Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed
it's not like it's been applied by provinces which applies to this case you're arguing about...
|
really?
taken from wiki...
Quote:
On March 16, 2000, the Alberta Legislature passed Bill 202, which amended the provincial Marriage Act[7] to include an opposite-sex-only definition of marriage as well as the notwithstanding clause in order to insulate the definition from Charter challenges. However, the provinces may use the "notwithstanding clause" only on legislation that they otherwise have the authority to enact, and the Supreme Court ruled in Reference re Same-Sex Marriage that the definition of marriage is within the exclusive domain of the Canadian Parliament.
Alberta once abandoned an attempt to use the notwithstanding clause to limit lawsuits against the government for past forced sterilizations
Quebec
After the Charter came into force in 1982, Quebec inserted a notwithstanding clause into all its laws; these expired in 1987, when the Quebec Liberals, having ousted the Parti Québécois, did not renew them.
However, the most notable use of the notwithstanding clause came in the Quebec language law known as Bill 101 after sections of those laws were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.). On December 21, 1989, the National Assembly of Quebec employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override freedom of expression (section 2b), and equality rights (section 15). This allowed Quebec to continue the restriction against the posting of any commercial signs in languages other than French. In 1993, after the law was criticized by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Bourassa government had the provincial parliament rewrite the law to conform to the Charter, and the notwithstanding clause was removed.
|
Two cases out of a number listed where the provinces used the notwithstanding clause.
Quote:
|
so what you're saying is you're going to keep bitching until the federal govt. shuts you up? how bout you take this law up to the supreme court yourself if you're so passionate about it?
|
What a stupid argument.
Especially considering that Canada isn't China, nor is it Russia. In Canada, there is due process which has been thrown to the wind in these cases. That's the point that you bleeding heart paranoids just don't get.
In Canada, the onus is not on the defendant to prove their innocence. It's up to the crown to prove guilt, so why should the Canadian individuals have to put money and time out of pocket to fight what is an egregious misuse of the law?