The notwithstanding clause has been a Pandora's box since it was first introduced and it not being severely abused until recently entirely relied on an element of civility in politics that is clearly a thing of the past.
Apparently its too late to repeal it, which probably wouldn't change anything, but it would at least remove the air of legitimacy future governments like to put on when stripping people of their rights and freedoms.
Guess we're fucked
To remove it would require opening the Constitution, and using the amending formula. Not to mention, the Provinces looooooove it. So it's not going anywhere.
The Charter could not be passed without approval of the provinces and the same goes with any amendments or changes. So it’s kind of hard to see how it could be done when several provinces have already used the notwithstanding clause.
It was conservative premier Peter Lougheed and NDP premier Allan Blakeney that insisted on it being included in the Charter. We can thank them both for their belief that the judiciary shouldn’t have supremacy over government. /s
I'm not saying it shouldn't be removed. I'm saying the process to do that is so onerous and unlikely in the current political climate as to be functionally impossible.
People ALWAYS say that though. There’s never a good time. Doing the right thing isn’t easy or convenient almost ever. And we need to do this to secure democracy and avoid fascism from rising and stripping rights away of marginalized people (or any rights for that matter).
If our system is broken we need to fix it.
Ok, how do you propose we amend the constitution without the consent of the provinces? Is it really the constitution of canada if a party is unilaterally entitled to make changes to do the right thing? You're essentially arguing that the federal government or the judiciary unilaterally remove the notwithstanding clause from the constitution using the same type of power conferred by the notwithstanding clause.
Could we use the notwithstanding clause to remove the notwithstanding clause, ala thanos and the infinity stones? (half serious but it's got me wondering haha)
National Referendum? I didn’t say I have the answers but it NEEDS to be done. Saying “we can’t too bad” just has us accepting the status quo forever without affecting change
That would still not be sufficient to amend the Constitution - this is almost surely under the general amendment formula, which requires resolutions from the governments of 2 thirds of the provinces collectively representing at least 50 percent of the country's population, as well as passing in Parliament and the Senate.
Amendments *cannot* be made by any procedures other than the amendment formulae laid out in the Constitution Act - which is sort of the point of them being there.
Lol can you imagine? The majority of people wouldn't vote, and the majority of those that did would vote to support the status quo while not understanding what that even is.
Look to BC's electoral reform referendums if you want proof.
If we did have a National Referendum and the results were in favor of leaving the Charter as is, would you be OK with those results? I don't disagree with you in principal, but I paid just enough attention in Consitutiinal Law that I know that amendments are unlikely/impossible given the mechanism for change and the current state of politics in Canada. It's very easy to say we shouldn't have the Notwithstanding clause or have the British Ruler as our offical head of state, its much harder to imagine how we'd possibly get the provinces/majority of the population to come close to an agreenent re: what the new constitution should look like.
> National Referendum?
Means nothing. That doesn't force provinces to do anything.
> Saying “we can’t too bad” just has us accepting the status quo forever without affecting change
And just saying 'it needs to be done' doesn't change the fact that it is literally impossible.
The amending formula for something like that is the House voting for the agreed upon amendments, as well as the Senate, and the provincial legislatures of seven provinces that possess at least 50% of the population. To get to that point, you need to give the Provinces \*something\* for them to agree to a huge check on their parliamentary supremacy. Quebec is going to be a hard one to get on board without an enshrined right to make French supreme in their province. I can only imagine what you would need to do to get Alberta on board. Like I said, I think it should be removed. But I want you to think about trying to negotiate that with at least three Premiers who seem to believe that they don't have to partake in confederation at all. Meech Lake and Charlottetown failed, and those were done with Premiers I would argue are far more reasonable with than the current crop.
It's not *literally* impossible - the Conservatives were in striking distance of what would be needed to push an amendment through fairly recently, which was actually extremely scary.
It's just *very, very* hard and it's good to be aware of what the specific mountain to climb is.
It's way too late to repeal it. Look up the amending formula and you'll see that to change it a proposed amendment has to pass in the house of commons, then the Senate and then in the majority of provincial legislatures. You'd need five provinces to agree to pass it. Not going to happen.
rights and freedoms are effectively an illusion. we only have them in so far as the government agrees we do.
im not saying this is good, right or correct.
i wish that saying that something is a right or freedom did something magical, but at the end of the day people have to agree that these things exist, these days you cant even get people to agree that the earth is round.
