Sask. Premier Scott Moe Invokes Notwithstanding Clause

[herbie]

Using the 'notwithstanding' clause actually means he knows it's wrong but is gonna do it anyway. Not because he thinks it's righteous, because he thinks it might be popular.

[CdnFox]

Just now, herbie said:

Using the 'notwithstanding' clause actually means he knows it's wrong but is gonna do it anyway. Not because he thinks it's righteous, because he thinks it might be popular.

Nonsense.  The notwithstanding clause is in there for the very specific reason that they knew that the charter would occasionally get it wrong and that gov'ts needed a mechanism to CORRECT the mistakes the charter makes. It's not possible to write the charter in such a way that it's perfect.

Also - it's some times necessary when judges let their personal politics and bias get in the way of reasonable legal decisions.

Sorry - this is an example of where the CHARTER got it wrong. and the tool is there to correct it.

[herbie]

The Charter got it wrong did it? Cryin' shame. eh?

Should be your right o teach your lid to beat the shit outa them little fags and brag about it on FB too. It says so in the Koran/Bible/Tradition/Locker room.

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, herbie said:

The Charter got it wrong did it? Cryin' shame. eh?

 

Well no - no shame at all. The crafters created a tool to fix it and it's been used - problems solved.

Quote

Should be your right o teach your lid to beat the shit outa them

Er......  suuuuurrreeee.... you teach o your lid whatever you like. I guess.

Quote

little fags and brag about it on FB too. It says so in the Koran/Bible/Tradition/Locker room.

I seriously doubt you've read any of those books   But - according to you the teacher should keep the problem from the parent and if the kid gets beat up like that it's none of the parents business.  Pretty much everyone sane disagrees.  So - now there's laws to prevent that.  See? The system works!  

Edited December 20, 2023 by CdnFox

[Zeitgeist]

Now that Alberta is introducing a Parental Bill of Rights, can Ontario get one?

[cannuck]

On 12/19/2023 at 5:53 PM, herbie said:

Using the 'notwithstanding' clause actually means he knows it's wrong but is gonna do it anyway. Not because he thinks it's righteous, because he thinks it might be popular.

Uh...gee, that IS what democracy is supposed to be about.   The MAJORITY rules, not the fringes of radical looney minorities.   We've got our Federal government to piddle away trillions doing more of that.

[CdnFox]

On 12/19/2023 at 7:27 PM, herbie said:

The Charter got it wrong did it? Cryin' shame. eh?

 

No, it's inevitable. No document can accuarately predict EVERYTHING - that's why they put in the notwithstanding

Quote

Should be your right o teach your lid to beat the shit outa them little fags and brag about it on FB too. It says so in the Koran/Bible/Tradition/Locker room.

Oh look - herbie has to lie and create a fake argument to try to make his point. Yawn.

[herbie]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

that IS what democracy is supposed to be about.   The MAJORITY rules, not the fringes of radical looney minorities.   We've got our Federal government to piddle away trillions doing more of that.

51 people deciding to kill the other 49 is also perfectly democratic.

And you can blame the Federal govt for putting in that anti-democratic clause in in the first place. One province deciding to do something regardless of what the other 9 -plus 3 territories want is anything but democracy.

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, herbie said:

51 people deciding to kill the other 49 is also perfectly democratic.

 

Sure = democracy is the tyrrany of the majority.  It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

A fact losers like yourself immediately forget when discussing the "Desperate need for more democracy with proportional representation" blah blah blah

Which is why we limit democracy severely to protect against excessive abuses. But - this is in fact entirely within the limits we've imposed so sucks to be you.

It's hilarious how you on the left are all about rights and democracy if it serves your purpose but horribly opposed when it doesn't.  The rights of the parents need to be respected and the need to provide for the children is spelled out in law and i believe the charter as having to provide the necessaries of life and that would include not mutilating them. 

 

 

[CrazyCanuck89]

On 12/19/2023 at 6:56 PM, CdnFox said:

Nonsense.  The notwithstanding clause is in there for the very specific reason that they knew that the charter would occasionally get it wrong and that gov'ts needed a mechanism to CORRECT the mistakes the charter makes. It's not possible to write the charter in such a way that it's perfect.

Also - it's some times necessary when judges let their personal politics and bias get in the way of reasonable legal decisions.

Sorry - this is an example of where the CHARTER got it wrong. and the tool is there to correct it.

The notwithstanding clause was put there, because Primiers were having a hissy fit that the Feds were giving Canadians too many rights.

You keep saying your for freedom, we'll the notwithstanding clause is the opposite.

On 2/11/2024 at 12:22 PM, cannuck said:

Uh...gee, that IS what democracy is supposed to be about.   The MAJORITY rules, not the fringes of radical looney minorities.   We've got our Federal government to piddle away trillions doing more of that.

The whole purpose of the Charter is to prevent elected officials from going overboard.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

The notwithstanding clause was put there, because Primiers were having a hissy fit that the Feds were giving Canadians too many rights.

Sort of kind of in a way   But no, not really. 

 

Quote

You keep saying your for freedom, we'll the notwithstanding clause is the opposite.

No, it is not the opposite in the slightest. It actually has nothing to do for or against freedom. For example if a judge ruled that it was illegal under the charter for churches to refuse to perform gay weddings,  the Notwithstanding could be used to restore the right to freedom of religion.   

