--INSTRUCTIONS--

-WORD COUNT HAS TO BE AROUND 1000

-PLEASE ADD THE SOURCE USED

-PLEASE USE IN TEXT CITATIONS

LESSON 4 - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

It is a pervasive myth that our rights and freedoms, as guaranteed in the Charter, are absolute and cannot be overridden. In fact, the Charter clearly states that there are limits to our rights and instances when they can be overridden, as outlined in sections 1 (the limitations clause) and 33 (the notwithstanding clause). Section 33 was drafted with the intent to give the federal and provincial governments the power to create new laws that knowingly infringe on our ss. 2 and 7 to 15 Charter rights. Unlike with invocation of section 1 of the Charter where the Oakes test ensures the violating law is justifiable, no such justification is required when s. 33 is invoked. This past fall the Ontario provincial government planned to invoke s. 33 in order to pass "back to work" legislation [see this CBC News article for more details: "The notwithstanding clause - what it is, why it was used and what happens next"). Yet, this decision was a controversial one which ultimately did not come to pass. Do you believe that governments should have the power to use section 33 when creating new laws? Why or why not? Your answer needs to rely on at least one external academic source.