Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

MARK CARNEY BRAGS about “protecting the Charter” while scrapping the NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE. Then dumps it on the Supreme Court. This is the COMPLETE COLLAPSE of our civil rights. The most DANGEROUS PM in Canadian history and he SMIRKS while doing it.

Marc Nixon

116,942 subscribers

97,521 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Comedy

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

That notwithstanding clause that Pierre Poilievre is proposing is a straight-up dictator move and once your rights are gone, they're gone. Mark Carney is the leader we need to protect those rights! Wake up Canada 🇨🇦 the notwithstanding clause is dangerous! Vote wisely, our rights depend on it.

That notwithstanding clause that Pierre Poilievre is proposing is a straight-up dictator move and once your rights are gone, they're gone. Mark Carney is the leader we need to protect those rights! Wake up Canada 🇨🇦 the notwithstanding clause is dangerous! Vote wisely, our rights depend on it.

guyfelicella🇨🇦🍁

56,896 views • 1 year ago

Sean Fraser is asking the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the Charter of Rights. The notwithstanding clause. ✅ It’s been in our Charter for over 40 years ✅ No Attorney General in Canadian history has ever asked the SCC to weigh in on its legitimacy ✅ The clause was deliberately included in 1982 as a democratic safeguard, allowing elected legislatures to override certain Charter rights for up to 5 years Zero debate in parliament. Zero public outreach. He’s triggering a constitutional crisis.

Sean Fraser is asking the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the Charter of Rights. The notwithstanding clause. ✅ It’s been in our Charter for over 40 years ✅ No Attorney General in Canadian history has ever asked the SCC to weigh in on its legitimacy ✅ The clause was deliberately included in 1982 as a democratic safeguard, allowing elected legislatures to override certain Charter rights for up to 5 years Zero debate in parliament. Zero public outreach. He’s triggering a constitutional crisis.

Mario Zelaya

54,165 views • 10 months ago

After months of equivocating... Smith finally says it clearly. If the courts rule that Alberta has violated the Canadian Charter, she will use the notwithstanding clause to allow her to violate the human and charter rights of Albertans. "Absolutely". #abpoli #ableg #cdnpoli

After months of equivocating... Smith finally says it clearly. If the courts rule that Alberta has violated the Canadian Charter, she will use the notwithstanding clause to allow her to violate the human and charter rights of Albertans. "Absolutely". #abpoli #ableg #cdnpoli

The Breakdown

43,605 views • 1 year ago

People like me didn’t have equal rights until the Charter. Within my lifetime. So, I am vigilant about those rights. What Pierre Poilievre said this week about minority rights, the notwithstanding clause and the Charter is chilling.

People like me didn’t have equal rights until the Charter. Within my lifetime. So, I am vigilant about those rights. What Pierre Poilievre said this week about minority rights, the notwithstanding clause and the Charter is chilling.

Seamus O'Regan Jr

325,679 views • 2 years ago

Mark Carney claims that Pierre Poilievre’s proposal to introduce harsher sentences and keep criminals locked up infringes on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the “most vulnerable."

Mark Carney claims that Pierre Poilievre’s proposal to introduce harsher sentences and keep criminals locked up infringes on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the “most vulnerable."

Juno News

269,929 views • 1 year ago

"I'm more worried about the charter rights of our children than I'm about these perverts and pedophiles." Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down mandatory minimum sentences for child-porn offenders.

"I'm more worried about the charter rights of our children than I'm about these perverts and pedophiles." Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed to invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down mandatory minimum sentences for child-porn offenders.

TrendingPolitics.ca

34,502 views • 9 months ago

The most ridiculous ruling in recent memory. Criminal perverts Facing a 1-year minimum sentence WHICH IS STILL TOO LENIENT Were told that 1-year was too harsh & too much. That it “violated the Charter” RIDICULOUS. THIS IS WHY THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE EXISTS. What about the children and their rights?!

The most ridiculous ruling in recent memory. Criminal perverts Facing a 1-year minimum sentence WHICH IS STILL TOO LENIENT Were told that 1-year was too harsh & too much. That it “violated the Charter” RIDICULOUS. THIS IS WHY THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE EXISTS. What about the children and their rights?!

