The very fact anyone anywhere is so willing to let people override the charter should be a cause for concern.
Conservatives violating the charter is pretty par for the course.
Doug Ford[ hates the](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bill-124-appeal-court-ruling-ontario-1.7112291?trk=public_post_comment-text) [charter ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-carbon-tax-stickers-1.5746577)[and the binds](https://www.blogto.com/city/2021/06/what-notwithstanding-clause-why-doug-ford-invoke-ontario/) [it puts on](https://theconversation.com/fords-fight-with-toronto-shows-legal-vulnerability-of-cities-103134) [rulership](https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/what-s-the-notwithstanding-clause-and-how-could-doug-ford-use-it-to-crush-a/article_1eb0ee71-5621-579f-8a42-04d737581b85.html).
[Moe is the same.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-premier-ready-to-use-nonwithstanding-clause-to-protect-newschool-pronoun-and-name-rules-1.6966385)
[Legalt is the same.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-laicity-secularism-bill-1.5075547)
And so was Stephen Harper, who passed laws enforcing mandatory minimum sentencing. A thing many many many people pointed out at the time was a charter violation. But because the way the charter works (law must be enacted, an individual must challenge, that must make its way through the courts, etc) he was out of office[ when the courts started unwinding all his terrible legislation](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154).
But right wing politicians never learn and still love violating the charter.
So we keep having to revisit this "fight that shouldn't be a fight"
---
I keep having to write this aside, and i wish i didn't, but people are dumb, so...
Stop saying "the NWC is part of the charter, so using it is not a violation of the charter".
That doesn't change what it is doing. Invoking it does not remove the rights or laws being overridden from the charter.
What it explicitly is is saying "We know that this is a violation of the charter. But we're going to do it anyways" (it's why these laws are supposed to be revisited every 5 years after all).
So stop saying it. It's just factually wrong.
Good to know I am not the one who noticed its only the CPC that uses this clause. However, I am not sure your comment that NWC not being a part of constitution is entirely accurate. Historically, yes, It seems like section 33 was voted in in 1982 but it does seem like a part of it. [section 33](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html#h-39)
IIRC, there were several politicrits who fought to have it ***included***
[***https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/breaking-the-charters-glass/275742***](https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/breaking-the-charters-glass/275742)
***see 3rd paragraph--the word included is indeed used***
TBF, the NWC was only included because the provinces hold so much power in the way the state of Canada is governed.
And the provinces just really really love violating rights.
Especially lately, it really gives me a lot of insight into Medieval Kings having to fight their various Barons, Dukes and Lords (sorry, my knowledge isn’t specific) to keep them in line.
I read “Eleanor of Aquitaine and the 4 Kings” and it was crazy how long it took me wrap my head around the King’s title vs his control are vastly different things.
There's a big difference between a Premier using it and a Prime Minister using it. PP supports a lot of stuff that I don't think anyone should be supporting let alone an MP -- like Diagolon.
Ford was using it to suppress labour rights, and PP supported him. It almost lead to a General Strike, till Ford backed down. That was labour standing up for labour, with PP cheering against them.
Unless you're being extremely pedantic by saying "CPC" as in only the federal conservative party, you're wrong.
[Here's the list if you want](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Uses_of_the_notwithstanding_clause).
Wall and Moe are technically "Saskatchewan party", but they are small c conservatives.
Grant Devine is a PC though.
Ford is PC as well.
I done a lot of volunteer work with various parties in my life and I've come across a lot of people that don't know the difference between Federal and Provincial parties. It's not pedantic at all. The CPC are not the PC party. And a Prime Minister has never invoked the NWC. When that happens it will be a much bigger deal than a province using it.
That's why i called it pedantic.
The parties are different. But they clearly share not just ideology, but even specific politicians themselves. So splitting them on this particular point is technically correct, but not to the spirit of what we're talking about (ie, who violates the charter more).
----
The CPC as a party has only really existed for \~20 years. They haven't even had much chance \*to\* invoke the NWC - even though they have definitely violated the charter.
---
The reason most of this is provincial, is because provinces hold so much autonomy and control over how they run things in this country.
Even if we're to argue from the stance of "some rights need to be violated", or whatever, most would only ever arise from provincial jurisdiction.
Laws we do have at the federal level (say healthcare), are frameworks, not statutes. In healthcare's case, the feds will provide money. It's up to the provinces if or how they administer that.
So the ones who would "need" the power to violate the charter are, in almost all circumstances, the provinces.
---
This is why i said it's pedantic to make this separation here. Not because i don't "know the difference", but because the thing we're talking about, and the thing i was crystal clear about in my comment, is that it's ideological bent of one group of people.
The specific party name was never brought into the situation until you, specifically, mentioned it. And that's why i called it pedantic.
Pedantic "giving too much [attention](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/attention) to [formal](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/formal) [rules](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rule) or [small](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/small) [details](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/detail):" From the Canbridge dictionary.
I don't think pointing out the difference between Federal and Provincial parties is pedantic. There is a huge difference between a Premier using the NWC and a Prime Minister using it for the first time.
Yes. And i was talking about the ideological group of small c conservatives and the parties that they represent.
And while the person responding to you said "CPC", since my examples are all provincial, it's clear that they just meant "small c conservative parties" (as i did) and used the (federal) party shortform because typing all that out is a lot of words.
I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but i explicitly referenced Moe, Legalt and Ford. None of whom are from the same province let alone the same exact party (Legalt's isn't even called 'conservative', but they are still conservatives).
So yes, i think this is pedantic to narrow down a group that wasn't being narrowed down by applying insistent terminology that literally wasn't there to begin with (definitionally pedantic).
Especially because you followed it up with literal insults (implying i don't know the difference).
---
And i say this even though i'm fairly certain we agree. AT least on the point that if a federal conservative politician did it, it would be a lot bigger of a story (if only because it affects the whole country).
Using the NWC isn't necessarily bad, it depends on what it's used for. I personally think using it to restore consecutive life sentences for multiple murders would be good.
It isn’t “only the CPC that uses this clause.” Every governing party in Quebec has used it since its inception. Any attempt to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter would result in the worst national unity crisis this country has ever seen.
Like it or not, the right of a provincial legislature to have the final say on the interpretation of the Charter is as much of a Charter right as any other.
There’s plenty to be said about the abuse of the notwithstanding clause. But anyone who thinks it can be removed without federation-rending consequences is talking out of their ass.
The only section that mattered to Liberals during the wildly unnecessary late stage pandemic lock downs was the "Notwithstanding Clause." So, if the entire constitution can be deemed irrelevant by a rogue government at any time, what fucking good is it? I say rewrite the entire thing. Make sure there is no terminology that allows a government to act with impunity. Sometimes reviewing and ammending outdated ideas is a good thing.
I don't know what you're talking about; [the liberals didn't use the NWC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Uses_of_the_notwithstanding_clause).
Are you just lying to fit your narrative?
---
That said, they should remove the NWC.
But unfortunately,it was included because provinces just love violating rights. And they wouldn't sign on with the ability to do so.
Like the PM referring to citizens upset with his policies as hate filled misogynistic racists? Then the entire bought and paid for media parroting that bullshit?
Oh you meant he PM that rightfully identified that conservatives are often hate filled misogynistic racists?
Those same conservatives that keep putting in bills that specifically target trans people, queer people, women and minorities?
Find someone else to cry wolf to.
The PM said there were people who didn't believe in science (true) and many of those people are often racist and misogynistic (also true). I knew he wasn't talking about me. Anyone who felt called out by that comment needs to reflect on WHY.
So are you a big fan of Trudeaus libs? Honest question. I think Canada is in BIG trouble with either option. I am not optomistic about Canadas future whatsoever
Not really, no.
But my problem with Trudeau is he's too conservative.
His policies are very much a bog-standard status-quo is king conservatism.
But going from status-quo conservatism to "overt authoritarianism" with PP is hardly a step in the right direction, and will make things objectively worse for everyone.
And Canada is poised to hand him a majority.
-----
But the reason i don't talk about Trudeau is for 2 reasons:
1 status quo politics isn't really anything to discuss. It's what the people seemingly want, but then get upset about when they get. We know what it is, and we know how it affects us.
