I got an email from Leadnow recently and they used this phrase about Poilievre “flipping a kill switch” on the constitution. I usually trust their emails, but this is one of those instances where I wanted to double check this one. I copy pasted the phrase into a search engine and came across this video.
I wanted to ask: What are your thoughts on the notwithstanding clause? How should it be used exactly? How shouldn’t it be used? Should it be used/exist at all?
So tell me again, Conservatives, about how outraged you were about Trudeau using the Emergency Measures Act on a temporary basis about the Convoy?
Because if this is true, the hypocrisy is fucking palpable.
When ER was on the table, the Conservatives called Trudeau a dictator for the idea that he would use his recently earned majority mandate to legally change the election act. Now the CPC is saying they’ll override the charter for whatever they want, they’ve always been hypocrits, this is just the latest example.
Should it be used/exist at all?
No. “These are your rights and freedoms as citizens and the government cannot violate them…unless they want to”. What’s the point of having rights if the government can ignore them?
It should exist for short term, emergency situations, IMO. Not for passing long term laws where it will need to be invoked every 5yrs forever to keep going
-
He probably will invoke the notwithstanding clause.
-
It’ll be worded in such a ambiguous way people won’t even be sure what it even does.
For anyone wondering this is the specific section he seems to be targeting. Although some of the stuff he says seems to cover how parts.
- Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
-
I mean, he already SAID he would!
So, yeah.
I stopped reading at ‘emails’. It’s as dumb as ‘feedbacks’.
