,' she wrote, seeming to agree with the idea of biological sex as an irrational label applied to the freshly born. Article content And here is Alberta's problem: even with a growing body of evidence that calls cosmetic hormonal interventions for minors into question, even though objective reality is on its side, Canada has a culture of relying on established professional standards and keeping politicians out of doctors' offices. Article content Article content Both Alberta and Egale Canada agreed that the 'prevailing sources of clinical guidance' included the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which supports a radical affirmation model and is known for questionable, activist-corrupted research practices, and the Canadian Pediatric Society, which supports the WPATH guidelines. Article content The judge was inclined to accept their positions as dogma with some light persuasion from Egale and its litigation partner, the Calgary-based Skipping Stone foundation (which is 40 per cent funded by government, and 20 per cent funded by other charities). As for why it takes so little persuasion, well, the Supreme Court of Canada has been endorsing gender ideology since 2023. Article content Alberta isn't just fighting a few activists: it's going up against a federal government that acts indirectly, through judicial appointments and generous cash handouts to ideologically aligned charities. There were always going to be losses along the way; what will ultimately count is whether Premier Danielle Smith decides to draw the notwithstanding clause from its holster. Article content
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Mia Hughes: Alberta judge relies on myth that gender drugs are lifesaving
An Alberta judge has temporarily blocked the province's ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, ruling that denying trans-identified youth these interventions would cause 'irreparable harm.' The injunction, issued on June 27, stems from a Charter challenge led by LGBT charity Egale Canada. But Justice Allison Kuntz — and the advocacy groups opposing the ban — have it exactly backwards: it's the unproven interventions Alberta has restricted that have the potential to cause lasting harm — including sterility, sexual dysfunction, and impeded psychosocial development. Echoing the language of the Charter challenge, Justice Kuntz cited several factors she believed would cause 'irreparable harm:' that the law would reinforce discrimination, inflict emotional harm, and lead to 'permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity.' In other words, undergoing natural puberty would be harmful to these minors' identities. Yet, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith takes a different view. 'The court had said that they think that there will be irreparable harm if the law goes ahead. I feel the reverse,' said Smith the day after the ruling. She made clear that her government intends to challenge the decision in the higher courts, expressing confidence that Alberta has 'a very solid case.' That means taking the matter before the Alberta Court of Appeal — and make no mistake: Smith's confidence is well-founded. Bill 26 is backed, not only by multiple systematic evidence reviews and independent European investigations, but is also bolstered by recent developments in the U.S. legal landscape — most notably the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's right to restrict these same interventions. The Tennessee case was brought by a coalition of civil rights lawyers led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who also argued that the state's ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors would cause harm. But the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't persuaded. It sided with Tennessee's right to protect children from unproven, high-risk interventions — dealing a decisive blow to those who advocate for medicalizing adolescent transgender identities. Like the Egale-led Charter challenge, the ACLU's case relied on the claim that denying these drugs would cause irreversible physical and emotional harm — and increase the risk of suicide. But some of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices had done their homework. Citing the UK's Cass Report, one directly challenged the ACLU's most powerful rhetorical weapon: the 'transition or suicide' narrative. In a pivotal exchange during the December 2024 oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito confronted ACLU attorney Chase Strangio with the fact that there is no reliable evidence that puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones reduce suicide risk in this population. Strangio was forced to admit that suicide among trans-identified youth is extremely rare — and that, therefore, the claim these interventions are lifesaving is unsupported. And just like that, the medical justification for subjecting healthy adolescents to these interventions has vanished. There is no life-threatening emergency — only experimental drugs being offered to confused youth still exploring their identities and trying to find their place in the world. With Skrmetti, the ACLU learned a hard lesson — one Egale may soon face: in court, activist rhetoric doesn't cut it. Evidence matters. You can't win by shouting slogans or crying 'transphobia' when pressed. You can't call a treatment 'evidence-based' unless there is actually evidence to support it. Of course, Canada's judicial system differs significantly from that of the United States. Charter rulings tend to allow more room for ideological interpretation — and a Canadian court is not bound to follow the same evidentiary reasoning as the U.S Supreme Court. But the Skrmetti ruling is sure to have boosted the confidence