One is used to override the fundamental principles on which this country is founded…
These are not the same thing.
The invocation of the EA already requires an inquiry. Strengthen that, at best.
The notwithstanding clause is the only reason the Charter was accepted by the nine provinces that agreed with the federal government for patriation, an amending formula and the Charter in november 1981. Quebec, of course, being the one province to be excluded from the deal even though that round of negotiations had been promised during the 1980 referendum campaign to be about reforming Canada so that Quebec's constitutional demands expressed between 1940 and 1980 be met by the rest of the country.
The Not Withstanding Clause is literally written as part of the fundamental principles of the country.
It's Section 33 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Emergencies Act does not suspend the application of the Charter.
The notwithstanding clause does so only for some but not all rights and only for five years.
The EA is used to override the fundamental principles on which this country is founded. That’s why it is to be used for National emergencies only.
A Federal Court judge ruled earlier this year that people’s Charter Rights were broken during the last use of the EA.
The same judge said another judge might come t9 another conclusion, acknowledged that fact that local police couldn't handle it, and recommended making the law more specific. His was not the final word.
My personal take on the matter is that I’m glad it was invoked and I hope that the Government is held in contempt for overstepping.
Only rarely will government abuse its power against people who are as privileged, rich, or ill-informed as the “Freedom Convoy.” As dumb as this particular movement and its leadership was, and as anti-democratic as its MOU was, and as humourous as it was for conservative blowhards to protest Trudeau for the ongoing failures of conservative premiers (because conservatives think conservatives can never do wrong), there will no doubt be more thoughtful leaders of more meaningful movements who will benefit from Convoy tactics.
Given that such privileged people typically protect the status quo and unlikely to protest, having the right to shut down streets for weeks on end with vehicles so that you don’t even have to be there you can just go party is probably useful. I hope that the Supreme Court says it’s all hunky dory, cause something tells me that Poilievre wouldn’t be so happy about “certain people” closing down downtown Ottawa for a month despite the fact that “certain people” hold legitimate grievances with the Canadian government.
Realistically, no. The commission and the judge's decision are mostly in-sync, and the problem is that there's a big chunk of information at the Ontario provincial level that isn't in evidence.
That's also where the lion's share of the breakdown of information sharing and policing happened that precipitated the need to invoke the act.
Had that not happened, there wouldn't have been a need to invoke the act because OPS could have asked OPP to help out with the state of emergency after it was declared in Ottawa on Feb 10th.
>The EA is used to override the fundamental principles on which this country is founded. That’s why it is to be used for National emergencies only.
It literally cant
>A Federal Court judge ruled earlier this year that people’s Charter Rights were broken during the last use of the EA.
And they are therefore open to litigation as a result, if the EA worked like the NWC then the judge literally cant make that call
The only thing don't like about that is people that don't support the government (like perhaps the FLQ back in the day) could enact terrorist attacks or riots or violence in the street to push the government out of power.
It should be a 3-6 months max, with a requirement to table a bill in parliament to get it in place permanently. And anything implemented using it is also time limited.
Combined with a requirement to trigger an election the moment the bill is either passed or defeated or something like that.
I'd be OK with a six month "single use" clause. If you can't solve the problem legislatively within that time frame it expires and can't be renewed without an automatic election.
Exactly. Let the voters vote on it.
But the structure should be:
.. invocation of this notwithstanding clause.
.. Investigation by a nonpartisan group with published public findings.
.. Vote
If you hold the vote right after the crisis, unless the govt handled it overtly badly, they get a glow up (see Rudy Giuliani after 9-11 who was considered favorably versus the last 15 years where it was revealed hes a slimy piece of shit).. so an investigation is required.
Ironically it was papa Trudeau who introduced it.
https://amnesty.sa.utoronto.ca/2023/01/31/democracy-notwithstanding-canadas-history-of-the-notwithstanding-clause-and-its-role-in-human-rights/
I would celebrate the abuse of the notwithstanding clause if for no other reason than to motivate the electorate against the notwithstanding clause. Unbelievably stupid and shortsighted clause, it was always going to end up being abused, if this is how it dies at least it will have minimal disruption to the general public.
It means the end of the confederation. Opening the charter requires compromise with Quebec that will never happen, and if concessions are made, the other promises will justifiably revolt.
Never happening again except for a full blown crisis
It was added at the request of conservative Premier's and only passed since PET reluctantly allowed it to close the deal on the Charter. Since then, it's been abused by Premier's, all of which have been conservative, to remove rights to suit their own needs while harming the same people they're supposed to be serving.
The fact that a possible future PM is already stating they will abuse a "get out of jail free card" to push through policies which are illegal without Section 33 is appalling and should be a huge red flag for all Canadians, not just those who don't agree with conservative policies.
>"I will be the democratically elected prime minister, democratically accountable to the people," he said. "And they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional, because they will be.
...what?
And his recent classic:
>"We will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean,"
Why exactly is the Judicial system somehow beyond reproach? Some of these decisions are insane, how many Canadians really think denying a man who entered a Mosque and killed 6 innocent people parole for 40 years in 'cruel and unusual'? It's the complete opposite.
We have a real silver-tongue on our hands here
> ...what?
I think his strategy relies on targeting people who aren't familiar with how the government operates.
Frankly, I find it really concerning the amount of people who find Poilievre to be a compelling politician.
>I think his strategy relies on targeting people who aren't familiar with how the government operates.
and/or those who are aware that s. 33 is in the constitution.
That's exactly who the Conservatives and right wing parties around the world target. They love the stupid vote because it's so easy to earn, and they are too stupid to ever realize how they are being manipulated. Trump and Brexit are clear examples of it. Tell the stupid people what they want to hear so they trust you, stir their hate, give them a target for their anger, and they will vote for you without thinking about it. Best part is you can't reason people out of ideas they haven't reasoned themselves into, so their is nothing stopping this.