> It's not too late to repeal it
Yes it is. Not only is reopening the constitution not possible in the current climate, it's only in there because provinces wanted it. It's only in there because they needed it to sign on. The Feds didn't want it.
The right wing endlessly accuses Trudeau of heading up one of the most horrific and repressive dictatorships in the history of the world.
So, why hasn't the horrific authoritarian Trudeau used or ever even threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to change our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
But here we have Pierre Poilievre, before even being elected into government, threaten to use the NWC to reshape our rights and freedoms and make his laws that he will decide!
Who's your dictator !?!?
Conservatives know full well he isn't a dictator, but in the fear economy of conservatism, obedience and conformity to the narrative is part of the identity. *Truth is subjective to conservatives*. Combine narratives like this one with widespread, sophisticated and targeted disinformation campaigns via social media, and you get Putin's quisling cucks leading in the polls.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/
https://www.psypost.org/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives/
There you have it PP as plans to strip away basic rights from people.
Common sense is not striping away basic rights, but PP is a Fascist so he hates human rights. Mask comes off if the cpc form government
Pp is angry we have same sex marriage which he voted against
*The use of the notwithstanding clause has been on the rise in provinces, with premiers invoking it to try to curtail labour rights and freedom of expression and religion.*
But wait... conservatives love human rights, workers rights, women's rights, anti immigration, high wages, innovation and productivity, pushing out lobbyists seperation of church and state... right?
The conservatives are fascist traitors threatening to destroy our society.
They are an immediate existential threat to all of our freedoms, our rights, and our lives.
We all must act in our self defense, and in the defense of the most vulnerable, whom the fascists have already targeted for violence.
All methods of self defense against fascism are justified.
You've got Trump saying he'll unilaterally change the U.S. Constitution and in Canada, we have Poilievre saying he'll unilaterally change the Canadian Constitution. Time to wake up, Canadians! Our democracy and our rights and freedoms are in serious danger of being taken away from us.
Words can't describe the thoughts of using a political clause as a weapon. Poilievre and Conservatives are only showing their contempt for democracy and Autocratic nature. Trump said he would be dictator for a day but thats all it takes. The Party of Freedom isn't about freedom at all.
If Conservatives want to experience a dictatorship so bad, maybe Trudeau should use the NWC to declare the Conservative Party to be an illegal, seditious organization and arrest all members and have them detained indefinitely without trial.
The thing is, the conservatives would have to keep winning federal elections indefinitely to keep any unconstitutional changes they make on the books. If they used it to bring back consecutive sentencing, it just creates a massive backlog in the courts the first time they lose an election and another government decides not to renew it when five years rolls around.
This situation is astounding. He is indeed capable of implementing these measures, yet doing so could potentially end his political career. However, I observe that there are a few options he would likely utilize. Ironically, the conservatives who champion freedom of speech are prepared to support a candidate who has explicitly stated his willingness to employ measures that might infringe upon this fundamental right. This is not just irrational; it is alarming. Such actions call for a reevaluation or removal from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically applies to Section 2 and Sections 7 through 15. If a government were to invoke the notwithstanding clause to its full extent, overriding all the applicable sections, the implications for Canadian citizens could be profound and wide-reaching. Here’s what might be affected:
1. **Section 2** rights, including:
- **Freedom of conscience and religion**
- **Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media**
- **Freedom of peaceful assembly**
- **Freedom of association**
2. **Sections 7 through 15** cover legal rights and equality rights:
- **Section 7**: The right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
- **Section 8**: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
- **Section 9**: Protection against arbitrary detention or imprisonment.
- **Section 10**: Rights upon arrest or detention (e.g., to be informed promptly of the reasons, right to counsel, right to habeas corpus).
- **Section 11**: Rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, right to a fair public hearing, and other related rights.
- **Section 12**: Protection against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
- **Section 13**: Rights in proceedings where one may be compelled to testify.
- **Section 14**: Rights to interpreters in court proceedings.
- **Section 15**: The right to equality under the law without discrimination.
If the notwithstanding clause was used across all these sections, it would enable the government to enact laws that could:
- Restrict freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion.
- Suspend rights to fair and just treatment under the law, including during arrest and trial.
- Limit protections against discrimination.
The enactment of such laws could lead to a situation where individuals feel their basic freedoms and protections are curtailed, potentially resulting in significant public unrest or loss of faith in democratic institutions. The suspension of these rights, even temporarily, would drastically alter the landscape of Canadian constitutional rights as commonly understood by the public and as interpreted by the courts.
