Saskatchewan's premier says he'll use the notwithstanding clause to override a court injunction that has paused the province's new pronoun policy for students. But a professor says the clause is meant to be used as a tool of last resort.
Saskatchewan's premier says he'll use the notwithstanding clause to override a court injunction that has paused the province's new pronoun policy for students. But a professor says the clause is meant to be used as a tool of last resort.
It needs to be stated clearly every time this comes up:
The notwithstanding clause TAKES AWAY RIGHTS, IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM. Using it doesn't give "parents rights," it takes away children's charter rights.
Using the Notwithstanding clause is an admission by the government that it’s trying to pass legislation that goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It should at the very least require a full explanation and apology by the Premier, as to why he felt citizens’ rights were unimportant.
Elegant argument. Hear hear!
The explanation is well understood. A segment of the population believe that a change in one's identity is a symptom of mental illness, and as such see it as the duty of educators to open up about the signs and symptoms they are seeing, just as they would for any other illness. The contention is that the other segment of the population see changing identity as being a healthy expression of the human experience.
The Premier does not understand that there is a violation of rights. From his point of view, it is an illness not properly recognized, and is no different than letting it be known that a child is sick with a fever – something that is expected to be shared under what is considered to be for the best interests of the child.
If this was true, they could pass the legislation without the notwithstanding clause.
No, he fully understands that, from his point of view, the illness is misclassified – in other words, it is not considered an illness by all. This is no doubt a Charter violation when changing identity is not considered an illness by the courts. Hence the preemptive notwithstanding call. But he understands it to be an illness, and therefore no rights are violated from his point of view.
There are two sides to every coin. It takes away federal rights, but gives provincial rights.
No, it doesn't take away or give rights to provincial or federal governments. They don't have charter rights in the first place, only individuals have charter rights.
The notwithstanding clause permits the province to override people's charter rights. That may be justified sometimes, but it shouldn't be framed as anything else. It's removing rights, not granting them.
If your rights are taken away, someone else has gained rights. The bookkeeping has to add up.
Huh, I had suspected a lot of conservative types see everything as a zero-sum game, but it isn't usually presented so obviously.
Clearly, this isn't the case. Let's say we delete the right to freedom of religion in the Charter, and ban Christianity from our country. No one has gained any rights. In fact, we all lose a right, even non-Christians.
Someone has gained the right to ban religion.
That's a strange re-definition of a "right". I guess if you re-define the word to encompass any sort of government power. Too bad we live in a world where words mean things.
Governments aren't touching the Constitution with a ten foot pole. The only way we are banning religion is if someone is given the right to.
Typical conservative logic. You don't have to cling dearly to your grandfather's world, you know. We can move forward and see progress.
Okay, now your argument has officially gone off the rails.
To clarify my point, governments don't have rights, they have powers. The charter grants people rights. The notwithstanding clause gives the province a power to override a charter right. Exercising that power only ever removes people's rights. And yes, the country can become less free if rights are overridden. Nothing necessarily "balances that out." Losing charter rights is often a very bad thing, and even if it's necessary in a particular case, everyone should be honest -it's a loss of rights.
No? Why?