Alberta’s United Conservative government invoked the notwithstanding clause four times to shield legislation from judicial scrutiny under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It did so, first, to override teachers’ right to strike and order them back to unsustainable working conditions. Then it did so to violate the rights of transgender youth to access medically necessary gender-affirming care and to transition socially in schools; as well as the rights of transgender women and girls to participate in sports that align with their gender identities.

In each case, the government steamrolled over Albertans’ constitutional rights in darkness and with limited debate in the legislature.

It’s all part of a rapidly coalescing authoritarian trend in Canada’s conservative heartland, one that has seen Alberta cabinet ministers, and even Premier Danielle Smith herself, disparage Canada’s system of constitutional checks and balances, which affords the courts an important role in reviewing legislation that potentially violates Canada’s supreme law. This includes introducing legislation to try to limit judicial review of a proposed referendum on separation.

With everything that has happened these past few months, there are plenty of good reasons to doubt whether the courts are going to be able to reign in an Alberta government hellbent on shattering Canada’s constitutional order. But while I find myself increasingly pessimistic about anything approaching reliance on the judiciary to get at the root of anti-trans hatred, in particular, court challenges remain a powerful tool to combat specific instances of legislative violence.

With Alberta making disturbingly frequent resort to the notwithstanding clause to void Charter rights, however, we’re going to need to get creative if our court challenges are going to succeed.

Here comes federalism

Shortly after Alberta passed amendments to its anti-trans laws to shield them from judicial scrutiny, Egale and

© rabble