Intervenor status has been granted to two groups that support New Brunswick’s gender pronoun policy, which is being challenged in court.
Justice Richard Petrie of the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench granted intervenor status on May 2 to the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, a group of transgender adults who want an evidence-based approach brought to the gender issue, and Our Duty Canada, a support network of parents who have children struggling with gender issues.
“The Supreme Court has affirmed that parents in Canada have the right to guide the moral upbringing of their children,” the lawyer for both groups, Hatim Kheir, said in the JCCF news release. “This case provides an opportunity for the Court to apply those rights to issues surrounding gender which are becoming increasingly relevant in our society.”
Aaron Kimberly of the Gender Dysphoria Alliance said New Brunswick’s policy is “an important safeguarding measure for children experiencing gender incongruence, since we know that most kids with this experience turn out to be gay or lesbian, not trans.”
She said prematurely labelling kids “trans” and socially transitioning them “is a psychosocial intervention that risks putting pre-gay kids onto an unnecessary medical pathway.”
A member of Our Duty Canada said the group is pleased to be taking part in the case. “What has happened to us could happen to any parents under policies that promote secrecy from families,” Karin Litzcke said. “We are grateful to the Justice Centre for its assistance in advocating for the interests of children and parents in court.”
New Brunswick changed its education policy in 2020 to prohibit teachers from informing parents if their child was using a new name or pronoun at school, unless the child consented.
In June 2023, the provincial government changed the policy to require teachers to notify parents if the child was under 16 years of age and wanted to use a different name or pronoun.
The decision was divisive, and several Conservative Party of New Brunswick riding presidents called for a leadership review of Premier Blaine Higgs. Eight members of Mr. Higgs’s party, including six cabinet ministers, protested his decision. Post-Secondary Education Minister Trevor Holder and Social Development Minister Dorothy Shephard both quit.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) filed a constitutional challenge against the province, arguing that the policy change infringes on students’ Charter rights, namely, the freedom of expression, equality, and life, liberty, and security of the person.
The Epoch Times reached out to the CCLA but did not hear back by publication time.
Additional ‘Friends’ of the Court
The groups are not the only intervenors in the case. On May 3, Justice Petrie also granted intervenor status to the Madhu Verma Migrant Justice Centre (MADHU), the New Brunswick Refugee Clinic (NBRC), the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), and the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada (ARPA).MADHU and NBRC work with newcomers to Canada and told the court they had concerns about the impact of Policy 713 on sexually diverse migrants. The government’s policy changes threaten to “retraumatize and marginalize refugee and migrant youth with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, expressions and sex characteristics,” the groups said, according to the court decision. “The changes also subject migrant youth who are trans to particularized risks.”
The court acknowledged that LEAF had substantial experience advocating for gender rights, saying the organization “works towards ensuring the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans, and non-binary people.”
Justice Petrie noted that ARPA also had considerable experience intervening in courts across the country. He said the organization had been involved in a challenge in Alberta to a law that required religious schools to host gay-straight alliance clubs without informing parents about the clubs’ activities. The law was repealed by the legislature, and the case was dismissed in 2019, according to the court decision.
“I am satisfied that all of the proposed ‘friend’ intervenors intend to bring forth arguments from their own unique perspective and that those would not necessarily be perspectives that would be advanced by the parties themselves,” Justice Petrie wrote.
