Why do Canadians accept this joke that we commonly call "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"?

[AdelQraft]

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a joke. It enshrine several freedoms but also enshrine the freedom to violate them with the notwithstanding clause. Nothing is preventing the federal or a provincial government from discriminating against you based on your race or sex or torturing you if they want to. They just need to invoke the notwithstanding clause to violate human rights. Please don't use the foolish argument that we live in a democracy and as so the government represent its citizen in its decisions. Yeah, we all know that. But the whole point of living in a democracy as defined by the UN is that our human rights and freedoms are enshrined by the law and cannot be violated in any circumstance. After all, we don't live in an ochlocracy. The fact that a decision is majority does not allow human rights to be violated. For example, if 60% of the population votes to torture the remaining 40% other, this decision will be passed in an ochlocracy since it is in majority, but cannot be passed in a democracy since the latter enshrines human rights. But the notwithstanding clause allows federal or provincial governments to do just that. How is that even a thing? How come Canadians accept this and s**t their mouths? Will we have to torture someone for people to wake up and get this clause abolished?

[BlahTheCanuck]

On 11/22/2024 at 8:15 PM, AdelQraft said:

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a joke. It enshrine several freedoms but also enshrine the freedom to violate them with the notwithstanding clause. Nothing is preventing the federal or a provincial government from discriminating against you based on your race or sex or torturing you if they want to. They just need to invoke the notwithstanding clause to violate human rights. Please don't use the foolish argument that we live in a democracy and as so the government represent its citizen in its decisions. Yeah, we all know that. But the whole point of living in a democracy as defined by the UN is that our human rights and freedoms are enshrined by the law and cannot be violated in any circumstance. After all, we don't live in an ochlocracy. The fact that a decision is majority does not allow human rights to be violated. For example, if 60% of the population votes to torture the remaining 40% other, this decision will be passed in an ochlocracy since it is in majority, but cannot be passed 

The purpose of the notwithstanding clause is that so that courts don't have unlimited power. Courts aren't always right, given that court rulings can often contradict or overrule previous rulings, so giving them unlimited power to interpret the constitution is as silly as giving any other branch of government unlimited power to fulfill its duties.

Just as an example - in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a ban on medical assistance in dying was constitutional. They ruled the opposite in 2015, contradicting and overturning their previous ruling. Which time were they right? If the Supreme Court admits they are sometimes wrong, shouldn't there be checks on their power?

Edited November 30, 2024 by BlahTheCanuck

[CdnFox]

On 11/22/2024 at 5:15 PM, AdelQraft said:

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a joke. It enshrine several freedoms but also enshrine the freedom to violate them with the notwithstanding clause. Nothing is preventing the federal or a provincial government from discriminating against you based on your race or sex or torturing you if they want to. They just need to invoke the notwithstanding clause to violate human rights. Please don't use the foolish argument that we live in a democracy and as so the government represent its citizen in its decisions. Yeah, we all know that. But the whole point of living in a democracy as defined by the UN is that our human rights and freedoms are enshrined by the law and cannot be violated in any circumstance. After all, we don't live in an ochlocracy. The fact that a decision is majority does not allow human rights to be violated. For example, if 60% of the population votes to torture the remaining 40% other, this decision will be passed in an ochlocracy since it is in majority, but cannot be passed in a democracy since the latter enshrines human rights. But the notwithstanding clause allows federal or provincial governments to do just that. How is that even a thing? How come Canadians accept this and s**t their mouths? Will we have to torture someone for people to wake up and get this clause abolished?

not sure what your point is. Canada is a relatively socialistic country and does not go out of its way to guarantee personal rights the same way as they do in the united states for example.

It was a hell of a lot better than what they had before it, which was basically nothing.

And yes the government absolutely can pass whatever laws it wants to stomp on your rights. They could literally pass a law tomorrow that says "Everything AdelQraft owns belongs to the gov't"  and take all your stuff. 

