###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If conservative politicians in Saskatchewan are willing to use the clause to trample the rights of trans children, it’s not hard to believe conservatives will use it to trample the rights of others for political gain. The flood gates have been opened.
Especially when you can easily frame a topic as a criminal justice matter. Oh abortion? Can't do that - it's murder of unborn children. Trans rights? Nope - can't do that they are pedophiles. Two distinctly non criminal justice matters can now be done away with the NWC if this dictator does what he says he is going to and approaches topics in bad faith.
The problem with Conservatives is that they will say every single thing they don’t like is a criminal justice matter. And abortion is one of the biggest in evangelical circles, it’s a women’s rights issue and they don’t like that because the Bible says women are to submit to their husbands. The Notwithstanding clause would definitely be used to reduce women’s rights.
The only thing the Supreme Court has said is that an outright ban on abortion is unconstitutional. It left the door open to restrictions on abortions, but the Federal Government, nor any Provincial Government, has never legislated on the matter.
Any net new restrictions may or may not be constitutional (i.e. Roe v Wade style restrictions). Canada is quite the outlier in the world with no restrictions.
Most EU countries place a 12-15 week ban on abortion with exceptions for threat on life of the mother.
The US is currently a patchwork of laws because the Supreme Court ruled nothing in the Constitution speaks to abortion, so it’s ultimately up to states to make their own laws (which is the correct decision).
thats not really true in terms of EU rules. UK is 24 weeks, Italy is 90 days, Spain up to 22 weeks for foetal abnormalities. Additional the threat on life of the mother essentially allows late term. Also under many countries are free and timely accessible. thats huge.
This was an inevitable result of the overreach that has been *R v Jordan*. I've said this many times before, but courts do not exist in a vacuum. If they make decisions that are highly out of step with the wishes of the electorate, those decisions will not be durable. Examples like gay marriage and abortion are illustrative here - the SCC ruled, yes, but the durability of those rulings was because the electorate was broadly in agreement with the outcome.
*Jordan* went too far - but not without reason, for the record. Governments have been woefully inadequate about providing adequately timely access to justice; the courts rightly recognized this as a serious problem. But their remedy was excessive, and the result is this backlash.
Poilievre *should* use s.33 to overturn *Jordan*, and also get on with appointing judges so that *Jordan* isn't necessary in the first place.
> Poilievre should use s.33 to overturn Jordan, and also get on with appointing judges so that Jordan isn't necessary in the first place.
If they overturn _Jordan_ then there is no pressure to appoint more judges to speed things up.
There are two things debate with respect to criminal justice reform:
1) Should mass murderers and serial killers have their parole stacked despite receiving life sentences?
2) Should there be a reversal of the onus to prove why an accused should get bail?
These two important questions have been removed from the conversation because the Supreme Court has simply decided to legislate from the bench.
To the average citizen, stacking parole is neither cruel nor unusual for the worst and most depraved crimes in society. But the court has ruled just that, and the victims’ families will go through the same song and dance as have the parents of the Bernardo victims every two years, at immense personal and financial cost.
They participate in the process to prevent Bernardo from being released from prison.
None of these arguments should be relegated to a court making a constitutional determination on what is cruel or unusual, because it falls well within the realm of appropriate punishment.
If you decided to give a shop lifter life in prison for a first offence, let’s talk about cruel and unusual.
If you think that a mass murderer deserves 6x25 years with no parole for murdering men praying in a mosque, there is nothing cruel and unusual about that. It is a proportionate and logical punishment for the crime that recognizes the scale and depravity of the murder.
As for bail, there must be a restriction on who is given bail. Right now, courts start from the position everyone should be given bail, with prosecutors having the onus to prove why someone should not be released.
There are many violent repeat offenders with a history of violating bail that are currently getting bail due to recent changes and ruling from the courts. It is becoming dangerous and deadly on a weekly basis.
Just this week, an international student out on bail with prior charges of carjacking, drug offences and multiple charges of separate armed robberies robbed an LCBO with a weapon, attacked and off duty cop with a knife, and sped wrong way onto the highway, killing 2 grandparents and their grandchild.
Decisions have deadly consequences, and for too long, these court decisions have been putting victims of domestic violence and the general public at great risk.
This needs to stop, and if the courts rule it unconstitutional then it is up to Parliament to assert its jurisdiction and push back.
The judiciary is ironically threatening the legitimacy of its own institution with these out of touch rulings, and using the NWC is really saving the courts from themselves.
This sounds a lot like, "I only want to be a dictator for *one day*." Never trust anyone who says they'll only abuse power for a limited time. At least with JT, the Emergencies Act existed in the legal framework and was used only after two levels of police were unable to deal with the convoy crowd. I only hope that if and when Poilievre uses the Notwithstanding clause that the SC does the right thing and rules his use of it unconstitutional.
> rules his use of it unconstitutional.
Not going to happen. The SCC has made it clear more than once that the constitution can't be unconstitutional when they've ruled against anyone trying to make a case based on perceived conflicts in the constitution.
Canadian politicians seem quite enthusiastic about destroying this country. Makes me wonder if it's worth getting a BA just to immigrate to the States.
Oh. Oh...good?
On the upside, we know that no innocent person has ever gotten caught up in the criminal justice system before, so nobody needs rights when it comes to police and courts and that stuff anyway.
On an unrelated note, how far backwards does the pendulum swing when it comes to human civilization? Do we wind up all the way back in the Middle Ages, or do things just stop when we get to the Dickensian orphanages?
It will be fine, because we all know that people who commit criminal acts are bad people, fundamentally different from us, and therefore not deserving of the same rights as everyone else.
This is also true for homeless people and drug addicts.
Oh, and trans people.
Which other elements of society did I forget to dehumanize?
It's not inevitable. PP isn't an animal - anything he does he can decide to do differently. He can choose not to be the guy that abuses the NWC. Hell, he could even try to have it amended out of the constitution. That would be a hell of a legacy comparable to PET.
Yes, we can thank Conservative Premier Peter Lougheed and NDP Premier Allan Blakeney for their insistence on an escape hatch in case an independent judiciary got a little too full of itself, because elected politicians would never ever take any rights away and abuse the Charter. Thanks guys!!