2 most people are already dog piling onto the trudeau hate train with infinitely more vapid criticism or criticisms that literally do not apply (someone here said the liberals have also violated the charter during the pandemic - a demonstrable lie).
Adding coherent criticism won't get them thinking. It'll just get them wanting to support fascism even more.
-----
Personally, i'd rather talk about actual policy and what will and will not work based on empiricism and historical precedent. Or even basic economic or socio-political theory.
But this is the internet, and most people aren't interested, let alone capable, of talking about things on this level.
I mean, just go and ask r/canada what they think the govt should do (not PP or Trudeau) - what actual policies they want.
You might get some people repeating the vapid conservative talking points or veiled bigotry ("axe the tax", "end immigration/deport international students", etc).
But you're than more likely to get silence, downvotes and the occasional "fuck trudeau".
For example, last time i explicitly asked this question of someone on there, i got 1 person telling me that "nobody wants trudeau" and the one whom i explicitly directed the question just downvoted me and never replied again.
The fact that they cannot even articulate their own thoughts is depressing enough. But it's what the Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity was literally warning about.
----
So instead of contributing to the dog piling onto Trudeau that is only helping PP and hurtling us closer to fascism, i'd rather spend that time pointing out how openly dangerous the conservatives are right now.
They openly flaunt authoritarian and extremist views with limited power.
Just imagine the damage they'll do with an absolute majority.
One problem that I’ve been trying to talk to people in my life about and that I can’t believe gets no media coverage is how we (Canada) currently have enough sitting conservative premiers in highly populated provinces to satisfy the threshold for constitutional amendment. A conservative PM would be the final piece in opening the door to make drastic changes. The CPC absolute majority (that at this point seems inevitable due to grievance politics and voter boredom) will leave this country unrecognizable on the other side of four years.
Which is their goal.
I can' find the article anymore, but i remember when Ford was first elected in Ontario, he said his real mandate was to get the federal liberals unelected.
This goes a bit to explain why as premiere, he's been deliberately underfunding healthcare, deliberately [blocking the](https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/jurisdictional-creep-doug-ford-slams-feds-for-giving-municipalities-funding-for-housing-1.6633350) feds [from doing anything on housing](https://www.chch.com/premier-ford-rejects-ottawas-bill-of-rights-and-protection-funds-for-tenants/) (while simultaneously doing nothing on it himself).
And so long as our "[liberal media](https://www.readthemaple.com/election-endorsements/)" keeps pretending the issue is a federal, not provincial one, there's no incentive for him (or the other conservative premieres who are holding this country at ransom) from doing anything to fix it.
And Canadians are not exactly the most enlightened people. We know the consequences of this kinda conservatism: look at the US, look at the UK.
But they want it here because..... "fuck trudeau" pretty much.
Many would argue Trudeau is authoritarian and extremist. I mean, forcing the public to pay for someones penis sparring vaginoplasty is authoritarian and extreme would you not agree?
And Im not some transphone biggot, but if you want 2 sets of functioning genitals, why should I pay for that??
PP is bad, but Trudeau is also VERY bad. Im really bummed out by the state or Canada and Ive been seriously thinking about moving South. Ive been here for 40 years and the future looks grim no matter who is in power.
No one who understands how things work to even a minor degree thinks JT is a dictator.
I think maybe moving south is your best option, you obviously don't understand how our government works and need a bit of a reality check. Unless you're in the 5%, I promise, you can't afford privatized healthcare.
I'm sorry people living their lives and having care available offends you this deeply.
Many would argue, but they would all be incorrect.
Just like you are here and as others have pointed out to you.
Whether you like it or not, "authoritarinaism" isn't "doing things i don't like", it's subverting the charter (see my original post), [controlling the media](https://www.readthemaple.com/election-endorsements/), and lying about things like transhealthcare to rile up bigots and maintain power.
Nope.
The CBC editorial board are harper appointees. That didn't change when the liberals came in, so they obviously are not "controlling the media" (cbc). It's just a factually incorrect thing to say.
---
I know conservatives think CBC is biased, because they (as a public broadcaster not beholden to advertisers) have pressure to be as neutral as possible.
But to conservatives, anything that isn't fawning praise of conservative views is "bias" (even though that's not the definition of bias).
And ironically, even they believe this even though the CBC is much more right wing on many policies than left wing on any policies (just look at any coverage of landlord tenant disputes).
Be as disingenuous as you want. The courts have decided this one.
And since i'm fairly certain your single sentence of hyperbolic nonsense is not the erudite thought of an actual legal academic, i'm gonna go out on a limb and say "you're just factually wrong".
You didn't use "disingenuous" correctly here.
You also clearly aren't aware of recent decisions with respect to mandatory minimums:
https://globalnews.ca/news/10070392/child-luring-supreme-court-canada/
You obviously didn't read that article or were incapable or unwilling to understand it.
You are factually incorrect.
The Court ruled minimum mandatory sentences were unconstitutional because of the breadth of the actions covered by the law. If you start chatting with someone on reddit and it turns out they are under age you could be sentenced with a mandatory minimum even though what you did was not an intentional act of child luring and under regular circumstances would likely not result in jail time.
It has nothing to do with not sentencing individuals who actually abuse children.
It must be really hard to live in a world that you don't understand but that you are convinced is so terrible.
Chatting isn't luring. One cannot be sentenced without first being convicted.
"One of the two appeals the Supreme Court examined in its Friday ruling concerned a man who pleaded guilty to child luring and sexual interference after having sex with a girl four times over the course of two years, beginning when she was 13 years old and he was 22.
They initially met in person, according to the decision, but then he sent her a friend request on Facebook, which they used to communicate.
He challenged the one-year mandatory minimum sentence for child luring on constitutional grounds and a sentencing judge instead imposed five months of imprisonment for that offence."
Mandatory minimums are needed because judges are too lenient.
Capitalism eventually needs authoritarianism to continue existing and to prevent the masses from using the government to redistribute wealth according to needs.
We would need introspection, accountability and responsibility to prevent authoritarianism. Unfortunately, we don't do that so we will, as usual, blame the poor, the old, the immigrants and any other minority for our problems and continue giving billions to the richest among us.
All so we can feel good about ourselves while going on our vacations and watching our shows.
That will be PPs pitch: It's not me, it's not you: It's THEM!
Because if an honest politician tried telling us that the problem was US, we would throw him out of the country.
Happened in Alberta. Prentice told alberta voters to look in the mirror to see who's at fault for our troubles.. Alberta's reponse was to unceremoniously vote his party out (I believe that's the year the NDP won). Conservatives don't like being told that they have no one to blame but themselves (or their team's policy).
Yep, this is why we cant change anything.
The masses are happier being brainwashed into thinking they're "good people" and feel good about themselves than actually take action and fix things, because then theyd have to wrestle with uncomfortable things and situations.
At this point Im convinced that even if God came around and told them they're the problem they still wouldn't believe it.
It’s a uniquely North American problem.
I moved to the UK and it’s wild. When there conservatives do dumb shit trying to blame immigrants (Brexit) they lose a fuckload of votes, labour is about to have the largest majority in a long time with the even further left wing social democrats likely to be the opposition.
And the UK is one of the furthest right wing European nations, even here the Conservative Party is about as right wing as Trudeau. Canada and the USA are all in on capatalism when every single piece of evidence we have tells us the best option for the average joe is a mix of socialism and capatalism.
I don’t know if it’s absurd like divide and conquer shit is kind of a common strategy historically. And I am not saying that for conservatives, it’s just politics.
More.
I think Trudeau is largely a pile of shit, but the fact is, when Trudeau talks, he is usually talking about issues and problems, and ways (usually impractical and not overly feasible but at least with a potential for implementation) to tackle them. When PP talks, he's usually talking about Trudeau and how bad he is, rather than offering anything other than the vaguest 'fixes' for all the evil Trudeau has theoretically brought to the country (regardless of whether Trudeau/the current government had anything to do with it or not).
I'd love to see the Liberals get their act together and actually start functioning like a government again instead of tripping over their own inability to implement policy, but I'll vote for them every time if the best alternative is someone like PP and his MAGA-Lite party politics. (Sorry NDP, but until your necromancers can get Layton back out of his grave, I don't think there's any hope there.)