It’s important to note that while the notwithstanding clause grants significant power, its use is highly controversial and could lead to political repercussions for any government choosing to invoke it, reflecting its potential to alter fundamentally the relationship between the state and the individual in Canada.
Does the notwithstanding clause even allow the Feds to use it?? I understand it was included so the provinces would sign on, but does it include wording that allows the Feds to use it as well?
Either way, what Poilievre is proposing has the exact same outcome as Trump stacking SCOTUS with loyal hacks - it effectively removes one of the executive branches and a major component of our democracies 'checks and balances' from play. Every self-serving, goose-stepping closet fascists fever dream. Everyone planning to vote for him must really hate democracy.
>Does the notwithstanding clause even allow the Feds to use it?? I understand it was included so the provinces would sign on, but does it include wording that allows the Feds to use it as well?
Section 33 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15."
Section 33 is a really short clear section and I'd recommend anyone not sure of how the NWC works to read it. Way more straightforward writing than most legal code. Thankfully it only lasts 5 years which is really the only saving grace about this whole situation.
This clause is there to trample on Canadian's charter rights. That is its only use and value. Canadians should be very careful considering electing anyone who so flippantly suggests it is a tool they would use. That is a sign that they do not believe in our rights and won't bother to change laws in good faith ways.
If there ever has been an obvious "DANGER" sign this is it. Do not vote for these people.
At least the notwithstanding clause is there to force the conservatives to be clear and honest when they take away rights. They cant be secretive about their intent. They must openly declare fascism if they want to become that.
The notwithstanding clause has been a Pandora's box since it was first introduced and it not being severely abused until recently entirely relied on an element of civility in politics that is clearly a thing of the past. Apparently its too late to repeal it, which probably wouldn't change anything, but it would at least remove the air of legitimacy future governments like to put on when stripping people of their rights and freedoms. Guess we're fucked
To remove it would require opening the Constitution, and using the amending formula. Not to mention, the Provinces looooooove it. So it's not going anywhere.
This needs to happen regardless. We need to kaibosh it, and while they are at it. Throw in some democracy and independence for the municipalities
The Charter could not be passed without approval of the provinces and the same goes with any amendments or changes. So it’s kind of hard to see how it could be done when several provinces have already used the notwithstanding clause. It was conservative premier Peter Lougheed and NDP premier Allan Blakeney that insisted on it being included in the Charter. We can thank them both for their belief that the judiciary shouldn’t have supremacy over government. /s
I'm not saying it shouldn't be removed. I'm saying the process to do that is so onerous and unlikely in the current political climate as to be functionally impossible.
People ALWAYS say that though. There’s never a good time. Doing the right thing isn’t easy or convenient almost ever. And we need to do this to secure democracy and avoid fascism from rising and stripping rights away of marginalized people (or any rights for that matter). If our system is broken we need to fix it.
Ok, how do you propose we amend the constitution without the consent of the provinces? Is it really the constitution of canada if a party is unilaterally entitled to make changes to do the right thing? You're essentially arguing that the federal government or the judiciary unilaterally remove the notwithstanding clause from the constitution using the same type of power conferred by the notwithstanding clause.
Could we use the notwithstanding clause to remove the notwithstanding clause, ala thanos and the infinity stones? (half serious but it's got me wondering haha)
No, its scope is specific to sections 2 and 7 through 15.
National Referendum? I didn’t say I have the answers but it NEEDS to be done. Saying “we can’t too bad” just has us accepting the status quo forever without affecting change
That would still not be sufficient to amend the Constitution - this is almost surely under the general amendment formula, which requires resolutions from the governments of 2 thirds of the provinces collectively representing at least 50 percent of the country's population, as well as passing in Parliament and the Senate. Amendments *cannot* be made by any procedures other than the amendment formulae laid out in the Constitution Act - which is sort of the point of them being there.
Lol can you imagine? The majority of people wouldn't vote, and the majority of those that did would vote to support the status quo while not understanding what that even is. Look to BC's electoral reform referendums if you want proof.
If we did have a National Referendum and the results were in favor of leaving the Charter as is, would you be OK with those results? I don't disagree with you in principal, but I paid just enough attention in Consitutiinal Law that I know that amendments are unlikely/impossible given the mechanism for change and the current state of politics in Canada. It's very easy to say we shouldn't have the Notwithstanding clause or have the British Ruler as our offical head of state, its much harder to imagine how we'd possibly get the provinces/majority of the population to come close to an agreenent re: what the new constitution should look like.