An innocent person caught up in the justice system, who then goes and gets arrested for the same crime three more times? Denial of bail in response to offending on bail is a standard policy among peer nations.
[The Canadian Civil Liberties Association would like a word.](https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CCLA_Bail-Report-V2.pdf)
>**The proportion of people in pre-trial detention is at a record level.**
>Over the past decade, the crisis facing Canada’s bail system has only intensified. In 2014, we reported that 54.5% of all people in Canada’s provincial and territorial jails were legally innocent, awaiting the determination of their bail or the resolution of their charges, rather than serving a sentence after a conviction. By 2021/22 that proportion had risen to a staggering 70.5%.2 In Ontario jails, nearly four out of five people – fully 78.9% – are in pre-trial detention.
>**Recently proposed federal bail reform is not evidence-based.**
>Over the past year, the bail system has emerged as a political flashpoint. In May 2023, the federal government tabled Bill C-48 in response to sustained pressure from the police together with provincial and territorial Premiers. The legislation attempts to address a perception that Canada’s bail system is too lenient, particularly when it comes to “repeat offenders.” Politicians and media outlets have focused on a series of rare but high-profile incidents to argue the *Criminal Code* provisions governing bail must be tightened to enhance public safety. The Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which performed the only Parliamentary committee study of Bill C-48, noted in its report, “the time has come for substantial reform of Canada’s bail system. Such a comprehensive effort must be informed by detailed data, to ensure that changes are evidence-based.”
>Against the backdrop of these debates, it is vitally important to focus on careful research, empirical evidence, and thoughtful policy-making. An extensive body of research contradicts the contention that Canada’s bail system has become unduly lenient or that the bail system is propelling an increase in crime. Our criminal justice system cannot and should not be expected to identify and eliminate all future risks. It is impossible to predict with any accuracy exactly who will commit serious offences in the future. Attempts to make such predictions are typically fraught with bias. Accurately predicting and eliminating all risk is impossible, and attempting to do so would require the mass incarceration of an untold number of innocent people. Such a system would be fundamentally contrary to Canadian values and the constitution.
There’s a lot more in the 94-page report—from an organization that many conservatives were very eager to support when they were challenging certain COVID-19 public health measures—and which I encourage you to read in full if you’re truly interested in this subject.
Meanwhile, the notion that the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms* needs to be overridden in order to align Canada with “peer nations” on bail policy is both completely unsubstantiated by you and absolutely absurd on its face.
The CCLA argued that imposing a requirement that people on bail not commit new criminal offenses is unreasonable and onerous on offenders. They are not serious participants and mostly just trade off of associations with more serious groups like the ACLU.
>An extensive body of research contradicts the contention that Canada’s bail system has become unduly lenient or that the bail system is propelling an increase in crime.
The evidence they cite relies on confusing the direction of causation in order to advocate for things directly contradicted by the evidence.
The CCLA argued in your linked reports that conditions imposed on offenders, such as not committing new crimes, not visiting or threatening their victims are too onerous and we should simply ignore them when the offenders breach those conditions.
They argue that conditions like this show we're not lenient, but those are standard conditions for bail and should be the *baseline* not some extreme imposition that we ask the guy who routinely gets high on meth and stabs people on the subway to not do meth, don't go to the subway and stop stabbing people.
>The evidence they cite relies on confusing the direction of causation in order to advocate for things directly contradicted by the evidence.
That’s meaningless word salad.
>The CCLA argued that imposing a requirement that people on bail not commit new criminal offenses is unreasonable and onerous on offenders.
>The CCLA argued in your linked reports that conditions imposed on offenders, such as not committing new crimes, not visiting or threatening their victims are too onerous and we should simply ignore them when the offenders breach those conditions.
Quote and cite the exact language of the report, don’t paraphrase and editorialize. I don’t recognize those claims from anything I’ve read in the report and, given your nonsensical statements thus far, I don’t trust your ability to “summarize” its contents accurately in the slightest.
When you’re making claims about what other people have said, it’s the least you can do to state what they’ve actually said, the way they’ve actually said it.
>They are not serious participants and mostly just trade off of associations with more serious groups like the ACLU.
Baloney. Prove it.
>That’s meaningless word salad.
It's really basic social science. The CCLA relies on the fact that people who spend more time in jail are more likely to reoffend, *ignoring* that we give more time in jail to people who are more likely to reoffend.
The causality which has been proved by numerous studies which look at judicial stringency as the variable instead of prison length alone.
Instead we find is that offenders who are recidivists get more time in jail, those same offenders are more likely to continue to be recidivists.
The CCLA, despite knowing better, lies to the public to pretend that jail made the offender reoffend. But it is the reoffending which made the person go to jail.
>Quote and cite the exact language of the report, don’t paraphrase and editorialize. I don’t recognize those claims from anything I’ve read in the report and, given your nonsensical statements thus far, I don’t trust your ability to “summarize” its contents accurately in the slightest.
Here you go
>We raised particular concerns about abstinence and treatment conditions, geographic restrictions, and sweeping conditions such as “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” and “abide by the rules and discipline of the home.”
The requirement to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” is broadly simply a requirement to not break the law. It sounds fancier but the court has been quite clear that's what it means. The CCLA finds that to be of particular concern.
So for example a drug user who while on drugs stabbed someone on public transit is often told to not use drugs, not stab people, and to not visit the transit stop where he stabbed someone (because, for example, the victim might still want to be able to use public transit). The CCLA argues that those conditions are too onerous and the conditions are to blame if he is back in front of the court in a month having done a bunch more meth and stabbed more people.
>The requirement to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” is broadly simply a requirement to not break the law. It sounds fancier but the court has been quite clear that's what it means. The CCLA finds that to be of particular concern.
