|10/04/2012 at 18:52 #1553|
Section 33 is my favourite section of the Constitution because one day a politician with balls will use it to level the playing field in Canada. Those with wealth and power should be concerned about its implications.
Although Canada currently does not have a Socialist party (the NDP are Liberals) in the future a party may be formed that will redistribute the resources of this country so that more than a select few will benefit from our great wealth.
I invite people to take a serious look at the wording of Section 33. It is our salvation.
p.s. Harper is a Social Darwinist. He and his cronies believe that they deserve more than the rest of us. Their sense of superiority and entitlement is changing Canada into America. But, as I said, it will only take one real Socialist to take it all away from them. Thank you Section 33.
|21/10/2012 at 19:58 #2208|
application inequality you say
Mr Guy Lafleur is prosecuted for Perjury
Mr Guy Lafleur was innocent
I seem to miss that part of the Charter when I read it
|30/10/2012 at 18:50 #2249|
Section 33 of the Charter, commonly referred to as the Notwithstanding or Override clause, has an important place in Canada’s constitutional development, as well as the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches of government.
In the late-1970s and early-1980s, the federal and provincial governments undertook negotiations to modernize the Canadian Constitution, which eventually led to the passage of a new Constitution in 1982. Central to these negotiations was a federal proposal to introduce a constitutionally-entrenched set of rights and freedoms to replace the Canadian Bill of Rights (this led to be the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
The federal proposal was, however, a controversial one. Several provinces disagreed with its inclusion on the grounds that it would significantly shift political power from elected legislatures to appointed courts. The Notwithstanding clause was subsequently added to the Charter as a means of alleviating these provincial concerns.
I disagree with James Taggart on his beliefs of Section 33 of the Charter. The reason for that is I do not think Section 33 can be used to strongly protect the citizens. For example the case Ford v. Quebec.
On February 15, 1984, a group of Quebec retailers challenged provincial legislation prohibiting the use of English advertising on outdoor signs. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and pitted Quebec’s regional objective of preserving French culture against the fundamental freedom of expression protected by Section 2(b) of the Charter.
The Court ruled in a unanimous decision that Quebec’s language law violated the Section 2(b) right to free expression, preventing it from being saved under Section 1 as a “reasonable limit” on Charter protections.
Although this decision effectively went down Quebec’s law against English advertising, the Court did think that the provincial legislature was free to use Section 33 of the Charter (the “notwithstanding clause”) to override the effect of Section 2(b) in this instance, which Quebec’s provincial government promptly did.
In the end Quebec did not have to change its language laws. Quebec also violated the rights of its citizen. Section 33 is more theoretical than practical in some instances, and the government can rule using the charter.
|05/11/2012 at 04:15 #2264|
The notwithstanding clause – the right of the government to override the rights of the individual. Thus there are no rights only privileges. Anyone who feels that they have rights in this country are sadly mistaken.
|06/11/2012 at 22:54 #2274|
You are absolutely right. We have lost so many rights thanks to this charter. We are guaranteed nothing except death and taxes! Trudeau has screwed us all for years to come. We need leaders of all provinces to get together and right a proper charter that puts the citizen first and lawyers and politicians last!! We had a proper bill of rights but Trudeau couldn’t leave a good thing alone> The crooked old narcissist had to put his name on something no matter how bad!!
|08/12/2012 at 21:52 #2333|
@ James Taggart – “Socialist”/communist, same same – if you would like an “equal” society where all are treated the same, perhaps you should move somewhere nice, say North Korea.
@ bwinni and hunkydory – I could not agree more.
|09/12/2012 at 01:17 #2334|
RepofVI if you would like an “un-equal” society where all are not treated the same, perhaps you should move somewhere nice, say North Korea.
The rest of will continue to work towards making Canada the country others think it is !
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.