The original intent was for the clause to be a last resort, but that's not how provinces are using it. Our Supreme Court will weigh in, but it's for our legislatures to collectively fix.
One of the worst parts about the clause in general is the silencing of 'rights talk' among the electorate. Another one of Lougheed's ideas with the clause is that the electorate, through active engagement with the legislature, could contribute to public discussions about rights, instead of the judiciary being the sole arbiter/charter enforcement. Its recent usage proves its potential for democratic malignance. It is used mostly by majority provincial governments in pursuit of political ends, notwithstanding the charter, the judiciary, and the electorate.
Well, I'm keeping a close eye on this particular issue, that of Secularism, Bill 21 and the NWC, as I have done since last year. It will be my thesis for a Master of Laws at Queen's U in the Fall of 2026. Maybe, just maybe, the SCC will have it's decision by then but I suspect it won't until 2027. Personally, I agree with the 'original intent' and that the NWC should only be used as last resort.
I’m of the opinion that the triggering of the Notwithstanding should automatically trigger an election. If the populace re-elects the government, the law goes through. Much higher bar than current abuse.
Two provinces already have growing separation movements because federal Canada refuses to allow provinces to steward their own cultures and economies. You earnestly believe the answer is to alienate these provinces further?
If you want to stand up against threats to our rights and freedoms, let us discuss freedom of expression. A man in BC was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for expressing an opinion on trans issues. How can there be a free market of ideas if we cannot say what some may believe is offensive?
You’d rather defend a religion that inspires gangs of men to attempt to kidnap Jewish women off the street in Toronto.
How far from the light of enlightenment can the federal liberal party get?
One of the worst parts about the clause in general is the silencing of 'rights talk' among the electorate. Another one of Lougheed's ideas with the clause is that the electorate, through active engagement with the legislature, could contribute to public discussions about rights, instead of the judiciary being the sole arbiter/charter enforcement. Its recent usage proves its potential for democratic malignance. It is used mostly by majority provincial governments in pursuit of political ends, notwithstanding the charter, the judiciary, and the electorate.
I'm pleased you're tackling this issue. Keep up the good work
Well, I'm keeping a close eye on this particular issue, that of Secularism, Bill 21 and the NWC, as I have done since last year. It will be my thesis for a Master of Laws at Queen's U in the Fall of 2026. Maybe, just maybe, the SCC will have it's decision by then but I suspect it won't until 2027. Personally, I agree with the 'original intent' and that the NWC should only be used as last resort.
I’m of the opinion that the triggering of the Notwithstanding should automatically trigger an election. If the populace re-elects the government, the law goes through. Much higher bar than current abuse.
Yes! If It’s”: Notwithstanding “ all the time , it ends up being a denial of the Charter’s usefulness in the first place. Nothing is left standing!!
Two provinces already have growing separation movements because federal Canada refuses to allow provinces to steward their own cultures and economies. You earnestly believe the answer is to alienate these provinces further?
If you want to stand up against threats to our rights and freedoms, let us discuss freedom of expression. A man in BC was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for expressing an opinion on trans issues. How can there be a free market of ideas if we cannot say what some may believe is offensive?
You’d rather defend a religion that inspires gangs of men to attempt to kidnap Jewish women off the street in Toronto.
How far from the light of enlightenment can the federal liberal party get?
This is an extemely important issue. The 'Not Withstanding Clause' is being abused by power- hungry legislators.