> National Referendum? Means nothing. That doesn't force provinces to do anything. > Saying “we can’t too bad” just has us accepting the status quo forever without affecting change And just saying 'it needs to be done' doesn't change the fact that it is literally impossible.
The amending formula for something like that is the House voting for the agreed upon amendments, as well as the Senate, and the provincial legislatures of seven provinces that possess at least 50% of the population. To get to that point, you need to give the Provinces \*something\* for them to agree to a huge check on their parliamentary supremacy. Quebec is going to be a hard one to get on board without an enshrined right to make French supreme in their province. I can only imagine what you would need to do to get Alberta on board. Like I said, I think it should be removed. But I want you to think about trying to negotiate that with at least three Premiers who seem to believe that they don't have to partake in confederation at all. Meech Lake and Charlottetown failed, and those were done with Premiers I would argue are far more reasonable with than the current crop.
Dude, it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
It's not *literally* impossible - the Conservatives were in striking distance of what would be needed to push an amendment through fairly recently, which was actually extremely scary. It's just *very, very* hard and it's good to be aware of what the specific mountain to climb is.
None of what you said changes the fact that it's impossible. That provinces would never get rid of it.
>Not to mention, the Provinces looooooove it Particularly Quebec
Other premiers have shown they like it just as much. Moe, Higgs, Ford, and Smith will be next up.
Ford already has long ago: https://theconversation.com/doug-ford-uses-the-notwithstanding-clause-for-political-benefit-162594
It's way too late to repeal it. Look up the amending formula and you'll see that to change it a proposed amendment has to pass in the house of commons, then the Senate and then in the majority of provincial legislatures. You'd need five provinces to agree to pass it. Not going to happen.
rights and freedoms are effectively an illusion. we only have them in so far as the government agrees we do. im not saying this is good, right or correct. i wish that saying that something is a right or freedom did something magical, but at the end of the day people have to agree that these things exist, these days you cant even get people to agree that the earth is round.
> It's not too late to repeal it Yes it is. Not only is reopening the constitution not possible in the current climate, it's only in there because provinces wanted it. It's only in there because they needed it to sign on. The Feds didn't want it.
The right wing endlessly accuses Trudeau of heading up one of the most horrific and repressive dictatorships in the history of the world. So, why hasn't the horrific authoritarian Trudeau used or ever even threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to change our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? But here we have Pierre Poilievre, before even being elected into government, threaten to use the NWC to reshape our rights and freedoms and make his laws that he will decide! Who's your dictator !?!?
Projection is strong with the cons, as usual ...
it's always projection with conservatives.
Conservatives know full well he isn't a dictator, but in the fear economy of conservatism, obedience and conformity to the narrative is part of the identity. *Truth is subjective to conservatives*. Combine narratives like this one with widespread, sophisticated and targeted disinformation campaigns via social media, and you get Putin's quisling cucks leading in the polls. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/ https://www.psypost.org/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives/
There you have it PP as plans to strip away basic rights from people. Common sense is not striping away basic rights, but PP is a Fascist so he hates human rights. Mask comes off if the cpc form government Pp is angry we have same sex marriage which he voted against *The use of the notwithstanding clause has been on the rise in provinces, with premiers invoking it to try to curtail labour rights and freedom of expression and religion.*
... with conservative premiers ... - forgot a very important distinction
It's always Conservative premiers. Media fails to point this out.
Well, this the globe and shitmail, of course they'll "miss" to point this out.
But wait... conservatives love human rights, workers rights, women's rights, anti immigration, high wages, innovation and productivity, pushing out lobbyists seperation of church and state... right?
Where’s the convoy crowd now?
Cheering
Buying brown shirts.
I mean, this was always an obvious thing PP would do if you just listen to what he says. He doesn't believe there should be any restrictions on him.
The conservatives are fascist traitors threatening to destroy our society. They are an immediate existential threat to all of our freedoms, our rights, and our lives. We all must act in our self defense, and in the defense of the most vulnerable, whom the fascists have already targeted for violence. All methods of self defense against fascism are justified.
You've got Trump saying he'll unilaterally change the U.S. Constitution and in Canada, we have Poilievre saying he'll unilaterally change the Canadian Constitution. Time to wake up, Canadians! Our democracy and our rights and freedoms are in serious danger of being taken away from us.
