#notwithstanding

Schadenfreude (German) [ˈʃaːdənˌfʁɔʏ̯də] pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.

sobs thank you youre so kind...

my niceysness is my low effort way to make the world better at least for my friends sniffles...

and hehe thank you regarding my art!! its funny because one of my friends was at first repulsed af of my art (dont know if its because of the style or smthg precise) but it grew on him and now he loves it and always retweets my pieces (hes a stinky twitter dweller yea. hi greg) and honestly i was not upset at all (ive grown past worrying about what others think) but i was taken aback bc... ayo my art is so good? i cant find a reason for it to look ugly like. it's unreasonnable for my brain to think that. so yea! that was a nice perspective.

I’ve been alive all

This time, my heartbeat still strong

WHAT is the Notwithstanding Clause??

Basically it’s a provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that you can put a clause into your bill that makes it come into effect “notwithstanding” what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says, i.e. if the law passes it can’t be challenged in court. This expires after a few years, normally by the time you’ve elected a new government anyway. It’s existed since the introduction of the Charter in 1982 and been controversial ever since.

WHY would such a thing exist?????

THaaaaat’s... complicated. The Canadian legal system is a fucking nightmare of competing and clashing systems with weird checks and balances. The British system is very much based on precedent and legislation, which makes it pretty flexible. The French system is much more, like, “we will tell you what is and isn’t legal in these documents here.” And the American system is like the French system but with more court challenges. Basically all of these things get mashed up together in the Canadian system (SURPRISE SURPRISE), and the Notwithstanding Clause is a nod to the British system in a document (The Charter of Rights and Freedoms) that is much more American/French. At the time the Charter was being negotiated, there was also concern that it would put too much power into the hands of the (appointed) judiciary and not leave enough in the hands of the (elected) legislature, so in that way it acts as a check/balance. (YES yes I know this is a very basic and super simplistic explanation, happy to reblog better ones from more expert individuals)

OK but WHO has used such a thing and for WHAT PURPOSE???

Mostly the province of Quebec, as a form of protest because they have never officially approved the Constitution Act or the Charter. And also for real reasons to override legal challenges to language laws. It’s also been used for things like back-to-work legislation, and some provincial governments have attempted to use it for grosser purposes but not very successfully. At the time it was introduced, there were lots of hypotheticals politicians brought up, like what if the Supreme Court decided that hate speech was legal under freedom of expression and Parliament had to heroically pass an anti-hate speech bill, but these haven’t happened.

HOW does it actually work?

Right, so, this is one of the key things. You can’t just be like, “oh no, the superior court struck down my bill, NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE haha immunity!” The Notwithstanding Clause must be a part of the bill when it passes. So in the case we’re facing now, Doug Ford has to go back to the provincial parliament, introduce a NEW BILL with a notwithstanding clause in it, and then go through the whole process to get that passed. ...in time for the municipal election...

The Notwithstanding Clause also can’t override all of the rights and freedoms in the Charter. The court today made its decision based on freedom of expression, which is something the Notwithstanding Clause can cover. However, the Notwithstanding Clause does NOT cover democratic rights, so even if Ford passed such a bill it could theoretically still be challenged on that basis.