The Supreme Court is an apex appellate court; its function is to give the final word solely on points of law, and certainly not to conduct a de novo trial, repeating the evidence-gathering work of the court of first instance. So what exactly is the point of the week-long jamboree and its parade of interveners? Are there novel and pertinent social or legal facts to be studied?
It is almost, as Sarkonak observes, as though the court were taking the work of a parliamentary committee onto itself — as if it were revving up to legislate in an area with profound social and political implications, in precisely the way parliamentary deputies would be traditionally expected to.
The Government of Canada is encouraging the Supreme Court to, on its own motion, capture new and previously unimagined powers for itself. It proposes that the court should be able to block some uses of the notwithstanding clause because, if renewed by successive governments often enough, they might create “irreparable impairments” to the enumerated rights and freedoms suspended. (Look into your crystal balls!) The government also invites the court to allow idle “declarations of invalidity” on statutes that use the clause: it proposes, in fact, that the court should be permitted to do this for explicitly electoral purposes, because “voters and their representatives are not always necessarily in a position to determine for themselves whether a law respects Charter rights and freedoms.”
You’ll need a free sign-in to read it all.
Related news from the Governor’s office: Carney is giving the Anti-Hate Network a say over what speech to restrict
Tip – Open this article, as well as Globe & Mail articles using the classic IE (Internet Explorer) browser mode, rather than the default Edge mode.
This bypasses sign-ins and subscriptions.
I bought a subscription just to help pay Tristan Hopper’s salary.
I have a sign on but pay $0.00. Only a few select articles remain behind the paywall. I had full access to this one in particular.
FILTHY LIBERALS
All the Retard Boomers voted for this.
These are the people that look at gas prices and blame President Trump.
Carney is a Cultural Marxist, the Heavy behind all of the COVID/Truckers persecution. BIG FAT DUG Ford is his Henchman trying to seize Big Red.
VIOLENCE will be the cure for this Marxism, only Violence.
On yesterday’s thread I wrote about the reasons for the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause in the constitution. The constitution would likely not have been signed without the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause. Pierre Trudeau did not want the clause but it was a compromise to gain support from the western provinces. Which provinces? (From AI sources):
Saskatchewan — NDP Premier Alan Blakeney was one of the most vocal proponents. He insisted on the clause to protect social programs and legislative authority from potential judicial overreach. Saskatchewan’s position helped shape the final compromise.
Alberta — Premier Peter Lougheed proposed the idea early on (drawing from Alberta’s own 1972 Bill of Rights, which had a similar override). He argued it was essential to prevent courts from dictating public policy and to maintain a balance between legislatures and the judiciary.
Manitoba — Premier Sterling Lyon strongly supported inclusion, emphasizing the need for elected officials to retain ultimate authority
If the Liberal federal government and their appointed judges on the supreme court conspire to alter the notwithstanding clause against the consent of the provinces, particularly the provinces who insisted on its inclusion, I’d predict there will be a constitutional crisis. A constitutional crisis at the same time as a unity crisis and an economic crisis. Of course this will add fuel to the fire of independence movements in Alberta and Saskatchewan, in addition to Quebec. A good turn of events for those of us who suppprt independence.
I’m going to give a more positive prognosis, one which I’ll add will cause a great deal of dismay to Carney.
The court will decide that yes the NWSC can be limited, however like any constitutional amendment will require consent just as any other constitutional amendment would.
In other words.
If Carney wants to limit the NWSC he’ll need Quebec to agree to it along with six other provinces and likely after a very contentious national referendum.
I for one would love to see him try.
I believe this because of the decision that they made on a bill that would allow elected senators saying that small change required it.
In my opinion, logical consistency does not exist in Canadian courts. Canadian courts start by agreeing with whatever the Liberal government wants the legal decision to be. Then the judges perform gymnastic style contortions to interpret the law to justify the Liberal governments preferred outcome.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Liberal government not only influences the courts in this manner but they actually help write up the judges decisions in the PMO. In much the same manner that former supreme court judges offered their legal “advice” to the Liberal government during the SNC Lavlin/ Attorney General Wilson-Raybould political scandal.
It’s also important to note that the Liberals usually appoint judges based on the amount of donations a lawyer gives to the Liberal Party.
Addendum
For anyone that was around for the Meech /Charlottetown never endums the feature most prominent was that the line forming for demands during negotiations was on the left and it was extremely loud, obnoxious and had a natural ability to move goal posts when they knew Ottawa would bend to get a deal done, namely Quebec and the native grievance industry.
“natural ability to move goal posts”
Yes, it is the key element of the so called constitution.
The constitution is not worth the paper that it is printed on.
The uneven distribution of power is so corrupt it makes it completely irrelevant for conducting of government for all people equally.
The so called constitution is an improbable written stew of bottom feeders put together to scam the public for a lifetime of graft in infinity court proceedings.
That’s a feature not a flaw.
You have to keep in mind that the Canadian style government is the one the 13 colonies rejected back in 1776.