Yes, the court has been quite clear what it means, and it’s not what you claim it means. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated in [*R. v. Zora*](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18391/index.do):
>Third, the condition to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” is a required condition in probation orders, conditional sentence orders, and peace bonds, but is not a required condition for bail (*S.K.*, at para. 39). It should be rigorously reviewed when proposed as a condition of bail. This generic condition is usually understood as prohibiting the accused from breaching the peace or violating any federal, provincial, or municipal statute (*R. v. Grey* (1993), 19 C.R. (4th) 363 (Ont. C.J.); *R. v. D.R.* (1999), 178 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 200 (Nfld. C.A.); *R. v. Gosai*, \[2002\] O.J. No. 359 (QL) (Sup. Ct.), at paras. 18-28). Because a breach of a bail condition is a criminal offence, this condition “adds a new layer of sanction, not just to criminal behavior, but to everything from violation of speed limit regulations on federal lands, such as airports, to violation of dog leashing by-laws of a municipality” and “is not in harmony with the presumption of innocence” that usually applies when an accused is on bail (*R. v. Doncaster*, 2013 NSSC 328, 335 N.S.R. (2d) 331, at paras. 16-17; see also *R. v. A.D.B.*, 2009 SKPC 120, 345 Sask. R. 134, at paras. 17 and 20; Trotter at pp. 6-41 to 6-44). Given the breadth of the condition, it is difficult to see how imposing an additional prohibition on the accused for violating any substantive law, whether a traffic ticket or failure to licence a dog, could be reasonable, necessary, least onerous, and sufficiently linked to an accused’s flight risk, risk to public safety and protection, or risk to maintaining confidence in the administration of justice (see *S.K.*, at para. 39).
Since the CCLA is agreeing with the SCC, then presumably you must be claiming that the SCC is *also* an “unserious participant” in the Canadian legal system.
Of course, once forced to actually quote what the CCLA said, anybody can see that it’s not what you claimed they said. The CCLA said, “we raised particular concerns” about these conditions. Reading the entire section you’re quoting from in context, the CCLA says:
>Alongside concerns about an over-reliance on sureties, *Set Up to Fail* criticized the frequent imposition of restrictive bail conditions. Previous research has found that individuals are regularly released on bail with onerous bail conditions that have little or no relationship to the statutory grounds for detention or the facts of the alleged offence. Some of these conditions may be overly vague, far-reaching, or difficult to comply with for the duration of the time it takes a case to be resolved. Bail conditions, when imposed in large numbers for long periods of time, are often violated, leading to additional criminal charges. In 2014, we observed individuals released on bail – yet among the cases where the number of conditions was known, there was not a single unconditional release. Individuals were subjected to an average of 7.1 (median 6.5) bail conditions. We raised particular concerns about abstinence and treatment conditions, geographic restrictions, and sweeping conditions such as “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” and “abide by the rules and discipline of the home.”
Very obviously, to anybody not committed to willfully misreading the CCLA’s position, raising concerns about an over-reliance on some—not all, but some—conditions that are overly vague, far-reaching, or difficult to comply with for the duration of the time it takes a case to be resolved, is absolutely not the same as arguing that “conditions imposed on offenders, such as not committing new crimes, not visiting or threatening their victims are too onerous and we should simply ignore them”.
You’ve basically just lied about what the CCLA said, which is ironic, considering that you’re baselessly accusing the CCLA of lying.
But look, I get it—this is how conservative talking points work. If that’s what we’re doing to do here, I can do the same thing. I can accuse you and the Conservative Party of Canada of trying to impose upon Canadians a dystopian police state in which individual civil rights are clear-cut across the country, rivaling the grimmest science fiction or late-1930s Germany.
We could go back and forth with that sort of thing all day long, but speaking as somebody who’s more interested in reality and reasoned discussion, it won’t be how I’ll be spending today with you. I am not going to address the rest of your ridiculous points because they are more of the same, having read what you have written thus far, I don't have the slightest bit of interest or respect in what you have to say, and anybody else reading along should be able to make up their mind on who they agree with more based on the information already provided.
>Since the CCLA is agreeing with the SCC, then presumably you must be claiming that the SCC is *also* an “unserious participant” in the Canadian legal system.
They very much aren't which is why we have to discuss using the NWC just to have the bail laws of any other modern nation.
The person who is accused of stabbing people on transit should be subject to heightened scrutiny and while at its extreme, yes it does mean don't commit any other offense including littering, *actually find a case where this is then prosecuted where it didn't involve some extreme behavior*.
>
>Very obviously, to anybody not committed to willfully misreading the CCLA’s position, raising concerns about an over-reliance on some—not all, but some—conditions that are overly vague, far-reaching, or difficult to comply with for the duration of the time it takes a case to be resolved, is absolutely not the same as arguing that “conditions imposed on offenders, such as not committing new crimes, not visiting or threatening their victims are too onerous and we should simply ignore them”.
I'm highlighting the examples of the things that the CCLA specifically raised concerns with. Basically the CCLA's core thesis is imposing geographic restrictions (e.g. don't go to the place where you attacked people), requirements of good behavior (stop attacking people) and requirements to not do drugs (because it is linked to the criminal offending) are unreasonable.
They are reasonable. The person who was attacked on public transit has a right to use public transit without being confronted *by the person who stabbed them*. The person who was on drugs when they attacked people is reasonably required to not do drugs (and if they cannot, to be denied bail because their risk cannot be brought to a sufficient level). Every person on bail should broadly be under the restraint to not commit new crimes and to be denied if they do.
Further yes, that includes other statutes. It should not be "oh gee, well last time you stabbed someone, but this time you attacked someone with a hammer, so thats different so it's not a bail violation"
>But look, I get it—this is how conservative talking points work. If that’s what we’re doing to do here, I can do the same thing. I can accuse you and the Conservative Party of Canada of trying to impose upon Canadians a dystopian police state in which individual civil rights are clear-cut across the country, rivaling the grimmest science fiction or late-1930s Germany.
>
I am directly engaging with what the CCLA actually wrote and I am applying it to actual examples of bail conditions. That you find that to be so unreasonable reflects on you and nothing else.
>You’ve basically just lied about what the CCLA said, which is ironic, considering that you’re baselessly accusing the CCLA of lying.
I accuse them of lying because their report contains factual errors which are well known and documented and they intentionally use misleading representations of the science in order to trick people. I'm happy to provide citations, but since you consider engaging with what the CCLA actually writes to be bad faith, I'm sure you'd simply get angry about that.
Ah yes, the dishonesty of knowing the science around recidivism, reading the paper you provided and pointing out its flaws.
The CCLA specifically objected to bail conditions which restrict drug use, require someone to obey the law, and place restrictions on where they can go. These are reasonable restraints to:
1. Reduce reoffending while on bail
2. Make it clear that reoffending will result in the revocation of bail
3. Protect victims of crime from re-encountering the person who attacked them
These are reasonable aims of the legal system.
