I wrote some while back on the bogus consecutive-vs-concurrent life sentence issue, which Poilievre is dredging up again to justify invoking the notwithstanding clause:
We can no more force a prisoner to serve 150 years than we can execute him six times
theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl…

ok MurfDawg we are just going to have to disagree

I think rights are better protected with a Charter than by relying on whoever gets elected at any point in time.

To me, that's the heart of the debate - frustration with some judicial interpretations is a side show.

If you read the Winnipeg Free Press, you already know that Tom Broadbeck is columnist who tends to lean conservative.
Pierre’s Poilievre’s plans to override the Charter are extremely dangerous. If you are progressive or moderate, please remember this when you vote.

Someone saying I will interpret winning an election as the public deciding that my policies are constitutional - that's the slipperiest of slopes, probably intended to fog the lens of how our system works. It is selling autocracy in a wrapper of populism.

it is the definition of a loophole

He argued that the constitutionality of his decisions would be settled by him winning an election.

That's a terrible, no good idea.

However, in his speech he went on to say that his decisions would be constitutional because he would have a mandate from voters.
That is describing a terrible precedent - it's a bit shocking how little pushback there has been on this so far.

Me saying it's legitimate was meant to say the loophole exists in law, and that - sadly - some voters might endorse a politician who wants to override the charter.
I am in no way neutral about this idea.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

my point is - there is a notwithstanding clause - and if someone says they will use it, it's a good idea to believe they will use it, and worry how much they will feel entitled to use it. (Me saying it's legitimate is only saying the loophole exists in law)

my point is - there is a notwithstanding clause - and if someone says they will use it, it's a good idea to believe they will use it, and worry how much they will feel entitled to use it. (Me saying it's legitimate is only saying the loophole exists in law)

Sorry I thought I was being clear, but maybe my phrasing was too subtle.

For me, it's a terrible idea to want a
PM who vows to opt out of the Charter.

I simply noted that in a democracy, it's not illegal for him to promise it, or some voters to want it.

It's legitimate for Pierre Poilievre to promise to treat the Charter of Rights as optional, if elected. Some voters love that & will vote for it. Others may want to reflect on what could be put at risk with a PM who feels his judgment should prevail over the Charter.

First pass at a local spring scene 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Oh, well then.

Andrew making a huge point here. Someone with a massive lead in the polls is saying ‘when I win I will decide if and when the Charter of Rights still applies’ This is the Trump playbook.

Or his leadership race pitch that he was “running for prime minister.”

This is the flipside of populism: the cult of the leader. “You need ME to protect you from THEM. And I need maximum power to do that. I can’t be hemmed in by laws and Charters and whatnot.”

Just hoping maybe there was no Cricket, either.
nytimes.com/2024/05/03/us/…

Doing things that aren’t popular is sometimes an important attribute of leadership. Should everything be reduced to “if the people don’t like it I won’t do it” ?

Yes