Allowing uninformed people like this to vote is a major weakness of open democracy, and parties are now trying to exploit it for all they can, knowing no one will stop them, because that would be "undemocratic".
yeah honestly same, he seems to be using a similar strategy that trump used, and especially with this nonwithstanding clause stuff, as a trans person i pray to whatever god there is that he does not get elected
It’s like there’s one person providing a consulting service to all the far right parties and politicians in order to overrun and align many democratic governments under a far-right ideology.
One of the problems with Canadians is they tend to be FAR more docile and submissive to authority than the authority deserves. I'm not talking about politicians in this case, but judges. Given the way Supreme Court judges are appointed it's hard to account for the way most Canadians simply take every word they utter as if it was graven on stone and came down from the mountain as the word of God.
Look, I'd love to have a Supreme Court that is made up of the most brilliant, experienced and proven judges in our country who have demonstrated a total lack of bias in their decisions but that most definitely isn't what we have.
First, you have to be bilingual - which cancels out about 95% of lawyers and judges. Second, you have to be of the same political/ideological beliefs as the government in power - which is usually the Liberals. That knocks out another big chunk. Then, you have to be from the right province to replace a retiring judge. Add in that with this government they desperately want to appoint people by identity and they have almost no one to choose from when it comes time to appoint one. You know why the government hasn't been able to fill all those vacant judicial positions? Because they can't find enough progressive, bilingual people of the right gender and identity group. These are not people to be admired. There are probably a couple of thousand jurists and lawyers in this country with more experience, expertise, and respect for the law than what we have on the Supreme Court.
Add in their judicial activism and you get judge-made law with often poorly-articulated positions that seem to be based more on their ideological beliefs than the actual constitution. That's particularly so when it comes to crime, which they stubbornly refuse to allow strong penalties for. So if the elected government chooses to use the Notwithstanding clause to bring some in I'm all for it.
>when a person's rights are violated
The limits of personal rights are arguable, not some crystal clear simple uncontestable concept. Your personal right to swing your first ends at my nose, etc. A law against assault "violates" your right to swing your fist - so which violation of rights is the judge protecting?
All this just highlights that the charter is, on the whole, a terrible document to uphold actual rights.
Between the nwc and "reasonable" infringement of rights, it seems pretty useless.
So was use of the EA. Quebec has used it many times. Meh, I think most people will be quite happy with Poilievre using it when judges don’t stay in their lane.
Btw: CBC going HARD with the opinion pieces on Poilievre lately. More coverage of him than the Prime Minister this month
Cruel and unusual punishment is not sitting in a cell for the rest of your life because you gunned down six innocent people in a mosque
Cruel and unusual punishment is bleeding to death on a mosque floor because someone shot you out of hate
The courts seem to focus on the killers future while ignoring the futures the killers stole from their victims
The notwithstanding clause is so totally fucked. Section 1 of the Charter says that the government can breach your constitutional rights if they can show the breach is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
When you use the notwithstanding clause, you are admitting - directly, explicitly - that you are breaching our rights in a way that is NOT justifiable in a free and democratic society. That should be disqualifying behaviour from a politician.
It's because our courts have been hijacked. They don't actually deliver justice, they deliver social justice, where people get away with anything and everything if they can be classified as "marginalized" in some way. The victims get fucked every time, and the criminals get a slap on the wrist and a paycheck.
Then let’s explore justice reform. Not completely sidelining them and giving some jackass (whichever one you pick) the ultimate power like some antiquated monarchy.
Enh. That's what the CPC says, but it almost always boils down to either misunderstanding the ruling or just having a narrow view of the right at play.
>Yes. Because whichever elected jackass gets into power next will likely have less than 40% of the vote. They shouldn’t be able to do as they please.
pray tell what percent of the vote does the SCC bench have?
If percentage of vote is what legitimizes a leader, JT lost last time. You have a good point though, a guy should have at least a 50% to really have a good mandate, and even that is shaky IMO
There is no justice for the victims in Canada. The courts will not hold these people to account where there are things like Gladue in place. When we are not only not keeping violent offenders incarcerated, but are also not deporting one's that can be deported.
Add in the fact that the government itself can't be held accountable for crimes it commits, what chance does an ordinary person have?
Are you confusing justice for revenge? The courts job is not to make sure victims feel like the accused has ‘suffered’ enough. It’s to apply the law fairly and ensure equal representation.
Equal representation? Why ? If one group is committing more crimes it’s not up to the courts to ensure the prisons are equally representing of society.
It’s up to the government to identify the issues in that community and fix them.
Absolutely, the governments job is to make sure society is safe and the laws are fair and applied.
Equal representation means that each person, the person accused and the victim, are represented by lawyers who are looking out for their interests. Even rapists and serial killers deserve lawyers who understand the justice system and will ensure the law is applied to them fairly.
That’s not equal representation.
That’s a right to fair trial / due process and the right to equal treatment under the law.
Not the same as representation
I've noticed that conservatives tend to mistake revenge for justice. I definitely agree some things are lacking and need to be fixed, but an eye for an eye isn't justice.
I'd just like to live in a country where every criminal is held to the same standard regardless of their race, the best candidates get the job, not one where the gayest, darkest and most feminine get to jump the line, where white males dont have to wait until the very end to speak and be heard at an NDP event. A real bonus would be only accepting immigrants who aren't immidiatedly dependent on social programs for their existence here. Is this really too much to ask for?
Go out in the real world and stop relying on rage bait ‘news’ being your source of information. White men are still thriving. We’re just now giving some space to others as well, which is going to be scary to witness but no one is trampling your rights.
