Section 33 Is a Legitimate Democratic Instrument
Tell everyone. There is no Charter right for a biological male to compete against females in women’s sports. Nor is there a constitutional right for children to be maimed and rendered sterile in service to self-proclaimed identities. And there is certainly no excuse for a government in Ottawa to interfere with provinces’ ability to defend women and girls from the fallout of sexual fetishism dressed in federalist drags.
Yet here we are.
Albertans are being invited to ask an important question. When rights collide, should we trust the flawed judgment of elected officials who face the people every few years, or surrender that authority to similarly flawed judges selected in near secrecy, immune to removal, and uninterested in the lived realities of the citizens they affect?
Section 33 of the Charter, the “notwithstanding clause,” exists for precisely this purpose. It was never a loophole. It was a constitutional safeguard demanded by Premiers like Alberta’s Peter Lougheed and Saskatchewan’s Allan Blakeney. It was their condition for agreeing to the Trudeau Charter in 1982, a shield for legislatures to retain sovereignty in cases where Ottawa-appointed, unelected courts would push too far into political life. It was a tool to defend provincial uniqueness against Ottawa’s homogenizing power.
Blakeney explained it plainly. Where judicial rulings lead to outcomes that might cause undue harm, for example, legislatures must retain the right to legislate, even if a court believes a Charter right has been breached. It was an elegant way to deal with the inevitable tension between rights adjudicated by judges and those protected by governments chosen by the people. It was a way to guarantee democracy over legal technocracy. The hysterical NDP machine will have people believe it is also the legislation of cruelty.
Section 33 is a temporary mechanism, suitable for five years, renewable only through re-legislation. Whatever the progressives say, it does not override or erase any rights. It cannot be used in secret, and any government that invokes it must defend its choice publicly. That is democratic accountability. The people can debate it (and we now where the contemporary left stands on debating), throw the government out, or demand that the law be changed, if they so choose.
Read the rest of the column on our Substack here.