About this episode
In this episode, Alex speaks with constitutional scholar Leonid Sirota about the notwithstanding clause—what it does, how it functions within Canada’s constitutional architecture, and why its routine use undermines the very rights the Charter is meant to protect. Drawing on arguments from his National Post piece and earlier writing, Sirota explains why Section 33 was intended as an exceptional political safeguard, not a convenient escape hatch for governments, and why treating it as a routine tool erodes constitutionalism, weakens judicial oversight, and shifts the balance of power away from individuals and toward the state.
References
Leonid Sirota, “Yes, the notwithstanding clause overrides rights. No, it isn’t defensible.” — National Post
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/leonid-sirota-yes-the-notwithstanding-clause-overrides-rights-no-it-isnt-defensible
“The Case Against the Notwithstanding Clause” — Leonid Sirota (Double Aspect)
https://doubleaspect.blog/2018/10/04/the-case-against-the-notwithstanding-clause/
“Notwithstanding Myths” — Leonid Sirota (Double Aspect)
https://doubleaspect.blog/2025/11/10/notwithstanding-myths/
Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty_books/219/
The Constitution Act, 1982 (Section 33 — the Notwithstanding Clause)
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html
Thanks to Our Patrons
Including Kris Rondolo, Amy Willis, and Christopher McDonald. To support The Curious Task, visit: https://patreon.com/curioustask
