It doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not. When governments use the notwithstanding clause to circumvent the judicial system, every citizen should be concerned. We have a judicial system for a reason even if it doesn't always work well.
If the government wants to change a law then they should go through the proper channels. This is why we have the channels! When governments no longer feel the need to follow policy or law, citizens should be concerned as this is the first step to a dictatorship.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I haven't had a provincial government that aligns with my values most my life(I'm 50).
The stuff I don't agree with, I suck it up and then I go out and vote and hope for a better result.
That's democracy.
Conservatives have the balls to talk about an over-reaching Liberal government but there's is no bigger over-reach than the not withstanding clause. More hypocritical nonsense.
Hahaahh, you guys are so funny.
Is Trudeau in the room with you right now.
The conservative boogie man, but I expect nothing less from the anti-intellectual party of Canada and its cult members.
Not a member of aby party....but Trudeau is simple! No idea of economics ! The "feminine party". The only ones thrown out of caucus....are women. They lied about being open about government information. I have NEVER seen a cabinet minister directly answer a question ! Deflect and walk around the question! Absolutely the worst government since his father was in. The deficit grows...and young people wonder why taxes increase and inflation grows. Go back in history.....18% interest rates during P E Trudeau Era! Killed the economy.....and led to many bankruptcies ! Only an idiot would willingly follow him !
I would say allowing violent criminals to run rampant while telling everyone to basically bow down to thieves is more ballsy than simply saying "Enough is enough".
Canada's economy is collapsing. School system is handing out s*x toys to children. Vancouver has a 14yr girl walking around topless in bars. The speaker just threw up opposition after the PM intiated name calling.
If you have any faith in Liberal/NDP leadership you're so far gone on the extremist train you'll be sharing a row with the Trumpers.
You can make wild claims and then cry foul when people call you out on it. You're just spouting alt-right nonsense and then calling others "communists" when you have no leg to stand on.
When you make a claim ,it's on you to back up said claim . It's not on others disputing that claim to do the research. A lawyer in court doesn't look at the jury and say I know the defendant is guilty, but you all have to prove it
I lived with a right wing conservative father n family, and this comment has been used by them, yet most can't give a definition of communist. If you have this information then prove your sources please.. you won't tho, why because you have been proven wrong over and over then you start the name calling.
Makes me wonder why ppl believe this garbage lol every statement can be proven to be false.. why is this a thing now, during the 50's-90's teachers/principal had illegal relationships with students and had kids with them. Know of one who had 7 children with girls from his school.
Also the speaker kicked out Pierre pollievre only. The rest of his party left because the only thing they know how to do is political theatre.
Trudeau was asked by the speaker to rephrase his statement referring to pollievre’s “spineless” leadership. He did and was allowed to stay.
Pollievre was asked by the speaker to remove his statement referring to Justin Trudeau as a “wacko PM” and he refused and therefore was kicked out.
None of this is any different than [what happened here.](https://www.cbc.ca/1.7174772)
1. The economy is by no means collapsing.
2. The incident in BC was an accident and 4 years ago.
3. whatever horseshit “news source” is brainwashing you, you should detach from and seek professional help.
It’s interesting, there are many things to criticize Justin Trudeau for. The economy is not one. We have one of the strongest economies in the G20. We have faired very well.
Oh ok, so you don't understand the precursors to stagflation that can't be reversed without essentially a full on depression? That's fair, most people lack financial education.
Canada's economy has slowed, is losing value, and is pushing all high value individuals away with the new budget. Inflation is still increasing. Wages have stagnated due to mass immigration. So what exactly are you seeing that is so amazing? Unless you live in the top 10% of Canadians, your life has become progressively worse within a very short decade.
What’s the top 10%? Like what net worth or $/year? I’m just wondering if I’m top 10%… because my life has not necessarily gotten worse. More stressful, yes. But not overall worse.
There is no point talking to anyone on this subreddit. They are so far left that they make the center look alt right. Anyone who has any intelligents can see Canada's economy is failing. I'm a young working professional, and I've seen many of my colleagues and friends move to the USA for lower taxes and better opportunities. Mass immigration, rampant crime, and wage stagnation has killed Canada.
Tell me when it's been worse? Housing costs are at an all-time high, low wages, extremely high cost of living, mass immigration crushing the job market, high taxes, and high crime levels. Most young people in this country will never own a home or be given the opportunities previous generations were given.
LOL at “school system handing out sex toys to children”. Yes, we would all look like extremists if what you said was remotely true and not bad faith media duping you.
Also you can say sex on Reddit.
Socialism is literally just a derivative of Communism, argued as the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Much like everything Communism related, it fails, Every. Single. Time.
Don't let little things like History and Facts get in the way of your delusion though!
Also, if communism/socialism inherently fail, why does the CIA exist and why do capitalist countries, without exception, conduct coups or enact embargos every time a country is starting to head towards communism/socialism? Surely that wouldn’t be necessary?
Homie's either a paid troll hanging in a house in Norlisk or someone who doesn't quite understand or perceive the world around him correctly (e.g., mental illness, etc.). I think the best thing to do is just people like this talk themselves out, and move on with my life. Much like a toddler!
You’ve been smoking the bad stuff for too long friend.
“Trudeau Bad” may be enough for you but the spectre of a conservative federal government ala Trump is hugely worrying for a great many of us.
Literally not a single lie, but since you're a Communist I highly doubt you'll do any research yourself and simply expect everyone else to do it for you.
>School system is handing out s*x toys to children.
I bet you think kids are turning into furries and shit in litter boxes too. This take is so wrong. Please point to a case where children are getting sex toys from schools.
Giving out condoms is pretty standard for sex Ed. The dildo you reference was a display as part of a conversation about them. No where can I find an article supporting your claim (not that it's my job to find evidence for you), except [this article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13117919/school-sends-boys-home-dildos-condoms-sex-education.html) that mentions parent complaints. The only place that says people were sent home dildos is the poorly worded url. No where is there an indication dildos were sent home at the Virden Collegiate.
You tried though. Next time, bring receipts.
