Poilievre says he’d invoke notwithstanding clause…"
That’s all I need to hear.
Any politician - ANY politician - who preemptively threatens notwithstanding should be barred from office for life.
The NWC should be invoked only as a last resort, and should destroy the career of the politician wielding it. It needs to be political suicide - an ultimate sacrifice to bring right actiin to society.
Absolutely. Danielle Smith just used it twice recently (the anti-trans bill and the teacher’s strike), effectively telling Albertans that they don’t actually have rights, merely privileges, tolerated by and subject to the whims of the UCP.
I think it’s an important tool to have under very specific scenarios. I don’t think it should destroy a politician’s career if used properly.
However, conservatives are using it to shove their ideologies down people’s throat. That’s bad.
“Poilievre says …”
Is all I needed to hear. Dude was kicked to the curb by his riding, should have packed up and gone home. Politics shouldn’t be a lifelong career.
Okay I’m not Canadian so maybe I’m missing something, but I just looked it up and the NWC should not exist in an even remotely democratic society. If it’s possible to override your freedom, that freedom doesn’t exist. It’s impossible for such a power to exist and not be abused, if a non-abusive use of it can even exist.
- As part of constitutional negotiations, the Notwithstanding Clause was added. In a sense, the Notwithstanding Clause was literally needed to help
form Canada itselfrepatriate the Canadian constitution. - Invoking the Notwithstanding Clause, is time limited to 5 years. At which point, it was originally thought that it’s use was either going to be politically costly or accepted by society. Though, with winner-take-all electoral systems, the electorate can’t really hold politicians accountable anyway.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982, so this has nothing to do with the formation of Canada, only this charter and the Constitution.
Before that we had the Bill of Rights (enacted in 1960) and before that we had no formal expression of human rights in Canada.
Forming Canada happened back in 1867.
It is true that the Notwithstanding Clause was negotiated and we likely wouldn’t have the charter without it, but it was very “late” in Canada’s history.
I think they were talking about repatriation.
The Charter and Repatriation happened in 1982.
- As part of constitutional negotiations, the Notwithstanding Clause was added. In a sense, the Notwithstanding Clause was literally needed to help
Overruling the Supreme Court, the Conservative way. Trump would be proud.
PP is copying trump in everyway, at the behest of putin.
God he’s an asshole. I’m not happy with the ruling but I’m no conservative cry baby.
Emphasis my own.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the one-year prison sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography set out in the Criminal Code violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.
The top court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.
But there’s so much misinformation among conservatives… They’re obviously going for the headlines, and low information voters.
there’s so much misinformation among conservatives… They’re obviously going for the headlines, and low information voters.
As is tradition.
I’ll also add (for the people that aren’t going to read the article) that they decided the one-year minimum was harmful because in a situation like an 18-year-old receiving an unrequested nude from a 17-year-old, the 18-year-old would get a year in prison.
this would be true if they were both 17, even.
All our sentences should have context, that’s why minimums don’t make any sense.
Exactly. Blanket rules have NEVER made sense.
but “common sense”???