Now the night was standing claws isn't unlimited. It only applies to the charter of rights and freedoms. They couldn't, for example, change the constitution to say that governments will only be elected once every 100 years without going through a proper constitutional process with the 7/50 law

But yes this is Canada, you basically have very very limited personal rights. They like to give the appearance of it but the fact is as we saw with the truckers convoy if the government decides to take your rights away they can do so with the drop of a hat.

This is why elections matter and people like Trudeau should never ever ever have power

[eyeball]

On 11/22/2024 at 5:15 PM, AdelQraft said:

Will we have to torture someone for people to wake up and get this clause abolished?

Probably. Extraordinarily paranoid statements such as this require especially extraordinary evidence.

[ExFlyer]

On 11/22/2024 at 8:15 PM, AdelQraft said:

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a joke. It enshrine several freedoms but also enshrine the freedom to violate them with the notwithstanding clause. Nothing is preventing the federal or a provincial government from discriminating against you based on your race or sex or torturing you if they want to. They just need to invoke the notwithstanding clause to violate human rights. Please don't use the foolish argument that we live in a democracy and as so the government represent its citizen in its decisions. Yeah, we all know that. But the whole point of living in a democracy as defined by the UN is that our human rights and freedoms are enshrined by the law and cannot be violated in any circumstance. After all, we don't live in an ochlocracy. The fact that a decision is majority does not allow human rights to be violated. For example, if 60% of the population votes to torture the remaining 40% other, this decision will be passed in an ochlocracy since it is in majority, but cannot be passed in a democracy since the latter enshrines human rights. But the notwithstanding clause allows federal or provincial governments to do just that. How is that even a thing? How come Canadians accept this and s**t their mouths? Will we have to torture someone for people to wake up and get this clause abolished?

You clearly do not know what the notwithstanding clause (Section 33) is or how and when it can be used. There are very strict rules and reasons for it's use.

The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time.

Your diatribe and false opinion. demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

 

[DUI_Offender]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Probably. Extraordinarily paranoid statements such as this require especially extraordinary evidence.

...or some Thorazine.

[herbie]

On 11/22/2024 at 5:15 PM, AdelQraft said:

Nothing is preventing the federal or a provincial government from discriminating against you based on your race or sex

Other than the very Charter you're snivelling about.
Nor does the notwithstanding clause allow that.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You clearly do not know what the notwithstanding clause (Section 33) is or how and when it can be used. There are very strict rules and reasons for it's use.

 

Oh here we go. 

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time.

So what he said is literally true and you have no idea what you're talking about.

The government can pass a law tomorrow that says Employers can entirely discriminate by race. That law will have to be reviewed in 5 years but can be renewed for as long as people want to keep renewing it.

So the laws around its use are not terribly strict at all. And there are no restrictions to the reason for its use other than must apply to a charter right.

Have you ever considered actually reading and learning about something before you open your mouth and look stupid? Asking for a friend.

[Moonlight Graham]

18 hours ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

The purpose of the notwithstanding clause is that so that courts don't have unlimited power. Courts aren't always right, given that court rulings can often contradict or overrule previous rulings, so giving them unlimited power to interpret the constitution is as silly as giving any other branch of government unlimited power to fulfill its duties.

Just as an example - in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a ban on medical assistance in dying was constitutional. They ruled the opposite in 2015, contradicting and overturning their previous ruling. Which time were they right? If the Supreme Court admits they are sometimes wrong, shouldn't there be checks on their power?

That's nonsense.  Sometimes the courts are right and the provinces can still use the clause.  The purpose of the clause was to get the provinces to sign on to something that limited their power, including Quebec, who still didn't.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That's nonsense.  Sometimes the courts are right and the provinces can still use the clause.  The purpose of the clause was to get the provinces to sign on to something that limited their power, including Quebec, who still didn't.

So with 10 - 12 provinces and territories all with a veto as strong as a permanent UN Security Council members who needs another government on top of all that limiting us?

[Moonlight Graham]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So with 10 - 12 provinces and territories all with a veto as strong as a permanent UN Security Council members who needs another government on top of all that limiting us?