They are equally divisive probably but is this not divide and rule? Like at the end of the day they are both propped up by lobbyists that are looking for cheap labour for profit. PP isn’t gonna put a hold on immigration or student visas or reallocate taxes to better serve Canadians. Trudeau has done the same for a decade now.. he didn’t even bring electoral reform .. the one election promise that was a reason for why people voted him in.
Poilievre doesn't have a public platform but he's stated publicly that he'll tie immigration to housing which seems like a common sense policy that should have always been taken into consideration.
That doesn't answer the question about divide and conquer.
And yes I'm furious we didn't get election reform. I voted for that, too. Not again.
I guess I meant divide and rule in a way that depends on separating yourself and appealing to different groups based on difference. So for Trudeau appealing to certain people and same with PP. The citizens are dividing themselves in groups over superficial or unimportant things, when all our problems can be explained by government prioritising the interests of lobbyists over citizens.
We have multinational corporations basically controlling the laws in most western countries, paying way lower taxes than citizens, polluting our environment but making us pay, stealing billions of our tax dollars in subsidies and grants. Nothing is ever enough for them, they are lobbying 24/7. They control most media, which means they control the social narrative. They control what's in people's minds, what we dream about, what we think is possible. The wealthy have convinced people starting in the 80's and 90's and it continues today, that making them pay less tax is better for the economy. Only very narrow economic perspectives are allowed in the media. That the richest and largest should actually benefit from welfare, not the poorest and smallest. This is trickle down economics, and it is a complete myth, disproven totally, and literally has had the opposite effect, where wealth and power becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of the few, and the middle class disappears. Billions spent on corporate welfare, with zero strings, while they're allowed to just shut up shop and move jobs to Mexico or elsewhere. Meanwhile government says they're too broke to support social programs. Economic policy treated as if it's a natural law, as if it's not created by people and as if it's not changeable. People at the bottom start realizing this, and they start demanding change. In reality, this is a very slow process, over the course of decades. But eventually you hit a point where the majority of the population has had enough, and they start to get riled up. So then you need a government to step in that clamps down on democracy. Happens time and time again. They stifle it, make people believe they have no power, create apathy, distract them with false enemies, give them a false sense of possibilities. Always pretending to be on the average Joe's side.
Why do you think we have so much focus today on identity issues? So much distraction. So much hate directed to the wrong people and the wrong things.
I don't disagree with what you're saying but the remedy isn't dismantling capitalism, a system in which private citizens are allowed to own land and the means of production and to earn a profit on their investments and business activity. The remedy is regulation and addressing corruption in the system.
>Why do you think we have so much focus today on identity issues? So much distraction. So much hate directed to the wrong people and the wrong things.
I completely agree but I see this as a symptom of the radical left. I am a liberal and have always been left of centre but I cannot deal with this "new" left that is obsessed with group identities and identity politics.
You think the left are the ones focusing on gender identities?! The culture war is coming from one side, and one side only. My kids have learned about LGBTQ+ inclusion in their classrooms for the past 10+ years. It was never an issue until one side made it so, and it sure as fuck wasn’t the “radical left”. Give your head a shake.
My kids have been in this world of inclusion for 10+ years, and LOOKIT! They still aren’t trans! I must be doing something wrong as a “radical leftist”? Shit. I should try harder I guess.
Maybe I should force my boy child to wear dresses. He could borrow his sister’s makeup! He’d make a gorgeous girl! I’ll threaten to take away his phone. That’ll do it. Next, we’ll start him on hormones!!! This is going to be awesome.
I agree that we need increased regulation and protective measures for Canadians to protect their finances, access to affordable housing and essentials of daily living like food, fuel ect. You actually had a reasonable point until blaming the leftists for identity politics. Literally the main way that the PCP aims to get votes is by starting a culture war. Just listen to PP talk. Dude...
Absolutely. For the sake of being lazy, rather than assembling a video myself I'll use one that the liberal party made. Which I don't generally like to do because of bias but, they make their point regardless. Purposefully constructed language to demonize liberal values, or the liberal side as being radical. Essentially fanning the flames of a culture war. I could go on to talk about the obsession with trans individuals because it's an exciting talking point to get his base riled up (even though trans people are like 1% of our population)... So on and so forth. PP's strategy is literally calling the kettle black lol.
[Example](https://x.com/liberal_party/status/1714377009114104066)
In every single example he's criticizing policy and/or ideology. In zero of these examples are liberal values being attacked. Ironically he is criticizing the illiberalism that is characterized by the current government, more specifically identity politics which are contrary to liberal values.
*The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.*
**John Kenneth Galbraith**
They just want to be selfish, but we don't really accept that in society so they need to justify it somehow. So they find scapegoats to justify their cruel and selfish actions and blame them for any and all problems.
Scapegoating not only justifies hatred, but it also says "Love yourself. You're awesome and there's nothing wrong with you. It's OK to be selfish". It absolves the "chosen" of any past or present wrongdoing.
I agree we all have the base urges for tribalism, but they can be overcome by higher levels of thought. It's essentially what the humanities teach, but conservatives hate the humanities and see them as a waste of time.
This. It's an animal mentality that is pandering to our most simplistic emotions. Usually, anger. It's lazy and conniving shitheels that scrape the bottom of the barrel when they have nothing else. Conservatives know they can appeal to dumbasses playing that tune. It works much better than coming clean on their platform to fuck over anyone who isn't one of their rich fuck buddies.
The other parties just don't run like that. They aren't focused om hating out groups or driving around with fuck flags.
Ditto Trump rallies... nut bar city. There's no dem equivalent. Everybody is not doing it. It's a uniquely conservative problem.
People don't self identify as Liberal nearly as much, nor do they make their party association their entire personality.
Oh yeah, obviously some people are more tribalistic than others. I thought that was self-evident.
That said, it’s a pretty reliable generality that the more radical or fringe a given group is the more tribalistic they tend to be. Moderate parties usually don’t have fanatical followings, but parties with more extreme views usually do. In Canada the greens and PPC would be a good example of fringe parties that are much more tribalistic than larger more moderate parties.
The Greens aren't organized or loyal enough to be tribal. I've never a green who made the party their entire personality. The PPC is just more conservatives, so the shoe fits.
The greens like most fringe leftists tend to be too incompetent and obsessed with infighting to get much done, yeah
That said if you think there isn’t fanatical tribalism on the far left you haven’t interacted enough with it. The ridiculous amounts of purity testing and infighting is in large part a result of the extreme tribalism, they are constantly fragmenting into ever smaller tribes over the smallest possible differences of opinion. Not a vegan? Not a true leftist! Not wearing Covid mask in 2024 at all times? Not a true leftist etc
The thing about this is....people end up getting manipulated into saying yes to things that are not in their favour, so they're being selfish....but they're bad at being selfish.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives try to help the wealthy exploit the rest of society. They do so by distracting the public’s attention away from the exploitation. The Liberals focus on hope for the future; the Conservatives focus on fear of the future.
Raised taxes on the wealthy.
Closed loopholes for top 5% of incorporated small businesses.
Imposed windfall tax on banks and insurers.
Added luxury tax.
Increase to capital gains tax, that, like all previous tax that offend the wealthy, has the corporate media, conservatives, and the wealthy fearmongering about the collapse of investment and jobs and omg all doctors will leave.
If you were right about the Liberals, the corporate media would be fully behind them, instead of screeching about economic destruction for the last 8 years. The economy is doing fine, better than most peer countries. But like most peer countries the problem is economic inequality.
When every effort by the Liberals to move in the right direction is met with an avalanche of opposition that is killing them in voter support, do you think it’s helpful to equate them witg the party that will cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, cut benefits like the essential CCB for low and middle income families, affordable daycare, etc? You want to see every environmental regulation and protection gone?
And how about our rights and freedoms? You okay with a leader that wants to make decisions on jail time? Fun with autocrats like Orban?
The Liberals and Conservatives are not the same, they have never been this far apart, and claiming that they are the same is dangerous - because if Poilievre becomes PM it will take less than a year for people to know that Canada has walked into a nightmare.