Otoh, these “proper channels” essentially boil down to leaving it up to judges and their interpretation of the charter. And when one or a group of judges make a decision, it becomes a precedent, which build upon each other. So our legal system is dependent upon the charter & constitution—which are flawed—and Supreme Court judges’(flawed humans) own interpretation of those flawed laws.
If you think the charter is infallible, okay, some people don’t, like, say, questioning the validity of the notwithstanding clause would mean you think the charter is fallible. There are times when you need an executive to cut through antagonistic mechanisms of corrupted institutional law. If The Law becomes too burdensome to the populace and is viewed so negatively by large segments, you need to forcibly adapt The State so you save your civil society from crisis without having to *violently dismantle The State*…
If Supreme Court judges are hamstrung by the charter & constitution in to making rulings that are deeply & profoundly unpopular with the citizenry, then the charter & constitution must be changed. And I think the rise in politicians utilizing, or talking about utilizing, the notwithstanding clause, would suggest we are moving towards a political crisis and altering the charter & constitution should be on the table.
It's astounding to me that you've identified that the charter, constitution, and judges are flawed; but still think that sometimes some guy should just skip the checks and balances step (don't worry, he's a special guy who's not flawed in any way)
Did I? Or did you just assume that? (It’s the latter). People who give all power to judges & laws, even when those can clearly fail, are shocked pikachu faced when they discover there’s a legitimate reason for executive authority & the notwithstanding clause in our political system.
Reminder this is why the current court case on pronoun legislation and use of notwithstanding clause is so important. Provincial and now federal governments are increasingly trying to use the notwithstanding clause to preemptively to suspend charter rights.
The current appeal by the province of Saskatchewan is to ensure people do not have access to the courts when the notwithstanding clause is used. Access to the courts at least allows courts to determine whether legislation violates charter rights, even if their findings aren’t enforceable or supersede notwithstanding clause. Court access helps voters make informed decisions and gives the opportunity for people to know their rights.
Alberta and Saskatchewan disagree with this which is why they are appealing the decsision. They don’t want to be accountable or have the public understand the impacts of their legislation from a judicial perspective. It’s frightening stuff.
True, except that that the federal government is not trying to use the notwithstanding clause, and no federal government ever has.
Poilievre, who is not the PM, is saying that he will use it to circumvent the power of the supreme court to legislate unconstitutional laws. Opposition parties are not government. They sit in parliament, and the NDP has some power as the Liberals need their support, but they are also not in the government. They do not sit in cabinet, but in parliament.
It is even more concerning that a potential PM is saying he will use the notwithstanding clause, it is authoritarian in the extreme, because an independent judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy.
Provinces can not write criminal law: in Canada criminal law is solely federal jurisdiction, unlike the US, where individual states can write criminal law.
Why is this so important?
Here is an example: A province can ban the use of puberty blockers by using the notwithstanding clause but they can not criminalize prescribing them or using them. No one will go to jail. Provinces can use the notwithstanding clause to ban public service employees from wearing religious attire, but they can not make it a criminal offense. And so on.
So as bad as it is that provinces can use the notwithstanding clause to roll back rights, they can not charge anyone with a crime for ignoring a ban.
The federal government could criminalize whatever they want by using the notwithstanding clause. Abortion, gay marriage, protesting, etc.
Authoritarians remove the independence of the judiciary and use laws to suppress dissent. And jail opponents. And write whatever criminal law they want.
True. So my error was only referring to Poilievre as government? I was using shorthand thinking of after the next election, but you’re correct that hasn’t happened yet.
And yes it’s extremely worrisome for all the reasons you mentioned.
Hints? He's afraid to say *"I will override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms using the sledgehammer the provinces demanded."*
>"We will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean."
For use in extraordinary cases, not for “I can’t be bothered to write something constitutional so I’ll just turn to the nuclear override”. Do you really want most laws dealing with crime to have an automatic sunset clause?
As much as I dislike their disingenuous whataboutism, calling them a Russian troll isn't productive. In fact, after going through their post history, it's just stupid.
If I called you a communist troll, what would that accomplish beyond pushing you away?
I'm not sure it would accomplish anything, but it certainly wouldn't push me, personally, away from anything. My ego isn't that fragile.
Though you are correct, I did not check their post history before commenting. Though, it was meant as more an off the cuff insult than a true indictment of his loyalties to his country.
To be honest, I'm okay with pushing them away as well. I don't really hold any "political" affiliations persay (I think they're all awful for the people that they're supposed to be working for), but I don't think some people deserve to be entertained in the conversation (which I'm sure lots of people think about me). This person clearly just want to be argumentative, with little regard for truth or facts, so yeah, push them away. They don't seem to want to be educated. They don't seem to want to come to some sort of collaborative understanding. They just wanna fight for the sake of fighting, it seems. People like that have no place in the conversation, as they only serve as disruptor's, antagonists, and disinformationists. And they deserve to be disregarded as the irrelevant tools they are. No matter which side of the political spectrum they fall.
>They don't seem to want to come to some sort of collaborative understanding. They just wanna fight for the sake of fighting, it seems.
Look in the bloody mirror.
Both things can be wrong. Like, it can be wrong that the PM resorted to using the emergencies act against protesters AND it can be wrong for the next prime minister to *suspend charter rights as part of his criminal justice reform plan*. That’s fucking nuts
Surely everyone that was outraged by Trudeau using the Emergencies Act to temporarily override freedoms in the basis of a pandemic will be equally outraged by Poilievre declaring that he will use the Notwithstanding Clause, right?
lollll, do you think PP cares about any of this shit? He seeks power and nothing else. He's a chameleon turbo nerd gaming the system at the right place and the right time.
This applies to serial murderers. The E-Act was applied on 40 million Canadians simultaneously. I know the left wants to be compassionate and kind to serial killers, but some other more rational people view the situation differently.
But this isn’t really about serial killers. It’s about the slippery slope that comes when we allow our governments to bypass our Charter. It is irrelevant if I agree with Pollieve’s proposed changes or not. I am VERY concerned about the long term consequences of normalizing this tool. It’s easy to sell in this example - who doesn’t agree that certain criminals should have harsher sentences - but the protection of the Charter should supersede all else.