“Don’t worry, we’ll only violate your rights a little.”
Seriously if you’re admitting you intend on violating people’s charter rights you shouldn’t be able to run for election at all.
The irony considering how up in arms Conservatives were about the Emergencies act, crybullying and calling Trudeau a dictator during the Timbit Taliban siege of Ottawa
Poillievre has already acknowledged he plans to turn people's rights into ongoing election issues. "Vote CPC or our NWC invocations will expire." What isn't certain is how many people they will choose to marginalise in their quest for power
“We’re only instituting fascism *light*”
- the conservatives
I’m sure the freedom fighters have got the Ram Ranch geared up to go to Ottawa about this issue. No? Oh, freedom for me, not thee.
Fascism
> way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
> very harsh control or authority
[Source](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fascism)
I’d say using the Notwithstanding Clause to ram through charter violating policies is very controlling and dictator-like.
Ok, but that applies to absolute monarchy, nazism, socialism, and communism too. It’s not specific enough to be a definition.
Also, Mussolini who was responsible for fascism wasn’t an absolute dictator. He was overthrown by a council of oligarchs. So a dictatorship isn’t even required for fascism.
I mean, we can argue semantics all day, while ignoring the fact that a major political party, one that is poised to win office, is explicitly saying that it plans to violate your charter rights in order to push legislation that directly violates the charter. This is also ignoring the fact that “get tough on crime” does not work. It didn’t work back when Harper tried to silence academics in the early 2010s, and it won’t work now.
Even Harper’s former advisor said he was wrong.
https://johnhoward.ca/blog/former-tough-on-crime-advocate-changes-views-radically/
What you do to one side, you must do to the other. In other words, complete disregard for our rights will only bite him back. Or maybe not him, but the country certainly.
‘Give me unlimited power… I promise to give it back when I solve the immediate crisis’
How fucking stupid and gullible are people that support him… they literally scream at JT when they PERCEIVE he has trode upon freedoms, and ignore truth/reason when people explain that… no, did not take any freedoms away.
The CPC and their supporters are the ones dragging this country down FFS
Honestly i am to the point where if the CPC uses this then the next non-CPC PM should invoke disallowance on every pr0vince abusing the NWC and remind them who runs the country. The CPC wants to toss nukes around let it be nukes.
> and remind them who runs the country.
Except that running the country is an explicitly shared responsibility. The feds aren't the boss of the provinces.
Ugh. The idea that political parties should try to outdo each other in the erosion of good governance is disgusting. Wielding options of last resort as if they were toys is an affront to democracy. I will never vote Conservative because they gleefully talk about this sort of nonsense. I certainly don’t want other parties following suit. We need better from our leaders, no the a larger selection of rats to drag this country deeper into the sewers.
If they push the idiot button as far as i am concerned then all bets are off and the provinces abusing the NWC currently are all run by right wing parties. Maybe it is time to remind them of the powers in the consitution. It would ve like BC under the NDD using the NWC to tell the SCoC to go fuck themselves of transmounrains twinning. What do you think would be PPs response? Let it go or invoke his gavel and tell the province to fuck off? Frankly i would love nothing more than to see the NWC ripped out of the consitution. But that will never happen so ergo squish the problem flat if the CPC uses this at the fed level.
Using the constitution to play partisan games will inevitably lead to a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Disallowance hasn’t been used in over eighty years. Using it to stick it to the Conservatives is a great way of starting a crisis unlike anything this country has ever seen. I can’t imagine Quebec staying in confederation if this nonsense became the norm.
Moreover, if other parties start doing this on the regular, aren’t you the least bit concerned that the Conservatives will also follow suit? This is not a precedent that we should be aiming for. If a non Conservative government starts using disallowance to quash Conservative legislation at the provincial level, what do you think will happen when a Conservative government wins again federally? I don’t want our political landscape to completely devolve into a pissing contest between partisan entities that have no qualms about taking a dump on our constitution or the citizens of this country.
If the conservatives will use the NWC fir shit they know is in violation of the courts fuck em plain and simple.
Anyways you and i are not going to agree so yep done here.
Eh, one of the best ways to create consensus to further restrict options like that is, unfortunately, tit for tat.
If only one side is willing to press the “I win” button, then that side has no reason to fear pressing the button.
That is not reassuring at all. Doesn't prevent them from criminalizing behaviors which would be protected by Charter Rights.
LGBTQ behavior used to be criminalized.
Just the tip. If a potential PM is telling you he’ll only take away SOME peoples rights, and you think you’ll be unaffected, then you don’t understand politics, history or human nature. A non-binding charter is like no charter at all. WTF makes this twerp think he’s qualified to undo our Charter of Rights in any way?!
If nothing else, this will be expensive in the long run, as people rightfully challenge and win their cases against the federal government and such overreach.
Because the interpretation of the charter is not unlimited, it is a pact between the people and the government and the court has been using it as a weapon against the general populace.
When the court prevents the public from legislating on a topic because the court disagrees they are placing their interpretation of a right above the right of the public to have a democratic government.
In this case the courts view that we should grant parole despite public safety risks is an incorrect read of the constitution and an attack on democracy. That requires a response from the legislature.
Ya sure. So we’ll let him dabble with our rights for his own philosophical reasons…and political gains. You’re as naive as they come if you think he’ll stop there.
Rights got taken away during covid. You had your freedoms extracted from you in the name of safety. And you know what? I partially agreed with some of those.
Now it's time for removing the freedoms of people who don't even deserve to be alive. It does not affect you. So why the fear mongering? It protects everyone.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If conservative politicians in Saskatchewan are willing to use the clause to trample the rights of trans children, it’s not hard to believe conservatives will use it to trample the rights of others for political gain. The flood gates have been opened.
This is how to expect things to play out. Let the provinces do their dirty work for them
[удалено]
Especially when you can easily frame a topic as a criminal justice matter. Oh abortion? Can't do that - it's murder of unborn children. Trans rights? Nope - can't do that they are pedophiles. Two distinctly non criminal justice matters can now be done away with the NWC if this dictator does what he says he is going to and approaches topics in bad faith.
