More clarity around the U of A’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy

After The Gateway’s initial article on the University of Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy, the Press Secretary for the Minister of Tourism and Sport, Vanessa Gomez, disputed some of the statements made by the university. 

Provincial legislation requires the university to have a policy specifically regulating the participation of transgender women in women’s sports leagues.

Gomez said that the provincial legislation does not require proof of sex at birth upon registration. The legislation only requires documentation of sex at birth if an athlete’s sex is challenged.

The U of A media relations office provided further clarity around the new Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy. 

Media relations confirmed that Jax Oltean, associate general counsel, misspoke at the General Faculties Council (GFC) meeting on September 22 when they said that the university requires athletes participating in women’s leagues to provide proof of their sex at birth. Athletes are only required to show proof in the event of a challenge.

Claim that the U of A went beyond what was required to support students “is disingenuous” ministry says

Gomez also disputed Otlean’s claim that the U of A went beyond what the legislation required to be more supportive to students. Oltean said that the U of A would reimburse athletes who incur costs in acquiring a birth registration document.

Oltean also stated that the U of A would ensure procedural fairness in its effort to go beyond what the legislation required.

“This claim is disingenuous, as the university is not going above and beyond. Procedural fairness is the bare minimum expectation and their claims about reimbursement are misleading,” Gomez said. “Alberta’s government covers the costs associated with retrieving a birth registration document by reimbursing the university at their request.”

U of A media relations responded, saying that “while not explicitly stated in the provincial act, the university will reimburse participants for the cost of retrieving their birth registration document and, in turn, the [Government of Alberta] will reimburse the university upon request.”

“In addition, while not required by the act, the university included a section on procedural fairness to ensure a participant’s right to notice of a challenge and the right to respond to any challenge,” U of A media relations said.

There were also questions about how the policy was approved by the university, as it was not brought to GFC for approval.

Media relations told The Gateway that “the [U of A] approved a Fairness and Safety in Sport Policy in order to comply with the provincial Fairness and Safety in Sport Act. The U of A Board approved the policy as it was required to do, pursuant to s.3(1) of the statute.” 

Legislation violates people’s human and charter rights, Star Oldring says

The Gateway spoke to Star Oldring, the rural program co-ordinator at the Fyrefly Institute for Sexual and Gender Diversity. 

They said that they were concerned when they first saw the government propose legislation restricting trans women’s participation in sports.

“It was very clear on the face of it that it’s a violation of both the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Oldring said. 

“Albertans have been put in a position to determine which law they’re going to be in violation of, because they are in violation of some piece of legislation no matter what they do.”

They said it specifically violates the rights of women, girls, and trans folks.

“What’s happening is we are laying the groundwork to police women’s bodies and I don’t believe that this is the end of that road,” they said.

They said that in their work, their role was to support people in making effective decisions. While they can’t ethically advise someone to break the law, they feel like they have to in one way or another.

The Government of Alberta is now seeking to invoke the notwithstanding clause to stop legal challenges against its Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, along with two other pieces of legislation.

Oldring said they are glad to see that the U of A didn’t overcomply to be more restrictive or invasive than required. But they also noted that the U of A did not consult the Fyrefly Institute.

“We could have offered some helpful suggestions, 100 per cent,” they said. “I know that we would have been very happy to actively participate in that conversation, and I hope that we get the opportunity to do that going forward.”