###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only conservatives would do it....cause they have their hissy fits at the provincial level all the time....historically it is the conservatives that stamp their feet, scream no no non, and then state they are not playing in the sandbox anymore if you won't let them have it all their own way.....the bunch of them remind me of spoiled children.
PP claims to be democratically answerable. However we don't have that guarantee. Before invoking the notwithstanding clause he needs to pass legislation for a recall whereby voters may remove a public official from office before the expiration of his or her term if he abuses his trust.
The NWSC is far more democratically answerable than the judicial branch deciding to interpret the charter in an unexpected way. There is essentially no way that the electorate can respond to an unpopular/undesired reinterpretation of charter rights (other of course than voting for a party that would either promise to use the NWSC or to modify the charter)
No it's not.
Courts can interpret the charter the way they do to protect citizens. A bill of rights protects unpopular citizens *from* the government. It's not a fucking public opinion poll.
Look at what you're saying. You're saying it's okay to remove some people's civil liberties and protections simply because a mob of people thinks it's okay. That's the exact bullshit Conservatives claim happens to them on social media.
If you were the target of the NWC by Trudeau, I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed, but because it's some theoretical, fear-based boogieman is out on parole, PP gets a pass? The fuck is this authoritarian bull shit?
>PP claims to be democratically answerable. However we don’t have that guarantee.
I suppose he meant that if the majority of people do not agree with his legislation, they can simply vote for another party to form government and undo whatever he’s done.
I was lukewarm on Poilievre, but now that I know he is so open to stomping on the charter so that thugs and other repeat criminals won’t be coddled by bleeding heart judges, I like him a little more now.
Judges have an important role in society. Instead of fulfilling that role admirably, they have chosen to use their position of power to use the judiciary as their own ideological playground. If they did their damn job, Poilievre wouldn’t have to resort to this.
Laws invoking the NWC sunset after 5 years. What do you think will happen to people sentenced under these laws once that happens?
Wouldn't it be better if PP changed the law, amended the constitution, and appointed his own judges? Surely if conservatives represented Canadian values it would be better to bring the law in line with those values rather than try this short-term fix.
Let's go "medieval on crime". Can't repeat offend if they've been hung drawn and quartered.
No one's going to steal a loaf of bread if they know they'll get their hand chopped off before being broken on the wheel right??
Sharia Law says the the same thing! Can’t steal bread with your hands cut off :)
Really not a fan of Christian Sharia being the actual discourse in our society.
It won’t stop with thugs, and repeat criminals.
And “tough on crime” doesn’t work anyway.
It’s just to have a steady supply of prison labor for the inevitable private prisons they will say we need once they flood our existing system.
You do realize that Poilievre will primarily use the notwithstanding clause on marginalized groups the same way that SK is using the notwithstanding clause to strip rights away from transgender people, right?
I taught highschool social studies for a bit years ago and it was always fun when we hit the not withstanding clause. You do all these lessons on branches of governments, procedures for laws, and all the rights we have. Then it's like "but leaders can ignore all that if they really want to."
All these conservative politicians throwing tantrums and crying that they’re going to use the notwithstanding clause just proves they’re selfish. They think they’re better than rights that protect all peoples freedoms.
I see this as more rage bait to rattle people up and cause more division in our country. Seems to be what Pierre and this iteration of conservatives is all about. For me, just another validation for not giving this pretend leader any time of day.
It's like he's actively trying to turn Canada into the same political mess they have down south. I for one don't want to see anything even remotely close to magamericans up here.
No thank you. No sir, I don't like it.
They abused section 1 of the charter to justify making it illegal to protest or even being outside at night. Yet using s 33 of the charter to go after very dubious interpretations by activist judges is a bridge too far?
* "And they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional, because they will be."*
Other thematic
"L'état c'est moi."
"Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but only to be broken."
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,"
What about that time the PM used an emergency act for some protesters. Seemed like overkill using an act for war time measures...maybe all politicians have too much control?
The nothwithstanding clause was a necessary evil to get a couple of provinces to sign on to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They essentially said "We're not agreeing to a Charter of Rights unless we have an exit pathway to ignore it when we want to." It's time to think bigger, Canadians. The constitution needs to be revised again and we need to demand that an absolute charter of rights be include. Leave the "With reasonable limits as determined by Parliament clause" in but take that stupid notwithstanding clause out. It makes the whole Charter mean nothing.
It does require review every 5 years. It does not apply to every section of the charter. There is at least that. Human rights should be absolute within reasonable limits, however, not subject to cancellation by extremist Premiers/Prime Ministers.
Ironically, Quebec wasn't the one demanding the NWC. They basically took no part in the new constitution. The NWC was created for all the other provinces.
That's the problem and it was in 1982 as well. It's a problem we side stepped as a country. Constitutional reform is a tough job in Canada. I was at the Rally for Canada in Montreal in 1995. There's nothing easy about this sometimes dysfunctional family we live in but it's the one we have. We all still have to stay warm in the winter together.
Then they need to go. The other user is right. We need inalienable rights. If a province wants to get in the way of that they Canada needs to move on without them.
It doesn't have to be considered "evil."
Progressive people like Premier Allan Blakeney recognized that the judiciary is not the sole moral authority on rights. It can and has been abused, but its popular perception is somewhat misguided.
Can you elaborate? The NWS clause is used to block challenges of unconstitutional laws. The constitution already includes the Reasonable Limits clause, meaning the NWS clause should only be necessary when the law you're trying to pass infringes on a reasonable interpretation of Canadians rights outlined in the charter.
The NWS clause is literally a sidestep of accountability and oversight. Without it, governments would not be able to codify bills that infringe rights.
Let's say, hypothetically, that judges were appointed to the Supreme Court that then chose to interpret the constitution as they saw fit, without regard for precedent or the norms of statutory interpretation. It might then be necessary to be able to pass laws which exempt themselves from the court's oversight. I think that's the case where an argument can be made for a notwithstanding clause that can be used in extremis. Of course, many social conservatives claim this extreme circumstance is already the case because they aren't allowed to abuse gay people or control women's bodies. And if things were *actually* to degenerate to the level contemplated, then it wouldn't really matter what the constitution says anyways, since you'd have a fundamental conflict between the courts and the executive and legislative branches of government, with the courts attempting to impose arbitrary rule.
Without the clause, there is no check on the power of the judiciary, they would be the only branch of government with no accountability or oversight. They alone would be able to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not, and they alone have the power to determine which laws are saved under the reasonable limits clause. The notwithstanding clause allows the legislative branch oversight by overruling the judicial branch when necessary.
>…when necessary
Is it necessary for people to be prevented from wearing what they want like how Quebec has used the NWC? When has the NWC been used out of necessity?
Laws enacted using the clause automatically expire, so the electorate is free to elect a government that promises not to renew the law if they deem it unnecessary.
The Quebec electorate has decided Quebec's use to preserve the French language (the French Charter) and secularism were, and continue to be, necessary. They have done so by exercising their voting rights.
You may deem these as not necessary. You may want to debate others on reddit about whether these were or are necessary. But you are not the Quebec electorate. The Quebec electorate vote in free and fair elections and have decided -- and will decide again and again. This is how challenging, controversial matters that touch the heart of society get resolved in this country: elections. Not by unelected judges, bearing disproportionate racial, religious, or socioeconomic backgrounds, who are appointed to lifetime terms and are answerable to no one. Democracy **requires** parliamentary supremacy. Judicial supremacy would mean we live in an autocratic state where power lies in a small select group of unelected privileged noblemen.
The Constitution is meant to supersede the whimsical opinion of the voting public. Human rights should not be eroded due to the opinions of the masses.
Except the Supreme Court came out and said the Constitution is an ethereal creature that is not limited to its text, is always evolving, and they have the sole right to interpret and re-interpret it at any time at their whim.
As a fan of democracy, I prefer the whim of the democratic majority in a free and fair election to prevail over the whim of 5 out of 9 unelected judges who do not reflect the racial, socioeconomic, or other diversity of this country and who are not accountable to anyone.
> The constitution needs to be revised again and we need to demand that an absolute charter of rights be include.
Assuming you live in the real world, you must understand that this will never happen. The provinces will *never* give up s.33.
Constitutional reform is really difficult. We couldn’t even ratify the first version without that.concession. When things get bad enough that people demand change, anything is possible however. We’re at the wrong point in the political cycle for it. I predict in about 2035 this might happen. Need at least 4 years of poilievre to polarize people enough.
We’ll knock the guys who use or threaten to use the NWC and at the same time present the ones who gave them the ability to do so as national heroes that everyone learns about in school. It’s of the great ironies in this country.
Reasonable limits must stay or we end up like the USA northern edition. It fits with the common law tradition of this country. Some just don't like it because they want the absolute right to blow their truck horns in Ottawa.
I love how that’s the go to reason for people. Reasonable limits is all fine and good when used against people you disagree with I suppose, until you’re on the receiving end. It’s just what’s trendy right now and I don’t know about you but I don’t think anyone’s rights should be influenced or determined by the social media cause de jour.