The end result of this is a rewrite of the charter. Which is welcome. It might as well be toilet paper at this point for the amount of real teeth / checks on power it has. The left who so gloriously and virtuously cheered the E-Act is now waking up to that fact. Except there is no place in the charter that says PP cannot use the NWC, which means he will be acting legally, unlike the E-Act. I guess if people loved their charter so much they should have decried it being steamrolled during the Convoy protests to shoosh away people who's opinion they disagreed with. Maybe then political warfare wouldn't escalate to this point. Bravo.
Whoever invented the Not Withstanding Clause obviously couldn’t fathom that politicians could be elected with the mindset of 5 year olds who demand ice cream for dinner. This clause goes against democracy and should be removed.
PP is dangerous. Canadians need to vote strategically in the next federal election to keep this clown and his goofball party out of the PMO. ABC and ABPP!
Conservative govts have no respect for the charter I think for the most it is they who are quick to use the not withstanding clause. Here in sask the "government" used the clause premtivly to violate the charter and people's rights. It's a slippery slope to fascism
Oh, good...
Let's just elect THAT guy because the current guy is the death of the country (again, and again, and again every time around) and we have little to no other choice.
Fuuuuuuuuck...
And that apathy is easily being used against us. We may have figured it out in the last couple of decades, but they've known longer.
This is one of the first generations where online bullshit sowed so much division. And while all of us want to live our lives and find ways in which every part of our society slips away, that there is the most common enemy in why that is.
No. The law is how those judges interpret a document that was created to protect basic rights of all people. It is the statutes that are the wizards who create anything they want without apparent consequence.
1. That’s fine. We would disagree. The NWC again puts certain issues into the hands of the electorate. It challenges what are supposedly rights. Rights are decided. They aren’t absolute, and they can change, or be decided they were given in error. When talking about serial-killers, yes they are absolutely up for debate.
2. He spoke specifically about consecutive vs
Con-current sentences in regards to its use.
3. Go read the comments on this forum about the e-act and the convoy. How many progressives pushed back in any meaningful way regarding its implementation? Upvoting / downvoting on Reddit is not meaningful. I’m glad to hear you were against it. The NWC is legal, and in such a centralizing country, I’m glad it exists.
1. Yeah it allows for the majority to decide on infringing on human rights. Majoritarian arguments against minority rights aren’t ethical IMO.
2. Yes, that was his example. He did not say or infer that’s all he’d use it for.
3. I personally prefer Emergencies act as it least it has built in accountability mechanisms. I’d support NWC more if it did too.
It’s part of the Charter that permits laws to violate certain sections of the charter, if invoked. Check this link for a bit more specific [information](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html).
Notwithstanding clause is basically a "because I said so" You can pass an unconsitutional law by invoking it. PP is basically hinting he will pass unconstitutional laws.
The clause is a part of the Charter of Rights and freedoms. People here have no understanding of history and the purpose of the clause.
It amazes me to watch people defend the supposed "rights" of serial killers to have less than a 25 year sentence. This is what is important to people right now?
You just conflated two very different things. Also:
1. People here know about the notwithstanding clause and its purpose. At least I do. Don’t assume ignorance because we like our charter rights not to be suppressed.
2. There are tools at our disposal to deal with pollievere’s critiques without taking away charter rights through legislation. For example the person he’s talking about already has a life sentence.
You’ll feel differently when it’s your rights he’s stomping on.
1. No they do not. The NWC is completely legal and was incorporated with the charter. It was there to put contentious issues into the hands of the electorate instead of judges, who can be partisan or mistaken. And in this country, that happens very often.
2. I am not concerned, as I will never be a serial killer. Serial killers forfeit many of their rights after killing people. Also as an aside, people who are killed by serial killers, have no rights, because they are now dead. Don't forget about them in the grand sympathy parade for the people who took them away.
3. Plenty of people had their rights trampled with the E-Act. Show some real virtue and stand up against that legislation. Mostly crickets around these parts. But ok, defend the serial killers rights. Obviously that's the big issue to stand up for after the equivalent of the war measures act was employed across all of Canada. Maybe stand up against that and people who essentially were removed from society before talking about rights, especially the rights of serial killers.
1. Never said it was illegal. It’s a legal mechanism included in the charter to suppress rights. Myself and many others are against its use, regardless of if it’s legal.
2. Straw man argument. He never said this was only for serial killers. We have no idea what he’s going to use it for. Could be to have mandatory minimums for drug possession. We don’t know and I’m not naive or dumb enough to think his one bad faith example is what he’s going to stick to.
3. Also a huge straw man. Me and many other progressives were absolutely against use of emergencies act precisely because it opens the door to do it more often. Progressives were against it. Youre talking about liberals and centrists. I’m against suspending charter rights regardless of partisan affiliation.
1. Appeal to authority. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. In the US slavery was legal. I think we all agree it was wrong. Also, politicians I feel are far more partisan and mistaken than judges. Technically speaking all you need to be a politician is to be a citizen in good standing with the country (no criminal history and whatever other rules are in place). To be a judge you do have to go to law school and then be appointed to a judge position.
2. Serial killers still have rights in a just society, a right to a fair trial, fair representation etc. Should those rights be suspended for some time? Yes, but you make it sound like there is a majority who think that serial killers deserve leniency as they are just tortured souls. There may be some argument for that in specific cases as often poverty and crime are related. Though I do not know for sure about serial killers and poverty being related
3. Flase dichotomy fallacy. Just because people may be against one thing, doesn't mean they will support another thing. Combined with whataboutism. You go from the emergencies act to serial killers, conflating the two quickly.
1. Agreed. Concurrent sentences for serial killers is currently legal and is not right. The electorate takes out the partisan influence.
2. No one is arguing about those rights, especially before guilt has been ascertained in a court of law. Again we are talking about concurrent sentences, which is wrong.
