Sask. Premier Scott Moe Invokes Notwithstanding Clause

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO how did I know someone was going to say that.
 

Because it's obviously true?  

Quote

Emergencies act isn’t the NWS and isn’t even part of the constitution. It doesn’t limit or suspend any charter rights, it is simply a 1980s act of parliament 

It literally suspends people's rights. That's it's whole job. And it is part of the constitution.

Why don't you look these things up before speaking?

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2022/02/canadas-emergencies-act.html

The emergencies act relies on those secitons of the constitution that let the gov't set aside rights where necessary. It literally derrives it's powers from the same place as the 'notwithstanding clause' .

So once again you're wrong. Yeash. Did you honestly believe that parliament could pass a law that WASN'T already allowed by the charter? do you have NO idea how this works?

So yeah - trudeau set aside people's rights and far more aggregiously than any of the provinces. And THEN we can talk about his legislation to compell speech, his legislation regarding  online content,  etc etc etc 

 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The people with bouncy castles laid siege to a city and blockaded major borders crossings for 3 weeks  

 

Oh - and just to be clear - nobody "laid siege' to anything. They blocked a road.  in protest.  Can't even call it an illegal protest because for some reason nobody even asked a judge to rule it illegal which is weird because that's what you'd normally do.

If we're getting into ridiculous hyperbole - the premier is taking steps to put an end to the wholesale mutilation of children by the teacher's cult who tries to tear kids from their parents.

Yeash.

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Because it's obviously true?  

It literally suspends people's rights. That's it's whole job. And it is part of the constitution.

Why don't you look these things up before speaking?

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2022/02/canadas-emergencies-act.html

The emergencies act relies on those secitons of the constitution that let the gov't set aside rights where necessary. It literally derrives it's powers from the same place as the 'notwithstanding clause' .

So once again you're wrong. Yeash. Did you honestly believe that parliament could pass a law that WASN'T already allowed by the charter? do you have NO idea how this works?

So yeah - trudeau set aside people's rights and far more aggregiously than any of the provinces. And THEN we can talk about his legislation to compell speech, his legislation regarding  online content,  etc etc etc 

 

 

Sorry once claim have no idea what you’re talking about, making things up and then posting links that completely contradict what you claim. Let me repeat some facts which are also stated in your link and then I’ll try to explain to you so you can understand how it works. 
 

1) The Emergencies act doesn’t suspend any rights 

2) The Emergencies Act doesn’t have anything to do with the Notwithstanding Clause 

Now for the explanation. From your own link:

 

….

Impact of the Emergencies Act on individual rights

When the Emergencies Act is invoked, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) continues to protect individual rights as the Government of Canada takes the necessary steps to safeguard the safety and well-being of Canadians. In deciding on measures to take, the Government must respect constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, including the rights of citizens to enter Canada and the right to life, liberty and security of the person, as well as Canada’s obligations under international law. The Charter allows the Government to balance the rights of the individual with the interests of society where limits on guaranteed rights and freedoms can be justified in a free and democratic society.

Specifically, section 1 of the Charter allows the Government to put limits on rights and freedoms if those limits:

• are set out in law;
• pursue an important goal which can be justified in a free and democratic society; and
• pursue that goal in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

This means that during a public order emergency, as defined by the Emergencies Act, the Government must only take actions that are a reasonable and proportionate response to the risks to safety of Canadians.

….

So as further explanation, in every country all rights and freedoms are subject to “reasonable limits”. In Canada, this is spelled out in Section 1 of the Charter…NOT the notwithstanding clause. That is why governments can prevent you from yelling fire in a crowded theatre or speeding through a school zone without having to invoke NWS to “suspend” your rights to free speech or mobility. Every right and freedom in any country on this planet is subject to “reasonable limits”  with the courts having the final say on what is or isn’t reasonable.  The Emergencies act derives its authority from these “reasonable limits” provisions in Sec 1 of the Charter and.  doesn’t suspend rights as you claim  

So then you might wonder what is the point of the NWS clause then?  To paraphrase conservative commentator and former Bush speech writer, if Section 1 of the Charter is the reasonable limits provision, the Notwithstanding Clause is the ‘unreasonable limits’ provision. NWS allows the applicable provincial or federal jurisdiction to suspend any right for any reason, or for no reason at all, it is the “because we say so” clause without any ability for courts to intervene other than to confirm that the law in question was passed under the correct jurisdiction (which is where Klein failed on same sex marriage as it is federal jurisdiction).   
 

And so to recap the Emergencies Act, which is REASONABLE LIMITS used for a specifically defined activity, place and time, was used by JT exactly once for a specific event and was upheld by the Supreme Court as reasonable….Compared to conservatives’ preference for broad and permanent general SUSPENSION of rights of the general public on multiple occasions for “unreasonable” purposes such as ideology (Klein and Moe) or trivial matters of municipal governance (Ford). 

