2y ago

Sask. premier 'jumping the gun' with turn to notwithstanding clause for pronoun policy: expert

www.cbc.ca /news/canada/saskatoon/experts-consider-sask-jump-to-notwithstanding-clause-1.6984702

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.

27 comments

- 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.
  
  There are two sides to every coin. It takes away federal rights, but gives provincial rights.
- If this were the US, “land of the free”, I wouldn’t be so sure. Maybe I’m just cynical, but they’ve been removing that right from students in schools for a while now.
- You don't even know your own rights, let alone a child's 🤣
  
  https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
  “Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely. Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
  
  Well, considering you like making up rights that you have over others out of whole cloth, I'm not sure you can add a whole lot of value here.
  
  It's always projection with you people, always.
There really needs to be a consequence for using the notwithstanding clause or otherwise violating charter rights. Time and time again, populist politicians violate them to stoke votes, gain political momentum, then many years down the road, lose in court and their policies are reversed (paid by a future government with tax dollars). It's usually not as egregious as this, but it's a constant thing. Look at the public pay freeze that was just reversed in Ontario.
- Were I a policymaker, I'd advise my party to advance a bill to amend the relevant Elections Act such that an invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause moves up the date of the next election into the next six months. Enough time to deal with a legitimate crisis, but not so much time that the electorate will forget.
  
  I'm not sure that helps. Here's my thinking: When it's done in bad faith, it's usually used for a populist cause, even though it's ultimately illegal. A snap election just lets them ride that popular support to another government, and as usual, the legal ruling comes much, much later. I don't really know the solution. The legal system is necessarily very slow, and that's a good thing, but it means that a politician can basically ignore whether a bill is legal or not, as they will never see any consequences.
- There really needs to be a consequence for using the notwithstanding clause or otherwise violating charter rights.
  Why would the provinces sign on to that? The notwithstanding clause was a concession offered to the provinces in exchange for signing the constitution. If it were marred in all kinds of conditions, they would have simply walked away. Quebec walked away anyway. Imagine the nightmare we'd have if all other provinces did the same.
We just need to get rid of that thing.
I wish the province would wake up and vote this guy out.
We are lemmings.

27 comments