5 ms·

There is no such thing as rights or a constitution in Canada. The government can waive them away with a “notwithstanding” clause and then they can do what they

There is no such thing as rights or a constitution in Canada. The government can waive them away with a “notwithstanding” clause and then they can do what they like.

bawolff 1y ago
This law does not cite the notwithstanding clause, so nothing has been waived away. The federal government has never once invoked the notwithstanding clause. Furthermore, the notwithstanding clause only allows overriding some rights. It does not override the entire constitution.
- int_19h 1y ago
  It doesn't override all, just the most important ones: sections 2 & 7-15. Section 2 is even titled "fundamental freedoms". This means all of the following (and more) are subject to "notwithstanding": Freedom of conscience and religion. Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Freedom of peaceful assembly. Freedom of association. 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. Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Right to equality before and under the law and right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    I agree that these are very important rights, but i don't think they are the most important ones. The most important right is the requirement to have regular elections so that any overreach can be repealed or simply not renewed. Everything flows from that. In practise the charter has been very effective in protecting the rights of canadians. I feel that it is more effective than the american system despite the american system having more absolute garuntees on paper.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      > The most important right is the requirement to have regular elections so that any overreach can be repealed or simply not renewed. Everything flows from that. Not at all. Russia has very regular elections, for example. Even DPRK has elections! You might say that those are an obvious fraud, and it's true these days, but it wasn't always so. Up until 2011 or so elections in Russia in and of themselves were "free" in a sense that your vote counted. The problem is that you can't really have a free and fair election when things like "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression" are suppressed. If the government can control most information flow and crack down on dissent, it doesn't matter if the people can vote; it'll ensure that they'll vote the right way. > In practise the charter has been very effective in protecting the rights of canadians. I feel that it is more effective than the american system despite the american system having more absolute garuntees on paper. The problems with the American system stem largely from the US constitution originally being based on the notion that the federal government shouldn't be able to do anything except that what the Constitution says it can (and similarly for state governments & their respective state constitutions). While it's great in principle, in practice it means that the US constitution has relatively few explicit restrictions, and those are often vaguely worded, which then allows for the kind of judicial shenanigans that are routine here. At the same time, if the courts do enshrine some specific right as protected, the government has very little leeway to override that. As for Canada, I feel that the jury is still out. CCRF is still fairly recent, and you guys just don't have the history of a sufficiently intense political conflict to see how well it holds up in a crisis, and what the government might do.
      - bawolff 1y ago
        > Not at all. Russia has very regular elections, for example. Even DPRK has elections! Sure. The soviet union also had a constitution that gave strict garuntees of freedom, much stronger than the american constitution. It of course wasn't worth the paper its written on. Having a written constitution with rights and freedom is no different then having elections. You can do it for real or you can do it as a show. Canada's actual elections safeguard its democracy. The fact that russia has fake elections is no more a counterpoint than the soviet constitution is a counterpoint to the american constitution. Just because someone else has the fake version doesn't mean the real version doesn't exist. > As for Canada, I feel that the jury is still out. CCRF is still fairly recent, and you guys just don't have the history of a sufficiently intense political conflict to see how well it holds up in a crisis, and what the government might do. The charter is not the starting point of canadian constitutional law. While it added a lot of rights and is certainly an improvement, Important legal victories like striking down laws for violating freedom of speech or declaring that women are allowed to hold office happened before the charter was adopted.
thunderfork 1y ago
[dead]
btbuildem 1y ago
It's the provincial governments of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan that have been abusing the notwithstanding clause to further their political (conservative) agendas. The feds have not once reached for it. The career loser Poilievre had threatened to used it as soon as possible had he somehow clawed his way to power.
- bawolff 1y ago
  As far as i am aware, neither Ontario nor Alberta have ever sucesfully used the notwithstanding clause although they have tried. I dont know its correct to apply the label "conservative" to Quebec.
canadiantim 1y ago
Thank god for the notwithstanding clause or we wouldn’t live in a democracy but instead rule by unelected judges. The notwithstanding clause is about ensuring Parliament remains supreme.
- bawolff 1y ago
  It is not, there is no tradition of parlimentary supremacy in canada like britian has. The courts do strike down laws invoking the notwithstanding clause for being unconstitutional. If you exclude Quebec,laws invoking the notwithstanding clause have been struck down by courts more often then they have succesfully been used.