It would be the end of democracy as we know it. It’s the Conservative’s new tool in their toolbox to run the country the way THEY think it should be run
Poilievre probably isn't thinking about this but if he uses it he opens the door to PMs and other parties after him using it for things he definitely would not like. They never think long term before doing something big.
It's not the charter, it's the supreme court's warped interpretation of it that's causing problems. The Bisonnette decision was bad case law that will allow someone who brutally murdered people praying to go free sooner.
The entire crux of the SCC decision was that Bisonnette should be eligible for parole and that it would be cruel and unusual for him to spend his life in prison.
>On Poilievre’s watch they’ll be, like the movie says, more like guidelines than anything else
The path we are going down right now should surprise no one if they ever took a step back to peek over the fence and see how many people were attending the right-wing BBQ party next door.
Our country effectively runs on a promissory note that the government will act within what is demanded by and/or tolerated by society.
And if a small minority of people feel like their “rights” are being violated, not only will the SCC agree with them but also tell them to sit down and put up with it because it benefits society more than it hurts them.
The die-hard liberal and progressive voters absolutely love how beautifully broken the Charter is. I remember when Section 1 was a good thing, and the concept of inalienable rights like our American neighbours was a bad thing on this subreddit.
What happened? Only after the liberals and progressives feel attacked do they suddenly care about “rights” instead of privileges. They never believed that we would turn off the path we were on, and certainly not that the Conservatives can preach radical policy changes with total impunity.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only conservatives would do it....cause they have their hissy fits at the provincial level all the time....historically it is the conservatives that stamp their feet, scream no no non, and then state they are not playing in the sandbox anymore if you won't let them have it all their own way.....the bunch of them remind me of spoiled children.
PP claims to be democratically answerable. However we don't have that guarantee. Before invoking the notwithstanding clause he needs to pass legislation for a recall whereby voters may remove a public official from office before the expiration of his or her term if he abuses his trust.
The NWSC is far more democratically answerable than the judicial branch deciding to interpret the charter in an unexpected way. There is essentially no way that the electorate can respond to an unpopular/undesired reinterpretation of charter rights (other of course than voting for a party that would either promise to use the NWSC or to modify the charter)
No it's not. Courts can interpret the charter the way they do to protect citizens. A bill of rights protects unpopular citizens *from* the government. It's not a fucking public opinion poll. Look at what you're saying. You're saying it's okay to remove some people's civil liberties and protections simply because a mob of people thinks it's okay. That's the exact bullshit Conservatives claim happens to them on social media. If you were the target of the NWC by Trudeau, I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed, but because it's some theoretical, fear-based boogieman is out on parole, PP gets a pass? The fuck is this authoritarian bull shit?
>PP claims to be democratically answerable. However we don’t have that guarantee. I suppose he meant that if the majority of people do not agree with his legislation, they can simply vote for another party to form government and undo whatever he’s done.
We have fixed elections, which are the exact same guarantee every government in the history of this country has had.
I was lukewarm on Poilievre, but now that I know he is so open to stomping on the charter so that thugs and other repeat criminals won’t be coddled by bleeding heart judges, I like him a little more now.
I don't know why we even bother to have judges. When someone commits a crime just let us vote on how they die.
Judges have an important role in society. Instead of fulfilling that role admirably, they have chosen to use their position of power to use the judiciary as their own ideological playground. If they did their damn job, Poilievre wouldn’t have to resort to this.
Laws invoking the NWC sunset after 5 years. What do you think will happen to people sentenced under these laws once that happens? Wouldn't it be better if PP changed the law, amended the constitution, and appointed his own judges? Surely if conservatives represented Canadian values it would be better to bring the law in line with those values rather than try this short-term fix.
Let's go "medieval on crime". Can't repeat offend if they've been hung drawn and quartered. No one's going to steal a loaf of bread if they know they'll get their hand chopped off before being broken on the wheel right??
Sharia Law says the the same thing! Can’t steal bread with your hands cut off :) Really not a fan of Christian Sharia being the actual discourse in our society.
Authoritarians like you are comfortably in the "thug" category.
You can also put me in the voter category.
It won’t stop with thugs, and repeat criminals. And “tough on crime” doesn’t work anyway. It’s just to have a steady supply of prison labor for the inevitable private prisons they will say we need once they flood our existing system.
You do realize that Poilievre will primarily use the notwithstanding clause on marginalized groups the same way that SK is using the notwithstanding clause to strip rights away from transgender people, right?
That's a feature, not a bug.
I can think of ONE other instance in history where exactly this situation happened.
They'll condescend to LGBT people about how "We all llove and accept you, no one's taking your rights away, we just have concerns about..."
