The war over children in transition still rages in New Brunswick: Selley

Article content

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) one of the parties was satisfied with the result of last week’s election in New Brunswick, which ousted Blaine Higgs’ Progressive Conservative government in favor of Susan Holt’s Liberals. The CCLA had launched a legal challenge against the former administration’s amendments to Policy 713which states what schools must do if a child wants to be addressed by a different name or different pronouns.

Article content

Holt promises to reverse the Higgs amendments to Policy 713, which made it more complicated for children to choose their own names and pronouns at school without parental intervention. But Holt’s majority win doesn’t mean a total victory for those who think children should be able to do that.

“The Liberal government’s proposed revisions to Policy 713 prioritize cisgender comfort over transgender rights,” a headline on the “social justice” site NB Media Co-op blared this week.

The CCLA and the opposition Green Party, which won two seats and 14 percent of the vote in the province-wide election, want to return to the original Policy 713, which the Higgs government adopted in 2020. The preferred first name and pronoun(s) will be used consistently in the manner requested by the student,” it was determined. That is, without necessarily informing parents.

Holt’s Liberals plan to adopt instead recommendations edited by Kelly Lamrockthe New Brunswick Child and Youth Advocate, last August.

The largest difference in Lamrock’s recommendations for Policy 713 concerns children under the age of 16.

Article content

Article content

The current version, implemented by the outgoing Higgs government, requires parental consent for “formal use” of a new name or pronouns. But “if it is not possible to obtain (the student’s) consent to talk to their parents” – and especially if it is determined that “it may harm them (physically or mentally) to talk to their parents” – says the policy: “the student is encouraged to communicate with… appropriate professionals to develop a plan.”

“The use of the preferred first name for transgender or non-binary students under the age of 16 may be used without parental consent if the student communicates with appropriate professionals in developing a plan to speak to their parents,” the existing reads policy. .

In other words, there is a specific circumstance under which schools be able to using a child’s preferred name and pronouns without parental consent – ​​and that, in my opinion, is a very reasonable choice. “Don’t tell the parents” or “keep calling kids names they don’t like” are very short-term solutions to very long-term problems. What are the chances that parents will not find out through the grapevine at some point?

Article content

In contrast, Lamrock proposes grade six as the threshold at which students are “presumed to be able to determine their own terms of…address” unless “the principal is concerned about the child’s capabilities” – “capacity” is defined as “the ability… to understand the nature and impact of a decision.”

If there are concerns about capacity, or if the child is younger than sixth grade, Lamrock suggests that “the principal (should) develop a plan for the child in consultation with school staff… school counselors, social workers, physicians and psychologists.”

If Lamrock’s proposed policy doesn’t sound very different to you than existing ones, that’s because it actually isn’t. Neither is perfect, but both are pretty reasonable. Certainly no distinction justifies the wildly overheated culture war rhetoric that has dominated this mostly unnecessary debate. If we can’t trust teachers, principals, and counselors to use their common sense to handle these types of situations without having to follow a bloodless, multi-page policy, then we probably can’t trust them to follow the policy either.

Article content

Frankly, Higgs seems to be credited with seeing clearly that there was some populist gain to be made here on the backs of children in need, and the school officials who tried to help them. and it blew up in his face even within his own caucus, with much backlash from the public and several MLAs.

Hopefully Holt can make a clearer case for her preferred policies than Higgs. I like that hers puts more discretion in the hands of school officials — not because I implicitly trust school officials, but because I trust them far more than brand politicians. But I also like that it at least implicitly acknowledges parents should involved, unless there is an extremely compelling reason not to do so.

A small number of Canadians believe that children should be allowed to “socially transition” at school, under a policy of unconditional acceptance and without parental notification – just 14 percent nationwide, according to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute published August last year. Of course, governments shouldn’t set policies based on opinion polls, but sometimes, when 86 percent of the population is against you, you’re wrong and the majority is right.

National Post
[email protected]

Get more in-depth political reporting and analysis from the National Post in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin explore what’s really happening behind the scenes of Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.

Article content