What they should withdraw is the Notwithstanding Clause itself. It’s a nasty thing.
The notwithstanding clause kind of made sense in the 1980s as a legal cutout for the uniqueness of Quebec, but it’s clearly become a “get out of jail free card” for violating the charter of rights. The problem is it assumes politicians have enough shame to not slam the NWS clause button every time their policies get challenged, but our politics has turned sharply towards shamelessness in the last couple decades.
Honestly, it’s telling that the province’s that want this argument removed are the ones most likely to abuse the notwithstanding clause to infringe on charter rights. Why else should they oppose it?
Conservative premiers be like….
How else are they supposed to demolish already made bike lanes?
Holy crap I tried to guess which 5 provinces it was, and I got 5/5. I was wondering between Eby and Houston for the last one but I got it right, Houston ain’t a good guy.
Progressive conservatives are slimy too.
Yup, exact thought here.
I agree, but…legally speaking*, I think they have a decent case?
*I’m not a lawyer, just your standard online idiot
Also standard issue online idiot with no law background. Only here to judge, not to be useful or productive. :)
The notwithstanding clause used to be the nuclear option, I wish it still was.
Non Canadian here from /all. I’ve seen the notwithstanding clause mentioned, but this is the first time I’ve looked it up. It sounds like a good thing for the parliament to be required to explicitly state when they are going against the charter of rights (is that what it’s called?).
The problem is that it’s mostly used as a hamfisted way for awful governments to overrule the judicial branch.
Let’s say for example the premier of Alberta wants to arrest people for making fun of her on the internet. That pretty clearly violates the charter – but she has enough support in the legislature to pass the bill. The courts can then review the bill and say “hey, we noticed this bill is an emphatic middle finger to the charter of rights & freedoms, we’re gonna strike it down,” to which the premier can respond “um, I don’t remember asking you, because this bill operates notwithstanding any dusty old documents cooked up by the Laurentian elite.”
And that’s a perfectly legitimate action under Canadian law.
That sounds awful. Thank you for the example.
