this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
62 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

6961 readers
391 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ‘’ Lifestylecoming soon

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Other

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here:

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No porn.
  4. No Ads / Spamming.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
62
Sask. premier 'jumping the gun' with turn to notwithstanding clause for pronoun policy: expert (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 9 months ago by sik0fewl@kbin.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Huh, I had suspected a lot of conservative types see everything as a zero-sum game, but it isn't usually presented so obviously.

Clearly, this isn't the case. Let's say we delete the right to freedom of religion in the Charter, and ban Christianity from our country. No one has gained any rights. In fact, we all lose a right, even non-Christians.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months 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.