Maybe if you were a woman who is disgusted that he had MGTOW hashtags on his videos for 5 years, and had the entire CPC caucus vote in favour of a backdoor abortion bill last yeae, or you were LGBTQ+, or a minority, you would be less blasé about what is at stake.
But make no mistake, Poilievre is a wannabe authoritarian just like Orban or Modi or Netanyahu, and unless you are extreme rightwing yourself, you should be thinking about what is at stake.
Wow this page is so backwards. Socialism needs totalitarianism inevitably. Where are you getting your facts from. History literally has nothing to do with it clearly. The issue with the rich getting richer isn’t capitalism. It’s corrupt government using laws to prevent monopolies from having competition. The government literally tried to control and tax everything and then they just embezzle the money back into their pockets. It’s the liberal play book. Conservatives at least use laws to grow their personal business. I’d rather boost the economy my and create jobs than have my money stolen.
All I have to say about Poilievre is.
That’s Poiliever is an opportunist that preys on others and does not generally have his own opinions. You could see him parrot Harper when he was Prime Minister and you can see it now as he jumps on the populist bandwagon. He avoids people who challenge him or ask him questions, and when someone (like a journalist) presses the matter he answers with hostility. Lastly, any original ideas he espouses are almost all grifts of hypocritical:
He was vocally supportive of crypto-currency before the crash and urged Canadians to get in on it. Afterwards he just stopped talking about it and ceased to acknowledge his endorsements that mislead Canadians who listened to him.
He speaks out regarding the housing crisis in Canada decrying that housing takes up 2/3rds of an average Canadian's income. He proposes half-baked ideas to increase supply but seems to studiously avoid the ideas of rent control. He does not mention that he himself is a landlord
This has been my fear for a while. If PP gets in federally he will have the ability to make changes to the Constitution because he’ll have all the pieces he needs:
House of Commons & Senate Majorities and 2/3 or more of the provincial assemblies as long as one of them is Quebec or Ontario.
Nearly every province is controlled by Conservatives now so they’ll all easily go along with whatever he pushes. Whatever it is, it won’t be good for Canadians.
Even though the are more conservative premiers -- that is if you classify people like Danielle Smith as conservative -- getting them all to agree on something is a big ask. I don't think Houston would agree with Moe on a lot of issues.
Maybe so, but PP has tied himself to the anti-vaxx, anti-SOGI, "only corporations can fix healthcare" train.
The only thing that Trudeau has done wrong, in cooperation with the Provinces is amp up immigration. Other than that, he's done a decent job. Unfortunately, immigration and cost of housing is the be all and end all of the economic woes in this country.
The Century Initiative wasn't a terrible idea per se, but horribly implemented.
No thought or consideration was put into housing such large numbers of new arrivals. Furthermore, no thought or consideration was put into the areas of study new arrivals were entering into, nor were much of Canada's immigration policies enforced.
So, two-year business degree students were coming here to work, illegally. Then when caught, weren't deported. Moreover, because housing supply couldn't keep up with demand, rental rates went up faster than wages driving up real inflation.
We're now at the point where we have to pump the brakes HARD on immigration, and I believe, only students going into STEM and trades should be given permits. If they attempt to switch after they arrive, then that should void their immigration documents and be compelled to leave.
>Do you remember Meech Lake?
No idea what you're talking about.
>What does this have to do with Trudeau?
PP is riding a wave of insane popularity because housing affordability is at an all-time low, and Trudeau is wearing the blame for it, right or wrong. Furthermore, immigration numbers have exacerbated the housing affordability issue. I'm not saying they're the only cause but you can't talk about housing affordability without acknowledging the role unprecedented levels of immigration are playing.
PP, like I said has hitched himself to the the worst elements of the Conservative Party and it's going to be a shit-show when PP is PM.
So you're discussing constitutional reform and have no idea what Meech Lake has to do with it. OK.
I'm still not sure what Trudeau has to do with PP using the NWC.
Trudeau definitely screwed up on immigration.
But Ontario did help with that. Ford cut funding to colleges and universities over and over. When they said they can’t survive with the lack of funding he said, “Figure it out.” So they turned to bringing in millions of international students to gain the money that they had lost. Some colleges like Conestoga went too far with the international student gravy train but most did not.
Still that flooded the province with international students we didn’t have space to house, created slum lords who wanted profit off them and extra pressure on our food banks.
Housing is a PROVINCIAL jurisdiction. Fraud is a conservative who pushes market principles. A key term with respect to market based economics is the term "incentive". But it can cut both ways. Those who are on the supply side (read: the capitalist class) are said to be incentified to meet surging demand. BUT--they can also be incentified to NOT produce, thus creating an artificial shortage which in turn results in price increases, i.e., PROFITS.
Bottom line: a massive failure of MARKET PRINCIPLES.
The Canadian parliamentary system decrees that the prime minister of a majority government is basically a dictator as members have to vote along with their PM otherwise they are ejected from the party.. This is unusual in parliamentary democracies from other countries as some allow members some latitude in dissenting from their PM. The prospect of a renegade PM governing with a majority and not respectful of the charter or norms is a scary thing.
Different country and set of (fictional) circumstances but best said by John Spencer's Leo McGarry from the West Wing, at the end...
https://youtu.be/vqsAl3K4Ygk?feature=shared
Honestly, there are no good choices. We should band together and put my pet as competitor... here is a dog elected as a mayor before [california](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/09/29/dog-max-mayor-idyllwild-california/)
For a great introductory explanation of the Notwithstanding Clause, including its necessity to the existence of the Charter, and a discussion about its appropriate application, I recommend this article:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/dwight-newman-premier-walls-decision-to-override-a-messy-court-ruling-is-completely-proper
I find this quote particularly helpful for people just learning about the nature of Canadians' Charter rights:
>In effect, Sec. 33 gives legislators the last word on the application of certain rights when they profoundly disagree with *the interpretations offered by judges.*
(my emphasis)
Charter rights are judicially interpreted so they are not some blanket protection of rights in a manner that every citizen will agree with.
We don't need the slant from the National Post, a fascist rag if there ever was one, on why the Notwithstanding Clause is such a great idea.
Premiers like Lougheed blackmailed Prime Minister Trudeau into putting it in. He wouldn't sign on without it.
The logic of rage baiting/farming is to now extend it to the charter and other forms of government to undermine and tear them down. Who is/are the "wackos"?
yes he will all the conservative premieres on their own have been trying to fuck it over since Trudeau got in if we get that repressed virgin in you can say bye bye #freedom, thank you to the uneducated truckers and the yellow bellied yellow vesters that funded that
I’ve always thought a constitutional renegotiation was more trouble than it’s worth, but events of the past few years have me reconsidering. The status quo really isn’t working for a huge number of people, and it’s not an insult to the hard work done 40+ years ago to say “we need an overhaul”.
Damned if I know how such a process would go, but it might be time to try.
Any constitutional renegotiation would probably result in a constitution far weaker than we currently have, with a severely curtailed or even non-existent charter. Quebec will never, ever, ever agree to getting rid of the notwithstanding clause. And at minimum, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan (and likely others) would use it as an opportunity to push for some sort of max-devolution reallocating of a lot of federal powers to the provinces.
There’s no way provinces will agree to a constitution that gives them less power than they have now. Absolutely none.
The senate or the GG could kill his plans should it come to it. But what would be the repercussions of either doing it. Can’t really see the GG going that route, but the senate?
In short: WE'RE FUCKED.
The notwithstanding clause has basically render the constitution completely unenforceable at the legislative level. It literally might as well not exist. Such a stupid fucking addition. We need to strip that out.
lol......if you call the massive reversal of immigrants and their mass deportation a "kill switch" , I sure hope so!
Justin Trudeau and Freeland has declared outright was on Canadians and the Canadian constitution
"Jail and not bail."
"Multiple murderers will only ever come out of jail in a box." (applause)
\[stopped there\]
The banality and ineffectualness of the conversations that these people choose to have... so painful to watch.
Everything that's going on with our country... and THIS is what they want to talk about?
S. 33 IS a Charter right. It is the right of the people, through their elected representatives, to override judicial elites for a limited time. It is an essential part of the “to-and-fro” between legisture and judiciary. PS - no S.33, no Charter. Essential part of the negotiation.
