What are your thoughts on the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter

I want to start out with the disclaimer that I am not Canadian. I was raised in the U.S. but had the privilege of living in Edmonton, Alberta for three years. Though my knowledge of American civics is likely much better than average, I did not have the experience of growing up in Canada and learning Canadian civics. As a result, I'm very naive of much of the things that make up the Canadian government. Just as an example of my naivety, before living in Canada I was under the impression that the Prime Minister was voted for by the people directly. I now know that people democratically vote for their MP of whatever riding they're in, and the Prime Minister is just the head of the party that wins at least a plurality of the seats. It seems basically analogous to the House of Representatives and the Speaker of the House in the U.S.

Anyways, even though I'm living in the States again (with the hopes that I can move back to Canada some day), I try staying up-to-date on Canadian news and politics. I recently watched a CBC About That video (https://youtu.be/fZzplIqC8aY) discussing the likelihood of Pierre Poillievre using the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter to get Legislation that technically breaks the rules of the Charter? The video features bits from UAlberta law professor Eric Adams where he states the Notwithstanding Clause is a "mechanism that allows for legislatures and parliament to be able to respond in the event the judicial power is used inappropriately or there's a decision that we simply can't live with as a democracy." He presents the Clause, at least how I understood him, as a way legislature can respond to rulings made by the Supreme Court that don't align with a proper democracy. The video references the overly politicized and static UnS. Supreme Court as example of an overpowered court. But then the host later says that the Clause lays out explicitly the parts of the Charter it's allowed to override, as opposed to it being just a tool of response to novel court rulings. However, it seems to be implemented by Premiers to just get legislation going that goes against the Charter? Doesn't this make the Charter (at least the parts overridable) optional? I suppose I'm a little lost on what it's exact intended purpose is. I mean Quebec overriding the Charter so they can ban religious symbols for people in authority seems pretty extreme and completely lacking any grounds in context of "decision[s] that we simply can't live with as a democracy." That just comes off as an attack on Muslim women wearing Hijabs or Sikh men wearing dastars. Like, come on. (I do understand that I don't have the whole story of that situation but optics-wise, yeesh).

I will preface what I'm about to say by, again, acknowledging that I am not Canadian and my opinion of things in Canadian politics obviously is not even remotely as important as all of yours as well as the rest of the Canadian people. With that said, personally I find a clause like that very potentially devastating. Don't get me wrong, I can easily imagine all the good such a clause like that would be in the U.S. to respond to erroneous decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. The most egregious being their ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, which if you're unaware allowed for basically limitless campaign spending for candidates so long as those spending these ungodly sums of money don't coordinate their efforts with official campaigns. The concurring opinions boiling down to: restricting how a group of people can collaborate and voice their collective opinions is a violation of free speech and the Press Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I don't want to go tangential with this point but I believe that due to very good understanding of human behavior/psychology/sociology the U.S. Supreme Court subverted the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution by no longer allowing for a genuine Republic but a perverted Oligarchical system that merely ends with a democratic election (at least in the case of Senators and House Reps) without a true democratic process permeating campaigns.

To my point, I think that though being able to utilize a constitutional function (for convenience in this hypothetical let's assume it's inacted analogously via a majority vote in the House) akin to the Notwithstanding Clause to override a rule like Citizens United v. FEC would be an undeniable win in the maintenance of a trustworthy Republic, I'd also be perpetually worried that the power would be abused to undercut that same Republic. It becomes very conflicting for me. I will acknowledge that Canadian politics is 100 times more civil than American politics, and in a lot of ways more streamlined, so there's likely a lot less worry about American-style power grabs and abuse of power, but with Pierre Poillievre being (at least seemingly) very cavalier about utilizing this Clause, it makes me wonder what Canadians think about the Clause as a whole, and whether or not it feels like it is the most sensible way to counteract erroneous court rulings. I suppose I'm a bit traumatized (not actually traumatized but worried and untrusting) of American politics, especially given recent events, and that very much shapes my perception of what constitutes reasonable powers in government versus unreasonable.

I really hope everything I've written has come off in an earnest manner and not an ignorant one. I am genuinely curious about how you feel and about how you think Canadians in general feel about the Notwithstanding Clause. Also, if I'm wrong/off about anything in this post, obviously, please let me know so I can be better informed in the future. Thank you for taking you're time for reading this massive wall of text.

Also, random fun question. Could the Notwithstanding Clause be used to override the Notwithstanding Clause? 🤔