News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.9K     0 

Our own Constitution allows for the suspension of human rights (at least those in the Charter) and disregarding the Supreme Court if deemed necessary by the legislatures or Ottawa. Every time Canadians vote we choose the leader who may one day suspend those rights, such as Quebec’s clearly unconstitutional secularism law, Bill 21.That’s why we (and Americans, El Salvadorans, and anyone in a democracy) should always be careful who we vote for, since yes indeed human rights are put to a vote every time. Let’s hope Americans understand this when/if they next vote in Nov. 2026 in the midterms, and for the White House in Nov. 2029.
You almost saying that like it's a good thing...

...either way, that's a very poor example of exceptions and yeah buts here...as that's one of those clauses that really shouldn't be in there in the first place. And was put there to appease Quebec, to my understanding, to sign on to said constitution at the time to which they never did. So yeah, that's pretty bad.

And that said, my point still stands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T3G
...either way, that's a very poor example of exceptions and yeah buts here...as that's one of those clauses that really shouldn't be in there in the first place. And was put there to appease Quebec, to my understanding, to sign on to said constitution at the time to which they never did. So yeah, that's pretty bad.
Quebec gets a bad rep on the NWS clause, probably because they have become its biggest fan, but there was a fairly widespread desire amongst the provinces to entrench some kind of escape clause for their concern of federal legislative excess. The irony is, the feds have never invoked it.

This is from a Library of Parliament summary of the history of 'the clause':

Consequently, throughout October 1981, a number of meetings took place among federal and provincial officials and ministers in preparation for a Federal–Provincial Conference of First Ministers to be held from 2 to 5 November 1981. One measure proposed at different times and in different forms by Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan was the possibility of a notwithstanding provision.

4 November 1981 First Ministers’ Conference​

The First Ministers’ Conference seemed to be at a stalemate on 4 November 1981 when the federal Minister of Justice, Jean Chrétien, and the Attorneys General of Ontario and Saskatchewan, Roy McMurtry and Roy Romanow, worked out a possible compromise. The text of the agreement, completed overnight and without Quebec’s participation, included entrenchment of a charter of rights with a notwithstanding provision applicable to fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights.
 
This "federal legislative excess" provinces are afraid of is viewed differently by people who have gained equality over the years, and who wouldn't want the Charter to become mere ink on a page due to the notwithstanding clause. As a gay man, I've always been acutely aware that society can accept a minority one day and barely tolerate it the next, or worse. It should not be possible to "escape" from upholding human rights guaranteed by the constitution.
 
This "federal legislative excess" provinces are afraid of is viewed differently by people who have gained equality over the years, and who wouldn't want the Charter to become mere ink on a page due to the notwithstanding clause. As a gay man, I've always been acutely aware that society can accept a minority one day and barely tolerate it the next, or worse. It should not be possible to "escape" from upholding human rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Important to note here that many 'rights' we understand to exist under the Charter have been read-in, or interpreted to exist by the Supreme Court.

That isn't a knock in anyway on the Charter, or the Court. But simply to state that many rights we now enjoy aren't actually there in the written text, per se.

Under the 'Living Tree' doctrine that prevails in Canadian Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, the way in which the Charter is read is to evolve with the context of the times.

To date, almost all of us will have seen that as favouring expansion of personal rights, from reproductive rights (access to abortion), to medical assistance in dying, to maximum wait times for trials etc etc.
Worth noting, however, is that in theory, the Living Tree doctrine could see a future court curtail rights in the context of its times.

The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't have a single over-arching interpretive theory, but generally, its more conservative members are 'originalists' who claim to want to interpret the text of the constitution in line with original
intent of its authors. Whether they actually do this is somewhat debatable, but I digress.

I note, here, the reversal of Roe V. Wade, despite Supreme Court precedent, by said Supreme Court.

I do so simply to continue on with the Democracy is fragile comment I made up thread.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum, and institutions don't continue to behave the way they have in the past, 'just cause'. Institutions doing well need ongoing attention and support. Institutions doing badly need intervention at the first opportunity.
Apathy will soon find one in a different place than the world you knew.
 
Last edited:
Important to note here that many 'rights' we understand to exist under the Charter have been read-in, or interpreted to exist by the Supreme Court.

That isn't a knock in anyway on the Charter, or the Court. But simply to state that many rights we now enjoy aren't actually there in the written text, per se.

Under the 'Living Tree' doctrine that prevails in Canadian Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, the way in which the Charter is read is to evolve with the context of the times.

To date, almost all of us will have seen that as favouring expansion of personal rights, from reproductive rights (access to abortion), medical assistance in dying, to maximum wait times for trials etc etc.
Worth noting, however, is that in theory, the Living Tree doctrine could see a future court curtail rights in the context of its times.
The living tree doctrine but also the open-ended wording of section 15(1) on equality rights. In that sense it could be argued that the Supreme Court is doing what the legislator intended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
The living tree doctrine but also the open-ended wording of section 15(1) on equality rights. In that sense it could be argued that the Supreme Court is doing what the legislator intended.

I don't disagree. I'm simply noting that vaguery can cut both ways, which is why we must be attentive to our institutions and rights, rather than apathetic.
 
Quebec gets a bad rep on the NWS clause, probably because they have become its biggest fan, but there was a fairly widespread desire amongst the provinces to entrench some kind of escape clause for their concern of federal legislative excess.
It's definitely in DoFo's tool box.
 
...to be clear, I get that the rights and freedoms are tenously built on the shifting sands of public/government opinions and weird clauses and interpretations of the constitution. both here and down there. It doesn't take away from the fact that they need to be far more entrenched than they are now. It's standard baseline that should exist in every jurisdiction, IMO.
 


ICE and various marines and military equipment randomly showed up to a park in Los Angeles with no warning. The LA Mayor called authorities in an attempt to get them to leave.
 
Last edited:
President Trump floats a federal takeover of New York City, should Zohran Mamdani be elected mayor, and says the administration could test a takeover of Washington, D.C. “We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to.”
Premier Doug Ford is watching for ideas. He already did "take over" school boards in Ontario.
 

Back
Top