Edited October 5, 2023 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh - and just to be clear - nobody "laid siege' to anything. They blocked a road.  in protest.  Can't even call it an illegal protest because for some reason nobody even asked a judge to rule it illegal which is weird because that's what you'd normally do.

If we're getting into ridiculous hyperbole - the premier is taking steps to put an end to the wholesale mutilation of children by the teacher's cult who tries to tear kids from their parents.

Yeash.

1) “Blocked a road” lol minimize much? They blocked all the roads surrounding parliament and downtown Ottawa and border crossings for a MONTH. Doug Ford also declared a state of emergency and passed laws prohibiting obstruction of public roads etc and that law was ignored by the convoy. 
 

Yeah, you are getting into ridiculous hyperbole. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Sorry once claim have no idea what you’re talking about, making things up and then posting links that completely contradict what you claim.

LOL - what the hell was that?  I hope they fired your english teacher, i can't even figure out what you meant.

Quote

1) The Emergencies act doesn’t suspend any rights 

 

 

Yeah it does.  The gov't normally would not have the right ot seize a bank account without due process for example.  If you prefer the term "additionally restrict" your freedoms then fine but really it does suspend it.  It allows the gov't to temporarly take rights you have and set them aside. That's what it does.  It allows the gov't to set aside rights in a manner that would not be appropriate normally.

It even says so in the act itself:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html#h-213808

"the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;"

 

Quote

So as further explanation, in every country all rights and freedoms are subject to “reasonable limits”. In Canada, this is spelled out in Section 1 of the Charter…NOT the notwithstanding clause.

Sigh.   The emergencies act is all about UNREASONABLE limits. 

As i just posted - the purpose of the act is to allow for taking measures that "WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE" in normal times.

Sure section 1 allows for reasonable limits but what about when the limits are not reasonable and would normally be inappropriate?

You claim the act has nothing to do with the charter - but it does.  It says so:

"AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"

So - what are they talking about?  If section 1 says they can't unreasonably curtail people's rights and the emergency act has to respect the charter, how are they able to do things which are "inappropriate" normally?

That would be thanks to this little section

Exception where express declaration

• 33 (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

In other words - the charter of rights and freedoms says that the gov't may operate in violation of these rights and freedoms if they expressly declare so.

THAT is the section the emergencies act relies on.

Feel stupid yet? You should.

 

So - to recap - the charter of rights and freedoms says that within certain conditions the gov't can set aside rights and freedoms guaranteed by the act.

THAT is the clause that allows the emergencies act to suspend your freedoms.

THAT is also the clause the allows them to pass a law saying Trans children's parents must be told even if a judge says otherwise.

It's the EXACT SAME CLAUSE.

 

So yes - the emergencies act allows the gov't to set aside your rights under specific conditions and yes it uses the EXACT SAME COMPONENT in the charter as the 'notwithstanding' provisions being used here.

And yes you're a total m0r0n for not realizing that already when i spoon fed you the information earlier

Edited October 5, 2023 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, West said:

Rights or no rights, you act like a crazy person you'll be treated accordingly

Ha   "act" .  Love it  

[herbie]

Moe should recruit Brenda Locke, the Mayor o Surrey. She too is a butt stubborn ass pretending she's acting on behalf of the electors.

Ford eventually backed down and admitted he f*cked up. That'll cost the support of the ultra conservatives that insist you must double down and finish what you started regardless of how bad it is.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Moe should recruit Brenda Locke, the Mayor o Surrey. She too is a butt stubborn ass pretending she's acting on behalf of the electors.

Ford eventually backed down and admitted he f*cked up. That'll cost the support of the ultra conservatives that insist you must double down and finish what you started regardless of how bad it is.

You think the left is going to give him a break just because he stood down? They'll eat him alive and blame him for a) allowing it to happen in the first place and b) being weak,

He'd have been better off not appeasing them. 

The right move would have been to call the cops himself to investigate and say "if ANYONE did a secret special deal they'll be dealt with, that behaivor is not ok. But we're still moving ahead with the home building even if we have to re-do the process.

[herbie]

My your obsession with "the left" has got out of hand. Like a QAnon fixation. Some shadowy group of evildoers committed to doing everything you don't support.
So by your own terms 'the right' will continue to support Ford no matter how bad he f*cks up. Just like I said the ability to realize you were wrong is "appeasement" and "wishy washy" to them.
You just admitted it.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

My your obsession with "the left" has got out of hand.

Says the freak who relentlessly goes on about the right

Quote

Like a QAnon fixation. Some shadowy group of evildoers committed to doing everything you don't support

You're not that shadowy

.
 

Quote

So by your own terms 'the right' will continue to support Ford no matter how bad he f*cks up. Just like I said the ability to realize you were wrong is "appeasement" and "wishy washy" to them.
You just admitted it.

