this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
51 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10612 readers
661 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
51
Poilievre says he’d invoke notwithstanding clause to overturn ruling on child porn sentences | CBC News (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 4 days ago by AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 53 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Poilievre says he'd invoke notwithstanding clause..."

That's all I need to hear.

Any politician - ANY politician - who preemptively threatens notwithstanding should be barred from office for life.

The NWC should be invoked only as a last resort, and should destroy the career of the politician wielding it. It needs to be political suicide - an ultimate sacrifice to bring right actiin to society.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Okay I'm not Canadian so maybe I'm missing something, but I just looked it up and the NWC should not exist in an even remotely democratic society. If it's possible to override your freedom, that freedom doesn't exist. It's impossible for such a power to exist and not be abused, if a non-abusive use of it can even exist.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)
  1. As part of constitutional negotiations, the Notwithstanding Clause was added. In a sense, the Notwithstanding Clause was literally needed to help ~~form Canada itself~~ repatriate the Canadian constitution.
  2. Invoking the Notwithstanding Clause, is time limited to 5 years. At which point, it was originally thought that it's use was either going to be politically costly or accepted by society. Though, with winner-take-all electoral systems, the electorate can't really hold politicians accountable anyway.
[–] honc@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982, so this has nothing to do with the formation of Canada, only this charter and the Constitution.

Before that we had the Bill of Rights (enacted in 1960) and before that we had no formal expression of human rights in Canada.

Forming Canada happened back in 1867.

It is true that the Notwithstanding Clause was negotiated and we likely wouldn’t have the charter without it, but it was very “late” in Canada’s history.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 days ago

I think they were talking about repatriation.

The Charter and Repatriation happened in 1982.

[–] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago

"Poilievre says .."

Is all I needed to hear. Dude was kicked to the curb by his riding, should have packed up and gone home. Politics shouldn't be a lifelong career.

[–] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 days ago

Absolutely. Danielle Smith just used it twice recently (the anti-trans bill and the teacher's strike), effectively telling Albertans that they don't actually have rights, merely privileges, tolerated by and subject to the whims of the UCP.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

I think it's an important tool to have under very specific scenarios. I don't think it should destroy a politician's career if used properly.

However, conservatives are using it to shove their ideologies down people's throat. That's bad.