This hypocrisy is dangerous.
This will be a much shorter post. I promise. Skip to the final line if you want a really quick explanation of the point.
There are lines you should not cross.
You get to choose which lines you approach carefully. You get to choose which lines you approach slowly and warily. You get to choose which lines to blow straight through. You get to choose the lines you will not cross.
We want to think we are taking that decision deliberately with full regard for the situation and the consequences. We like to believe we are reasoning and prepared for the consequences. In reality, these decisions are often made by lying to ourselves, or while searching for the thrill of adventure, or seeking great value against high odds.
Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I hear that turned out well for him. At least for a while. Well, nothing lasts forever!
The world turns. Also other things can turn: The wheel turns, the table turns, the tide turns, the worm turns, the dog turns twice before it lies down. On the other hand, sometimes the shoe goes on the other foot. Sometimes you are up, sometimes you are down. Fates are twisted, events chaotically revealed, with a fateful chance you sometimes get an unexpected outcome.
One day you may declare yourself dictator for life, but the Ides of March lie ever near.
In Canada, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is part of our constitution - it should never be crossed lightly, and forms a line that should never be violated. It is very easy to read, although it seems difficult for some to interpret and it can get very challenging when the clashes on the margins happen. You can read it here: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/index.html
The Notwithstanding Clause
I’m going to beat this drum for a while. When the notwithstanding clause is invoked, it prevents a court from throwing out the particular legislation declared covered by the notwithstanding clause. It literally means “Notwithstanding the rights and freedoms given to a person or a group of people, this legislation shall be enforced.”
That’s serious. A line that is very dangerous to cross.
Alea Iacta Est
When the Alberta Government (headed by Premier Danielle Smith and the United Conservative Party or UCP) invoked the notwithstanding clause at the end of October, it did so in order to stop a strike by Alberta’s teachers.
“Back to Work” legislation is a commonality. Usually when a strike is legislated to an end, it will be justified as an overwhelming need based upon irreversible harms. That is usually economic harms to consumers or businesses, in this case the reasoning was that harms to children’s learning justified legislating the strike to a close. Each person can make our own judgment as to whether the legislation is fair or not, whether the union was correct, or whether the government was justified in legislating the strike to end.
But the Alberta government went one step further - one step over the line.
They invoked the notwithstanding clause, stomping their foot down with total conviction. It is done in total. In one fell swoop, the government has taken away the rights and freedoms of teachers. Despite infringing on their rights and freedoms, the courts can not declare the legislation has no force or effect. Think about this for just a minute, are any of these important to you?
2a) Freedom of Religion
2b) Freedom of Expression
2c) Freedom of Peaceful Assembly
2d) Freedom of Association.
7) Life, liberty and security of the person
8) Search and Seizure
9) Arbitrary Detention
10a) Right to be informed of reasons for detention or arrest
10b) Right to counsel
10c) Habeas corpus
11) Legal rights [that] apply to those “chared with an offence”
11a) Right to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence charged.
11b) Trial within a reasonable time
11c) Protection against testimonial compulsion
11d) Presumption of innocence
11e) Right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause
11f) Trial by jury
11g) Retroactive offences
11h) Protection against double jeopardy
11i) Lesser punishment
12) Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
13) Protection against self-incrimination
14) Right to an interpreter
15) Equality rights
By very definition, invoking the notwithstanding clause takes those freedoms and rights away. All of them, at once, in regards to specific legislation.
“Oh, but that’s crazy! A government would never arrest you, hold you in prison without charges, force you to testify against yourself and inflict cruel punishment upon you just for striking!”
Except that’s what the notwithstanding clause means. I’m not arguing that Premier Smith is about to do this to a teacher, I’m saying the door has been opened by stripping all of those rights away in the belief that the government should not fall under any check or balance pertaining to their legislation.
Are you personally willing to fight in court in order to get it overturned? Against the power of a government that declares their law supreme?
It is wrong. It is dangerous. It is now a habit.
The clock strikes two, three, and four.
Strike two is the government invoking the notwithstanding clause for Bill 9.
Strike three is the government pushing a referendum on separation. The judge says the referendum proposal on Alberta independence would be unconstitutional. The government lawyer said “…once the legislation has royal assent, the court action is over, and there would be nothing for the judge to decide.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-judge-proposed-referendum-unconstitutional-9.7004982
Strike four, new election laws that restrict names of political parties. The Alberta Party (I was formerly a member) wants to change their name to Progressive Conservatives, a name with a long history in Alberta that denotes a centre right party. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-legislation-would-change-citizen-referendum-rules-restrict-political-party-names-9.7003718)
How many strikes do these people need?
A cocksure government eventually plays chicken
So this government is so utterly and completely certain of themselves, in the most arrogant manner they can possibly achieve, brushing away dissent and argument of regular citizens. They are our paternalistic leaders, guiding us, the teachers, the transgender people under 18, those of us that do not want leading questions posed in a referendum, and those who wish to call themselves Progressive Conservatives of Alberta, towards a glorious future where all is good as they define it and the oil flows freely!
Thank you, dear leaders. But first let me tell you why you have crossed the line and made a categorically terrible decision. A choice that is so incredibly awful and crosses a line so catastrophically dangerous that you can never recover from once it has been made.
Premier Smith, you have no credibility, no justification, and absolutely no excuse when you try to argue against the Province of British Columbia banning your precious pipeline, notwithstanding.
The constitution protects us all. Do not cross that line.