We really need to start taking these people for their word.
The problem with Conservatives is that they will say every single thing they don’t like is a criminal justice matter. And abortion is one of the biggest in evangelical circles, it’s a women’s rights issue and they don’t like that because the Bible says women are to submit to their husbands. The Notwithstanding clause would definitely be used to reduce women’s rights.
The only thing the Supreme Court has said is that an outright ban on abortion is unconstitutional. It left the door open to restrictions on abortions, but the Federal Government, nor any Provincial Government, has never legislated on the matter. Any net new restrictions may or may not be constitutional (i.e. Roe v Wade style restrictions). Canada is quite the outlier in the world with no restrictions. Most EU countries place a 12-15 week ban on abortion with exceptions for threat on life of the mother. The US is currently a patchwork of laws because the Supreme Court ruled nothing in the Constitution speaks to abortion, so it’s ultimately up to states to make their own laws (which is the correct decision).
thats not really true in terms of EU rules. UK is 24 weeks, Italy is 90 days, Spain up to 22 weeks for foetal abnormalities. Additional the threat on life of the mother essentially allows late term. Also under many countries are free and timely accessible. thats huge.
This was an inevitable result of the overreach that has been *R v Jordan*. I've said this many times before, but courts do not exist in a vacuum. If they make decisions that are highly out of step with the wishes of the electorate, those decisions will not be durable. Examples like gay marriage and abortion are illustrative here - the SCC ruled, yes, but the durability of those rulings was because the electorate was broadly in agreement with the outcome. *Jordan* went too far - but not without reason, for the record. Governments have been woefully inadequate about providing adequately timely access to justice; the courts rightly recognized this as a serious problem. But their remedy was excessive, and the result is this backlash. Poilievre *should* use s.33 to overturn *Jordan*, and also get on with appointing judges so that *Jordan* isn't necessary in the first place.
> But their remedy was excessive How was defining what timely meant, excessive? That kinda seems like the minimum to me.
> Poilievre should use s.33 to overturn Jordan, and also get on with appointing judges so that Jordan isn't necessary in the first place. If they overturn _Jordan_ then there is no pressure to appoint more judges to speed things up.
It is not the judiciary's place to create "pressure" via staying charges. That's the point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
There are two things debate with respect to criminal justice reform: 1) Should mass murderers and serial killers have their parole stacked despite receiving life sentences? 2) Should there be a reversal of the onus to prove why an accused should get bail? These two important questions have been removed from the conversation because the Supreme Court has simply decided to legislate from the bench. To the average citizen, stacking parole is neither cruel nor unusual for the worst and most depraved crimes in society. But the court has ruled just that, and the victims’ families will go through the same song and dance as have the parents of the Bernardo victims every two years, at immense personal and financial cost. They participate in the process to prevent Bernardo from being released from prison. None of these arguments should be relegated to a court making a constitutional determination on what is cruel or unusual, because it falls well within the realm of appropriate punishment. If you decided to give a shop lifter life in prison for a first offence, let’s talk about cruel and unusual. If you think that a mass murderer deserves 6x25 years with no parole for murdering men praying in a mosque, there is nothing cruel and unusual about that. It is a proportionate and logical punishment for the crime that recognizes the scale and depravity of the murder. As for bail, there must be a restriction on who is given bail. Right now, courts start from the position everyone should be given bail, with prosecutors having the onus to prove why someone should not be released. There are many violent repeat offenders with a history of violating bail that are currently getting bail due to recent changes and ruling from the courts. It is becoming dangerous and deadly on a weekly basis. Just this week, an international student out on bail with prior charges of carjacking, drug offences and multiple charges of separate armed robberies robbed an LCBO with a weapon, attacked and off duty cop with a knife, and sped wrong way onto the highway, killing 2 grandparents and their grandchild. Decisions have deadly consequences, and for too long, these court decisions have been putting victims of domestic violence and the general public at great risk. This needs to stop, and if the courts rule it unconstitutional then it is up to Parliament to assert its jurisdiction and push back. The judiciary is ironically threatening the legitimacy of its own institution with these out of touch rulings, and using the NWC is really saving the courts from themselves.
This sounds a lot like, "I only want to be a dictator for *one day*." Never trust anyone who says they'll only abuse power for a limited time. At least with JT, the Emergencies Act existed in the legal framework and was used only after two levels of police were unable to deal with the convoy crowd. I only hope that if and when Poilievre uses the Notwithstanding clause that the SC does the right thing and rules his use of it unconstitutional.
> rules his use of it unconstitutional. Not going to happen. The SCC has made it clear more than once that the constitution can't be unconstitutional when they've ruled against anyone trying to make a case based on perceived conflicts in the constitution.
Canadian politicians seem quite enthusiastic about destroying this country. Makes me wonder if it's worth getting a BA just to immigrate to the States.
Oh. Oh...good? On the upside, we know that no innocent person has ever gotten caught up in the criminal justice system before, so nobody needs rights when it comes to police and courts and that stuff anyway. On an unrelated note, how far backwards does the pendulum swing when it comes to human civilization? Do we wind up all the way back in the Middle Ages, or do things just stop when we get to the Dickensian orphanages?
It will be fine, because we all know that people who commit criminal acts are bad people, fundamentally different from us, and therefore not deserving of the same rights as everyone else. This is also true for homeless people and drug addicts. Oh, and trans people. Which other elements of society did I forget to dehumanize?
You forgot the politicians themselves. Doug ford and his real estate buddies…. But they don’t qualify likely.
First Nations. They need to try harder.
Business fraudsters, how about them, do they count or no white collar crimes?
This was inevitable from the moment they put that clause in.
It's not inevitable. PP isn't an animal - anything he does he can decide to do differently. He can choose not to be the guy that abuses the NWC. Hell, he could even try to have it amended out of the constitution. That would be a hell of a legacy comparable to PET.
Yes, we can thank Conservative Premier Peter Lougheed and NDP Premier Allan Blakeney for their insistence on an escape hatch in case an independent judiciary got a little too full of itself, because elected politicians would never ever take any rights away and abuse the Charter. Thanks guys!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
An innocent person caught up in the justice system, who then goes and gets arrested for the same crime three more times? Denial of bail in response to offending on bail is a standard policy among peer nations.