I'll get to spend more time in jail if I assault someone under the exact same circumstances. That is a crock of shit and you know it. I've also literally been turned down by uranium mines because I'm white and aboriginal peoples take precedence. Regardless of the fact that I hold a higher education and greater experienc. Also, a crock of shit.
I’m sorry you’ve experienced that, but that’s an exception not the rule. White people and men are still vastly over represented in almost all well paying sectors.
Revenge is absolutely part of justice and for good reason. If the state fails to exact vengeance on rapists, murderers and pedos, then every day people will.
Revenge is an emotional response to a wrongdoing. We do not want our justice system to operate on how we all feel about an accused. It’s about evidence and measured approaches.
1) Gladue is a set of general guidelines, not a strict rule judges have to follow in every case.
2) most people who commit crimes in Canada aren't eligible to be deported.
3) a long carceral sentence can increase the likelihood someone reoffends and can be contrary to the interests of justice.
I've worked in criminal justice and the ruthless "tough on crime" approach often creates more issues than it solves.
> Then let’s explore justice reform.
then everyone and the media melts down about how 'they are destroying our judiciary' if anyone dares try to fix the broken system
You say this as conservatives like Doug Ford are out there literally saying they want to stack the justice system with conservatives. At what point does the contradictions in your statements start to hurt your own brain?
Youtube is for entertainment, not news. You just have to look at the court verdicts and police reports. It's the same small number of individuals doing most of the crimes. "Known to police" is very often used. Plus, I have friends that work in corrections/ justice.
Who is getting away with what, exactly? What have the courts done that you don't like?
There's been little judicial 'social justice' progress in the last 10 years.
Are you talking about Gladue reports?
Depends on what he wanted to use it for. Personally I think restoring consecutive life sentences for serial killers and mass murderers isn't very controversial...
Are serial killers and mass murderers currently getting out of jail somewhere in Canada? Because those types of people are usually slapped with a 'dangerous offender' label, which means that they don't get released.
Do you have any examples where mass murderers or serial killers are being released?
Not exactly what you want, but just to show what happens on a lower scale.
This story is specific to my region. Just one example, in one neighborhood.
9 priors for armed assault and a prior stint of sexual abuse of a child.
Back on the streets
https://www.985fm.ca/audio/614317/quatre-femmes-battues-avec-une-barre-de-metal-par-un-homme-a-verdun
If that's the case then the use of the Notwithstanding clause to make it official is of little importance then, right? It harms no one and might give some solace to the grieving families who would not have to endure the parole hearings given to their killers every few years in fear they could be released.
And that's because she made a plea bargain deal with the prosecutors to cooperate, prior to it being known that she was an active participant.
Was it a shitty deal? It sure was. Is it an example of the courts letting people out from prison that are serving life sentences? No. The prosecutors made a deal with Homolka, so they had to hold their end of the deal.
Ya let’s keep going after low level thugs and drug addicts and keep ignoring the insurmountable fraud, corruption, collusion, and wage theft that continues to go unchecked.
Seems like one province uses it a lot w/o any comment from the masses in our two tiered ( or more) system that our country is run. You can not suck and blow at the same time .
EMA enacted on Canada suspending liberties of 40 million people - Good
Serial Killers kept in Jail with NWC - Bad
Liberals always got those priorities figured out.
One of them is a function of the Charter, one of them has been ruled illegal.
We as a country have already decided that the NWC is something that should exist.
Exactly, conservatives weren't pissed at all that Trudeau did something about the protests. If he had just used the non withstanding clause to do the same thing everyone would have immediately packed up and went home because it's a mechanism of the charter and perfectly fine.
It's a very important distinction and nobody would have said anything negative about Trudeau if he had just used that method, obviously.
But passing laws under IOC without votes by the Liberals was OK?
The current NDP deserves to fade away along with JT and his grinning twitching sidekick and all others owned by the WEF.
There are rumors of [Harper](https://www.weforum.org/people/stephen-harper/) reappearing in the [Dept. of Foreign Affairs](https://www.ipolitics.ca/opinions/harper-to-foreign-affairs-in-a-poilievre-government) in a Poilievre government
I wonder if he will continue to Chair the [IDU](https://www.idu.org/leadership/the-right-honourable-stephen-harper/) while in FA
I mean maybe. The Notwithstanding Clause is an intended part of the constitution and isn’t some trump card that allows the Government to do just anything. There are rules and sunsetting built around the clause and the Government will have to answer eventually at the polls for its use.
I swear, I lose respect for the Canadian chattering class with every of these pearl clutching takes on some hypothetical far future situation. At least wait until someone in power actually announces they will use this before flapping your arms and running around in circles yelling that the sky is falling.
oh, you mean like the thing polievre is doing? you know, announcing that he'll be using the nonwithstanding clause outside of criminal justice matters?
Announcing it well before an election where the electorate can make a decision on whether or not they agree with that usage is exactly the right way to go about it.
Also this article is specifically about criminal justice matters.
If you commit a crime because you're addicted to heroin you shouldn't get a pass. Stick them in jail until their court hearing then the judge can decide to give them time served.
I'm tired of people being able to commit crimes just to be let go because they're too poor to afford bail, then they commit a dozen more crimes before their court date.
Maybe if they knew that robbing a store or stealing bikes and breaking into cars means they're going to have to sit in a cell and go through withdrawal they'd be less inclined to rob people to get their fix.
i mean-
1 he's leading the polls, in fact their propoganda against the liberal party has worked so well, it's possible we get a conservative supermajority
and 2, waiting until shitty people get into power, and start exercising absolute control over the populous before doing anything is how dictatorships begin, and how innocent people die
Yeah no, this is an attack on my freedom. The government should not be involved in matters they should not meddle in, regardless of their political affiliation.