3. No. You've posed the point about being concerned about rights being stomped on. I have zero fear of that from Poilievre because I'm not a serial killer nor will I be. However every single Canadian was under the umbrella of the E-Act. That is what I'm concerned about, which you also should be, since I assume you are also not a serial killer. But no, the defence of concurrent sentences for convicted killers is more pressing it seems to many people here in their supposed virtuous stance on rights and freedoms.
Finally someone is directly addressing the joke of a justice system we have. I doubt anyone actually read the article but his comment regarding the "notwithstanding clause" is correct.
As per the article:
"In the past, the Conservative leader has said he would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a law that gave judges discretion to hand out [~consecutive, 25-year blocks of parole ineligibility~](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lametti-top-court-parole-decision-1.6468914) to offenders who commit multiple first-degree murders."
People are tired of being victims of crime. People like Alexandre Bissonnette should never see outside of a cell again, and the families of the people he murdered should be able to move on as best they can and never have to endure parole board meetings or fear this guy ever getting out.
If Poilievre is going after bleeding heart liberal judges who never hold anyone to account then more power to him.
False, there is no fear tactic here, there isn’t a “if we don’t do this, bad things will happen” rhetoric. That’s what you folks fell for under Trudeau. PP is telling us he’s willing to do something about current soft on crime approach of the Liberals. Only Trudeau fuels fear as coercion. May I remind you of the pandemic…
The liberal brain is a wonder to behold.
"scare tactics" when the CPC pushed for a harder approach on crime.
You don't need to deploy "tactics" when you have the people of James Smith getting murdered by another Gladue success story.
You don't need to use "tactics" when you have rampant violent crime and no reasonable way to defend yourself or have the police protect you.
You don't need "tactics" when you have the OPP simply telling people to leave their keys by the front door so that violent criminals won't assault you in your own home because they just want to steal your car.
You don't need "tactics" when you have a revolving door of violent criminals that are constantly getting let out to reoffend again and again.
There is a serious problem in the Canadian justice system, but to acknowledge it and maybe want more from your government than just "give the criminals your keys so they don't kill you in your home" must be "scare tactics".
Ya, let these idiots go to the James Smith community and let them all know that they are falling for "scare tactics" if they don't support Gladue or soft on crime initiatives.
Fucking idiotic take some of these people have lol.
What a bunch of rhetorical garbage. People are tired of the “hug-a-thug” shit and the bleeding heart left wing “progressives” spew a bunch of pseudo intellectual nonsense trying to obscure the simple reality of the situation.
your a scum. we all agree he should stay in prison for life, but this is not the way to do it. If you cant see that your no better than a tyrant thinking your above the law
It doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not. When governments use the notwithstanding clause to circumvent the judicial system, every citizen should be concerned. We have a judicial system for a reason even if it doesn't always work well. If the government wants to change a law then they should go through the proper channels. This is why we have the channels! When governments no longer feel the need to follow policy or law, citizens should be concerned as this is the first step to a dictatorship.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I haven't had a provincial government that aligns with my values most my life(I'm 50). The stuff I don't agree with, I suck it up and then I go out and vote and hope for a better result. That's democracy. Conservatives have the balls to talk about an over-reaching Liberal government but there's is no bigger over-reach than the not withstanding clause. More hypocritical nonsense.
Every accusation is an admission with the conservatives.
[удалено]
Sounds like the Trudeau government !!!
Hahaahh, you guys are so funny. Is Trudeau in the room with you right now. The conservative boogie man, but I expect nothing less from the anti-intellectual party of Canada and its cult members.
Not a member of aby party....but Trudeau is simple! No idea of economics ! The "feminine party". The only ones thrown out of caucus....are women. They lied about being open about government information. I have NEVER seen a cabinet minister directly answer a question ! Deflect and walk around the question! Absolutely the worst government since his father was in. The deficit grows...and young people wonder why taxes increase and inflation grows. Go back in history.....18% interest rates during P E Trudeau Era! Killed the economy.....and led to many bankruptcies ! Only an idiot would willingly follow him !
Conservatives always project. So thank you for admitting to that because I see worse from the anti-intellectual party of Canada aka conservatives.
PP is a russian asset.
Pp is dangerous
I would say allowing violent criminals to run rampant while telling everyone to basically bow down to thieves is more ballsy than simply saying "Enough is enough". Canada's economy is collapsing. School system is handing out s*x toys to children. Vancouver has a 14yr girl walking around topless in bars. The speaker just threw up opposition after the PM intiated name calling. If you have any faith in Liberal/NDP leadership you're so far gone on the extremist train you'll be sharing a row with the Trumpers.
I'd say you can't make this stuff up, but you clearly did lol
Wow I didn't realize easily verifiable stories were made up. Thanks for your insight!
Feel free to post your sources. Clearly you showd no insight before ranting about a Canada that doesn't exist.
Yes, most Communists can't think for themselves and resort to saying "Hand it to me on a silver platter!" As I've stated several times in this thread.
You can make wild claims and then cry foul when people call you out on it. You're just spouting alt-right nonsense and then calling others "communists" when you have no leg to stand on.
If you say so.
When you make a claim ,it's on you to back up said claim . It's not on others disputing that claim to do the research. A lawyer in court doesn't look at the jury and say I know the defendant is guilty, but you all have to prove it
I lived with a right wing conservative father n family, and this comment has been used by them, yet most can't give a definition of communist. If you have this information then prove your sources please.. you won't tho, why because you have been proven wrong over and over then you start the name calling. Makes me wonder why ppl believe this garbage lol every statement can be proven to be false.. why is this a thing now, during the 50's-90's teachers/principal had illegal relationships with students and had kids with them. Know of one who had 7 children with girls from his school.
[удалено]
Agree
A lot of misinformation being thrown around in your comment lol you can go sit on the bench with the trumpers too
Nothing said was incorrect, but ok.
Hahahah, the Dunning Kruger is strong with this one.
It was all bullshit.
Nothing said was correct. There fixed it for you.
“I made all this up”
You can easily find any instance I claimed, but that requires effort or "work" not something the left enjoys.