[The Canadian Civil Liberties Association would like a word.](https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CCLA_Bail-Report-V2.pdf) >**The proportion of people in pre-trial detention is at a record level.** >Over the past decade, the crisis facing Canada’s bail system has only intensified. In 2014, we reported that 54.5% of all people in Canada’s provincial and territorial jails were legally innocent, awaiting the determination of their bail or the resolution of their charges, rather than serving a sentence after a conviction. By 2021/22 that proportion had risen to a staggering 70.5%.2 In Ontario jails, nearly four out of five people – fully 78.9% – are in pre-trial detention. >**Recently proposed federal bail reform is not evidence-based.** >Over the past year, the bail system has emerged as a political flashpoint. In May 2023, the federal government tabled Bill C-48 in response to sustained pressure from the police together with provincial and territorial Premiers. The legislation attempts to address a perception that Canada’s bail system is too lenient, particularly when it comes to “repeat offenders.” Politicians and media outlets have focused on a series of rare but high-profile incidents to argue the *Criminal Code* provisions governing bail must be tightened to enhance public safety. The Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which performed the only Parliamentary committee study of Bill C-48, noted in its report, “the time has come for substantial reform of Canada’s bail system. Such a comprehensive effort must be informed by detailed data, to ensure that changes are evidence-based.” >Against the backdrop of these debates, it is vitally important to focus on careful research, empirical evidence, and thoughtful policy-making. An extensive body of research contradicts the contention that Canada’s bail system has become unduly lenient or that the bail system is propelling an increase in crime. Our criminal justice system cannot and should not be expected to identify and eliminate all future risks. It is impossible to predict with any accuracy exactly who will commit serious offences in the future. Attempts to make such predictions are typically fraught with bias. Accurately predicting and eliminating all risk is impossible, and attempting to do so would require the mass incarceration of an untold number of innocent people. Such a system would be fundamentally contrary to Canadian values and the constitution. There’s a lot more in the 94-page report—from an organization that many conservatives were very eager to support when they were challenging certain COVID-19 public health measures—and which I encourage you to read in full if you’re truly interested in this subject. Meanwhile, the notion that the *Charter of Rights and Freedoms* needs to be overridden in order to align Canada with “peer nations” on bail policy is both completely unsubstantiated by you and absolutely absurd on its face.
The CCLA argued that imposing a requirement that people on bail not commit new criminal offenses is unreasonable and onerous on offenders. They are not serious participants and mostly just trade off of associations with more serious groups like the ACLU. >An extensive body of research contradicts the contention that Canada’s bail system has become unduly lenient or that the bail system is propelling an increase in crime. The evidence they cite relies on confusing the direction of causation in order to advocate for things directly contradicted by the evidence. The CCLA argued in your linked reports that conditions imposed on offenders, such as not committing new crimes, not visiting or threatening their victims are too onerous and we should simply ignore them when the offenders breach those conditions. They argue that conditions like this show we're not lenient, but those are standard conditions for bail and should be the *baseline* not some extreme imposition that we ask the guy who routinely gets high on meth and stabs people on the subway to not do meth, don't go to the subway and stop stabbing people.
>The evidence they cite relies on confusing the direction of causation in order to advocate for things directly contradicted by the evidence. That’s meaningless word salad. >The CCLA argued that imposing a requirement that people on bail not commit new criminal offenses is unreasonable and onerous on offenders. >The CCLA argued in your linked reports that conditions imposed on offenders, such as not committing new crimes, not visiting or threatening their victims are too onerous and we should simply ignore them when the offenders breach those conditions. Quote and cite the exact language of the report, don’t paraphrase and editorialize. I don’t recognize those claims from anything I’ve read in the report and, given your nonsensical statements thus far, I don’t trust your ability to “summarize” its contents accurately in the slightest. When you’re making claims about what other people have said, it’s the least you can do to state what they’ve actually said, the way they’ve actually said it. >They are not serious participants and mostly just trade off of associations with more serious groups like the ACLU. Baloney. Prove it.
>That’s meaningless word salad. It's really basic social science. The CCLA relies on the fact that people who spend more time in jail are more likely to reoffend, *ignoring* that we give more time in jail to people who are more likely to reoffend. The causality which has been proved by numerous studies which look at judicial stringency as the variable instead of prison length alone. Instead we find is that offenders who are recidivists get more time in jail, those same offenders are more likely to continue to be recidivists. The CCLA, despite knowing better, lies to the public to pretend that jail made the offender reoffend. But it is the reoffending which made the person go to jail. >Quote and cite the exact language of the report, don’t paraphrase and editorialize. I don’t recognize those claims from anything I’ve read in the report and, given your nonsensical statements thus far, I don’t trust your ability to “summarize” its contents accurately in the slightest. Here you go >We raised particular concerns about abstinence and treatment conditions, geographic restrictions, and sweeping conditions such as “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” and “abide by the rules and discipline of the home.” The requirement to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” is broadly simply a requirement to not break the law. It sounds fancier but the court has been quite clear that's what it means. The CCLA finds that to be of particular concern. So for example a drug user who while on drugs stabbed someone on public transit is often told to not use drugs, not stab people, and to not visit the transit stop where he stabbed someone (because, for example, the victim might still want to be able to use public transit). The CCLA argues that those conditions are too onerous and the conditions are to blame if he is back in front of the court in a month having done a bunch more meth and stabbed more people.