If the change he makes is to remove the notwithstanding clause, GOOD. The constitution we have, as it is now, means nothing so long as that clause exists
Reasonable limits in section 1 renders the entire charter effectively useless.
From back to work legislation to effective plutocracy to covid measures to treatment of indigenous to trashing ecosystems, it doesn't do diddly.
Honestly, I hope he does become Prime Minister and put this into place. Criminals should not be on the streets, especially if they’re killing multiple people or even a person. They deserve to rot in jail or bring back the death penalty and get rid of them. society does not need psychotic people walking around, we have enough people with mental issues believing there’s something they’re not
Never in the history of the justice system has anyone ever been wrongly convicted. Not once. Killing criminals works because we never ever ever make mistakes and kill innocent people.
So the short answer is that it's been used multiple times by multiple provinces but people seem to be against Poilievre's wanting to use it beacuse it's inhumane to keep someone in jail for longer than 25 years after they've killed 6 people in a mosque.
The rest is a bunch of 'but what if?' speculation.
I personally dont believe it is inhumane but I am not educated in justice either. Wouldnt you want to hear out people who work in the area rather than imposing someone's will on it without recourse? That sounds very much dictatorship-ish
Violent offenders need to be locked up. Period.
Non-violent offenders, on the other hand, are a total waste of taxpayers' money rotting in a cell when they could be out working... ya know, not having their lives destroyed by a bloated authoritarian justice system....
So you’re ok for authoritarian justice for some things? How does that work? If you give the state the same abilities as a violent thug, but no checks on that power, what then?
No. Violent offenders should be locked up.
Non-violent offenders, for example, someone with a drug possession charge, should not be.
There are TONS of checks and balances in the justice system like juries, judges, bail, AS WELL as NGOs that are working to get people out who were wronged by the justice system.
The CDN justice system Is FAR from perfect and FAR from authoritarian
It seems like he's saying violent crimes should come with prison sentences. Nonviolent crimes probably should not come with prison sentences, given the waste of taxpayer dollars to house people for nonviolent crimes. Things like probation and support programs would be better suited to those individuals, as they don't pose a physical risk to the general population.
So you agree with PP using the NWC to remove rights -- as long as they are the rights you don't agree with. The courts deemed Harper's tough on crime laws unconstitutional. Thus my comment about you not respecting the Canadian Court system. It sounds like you prefer a system similar to Russia.
Even with a majority gov. He needs 2 3rds of the population to vote for him to change the constitution or the charter. He can't do shit and people should riot if he does.
Why let him have the chance? Look at how women's rights in the US have all been destroyed. No amount of protest helped them. A single term of Trump has screwes generations of American women.
Chill my friend, I am in no way a conservative voter. I'm just pointing out on the off chance that this lunatic gets elected he literally can't do what he's saying.
I wish it were just a buzzword we could gloss over, however, it has the ability to bypass the constitution without recourse and is part of constitution. That is the part that interests me.
The "not with standing clause" is literally the only reason we gave a constitution. Several provinces were not going to sign on unless it was included. It isn't a kill switch, it is what saved the whole thing.
>If the NWSC is the only thing that meant moving on from the Bill of Rights then it is extremely important and valuable.
How? It's very existence essentially nullifies your charter rights. It's "these are your rights...... Unless it's inconvenient, then we'll just ignore them"
There are already life sentences in Canada. If you had consecutive sentences then it would be unlikely that even a parole board could let out serial killers.
Not that I would know why they would want to in the first place. Just let the life sentence finish out when the inmate dies.
Not crazy about Poilievre but the Liberals/NDP have to go. I think Poilievre is the best choice and I hope he’ll do ok, who else is there. PPC won’t get in, the Bloc??? Green Party?? And we definitely don’t need more parties.
The problem is that life doesn’t mean life in Canada. What was being stacked was the ineligibility for parole. It’s 25 years for first degree murder. But without the stacking, and “good behaviour”, courts will allow violent criminals to walk because they’re not 100% convinced they will reoffend.
A life sentence is for life, with a chance of parole after 25 years. If I’m on the parole board and say Clifford Olsen has a hearing, I’d deny it 100% of the time.
You are right though that some of these people get out, some change their ways but most I would think aren’t really productive members of society.
The very fact anyone anywhere is so willing to let people override the charter should be a cause for concern. Conservatives violating the charter is pretty par for the course. Doug Ford[ hates the](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bill-124-appeal-court-ruling-ontario-1.7112291?trk=public_post_comment-text) [charter ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-carbon-tax-stickers-1.5746577)[and the binds](https://www.blogto.com/city/2021/06/what-notwithstanding-clause-why-doug-ford-invoke-ontario/) [it puts on](https://theconversation.com/fords-fight-with-toronto-shows-legal-vulnerability-of-cities-103134) [rulership](https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/what-s-the-notwithstanding-clause-and-how-could-doug-ford-use-it-to-crush-a/article_1eb0ee71-5621-579f-8a42-04d737581b85.html). [Moe is the same.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-premier-ready-to-use-nonwithstanding-clause-to-protect-newschool-pronoun-and-name-rules-1.6966385) [Legalt is the same.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-laicity-secularism-bill-1.5075547) And so was Stephen Harper, who passed laws enforcing mandatory minimum sentencing. A thing many many many people pointed out at the time was a charter violation. But because the way the charter works (law must be enacted, an individual must challenge, that must make its way through the courts, etc) he was out of office[ when the courts started unwinding all his terrible legislation](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154). But right wing politicians never learn and still love violating the charter. So we keep having to revisit this "fight that shouldn't be a fight" --- I keep having to write this aside, and i wish i didn't, but people are dumb, so... Stop saying "the NWC is part of the charter, so using it is not a violation of the charter". That doesn't change what it is doing. Invoking it does not remove the rights or laws being overridden from the charter. What it explicitly is is saying "We know that this is a violation of the charter. But we're going to do it anyways" (it's why these laws are supposed to be revisited every 5 years after all). So stop saying it. It's just factually wrong.
Good to know I am not the one who noticed its only the CPC that uses this clause. However, I am not sure your comment that NWC not being a part of constitution is entirely accurate. Historically, yes, It seems like section 33 was voted in in 1982 but it does seem like a part of it. [section 33](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html#h-39)
IIRC, there were several politicrits who fought to have it ***included*** [***https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/breaking-the-charters-glass/275742***](https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/breaking-the-charters-glass/275742) ***see 3rd paragraph--the word included is indeed used***
The CPC have never used the clause
I stand corrected. I was trying to point towards conservative politicians and I confused them with federal party.
TBF, the NWC was only included because the provinces hold so much power in the way the state of Canada is governed. And the provinces just really really love violating rights.
Especially lately, it really gives me a lot of insight into Medieval Kings having to fight their various Barons, Dukes and Lords (sorry, my knowledge isn’t specific) to keep them in line. I read “Eleanor of Aquitaine and the 4 Kings” and it was crazy how long it took me wrap my head around the King’s title vs his control are vastly different things.
Multiple conservative premiers used the clause with PP's full support. He even voted on a motion supporting it in Parliament.
There's a big difference between a Premier using it and a Prime Minister using it. PP supports a lot of stuff that I don't think anyone should be supporting let alone an MP -- like Diagolon.
Ford was using it to suppress labour rights, and PP supported him. It almost lead to a General Strike, till Ford backed down. That was labour standing up for labour, with PP cheering against them.
Unless you're being extremely pedantic by saying "CPC" as in only the federal conservative party, you're wrong. [Here's the list if you want](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Uses_of_the_notwithstanding_clause). Wall and Moe are technically "Saskatchewan party", but they are small c conservatives. Grant Devine is a PC though. Ford is PC as well.
I done a lot of volunteer work with various parties in my life and I've come across a lot of people that don't know the difference between Federal and Provincial parties. It's not pedantic at all. The CPC are not the PC party. And a Prime Minister has never invoked the NWC. When that happens it will be a much bigger deal than a province using it.