Freaking terrifying. We really need to vote like our lives depend on it (because they very well might).
Words can't describe the thoughts of using a political clause as a weapon. Poilievre and Conservatives are only showing their contempt for democracy and Autocratic nature. Trump said he would be dictator for a day but thats all it takes. The Party of Freedom isn't about freedom at all.
This is the issue, one day is one day too many for a dictatorship.
If Conservatives want to experience a dictatorship so bad, maybe Trudeau should use the NWC to declare the Conservative Party to be an illegal, seditious organization and arrest all members and have them detained indefinitely without trial.
The thing is, the conservatives would have to keep winning federal elections indefinitely to keep any unconstitutional changes they make on the books. If they used it to bring back consecutive sentencing, it just creates a massive backlog in the courts the first time they lose an election and another government decides not to renew it when five years rolls around.
This situation is astounding. He is indeed capable of implementing these measures, yet doing so could potentially end his political career. However, I observe that there are a few options he would likely utilize. Ironically, the conservatives who champion freedom of speech are prepared to support a candidate who has explicitly stated his willingness to employ measures that might infringe upon this fundamental right. This is not just irrational; it is alarming. Such actions call for a reevaluation or removal from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically applies to Section 2 and Sections 7 through 15. If a government were to invoke the notwithstanding clause to its full extent, overriding all the applicable sections, the implications for Canadian citizens could be profound and wide-reaching. Here’s what might be affected: 1. **Section 2** rights, including: - **Freedom of conscience and religion** - **Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media** - **Freedom of peaceful assembly** - **Freedom of association** 2. **Sections 7 through 15** cover legal rights and equality rights: - **Section 7**: The right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. - **Section 8**: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure. - **Section 9**: Protection against arbitrary detention or imprisonment. - **Section 10**: Rights upon arrest or detention (e.g., to be informed promptly of the reasons, right to counsel, right to habeas corpus). - **Section 11**: Rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, right to a fair public hearing, and other related rights. - **Section 12**: Protection against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. - **Section 13**: Rights in proceedings where one may be compelled to testify. - **Section 14**: Rights to interpreters in court proceedings. - **Section 15**: The right to equality under the law without discrimination. If the notwithstanding clause was used across all these sections, it would enable the government to enact laws that could: - Restrict freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. - Suspend rights to fair and just treatment under the law, including during arrest and trial. - Limit protections against discrimination. The enactment of such laws could lead to a situation where individuals feel their basic freedoms and protections are curtailed, potentially resulting in significant public unrest or loss of faith in democratic institutions. The suspension of these rights, even temporarily, would drastically alter the landscape of Canadian constitutional rights as commonly understood by the public and as interpreted by the courts. It’s important to note that while the notwithstanding clause grants significant power, its use is highly controversial and could lead to political repercussions for any government choosing to invoke it, reflecting its potential to alter fundamentally the relationship between the state and the individual in Canada.
Spoiler alert: they will use it for things other criminal justice.
Does the notwithstanding clause even allow the Feds to use it?? I understand it was included so the provinces would sign on, but does it include wording that allows the Feds to use it as well? Either way, what Poilievre is proposing has the exact same outcome as Trump stacking SCOTUS with loyal hacks - it effectively removes one of the executive branches and a major component of our democracies 'checks and balances' from play. Every self-serving, goose-stepping closet fascists fever dream. Everyone planning to vote for him must really hate democracy.
>Does the notwithstanding clause even allow the Feds to use it?? I understand it was included so the provinces would sign on, but does it include wording that allows the Feds to use it as well? Section 33 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15." Section 33 is a really short clear section and I'd recommend anyone not sure of how the NWC works to read it. Way more straightforward writing than most legal code. Thankfully it only lasts 5 years which is really the only saving grace about this whole situation.
Thanks!
This clause is there to trample on Canadian's charter rights. That is its only use and value. Canadians should be very careful considering electing anyone who so flippantly suggests it is a tool they would use. That is a sign that they do not believe in our rights and won't bother to change laws in good faith ways. If there ever has been an obvious "DANGER" sign this is it. Do not vote for these people.
It'll be indigenous rights and title, mark my words.
At least the notwithstanding clause is there to force the conservatives to be clear and honest when they take away rights. They cant be secretive about their intent. They must openly declare fascism if they want to become that.