Der frühere Premierminister von Alberta, Jason Kenney, sagt, dass Gesetze zum Rückruf von Politikern missbraucht wurden | Globalnews.ca
Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney says politician recall legislation being misused
Der frühere Premierminister von Alberta, Jason Kenney, sagt, dass Gesetze zum Rückruf von Politikern missbraucht wurden | Globalnews.ca
Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney says politician recall legislation being misused
13 Kommentare
>We have it as an ultimate tool of accountability if a politician does something absolutely egregious, illegal, grossly unethical.”
Kenney, I’d call using Section 33 to be absolutely egregious and grossly unethical, regardless of the target or reason. Doing it to punish trans youth to a life of bullying, parental abuse, and social isolation because cis-het men want to ‚virtue signal‘ to women that they care? Exceptionally so. Doing it to strip away labour rights away from Teachers? Just as bad.
Nevermind that this UCP government, lead by Smith, has been mired in unethical practices since the beginning. Their playing footsie with separatism is grossly unethical.
>The notwithstanding clause is a part of the Charter of Rights. In fact, there would be no Charter of rights without the notwithstanding clause,” Kenney said.
And the UCP government, alongside every other government that has used it until now, has demonstrated that we have no Charter of Rights with it.
The Conservatives probably put the law in place slavering at the prospect of attacking duly elected non-PC governments. Not breaking my heart that they’re having to wear it now.
I completely reject the notion that politicians have any right to tell voters the appropriate use of democratic instruments.
They made their bed, now they must lie in it. I do oppose recall legislation however. Legislators have to make difficult but necessary decisions, and voters may not realize it at the time. Giving MLAs a full term allows voters to judge based on results, not short term gut reactions. I’m also concerned how recall legislation can be used by wingnuts to purge lawmakers for perceived ideological impurity.
So is the notwithstanding clause.
Like it or not both were always going to be used for things completely unrelated to what those who wrote them intended.
> The architect of Alberta’s politician recall legislation says it was never meant to be used as a political weapon, but as an “ultimate tool of accountability” if a politician engages in illegal or unethical behaviour […] saying that when it comes to “taking a position in a union negotiation that you don’t like — you can disagree, fair enough — but you make your case in the next election.”
You don’t get to give voters a tool and then whine because they are using it in ways you didn’t intend. Maybe the people in Alberta do believe that these politicians have engaged in illegal or unethical behaviour.
The bar to trigger a by-election is a high one (a number of signatures equal to 60% of the votes cast in their constituency in the last election). If they can meet that steep requirement, that is a pretty clear condemnation from the voters.
I believe it was BC that also had recall legislation. Then it was used on a sitting Premier. Disappeared shortly after. I imagine we will see the same thing in Alberta. Give it a few years and another party somewheres else will think recall legislation is a *grand idea* for dealing with public discontent with the political class. Its the circle of life.
It’s simple. If the government has any **proof** that those organizing these petitions are doing so with the help of unions or foreign actors, or are being paid to do so by same, then make it public. What’s so hard about that? Of course, if it’s all just speculation and whining, then the6 won’t be able to.
I don’t think the recalls are going anywhere. They’ll just change the legislation. It’s like the fixed election dates. Huge deal if Liberals don’t follow the rules they’ve picked, but do they follow their own rules? Nah, they’ll just change the rules whenever convenient, as we saw with Ford and Harper.
Also it’s a huge exercise in doublespeak they way they call overruling the constitution „constitutional“. And they invoke it preemptively too.
I think it’s being used pretty much as it was intended….That’s what happens when you piss off a lot of your constituents.
I love the conservatives‘ narrative that we were only meant to use the recall legislation when a politician has committed the most egregious, unethical and illegal act, or – you know – a crime. For which we already have laws.
It’s intended use is to account for conservative buyers remorse in the case where the right wing vote splitting allowed the NDP to eke out a victory.
It’s really bugging them that when they dream up these fascist tools and leave them open-ended like they did. it comes back and hits them back in the face
>“We have it as an ultimate tool of accountability if a politician does something absolutely egregious, illegal, grossly unethical.“
Many Alberta voters happen to believe that ramming through back-to-work legislation with the notwithstanding clause in a single day **is** absolutely egregious and grossly unethical – and it’s only legal because s.33 specifically allows a legislature to do something that would otherwise be illegal.
But I guess Jason Kenney is just falling back on his classic „I reject the premise of your question“ thinking.