of Smith and her legal team as they plan to take this fight to the higher courts. Like the ACLU's challenge to Tennessee's ban, the Egale-led Charter challenge rests on a strange and radical argument. It asks the court to treat the natural developmental stage of puberty as 'harm,' and the denial of experimental drugs as a violation of Charter rights. Most striking is the Section 12 claim: that restricting access to blockers and hormones amounts to 'cruel and unusual treatment' — a clause intended for criminal punishment, not medical regulation. Framing a protective measure as state-inflicted cruelty makes a mockery of the Charter's purpose. But more fundamentally, the challenge to Alberta's ban ignores a core ethical principle in paediatric care: a 'child's right to an open future.' Adolescents are still developing — physically, cognitively, and emotionally. To offer them potentially irreversible medical interventions based on transient identities is not an act of compassion; it's a form of foreclosure. True protection means safeguarding all the possible versions of the self that a young person has yet to discover — and shielding them from life-altering decisions they are not yet equipped to make. In essence, the Egale-led Charter challenge isn't about protecting rights; it's about defending an indefensible medical experiment — one that treats unproven drugs as safe, evidence-based care and the natural course of puberty as a danger. When Alberta moves forward defending its law, the Court of Appeal will face a choice: follow the science-led shift seen across Europe — or give legal cover to a collapsing ideology. Justice Kuntz failed to see past the activist script. The real test now is whether Canada's upper courts will have not only the clarity to recognize it — but also the courage to reject it. Mia Hughes specializes in researching pediatric gender medicine, psychiatric epidemics, social contagion and the intersection of trans rights and women's rights. She is the author of 'The WPATH Files,' a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and director of Genspect Canada. National Post Opinion: The retrenchment of Russian power and influence in the Middle East Opinion: The Iranian regime's new war targets its own people
Yahoo
29-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alberta premier intends to 'battle' injunction on transgender health-care law in court
After an Alberta judge granted a temporary injunction blocking a provincial law that would ban doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth, Premier Danielle Smith said she intends to fight the decision in court. "The court had said that they think that there will be irreparable harm if the law goes ahead. I feel the reverse," Smith said on her weekend radio program, Your Province, Your Premier, on Saturday, a day after Justice Allison Kuntz of the Alberta Court of King's Bench handed down a written judgment on Bill 26. "We want to battle this out, and the way you do that is you go to the higher levels of court. If we were to impose the notwithstanding clause, everything would stop. We actually think that we've got a very solid case." Eric Adams, a professor at the University of Alberta's law faculty, said while he doesn't think the injunction is necessarily a clear sign that a constitutional case could be won, it does mean that lawyers will present strong and credible arguments against the legislation. "This isn't a final resolution of the constitutional issues — far from it," Adams said. "Those are ... possibly even still years away. But the question was: Can the law operate during that period where the legislation is being challenged? And this judge said that, on balance, she's electing to hold that law off until the court weighs in on its constitutionality." Bennett Jensen, legal director of 2SLGBTQ+ advocacy group Egale Canada and co-counsel in the case against the province, said getting the law temporarily put on hold has been a "tremendous relief." "I think we've been holding our breath until we got this decision," he said. Responding to the government's decision to challenge the injunction, Jensen said that "the province has been clear that it wants to act in the best interests of young people in the province.... Now we have a judicial decision finding on the basis of evidence that their law will cause irreparable harm to young people, so I think it merits a reconsideration." While the premier indicated the province will challenge the injunction through the court system at this time, she has previously said that using the notwithstanding clause is on the table as a "last resort." "It's certainly one of the tools in the toolkit that the province has been preparing the public for by signalling that they were prepared to use it," Adams said. "The government itself can't simply snap its fingers and have the notwithstanding clause appear. It's got to be put into the law itself." The provincial legislature is not scheduled to sit again until October, which means that the notwithstanding clause could not be included in the legislation until then, at the earliest, he said. The clause was first used in Alberta by then-premier Ralph Klein's Progressive Conservative government in 1998, then under Klein again in 2000. "The last time Alberta considered using the notwithstanding clause, the public reaction against [it] was fairly swift and they stepped back," Adams said. But the politics around the notwithstanding clause has changed a bit since then, he said, with it being used in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. Adams said Friday's ruling indicates the province's fight for Bill 26 won't be an "easy walk through the park," as there are serious constitutional issues to be decided. "We'll see ... whether or not the government has to contemplate whether or not they want to take this out of the hands of judges entirely, because they might not like the direction this litigation is headed in." WATCH | Bill 26 faces legal challenge from Canadian Medical Association:
Time of India
29-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Alberta court halts ban on gender affirming care for youth as Premier vows to fight decision
A judge's decision last week to temporarily block Alberta 's new law banning gender-affirming care for youth under 16 has sparked a deep and emotional debate, one that centers not just on legal arguments, but on the real lives of vulnerable young people. Justice Allison Kuntz granted the injunction, warning that halting access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy could inflict 'irreparable harm,' including forcing children through irreversible physical changes that don't align with their identity. 'The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth will cause irreparable harm,' she wrote. Premier Danielle Smith countered forcefully during her radio show on June 28, stating, 'I feel there will be irreparable harm to children who get sterilized at the age of 10; we want those kids to have their day in court.' She emphasized the government's strategy as a precaution: preserving fertility until adulthood and cautioning against premature 'life-altering decisions.' The Premier described her approach as 'solid, measured, evidence-based—and on the side of kids.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like เทรดทองCFDsกับโบรกเกอร์ที่เชื่อถือได้| เปิดบัญชีวันนี้ IC Markets สมัคร Undo Behind the courtroom rhetoric are dozens of health-care professionals and families urging Alberta to reconsider. Doctors explain that puberty blockers, used since the 1980s, even for cisgender children, are reversible and often life-saving. Studies show they reduce long-term mental health risks when started at ages 14–15. Trans youth advocacy groups agree. Bennett Jensen of Egale Canada, which helped initiate the court challenge alongside the Skipping Stone Foundation, said the injunction provides 'huge relief' for the five youth (ages 6–11) named in the case. Live Events NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi celebrated the court's decision as 'a great day for young Albertans who simply want to live authentically and safely,' calling the law 'demonizing vulnerable kids'. Federal Health Minister Mark Holland called the policy 'deeply disturbing,' warning it risks children's safety and urged dialogue with Alberta's government . Why this matters Alberta's legislation, first introduced in late 2024, was part of a larger package also affecting school pronouns and trans inclusion in sports. It passed the legislature in December but awaited full proclamation. The legal battle now moves upward. The court injunction offers temporary protection, but the core question of whether provincial governments can bar access to gender-affirming care without violating the Charter of Rights will be decided by a higher court.
Economic Times
29-06-2025
- Health
- Economic Times
Alberta court halts ban on gender affirming care for youth as Premier vows to fight decision
Live Events Why this matters (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A judge's decision last week to temporarily block Alberta 's new law banning gender-affirming care for youth under 16 has sparked a deep and emotional debate, one that centers not just on legal arguments, but on the real lives of vulnerable young Allison Kuntz granted the injunction, warning that halting access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy could inflict 'irreparable harm,' including forcing children through irreversible physical changes that don't align with their identity. 'The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth will cause irreparable harm,' she wrote. Premier Danielle Smith countered forcefully during her radio show on June 28, stating, 'I feel there will be irreparable harm to children who get sterilized at the age of 10; we want those kids to have their day in court.' She emphasized the government's strategy as a precaution: preserving fertility until adulthood and cautioning against premature 'life-altering decisions.' The Premier described her approach as 'solid, measured, evidence-based—and on the side of kids.' Behind the courtroom rhetoric are dozens of health-care professionals and families urging Alberta to reconsider. Doctors explain that puberty blockers, used since the 1980s, even for cisgender children, are reversible and often life-saving. Studies show they reduce long-term mental health risks when started at ages 14– youth advocacy groups agree. Bennett Jensen of Egale Canada, which helped initiate the court challenge alongside the Skipping Stone Foundation, said the injunction provides 'huge relief' for the five youth (ages 6–11) named in the case. NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi celebrated the court's decision as 'a great day for young Albertans who simply want to live authentically and safely,' calling the law 'demonizing vulnerable kids'.Federal Health Minister Mark Holland called the policy 'deeply disturbing,' warning it risks children's safety and urged dialogue with Alberta's government . Alberta's legislation, first introduced in late 2024, was part of a larger package also affecting school pronouns and trans inclusion in sports. It passed the legislature in December but awaited full legal battle now moves upward. The court injunction offers temporary protection, but the core question of whether provincial governments can bar access to gender-affirming care without violating the Charter of Rights will be decided by a higher court.