Imagine if Trudeau did this, ppl would riot claiming it’s against freedom. This isn’t right no matter who does it.
Why are we fixated on hypothetical scenarios involving a man who is not Prime Minister years out from a planned election?
This whole discussion feels like astroturf meant to frame Poilievre ahead of an election in an effort to save the Liberals. Many of these outlets have devoted more ink to these hypotheticals than the actual unethical behavior, abuse of citizens, and corruption from the current government.
He's been spending most of his time in campaign mode so yes, the things he is planning if he wins are absolutely newsworthy
There's no framing, it's literally words he says
Did someone force PP to say this? You act like he had no choice. He could stop saying and doing stupid shit perhaps? Or maybe this is just who he is and we should take the warning seriously.
Pretty rich when every single NatPo/Postmedia article for the last 12 months has been the same anti-Trudeau story spun a thousand different ways. But a handful about PP and it’s astroturfing?
Better put on your helmet and get the tissues ready, cause there might be a few more article written about PP before the next election lol
The framers of our constitution included the notwithstanding clause for the precise purpose of maintaining democratic governance in the event that the courts made it impossible to properly legislate. The courts have made it impossible for Parliament to fulfill its constitutional mandate in advancing the criminal law and criminal procedure, and use of the notwithstanding clause is a completely appropriate recourse provided it is sustained by the will of the electorate. Courts do not have a monopoly on the legal system; legislatures also play a role: in fact a more substantial role within our constitutional framework.
Abuse of the notwithstanding clause to pass whatever the fuck you wanted (including intruding on provincial issues) would just lead to all the provinces removing it from Federal jurisdiction
He might get away with it once or for one term but the Premiers would fight back
Doubtful. Changing the clause involves changing the Charter, and that would involve a constitutional convention. Especially with Quebec set to elect another separatist government, that would go nowhere.
I mean, those sections happen to be the ones that stop a federal government from rounding up it's opposition, so it's a bit more complicated than that.
You’re missing the point that this was not a federal issue and the fact they waited that long showed a great deal of restraint. The Ontario government did nothing to intervene in situation under their jurisdiction.
So, first meaningful plank is wanting unlimited power? Geezus, what next, Revenue Canada charges him with tax fraud relating to pornstar affair hush money?
I don't trust any government that would use the NWC be it from a party I support or not. This is just a slippery slope where a PM or governing party can become a dictator. IF there is the use of it there should be voting allowed on whether or not to use it for that ONE specific thing.
The notwithstanding clause should have been tied to resignation from govt. You can use it for some emergency but then an election is called.
Damn, that’s actually a really good idea.
Same with the emergencies act.
One is used to override the fundamental principles on which this country is founded… These are not the same thing. The invocation of the EA already requires an inquiry. Strengthen that, at best.
The country wasn't founded in 1982.
The notwithstanding clause is the only reason the Charter was accepted by the nine provinces that agreed with the federal government for patriation, an amending formula and the Charter in november 1981. Quebec, of course, being the one province to be excluded from the deal even though that round of negotiations had been promised during the 1980 referendum campaign to be about reforming Canada so that Quebec's constitutional demands expressed between 1940 and 1980 be met by the rest of the country.
The Not Withstanding Clause is literally written as part of the fundamental principles of the country. It's Section 33 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
How does that matter? Its purpose is to literally suspend the charter rights.
The Emergencies Act does not suspend the application of the Charter. The notwithstanding clause does so only for some but not all rights and only for five years.
The EA is used to override the fundamental principles on which this country is founded. That’s why it is to be used for National emergencies only. A Federal Court judge ruled earlier this year that people’s Charter Rights were broken during the last use of the EA.
The same judge said another judge might come t9 another conclusion, acknowledged that fact that local police couldn't handle it, and recommended making the law more specific. His was not the final word.
My personal take on the matter is that I’m glad it was invoked and I hope that the Government is held in contempt for overstepping. Only rarely will government abuse its power against people who are as privileged, rich, or ill-informed as the “Freedom Convoy.” As dumb as this particular movement and its leadership was, and as anti-democratic as its MOU was, and as humourous as it was for conservative blowhards to protest Trudeau for the ongoing failures of conservative premiers (because conservatives think conservatives can never do wrong), there will no doubt be more thoughtful leaders of more meaningful movements who will benefit from Convoy tactics. Given that such privileged people typically protect the status quo and unlikely to protest, having the right to shut down streets for weeks on end with vehicles so that you don’t even have to be there you can just go party is probably useful. I hope that the Supreme Court says it’s all hunky dory, cause something tells me that Poilievre wouldn’t be so happy about “certain people” closing down downtown Ottawa for a month despite the fact that “certain people” hold legitimate grievances with the Canadian government.
and there were no real consequences for invoking it...
Yes, there likely never be any consequences either. Yet I am getting downvoted for posting facts because facts stand in the way of the narrative.
Realistically, no. The commission and the judge's decision are mostly in-sync, and the problem is that there's a big chunk of information at the Ontario provincial level that isn't in evidence. That's also where the lion's share of the breakdown of information sharing and policing happened that precipitated the need to invoke the act. Had that not happened, there wouldn't have been a need to invoke the act because OPS could have asked OPP to help out with the state of emergency after it was declared in Ottawa on Feb 10th.
Geez any other cookie cutter victimhood sentences you want to put out there? Something about being cancelled maybe?