Provinces have a Charter veto, not a veto on the whole constitution.  Some issues like national defence are federal issues that can't or don't make sense to made by each province.  But I do think there should be as much provincial and local control over laws as is reasonable.  Problem is the agreement that decides what feds and provinces were in charge of was made in 1867 and re-opening the constitutional is basically impossible in this country because of Quebec.

[eyeball]

Canada certainly ranks amongst the most misbegotten countries on the planet, notwithstanding Israel - no surprise there given how much input we had into creating it.

What on Earth were people thinking?

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Canada certainly ranks amongst the most misbegotten countries on the planet, notwithstanding Israel - no surprise there given how much input we had into creating it.

What on Earth were people thinking?

They were listening to people like you. One of your leftist heroes, Trudeau senior, was a primary architect. Canada is today largely built on leftist policy and propaganda.

I can see why you think it's a mess, but if you want to know why go look in the mirror.

[Venandi]

 

 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They were listening to people like you. One of your leftist heroes, Trudeau senior, was a primary architect. Canada is today largely built on leftist policy and propaganda.

I can see why you think it's a mess, but if you want to know why go look in the mirror.

Beauty... there are people here who need to write that last sentence on a blackboard 1,000 times.

As long absent chickens return to a structurally weakened roost in large numbers, I find myself repeatedly asking the same question:

"WTF did you think was going to happen?"

 

Edited December 1, 2024 by Venandi

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

 

 

Beauty... there are people here who need to write that last sentence on a blackboard 1,000 times.

 

LOL!

Quote

 

As long absent chickens return to a structurally weakened roost in large numbers, I find myself repeatedly asking the same question:

"WTF did you think was going to happen?"

 

I know. It's like that old Rice Krispies commercial where nobody can say what rice crispies are made of.  It's RICE! What did you think? Same thing - "What did you THINK  left wing/socialism was made of"

I think that's the biggest problem with the left. They tend to start with an answer and try and work their way back to a question.

For them, the answer is the world would be a much better place if everybody lived exactly the way I think they should.

Then they work their way back to well that would happen if everybody had money. And everybody would have money if we took some of the money from the people that had lots and gave it to the people that didn't have much. And so on

But it completely ignores the reality. It ignores human nature, it ignores the mechanisms that allowed those people to make that extra money in the first place, and it ignores the fact that even people with less money still have much more money than they would have without those other people getting rich and stimulating the economy to create jobs and investment

They believe in their vision and they believe that anything that moves them towards that must be a good thing without realizing that it just doesn't make sense

[CrazyCanuck89]

On 11/29/2024 at 11:17 PM, BlahTheCanuck said:

The purpose of the notwithstanding clause is that so that courts don't have unlimited power. Courts aren't always right, given that court rulings can often contradict or overrule previous rulings, so giving them unlimited power to interpret the constitution is as silly as giving any other branch of government unlimited power to fulfill its duties.

Just as an example - in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a ban on medical assistance in dying was constitutional. They ruled the opposite in 2015, contradicting and overturning their previous ruling. Which time were they right? If the Supreme Court admits they are sometimes wrong, shouldn't there be checks on their power?

Obviously the second time.  Carter vs Canada, gave people their bodily autonomy right back.

[CrazyCanuck89]

22 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You clearly do not know what the notwithstanding clause (Section 33) is or how and when it can be used. There are very strict rules and reasons for it's use.

The Parliament of Canada, a provincial legislature or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily ("notwithstanding") countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time.

Your diatribe and false opinion. demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

 

Their are no rules for using section 33.  Primiers have used it Willy nilly.  5 years and then reviewing it, is non sense.  

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

Their are no rules for using section 33.  Primiers have used it Willy nilly.  5 years and then reviewing it, is non sense.  

The supposed 5-year rule can be worse than nonsense in many cases. For example Consider the case in Ontario where doug ford was limiting the number of districts for the city of Toronto's council. They complain saying it was unconstitutional for him to do so because the way he was organizing it would mean that a lot of the left wing counselors would suddenly not have a ward anymore Be out on the streets. So he used the notwithstanding clause to push it through.

