Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
No doubt, but I was referring to it from the perspective of assuming good faith and desiring to follow the charter. But in any event while you can’t stop a law or action that is not in accordance with the charter from happening there are still mechanisms in place to deal with violations.
|
I think you may have missed the purpose of my post...
If a majority government (federal or provincial) passes a law that says the law will operate notwithstanding the violation(s) of the very long list of Charter rights I noted in my initial post, then your mechanism to "deal with violations" is vote out the government and have it replaced with one that will repeal said law (which you can only be assured of the opportunity to do that once every 5 years).
And really my whole point was people need to pay attention to what is already happening in front of their own eyes and stop approaching the analysis from a place where you presume good faith and an inherent desire to follow the Charter.
Doug Ford has openly and repeatedly declared he will appoint judges that will provide the results he desires. Pierre Pollievre is telling law enforcement agencies he will use all tools available to him to give them the results they desire. Danielle Smith gives nearly daily sermons of what she personally thinks the constitution actually means (which is rarely what it does mean according to the actual law as written). Her government is pushing through a law right now that will empower her cabinet to cancel municipal bylaws and replace elected municipal officials (hint, that won't be done unless the bylaws or municipal officials are creating results her cabinet doesn't like).
To Makarov's point - I am not sure that spending 'enormous political capital' is either (a) even accurate anymore in the post-Covid society where apparently all societal norms and public institutions are up for dismantling by yelling FREEDOM and then doing whatever you want, or (b) in any way a deterrent to a government with a strong majority and confidence the electorate will tolerate significant harm on broad issues as long as they get an election promise to at some unknown time in the future give them lots of money or something else they care about.
In the end my point simply is that advocates and political types should stop saying carpet-bomb style use of the section 33 notwithstanding clause is somehow "undemocratic" or "unconstitutional" or "not the intent" of the law.
It is quite literally, democratic, constitutional and we only have a Charter because that very broad escape valve was built in.
We should be open and frank that it is perfectly legal for a majority government to take drastic steps to undermine the Charter rights of Canadians in any number of ways that might seem hard to even fathom. And so when you are voting in upcoming elections you should start to fathom...and at least be honest with yourself about what you are allowing to be done to your neighbours if you vote for some personal benefit and choose to just not care about the potential mayhem that will come along with it (if you actually even get your promised benefit once the election is over).