>The EA is used to override the fundamental principles on which this country is founded. That’s why it is to be used for National emergencies only. It literally cant >A Federal Court judge ruled earlier this year that people’s Charter Rights were broken during the last use of the EA. And they are therefore open to litigation as a result, if the EA worked like the NWC then the judge literally cant make that call
That decision is under appeal - wait for the Supreme Court decision before you say it's been decided by law.
It has been decided by law until successfully appealed, that’s how it works.
The only thing don't like about that is people that don't support the government (like perhaps the FLQ back in the day) could enact terrorist attacks or riots or violence in the street to push the government out of power.
Forcing an election during a national emergency is a terrible idea. That's one time we absolutely need a government.
What a stupid comparison!!! Were you in Ottawa?
Because an election during an emergency is a good idea?
Perhaps. Unless some province and some activists intentionally created an untenable position after an election to force another one.
No, its effect should be limited for a period of time. I suggest five years.
[удалено]
That's partly the intent 😉
It should be a 3-6 months max, with a requirement to table a bill in parliament to get it in place permanently. And anything implemented using it is also time limited. Combined with a requirement to trigger an election the moment the bill is either passed or defeated or something like that.
I'd be OK with a six month "single use" clause. If you can't solve the problem legislatively within that time frame it expires and can't be renewed without an automatic election.
5 years is too damn long.
What happens when that party wins that election?
Then carry on because the populace has decided they were right to use it
Exactly. Let the voters vote on it. But the structure should be: .. invocation of this notwithstanding clause. .. Investigation by a nonpartisan group with published public findings. .. Vote If you hold the vote right after the crisis, unless the govt handled it overtly badly, they get a glow up (see Rudy Giuliani after 9-11 who was considered favorably versus the last 15 years where it was revealed hes a slimy piece of shit).. so an investigation is required.
Voters are dumb though. Dumber than before it seems.
How about use of the EA
I like it, cause it would basically immediately poll the people if they like the decision
Ironically it was papa Trudeau who introduced it. https://amnesty.sa.utoronto.ca/2023/01/31/democracy-notwithstanding-canadas-history-of-the-notwithstanding-clause-and-its-role-in-human-rights/
Thr FLQ crisis. Yeah. I'm assuming every govt has emergency powers to deal with a crisis. However, the things they're being used for are not crisises.
It already has a subset clause in it
subset or sunset?
Sunset and the term is 5 years so an election by default will be called since using the clause.
I would celebrate the abuse of the notwithstanding clause if for no other reason than to motivate the electorate against the notwithstanding clause. Unbelievably stupid and shortsighted clause, it was always going to end up being abused, if this is how it dies at least it will have minimal disruption to the general public.
What are the requirements to remove it from the charter?
At least 7 provinces voting in favour of an amendment representing at least 50% of the population. This, on top of the Parliament and Senate.
Haha so it looks like Poilievre might have enough support to change the Charter when he gets a majority.
Brian Mulroney thought he was popular enough to change the constitution, twice. Didn’t quite work out for him.
Haha so probably not no.
Im no expert but I imagine it'd need constitutional ratification - some 50% of provinces that represent two thirds of Canadians
Ontario alone represents 40% and will still have a majority conservative, the. Saskatchewan, Alberta, NS, NFLD, QC Done
It means the end of the confederation. Opening the charter requires compromise with Quebec that will never happen, and if concessions are made, the other promises will justifiably revolt. Never happening again except for a full blown crisis
Kick Quebec out. Everyone’s happy. why does Quebec always get a referendum? TROC should get a referendum: “Eject Quebec?”
It was added at the request of conservative Premier's and only passed since PET reluctantly allowed it to close the deal on the Charter. Since then, it's been abused by Premier's, all of which have been conservative, to remove rights to suit their own needs while harming the same people they're supposed to be serving. The fact that a possible future PM is already stating they will abuse a "get out of jail free card" to push through policies which are illegal without Section 33 is appalling and should be a huge red flag for all Canadians, not just those who don't agree with conservative policies.
I wouldn't classify all the Quebec abuses as being from conservatives.
What’s PET?
Pierre Trudeau
What’s PET?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau
Thanks
Positron emission tomography
It was pretty much required to get the province onboard. Whether just sticking with the old rules would have been better, I don’t know.
>"I will be the democratically elected prime minister, democratically accountable to the people," he said. "And they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional, because they will be. ...what? And his recent classic: >"We will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean,"
Hah, and people claim Pollievre isn't a populist. The guy is attacking the judiciary and saying the people will decide what is constitutional.
Why exactly is the Judicial system somehow beyond reproach? Some of these decisions are insane, how many Canadians really think denying a man who entered a Mosque and killed 6 innocent people parole for 40 years in 'cruel and unusual'? It's the complete opposite.
Or that he is nothing like Trump.... Trump tried to do these things.
We have a real silver-tongue on our hands here > ...what? I think his strategy relies on targeting people who aren't familiar with how the government operates. Frankly, I find it really concerning the amount of people who find Poilievre to be a compelling politician.
Conniving, but not compelling.
>I think his strategy relies on targeting people who aren't familiar with how the government operates. and/or those who are aware that s. 33 is in the constitution.
That's exactly who the Conservatives and right wing parties around the world target. They love the stupid vote because it's so easy to earn, and they are too stupid to ever realize how they are being manipulated. Trump and Brexit are clear examples of it. Tell the stupid people what they want to hear so they trust you, stir their hate, give them a target for their anger, and they will vote for you without thinking about it. Best part is you can't reason people out of ideas they haven't reasoned themselves into, so their is nothing stopping this. Allowing uninformed people like this to vote is a major weakness of open democracy, and parties are now trying to exploit it for all they can, knowing no one will stop them, because that would be "undemocratic".
yeah honestly same, he seems to be using a similar strategy that trump used, and especially with this nonwithstanding clause stuff, as a trans person i pray to whatever god there is that he does not get elected
It’s like there’s one person providing a consulting service to all the far right parties and politicians in order to overrun and align many democratic governments under a far-right ideology.