The only thing they did was tweet it enough to convince the wage slaves they were getting some equal to or better than what was stated in the US constitution. But eventually it will collapse under its own weight because the Canadian charter was founded on the principle of preserving the government and not the nation.
“The Supreme Court is an apex appellate court; its function is to give the final word solely on points of law, and certainly not to conduct a de novo trial”
Respondents need to remind the SCOC of this in their briefs. However, Beverley McLachlin up and decided to dictate laws from the bench and dictators tend to ignore facts.
But the supreme court rejected anyone that might point that out to them.
If left to the SCOC and their Charter-inspired notion of group and positive rights, a mish-mash of entitlements invented by them and usually at the expense of natural individual rights, Canada will return to a dual governed (Indigenous Chiefs and end-stage democracy tyrants) serfdom with white males being enslaved. Their current make-up of appointed Jacobins and Bolsheviks would likely make the average university humanities faculties (all captured by cultural Marxism) look like a Conservative convention.
Yeah, the political scum does not want to be blamed for censorship, they pass it off to unelected, irresponsible judges that know nothing about the real life.
The second son of a shepherd in Burkina Faso is more connected to real life and probably does not even think that free speech is a problem.
Canada has a completely undemocratic patronage system of government that is the exclusive private property of the Crown. In this case the whole shebang belongs to the gloriously retarded King of Canada, Charles III.
In a just world, when Authoritarians use words like sedition, freedom fighters use words like lock and load.
I wouldn’t give Carney or Farber the steam of my piss.
How much of this SCoC shit is to thwart/make illegal a western separation vote?
That’s it exactly. That’s exactly why.
precisely. it is my assumption that from now on, any issues and subsequent decision from the Supreme Outhouse of Canaduh will be filtered thru the lens of *does this promote in any way thwarting of ABSK independence*?
and THEN, when it gets down to a ‘the referendum succeeded but was nullified’ what ABSK must do is overcome the ‘polite Canaduhian’ trait and do what came out post kaynbeck ’95 when parizeau let it slip a 50% +1 and HE was going to immediately and *arbitrarily declare independence*. and my hunch it would have WORKED in the face of polite ROC.
and as such if it come to that, WILL work for ABSK.
the unknowns at this time are, has the ROC punched ABSK in the face enough to create the neccesary numbers and sentiment to get the referendum passed, and then, given that the ROC will cheat, are there enough citizens in the new nation of ABSK to give the old country the middle finger and do its *own* (precedent TURDeau 1.0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeTsQQ22Uwc skip to 0:22 point
‘just watch me’.
“How much of this SCoC shit is to thwart/make illegal a western separation vote?”
All of it.
They’re panicking because Sask and Alberta told them to shove their gun confiscation joke. Imagine what’ll happen if Ottawa loses all that oil tax money.
“The Government of Canada is encouraging the Supreme Court to, on its own motion, capture new and previously unimagined powers for itself.”
Specifically, the power to make provincial premieres sit down and shut up. They’re doing it to Quebec on the language thing because:
A) no one cares what happens to the language thing, even in Quebec, so no one is paying attention,
B) The Bloc-Heads in Parliament are carrying #Lieberal water and ( I presume) secretly approved this and,
C) They can frame the whole thing as “civil rights” blather, a worthy cause blah blah blah, and again nobody cares.
But what they’re really after is the power to bring Alberta and Sask to heel. They are very, very afraid, because two whole provinces are not playing the game, and #OrangeManBad might do something there.
You notice #BlubberDouggie didn’t tell the feds to stuff their gun confiscation law? Even thought the Toronto Police Services said they were not going to enforce any of it? Even though #BlubberBoi is on TV every frickin’ day pushing “Castle Doctrine” and congratulating the guy who shot the robbers?
Anybody else notice that?
Because I did, and it implies that #Douggie is on board the #Lieberal gravy train. Probably because he’s watching them all gang up on Alberta, and he doesn’t want the friction interfering with his own scams, whatever those may be. This is my opinion.
Canada is a fake country.
Perhaps the federal gov’t will have its hands full this autumn while AB approves of our separation referendum.
Nothing about having the SCOC wade into or comment on the Notwithstanding Clause is relevant. They should play no role in this, and AB should entirely reject whatever comes out of this ruling.
“The Supreme Court is an apex appellate court…”
Oh hell! How wrong I was! I mean, here I was, thinking all along that it was nothing but a collection of freedom-haters selected for their uncaring attitude to the consequences of their decisions.
And what’s this “apex” business? They can all sign their names normally.
It’s stuff like this along with what amounts to doing nothing to take the country in a different direction that boggles the mind.
No wonder a president sht talks this country.
Should be fun having a Richard Warman on steroids calling the shots.
This is great.
The Supreme Court will act as the government desires.
Beautifully destroying any last vestige of credibility they may have left.
If we are lucky,the Chief justice will also insist on finding in favour of the “State of Emergency” actions ..
Before the October referendum.
Note the irony..
Ottawa cannot address Western Alienation,cause “Constitution”..
Ottawa ..begs Supreme Court to void constitution..
Liberals,Chicken dancers, beyond parody.