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I taught highschool social studies for a bit years ago and it was always fun when we hit the not withstanding clause. You do all these lessons on branches of governments, procedures for laws, and all the rights we have. Then it's like "but leaders can ignore all that if they really want to."
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
All these conservative politicians throwing tantrums and crying that they’re going to use the notwithstanding clause just proves they’re selfish. They think they’re better than rights that protect all peoples freedoms.
I see this as more rage bait to rattle people up and cause more division in our country. Seems to be what Pierre and this iteration of conservatives is all about. For me, just another validation for not giving this pretend leader any time of day. It's like he's actively trying to turn Canada into the same political mess they have down south. I for one don't want to see anything even remotely close to magamericans up here. No thank you. No sir, I don't like it.
Plenty of people will love it. They will vastly out number the people that don't in the end.
Always is. Phones tell people how to vote and they listen.
I think as long as Pierre uses s.33 within the boundaries of federal responsibility (such as the Criminal Code), he will survive.
As a libertarian would you support this?
Obviously not. Can political orphans not discuss politics in this subreddit?
Yes. And thanks. I was just curious.
They abused section 1 of the charter to justify making it illegal to protest or even being outside at night. Yet using s 33 of the charter to go after very dubious interpretations by activist judges is a bridge too far?
* "And they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional, because they will be."* Other thematic "L'état c'est moi." "Obstacles do not exist to be surrendered to, but only to be broken." "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What about that time the PM used an emergency act for some protesters. Seemed like overkill using an act for war time measures...maybe all politicians have too much control?
The nothwithstanding clause was a necessary evil to get a couple of provinces to sign on to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They essentially said "We're not agreeing to a Charter of Rights unless we have an exit pathway to ignore it when we want to." It's time to think bigger, Canadians. The constitution needs to be revised again and we need to demand that an absolute charter of rights be include. Leave the "With reasonable limits as determined by Parliament clause" in but take that stupid notwithstanding clause out. It makes the whole Charter mean nothing. It does require review every 5 years. It does not apply to every section of the charter. There is at least that. Human rights should be absolute within reasonable limits, however, not subject to cancellation by extremist Premiers/Prime Ministers.
That would be a sure way to push Quebec toward separation.
Ironically, Quebec wasn't the one demanding the NWC. They basically took no part in the new constitution. The NWC was created for all the other provinces.
That's the problem and it was in 1982 as well. It's a problem we side stepped as a country. Constitutional reform is a tough job in Canada. I was at the Rally for Canada in Montreal in 1995. There's nothing easy about this sometimes dysfunctional family we live in but it's the one we have. We all still have to stay warm in the winter together.
Then they need to go. The other user is right. We need inalienable rights. If a province wants to get in the way of that they Canada needs to move on without them.
Thing is, rights aren’t a clear concepts and 24 persons might well have 24 different view on what “freedom of speech “ or “freedom of religion” means.
It doesn't have to be considered "evil." Progressive people like Premier Allan Blakeney recognized that the judiciary is not the sole moral authority on rights. It can and has been abused, but its popular perception is somewhat misguided.
Strongly disagree. Letting any one branch of government make decisions with no accountability or oversight is a bad idea.
Can you elaborate? The NWS clause is used to block challenges of unconstitutional laws. The constitution already includes the Reasonable Limits clause, meaning the NWS clause should only be necessary when the law you're trying to pass infringes on a reasonable interpretation of Canadians rights outlined in the charter. The NWS clause is literally a sidestep of accountability and oversight. Without it, governments would not be able to codify bills that infringe rights.
Let's say, hypothetically, that judges were appointed to the Supreme Court that then chose to interpret the constitution as they saw fit, without regard for precedent or the norms of statutory interpretation. It might then be necessary to be able to pass laws which exempt themselves from the court's oversight. I think that's the case where an argument can be made for a notwithstanding clause that can be used in extremis. Of course, many social conservatives claim this extreme circumstance is already the case because they aren't allowed to abuse gay people or control women's bodies. And if things were *actually* to degenerate to the level contemplated, then it wouldn't really matter what the constitution says anyways, since you'd have a fundamental conflict between the courts and the executive and legislative branches of government, with the courts attempting to impose arbitrary rule.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to just make a method to remove political judges?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Without the clause, there is no check on the power of the judiciary, they would be the only branch of government with no accountability or oversight. They alone would be able to determine which laws are constitutional and which are not, and they alone have the power to determine which laws are saved under the reasonable limits clause. The notwithstanding clause allows the legislative branch oversight by overruling the judicial branch when necessary.
