Poilievre says he'll use notwithstanding clause to ensure multiple-murderers die in prison
Poilievre says he'll use notwithstanding clause to ensure multiple-murderers die in prison
25 comments
-
becoming the first Canadian prime minister to override Charter rights
We need to critically ask why this hasn’t been done before, and why this has never been used federally ever, before we go ahead and vote for a federal government that promises to override the charter.
Why are legislation and the Supreme Court not enough?
We also need to look at what the US looks like with their new rule by fiat approach, is that what we want here? A government that overrides the charter at any opportunity?
I’m not for murderers, I’m for using the tools in the system instead of breaking it.
-
I think Poilievre is also preying on people not understanding how our judicial system works. When someone is "eligible for Parole after 25 years" the key word is eligible. Our most heinous criminals will die in prison, but at a certain point, they have to right to go before the parole board, and I think that's a good thing.
-
Absolutely. It's beyond me why someone would be against a hearing taking place, considering a "no" would be practically guaranteed in cases like these.
-
He's counting on people not understanding how the judicial system works.
-
-
No kidding. Something like this should only be used when some unforeseen events happens, or to protect against abuse or emergencies.
Using it to correct a personal opinion, or worse to try and gain some votes, is absolutely disgraceful.
-
-
Firstly: Bragging about wanting to override the Charter of Rights is disgusting. That alone should end his career but I know it won't.
Secondly: Canada does not actually have that many mass-murderers and they are not what most people care about. It's the small time crime that Canadians are concerned about. Thefts, domestic violence, stranger attacks, auto crime, etc. Promising to go after a type of criminal that hardly even exists is an empty, nothingburger promise.
Thirdly: This just reeks of pandering to those that want to see our justice system function as a tool for revenge.
-
It's pandering to the American exceptionalism that's been shoved down our throats for decades. Those Canadians who have no idea how things work here because they've been trained to American media and politics. They're everywhere, they're indoctrinated and they're an easy vote.
-
You are unfortunately correct.
-
-
-
Is it safe to say that casual use of the notwithstanding clause has been normalized to the point that there are no real consequences to invoking it any more?
-
The burden is on people who understand what the notwithstanding clause means to explain to the less educated how dangerous this game is.
Do any of your friends and family know what this clause means? Every time I bring up the topic outside of politically active circles, I get a blank stare.
This proposal is illustrative to what’s at stake here. I’ll write an opinion piece on this later today.
-
I wouldn't say that's the case. Doug Ford got huge push-back for using it, to the point he repealed a piece of legislation that invoked it. Similarly, I don't think Poilievre would experience "no real consequences".
Plus, as pointed out in the article, "The clause can only override certain sections of the charter." IANAL, but I'm sure this (and Poilievre's other proposals to invoke the clause) will be reviewed by the courts.
-
-
If you don't offer opportunity for rehabilitation and release why not just execute them? Leave it to conservatives to find a way how to make life worse for people AND waste tax dollars.
-
Seriously. That option needs to be removed from the Charter. I haven't heard one instance where it was used in a positive way. It's always to do something that violates someone else's rights.
-
I'd like to do this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional thing, but I'd like to not get sued for it. One notwithstanding clause please!
-
Or at least make it require some very large proportion of votes to pass a bill with the clause in it.
-
I kinda want it to be both hard and costly to invoke, needs to be an absolute last case, like have it trigger an election so that it has to be voted on by the next government, or have it trigger a referendum that requires a super majority of eligible voters to pass (nonvoters count as no), and if it does succeed it terminates when parliament dissolves, that's kinda inline though with the 5 year renewal periods.
-
-
-
Huh, who else do we know who said they would overrule a bunch of laws to make a country great again?
-
Lawyers know better than a tyrant wannabe.
-
I'm seeing a lot of Conservative signs around me. I'm getting prepared for an upset to be honest. I'm voting against PP but like ... I'm so sad about the world right now.
-
I'm also seeing lots of Liberal signs in Saskatchewan, a thing I never thought I would see.
-
Heres the cited reason by the conservatives on why he wants to do this, if you were curious:
https://www.conservative.ca/trudeaus-catch-and-release-policies-are-endangering-canadians/
Then heres the law itself, which cites racial injustice as to why it was needed:
You can agree with that or not, as long as you realize theres a larger issue at play.
-
-
I'm all for being tougher on crime, but does he have to sound like such a psychopath?
-
If someone shows you who they are: believe them.
-
-
Pierre is good at making a few words sound good but every time you actually apply logic the idea is dumb as shit
25 comments