What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
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
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
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.
"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.
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.
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.
I think they were talking about repatriation.
The Charter and Repatriation happened in 1982.
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.
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.
Overruling the Supreme Court, the Conservative way. Trump would be proud.
PP is copying trump in everyway, at the behest of putin.
God he’s an asshole. I’m not happy with the ruling but I’m no conservative cry baby.
Emphasis my own.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the one-year prison sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography set out in the Criminal Code violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.
The top court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.
But there's so much misinformation among conservatives... They're obviously going for the headlines, and low information voters.
I’ll also add (for the people that aren’t going to read the article) that they decided the one-year minimum was harmful because in a situation like an 18-year-old receiving an unrequested nude from a 17-year-old, the 18-year-old would get a year in prison.
this would be true if they were both 17, even.
All our sentences should have context, that’s why minimums don’t make any sense.
there's so much misinformation among conservatives... They're obviously going for the headlines, and low information voters.
As is tradition.