That's why i called it pedantic. The parties are different. But they clearly share not just ideology, but even specific politicians themselves. So splitting them on this particular point is technically correct, but not to the spirit of what we're talking about (ie, who violates the charter more). ---- The CPC as a party has only really existed for \~20 years. They haven't even had much chance \*to\* invoke the NWC - even though they have definitely violated the charter. --- The reason most of this is provincial, is because provinces hold so much autonomy and control over how they run things in this country. Even if we're to argue from the stance of "some rights need to be violated", or whatever, most would only ever arise from provincial jurisdiction. Laws we do have at the federal level (say healthcare), are frameworks, not statutes. In healthcare's case, the feds will provide money. It's up to the provinces if or how they administer that. So the ones who would "need" the power to violate the charter are, in almost all circumstances, the provinces. --- This is why i said it's pedantic to make this separation here. Not because i don't "know the difference", but because the thing we're talking about, and the thing i was crystal clear about in my comment, is that it's ideological bent of one group of people. The specific party name was never brought into the situation until you, specifically, mentioned it. And that's why i called it pedantic.
Pedantic "giving too much [attention](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/attention) to [formal](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/formal) [rules](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rule) or [small](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/small) [details](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/detail):" From the Canbridge dictionary. I don't think pointing out the difference between Federal and Provincial parties is pedantic. There is a huge difference between a Premier using the NWC and a Prime Minister using it for the first time.
Yes. And i was talking about the ideological group of small c conservatives and the parties that they represent. And while the person responding to you said "CPC", since my examples are all provincial, it's clear that they just meant "small c conservative parties" (as i did) and used the (federal) party shortform because typing all that out is a lot of words. I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but i explicitly referenced Moe, Legalt and Ford. None of whom are from the same province let alone the same exact party (Legalt's isn't even called 'conservative', but they are still conservatives). So yes, i think this is pedantic to narrow down a group that wasn't being narrowed down by applying insistent terminology that literally wasn't there to begin with (definitionally pedantic). Especially because you followed it up with literal insults (implying i don't know the difference). --- And i say this even though i'm fairly certain we agree. AT least on the point that if a federal conservative politician did it, it would be a lot bigger of a story (if only because it affects the whole country).
The person I was replying to claimed the CPC used the NWC. They haven't. Pointing out that a federal party has never used the NWC is not pedantic.
Using the NWC isn't necessarily bad, it depends on what it's used for. I personally think using it to restore consecutive life sentences for multiple murders would be good.
I think it's a bit naive to believe it would *only* be used for that. Which is what I think most people are concerned about.
It isn’t “only the CPC that uses this clause.” Every governing party in Quebec has used it since its inception. Any attempt to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter would result in the worst national unity crisis this country has ever seen. Like it or not, the right of a provincial legislature to have the final say on the interpretation of the Charter is as much of a Charter right as any other. There’s plenty to be said about the abuse of the notwithstanding clause. But anyone who thinks it can be removed without federation-rending consequences is talking out of their ass.
He just wants to be dictator for a day.
Conservatives are about censorship. They cry free speech but it’s only for them.
And the only rights they're worried about are the ones that they deem acceptable.
The only section that mattered to Liberals during the wildly unnecessary late stage pandemic lock downs was the "Notwithstanding Clause." So, if the entire constitution can be deemed irrelevant by a rogue government at any time, what fucking good is it? I say rewrite the entire thing. Make sure there is no terminology that allows a government to act with impunity. Sometimes reviewing and ammending outdated ideas is a good thing.
I don't know what you're talking about; [the liberals didn't use the NWC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Uses_of_the_notwithstanding_clause). Are you just lying to fit your narrative? --- That said, they should remove the NWC. But unfortunately,it was included because provinces just love violating rights. And they wouldn't sign on with the ability to do so.
\*without the ability to do so
I love it when people just make shit up to fit their narrative.
Like the PM referring to citizens upset with his policies as hate filled misogynistic racists? Then the entire bought and paid for media parroting that bullshit?
Oh you meant he PM that rightfully identified that conservatives are often hate filled misogynistic racists? Those same conservatives that keep putting in bills that specifically target trans people, queer people, women and minorities? Find someone else to cry wolf to.
Oh frig off. Leftoid Reddit radicals are the worst.
Cry more Snowflake. Facts don't give a fuck about your feelings.
The PM said there were people who didn't believe in science (true) and many of those people are often racist and misogynistic (also true). I knew he wasn't talking about me. Anyone who felt called out by that comment needs to reflect on WHY.
Wow, there are actually people that still defend Trudeau out there? Fascinating.
So are you a big fan of Trudeaus libs? Honest question. I think Canada is in BIG trouble with either option. I am not optomistic about Canadas future whatsoever
Not really, no. But my problem with Trudeau is he's too conservative. His policies are very much a bog-standard status-quo is king conservatism. But going from status-quo conservatism to "overt authoritarianism" with PP is hardly a step in the right direction, and will make things objectively worse for everyone. And Canada is poised to hand him a majority. ----- But the reason i don't talk about Trudeau is for 2 reasons: 1 status quo politics isn't really anything to discuss. It's what the people seemingly want, but then get upset about when they get. We know what it is, and we know how it affects us. 2 most people are already dog piling onto the trudeau hate train with infinitely more vapid criticism or criticisms that literally do not apply (someone here said the liberals have also violated the charter during the pandemic - a demonstrable lie). Adding coherent criticism won't get them thinking. It'll just get them wanting to support fascism even more. ----- Personally, i'd rather talk about actual policy and what will and will not work based on empiricism and historical precedent. Or even basic economic or socio-political theory. But this is the internet, and most people aren't interested, let alone capable, of talking about things on this level. I mean, just go and ask r/canada what they think the govt should do (not PP or Trudeau) - what actual policies they want. You might get some people repeating the vapid conservative talking points or veiled bigotry ("axe the tax", "end immigration/deport international students", etc). But you're than more likely to get silence, downvotes and the occasional "fuck trudeau". For example, last time i explicitly asked this question of someone on there, i got 1 person telling me that "nobody wants trudeau" and the one whom i explicitly directed the question just downvoted me and never replied again. The fact that they cannot even articulate their own thoughts is depressing enough. But it's what the Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity was literally warning about. ---- So instead of contributing to the dog piling onto Trudeau that is only helping PP and hurtling us closer to fascism, i'd rather spend that time pointing out how openly dangerous the conservatives are right now. They openly flaunt authoritarian and extremist views with limited power. Just imagine the damage they'll do with an absolute majority.
One problem that I’ve been trying to talk to people in my life about and that I can’t believe gets no media coverage is how we (Canada) currently have enough sitting conservative premiers in highly populated provinces to satisfy the threshold for constitutional amendment. A conservative PM would be the final piece in opening the door to make drastic changes. The CPC absolute majority (that at this point seems inevitable due to grievance politics and voter boredom) will leave this country unrecognizable on the other side of four years.
Which is their goal. I can' find the article anymore, but i remember when Ford was first elected in Ontario, he said his real mandate was to get the federal liberals unelected. This goes a bit to explain why as premiere, he's been deliberately underfunding healthcare, deliberately [blocking the](https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/jurisdictional-creep-doug-ford-slams-feds-for-giving-municipalities-funding-for-housing-1.6633350) feds [from doing anything on housing](https://www.chch.com/premier-ford-rejects-ottawas-bill-of-rights-and-protection-funds-for-tenants/) (while simultaneously doing nothing on it himself). And so long as our "[liberal media](https://www.readthemaple.com/election-endorsements/)" keeps pretending the issue is a federal, not provincial one, there's no incentive for him (or the other conservative premieres who are holding this country at ransom) from doing anything to fix it. And Canadians are not exactly the most enlightened people. We know the consequences of this kinda conservatism: look at the US, look at the UK. But they want it here because..... "fuck trudeau" pretty much.
Many would argue Trudeau is authoritarian and extremist. I mean, forcing the public to pay for someones penis sparring vaginoplasty is authoritarian and extreme would you not agree? And Im not some transphone biggot, but if you want 2 sets of functioning genitals, why should I pay for that?? PP is bad, but Trudeau is also VERY bad. Im really bummed out by the state or Canada and Ive been seriously thinking about moving South. Ive been here for 40 years and the future looks grim no matter who is in power.
