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.
Share this post