It was known that there would be unintended consequences of the charter. The Notwithstanding clause was put in to give a vehicle to address undesirable unintended consequences and preserve the function of the elected bodies.  However it forces the gov't to be very public about it so they can be judged. 

Quote

The whole purpose of the Charter is to prevent elected officials from going overboard.

And the purpose of the notwithstanding clause is to prevent the courts or other groups from going overboard. For example, The Courts have come up with some pretty questionable rulings. Claiming that it is cruel and unusual punishment to lock up somebody for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place illegally has no real basis in law. That's their personal opinion. But once they rule that they have now created new law that was never approved by the parliament.

The notwithstanding clause allows the parliament to correct that and say that it is not cruel and unusual and it's how things are going to be. So don't carry loaded guns in public.

However it does force the government to do it in a very visible and public fashion. That government will have to answer to the people at the next election who will judge if they went overboard or not. And the law will automatically need to be reaffirmed within 5 years which means for it to stay in place for very long people had to have voted in the government knowing that they were going to keep it.

It's all part of the checks and balances. If you don't have it the courts have too much power. If you don't have a charter at all then the government has too much power

[CrazyCanuck89]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sort of kind of in a way   But no, not really. 

 

No, it is not the opposite in the slightest. It actually has nothing to do for or against freedom. For example if a judge ruled that it was illegal under the charter for churches to refuse to perform gay weddings,  the Notwithstanding could be used to restore the right to freedom of religion.   

It was known that there would be unintended consequences of the charter. The Notwithstanding clause was put in to give a vehicle to address undesirable unintended consequences and preserve the function of the elected bodies.  However it forces the gov't to be very public about it so they can be judged. 

And the purpose of the notwithstanding clause is to prevent the courts or other groups from going overboard. For example, The Courts have come up with some pretty questionable rulings. Claiming that it is cruel and unusual punishment to lock up somebody for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place illegally has no real basis in law. That's their personal opinion. But once they rule that they have now created new law that was never approved by the parliament.

The notwithstanding clause allows the parliament to correct that and say that it is not cruel and unusual and it's how things are going to be. So don't carry loaded guns in public.

However it does force the government to do it in a very visible and public fashion. That government will have to answer to the people at the next election who will judge if they went overboard or not. And the law will automatically need to be reaffirmed within 5 years which means for it to stay in place for very long people had to have voted in the government knowing that they were going to keep it.

It's all part of the checks and balances. If you don't have it the courts have too much power. If you don't have a charter at all then the government has too much power

The courts are their to protect us.  I don't always agree with them, like their bring alcohol across provincial boarders ruling.  That is the way our constitution is written.

The notwithstanding clause was a temper tantrum thrown by the priemiers.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

The courts are their to protect us. 

In theory. But like every source of power known to man they can become corrupt, they can be misused for personal belief, and they can let their power go to their heads. And many lawyers and experts have talked about this. The court is not there to pass law, the court is there to enforce law but because of the way that they operate they very frequently create new law simply by their interpretation.

And often in opposition to what was intended by the original law.

So we have safeguards against them. As we should.

Quote

The notwithstanding clause was a temper tantrum thrown by the priemiers.

You would have to have a very juvenile view of the government or the motivation of the premieres and prime minister to believe that. If what you're saying was true then it would have only been included for the provinces and not for the federal government as well. It was put in for the very reasonable reason that you can't always tell what the ramifications of new law will be and the charter isn't something you can easily fix if there's a problem. So they needed a circuit breaker.

But hey, if you're happy with your understanding of federal politics and constitutional reform at a grade four level then sure. It was a temper tantrum. Why not.

[CrazyCanuck89]

On 7/3/2024 at 5:02 PM, CdnFox said:

In theory. But like every source of power known to man they can become corrupt, they can be misused for personal belief, and they can let their power go to their heads. And many lawyers and experts have talked about this. The court is not there to pass law, the court is there to enforce law but because of the way that they operate they very frequently create new law simply by their interpretation.

And often in opposition to what was intended by the original law.

So we have safeguards against them. As we should.

You would have to have a very juvenile view of the government or the motivation of the premieres and prime minister to believe that. If what you're saying was true then it would have only been included for the provinces and not for the federal government as well. It was put in for the very reasonable reason that you can't always tell what the ramifications of new law will be and the charter isn't something you can easily fix if there's a problem. So they needed a circuit breaker.

But hey, if you're happy with your understanding of federal politics and constitutional reform at a grade four level then sure. It was a temper tantrum. Why not.

Truth hurts nothing Juvenile about it.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

Truth hurts nothing Juvenile about it.

Well that's something you'd expect a child to say  well done   

 

[CrazyCanuck89]

On 7/5/2024 at 1:22 PM, CdnFox said:

Well that's something you'd expect a child to say  well done   

 

You're the childish one.  Maybe you should've payed more attention in civics.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

You're the childish one.  Maybe you should've payed more attention in civics.

No ME - U!!!! Yeah you've really shown you're not childish there big guy. Well done.  Maybe you should read a book. 

You made a nonsense statement, i've refuted it with specific points and reason and logic and your reply is "Nuh UH -  U R!!"

If you think this is going well for you, you might want to think about it for a bit.