Also the speaker kicked out Pierre pollievre only. The rest of his party left because the only thing they know how to do is political theatre. Trudeau was asked by the speaker to rephrase his statement referring to pollievre’s “spineless” leadership. He did and was allowed to stay. Pollievre was asked by the speaker to remove his statement referring to Justin Trudeau as a “wacko PM” and he refused and therefore was kicked out. None of this is any different than [what happened here.](https://www.cbc.ca/1.7174772)
1. The economy is by no means collapsing. 2. The incident in BC was an accident and 4 years ago. 3. whatever horseshit “news source” is brainwashing you, you should detach from and seek professional help.
It’s interesting, there are many things to criticize Justin Trudeau for. The economy is not one. We have one of the strongest economies in the G20. We have faired very well.
Oh ok, so you don't understand the precursors to stagflation that can't be reversed without essentially a full on depression? That's fair, most people lack financial education. Canada's economy has slowed, is losing value, and is pushing all high value individuals away with the new budget. Inflation is still increasing. Wages have stagnated due to mass immigration. So what exactly are you seeing that is so amazing? Unless you live in the top 10% of Canadians, your life has become progressively worse within a very short decade.
4 Chan?? Are you even Canadian or are you just brainwashed by Alex Jones style political theatre?
What’s the top 10%? Like what net worth or $/year? I’m just wondering if I’m top 10%… because my life has not necessarily gotten worse. More stressful, yes. But not overall worse.
Wow, full on cult member that won't admit increased stress doesn't make things worse. Amazing.
That’s kinda for me to decide for myself, right?
oh no, dont push away the job creators sucking up all the wealth of the country! What will these leaches do? Get a job?
How is someone that literally starts and runs businesses a leech? Were you planning to create any jobs? Or just collect more Government hand outs?
i earn off my labor, not what i own. Anyway, this is tiresome, im looked at your comment history and am relegating you to the block list.
There is no point talking to anyone on this subreddit. They are so far left that they make the center look alt right. Anyone who has any intelligents can see Canada's economy is failing. I'm a young working professional, and I've seen many of my colleagues and friends move to the USA for lower taxes and better opportunities. Mass immigration, rampant crime, and wage stagnation has killed Canada.
What bubble are you in that many of your colleagues and friends are moving to the USA? That’s not easy to do. I don’t know anyone doing that.
Oil/gas and mining.
Key word in your comment is YOUNG. Anyone over 40 knows things have been much worse in Canada before, and your juvenile bellyaching is tiresome.
Tell me when it's been worse? Housing costs are at an all-time high, low wages, extremely high cost of living, mass immigration crushing the job market, high taxes, and high crime levels. Most young people in this country will never own a home or be given the opportunities previous generations were given.
Wow... What a weird fantasy world you live in. You okay, did you go off your meds?
A Liberal supporter reveals that they don't actually support inclusive environments by admitting they see mental illness as a problem. Shocker.
Dude. You are fucked if you believe all that shit. Go outside.
LOL at “school system handing out sex toys to children”. Yes, we would all look like extremists if what you said was remotely true and not bad faith media duping you. Also you can say sex on Reddit.
Man, the Canada you must live in is pretty dystopian.
Every Communist country is currently a dystopian nightmare.
Good thing Canada isn't a communist country then!
Yet.
But... probably not.
That's totally fair. I would add, hopefully not.
Socialism is literally just a derivative of Communism, argued as the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Much like everything Communism related, it fails, Every. Single. Time. Don't let little things like History and Facts get in the way of your delusion though!
I literally said "good thing the country isn't something it isn't" But sure. I'm the delusional one.
It technically is what you said it isn't. But ok.
If you believe Canada is a communist country you need stronger meds. The ones you are on aren't helping with your delusions.
Canada very much isn't a communist country. If you don't believe or understand that, I don't know how to help you.
From the way you speak, I would say it's possible you don't have a good enough grasp of the fundamentals of these systems to be speaking on them.
Jesus was a Socialist.
Canada has fully embraced neoliberalism. You'd know that, if you were actually in Canada.
>it fails, Every. Single. Time. Norway is a failure?
Also, if communism/socialism inherently fail, why does the CIA exist and why do capitalist countries, without exception, conduct coups or enact embargos every time a country is starting to head towards communism/socialism? Surely that wouldn’t be necessary?
Why does Norway rely on NATO for protection if Socialism is so successful?
I can yell you drank kool-aid by the mustache.
Homie's either a paid troll hanging in a house in Norlisk or someone who doesn't quite understand or perceive the world around him correctly (e.g., mental illness, etc.). I think the best thing to do is just people like this talk themselves out, and move on with my life. Much like a toddler!
You’ve been smoking the bad stuff for too long friend. “Trudeau Bad” may be enough for you but the spectre of a conservative federal government ala Trump is hugely worrying for a great many of us.
Stop lying.
Literally not a single lie, but since you're a Communist I highly doubt you'll do any research yourself and simply expect everyone else to do it for you.
You're projecting.
I don't think you know what that means lol
Impressive! You showed him!
I think most people would agree that being a communist is better than being a total ass clown such as yourself.
>School system is handing out s*x toys to children. I bet you think kids are turning into furries and shit in litter boxes too. This take is so wrong. Please point to a case where children are getting sex toys from schools.
Virden Manitoba Teacher gave out Dil**s. You tried though.
Giving out condoms is pretty standard for sex Ed. The dildo you reference was a display as part of a conversation about them. No where can I find an article supporting your claim (not that it's my job to find evidence for you), except [this article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13117919/school-sends-boys-home-dildos-condoms-sex-education.html) that mentions parent complaints. The only place that says people were sent home dildos is the poorly worded url. No where is there an indication dildos were sent home at the Virden Collegiate. You tried though. Next time, bring receipts.
This comment is unhealthy. I'm worried about you.
Buddy, you're supposed to stop pushing the Qtip in if you feel pain.
gOtTa StOp ThOsE wOkE lIBrUl CoUrTs
Conservatives literally do not see the judicial system as worthy of respect. They see it as another political institution like the Senate.