There is no such thing as rights or a constitution in Canada. The government can waive them away with a “notwithstanding” clause and then they can do what they like.

bawolff 1y ago

This law does not cite the notwithstanding clause, so nothing has been waived away. The federal government has never once invoked the notwithstanding clause. Furthermore, the notwithstanding clause only allows overriding some rights. It does not override the entire constitution.

int_19h 1y ago
It doesn't override all, just the most important ones: sections 2 & 7-15. Section 2 is even titled "fundamental freedoms". This means all of the following (and more) are subject to "notwithstanding": Freedom of conscience and religion. Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Freedom of peaceful assembly. Freedom of association. 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. Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. Right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Right to equality before and under the law and right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
- bawolff 1y ago
  I agree that these are very important rights, but i don't think they are the most important ones. The most important right is the requirement to have regular elections so that any overreach can be repealed or simply not renewed. Everything flows from that. In practise the charter has been very effective in protecting the rights of canadians. I feel that it is more effective than the american system despite the american system having more absolute garuntees on paper.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    > The most important right is the requirement to have regular elections so that any overreach can be repealed or simply not renewed. Everything flows from that. Not at all. Russia has very regular elections, for example. Even DPRK has elections! You might say that those are an obvious fraud, and it's true these days, but it wasn't always so. Up until 2011 or so elections in Russia in and of themselves were "free" in a sense that your vote counted. The problem is that you can't really have a free and fair election when things like "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression" are suppressed. If the government can control most information flow and crack down on dissent, it doesn't matter if the people can vote; it'll ensure that they'll vote the right way. > In practise the charter has been very effective in protecting the rights of canadians. I feel that it is more effective than the american system despite the american system having more absolute garuntees on paper. The problems with the American system stem largely from the US constitution originally being based on the notion that the federal government shouldn't be able to do anything except that what the Constitution says it can (and similarly for state governments & their respective state constitutions). While it's great in principle, in practice it means that the US constitution has relatively few explicit restrictions, and those are often vaguely worded, which then allows for the kind of judicial shenanigans that are routine here. At the same time, if the courts do enshrine some specific right as protected, the government has very little leeway to override that. As for Canada, I feel that the jury is still out. CCRF is still fairly recent, and you guys just don't have the history of a sufficiently intense political conflict to see how well it holds up in a crisis, and what the government might do.
    - bawolff 1y ago
      > Not at all. Russia has very regular elections, for example. Even DPRK has elections! Sure. The soviet union also had a constitution that gave strict garuntees of freedom, much stronger than the american constitution. It of course wasn't worth the paper its written on. Having a written constitution with rights and freedom is no different then having elections. You can do it for real or you can do it as a show. Canada's actual elections safeguard its democracy. The fact that russia has fake elections is no more a counterpoint than the soviet constitution is a counterpoint to the american constitution. Just because someone else has the fake version doesn't mean the real version doesn't exist. > As for Canada, I feel that the jury is still out. CCRF is still fairly recent, and you guys just don't have the history of a sufficiently intense political conflict to see how well it holds up in a crisis, and what the government might do. The charter is not the starting point of canadian constitutional law. While it added a lot of rights and is certainly an improvement, Important legal victories like striking down laws for violating freedom of speech or declaring that women are allowed to hold office happened before the charter was adopted.

thunderfork 1y ago

[dead]

btbuildem 1y ago

It's the provincial governments of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan that have been abusing the notwithstanding clause to further their political (conservative) agendas. The feds have not once reached for it. The career loser Poilievre had threatened to used it as soon as possible had he somehow clawed his way to power.

bawolff 1y ago
As far as i am aware, neither Ontario nor Alberta have ever sucesfully used the notwithstanding clause although they have tried. I dont know its correct to apply the label "conservative" to Quebec.

canadiantim 1y ago

Thank god for the notwithstanding clause or we wouldn’t live in a democracy but instead rule by unelected judges. The notwithstanding clause is about ensuring Parliament remains supreme.

bawolff 1y ago
It is not, there is no tradition of parlimentary supremacy in canada like britian has. The courts do strike down laws invoking the notwithstanding clause for being unconstitutional. If you exclude Quebec,laws invoking the notwithstanding clause have been struck down by courts more often then they have succesfully been used.