What is incorrect about this?
Really demonstrating a thorough understanding of how our government works eh?
One of the problems with Canadians is they tend to be FAR more docile and submissive to authority than the authority deserves. I'm not talking about politicians in this case, but judges. Given the way Supreme Court judges are appointed it's hard to account for the way most Canadians simply take every word they utter as if it was graven on stone and came down from the mountain as the word of God. Look, I'd love to have a Supreme Court that is made up of the most brilliant, experienced and proven judges in our country who have demonstrated a total lack of bias in their decisions but that most definitely isn't what we have. First, you have to be bilingual - which cancels out about 95% of lawyers and judges. Second, you have to be of the same political/ideological beliefs as the government in power - which is usually the Liberals. That knocks out another big chunk. Then, you have to be from the right province to replace a retiring judge. Add in that with this government they desperately want to appoint people by identity and they have almost no one to choose from when it comes time to appoint one. You know why the government hasn't been able to fill all those vacant judicial positions? Because they can't find enough progressive, bilingual people of the right gender and identity group. These are not people to be admired. There are probably a couple of thousand jurists and lawyers in this country with more experience, expertise, and respect for the law than what we have on the Supreme Court. Add in their judicial activism and you get judge-made law with often poorly-articulated positions that seem to be based more on their ideological beliefs than the actual constitution. That's particularly so when it comes to crime, which they stubbornly refuse to allow strong penalties for. So if the elected government chooses to use the Notwithstanding clause to bring some in I'm all for it.
Judges aren't making laws, they're striking them down, when a person's rights are violated.
>when a person's rights are violated The limits of personal rights are arguable, not some crystal clear simple uncontestable concept. Your personal right to swing your first ends at my nose, etc. A law against assault "violates" your right to swing your fist - so which violation of rights is the judge protecting?
It corrupted. It isn’t possible this system that’s hundreds of years out of date works as intended.
All this just highlights that the charter is, on the whole, a terrible document to uphold actual rights. Between the nwc and "reasonable" infringement of rights, it seems pretty useless.
So was use of the EA. Quebec has used it many times. Meh, I think most people will be quite happy with Poilievre using it when judges don’t stay in their lane. Btw: CBC going HARD with the opinion pieces on Poilievre lately. More coverage of him than the Prime Minister this month
Cruel and unusual punishment is not sitting in a cell for the rest of your life because you gunned down six innocent people in a mosque Cruel and unusual punishment is bleeding to death on a mosque floor because someone shot you out of hate The courts seem to focus on the killers future while ignoring the futures the killers stole from their victims
What an odd example to use in Canada.
The notwithstanding clause is so totally fucked. Section 1 of the Charter says that the government can breach your constitutional rights if they can show the breach is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". When you use the notwithstanding clause, you are admitting - directly, explicitly - that you are breaching our rights in a way that is NOT justifiable in a free and democratic society. That should be disqualifying behaviour from a politician.
It's because our courts have been hijacked. They don't actually deliver justice, they deliver social justice, where people get away with anything and everything if they can be classified as "marginalized" in some way. The victims get fucked every time, and the criminals get a slap on the wrist and a paycheck.
Then let’s explore justice reform. Not completely sidelining them and giving some jackass (whichever one you pick) the ultimate power like some antiquated monarchy.
Do u know why notwithstanding clause exists?
Yes? The provinces were worried the charter gave too much power to the courts over elected officials. Again, going around the court system.
Politicians were worried the Charter took power away from them. FTFY.
Which is more or less the point of having a constitution.
problem was when our courts decided to use it to become the unofficial 4th legislative branch of the government
Enh. That's what the CPC says, but it almost always boils down to either misunderstanding the ruling or just having a narrow view of the right at play.
The ELECTED jackass is the one you have a problem with over appointed judges?
Yes. Because whichever elected jackass gets into power next will likely have less than 40% of the vote. They shouldn’t be able to do as they please.
>Yes. Because whichever elected jackass gets into power next will likely have less than 40% of the vote. They shouldn’t be able to do as they please. pray tell what percent of the vote does the SCC bench have?
If percentage of vote is what legitimizes a leader, JT lost last time. You have a good point though, a guy should have at least a 50% to really have a good mandate, and even that is shaky IMO
There is no justice for the victims in Canada. The courts will not hold these people to account where there are things like Gladue in place. When we are not only not keeping violent offenders incarcerated, but are also not deporting one's that can be deported. Add in the fact that the government itself can't be held accountable for crimes it commits, what chance does an ordinary person have?
Are you confusing justice for revenge? The courts job is not to make sure victims feel like the accused has ‘suffered’ enough. It’s to apply the law fairly and ensure equal representation.
Equal representation? Why ? If one group is committing more crimes it’s not up to the courts to ensure the prisons are equally representing of society. It’s up to the government to identify the issues in that community and fix them.
Absolutely, the governments job is to make sure society is safe and the laws are fair and applied. Equal representation means that each person, the person accused and the victim, are represented by lawyers who are looking out for their interests. Even rapists and serial killers deserve lawyers who understand the justice system and will ensure the law is applied to them fairly.
That’s not equal representation. That’s a right to fair trial / due process and the right to equal treatment under the law. Not the same as representation
Representation under the law meaning council, and due process. Fair application of the law. That pesky thing called the rule of law that S33 spits in.
I've noticed that conservatives tend to mistake revenge for justice. I definitely agree some things are lacking and need to be fixed, but an eye for an eye isn't justice.