Well even though that has to be reviewed in 5 years he's already won.  The people he wanted to get rid of are gone and the number of wards has been downsized and there's nothing that can be done about it in 5 years realistically. It's not like the law becomes invalid in 5 years, anything that was done during those five years is still applicable.

So you can pass a law violating people's charter rights, violate the hell out of them, and then let the five years lapse And you've achieved their your goals.

Unfortunately it is necessary to have it to prevent the law of unexpected consequences from coming to bite you in the butt. But it does mean you have to be very careful about who you elect and you also have to be very careful about what president they set.

Trudeau broke the law frequently to violate people's rights and while he didn't use the notwithstanding he certainly used the other big bludgeon the emergency act which sets aside people's rights for a time.

Now that that line has been crossed, what might the next government do to limit rights? It's something that the people that supposedly were in favor of the ACT being used didn't think about

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's like that old Rice Krispies commercial where nobody can say what rice crispies are made of.  It's RICE! What did you think? Same thing - "What did you THINK  left wing/socialism was made of"

My goodness I'd forgotten about that, I used to love that commercial. "Rice Krispies... what the heck did you think they were made of."

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They believe in their vision and they believe that anything that moves them towards that must be a good thing without realizing that it just doesn't make sense

And even though it didn't make sense, a lot of tolerant people went along with it anyway, and by doing so, conveyed an aura of legitimacy to outrageous follow on demands.   

And instead of being content with the good natured support on offer from well meaning people who (at the time) wished them the best and wanted to see them live their lives in peace, they morphed into a mob of ugly monsters bent on forcing their views down the throats of the old school liberals who (initially) supported their quest.

That's changed now IMO... at least for me.

They refused to stop after they'd had won a resounding victory... they refused to take yes for an answer. It qualifies as the biggest tactical miscalculation i've seen in a lifetime of observing tactical miscalculations.

In future, the answer from me is no... and not just no, the new answer is HELL NO. 

Edited December 1, 2024 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

23 minutes ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

Their are no rules for using section 33.  Primiers have used it Willy nilly.  5 years and then reviewing it, is non sense.  

OK, there are s=very clear circumstances when it can be used.   ???

It has not been "used willy Nilly". ISection 33 has been invoked some 26 times since its implementation.

https://amnesty.sa.utoronto.ca/2023/01/31/democracy-notwithstanding-canadas-history-of-the-notwithstanding-clause-and-its-role-in-human-rights/

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Venandi said:

"WTF did you think was going to happen?"

So you buy into the notion any government in the land could temporarily suspend the law and Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it could murder people?

That's what the dingbat you're responding to is saying.  

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OK, there are s=very clear circumstances when it can be used.   ???

It has not been "used willy Nilly". ISection 33 has been invoked some 26 times since its implementation.

https://amnesty.sa.utoronto.ca/2023/01/31/democracy-notwithstanding-canadas-history-of-the-notwithstanding-clause-and-its-role-in-human-rights/

There's no restrictions on its use other than it must apply to the charter.

Please, show me where in the charter of rights and freedoms which is the document that creates the notwithstanding clause that it lists the so-called Very clear circumstances when it can be used

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So you buy into the notion any government in the land could temporarily suspend the law and Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it could murder people?

That's what the dingbat you're responding to is saying.  

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying.

The government absolutely could pass a law making murder legal. That is true. In fact for quite a while in Canada that absolutely was the case where the government was allowed to execute people. And they executed quite a few.

But that has nothing to do with the discussion that we're having. And I can't help but laugh at the fact that you've grown so afraid of me because I tend to blow you out of the water with facts that you can't even address me directly and have to do so by making up arguments that I never made to someone else

You've always been a liar, you've always been a bit of a ******. It's sad to see you add cowardice to the list

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying.

 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The government absolutely could pass a law making murder legal.

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The government absolutely could pass a law making murder legal. That is true. In fact for quite a while in Canada that absolutely was the case where the government was allowed to execute people. And they executed quite a few.

So a province could execute it's prisoners despite federal laws against capital punishment?

Trudeau could have used tanks to crush the convoy after all?

Dang, talk about an opportunity lost.