When did the rule of law become optional? Our political leaders seem to have decided that rights and laws can be set aside if their political agenda is more important. Consider these examples:

• Citing the goal of laïcité (secularism), Premier Legault of Québec limits the rights of people to wear religious symbols. Citing the goal of the protection of the French language, Legault also seeks to reduce the rights of Anglophones in Québec. Both actions are apparent violations of the Charter of Rights, but may well be protected through the use of the Notwithstanding Clause.

• In support of an uninterrupted school year, Premier Ford of Ontario planned to eliminate the right to strike. In support of streamlined municipal government in Toronto, Ford also proposed to overrule a judge’s decision protecting a democratic election campaign already in progress. Both actions were apparent violations of the constitution, but the Notwithstanding Clause was duly weaponised.

• To allow more rapid municipal decision-making, especially with respect to housing developments, Premier Ford also proposes to authorise certain Mayors to overrule a majority vote of municipal councils, effectively turning democracy on its head, indeed decapitating it altogether.

• Concerned about apparent money laundering in his province, Premier Eby of British Columbia proposes to remove protections against arbitrary search and seizure, the constitutional right of due legal process. Eby has not said whether he will use the Notwithstanding Clause, but it probably would be required to protect against court action.

• In seeking Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada, Premier Daniel Smith proposes legislation which would allow federal laws to be set aside and would allow Cabinet to amend laws by Order-in-Council.

• Even our federal government seems willing to play fast and loose with the law. Senior federal officials have argued before a judge that the legal standards for proclamation of the Emergencies Act are too restrictive and it was therefore justifiable to set aside the law and substitute their unelected judgement.

Democracy cannot function without the rule of law. The various goals pursued by our leaders may indeed be valid, but their methods are doing significant damage to our rights and freedoms and to the very foundation of democratic government in Canada. We citizens of Canada should send a message to our elected leaders that we “neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.”