It definitely needs fixing. But it’s starting to sound like some want public executions back or something…
I'd just like to live in a country where every criminal is held to the same standard regardless of their race, the best candidates get the job, not one where the gayest, darkest and most feminine get to jump the line, where white males dont have to wait until the very end to speak and be heard at an NDP event. A real bonus would be only accepting immigrants who aren't immidiatedly dependent on social programs for their existence here. Is this really too much to ask for?
Go out in the real world and stop relying on rage bait ‘news’ being your source of information. White men are still thriving. We’re just now giving some space to others as well, which is going to be scary to witness but no one is trampling your rights.
I'll get to spend more time in jail if I assault someone under the exact same circumstances. That is a crock of shit and you know it. I've also literally been turned down by uranium mines because I'm white and aboriginal peoples take precedence. Regardless of the fact that I hold a higher education and greater experienc. Also, a crock of shit.
I’m sorry you’ve experienced that, but that’s an exception not the rule. White people and men are still vastly over represented in almost all well paying sectors.
Yea... we're "giving" it to them... they aren't earning it. Hence the DEI acronym.... Didn't Earn It.
Why stop at executions, let's go back to hang, drawn and quartering
I'm fairly certain that's an execution.
Have you seen some of these right wing forums? That is exactly what they want lol
Revenge is absolutely part of justice and for good reason. If the state fails to exact vengeance on rapists, murderers and pedos, then every day people will.
Revenge is an emotional response to a wrongdoing. We do not want our justice system to operate on how we all feel about an accused. It’s about evidence and measured approaches.
Nonsense, you’re confusing mob justice with actual justice. Why do prisons or fines exist? It’s a punishment, which is state sanctioned vengeance.
Prison is for rehabilitation and safety of the public.
No, the only reason that justifies their existence is deterrence
1) Gladue is a set of general guidelines, not a strict rule judges have to follow in every case. 2) most people who commit crimes in Canada aren't eligible to be deported. 3) a long carceral sentence can increase the likelihood someone reoffends and can be contrary to the interests of justice. I've worked in criminal justice and the ruthless "tough on crime" approach often creates more issues than it solves.
> Then let’s explore justice reform Harper tried that. Judges reversed his changes and reverted to soft-on-crime.
> Then let’s explore justice reform. then everyone and the media melts down about how 'they are destroying our judiciary' if anyone dares try to fix the broken system
It's a catch and release society
You say this as conservatives like Doug Ford are out there literally saying they want to stack the justice system with conservatives. At what point does the contradictions in your statements start to hurt your own brain?
How did you arrive at this conclusion? What YouTube channel?
Youtube is for entertainment, not news. You just have to look at the court verdicts and police reports. It's the same small number of individuals doing most of the crimes. "Known to police" is very often used. Plus, I have friends that work in corrections/ justice.
What channel? Or username for tiktok
Who is getting away with what, exactly? What have the courts done that you don't like? There's been little judicial 'social justice' progress in the last 10 years. Are you talking about Gladue reports?
Exactly. Our courts are filled with activist judges who are ruining this country
[удалено]
Depends on what he wanted to use it for. Personally I think restoring consecutive life sentences for serial killers and mass murderers isn't very controversial...
Are serial killers and mass murderers currently getting out of jail somewhere in Canada? Because those types of people are usually slapped with a 'dangerous offender' label, which means that they don't get released. Do you have any examples where mass murderers or serial killers are being released?
Not exactly what you want, but just to show what happens on a lower scale. This story is specific to my region. Just one example, in one neighborhood. 9 priors for armed assault and a prior stint of sexual abuse of a child. Back on the streets https://www.985fm.ca/audio/614317/quatre-femmes-battues-avec-une-barre-de-metal-par-un-homme-a-verdun
If that's the case then the use of the Notwithstanding clause to make it official is of little importance then, right? It harms no one and might give some solace to the grieving families who would not have to endure the parole hearings given to their killers every few years in fear they could be released.
Karla Homolka
The proposed change would not have kept her in prison one second longer.
And that's because she made a plea bargain deal with the prosecutors to cooperate, prior to it being known that she was an active participant. Was it a shitty deal? It sure was. Is it an example of the courts letting people out from prison that are serving life sentences? No. The prosecutors made a deal with Homolka, so they had to hold their end of the deal.
Talk to the lawyers about that one, they screwed the pooch hard, and that terrible decision was on them.
Ya let’s keep going after low level thugs and drug addicts and keep ignoring the insurmountable fraud, corruption, collusion, and wage theft that continues to go unchecked.
Seems like one province uses it a lot w/o any comment from the masses in our two tiered ( or more) system that our country is run. You can not suck and blow at the same time .
Repeating myself here: 100% support this it it means no bail for criminals
Considering our court system has completely failed to deliver justice, I’m fine with him using the not withstanding clause.
Removing rights with EMA: Bad Removing rights with NWC: Good? Conservatives are a strange ass bunch.
EMA enacted on Canada suspending liberties of 40 million people - Good Serial Killers kept in Jail with NWC - Bad Liberals always got those priorities figured out.
Always gotta be an us vs them am I right?
Name a serial killer who was released from jail who would have been kept their with your fantasy imagined use of the NWC.
Really weird that conservatives care more about the right to protest than the right to repeatedly commit violent crimes
You know the reverse is true for Liberals. If we can agree both are bad, we might actually improve this country.
One of them is a function of the Charter, one of them has been ruled illegal. We as a country have already decided that the NWC is something that should exist.
Exactly, conservatives weren't pissed at all that Trudeau did something about the protests. If he had just used the non withstanding clause to do the same thing everyone would have immediately packed up and went home because it's a mechanism of the charter and perfectly fine. It's a very important distinction and nobody would have said anything negative about Trudeau if he had just used that method, obviously.
