Regarding your concerns about the notwithstanding clause: I, too, was very uneasy about the existence and use of the notwithstanding clause. How could it ever be okay to neutralize someone's charter rights? I had an experience that changed my view of it however.
I'm a donor to the Canadian Constitution Foundation. They sent a survey asking their supporters about different aspects of the constitution to better understand where they should direct their efforts. The notwithstanding clause was the most controversial item on the list, with roughly equal numbers of supporters strongly supporting it as opposing it.
Christine van Geyn, the CCF's Litigation Director, said something that changed my view of the clause. She said it could be seen as a way to balance the power of the courts with the legislature.
For me, that clicked. Freedom requires that we don't allow power to become too concentrated in any institution. The CCF has a book / pamphlet called "Freedom through Federalism" that discusses that same principle as it relates to the division of power between the provincial and federal governments. The courts are also an institution created by humans and as with all such institutions the courts can also be wrong. The notwithstanding clause allows legislatures to act as a check on the power of the court, just as the court can act as a check on the power of legislatures.
Related to this issue in particular, the way I see the invocation of the notwithstanding clause is this: This gender ideology is a fad. It will pass in time as its consequences become more widely known and we work through these issues in a broader public conversation. The invocation of the notwithstanding clause operates for five years. In five years, I hope we have advanced farther along this trajectory towards reason. Maybe it will need to be invoked again, maybe not. Maybe Saskatchewan will have a government willing to invoke it again ... maybe not. The notwithstanding clause is fairly self-limiting.
It can be used for good or ill, but it's part of the constitution for a reason and we should support its use for worthy purposes, just as we would support the use of violence to defend a person's life or family even though generally violence is not something we tolerate or allow.
Regarding your concerns about the notwithstanding clause: I, too, was very uneasy about the existence and use of the notwithstanding clause. How could it ever be okay to neutralize someone's charter rights? I had an experience that changed my view of it however.
I'm a donor to the Canadian Constitution Foundation. They sent a survey asking their supporters about different aspects of the constitution to better understand where they should direct their efforts. The notwithstanding clause was the most controversial item on the list, with roughly equal numbers of supporters strongly supporting it as opposing it.
Christine van Geyn, the CCF's Litigation Director, said something that changed my view of the clause. She said it could be seen as a way to balance the power of the courts with the legislature.
For me, that clicked. Freedom requires that we don't allow power to become too concentrated in any institution. The CCF has a book / pamphlet called "Freedom through Federalism" that discusses that same principle as it relates to the division of power between the provincial and federal governments. The courts are also an institution created by humans and as with all such institutions the courts can also be wrong. The notwithstanding clause allows legislatures to act as a check on the power of the court, just as the court can act as a check on the power of legislatures.
Related to this issue in particular, the way I see the invocation of the notwithstanding clause is this: This gender ideology is a fad. It will pass in time as its consequences become more widely known and we work through these issues in a broader public conversation. The invocation of the notwithstanding clause operates for five years. In five years, I hope we have advanced farther along this trajectory towards reason. Maybe it will need to be invoked again, maybe not. Maybe Saskatchewan will have a government willing to invoke it again ... maybe not. The notwithstanding clause is fairly self-limiting.
It can be used for good or ill, but it's part of the constitution for a reason and we should support its use for worthy purposes, just as we would support the use of violence to defend a person's life or family even though generally violence is not something we tolerate or allow.
Great explanation and insight. Thank you for sharing.
It's so sad to see this stuff happening to kids.
Quebec trots out the Notwithstanding Clause at the drop of a hat. I can't stand that clause because it makes a mockery of our Constitution.
But if everyone's doing it, cheers to Moe! Canada's woke bench goes too far in abrogating parents' rights.