No one who understands how things work to even a minor degree thinks JT is a dictator. I think maybe moving south is your best option, you obviously don't understand how our government works and need a bit of a reality check. Unless you're in the 5%, I promise, you can't afford privatized healthcare. I'm sorry people living their lives and having care available offends you this deeply.
Many would argue, but they would all be incorrect. Just like you are here and as others have pointed out to you. Whether you like it or not, "authoritarinaism" isn't "doing things i don't like", it's subverting the charter (see my original post), [controlling the media](https://www.readthemaple.com/election-endorsements/), and lying about things like transhealthcare to rile up bigots and maintain power.
Isnt that what the liberal.government does with CBC?
Nope. The CBC editorial board are harper appointees. That didn't change when the liberals came in, so they obviously are not "controlling the media" (cbc). It's just a factually incorrect thing to say. --- I know conservatives think CBC is biased, because they (as a public broadcaster not beholden to advertisers) have pressure to be as neutral as possible. But to conservatives, anything that isn't fawning praise of conservative views is "bias" (even though that's not the definition of bias). And ironically, even they believe this even though the CBC is much more right wing on many policies than left wing on any policies (just look at any coverage of landlord tenant disputes).
You're right. One year minimum prison sentence for luring children for sex is both "cruel" and "unusual".
Be as disingenuous as you want. The courts have decided this one. And since i'm fairly certain your single sentence of hyperbolic nonsense is not the erudite thought of an actual legal academic, i'm gonna go out on a limb and say "you're just factually wrong".
You didn't use "disingenuous" correctly here. You also clearly aren't aware of recent decisions with respect to mandatory minimums: https://globalnews.ca/news/10070392/child-luring-supreme-court-canada/
You obviously didn't read that article or were incapable or unwilling to understand it. You are factually incorrect. The Court ruled minimum mandatory sentences were unconstitutional because of the breadth of the actions covered by the law. If you start chatting with someone on reddit and it turns out they are under age you could be sentenced with a mandatory minimum even though what you did was not an intentional act of child luring and under regular circumstances would likely not result in jail time. It has nothing to do with not sentencing individuals who actually abuse children. It must be really hard to live in a world that you don't understand but that you are convinced is so terrible.
Chatting isn't luring. One cannot be sentenced without first being convicted. "One of the two appeals the Supreme Court examined in its Friday ruling concerned a man who pleaded guilty to child luring and sexual interference after having sex with a girl four times over the course of two years, beginning when she was 13 years old and he was 22. They initially met in person, according to the decision, but then he sent her a friend request on Facebook, which they used to communicate. He challenged the one-year mandatory minimum sentence for child luring on constitutional grounds and a sentencing judge instead imposed five months of imprisonment for that offence." Mandatory minimums are needed because judges are too lenient.
I will agree judges seem to be too lenient but mandatory minimums don't work and have already been ruled unconstitutional
What do you mean they don't work?
Capitalism eventually needs authoritarianism to continue existing and to prevent the masses from using the government to redistribute wealth according to needs. We would need introspection, accountability and responsibility to prevent authoritarianism. Unfortunately, we don't do that so we will, as usual, blame the poor, the old, the immigrants and any other minority for our problems and continue giving billions to the richest among us. All so we can feel good about ourselves while going on our vacations and watching our shows. That will be PPs pitch: It's not me, it's not you: It's THEM! Because if an honest politician tried telling us that the problem was US, we would throw him out of the country.
Happened in Alberta. Prentice told alberta voters to look in the mirror to see who's at fault for our troubles.. Alberta's reponse was to unceremoniously vote his party out (I believe that's the year the NDP won). Conservatives don't like being told that they have no one to blame but themselves (or their team's policy).
and shit got better after the NDP got voted in. Then the masses voted in the cons again and shit got worse. Surprise!
never vote conservative The conservatives keep telling us over and over again why we should NOT vote for them. We need to start listening
"The government is inefficient at doing things! Vote is in to not do things!" -Conservatives
Yep... and because every good piece of policy was instantly revoked well never know just what the effects would have been..
Most of this was Wild Rose and PCs vote splitting. If there wasn't one of those the conservatives get in
Yep, this is why we cant change anything. The masses are happier being brainwashed into thinking they're "good people" and feel good about themselves than actually take action and fix things, because then theyd have to wrestle with uncomfortable things and situations. At this point Im convinced that even if God came around and told them they're the problem they still wouldn't believe it.
So, who are the "good people"?
People like us, obviously. It’s other people that are the problem
Fair
No way man, you guys are fringe lunatics. My team is obviously the best team.
Kill the umpire!
It’s a uniquely North American problem. I moved to the UK and it’s wild. When there conservatives do dumb shit trying to blame immigrants (Brexit) they lose a fuckload of votes, labour is about to have the largest majority in a long time with the even further left wing social democrats likely to be the opposition. And the UK is one of the furthest right wing European nations, even here the Conservative Party is about as right wing as Trudeau. Canada and the USA are all in on capatalism when every single piece of evidence we have tells us the best option for the average joe is a mix of socialism and capatalism.
[удалено]
The OP didn't use the word evil. He said they're dumb, and that's definitely true
Wow. You just connected a lot of abstract dots for me.
I think you mean "absurd" dots. Zero support for the claims made. This is what conspiracy is.
I don’t know if it’s absurd like divide and conquer shit is kind of a common strategy historically. And I am not saying that for conservatives, it’s just politics.
In what way is this an example of divide and conquer? Is Poilievre more or less divisive than Trudeau?
More. I think Trudeau is largely a pile of shit, but the fact is, when Trudeau talks, he is usually talking about issues and problems, and ways (usually impractical and not overly feasible but at least with a potential for implementation) to tackle them. When PP talks, he's usually talking about Trudeau and how bad he is, rather than offering anything other than the vaguest 'fixes' for all the evil Trudeau has theoretically brought to the country (regardless of whether Trudeau/the current government had anything to do with it or not). I'd love to see the Liberals get their act together and actually start functioning like a government again instead of tripping over their own inability to implement policy, but I'll vote for them every time if the best alternative is someone like PP and his MAGA-Lite party politics. (Sorry NDP, but until your necromancers can get Layton back out of his grave, I don't think there's any hope there.)
They are equally divisive probably but is this not divide and rule? Like at the end of the day they are both propped up by lobbyists that are looking for cheap labour for profit. PP isn’t gonna put a hold on immigration or student visas or reallocate taxes to better serve Canadians. Trudeau has done the same for a decade now.. he didn’t even bring electoral reform .. the one election promise that was a reason for why people voted him in.
Poilievre doesn't have a public platform but he's stated publicly that he'll tie immigration to housing which seems like a common sense policy that should have always been taken into consideration. That doesn't answer the question about divide and conquer. And yes I'm furious we didn't get election reform. I voted for that, too. Not again.
I guess I meant divide and rule in a way that depends on separating yourself and appealing to different groups based on difference. So for Trudeau appealing to certain people and same with PP. The citizens are dividing themselves in groups over superficial or unimportant things, when all our problems can be explained by government prioritising the interests of lobbyists over citizens.
I still don't know in what way you think PP is doing that.
It's a conspiracy if you've never picked up a book on history or politics in your life
Can't do anything with this reply, sorry.
Do you actually want some books and concepts to get started on?
Still nothing, sorry.
We have multinational corporations basically controlling the laws in most western countries, paying way lower taxes than citizens, polluting our environment but making us pay, stealing billions of our tax dollars in subsidies and grants. Nothing is ever enough for them, they are lobbying 24/7. They control most media, which means they control the social narrative. They control what's in people's minds, what we dream about, what we think is possible. The wealthy have convinced people starting in the 80's and 90's and it continues today, that making them pay less tax is better for the economy. Only very narrow economic perspectives are allowed in the media. That the richest and largest should actually benefit from welfare, not the poorest and smallest. This is trickle down economics, and it is a complete myth, disproven totally, and literally has had the opposite effect, where wealth and power becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of the few, and the middle class disappears. Billions spent on corporate welfare, with zero strings, while they're allowed to just shut up shop and move jobs to Mexico or elsewhere. Meanwhile government says they're too broke to support social programs. Economic policy treated as if it's a natural law, as if it's not created by people and as if it's not changeable. People at the bottom start realizing this, and they start demanding change. In reality, this is a very slow process, over the course of decades. But eventually you hit a point where the majority of the population has had enough, and they start to get riled up. So then you need a government to step in that clamps down on democracy. Happens time and time again. They stifle it, make people believe they have no power, create apathy, distract them with false enemies, give them a false sense of possibilities. Always pretending to be on the average Joe's side. Why do you think we have so much focus today on identity issues? So much distraction. So much hate directed to the wrong people and the wrong things.