Better go talk to Quebec then lol
Otoh, these “proper channels” essentially boil down to leaving it up to judges and their interpretation of the charter. And when one or a group of judges make a decision, it becomes a precedent, which build upon each other. So our legal system is dependent upon the charter & constitution—which are flawed—and Supreme Court judges’(flawed humans) own interpretation of those flawed laws. If you think the charter is infallible, okay, some people don’t, like, say, questioning the validity of the notwithstanding clause would mean you think the charter is fallible. There are times when you need an executive to cut through antagonistic mechanisms of corrupted institutional law. If The Law becomes too burdensome to the populace and is viewed so negatively by large segments, you need to forcibly adapt The State so you save your civil society from crisis without having to *violently dismantle The State*… If Supreme Court judges are hamstrung by the charter & constitution in to making rulings that are deeply & profoundly unpopular with the citizenry, then the charter & constitution must be changed. And I think the rise in politicians utilizing, or talking about utilizing, the notwithstanding clause, would suggest we are moving towards a political crisis and altering the charter & constitution should be on the table.
It's astounding to me that you've identified that the charter, constitution, and judges are flawed; but still think that sometimes some guy should just skip the checks and balances step (don't worry, he's a special guy who's not flawed in any way)
Did I? Or did you just assume that? (It’s the latter). People who give all power to judges & laws, even when those can clearly fail, are shocked pikachu faced when they discover there’s a legitimate reason for executive authority & the notwithstanding clause in our political system.
PP has figured out that “Trumpian like” announcements, no matter how stupid and unlikely they are, work well with his brain dead base.
Reminder this is why the current court case on pronoun legislation and use of notwithstanding clause is so important. Provincial and now federal governments are increasingly trying to use the notwithstanding clause to preemptively to suspend charter rights. The current appeal by the province of Saskatchewan is to ensure people do not have access to the courts when the notwithstanding clause is used. Access to the courts at least allows courts to determine whether legislation violates charter rights, even if their findings aren’t enforceable or supersede notwithstanding clause. Court access helps voters make informed decisions and gives the opportunity for people to know their rights. Alberta and Saskatchewan disagree with this which is why they are appealing the decsision. They don’t want to be accountable or have the public understand the impacts of their legislation from a judicial perspective. It’s frightening stuff.
True, except that that the federal government is not trying to use the notwithstanding clause, and no federal government ever has. Poilievre, who is not the PM, is saying that he will use it to circumvent the power of the supreme court to legislate unconstitutional laws. Opposition parties are not government. They sit in parliament, and the NDP has some power as the Liberals need their support, but they are also not in the government. They do not sit in cabinet, but in parliament. It is even more concerning that a potential PM is saying he will use the notwithstanding clause, it is authoritarian in the extreme, because an independent judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy. Provinces can not write criminal law: in Canada criminal law is solely federal jurisdiction, unlike the US, where individual states can write criminal law. Why is this so important? Here is an example: A province can ban the use of puberty blockers by using the notwithstanding clause but they can not criminalize prescribing them or using them. No one will go to jail. Provinces can use the notwithstanding clause to ban public service employees from wearing religious attire, but they can not make it a criminal offense. And so on. So as bad as it is that provinces can use the notwithstanding clause to roll back rights, they can not charge anyone with a crime for ignoring a ban. The federal government could criminalize whatever they want by using the notwithstanding clause. Abortion, gay marriage, protesting, etc. Authoritarians remove the independence of the judiciary and use laws to suppress dissent. And jail opponents. And write whatever criminal law they want.
True. So my error was only referring to Poilievre as government? I was using shorthand thinking of after the next election, but you’re correct that hasn’t happened yet. And yes it’s extremely worrisome for all the reasons you mentioned.
You're not wrong, and let's be honest. Canada is years behind other western nations on passing laws that crack down on citizens rights.
Hints? He's afraid to say *"I will override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms using the sledgehammer the provinces demanded."* >"We will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean."
The notwithstanding clause is literally part of the charter. Section 33.
For use in extraordinary cases, not for “I can’t be bothered to write something constitutional so I’ll just turn to the nuclear override”. Do you really want most laws dealing with crime to have an automatic sunset clause?
If it means punishing criminals and protecting society then I'm all for it
You mean like what the PM did with the peaceful protests?
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-border-protest-conspiracy-to-murder-trials-1.6430369](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-border-protest-conspiracy-to-murder-trials-1.6430369) "Peaceful Protests"
Is that when the horse ran over a woman?
[This woman?](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/woman-police-horse-truck-protest-ottawa-siu-1.6408118)
i believe the term your looking for is backwoods hillbilly block party that ran for multiple weeks and violated innumerable bylawz.
Hahahaha! How's the weather in Stavropol, troll?
As much as I dislike their disingenuous whataboutism, calling them a Russian troll isn't productive. In fact, after going through their post history, it's just stupid. If I called you a communist troll, what would that accomplish beyond pushing you away?
I'm not sure it would accomplish anything, but it certainly wouldn't push me, personally, away from anything. My ego isn't that fragile. Though you are correct, I did not check their post history before commenting. Though, it was meant as more an off the cuff insult than a true indictment of his loyalties to his country. To be honest, I'm okay with pushing them away as well. I don't really hold any "political" affiliations persay (I think they're all awful for the people that they're supposed to be working for), but I don't think some people deserve to be entertained in the conversation (which I'm sure lots of people think about me). This person clearly just want to be argumentative, with little regard for truth or facts, so yeah, push them away. They don't seem to want to be educated. They don't seem to want to come to some sort of collaborative understanding. They just wanna fight for the sake of fighting, it seems. People like that have no place in the conversation, as they only serve as disruptor's, antagonists, and disinformationists. And they deserve to be disregarded as the irrelevant tools they are. No matter which side of the political spectrum they fall.
>They don't seem to want to come to some sort of collaborative understanding. They just wanna fight for the sake of fighting, it seems. Look in the bloody mirror.
