Jump to content
Devil On Rollerskates

Notwithstanding Clause

Do You Think The Notwithstanding Clause Should Be Removed From The Charter?  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Do You Think The Notwithstanding Clause Should Be Removed From The Charter?

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

The Notwithstanding Clause is under Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It basically says that the federal or provincial government can declare legislation to be valid even if it violates a provision of the Charter. For more info:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwithstanding_clause

 

or just google "notwithstanding clause".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My mothers french and she's a candy striper,

when my dad sings 'god save the queen' she gets real hyper,

she says 'Douglas keep your paws,

off my notwithstanding clause',

and they argue and forget about my... super"

lol like that song from Moxy Fruvious

 

I think it should be removed, gives the provences too much power to change our freedoms and such. I know that every provence probally has beefs about something the fed's have done at some point, but if you dont like it GET THE HELL OUT AND DONT LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this debate is mandatory for every law class in the country. Sound like a shitty deal having it in, but the rationale behind its existance is to provide the option to pass a law that would best serve the interest of the public, in the event that said law would contravine an existing clause of the charter or rights.

 

To pass a controversial law using this loophole would be political suicide. I'm not sure how many times its been used but I -think- the only province to use this is Quebec with some of their language laws (please correct me if I'm wrong about this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The not withstanding clause is an important part of the charter of rights because firstly it got most of the porvinces and the terriroties in on the accord. Secondly it might be useless. In all of its time in the laws it has been used once by Quebec to preserve it s french background. The only other time was in saskatchwan and it could have been used but was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it shouldn't. If used sparingly and correctly, it can do some good.

For example, I remember during the election debates this issue came up and people were using it against Steven Harper. He said that in a situation where someone was trying to claim artistic merit to child pornography, he would use the Notwithstanding Clause to block it. I personally think that would be a good reason to use the it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it shouldn't. If used sparingly and correctly, it can do some good.

For example, I remember during the election debates this issue came up and people were using it against Steven Harper. He said that in a situation where someone was trying to claim artistic merit to child pornography, he would use the Notwithstanding Clause to block it. I personally think that would be a good reason to use the it.

I think that's a good example too, but then didn't the Conservative Party also issue press releases saying that the Liberals and NDP supported child pornography? I seem to remember reading about that and thinking that was a stupid thing to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's got a lot of historical context behind it. at the time, it was needed to keep canada together.

 

for the sake of tradition, i think it'll be here to stay. people don't like change, be it for the better or worse.

 

i generalize, but that's alright.

 

i say remove it, because it allows far too much power for people abuse. and we all know what happens when power is abused. but, on the flip side, it can be used to insulate against something unfair from the federal government...

 

i still say nay. i don't really feel like debating this in full, because the pros and cons seem obvious.

 

as for french culture and solidarity (as the main reason it still exists), french culture always has been and will be unique. i don't see that changing, clause or not. look at louisiana. they're still heavily influenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in its most basic form...

 

the clause was used to unite canada. i can't recall the date. i'm pretty sure it was during trudeau's era, if i remember. i can't really recall who was complaining, but it was probably the french... (sorry, but it's true. and, for the record, i happen to like most french people. most of them are really nice. so bite me.)

 

anyways... basically, each province wanted something different. to appease them, they left this clause in that makes the entire federal government basically null and void.

 

let me explain.

 

if the feds want to make it illegal to, i don't know, pick something contentious... snort crack. yeah, it's already illegal, but what if. anyways, if they want to, and they pass the legislation in ottawa (at the house of commons and the senate and all that crap), it DOES NOT NECESSARILY APPLY in all the provinces. IF the notwithstanding clause is called up, it renders the power of the federal government useless, and also by the feds own admission.

 

kinda ironic, isn't it? but desperate times, desperate measures. kinda like the meech lake accord.

 

and it's entirely possible that i'm screwing up terminology and confusing events. someone, please correct me when i'm wrong.

 

at its most essential form, it's like having your parents tell you to do something, and you having the power to veto pretty much anything you don't like. sure, it's an exaggeration, but i hope you get the idea.

 

there are upsides. like, the whole privacy invasion thing. and some other things.

 

the french loyalists/separatists love it, because it lets them mess with what ever they want. i don't really mind what they do. i like french people. i like multiculturalism. there's something special about montreal, perhaps embedded in the language, but that's arguable. they deemed it necessary, so it's there.

 

that's why quebec isn't legally obliged to have english anywhere... if i recall correctly.

 

it's entirely possible that i'm completely wrong and misleading. but i hope i'm not.

 

i think i got the basic point across...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are only allowed to use the Notwithstanding clause for five years. The French abused it when they get mad for English being as big or of a bigger font than that of the French words. The French also abuse it by having the language laws last longer than 5 years when the federal goverment objected. It came into effect in 1982. It was somewhat based on the failed constitution. The problem with the constitution is we had one, but no one agreed to it, so no one had to follow it. The Notwithstanding clause was to appease everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against this clause. It gives the executive branch of the government (the PM and Cabinet, basically) far too much power over the judiciary. The Supreme Court exists to make sure the ruling party does not make any laws which are unconstitutional or violate our freedoms. If a PM (or provincial governments) can over-ride any such ruling, then what is the point?

 

I personally don't have a problem with Quebec's language laws; I think provinces should have the power to decide what language to use in their government, but that goes for outside Quebec, also, where French serves little use but is forced upon the provinces. The best way to appease the provinces is simple: a Senate with upon equal representation for all provinces, much like in the United States. What is known as a Triple-E Senate (for Equal, Elected and Effective). This won't happen at the moment, however, as the Senate is currently filled with Liberal or Conservative cronies, and the ruling party would be foolish to give up such a political advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.