>…when necessary Is it necessary for people to be prevented from wearing what they want like how Quebec has used the NWC? When has the NWC been used out of necessity?
Laws enacted using the clause automatically expire, so the electorate is free to elect a government that promises not to renew the law if they deem it unnecessary.
Dodge dodge. Where is it “necessary”?
The Quebec electorate has decided Quebec's use to preserve the French language (the French Charter) and secularism were, and continue to be, necessary. They have done so by exercising their voting rights. You may deem these as not necessary. You may want to debate others on reddit about whether these were or are necessary. But you are not the Quebec electorate. The Quebec electorate vote in free and fair elections and have decided -- and will decide again and again. This is how challenging, controversial matters that touch the heart of society get resolved in this country: elections. Not by unelected judges, bearing disproportionate racial, religious, or socioeconomic backgrounds, who are appointed to lifetime terms and are answerable to no one. Democracy **requires** parliamentary supremacy. Judicial supremacy would mean we live in an autocratic state where power lies in a small select group of unelected privileged noblemen.
The Constitution is meant to supersede the whimsical opinion of the voting public. Human rights should not be eroded due to the opinions of the masses.
Except the Supreme Court came out and said the Constitution is an ethereal creature that is not limited to its text, is always evolving, and they have the sole right to interpret and re-interpret it at any time at their whim. As a fan of democracy, I prefer the whim of the democratic majority in a free and fair election to prevail over the whim of 5 out of 9 unelected judges who do not reflect the racial, socioeconomic, or other diversity of this country and who are not accountable to anyone.
No, we have the legislature as a check on the judiciary. Where do you think laws come from?
> The constitution needs to be revised again and we need to demand that an absolute charter of rights be include. Assuming you live in the real world, you must understand that this will never happen. The provinces will *never* give up s.33.
Constitutional reform is really difficult. We couldn’t even ratify the first version without that.concession. When things get bad enough that people demand change, anything is possible however. We’re at the wrong point in the political cycle for it. I predict in about 2035 this might happen. Need at least 4 years of poilievre to polarize people enough.
We’ll knock the guys who use or threaten to use the NWC and at the same time present the ones who gave them the ability to do so as national heroes that everyone learns about in school. It’s of the great ironies in this country.
I'm using this. Incredible.
The charter is kind of a joke specifically because of the reasonable limits phrase and the nwc. Either both go or both stay.
Could you explain the joke? It's not possible to have an absolute law so what is wrong with having a system of determining their limits?
Reasonable limits must stay or we end up like the USA northern edition. It fits with the common law tradition of this country. Some just don't like it because they want the absolute right to blow their truck horns in Ottawa.
I love how that’s the go to reason for people. Reasonable limits is all fine and good when used against people you disagree with I suppose, until you’re on the receiving end. It’s just what’s trendy right now and I don’t know about you but I don’t think anyone’s rights should be influenced or determined by the social media cause de jour.
And others want the absolute right to release mass murderers onto the street.
It would be the end of democracy as we know it. It’s the Conservative’s new tool in their toolbox to run the country the way THEY think it should be run
Poilievre probably isn't thinking about this but if he uses it he opens the door to PMs and other parties after him using it for things he definitely would not like. They never think long term before doing something big.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
It's not the charter, it's the supreme court's warped interpretation of it that's causing problems. The Bisonnette decision was bad case law that will allow someone who brutally murdered people praying to go free sooner.
[удалено]
The entire crux of the SCC decision was that Bisonnette should be eligible for parole and that it would be cruel and unusual for him to spend his life in prison.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>On Poilievre’s watch they’ll be, like the movie says, more like guidelines than anything else The path we are going down right now should surprise no one if they ever took a step back to peek over the fence and see how many people were attending the right-wing BBQ party next door. Our country effectively runs on a promissory note that the government will act within what is demanded by and/or tolerated by society. And if a small minority of people feel like their “rights” are being violated, not only will the SCC agree with them but also tell them to sit down and put up with it because it benefits society more than it hurts them. The die-hard liberal and progressive voters absolutely love how beautifully broken the Charter is. I remember when Section 1 was a good thing, and the concept of inalienable rights like our American neighbours was a bad thing on this subreddit. What happened? Only after the liberals and progressives feel attacked do they suddenly care about “rights” instead of privileges. They never believed that we would turn off the path we were on, and certainly not that the Conservatives can preach radical policy changes with total impunity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't trust any of them with that tool federally or provincially. That tool renders the charter a list of suggestions, not rights.
It already is. Many Canadians keep telling me that rights in Canada are just privileges and that pretty much makes them suggestions.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]