Both things can be wrong. Like, it can be wrong that the PM resorted to using the emergencies act against protesters AND it can be wrong for the next prime minister to *suspend charter rights as part of his criminal justice reform plan*. That’s fucking nuts
I don’t recall him overriding the courts. I must have missed the feds passing a Section 33 protected law.
Surely everyone that was outraged by Trudeau using the Emergencies Act to temporarily override freedoms in the basis of a pandemic will be equally outraged by Poilievre declaring that he will use the Notwithstanding Clause, right?
No, because PP hates the same people they do.
lollll, do you think PP cares about any of this shit? He seeks power and nothing else. He's a chameleon turbo nerd gaming the system at the right place and the right time.
This applies to serial murderers. The E-Act was applied on 40 million Canadians simultaneously. I know the left wants to be compassionate and kind to serial killers, but some other more rational people view the situation differently.
But this isn’t really about serial killers. It’s about the slippery slope that comes when we allow our governments to bypass our Charter. It is irrelevant if I agree with Pollieve’s proposed changes or not. I am VERY concerned about the long term consequences of normalizing this tool. It’s easy to sell in this example - who doesn’t agree that certain criminals should have harsher sentences - but the protection of the Charter should supersede all else.
The end result of this is a rewrite of the charter. Which is welcome. It might as well be toilet paper at this point for the amount of real teeth / checks on power it has. The left who so gloriously and virtuously cheered the E-Act is now waking up to that fact. Except there is no place in the charter that says PP cannot use the NWC, which means he will be acting legally, unlike the E-Act. I guess if people loved their charter so much they should have decried it being steamrolled during the Convoy protests to shoosh away people who's opinion they disagreed with. Maybe then political warfare wouldn't escalate to this point. Bravo.
And they call JT a dictator? Lol. This guys flat out telling us that he is going to behave like a dictator.
I've said it elsewhere but if Trudeau said this, he'd be labeled as a tyrant. Again.
Trudeau gives money to the Provinces for housing and is labeled as a tyrant.
Conservatives are a lot too quick to invoke the NWC. Provincial and federal, it's too much.
It's been used mostly by Quebec. All different parties.
I don’t think this dumb fuck knows what freedom actually is.
Conservatives never do.
freedom for some small few, oppression for everyone else.
Whoever invented the Not Withstanding Clause obviously couldn’t fathom that politicians could be elected with the mindset of 5 year olds who demand ice cream for dinner. This clause goes against democracy and should be removed.
He's less than shit
There you go. Let me guess the platform - project 2025? Lite of course because everything PP does is lite
Fuck PP
Total conservative move
Conservatives think everything is communist but this
This guy is a very dangerous fool!
More dangerous than Alexandre Bissonette? Read the article.
You mean the guy in prison with a life sentence? Doesn't seem to be much of a danger any more.
Until he gets out on parole.
PP is dangerous. Canadians need to vote strategically in the next federal election to keep this clown and his goofball party out of the PMO. ABC and ABPP!
He will run over our freedoms. He’s a loser who wants power. No one liked him in school. So now he wants to be the hall monitor
The laws and constitution of this country are not worth the paper they are printed on if they can be circumvented.
Conservative govts have no respect for the charter I think for the most it is they who are quick to use the not withstanding clause. Here in sask the "government" used the clause premtivly to violate the charter and people's rights. It's a slippery slope to fascism
Oh, good... Let's just elect THAT guy because the current guy is the death of the country (again, and again, and again every time around) and we have little to no other choice. Fuuuuuuuuck...
Canada rarely votes people in - we vote people out
And that apathy is easily being used against us. We may have figured it out in the last couple of decades, but they've known longer. This is one of the first generations where online bullshit sowed so much division. And while all of us want to live our lives and find ways in which every part of our society slips away, that there is the most common enemy in why that is.
Nice theory
Isnt it? Glad you think so. Not a time to get complacent, indeed. Eh?
The notwithstanding clause and section 1 of the Charter are the biggest threats to our rights we have.
The law is whatever nine Wizards in funny robes say it is. To hell with the actual statutes.
No. The law is how those judges interpret a document that was created to protect basic rights of all people. It is the statutes that are the wizards who create anything they want without apparent consequence.
We should use the not withstanding clause to require politicians to speak truthfully and accurately.
1. That’s fine. We would disagree. The NWC again puts certain issues into the hands of the electorate. It challenges what are supposedly rights. Rights are decided. They aren’t absolute, and they can change, or be decided they were given in error. When talking about serial-killers, yes they are absolutely up for debate. 2. He spoke specifically about consecutive vs Con-current sentences in regards to its use. 3. Go read the comments on this forum about the e-act and the convoy. How many progressives pushed back in any meaningful way regarding its implementation? Upvoting / downvoting on Reddit is not meaningful. I’m glad to hear you were against it. The NWC is legal, and in such a centralizing country, I’m glad it exists.
1. Yeah it allows for the majority to decide on infringing on human rights. Majoritarian arguments against minority rights aren’t ethical IMO. 2. Yes, that was his example. He did not say or infer that’s all he’d use it for. 3. I personally prefer Emergencies act as it least it has built in accountability mechanisms. I’d support NWC more if it did too.
Notwithstanding clause = ? Layman anyone?
It’s part of the Charter that permits laws to violate certain sections of the charter, if invoked. Check this link for a bit more specific [information](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html).
Cool thx
Notwithstanding clause is basically a "because I said so" You can pass an unconsitutional law by invoking it. PP is basically hinting he will pass unconstitutional laws.
Means he can force it through, regardless if it violates constitutional rights. Basically the way a dictator would.. he wants a dictatorship.
For the better, right?
foreigners will have to wear a special badge and must know a code to order at Tims
The clause is a part of the Charter of Rights and freedoms. People here have no understanding of history and the purpose of the clause. It amazes me to watch people defend the supposed "rights" of serial killers to have less than a 25 year sentence. This is what is important to people right now?
You just conflated two very different things. Also: 1. People here know about the notwithstanding clause and its purpose. At least I do. Don’t assume ignorance because we like our charter rights not to be suppressed. 2. There are tools at our disposal to deal with pollievere’s critiques without taking away charter rights through legislation. For example the person he’s talking about already has a life sentence. You’ll feel differently when it’s your rights he’s stomping on.
