Charest won't rule out notwithstanding clause (Canada)

[Canadian Socialist]

Last Updated Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:57:53 EDT
CBC News

Quebec Premier Jean Charest says a Supreme Court of Canada ruling allowing private health insurance in the province will not force Quebec to abandon public, universal health care.

The court ruled Thursday the province may no longer prevent people from buying private insurance to cover medically necessary health services.

The Quebec government is considering using the notwithstanding clause in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to override the Supreme Court decision.

<snip>

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/10/charest-healthcare050610.html

As much as I dislike the "notwithstanding clause" in the charter (of Quebec and Canada), I sure hope he does this, simply because neo-cons such as King Ralph (right here in Alberta) would love nothing better than to destroy the universal health care programme that is at the core of Canadian values.

[central scrutinizer]

1. how many negatives is that?

"won't rule out notwithstanding clause" Seems like I count three there so do three negatives make a negative? And is the negative in this case really a positive? We Murikans can't even handle the metric system, how do you expect us to parse a phrase like that?

[Canadian Socialist]

2. I'm hoping you're being sarcastic

otherwise, you might want to read the Canadian Charter of
Rights. This explains the "notwithstanding" clause as it applies to distinct societies and the rights of provincial governments.
on edit: the "not withstanding" clause in the headline is shorthand in the papers. Charest was saying he won't rule out using the "not withstanding clause".

[daleo]

3. This ruling will bring out all kinds of interesting possibilities.

Quebec separatists can claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights doesn't protect their right to public health care, and use that as a point in favor of separation. Alternatively, the Quebec provincial Liberal government can use the notwithstanding clause, and ride to the rescue of healthcare.

The federal Liberal government could do the same. The Conservative opposition could do likewise, or use the ruling to argue for un-hiding their private health care agenda. If the Liberals aren't seen to be defending public health care, the social-democratic NDP can use it as a persuasive issue that separates them from the others.

I wonder if the Supreme Court considered this aspect (the national unity aspect), when they made the ruling. In Canada, nearly all issues come back to national unity at some point.