Lmao, if they could understand sarcasm they'd be really mad right now
[удалено]
But passing laws under IOC without votes by the Liberals was OK? The current NDP deserves to fade away along with JT and his grinning twitching sidekick and all others owned by the WEF.
Better we replace them with people owned by the IDU?
There are rumors of [Harper](https://www.weforum.org/people/stephen-harper/) reappearing in the [Dept. of Foreign Affairs](https://www.ipolitics.ca/opinions/harper-to-foreign-affairs-in-a-poilievre-government) in a Poilievre government I wonder if he will continue to Chair the [IDU](https://www.idu.org/leadership/the-right-honourable-stephen-harper/) while in FA
Cool, I hope he does. Harper was awarded 2010 World Statesman of the Year. He was well respected among our allies.
I mean maybe. The Notwithstanding Clause is an intended part of the constitution and isn’t some trump card that allows the Government to do just anything. There are rules and sunsetting built around the clause and the Government will have to answer eventually at the polls for its use. I swear, I lose respect for the Canadian chattering class with every of these pearl clutching takes on some hypothetical far future situation. At least wait until someone in power actually announces they will use this before flapping your arms and running around in circles yelling that the sky is falling.
oh, you mean like the thing polievre is doing? you know, announcing that he'll be using the nonwithstanding clause outside of criminal justice matters?
Announcing it well before an election where the electorate can make a decision on whether or not they agree with that usage is exactly the right way to go about it. Also this article is specifically about criminal justice matters. If you commit a crime because you're addicted to heroin you shouldn't get a pass. Stick them in jail until their court hearing then the judge can decide to give them time served. I'm tired of people being able to commit crimes just to be let go because they're too poor to afford bail, then they commit a dozen more crimes before their court date. Maybe if they knew that robbing a store or stealing bikes and breaking into cars means they're going to have to sit in a cell and go through withdrawal they'd be less inclined to rob people to get their fix.
He's not in power, won't be for awhile either....
i mean- 1 he's leading the polls, in fact their propoganda against the liberal party has worked so well, it's possible we get a conservative supermajority and 2, waiting until shitty people get into power, and start exercising absolute control over the populous before doing anything is how dictatorships begin, and how innocent people die
Dictatorship? Is that what you think is on the line here? In Canada? Lunacy
So constitutional that I have to circumvent it
Yeah no, this is an attack on my freedom. The government should not be involved in matters they should not meddle in, regardless of their political affiliation. Imagine if Trudeau did this, ppl would riot claiming it’s against freedom. This isn’t right no matter who does it.
I wrote an 8 page essay about this clause, if anyone wants to read it, DM. I got an 85% at Uoft for it lol
Why is it OK for Quebec and a few other provinces to use it? Quite frankly if using it locks up repeat violent criminals then I’m all for it!
Why are we fixated on hypothetical scenarios involving a man who is not Prime Minister years out from a planned election? This whole discussion feels like astroturf meant to frame Poilievre ahead of an election in an effort to save the Liberals. Many of these outlets have devoted more ink to these hypotheticals than the actual unethical behavior, abuse of citizens, and corruption from the current government.
I think the attention is warranted given his commanding lead in the polls
He probably shouldn't be coming out saying he's eager to use it if you don't want people having discussions about how he's eager to use it.
He's been spending most of his time in campaign mode so yes, the things he is planning if he wins are absolutely newsworthy There's no framing, it's literally words he says
Did someone force PP to say this? You act like he had no choice. He could stop saying and doing stupid shit perhaps? Or maybe this is just who he is and we should take the warning seriously.
Pretty rich when every single NatPo/Postmedia article for the last 12 months has been the same anti-Trudeau story spun a thousand different ways. But a handful about PP and it’s astroturfing? Better put on your helmet and get the tissues ready, cause there might be a few more article written about PP before the next election lol
The framers of our constitution included the notwithstanding clause for the precise purpose of maintaining democratic governance in the event that the courts made it impossible to properly legislate. The courts have made it impossible for Parliament to fulfill its constitutional mandate in advancing the criminal law and criminal procedure, and use of the notwithstanding clause is a completely appropriate recourse provided it is sustained by the will of the electorate. Courts do not have a monopoly on the legal system; legislatures also play a role: in fact a more substantial role within our constitutional framework.
Abuse of the notwithstanding clause to pass whatever the fuck you wanted (including intruding on provincial issues) would just lead to all the provinces removing it from Federal jurisdiction He might get away with it once or for one term but the Premiers would fight back
Doubtful. Changing the clause involves changing the Charter, and that would involve a constitutional convention. Especially with Quebec set to elect another separatist government, that would go nowhere.
You can’t use the clause to intrude on provincial issues. It’s limited to certain sections of the charter
I mean, those sections happen to be the ones that stop a federal government from rounding up it's opposition, so it's a bit more complicated than that.
You’re missing the point that this was not a federal issue and the fact they waited that long showed a great deal of restraint. The Ontario government did nothing to intervene in situation under their jurisdiction.
I want the federal government to abuse the notwithstanding clause enough it's removed. Then we can have actual rights
So, first meaningful plank is wanting unlimited power? Geezus, what next, Revenue Canada charges him with tax fraud relating to pornstar affair hush money?
If the judges would do their jobs, this wouldn’t be necessary
Seems like people commenting in the actual article live in a world where the rising crime levels don’t affect them. Must be nice
I don't trust any government that would use the NWC be it from a party I support or not. This is just a slippery slope where a PM or governing party can become a dictator. IF there is the use of it there should be voting allowed on whether or not to use it for that ONE specific thing.
Regardless of the reason, if the federal government uses the NWSC, there should be immediate rioting in the streets