Close Menu
    Politik

    Bei Anhörungen des Obersten Gerichtshofs zu Gesetzesentwurf 21 kommt es zu nationaler Kluft über die Abweichungsklausel


    Bei Anhörungen des Obersten Gerichtshofs zu Gesetzesentwurf 21 kommt es zu nationaler Kluft über die Abweichungsklausel

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-hearings-bill-21-day-three-9.7142221

    View 3 Comments

    3 Kommentare

    1. maybelying on

      I agree that there nothing in the Constitution that prevents preemptive use of the clause, but the intention of the clause was always meant to be a tool of last resort.

      Citizens have the right to transparency, and should be able to challenge laws protected by the clause in court even if the decision is not-binding, because they have the right to understand exactly how the government is or isn’t bypassing their charter rights.

    2. killerrin on

      If we’re not going to limit the clause, we should at the very least not let the clause shield it’s usage from judicial review.

      At the bare minimum the courts should be able to listen to the arguments and rip the government to shreds over it’s usage so that they can face proper consequences during an election.

      Going further, the court should be allowed to rule the usage unconditional and schedule the bills automatic repeal for the day the sunset clause ends on the bill, so that individuals who have having their rights trampled can get them back ASAP without needing to wait to file a court case or beg the government to repeal it early.

      Going beyond this. The Courts should also be able to order the immediate or scheduled restitutement payments to people who are having their rights trampled to force the Government to pay an immediate fiscal cost on those whose rights they are suppressing to have them think twice about if said action was truly worth it.

    3. chat-lu on

      Divide only on the right of the courts to review if the law would be legal if S33 was not invoked. All provinces agreed that S33 should have full effect. Some of them believe that the courts could still give an opinion but that it would be without an effect. Others believe that the courts are not even allowed to look.

      There is no clear precedent, it’s all based on what Ford seems to *imply*.

    Leave A Reply