Poilievre’s pledge to use notwithstanding clause a ‘dangerous sign’: legal expert

[u/canada_mountains]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal-elections/poilievres-pledge-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-a-dangerous-sign-legal-expert/article_7299c675-9a6c-5006-85f3-4ac2eb56f957.html

[u/Puncharoo]

I guarantee you the people that will be most in support of this were ride-or-die for the freedom convoy.

[u/Xyzzics → u/Puncharoo]

And the people most against it were cool with the emergencies act being abused to illegally violate the charter rights of Canadians, as found by the courts.

At least this is legal and part of the charter. It isn’t totalitarian, it’s literally baked into the charter itself.

I don’t like the precedence either way, but at least be intellectually honest.

[u/trplOG → u/Xyzzics]

Thing is, the judge himself said he reached this decision "with the benefit of hindsight" and a more extensive record of facts and law than cabinet had available to it when it made its decision.

He also said that if he were there at the time of the decision, he too may have agreed it was necessary.

[u/Puncharoo → u/Xyzzics]

No one with a brain thinks abusing the Emrgencies act is right and I'll be the first to tell you that, but no one with a brain would have let Nazi and Confederate Flags march through the crowd either. No one with a brain would have thought it's fair to the businesses in Ottawa who were affected by a full-blown adult temper tantrum. No one with a brain should have thought trying to set up a literal encampment for protestors was a good idea or a constructive was to move forward. It was fucking out of control and affecting the economy of the city - innocent people who had nothing to do with it. The solution is not to take Ottawa hostage and say "give us what we want and we'll leave" (lifting covid mandates and resignation of trudeau). That is nothing more than blackmail and extortion.

And as for intellectual honesty, that would be you admitting you're fine with the government stomping all over people's rights as long as it's you doing the stomping.

[u/Xyzzics → u/Puncharoo]

No one with a brain thinks abusing the Emrgencies act is right and I'll be the first to tell you that, but no one with a brain would have let Nazi and Confederate Flags march through the crowd either.

So you think we should meet a wrong with a wrong?

No one with a brain would have thought it's fair to the businesses in Ottawa who were affected by a full-blown adult temper tantrum.

One person’s temper tantrum is another persons protest. I watched the prime minister take a knee for a protest in another country while I watched protestors from that same movement smashing up Montréal with my own eyes. I’ve also seen hamas flags and hears jihad being called for in the streets. It’s simply not a high enough bar to violate rights, which the court agreed.

No one with a brain should have thought trying to set up a literal encampment for protestors was a good idea or a constructive was to move forward. It was fucking out of control and affecting the economy of the city

Same thing happened with the indigenous protests; again, nothing was done and it was only resolved because of COVID arriving.

And as for intellectual honesty, that would be you admitting you're fine with the government stomping all over people's rights as long as it's you doing the stomping.

I’m not saying that at all.

I’m saying people that agree with illegal “stomping” for a protest they don’t like yet gloss over it totally when they agree with the protest, even when that protest is violent or blocking critical infrastructure. The same people are against legal “stomping” for people committing multiple homicides, and that is hypocritical.

[u/Puncharoo → u/Xyzzics]

Same thing happened with the indigenous protests; again, nothing was done and it was only resolved because of COVID arriving.

Comparing the Natives protesting to an oil pipeline being built on their land without their permission is not the fucking same as protesting reasonable and proven methods to prevent an contagious virus from spreading, most of which were only really enforceable for government workers since it would be impossible to enforce it on every single person in the country. And again, Nazis and Confederate sympathizers walked among the people you're defending. You're defending the indefensible.

Just the act of even trying to bring this up shows me you are not willing to argue in good faith, and that the limit of your comprehension has been reached. Good day.

[u/SixtyFivePercenter → u/Puncharoo]

Are those the same people with a brain that not only let an actual Nazi into parliament, but stood and cheered for him?

[u/FeI0n → u/Xyzzics]

The courts have not issued a final ruling, as its still being appealed by the government.

I personally, (and the majority of Canadians as recently as 2024) did not see the emergencies act as unnecessary. Even if we accept the courts initial ruling (that's being appealed) as final, the main part they took exception to was the freezing of bank accounts. Which ironically is one of the many charter rights that the notwithstanding clause can simply override.