Mario Zelaya

27,533 views • 9 months ago

Unelected Prime Minister Mark Carney tells Emanuel Macron that Canada is "the most European of non-European countries." He then goes on to distance Canada from the United States. Dear Lord, I hope he becomes the shortest serving PM in Canadian history.

Unelected Prime Minister Mark Carney tells Emanuel Macron that Canada is "the most European of non-European countries." He then goes on to distance Canada from the United States. Dear Lord, I hope he becomes the shortest serving PM in Canadian history.

Bret 🍁

2,602,269 views • 1 year ago

Even my Grade 6 students understood that the Charter of Rights is the foundation of our democracy. The UCP clearly doesn’t.They’ve used the Notwithstanding Clause once. Who’s next on their list? #ABLeg #ABPoli #ABLabour #ABEducation

Even my Grade 6 students understood that the Charter of Rights is the foundation of our democracy. The UCP clearly doesn’t.They’ve used the Notwithstanding Clause once. Who’s next on their list? #ABLeg #ABPoli #ABLabour #ABEducation

Peggy Wright

12,480 views • 9 months ago

Here, Arvind Kejriwal is openly proclaiming his innocence and commenting on the Liquor Excise Policy case, this while he was expressly barred by the Supreme court from doing so - it was one of the conditions for granting him bail. Where is the Supreme Court? On summer vacation.

Here, Arvind Kejriwal is openly proclaiming his innocence and commenting on the Liquor Excise Policy case, this while he was expressly barred by the Supreme court from doing so - it was one of the conditions for granting him bail. Where is the Supreme Court? On summer vacation.

Anand Ranganathan

510,651 views • 2 years ago

PM Modi met Canadian PM Mark Carney on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in France. 🎥

PM Modi met Canadian PM Mark Carney on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in France. 🎥

BJP

39,722 views • 1 month ago

Mark Carney is Santa Clause in the minds of liberals. But Barbie nails it!

Mark Carney is Santa Clause in the minds of liberals. But Barbie nails it!

Michelle LA🇨🇦

79,645 views • 5 months ago

I have been saying it for a while, and now I absolutely understand why: Everything Canada has been doing in response to the tariff threat has been to the benefit of China. Why? Because Mark Carney is serving Beijing‘s interests, which is why Beijing wants Mark Carney and the Liberals. Because China has infiltrated the Canadian government, and is effectively dictating domestic and foreign policy. While Carney serves his own foreign investment interests as well. Share this. Please and thank you! It is obligatory that we get Sam Cooper on Joe Rogan before the Canadian Federal election.

I have been saying it for a while, and now I absolutely understand why: Everything Canada has been doing in response to the tariff threat has been to the benefit of China. Why? Because Mark Carney is serving Beijing‘s interests, which is why Beijing wants Mark Carney and the Liberals. Because China has infiltrated the Canadian government, and is effectively dictating domestic and foreign policy. While Carney serves his own foreign investment interests as well. Share this. Please and thank you! It is obligatory that we get Sam Cooper on Joe Rogan before the Canadian Federal election.

Viva Frei

199,176 views • 1 year ago

Restoring and preserving 2A rights is one of the President’s top priorities. The Supreme Court has doubled down on rulings protecting this right. U.S. Department of Justice and the 2A Section at DOJ Civil Rights Division will enforce the law of the land for ALL Americans.

Restoring and preserving 2A rights is one of the President’s top priorities. The Supreme Court has doubled down on rulings protecting this right. U.S. Department of Justice and the 2A Section at DOJ Civil Rights Division will enforce the law of the land for ALL Americans.

AAGHarmeetDhillon

74,321 views • 3 months ago

Well, apparently foreigners understand the Canadian Charter better than everybody. "In Canada, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights..." "In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the kirpan may look like a dagger but it's not a weapon." 📹TT: hacmundhingra

Well, apparently foreigners understand the Canadian Charter better than everybody. "In Canada, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights..." "In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the kirpan may look like a dagger but it's not a weapon." 📹TT: hacmundhingra

Society Unveiled

23,210 views • 20 days ago

Pierre Poilievre DEMANDS Mark Carney to use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court's absurd ruling of striking down mandatory minimums for criminals in possession of child abuse material. How can anyone even disagree with this?

