Saskatchewan’s premier says he’ll use the notwithstanding clause to override a court injunction that has paused the province’s new pronoun policy for students. But a professor says the clause is meant to be used as a tool of last resort.
No, it doesn’t take away or give rights to provincial or federal governments. They don’t have charter rights in the first place, only individuals have charter rights.
The notwithstanding clause permits the province to override people’s charter rights. That may be justified sometimes, but it shouldn’t be framed as anything else. It’s removing rights, not granting them.
Huh, I had suspected a lot of conservative types see everything as a zero-sum game, but it isn’t usually presented so obviously.
Clearly, this isn’t the case. Let’s say we delete the right to freedom of religion in the Charter, and ban Christianity from our country. No one has gained any rights. In fact, we all lose a right, even non-Christians.
That’s a strange re-definition of a “right”. I guess if you re-define the word to encompass any sort of government power. Too bad we live in a world where words mean things.
Okay, now your argument has officially gone off the rails.
To clarify my point, governments don’t have rights, they have powers. The charter grants people rights. The notwithstanding clause gives the province a power to override a charter right. Exercising that power only ever removes people’s rights. And yes, the country can become less free if rights are overridden. Nothing necessarily “balances that out.” Losing charter rights is often a very bad thing, and even if it’s necessary in a particular case, everyone should be honest -it’s a loss of rights.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
No, it doesn’t take away or give rights to provincial or federal governments. They don’t have charter rights in the first place, only individuals have charter rights.
The notwithstanding clause permits the province to override people’s charter rights. That may be justified sometimes, but it shouldn’t be framed as anything else. It’s removing rights, not granting them.
If your rights are taken away, someone else has gained rights. The bookkeeping has to add up.
Huh, I had suspected a lot of conservative types see everything as a zero-sum game, but it isn’t usually presented so obviously.
Clearly, this isn’t the case. Let’s say we delete the right to freedom of religion in the Charter, and ban Christianity from our country. No one has gained any rights. In fact, we all lose a right, even non-Christians.
That requires someone to have gained the right to ban religion.
I had suspected conservative types believe in magic, but I am surprised that includes the Charter magically changing on its own.
That’s a strange re-definition of a “right”. I guess if you re-define the word to encompass any sort of government power. Too bad we live in a world where words mean things.
Governments aren’t touching the Constitution with a ten foot pole. The only way we are banning religion is if someone is given the right to.
Typical conservative logic. You don’t have to cling dearly to your grandfather’s world, you know. We can move forward and see progress.
Okay, now your argument has officially gone off the rails.
To clarify my point, governments don’t have rights, they have powers. The charter grants people rights. The notwithstanding clause gives the province a power to override a charter right. Exercising that power only ever removes people’s rights. And yes, the country can become less free if rights are overridden. Nothing necessarily “balances that out.” Losing charter rights is often a very bad thing, and even if it’s necessary in a particular case, everyone should be honest -it’s a loss of rights.
No? Why?