Talk:Notwithstanding clause

Possible AI generated text

Concerns have been raised about AI-generated content in this article. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. Rationale: oaicite and chatgpt artifacts were present Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Why this is a standalone article

I'm removing the PROD as this concept is wider than Canada's section 33. A Notwithstanding, or non obstante, clause is a broader legal drafting device: it's a provision directing that a rule applies despite otherwise applicable law which has long been used in statutes and constitutions in many legal systems.

Section 33 is one distinctive and particularly important example and there's an argument to be made as to whether Section 33 should be where Notwithstanding clause directs to with a tag at the top pointing to this article renamed as something like "Non Obstante clause" - although I'd still argue against for the current setup. But losing all the other examples from around the world would be a loss.

Notwithstanding clauses are not uniquely Canadian and they do pop up in other places - the UK is a very current example. So that's why I'm removing the PROD. JASpencer (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Paging @Lazman321 JASpencer (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have secondary sources (not court rulings) that discuss the notwithstanding clause in depth beyond Section 33? If not, then the article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Lazman321 (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Removing the Notability tag

I'm removing the notability tag. A non obstante, or notwithstanding, clause is an established legal concept: a drafting device by which a provision is made to operate despite otherwise applicable law. It is not merely a label retrospectively applied to Canada’s Charter section 33, nor is it confined to one jurisdiction or one constitutional controversy.

The concept has practical legal significance because it determines the priority between legal rules. Such clauses may displace general legislation, preserve a specific statutory scheme, make federal law prevail over conflicting subnational law, or create an express derogation from a rights guarantee. The effect and legitimacy of the clause depend on the hierarchy of the law it purports to override, which is precisely why it is a recurring subject in statutory interpretation, constitutional law, and comparative law.

Section 33 is an unusually prominent and politically important example, but there are examples in other places including the UK, USA and India.

If someone thinks that it is Notable please argue the case here first and hopefully we can improve the article sufficiently first.

Paging @Some Gadget Geek JASpencer (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)