canada constitutional-law
Could the Holocaust legally happen in modern day Canada?
<p>I was thinking about the notwithstanding clause of the <em>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</em> and it seems that it has the disturbing implication that allows arbitrarily bad abuses of government power, up to and including the scale of the Holocaust.</p>

<p>If Parliament passed some legislation stating that all Jews shall be imprisoned and executed, <em>notwithstanding</em> sections <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#s-2." rel="nofollow">2</a>, <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#s-7." rel="nofollow">7</a>, <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#s-9." rel="nofollow">9</a>, <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#s-10." rel="nofollow">10</a>, <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#s-12." rel="nofollow">12</a>, and <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#s-15." rel="nofollow">15</a> of the <em>Charter</em>, would it be legal for the government to round up all the Jews, send them to concentration camps, and gas them as in the Holocaust?</p>

<p>Short of revolution, is there any mechanism to prevent this? As far as I know (but I'm not certain at all) the <em>Charter</em> is the only portion of the Canadian constitution that deals with human rights, and if the notwithstanding clause is invoked, such legislation would be constitutional and could not be struck down by the courts. Furthermore, as far as I know, Canadians cannot recall their MPs, so it would not be possible to remove the MPs who support such legislation until the next election, which could be up to 4 years away.</p>

<p>I can think of three ways that your hypothetical bill could fail to become enforceable law.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada" rel="noreferrer">Canadian Constitution</a> contains unwritten constitutional principles. Among other things, in <em><a href="https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do" rel="noreferrer">Reference Re Secession of Quebec</a></em> [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, the Supreme Court recognized that protection of minorities is an independent and fundamental part of the Constitution:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Canadians have long recognized the existence and importance of unwritten constitutional principles in our system of government.</p>
  
  <p>[...] the preamble invites the courts to turn those principles into the premises of a constitutional argument that culminates in the filling of gaps in the express terms of the constitutional text.</p>
  
  <p>[...] the protection of minority rights is itself an independent principle underlying our constitutional order [...]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Supreme Court of Canada could rule such a law unconstitutional in order to protect minority rights.</p></li>
<li><p>The Queen of Canada via her Governor General could decline to give such a bill royal assent, preventing it from becoming law.</p></li>
<li><p>The Queen/Governor General can dissolve Parliament at any time to trigger an election.</p></li>
</ol>