Pierre Poilievre DEMANDS Mark Carney to use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court's absurd ruling of striking down mandatory minimums for criminals in possession of child abuse material. How can anyone even disagree with this?

Jinglai He 🇨🇦

33,572 views • 9 months ago

OP-ED : The Notwithstanding Clause Is How We Save Canada—from the People Who Broke It If you listen to the Canadian media—most of whom could be replaced by cardboard cutouts of Mark Carney—you’d think Pierre Poilievre is preparing to burn the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the front steps of Parliament. He’s been accused of authoritarianism, of threatening democracy, even of “undermining the rule of law.” What’s his crime? He wants to use a constitutional tool—the Notwithstanding Clause—to stop mass murderers from gaming the parole system and walking free. Let’s back up, because this isn’t hysteria. This is strategy. And it starts with a court decision. In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R v. Bissonnette that judges can no longer impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on people convicted of multiple murders. Their logic? It violated Section 12 of the Charter—protection against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Under this ruling, someone who murders six people can apply for parole after 25 years, the same as someone who murdered one. Let’s be clear: that wasn’t a fluke. It wasn’t a clerical error. It was a judicial statement that mass murder should not carry a heavier penalty than single homicide. It’s insane. And it’s now the law. Poilievre has said plainly what most Canadians are thinking: no more. His platform includes restoring consecutive parole ineligibility for multiple murderers—using Section 33 of the Charter, the Notwithstanding Clause, to override the Supreme Court's ruling. That clause, by the way, wasn’t invented by some right-wing populist—it was authored during the patriation of the Constitution by Allan Blakeney, Peter Lougheed, and, yes, Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself. It was written to give elected governments the final word when courts lose the plot. So when Liberal insiders like Mark Carney call Poilievre’s move “dangerous,” let’s be honest about what they’re really saying. They're not worried about your rights. They're worried about their power. Let’s talk about Carney. Carney is the Liberal establishment personified. A man who has never been elected to anything, but acts like the nation owes him its premiership. A former central banker, an unelected global bureaucrat, a Davos man through and through. And now, the man parachuted in by the Liberal Party to rescue it from the wreckage of Justin Trudeau. Mark Carney says the use of the Notwithstanding Clause in this case is a “threat to democracy.” This is the same Mark Carney who, in 2022, wrote an op-ed in The Globe and Mail calling the Freedom Convoy “sedition.” He supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors. He said, “You can’t have liberty without order,” as Trudeau’s government froze bank accounts without charges or trials, targeted working-class Canadians, and abused financial institutions to silence dissent. You want to talk about civil liberties? That was the real violation. Carney didn’t object to that. He didn’t call it “dangerous.” He supported it. And he supports Bills C-11 and C-18, which hand the federal government the power to control what Canadians see, post, and share online. These are the Trudeau government’s censorship bills—sold as “support for Canadian content,” but in reality, giving the CRTC the authority to prioritize or bury content based on government-set criteria. Censorship? Government-controlled financial punishment? Total silence when bail laws are gutted and criminals walk free? Mark Carney has no problem with any of that. But when Pierre Poilievre wants to keep Paul Bernardo—a man who raped, tortured, and murdered teenage girls—from applying for parole every two years, now it’s a civil liberties emergency? Let’s be clear: Paul Bernardo is not some abstract example. He’s not theoretical. He’s a real person, a real monster. His crimes are so depraved they defy description. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, and he was behind the “Scarborough Rapist” attacks on at least 14 other women. And yet, under Canada’s current law, he gets to apply for parole every two years. The families of his victims are forced to prepare victim impact statements and re-live the trauma again and again. That’s the system the Liberals built. That’s the legacy Poilievre wants to overturn. And they’re terrified, because with one constitutional stroke—one Notwithstanding Clause—he can. He can restore sentences that reflect justice. He can return power from unelected judges to elected lawmakers. He can protect victims instead of appeasing criminals. And most dangerously—for them—he can show Canadians that this decaying, dysfunctional, upside-down system can actually be fixed. That’s why they’re panicking. Because Poilievre isn’t threatening the rule of law. He’s threatening the rule of them. The Notwithstanding Clause doesn’t destroy democracy. It saves it. It gives voice to the people when institutions lose sight of the public interest. It exists for moments like this—when killers get a second chance and victims don’t. So when Carney and his media allies start foaming at the mouth over “tyranny,” remember this: it’s not about rights. It’s about the swamp defending itself. Because once Canadians realize the Notwithstanding Clause can be used to take back their streets, their justice system, and their country from people like Mark Carney, they’ll wonder why it wasn’t used sooner. This election, Canadians are being handed a rare opportunity—not just to vote for a different government, but to reclaim the country from the institutions and elites who hollowed it out. For years, the Liberals have ruled through back channels: unelected judges, unaccountable regulators, international bankers like Mark Carney. They’ve told you crime is compassion, censorship is safety, and freedom is dangerous. And if you dared to disagree, they froze your bank account and silenced your voice. Now, with the Notwithstanding Clause, Pierre Poilievre is threatening to unwind it all. Not with riots. Not with chaos. With a legal tool, written into the Constitution by the very people now pretending it’s a threat. He’s not dismantling democracy. He’s using it. He’s not a danger to the country. He’s the first serious chance to save it. Because if we don’t have the right to keep mass murderers in prison… If we don’t have the right to protect our kids, our streets, and our speech… Then what do we really have left? Canada is at a crossroads. One path leads to more decay, more lies, and more of the same. The other leads out of the swamp. You know the path. You know who’s on it. And you know exactly who to vote for.