Oh look - the leftie loser has to twist what i said because he knows he's wrong and can't defend against the truth   How cute

SHow me where i said that the right will continue to support ford no matter what. Go ahead - where  did i say that? Oooops - if you have to lie to make your point you don't have a very good point.

What i said was that the left will never forgive him no matter what he does so appeasing them is stupid.  Not as stupid as you, but stupid

[Queenmandy85]

It turns out that Premier Moe lied in his teeth. He claimed the legislation was the result of consultations. The total number of requests that generated this stripping people of their fundamental rights, was eighteen letters and emails, some of which were form letters.

If a government can remove the basic rights of this segment of society based on a few letters saying "we don't like these people," they can do the same to you, and to all of us.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If a government can remove the basic rights of this segment of society based on a few letters saying "we don't like these people," they can do the same to you, and to all of us

Oh well, apparently it only takes thousands of hours over several years to rise thru the ranks to a position within a party and government where you might affect the sort of change that could do something about this abuse of power. Of course by that time Moe will be long dead and you'd probably be so jaded yourself that you'd forgotten the high-falutin' reasons you got involved in politics the first place and assume the same powers for yourself.

Good luck with it.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It turns out that Premier Moe lied in his teeth. He claimed the legislation was the result of consultations. The total number of requests that generated this stripping people of their fundamental rights, was eighteen letters and emails, some of which were form letters.

If a government can remove the basic rights of this segment of society based on a few letters saying "we don't like these people," they can do the same to you, and to all of us.

Cue the populist outrage over dictators, elites, lack of democracy.... 

(silence) 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It turns out that Premier Moe lied in his teeth. He claimed the legislation was the result of consultations. The total number of requests that generated this stripping people of their fundamental rights, was eighteen letters and emails, some of which were form letters.

If a government can remove the basic rights of this segment of society based on a few letters saying "we don't like these people," they can do the same to you, and to all of us.

Once again - if you have to resort to dishonestly to make a point it's not a point.

1 - the people being stripped of a fundimental right were arguably the parents.

2 - a request is not consultation. Who did he speak to about it other than those requests? If you don't know the answer then you've been dishonest with your statement.

3 - there is no fundimental right for teachers to interfere with parents raising their children.

4 - the liberals have frequently removed the rights of others with NO consultation. So complaining about it now is kind of silly.

and of course - 5 - as you can see below more people approve of the law than disapprove.  So when you try to pretend that it's ONLY 18 people who feel this way - that would be a lie on your part.

https://angusreid.org/saskatchewan-gender-pronoun-policy-moe/

Saskatchewan: Majority support government’s gender & pronoun policy.....

 

As i've said many times - if you have to lie to make a point, you don't have a good point.

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cue the populist outrage over dictators, elites, lack of democracy.... 

(silence) 

Well the problem is what he said was a lie.  A lie that apperently you were so eager to believe that you chose to blame others for something that isn't true in the first place.

Shame Mike.

The dictators were teh teachers, the lack of democracy was affecting the parents. That's being resolved.  Nothing more to be outraged about, all that's left for us to do now is sit back and watch your salty tears.

[Legato]

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cue the populist outrage over dictators, elites, lack of democracy.... 

(silence) 

silence is golden, though my eyes still see

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Well the problem is what he said was a lie.  A lie that apperently you were so eager to believe that you chose to blame others for something that isn't true in the first place. Shame Mike.

2. The dictators were teh teachers, the lack of democracy was affecting the parents. That's being resolved.  Nothing more to be outraged about, all that's left for us to do now is sit back and watch your salty tears.

1. Who the premier ?  I guess so.  I didn't look into it, though, bc I don't live in Sask.
2. The 18 complaints removed rights from the majority of parents in the province.  I think that's the issue here, the fake populism.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Who the premier ?  I guess so.  I didn't look into it, though, bc I don't live in Sask.
2. The 18 complaints removed rights from the majority of parents in the province.  I think that's the issue here, the fake populism.

1 - how is that relevant? Nobody is disputing who the premier is.

2 - that statement is entirely false. The fact that 18 people officially complained does not mean that he didn't hear from anyone else on the subject - and in fact we  know he did AND that polling was done. So it is not remotely accurate to suggest that he got 18 complaints - talked to NOBODY ELSE - introduced a law and heard from NOBODY about it - and this law is a result. That is not a reasonable thing to say.

Further it is not reasonable to say people lost their rights because of this law - people had their rights protected because of this law.  While you may personally believe parents have no rights and that teachers should have more say over children than parents, that is not defensible legally.

And we can see that it isn't "Fake" populism given that the polling says it's ACTUALLY popular.  More popular than the other way. So it's what's referred to as 'the will of the people' - which is another term for 'democracy'.  Democracy isn't "good" when it supports people you like and "Bad" when it supports peopel you don't.