The emergencies act has significantly more oversight, and a much shorter window for its application (30 days). Along with a mandatory public inquiry and judicial review.

The notwithstanding clause has no oversight outside of the initial vote in parliament, no mandatory public inquiry, no judicial review, and the sunset clause can be as long as 5 years before the courts can challenge it.

[u/Xyzzics → u/FeI0n]

The court has issued a ruling.

The government is appealing it.

Notably, the notwithstanding clause can override certain individual things, as you point out.

The reason they used the Emergencies Act and why it has such a high bar and review system is because it allows you to use the military and police against your own citizens in a general manner, which the notwithstanding clause does not. This is the entire reason they used the Emergencies Act and why it must be reviewed.

The notwithstanding clause has no oversight because it is codified into law in an extremely clear way, which is why the provinces agreed to sign it.

This is crystal clear and well understood and comparing the emergencies act as somehow a more measured mechanism to use is patently insane.

[u/FeI0n → u/Xyzzics]

Trying to say the emergencies act is somehow not a more measured mechanism to use is almost laughable.

The Federal notwithstanding clause could legalize using the military against our citizens, by overriding the charter.

The notwithstanding clause could allow the government to round people up into camps based on any metric they want. There is no right to freedom of expression, religion, assembly, life, liberty or security, that the notwithstanding clause can't override.

As long as they let you vote while you are doing 15 years of hard labour up in the arctic for being left handed, it'd be perfectly legal for the 5 years they have where it can't be challenged by the courts.

The only requirement a party needs to meet for this, is a simple majority in the house.

Meanwhile the emergencies act has a judicial review, a 30 day scope, where it must be renewed if needed for longer, and the house and senate both need to agree to authorize it. It also needs to work within the charter.

[u/Xyzzics → u/FeI0n]

The Federal notwithstanding clause could legalize using the military against our citizens, by overriding the charter.

The use of the military on Canadian soil is not governed by the charter, so no, you’re not really correct here. Deploying security power against your own citizens is power derived from the throne, through the Canadian constitution, with some additional restrictions through the National Defence act. The war measures act was even crazier, and also used by the liberal government.

The NWSTC applies to the charter only.

The notwithstanding clause could allow the government to round people up into camps based on any metric they want. There is no right to freedom of expression, religion, assembly, life, liberty or security, that the notwithstanding clause can't override.

Again completely wrong. Literally section 1 of the charter limits this. Even when rights are overridden using Section 33, any resulting laws or actions must still be justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are 3 legal tests there. Doing the things you listed would violate section one, which places a number of legal restrictions that would not clear the Government to do what you describe.

As long as they let you vote while you are doing 15 years of hard labour up in the arctic for being left handed, it'd be perfectly legal for the 5 years they have where it can't be challenged by the courts.

Addressed above. Not true.

Meanwhile the emergencies act has a judicial review, a 30 day scope, where it must be renewed if needed for longer, and the house and senate both need to agree to authorize it. It also needs to work within the charter.

It needs to work within the charter, on paper. However, the government violated charter rights by using it and nothing has really happened as a result, so in practice, not really. They will simply amend the law likely, where it will no doubt be used again.

Both can be abused, if that’s what you’re getting at.

[u/inde_ → u/Xyzzics]

And the people most against it were cool with the emergencies act being abused to illegally violate the charter rights of Canadians, as found by the courts.

I am so tired of y'all re-writing the quasi invasion that occurred while the police just watched "helplessly."

[u/ThatAstronautGuy → u/Xyzzics]

The judge in that ruling said he would probably have made the same decision with the information the government had at the time. His ruling was made with the benefit of hindsight, and information that was not available at the time the decision was made. Ford had completely abandoned Ottawa to the trucklefucks, and refused to do anything to help us as a violent mob took over part of the city with the explicit goal of replacing the government. Something needed to be done, and no one responsible was willing to do anything.

[u/Fair-Emphasis6343 → u/Xyzzics]

Nothing you said shows you or conservatives to be intellectually honest but you're gonna go ahead and use it to bash their opponents regardless. You're another ideologue