OP-ED : The Notwithstanding Clause Is How We Save Canada—from the People Who Broke It If you listen to the Canadian media—most of whom could be replaced by cardboard cutouts of Mark Carney—you’d think Pierre Poilievre is preparing to burn the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the front steps of Parliament. He’s been accused of authoritarianism, of threatening democracy, even of “undermining the rule of law.” What’s his crime? He wants to use a constitutional tool—the Notwithstanding Clause—to stop mass murderers from gaming the parole system and walking free. Let’s back up, because this isn’t hysteria. This is strategy. And it starts with a court decision. In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R v. Bissonnette that judges can no longer impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on people convicted of multiple murders. Their logic? It violated Section 12 of the Charter—protection against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Under this ruling, someone who murders six people can apply for parole after 25 years, the same as someone who murdered one. Let’s be clear: that wasn’t a fluke. It wasn’t a clerical error. It was a judicial statement that mass murder should not carry a heavier penalty than single homicide. It’s insane. And it’s now the law. Poilievre has said plainly what most Canadians are thinking: no more. His platform includes restoring consecutive parole ineligibility for multiple murderers—using Section 33 of the Charter, the Notwithstanding Clause, to override the Supreme Court's ruling. That clause, by the way, wasn’t invented by some right-wing populist—it was authored during the patriation of the Constitution by Allan Blakeney, Peter Lougheed, and, yes, Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself. It was written to give elected governments the final word when courts lose the plot. So when Liberal insiders like Mark Carney call Poilievre’s move “dangerous,” let’s be honest about what they’re really saying. They're not worried about your rights. They're worried about their power. Let’s talk about Carney. Carney is the Liberal establishment personified. A man who has never been elected to anything, but acts like the nation owes him its premiership. A former central banker, an unelected global bureaucrat, a Davos man through and through. And now, the man parachuted in by the Liberal Party to rescue it from the wreckage of Justin Trudeau. Mark Carney says the use of the Notwithstanding Clause in this case is a “threat to democracy.” This is the same Mark Carney who, in 2022, wrote an op-ed in The Globe and Mail calling the Freedom Convoy “sedition.” He supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors. He said, “You can’t have liberty without order,” as Trudeau’s government froze bank accounts without charges or trials, targeted working-class Canadians, and abused financial institutions to silence dissent. You want to talk about civil liberties? That was the real violation. Carney didn’t object to that. He didn’t call it “dangerous.” He supported it. And he supports Bills C-11 and C-18, which hand the federal government the power to control what Canadians see, post, and share online. These are the Trudeau government’s censorship bills—sold as “support for Canadian content,” but in reality, giving the CRTC the authority to prioritize or bury content based on government-set criteria. Censorship? Government-controlled financial punishment? Total silence when bail laws are gutted and criminals walk free? Mark Carney has no problem with any of that. But when Pierre Poilievre wants to keep Paul Bernardo—a man who raped, tortured, and murdered teenage girls—from applying for parole every two years, now it’s a civil liberties emergency? Let’s be clear: Paul Bernardo is not some abstract example. He’s not theoretical. He’s a real person, a real monster. His crimes are so depraved they defy description. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, and he was behind the “Scarborough Rapist” attacks on at least 14 other women. And yet, under Canada’s current law, he gets to apply for parole every two years. The families of his victims are forced to prepare victim impact statements and re-live the trauma again and again. That’s the system the Liberals built. That’s the legacy Poilievre wants to overturn. And they’re terrified, because with one constitutional stroke—one Notwithstanding Clause—he can. He can restore sentences that reflect justice. He can return power from unelected judges to elected lawmakers. He can protect victims instead of appeasing criminals. And most dangerously—for them—he can show Canadians that this decaying, dysfunctional, upside-down system can actually be fixed. That’s why they’re panicking. Because Poilievre isn’t threatening the rule of law. He’s threatening the rule of them. The Notwithstanding Clause doesn’t destroy democracy. It saves it. It gives voice to the people when institutions lose sight of the public interest. It exists for moments like this—when killers get a second chance and victims don’t. So when Carney and his media allies start foaming at the mouth over “tyranny,” remember this: it’s not about rights. It’s about the swamp defending itself. Because once Canadians realize the Notwithstanding Clause can be used to take back their streets, their justice system, and their country from people like Mark Carney, they’ll wonder why it wasn’t used sooner. This election, Canadians are being handed a rare opportunity—not just to vote for a different government, but to reclaim the country from the institutions and elites who hollowed it out. For years, the Liberals have ruled through back channels: unelected judges, unaccountable regulators, international bankers like Mark Carney. They’ve told you crime is compassion, censorship is safety, and freedom is dangerous. And if you dared to disagree, they froze your bank account and silenced your voice. Now, with the Notwithstanding Clause, Pierre Poilievre is threatening to unwind it all. Not with riots. Not with chaos. With a legal tool, written into the Constitution by the very people now pretending it’s a threat. He’s not dismantling democracy. He’s using it. He’s not a danger to the country. He’s the first serious chance to save it. Because if we don’t have the right to keep mass murderers in prison… If we don’t have the right to protect our kids, our streets, and our speech… Then what do we really have left? Canada is at a crossroads. One path leads to more decay, more lies, and more of the same. The other leads out of the swamp. You know the path. You know who’s on it. And you know exactly who to vote for.

Dan Knight

21,237 views • 1 year ago

Pierre was clear yesterday: he will use the notwithstanding clause to take away your rights, if given the chance. This, from the guy who claims to care about “freedom”? All he cares about is power. And he’ll say anything to get it.

Pierre was clear yesterday: he will use the notwithstanding clause to take away your rights, if given the chance. This, from the guy who claims to care about “freedom”? All he cares about is power. And he’ll say anything to get it.

Arif Virani

303,919 views • 2 years ago

"I think this is a very dangerous. We have a Charter of Rights and fundamental Freedoms in this country, and it's the responsibility...of the prime minister...to defend...those fundamental rights," said Liberal Leader Mark Carney in response to Poilievre's Sec. 33 pledge #cdnpoli

"I think this is a very dangerous. We have a Charter of Rights and fundamental Freedoms in this country, and it's the responsibility...of the prime minister...to defend...those fundamental rights," said Liberal Leader Mark Carney in response to Poilievre's Sec. 33 pledge #cdnpoli

iPolitics

161,927 views • 1 year ago