Parents have rights, the premier got complaints, a process was started whereby he heard from a LOT of people on the issue, a law has now been brought in and the rights of parents secured = there is no indication at all that the premier lied at any step of the way.

Expect to see more of this kind of thing i'd guess.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Expect to see more of this kind of thing i'd guess.

Less minority rights that protect existence, identity, participation in political life and of course against discrimination and persecution?  Minority rights are probably the most important rights of all.  Anyone could suddenly find themselves amongst a minority at anypoint in their life.

Quote

And we can see that it isn't "Fake" populism given that the polling says it's ACTUALLY popular.  More popular than the other way. So it's what's referred to as 'the will of the people' - which is another term for 'democracy'.  Democracy isn't "good" when it supports people you like and "Bad" when it supports peopel you don't.

The majority is not always right which is why we have things like a constitution, a charter of rights and laws and jurisprudence - to act as guardrails against the populist erosion of these things and moral entrepreneurs who would facilitate that erosion.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Less minority rights that protect existence,

well it's true that parents are a minority these days i suppose.

Quote

identity, participation in political life and of course against discrimination and persecution? 

Yes - they will allow more of all of that for parents and other people who've been muzzled for some time

Quote

Minority rights are probably the most important rights of all.  Anyone could suddenly find themselves amongst a minority at anypoint in their life.

All rights are important. Sorry to break it to you.  The single mom trying to raise her  kids in difficult times has every single bit as much right to her rights - there is no such thing as "this person has more rights to their rights than that person".

Quote

The majority is not always right

But they are always the majority. And the op was trying to claim it was 18 people only.

As i've said many times here, i'm not a fan of pure democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.  And as you correctly note that means that democracy is guardrailed by rights, 

But that does NOT mean that minority rights instantly have more weight than anyone else's, and people are getting sick of pretending they do.  As a white person, i've got as much right not to be treated in a racist manner as a black person. As a man i've got as much right not to be treated in a sexist manner as a woman. And as a natural canadian i have as much right to my cultural identity as an immigrant or anyone else.

And parents have a right to raise their children and know what's happening and if you don't like it too effing bad. I hear china is fond of letting the state raise the kids - go live there if you believe parents have NO rights to be involved with their children. 

 

Your insistence that some people's rights are somehow very important while you crap on other people's rights is indefensible. If you won't recognize the rights of people you don't like - don't get mad if people don't recognize the rights of people you do like.

 

 

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well it's true that parents are a minority these days i suppose

Not compared to the number of kids Moe's use of the Notwithstanding Clause affects.

I assumed your supposition was the basis for everything else you wrote and ignored it.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

If you won't recognize the rights of people you don't like - don't get mad if people don't recognize the rights of people you do like.

So you're suggesting that recognizing the popularized spite and anger of some majority or another is an appropriate basis for the way Canada should be governed?

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So you're suggesting that recognizing the popularized spite and anger of some majority or another is an appropriate basis for the way Canada should be governed?

So you're suggesting that a parent's concern for their child is a sign of "popularized spite and anger"?  Yeash dude - what happened in YOUR home growing up?

Parents love their kids.  Parents raise their kids.  Parents have a right and a need to know what's going on with their kids.  The monster here who is claiming all parents want to hurt their kids and teachers are better raising them would be you, and that's an opinion based on hatred and spite.

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So you're suggesting that a parent's concern for their child is a sign of "popularized spite and anger"? 

No I'm saying Moe's use of the Notwithstanding Clause is a sign of that.

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeash dude - what happened in YOUR home growing up?

We were taught to take a deep breath and calm down.

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The monster here who is claiming all parents want to hurt their kids and teachers are better raising them would be you, and that's an opinion based on hatred and spite.

Have you ever noticed the way hate and spite usually results in more laws and jurisprudence to better buttress the constitution and uphold the charter of rights and freedoms?

This is an example of one step back giving rise to two steps forwards.

Good job. Thanks.

 

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No I'm saying Moe's use of the Notwithstanding Clause is a sign of that.

 

well seeing as that was what Moe was defending  you can't have it both ways-  it either is or it isn't. Sounds like your hypocrisy is showing again

Quote

We were taught to take a deep breath and calm down.

Then why are you having a hissy fit about parents knowing what's going on with their children? Why do you say that letting parents know is all about hatred?

 

Quote

Have you ever noticed the way hate and spite usually results in more laws and jurisprudence to better buttress the constitution and uphold the charter of rights and freedoms?

Yes - and in this case the law was necessary to buttress our freedoms against your hatred and spite, and the hatred and spite of others like you. What's your point?

Quote

This is an example of one step back giving rise to two steps forwards.

Yes - having parents lose their right to know what is going on with their kids was a step back. Getting them their rights back AND sending the message that people are done with the wokescolds is two steps forward.