Hyacinth

2016-05-22 08:40:58 -0400

Al,If you want to split hairs there is, as you pointed out, one recourse – the Notwithstanding Clause. But as mentioned by Dan it is not used. Why should it be a consideration? A futile effort in mental gymnastics in my opinion since the government refuses to use it. I cannot recall an instance where it has been used to override the Supreme Court’s ruling decision. There have been several instances over the decades that it should have been theoretically used but was not. A paper written by Richard McAdam, Dalhousie University Department of Political Science, an M.A. Candidate, puts forward the premise that it is not invoked by the government because it would be perceived as a violation of the principle of the Charter of Rights thus would result in a backlash in political standing in the eyes of the voters. I tend to agree with this stance, however I disagree with his stance on how the general population perceives the Charter of Rights. In my opinion most people know little except for what they see/hear/read (news/papers/TV/online) unless they have an interest in the topic or perhaps for academic reasons. He lends too much credence to the idea that the general population is well versed. But that leads back to the original question, discounting the clause, who does one appeal to when citizens disagree with the Supreme Court’s rulings? There is no true answer except for anarchy or rebellion. We see this happening over in Europe, the governments have turned a deaf ear to the populace and continue with what they perceive should be done and the result one sees reported is the formation of groups of people that simply had enough and have in essence become vigilantes.If one wants to read the paper: