Canada

Honestly, it’s telling that the province’s that want this argument removed are the ones most likely to abuse the notwithstanding clause to infringe on charter rights. Why else should they oppose it?

The notwithstanding clause used to be the nuclear option, I wish it still was.

What they should withdraw is the Notwithstanding Clause itself. It's a nasty thing.

The notwithstanding clause kind of made sense in the 1980s as a legal cutout for the uniqueness of Quebec, but it's clearly become a "get out of jail free card" for violating the charter of rights. The problem is it assumes politicians have enough shame to not slam the NWS clause button every time their policies get challenged, but our politics has turned sharply towards shamelessness in the last couple decades.

Non Canadian here from /all. I've seen the notwithstanding clause mentioned, but this is the first time I've looked it up. It sounds like a good thing for the parliament to be required to explicitly state when they are going against the charter of rights (is that what it's called?).

To be clear, Carney isn't advocating for doing away with the Notwithstanding Clause. He is simply arguing that the Supreme Court should rule whether a law infringes upon the rights of Canadians whether the Clause is invoked or not. He believes that Canadians should know if their elected officials are infringing on their rights when they go to the ballot box.

I agree.