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.
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.