Episode 26: Uh oh! Online harms legislation is back. So what's in it?

Not Reserving Judgment

On Episode 26, we tell you about the debate over whether the judge hearing the challenge to the Saskatchewan gender pronouns policy is allowed to make a declaration now that the notwithstanding clause has been invoked; we explain our application to intervene in the federal plastics appeal; and we tell you what we've heard about the upcoming "online harms" and hate speech bill.

Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:

• Disinformation Law Is Dead
• Dérives sectaires : on vous explique le délit de "provocation à l'abstention de soins", voté par l'Assemblée nationale
• Yes, the feds can actually override provincial anti-trans school policies. Here's how.
• School closures may not have been necessary to prevent spread of COVID-19, researchers at McMaster find
• Can job postings in Canada exclude white people? Short answer: yes
• Judge rules challenge of Saskatchewan’s pronoun law can proceed
• Josh Dehaas: P.E.I. puts politeness over free speech by persecuting town councillor
• The Evolving Debate Over Section 33 of the Charter
• The faulty received wisdom around the notwithstanding clause
• The Notwithstanding Clause: Legislatures, Courts, and the Electorate
• The Truck and the Brakes: Understanding the Charter's Limitations and Notwithstanding Clauses Symmetrically

Not Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.

The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.