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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That requires someone to have gained the right to ban religion.

    I had suspected conservative types believe in magic, but I am surprised that includes the Charter magically changing on its own.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        I guess if you re-define the word to encompass any sort of government power.

        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.

        Too bad we live in a world where words mean things.

        Typical conservative logic. You don’t have to cling dearly to your grandfather’s world, you know. We can move forward and see progress.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          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.