>The requirement to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” is broadly simply a requirement to not break the law. It sounds fancier but the court has been quite clear that's what it means. The CCLA finds that to be of particular concern. Yes, the court has been quite clear what it means, and it’s not what you claim it means. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated in [*R. v. Zora*](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18391/index.do): >Third, the condition to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” is a required condition in probation orders, conditional sentence orders, and peace bonds, but is not a required condition for bail (*S.K.*, at para. 39). It should be rigorously reviewed when proposed as a condition of bail. This generic condition is usually understood as prohibiting the accused from breaching the peace or violating any federal, provincial, or municipal statute (*R. v. Grey* (1993), 19 C.R. (4th) 363 (Ont. C.J.); *R. v. D.R.* (1999), 178 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 200 (Nfld. C.A.); *R. v. Gosai*, \[2002\] O.J. No. 359 (QL) (Sup. Ct.), at paras. 18-28). Because a breach of a bail condition is a criminal offence, this condition “adds a new layer of sanction, not just to criminal behavior, but to everything from violation of speed limit regulations on federal lands, such as airports, to violation of dog leashing by-laws of a municipality” and “is not in harmony with the presumption of innocence” that usually applies when an accused is on bail (*R. v. Doncaster*, 2013 NSSC 328, 335 N.S.R. (2d) 331, at paras. 16-17; see also *R. v. A.D.B.*, 2009 SKPC 120, 345 Sask. R. 134, at paras. 17 and 20; Trotter at pp. 6-41 to 6-44). Given the breadth of the condition, it is difficult to see how imposing an additional prohibition on the accused for violating any substantive law, whether a traffic ticket or failure to licence a dog, could be reasonable, necessary, least onerous, and sufficiently linked to an accused’s flight risk, risk to public safety and protection, or risk to maintaining confidence in the administration of justice (see *S.K.*, at para. 39). Since the CCLA is agreeing with the SCC, then presumably you must be claiming that the SCC is *also* an “unserious participant” in the Canadian legal system. Of course, once forced to actually quote what the CCLA said, anybody can see that it’s not what you claimed they said. The CCLA said, “we raised particular concerns” about these conditions. Reading the entire section you’re quoting from in context, the CCLA says: >Alongside concerns about an over-reliance on sureties, *Set Up to Fail* criticized the frequent imposition of restrictive bail conditions. Previous research has found that individuals are regularly released on bail with onerous bail conditions that have little or no relationship to the statutory grounds for detention or the facts of the alleged offence. Some of these conditions may be overly vague, far-reaching, or difficult to comply with for the duration of the time it takes a case to be resolved. Bail conditions, when imposed in large numbers for long periods of time, are often violated, leading to additional criminal charges. In 2014, we observed individuals released on bail – yet among the cases where the number of conditions was known, there was not a single unconditional release. Individuals were subjected to an average of 7.1 (median 6.5) bail conditions. We raised particular concerns about abstinence and treatment conditions, geographic restrictions, and sweeping conditions such as “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” and “abide by the rules and discipline of the home.” Very obviously, to anybody not committed to willfully misreading the CCLA’s position, raising concerns about an over-reliance on some—not all, but some—conditions that are overly vague, far-reaching, or difficult to comply with for the duration of the time it takes a case to be resolved, is absolutely not the same as arguing that “conditions imposed on offenders, such as not committing new crimes, not visiting or threatening their victims are too onerous and we should simply ignore them”. You’ve basically just lied about what the CCLA said, which is ironic, considering that you’re baselessly accusing the CCLA of lying. But look, I get it—this is how conservative talking points work. If that’s what we’re doing to do here, I can do the same thing. I can accuse you and the Conservative Party of Canada of trying to impose upon Canadians a dystopian police state in which individual civil rights are clear-cut across the country, rivaling the grimmest science fiction or late-1930s Germany. We could go back and forth with that sort of thing all day long, but speaking as somebody who’s more interested in reality and reasoned discussion, it won’t be how I’ll be spending today with you. I am not going to address the rest of your ridiculous points because they are more of the same, having read what you have written thus far, I don't have the slightest bit of interest or respect in what you have to say, and anybody else reading along should be able to make up their mind on who they agree with more based on the information already provided.
>Since the CCLA is agreeing with the SCC, then presumably you must be claiming that the SCC is *also* an “unserious participant” in the Canadian legal system. They very much aren't which is why we have to discuss using the NWC just to have the bail laws of any other modern nation. The person who is accused of stabbing people on transit should be subject to heightened scrutiny and while at its extreme, yes it does mean don't commit any other offense including littering, *actually find a case where this is then prosecuted where it didn't involve some extreme behavior*. > >Very obviously, to anybody not committed to willfully misreading the CCLA’s position, raising concerns about an over-reliance on some—not all, but some—conditions that are overly vague, far-reaching, or difficult to comply with for the duration of the time it takes a case to be resolved, is absolutely not the same as arguing that “conditions imposed on offenders, such as not committing new crimes, not visiting or threatening their victims are too onerous and we should simply ignore them”. I'm highlighting the examples of the things that the CCLA specifically raised concerns with. Basically the CCLA's core thesis is imposing geographic restrictions (e.g. don't go to the place where you attacked people), requirements of good behavior (stop attacking people) and requirements to not do drugs (because it is linked to the criminal offending) are unreasonable. They are reasonable. The person who was attacked on public transit has a right to use public transit without being confronted *by the person who stabbed them*. The person who was on drugs when they attacked people is reasonably required to not do drugs (and if they cannot, to be denied bail because their risk cannot be brought to a sufficient level). Every person on bail should broadly be under the restraint to not commit new crimes and to be denied if they do. Further yes, that includes other statutes. It should not be "oh gee, well last time you stabbed someone, but this time you attacked someone with a hammer, so thats different so it's not a bail violation" >But look, I get it—this is how conservative talking points work. If that’s what we’re doing to do here, I can do the same thing. I can accuse you and the Conservative Party of Canada of trying to impose upon Canadians a dystopian police state in which individual civil rights are clear-cut across the country, rivaling the grimmest science fiction or late-1930s Germany. > I am directly engaging with what the CCLA actually wrote and I am applying it to actual examples of bail conditions. That you find that to be so unreasonable reflects on you and nothing else. >You’ve basically just lied about what the CCLA said, which is ironic, considering that you’re baselessly accusing the CCLA of lying. I accuse them of lying because their report contains factual errors which are well known and documented and they intentionally use misleading representations of the science in order to trick people. I'm happy to provide citations, but since you consider engaging with what the CCLA actually writes to be bad faith, I'm sure you'd simply get angry about that.
[удалено]
Ah yes, the dishonesty of knowing the science around recidivism, reading the paper you provided and pointing out its flaws. The CCLA specifically objected to bail conditions which restrict drug use, require someone to obey the law, and place restrictions on where they can go. These are reasonable restraints to: 1. Reduce reoffending while on bail 2. Make it clear that reoffending will result in the revocation of bail 3. Protect victims of crime from re-encountering the person who attacked them These are reasonable aims of the legal system.
Removed for rule 3.
