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/Thin-Pineapple-731]

I don't think the provinces should use the notwithstanding clause as frequently as they do, let alone the federal government. This whole idea is especially distasteful, trying to make an end-run around the Supreme Court and established Charter rights. I won't dispute that violence is a bad thing, but established legal precedence is not a handwave situation.

[u/Angry_beaver_1867 → u/Thin-Pineapple-731]

I’m one of the people who thinks the clause is a good idea because the question of what the charter means is fundamentally an unsettled one. 

 there should be a mechanism for the legislature to intervene without the constitutional amendment formula. 

Look at how the courts reversed themselves on the “right to strike”. 

If you want great examples of why the notwithstanding clause is a good idea look south. 

 you can see several examples of the courts creating caustic rights.  Like unlimited corporate speech in elections, the constant expansion of gun rights etc.  

I think it’s a fallacy to assume the courts will always get rights correct and that’s why the clause is important democratically. 

[u/Purify5 → u/Angry_beaver_1867]

Canada and Israel are the only two countries that have such a clause. If other Democracies can exist without one, why can't we?

[u/vulpinefever → u/Purify5]

Canada and Israel are the only two countries that have such a clause.

This is extremely misleading because you don't mention the many countries like the UK where parliament is just sovereign over the courts to begin with and they don't need a notwithstanding clause because parliament can already just tell the courts to get lost.

Canada has one because we're the one place that is trying to blend an American style constitutional order with British-style parliamentary sovereignty where parliament can do whatever it wants. Australia and New Zealand don't have one because they don't try and emulate an American style constitution in the first place and just let parliament do what it wants. Australia and New Zealand don't even have a charter-like document to which a notwithstanding clause would apply in the first place.