...because it was suggested here that it is impossible, and it is indeed very possible, if anyone had the legislative stupidity to decide to do it. Listen, I haven’t spoken disrespectfully to you at all, petros, stop making this personal.
Should Canada revoke freedom of religion for Muslims?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Are you 100% sure some aren't Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jew or even atheist?
And so we should start killing some Muslim boys in response? Brilliant:roll:
How about we limit the war to those persons trying to kill our boys in Afghanistan rather than using their entire civilization for target practice.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are even a few secular nationalists among the group.
No, it would allow one piece of legislation to operate notwithstanding one subsection of the Charter, for a period of no more than five years unless declared to be continued for a further period of five years by resolution of both the Senate and Commons, and agreed to by the Governor General. The rest of the Charter would continue in full force and effect (as would s. 2(a), insofar as it does not relate to any sort of ban on a particular faith as expressly declared by Parliament). The entire Charter would not be voided, only one subsection would be curtailed (which is already permitted by s. 1 of the Charter, which makes it very clear that Parliament has the authority to place lawful limits on rights and freedoms).
The main idea of the Charter is equality. If one group is segregated then the entire document is moot.
Then the Charter is already there, since the notwithstanding clause has been used several times.
You can not "revoke freedom of religion for Muslims". The phrase is an oxymoron. You either have freedom of religion, or you don't. The sect does not matter.
It is an all or nothing thing.
In 2000, before it was ruled that the definition of marriage was exclusively the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta passed amendments to the province’s Marriage Act, including an opposite-sex definition of marriage protected by the notwithstanding clause against court challenges. This use of the notwithstanding clause expired five years later, and was never renewed by the provincial legislature.
The most uses of the notwithstanding clause have been in Québec; once the Constitution Act, 1982 was brought into force, the National Assembly of Québec protested the changes to the constitutional by including the notwithstanding clause in all legislation introduced and passed throughout 1982 (meaning that none of its legislation would be subject to those sections of the Charter). This use of the notwithstanding clause was also not renewed, and they expired in 1987. The National Assembly has also used the notwithstanding clause in a language bill that revoked s. 15 (the equality of the English and French language), and s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) in order to force businesses to remove all English signage. After much criticism, the National Assembly amended its bill to conform to the Charter, and removed the use of the notwithstanding clause.
The Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan has also used the notwithstanding clause to order persons on strike to return to work (this was before a ruling from the bench that indicated that the Charter does not guarantee to Canadians the right to strike; the use of the notwithstanding clause for back-to-work legislation has not been required since that ruling).
The most uses of the notwithstanding clause have been in Québec; once the Constitution Act, 1982 was brought into force, the National Assembly of Québec protested the changes to the constitutional by including the notwithstanding clause in all legislation introduced and passed throughout 1982 (meaning that none of its legislation would be subject to those sections of the Charter). This use of the notwithstanding clause was also not renewed, and they expired in 1987. The National Assembly has also used the notwithstanding clause in a language bill that revoked s. 15 (the equality of the English and French language), and s. 2(b) (freedom of expression) in order to force businesses to remove all English signage. After much criticism, the National Assembly amended its bill to conform to the Charter, and removed the use of the notwithstanding clause.
The Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan has also used the notwithstanding clause to order persons on strike to return to work (this was before a ruling from the bench that indicated that the Charter does not guarantee to Canadians the right to strike; the use of the notwithstanding clause for back-to-work legislation has not been required since that ruling).
Read closely. All citations given were used to protect rights, culture and labour law not remove rights.
I don’t need to read closely, I wrote what you just quoted.
In the case of Saskatchewan, the Legislative Assembly used the notwithstanding clause because it thought people might challenge it for rejecting their right to strike (which it thought, until a court ruling, was protected under the Charter). Then we have Québec, who used the notwithstanding clause to quash the language rights of English-speaking Quebeckers. Then we have Alberta, who used the notwithstanding clause to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Addendum
The point is, not a single one of these instances voided the entire Charter. It is a perfectly effective and legal practice (albeit most certainly distasteful) to use the notwithstanding clause to place limits on rights and freedoms as determined by one of our federal or provincial legislative bodies. The argument that the use thereof voids the Charter or somehow renders the rest of the document useless has been disproven.
In the case of Saskatchewan, the Legislative Assembly used the notwithstanding clause because it thought people might challenge it for rejecting their right to strike (which it thought, until a court ruling, was protected under the Charter). Then we have Québec, who used the notwithstanding clause to quash the language rights of English-speaking Quebeckers. Then we have Alberta, who used the notwithstanding clause to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Addendum
The point is, not a single one of these instances voided the entire Charter. It is a perfectly effective and legal practice (albeit most certainly distasteful) to use the notwithstanding clause to place limits on rights and freedoms as determined by one of our federal or provincial legislative bodies. The argument that the use thereof voids the Charter or somehow renders the rest of the document useless has been disproven.
Yes and Sask has in the mean time passed a bill on "essential services" which are necessary to ensure all the other rights are upheld like security and health care.
It applies only to a handful occupations whether union or not to ensure the safety and well being of the citizens of Sask.
Any other union or individual can walk off the job under the labour act and file claim through the labour board.
Once again it was used to uphold rights and not take any away.
It applies only to a handful occupations whether union or not to ensure the safety and well being of the citizens of Sask.
Any other union or individual can walk off the job under the labour act and file claim through the labour board.
Once again it was used to uphold rights and not take any away.
The very definition of ‘notwithstanding’ is to ignore something.
Legislation that uses the notwithstanding clause is given permission to ignore the Charter—ignoring fundamental rights and freedoms. It has been used multiple times, and the Charter nonetheless remains in full force and effect. Your argument has been disproven. You can’t possibly argue that Québec and Alberta did not deny rights through their uses of the notwithstanding clause.
Do you not understand what s. 33 of the Charter is?
The notwithstanding clause has only one use: To allow a piece of legislation to ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When Alberta changed the provincial Marriage Act to include an opposite-sex-only definition of marriage, they included the notwithstanding clause because their law would have been invalid when held up against the Charter (for denying the equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Canadians). In Québec, the National Assembly used the notwithstanding clause with its language legislation because it would have been unconstitutional for denying English-speaking Canadians the right to publically display any use of English on signs. In the first case, the use of the notwithstanding clause denied the rights of same-sex couples, and in the second case, it denied the language rights of English-speaking Quebeckers.
The notwithstanding clause is designed to make exceptions to the Charter, not to protect it.
I don't have a problem with that. The problem is the enemy hides behind a shield of innocents.
Why are none of the clause attempts valid today? Because they did not uphold rights equally and were shot down.