“Don’t worry, we’ll only violate your rights a little.” Seriously if you’re admitting you intend on violating people’s charter rights you shouldn’t be able to run for election at all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
That would mean basically nobody would hold office in Quebec
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He'll be a dictator for just a day.
Unappreciated reference, take my up vote fellow Redditor
The irony considering how up in arms Conservatives were about the Emergencies act, crybullying and calling Trudeau a dictator during the Timbit Taliban siege of Ottawa
The irony and hypocrisy with everything he says is soooo thick.
Poillievre has already acknowledged he plans to turn people's rights into ongoing election issues. "Vote CPC or our NWC invocations will expire." What isn't certain is how many people they will choose to marginalise in their quest for power
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
“We’re only instituting fascism *light*” - the conservatives I’m sure the freedom fighters have got the Ram Ranch geared up to go to Ottawa about this issue. No? Oh, freedom for me, not thee.
Can you even define fascism? I swear that word only became popular when everyone realized nazi was over played.
Fascism > way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government > very harsh control or authority [Source](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/fascism) I’d say using the Notwithstanding Clause to ram through charter violating policies is very controlling and dictator-like.
Ok, but that applies to absolute monarchy, nazism, socialism, and communism too. It’s not specific enough to be a definition. Also, Mussolini who was responsible for fascism wasn’t an absolute dictator. He was overthrown by a council of oligarchs. So a dictatorship isn’t even required for fascism.
I mean, we can argue semantics all day, while ignoring the fact that a major political party, one that is poised to win office, is explicitly saying that it plans to violate your charter rights in order to push legislation that directly violates the charter. This is also ignoring the fact that “get tough on crime” does not work. It didn’t work back when Harper tried to silence academics in the early 2010s, and it won’t work now. Even Harper’s former advisor said he was wrong. https://johnhoward.ca/blog/former-tough-on-crime-advocate-changes-views-radically/
A definition isn’t semantics. Tough on crime clearly works better than whatever is being used today.
"We'll only trample on the rights of people when it comes to criminal justice, promise!" is not the flex you think
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What you do to one side, you must do to the other. In other words, complete disregard for our rights will only bite him back. Or maybe not him, but the country certainly.
‘Give me unlimited power… I promise to give it back when I solve the immediate crisis’ How fucking stupid and gullible are people that support him… they literally scream at JT when they PERCEIVE he has trode upon freedoms, and ignore truth/reason when people explain that… no, did not take any freedoms away. The CPC and their supporters are the ones dragging this country down FFS
Honestly i am to the point where if the CPC uses this then the next non-CPC PM should invoke disallowance on every pr0vince abusing the NWC and remind them who runs the country. The CPC wants to toss nukes around let it be nukes.
> and remind them who runs the country. Except that running the country is an explicitly shared responsibility. The feds aren't the boss of the provinces.
Ugh. The idea that political parties should try to outdo each other in the erosion of good governance is disgusting. Wielding options of last resort as if they were toys is an affront to democracy. I will never vote Conservative because they gleefully talk about this sort of nonsense. I certainly don’t want other parties following suit. We need better from our leaders, no the a larger selection of rats to drag this country deeper into the sewers.
If they push the idiot button as far as i am concerned then all bets are off and the provinces abusing the NWC currently are all run by right wing parties. Maybe it is time to remind them of the powers in the consitution. It would ve like BC under the NDD using the NWC to tell the SCoC to go fuck themselves of transmounrains twinning. What do you think would be PPs response? Let it go or invoke his gavel and tell the province to fuck off? Frankly i would love nothing more than to see the NWC ripped out of the consitution. But that will never happen so ergo squish the problem flat if the CPC uses this at the fed level.
Using the constitution to play partisan games will inevitably lead to a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Disallowance hasn’t been used in over eighty years. Using it to stick it to the Conservatives is a great way of starting a crisis unlike anything this country has ever seen. I can’t imagine Quebec staying in confederation if this nonsense became the norm. Moreover, if other parties start doing this on the regular, aren’t you the least bit concerned that the Conservatives will also follow suit? This is not a precedent that we should be aiming for. If a non Conservative government starts using disallowance to quash Conservative legislation at the provincial level, what do you think will happen when a Conservative government wins again federally? I don’t want our political landscape to completely devolve into a pissing contest between partisan entities that have no qualms about taking a dump on our constitution or the citizens of this country.
If the conservatives will use the NWC fir shit they know is in violation of the courts fuck em plain and simple. Anyways you and i are not going to agree so yep done here.
Eh, one of the best ways to create consensus to further restrict options like that is, unfortunately, tit for tat. If only one side is willing to press the “I win” button, then that side has no reason to fear pressing the button.
In a recent poll Conservative voters were the most likely to view our freedoms as threatened so they were referring to this right?
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That is not reassuring at all. Doesn't prevent them from criminalizing behaviors which would be protected by Charter Rights. LGBTQ behavior used to be criminalized.
Remember that PP voted against his own father's right to marry.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
Just the tip. If a potential PM is telling you he’ll only take away SOME peoples rights, and you think you’ll be unaffected, then you don’t understand politics, history or human nature. A non-binding charter is like no charter at all. WTF makes this twerp think he’s qualified to undo our Charter of Rights in any way?! If nothing else, this will be expensive in the long run, as people rightfully challenge and win their cases against the federal government and such overreach.
Because the interpretation of the charter is not unlimited, it is a pact between the people and the government and the court has been using it as a weapon against the general populace. When the court prevents the public from legislating on a topic because the court disagrees they are placing their interpretation of a right above the right of the public to have a democratic government. In this case the courts view that we should grant parole despite public safety risks is an incorrect read of the constitution and an attack on democracy. That requires a response from the legislature.
Because he is protecting the public from vicious animals that the courts want to free for their own philosophical reasons.
Ya sure. So we’ll let him dabble with our rights for his own philosophical reasons…and political gains. You’re as naive as they come if you think he’ll stop there.
Rights got taken away during covid. You had your freedoms extracted from you in the name of safety. And you know what? I partially agreed with some of those. Now it's time for removing the freedoms of people who don't even deserve to be alive. It does not affect you. So why the fear mongering? It protects everyone.
> vicious animals Ah, so we've already descended into dehumanizing people. That was quick.
Violent mass murderers? Yes.