From the article:
Moe previously said the policy had strong support from the majority of Saskatchewan residents and parents.
I cannot possibly express how pissed off I get at this blind adherence to majority opinion and majority rule.
The theft of Indigenous lands had the support of the majority of those with power.
The creation of the Residential School system had majority support of those with power and, by that time, the actual majority of the population.
Sometimes, the majority is false because it only includes those with power. Sometimes the majority is not just wrong but actively selfish and maybe just a little evil.
Sometimes, the only way to create a better world is to drag people kicking and screaming into it.
I don’t have all the answers for how to balance minority rights against majority desires, but lots of very smart people have discussed the problem for hundreds of years and concluded that bills of rights based on the principles of inclusion and respect are a good starting point. If we are just going to toss those rights aside every time we get uncomfortable, then they are not rights, but privileges or concessions.
Ask yourself this: How would I structure the world if tomorrow I was going to be reincarnated as an infant into a community without power and grow up to be different from those around me?
There may be those who interpret the above as anti-democratic, and it absolutely is not. Constitutional democracy aims to create safeguards that protect minorities against majority will. They are weak safeguards, but they are not undemocratic.
Sometimes, the majority is false because it only includes those with power. Sometimes the majority is not just wrong but actively selfish and maybe just a little evil.
Good point. I mean, look at the Australian referendum on giving Indigenous people a voice in that country.
If human rights were based on majority rule we’d still have slavery.
proposed legislation that requires parental permission if a child wants to change their name or pronoun at school
In case anyone wants to know what the bill is actually doing.
It’s nice to see the Commissioner publicly stick to their morals and what’s right.
One less person to get in Scott Moe’s way.
I never did understand resignation as a form of protest.
History attaches names to things, so resigning at least makes sure you aren’t the one remembered bringing this policy out.
Maybe… but you could be remembered for fighting against it instead of getting out of the way and letting it happen.
It’s hard to be the only person fighting sometimes. Especially if she was surrounded by people who were all for this, what good is throwing a sprinkle of water at a bonfire?
It’s not like she quietly disappeared. She publicly denounced it and went on record actively against it. Making changes require negotiations, and her colleagues have shown they no interest in negotiating.
It is extremely unlikely that this was her Plan A. It’s also extremely unlikely that it was just this one isolated thing. And now, she’s free to join groups that actively interested in fighting against this and throwing her experience and network in as resources to help them instead.