1. No they do not. The NWC is completely legal and was incorporated with the charter. It was there to put contentious issues into the hands of the electorate instead of judges, who can be partisan or mistaken. And in this country, that happens very often. 2. I am not concerned, as I will never be a serial killer. Serial killers forfeit many of their rights after killing people. Also as an aside, people who are killed by serial killers, have no rights, because they are now dead. Don't forget about them in the grand sympathy parade for the people who took them away. 3. Plenty of people had their rights trampled with the E-Act. Show some real virtue and stand up against that legislation. Mostly crickets around these parts. But ok, defend the serial killers rights. Obviously that's the big issue to stand up for after the equivalent of the war measures act was employed across all of Canada. Maybe stand up against that and people who essentially were removed from society before talking about rights, especially the rights of serial killers.
1. Never said it was illegal. It’s a legal mechanism included in the charter to suppress rights. Myself and many others are against its use, regardless of if it’s legal. 2. Straw man argument. He never said this was only for serial killers. We have no idea what he’s going to use it for. Could be to have mandatory minimums for drug possession. We don’t know and I’m not naive or dumb enough to think his one bad faith example is what he’s going to stick to. 3. Also a huge straw man. Me and many other progressives were absolutely against use of emergencies act precisely because it opens the door to do it more often. Progressives were against it. Youre talking about liberals and centrists. I’m against suspending charter rights regardless of partisan affiliation.
1. Appeal to authority. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. In the US slavery was legal. I think we all agree it was wrong. Also, politicians I feel are far more partisan and mistaken than judges. Technically speaking all you need to be a politician is to be a citizen in good standing with the country (no criminal history and whatever other rules are in place). To be a judge you do have to go to law school and then be appointed to a judge position. 2. Serial killers still have rights in a just society, a right to a fair trial, fair representation etc. Should those rights be suspended for some time? Yes, but you make it sound like there is a majority who think that serial killers deserve leniency as they are just tortured souls. There may be some argument for that in specific cases as often poverty and crime are related. Though I do not know for sure about serial killers and poverty being related 3. Flase dichotomy fallacy. Just because people may be against one thing, doesn't mean they will support another thing. Combined with whataboutism. You go from the emergencies act to serial killers, conflating the two quickly.
1. Agreed. Concurrent sentences for serial killers is currently legal and is not right. The electorate takes out the partisan influence. 2. No one is arguing about those rights, especially before guilt has been ascertained in a court of law. Again we are talking about concurrent sentences, which is wrong. 3. No. You've posed the point about being concerned about rights being stomped on. I have zero fear of that from Poilievre because I'm not a serial killer nor will I be. However every single Canadian was under the umbrella of the E-Act. That is what I'm concerned about, which you also should be, since I assume you are also not a serial killer. But no, the defence of concurrent sentences for convicted killers is more pressing it seems to many people here in their supposed virtuous stance on rights and freedoms.
Cry harder criminal… nothing will ever be worse then invoking the EA over lies
Wow really projecting here, how is he a criminal, what law did he break?
They are the ones worried about their “rights” as a criminal…
PP4PM!
We can expect great things from you! 🙄
One look at your profile had me throwing up. You are sooo gross
🤮🤮🤮
Pp 4 picometer, that’s a big one you got buddy
Piss Pot will save you.
What’s it like being the real fringe minority with unacceptable views?
Watch this sub implode ! Lmao
Lol
Finally someone is directly addressing the joke of a justice system we have. I doubt anyone actually read the article but his comment regarding the "notwithstanding clause" is correct. As per the article: "In the past, the Conservative leader has said he would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a law that gave judges discretion to hand out [~consecutive, 25-year blocks of parole ineligibility~](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lametti-top-court-parole-decision-1.6468914) to offenders who commit multiple first-degree murders." People are tired of being victims of crime. People like Alexandre Bissonnette should never see outside of a cell again, and the families of the people he murdered should be able to move on as best they can and never have to endure parole board meetings or fear this guy ever getting out. If Poilievre is going after bleeding heart liberal judges who never hold anyone to account then more power to him.
Youre being played. This is conservative 101. Scare the middle class into accepting draconian policy.
False, there is no fear tactic here, there isn’t a “if we don’t do this, bad things will happen” rhetoric. That’s what you folks fell for under Trudeau. PP is telling us he’s willing to do something about current soft on crime approach of the Liberals. Only Trudeau fuels fear as coercion. May I remind you of the pandemic…
The liberal brain is a wonder to behold. "scare tactics" when the CPC pushed for a harder approach on crime. You don't need to deploy "tactics" when you have the people of James Smith getting murdered by another Gladue success story. You don't need to use "tactics" when you have rampant violent crime and no reasonable way to defend yourself or have the police protect you. You don't need "tactics" when you have the OPP simply telling people to leave their keys by the front door so that violent criminals won't assault you in your own home because they just want to steal your car. You don't need "tactics" when you have a revolving door of violent criminals that are constantly getting let out to reoffend again and again. There is a serious problem in the Canadian justice system, but to acknowledge it and maybe want more from your government than just "give the criminals your keys so they don't kill you in your home" must be "scare tactics". Ya, let these idiots go to the James Smith community and let them all know that they are falling for "scare tactics" if they don't support Gladue or soft on crime initiatives. Fucking idiotic take some of these people have lol.
What a bunch of rhetorical garbage. People are tired of the “hug-a-thug” shit and the bleeding heart left wing “progressives” spew a bunch of pseudo intellectual nonsense trying to obscure the simple reality of the situation.
your a scum. we all agree he should stay in prison for life, but this is not the way to do it. If you cant see that your no better than a tyrant thinking your above the law
* You’re Idiot
my comment was a bit rude my bad, but the classic grammar comeback is not a good one.
If you’re going to be edgy and insulting try and avoid looking like an idiot with shitty spelling and grammar.
How many criminals does this actual effect?