Montreal City Weblog

Kate 13:15 on 2025-09-30 Permalink Reply  

• bob 15:51 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  What does not make sense?

  When the notwithstanding clause was floated, the people behind it claimed that no government would have the gall to use it to deny fundamental rights because the political cost would be too high. It ends up that because various bigoted populations are actually in favour of denying people their fundamental rights, not using it is what costs you.

  Successive federal governments have done little or nothing to stop provinces from denying rights, most notably by Quebec, which has invoked it 15 times (not including when it was applied to every law passed from 1982 to 1985). All to keep the peace, which is fine for these careerists because the denying people their rights does not affect them personally.

  Mulcair is entirely correct in saying that Carney and Rodriguez are cowards.

• Kate 16:25 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  Devil’s advocate time: but if the majority of the population of a province, e.g. Quebec, really wants to contravene a stated right – or feels that it should not have been declared a right at all – isn’t it democratic to obey their will?

  Realpolitik time: every prime minister since the notwithstanding clause was passed has been too cautious to shake the bars of Quebec nationalism by pushing back against the use of the clause. Arguably this could be described as a tacit admission that Quebec is a distinct society with different values from the rest of Canada.

  Maybe people like Carney and Rodriguez don’t want to have their administrations turned into dumpster fires over Quebec nationalism? Keep the peace, attend to other things, and let Quebec play its games. This outlook has allowed the CAQ to essentially pretend that Quebec is a separate country, a trend that PSPP will be happy to extend after he wins the next election.

• jeather 16:52 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  That’s well known as the tyranny of the majority and it’s generally considered a problem, whether or not it’s democratic. We can discuss the realpolitik of it, where I think you’re right — not that they are admitting that Quebec is a distinct society exactly but that they need Quebec’s votes, and it’s unpredictable, so they just let it go.

• Kevin 16:55 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  It may be democratic to flout rights, but it is not moral–at least in the conventionally used human sense.

  And those who believe democracy gives them the right to impose their will should not be surprised when their opponents resort to other measures to achieve their own ends.

• Anton 17:28 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  A modern understanding of democracy includes minority rights and other rights that can not be simply overridden by the majority.

• H. John 18:34 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  In a recent column Andrew Coyne wrote:

  “How did the people who drafted the Charter think the notwithstanding clause would be used?
  We don’t have to guess at this. They told us at the time. It would only be used, said Roy McMurtry, then Ontario’s attorney-general and one of the authors of the “kitchen accord” that sealed the constitutional deal, “in the unlikely event of a decision of the courts that is clearly contrary to the public interest.” It was “a safety valve,” his federal counterpart Jean Chrétien agreed, “to correct absurd situations … unlikely ever to be used except in non-controversial circumstances.”
  Constitutional scholars concurred. It “will rarely be used,” predicted former Supreme Court justice Gérard La Forest. “The exercise of the power would normally attract such political opposition that it would rarely be invoked,” said Peter Hogg, the eminent professor of law.”

  Two of his columns on the subject are worth reading:

  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-notwithstanding-clause-nuclear-option-ottawa-proportionate-response/

  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-not-about-the-notwithstanding-clause-its-about-the-charter/

• bob 19:09 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  It’s like those guys never read any history at all. What a pile of stupid.

  Democracy is founded on the rule of law as much as majority rule. If you put an asterisk next to your fundamental law that says “optional”, you do not have rule of law, you have rule of bigot demagogues. So, we have these judges, like La Forest, who when faced with glaring violations of human rights, sit there with their thumbs up their asses, like their ass-thumbed colleagues in Parliament.

  Here’s a choice I would give the provinces and Canadians: either you get rid of the notwithstanding clause, or you get rid of the Charter. You cannot have both.

• Tim S. 19:41 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  I think what is really frustrating for Mulcair is that the Liberal claim the mantle of being the party of rights – they talk about values and the Charter constantly – but then show no leadership in actually standing up for these things. If you care about something, and you’re a politician, you make an effort to persuade people. If you don’t care and just want to go with the majority, fine, but then be honest and stop pretending to be something different.

• Kate 19:50 on 2025-09-30 Permalink

  Thank you, H. John.

  Here are archive links for the pieces H. John linked:

  https://archive.ph/kfyFi

  https://archive.ph/sXyMX

• Annette 03:42 on 2025-10-01 Permalink

  Though it affects us very directly (especially in QC) it’s interesting that none of the Canadian immigration testing materials – which deep-dives into the verbiage and history of the Charter – mentions Sect. 33 and its uses/implications. Immigrants have to learn about all this extracurricularly.

  If more provinces successfully invoked it (see Alberta’s latest attempt) more often, it might force the Feds to contend with the quandary. If it remains mostly ‘oh, them again’ Quebec – then what’s human rights, really?

• dhomas 13:47 on 2025-10-01 Permalink

  Kevin hit the nail on the head. What happens when you’re the minority? Many (most?) visitors to this blog are (historic) anglos, a minority in Quebec. How will the anglos feel when the government finishes quashing Islam and sets their sights on the anglos?

  …”Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me “

• Joey 14:20 on 2025-10-01 Permalink

  @dhomas no need to wait…

  I am not unsympathetic to Mulcair’s perspective and any Canadian Liberal Party should ostensibly be in favour of tilting the balance back in favour of minority rights. But there are two problems that Mulcair doesn’t address (inexcusably, IMO).

  First, Pablo Rodriguez, who is not currently premier, can do basically nothing unless he wins the next election, and it seems unlikely that taking a stance against the notwithstanding clause would do anything other than hurt his electoral chances. It does not surprise me that Tom Mulcair can’t quite grasp this concept.

  Second, even if he were premier, this is not a decision Quebec can make on its own – and I imagine the consensus in Quebec would establish itself fairly quickly: that Quebec ‘gets’ more from having it in place than if it were repealed. I imagine a similar consensus would emerge in Alberta, Ontario and potentially elsewhere.

  Again, I’m not trying to make excuses, and there is a lot of virtue in taking the correct moral stance – but if it harms your chances of getting elected and there’s not much you can do about it on your own, does it amount to much more than (it pains me to say it) virtue signalling? Better yet: what is the purpose of an ex-politician grandstanding on this kind of issue if they can’t even come up with *practical* alternatives?

• Ian 18:05 on 2025-10-01 Permalink

  That Mulcair lost to Trudeau becasue Trudeau campaigned further left than Mulcair was willing to commit to says it all. And of course Trudeau didn’t come through.

  It’s hard not to be cynical but yeah, if you don’t, play the game your opponent will, and will make you look the fool as a thank you.