this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
64 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10678 readers
357 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

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

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leastaction@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

The author tries hard to excuse Peter Lougheed but the fact is that it was his idea to begin with. If he thought it should require a two thirds majority then he should have fought to have that written into the Constitution. Opinions are irrelevant. The fact is that the Notwithstanding Clause exists because the premiers wanted politicians to be the ultimate arbiters of what rights and freedoms should be and not the courts. It is doing exactly what it was intended to do. I know of no other country that has a Constitution and gives politicians the ability to ignore it. I am tired of being told it's up to voters to correct this sort of thing. No, it isn't, for several reasons. Even if we vote down a government that abuses the Notwithstanding Clause, it will still be there and there is absolutely no guarantee it won't be abused in the future. The Notwithstanding Clause has to be eliminated by a constitutional amendment, permanently. And that is the politicians' responsibility, not the voters'.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry, not Canadian but I want to confirm: The Notwithstanding Clause allows provincial legislatures to specifically violate the constitution and prevent courts from reviewing the matter?

Is the only recourse to wait, unelect the provincial legislators responsible, and then undo it?

I’ve never known of this until now and am completely shocked this exists as a real legal mechanism…

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 15 points 11 hours ago

It allows the violation of certain individual clauses of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the entire Constitution, and its effect lapses after five years if whatever chucklefucks are in office at the provincial level at that time don't care enough to reconfirm the violation. Not that that's much better.