4 ms·

While it's true that Section 33 of the Charter can override other sections, it cannot override _all_ of them; and the Emergencies Act is roughly equivalent in e

by dleslie 7mo ago

While it's true that Section 33 of the Charter can override other sections, it cannot override _all_ of them; and the Emergencies Act is roughly equivalent in effect to the USA's ability to deploy the National Guard. It allows the Federal Government to deploy our military to handle emergencies when it is apparent that Provincial and local services are unable to handle them.

freediddy 7mo ago
No. The Emergencies act/War Measures act allows the government to override whatever rights they want. And it's been used twice in history to do exactly that. What it's supposed to be for is in direct contrast to what it was used for, which is to suspect rights. And that's exactly what was determined later on by the courts that they did infringe on the rights of Canadians.
- dleslie 7mo ago
  It really doesn't allow _any_ rights to be overridden. It's rather clear in its scope,[0] and while it's true that our justice system has taken the Government to task when it has exceeded the scope[1] it's not as though this is a regular occurrence or that those harmed by the excess are without legal recourse. 0: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html 1: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/emergencies3-urgence3/qa-qr.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/emerge...
  - freediddy 7mo ago
    How was Trudeau held accountable besides a small slap on the wrist? And regardless the Notwithstanding clause is more than enough to extinguish anything in the CoR.
    - perfect-blue 7mo ago
      This gets at the concept of accountability for those at the top of government. This is an issue in all governments, not just in Canada. A good parallel would be the United States. The list of actions the current administration has taken which have been determined illegal is astounding, yet no one is held accountable in a way that would deter future breaches of the law.
    - dleslie 7mo ago
      Trudeau became so desperately unpopular that he was compelled to step down. As for legal responsibility and repercussions, that's a process that is still in motion. The law moves slowly in Canada.
joshlemer 7mo ago
It's not just the Notwithstanding clause. There's a general judicial tradition in Canada of utterly ignoring or dismissing or excusing blatant, objective violations of the constitution itself. Some examples: 1. in Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambie_Surgeries_Corporation_v_British_Columbia#Appeal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambie_Surgeries_Corporation_v...), where a private clinic challenged the province's ban on any private care whatsoever for procedures that are provided by the public system on the grounds that if the province bans procedures but then also rations access to those procedures to the point that they're inaccessible for many patients, it constitutes a violation of our charter right to life and equal protection. It seems they were able to successfully argue that this does constitute a violation of our rights, but the decision says it's okay because it's done with the intent to preserve the equitable access to healthcare for the general public. 2. Employees in union shops are forced to join the union. This is arguably a violation of our right to freedom of association, but the supreme court says that it's okay if it does because "the objective of this violation is to promote industrial peace through the encouragement of free collective bargaining". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula#Freedom_of_association_issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula#Freedom_of_associ... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Comeau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Comeau, a famous case where a guy bought beer in Quebec and drove it to New Brunswick (for personal consumption) and was fined. His case argued that that's a violation of section 121 of the Canadian Constitution 1867 which states as black and white as can be: 121 All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces. But the Supreme court ruled that it's not enough for provinces to ban goods from entering their province for it to count as a violation, it must be a ban which has no other purpose but to impede interprovincial trade. But that means that this section is completely useless because a justification for protectionism can always be found or made up on an ad-hoc basis. Basically, Canadians have no rights whatsoever. Our entire legal system doesn't sit on anything fundamental it's all just vibes and arbitrary whims of the justices of the day. Our charter and constitution are so full of explicit holes like the notwithstanding clause, that they're rendered almost meaningless even on their own terms, and then any other violations will be excused on the flimsiest grounds.
- 7mo ago

by dleslie 7mo ago

freediddy 7mo ago

No. The Emergencies act/War Measures act allows the government to override whatever rights they want. And it's been used twice in history to do exactly that. What it's supposed to be for is in direct contrast to what it was used for, which is to suspect rights. And that's exactly what was determined later on by the courts that they did infringe on the rights of Canadians.

dleslie 7mo ago
It really doesn't allow _any_ rights to be overridden. It's rather clear in its scope,[0] and while it's true that our justice system has taken the Government to task when it has exceeded the scope[1] it's not as though this is a regular occurrence or that those harmed by the excess are without legal recourse. 0: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html 1: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/emergencies3-urgence3/qa-qr.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/bm-mb/other-autre/emerge...
- freediddy 7mo ago
  How was Trudeau held accountable besides a small slap on the wrist? And regardless the Notwithstanding clause is more than enough to extinguish anything in the CoR.
  - perfect-blue 7mo ago
    This gets at the concept of accountability for those at the top of government. This is an issue in all governments, not just in Canada. A good parallel would be the United States. The list of actions the current administration has taken which have been determined illegal is astounding, yet no one is held accountable in a way that would deter future breaches of the law.
  - dleslie 7mo ago
    Trudeau became so desperately unpopular that he was compelled to step down. As for legal responsibility and repercussions, that's a process that is still in motion. The law moves slowly in Canada.

joshlemer 7mo ago

It's not just the Notwithstanding clause. There's a general judicial tradition in Canada of utterly ignoring or dismissing or excusing blatant, objective violations of the constitution itself. Some examples: 1. in Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambie_Surgeries_Corporation_v_British_Columbia#Appeal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambie_Surgeries_Corporation_v...), where a private clinic challenged the province's ban on any private care whatsoever for procedures that are provided by the public system on the grounds that if the province bans procedures but then also rations access to those procedures to the point that they're inaccessible for many patients, it constitutes a violation of our charter right to life and equal protection. It seems they were able to successfully argue that this does constitute a violation of our rights, but the decision says it's okay because it's done with the intent to preserve the equitable access to healthcare for the general public. 2. Employees in union shops are forced to join the union. This is arguably a violation of our right to freedom of association, but the supreme court says that it's okay if it does because "the objective of this violation is to promote industrial peace through the encouragement of free collective bargaining". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula#Freedom_of_association_issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula#Freedom_of_associ... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Comeau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Comeau, a famous case where a guy bought beer in Quebec and drove it to New Brunswick (for personal consumption) and was fined. His case argued that that's a violation of section 121 of the Canadian Constitution 1867 which states as black and white as can be: 121 All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces. But the Supreme court ruled that it's not enough for provinces to ban goods from entering their province for it to count as a violation, it must be a ban which has no other purpose but to impede interprovincial trade. But that means that this section is completely useless because a justification for protectionism can always be found or made up on an ad-hoc basis. Basically, Canadians have no rights whatsoever. Our entire legal system doesn't sit on anything fundamental it's all just vibes and arbitrary whims of the justices of the day. Our charter and constitution are so full of explicit holes like the notwithstanding clause, that they're rendered almost meaningless even on their own terms, and then any other violations will be excused on the flimsiest grounds.

7mo ago