All of those free speech hating, SJWs are trying to abuse our constituti-- oh wait, it's actually Brad Wall and the Muslim haters.
Huh.
Can you really just ignore the constitution if you feel like it? Canada's notwithstanding clause explained
It’s been a big week for Canada’s famed notwithstanding clause. Quebec is hinting that it might use the clause to protect their new anti-niqab law from a federal court challenge.
And in Saskatchewan’s speech from the throne, outgoing premier Brad Wall again promised to use the clause to override a court order mandating that the provincial government stop paying for non-Catholics to go to Catholic school.
“We will introduce legislation that will protect the right to school choice by invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” it read.
The notwithstanding clause (section 33 of the Constitution Act) is exactly as strange as it sounds: It’s a magical section of the Canadian constitution that allows provincial governments to simply ignore a key section of the constitution if they don’t like it.
The only rule is that the governments have to first announce that they’re doing it. Specifically, they have to stand up in their legislature and announce that they’re going to pass an act “notwithstanding” whatever it says in the constitution.
What’s most surprising about the clause is that it allows provinces to override what are arguably the most important parts of the constitution: The “fundamental freedoms” and “legal rights” of Canadian citizens.
Freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, protections from arbitrary imprisonment and search, “the right to life, liberty and security of the person” — all of these can technically be ignored by a provincial government provided they announce it first.
To be sure, the Constitution does insert a time limit on how long a province can get away with this. “A declaration … shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force,” reads the clause.
However, this is easily overridden by the fact that the province can simply “re-enact” their constitution-flouting declaration.
Naturally, other democratic countries don’t this. As our own Library of Parliament notes in a summary, the idea of building an escape clause into a human rights code “appears to be a uniquely Canadian development.”
The Constitution of Japan specifically states that the document overrides every other “law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government.” It’s a similar deal in South Africa, where the constitution is held as “supreme” and any other contradictory law is declared “invalid.”
The U.S. Constitution, which is taken particularly seriously by its adherents, definitively states that it “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”
Can you really just ignore the constitution if you feel like it? Canada’s notwithstanding clause explained | National Post
Huh.
Can you really just ignore the constitution if you feel like it? Canada's notwithstanding clause explained
It’s been a big week for Canada’s famed notwithstanding clause. Quebec is hinting that it might use the clause to protect their new anti-niqab law from a federal court challenge.
And in Saskatchewan’s speech from the throne, outgoing premier Brad Wall again promised to use the clause to override a court order mandating that the provincial government stop paying for non-Catholics to go to Catholic school.
“We will introduce legislation that will protect the right to school choice by invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” it read.
The notwithstanding clause (section 33 of the Constitution Act) is exactly as strange as it sounds: It’s a magical section of the Canadian constitution that allows provincial governments to simply ignore a key section of the constitution if they don’t like it.
The only rule is that the governments have to first announce that they’re doing it. Specifically, they have to stand up in their legislature and announce that they’re going to pass an act “notwithstanding” whatever it says in the constitution.
What’s most surprising about the clause is that it allows provinces to override what are arguably the most important parts of the constitution: The “fundamental freedoms” and “legal rights” of Canadian citizens.
Freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, protections from arbitrary imprisonment and search, “the right to life, liberty and security of the person” — all of these can technically be ignored by a provincial government provided they announce it first.
To be sure, the Constitution does insert a time limit on how long a province can get away with this. “A declaration … shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force,” reads the clause.
However, this is easily overridden by the fact that the province can simply “re-enact” their constitution-flouting declaration.
Naturally, other democratic countries don’t this. As our own Library of Parliament notes in a summary, the idea of building an escape clause into a human rights code “appears to be a uniquely Canadian development.”
The Constitution of Japan specifically states that the document overrides every other “law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government.” It’s a similar deal in South Africa, where the constitution is held as “supreme” and any other contradictory law is declared “invalid.”
The U.S. Constitution, which is taken particularly seriously by its adherents, definitively states that it “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”
Can you really just ignore the constitution if you feel like it? Canada’s notwithstanding clause explained | National Post