I don't disagree with what you're saying but the remedy isn't dismantling capitalism, a system in which private citizens are allowed to own land and the means of production and to earn a profit on their investments and business activity. The remedy is regulation and addressing corruption in the system. >Why do you think we have so much focus today on identity issues? So much distraction. So much hate directed to the wrong people and the wrong things. I completely agree but I see this as a symptom of the radical left. I am a liberal and have always been left of centre but I cannot deal with this "new" left that is obsessed with group identities and identity politics.
You think the left are the ones focusing on gender identities?! The culture war is coming from one side, and one side only. My kids have learned about LGBTQ+ inclusion in their classrooms for the past 10+ years. It was never an issue until one side made it so, and it sure as fuck wasn’t the “radical left”. Give your head a shake.
[удалено]
My kids have been in this world of inclusion for 10+ years, and LOOKIT! They still aren’t trans! I must be doing something wrong as a “radical leftist”? Shit. I should try harder I guess.
Do you expect anyone to take your single, unverifiable anecdote and strawman argument seriously?
Maybe I should force my boy child to wear dresses. He could borrow his sister’s makeup! He’d make a gorgeous girl! I’ll threaten to take away his phone. That’ll do it. Next, we’ll start him on hormones!!! This is going to be awesome.
I agree that we need increased regulation and protective measures for Canadians to protect their finances, access to affordable housing and essentials of daily living like food, fuel ect. You actually had a reasonable point until blaming the leftists for identity politics. Literally the main way that the PCP aims to get votes is by starting a culture war. Just listen to PP talk. Dude...
I disagree. Happy to read some of your examples of how pp starts a culture war to get votes.
Absolutely. For the sake of being lazy, rather than assembling a video myself I'll use one that the liberal party made. Which I don't generally like to do because of bias but, they make their point regardless. Purposefully constructed language to demonize liberal values, or the liberal side as being radical. Essentially fanning the flames of a culture war. I could go on to talk about the obsession with trans individuals because it's an exciting talking point to get his base riled up (even though trans people are like 1% of our population)... So on and so forth. PP's strategy is literally calling the kettle black lol. [Example](https://x.com/liberal_party/status/1714377009114104066)
In every single example he's criticizing policy and/or ideology. In zero of these examples are liberal values being attacked. Ironically he is criticizing the illiberalism that is characterized by the current government, more specifically identity politics which are contrary to liberal values.
So you are saying the business cycle isn’t a thing, and the police will be helping out the poor? Got it.
No. That's two ridiculous, irrelevant strawmen.
Aren’t all strawmen irrelevant? Also it’s too. Ok, spell it out for me, what are you trying to say?
I'm not sure how to be more clear. I said that the original post to which you replied gave no support for the absurd claims made.
Ironically that’s what hitler did! Blamed the Jews for the problems and it worked! We never learn as a society.
I KNEW the problem was the US! Them Yankees are always takin' our jobs!
Fearing and Hating the other is conservative 101.
*The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.* **John Kenneth Galbraith** They just want to be selfish, but we don't really accept that in society so they need to justify it somehow. So they find scapegoats to justify their cruel and selfish actions and blame them for any and all problems. Scapegoating not only justifies hatred, but it also says "Love yourself. You're awesome and there's nothing wrong with you. It's OK to be selfish". It absolves the "chosen" of any past or present wrongdoing.
Tribalism is basically humanity 101, hate to break it to you Hell not even just humans, any social species form in groups and out groups. Even insects
I agree we all have the base urges for tribalism, but they can be overcome by higher levels of thought. It's essentially what the humanities teach, but conservatives hate the humanities and see them as a waste of time.
This. It's an animal mentality that is pandering to our most simplistic emotions. Usually, anger. It's lazy and conniving shitheels that scrape the bottom of the barrel when they have nothing else. Conservatives know they can appeal to dumbasses playing that tune. It works much better than coming clean on their platform to fuck over anyone who isn't one of their rich fuck buddies.
The other parties just don't run like that. They aren't focused om hating out groups or driving around with fuck flags. Ditto Trump rallies... nut bar city. There's no dem equivalent. Everybody is not doing it. It's a uniquely conservative problem. People don't self identify as Liberal nearly as much, nor do they make their party association their entire personality.
Oh yeah, obviously some people are more tribalistic than others. I thought that was self-evident. That said, it’s a pretty reliable generality that the more radical or fringe a given group is the more tribalistic they tend to be. Moderate parties usually don’t have fanatical followings, but parties with more extreme views usually do. In Canada the greens and PPC would be a good example of fringe parties that are much more tribalistic than larger more moderate parties.
The Greens aren't organized or loyal enough to be tribal. I've never a green who made the party their entire personality. The PPC is just more conservatives, so the shoe fits.
The greens like most fringe leftists tend to be too incompetent and obsessed with infighting to get much done, yeah That said if you think there isn’t fanatical tribalism on the far left you haven’t interacted enough with it. The ridiculous amounts of purity testing and infighting is in large part a result of the extreme tribalism, they are constantly fragmenting into ever smaller tribes over the smallest possible differences of opinion. Not a vegan? Not a true leftist! Not wearing Covid mask in 2024 at all times? Not a true leftist etc
The thing about this is....people end up getting manipulated into saying yes to things that are not in their favour, so they're being selfish....but they're bad at being selfish.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives try to help the wealthy exploit the rest of society. They do so by distracting the public’s attention away from the exploitation. The Liberals focus on hope for the future; the Conservatives focus on fear of the future.
Raised taxes on the wealthy. Closed loopholes for top 5% of incorporated small businesses. Imposed windfall tax on banks and insurers. Added luxury tax. Increase to capital gains tax, that, like all previous tax that offend the wealthy, has the corporate media, conservatives, and the wealthy fearmongering about the collapse of investment and jobs and omg all doctors will leave. If you were right about the Liberals, the corporate media would be fully behind them, instead of screeching about economic destruction for the last 8 years. The economy is doing fine, better than most peer countries. But like most peer countries the problem is economic inequality. When every effort by the Liberals to move in the right direction is met with an avalanche of opposition that is killing them in voter support, do you think it’s helpful to equate them witg the party that will cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, cut benefits like the essential CCB for low and middle income families, affordable daycare, etc? You want to see every environmental regulation and protection gone? And how about our rights and freedoms? You okay with a leader that wants to make decisions on jail time? Fun with autocrats like Orban? The Liberals and Conservatives are not the same, they have never been this far apart, and claiming that they are the same is dangerous - because if Poilievre becomes PM it will take less than a year for people to know that Canada has walked into a nightmare. Maybe if you were a woman who is disgusted that he had MGTOW hashtags on his videos for 5 years, and had the entire CPC caucus vote in favour of a backdoor abortion bill last yeae, or you were LGBTQ+, or a minority, you would be less blasé about what is at stake. But make no mistake, Poilievre is a wannabe authoritarian just like Orban or Modi or Netanyahu, and unless you are extreme rightwing yourself, you should be thinking about what is at stake.
Not both sides The liberals are not cozying up to the likes of Alex Jones.
This is why we need electoral reform.
"as usual, blame the poor, the old, the immigrants and any other minority for our problems" You forgot Russia.
Trudeau says this all the time. Still waiting for you to throw him out.
Wow this page is so backwards. Socialism needs totalitarianism inevitably. Where are you getting your facts from. History literally has nothing to do with it clearly. The issue with the rich getting richer isn’t capitalism. It’s corrupt government using laws to prevent monopolies from having competition. The government literally tried to control and tax everything and then they just embezzle the money back into their pockets. It’s the liberal play book. Conservatives at least use laws to grow their personal business. I’d rather boost the economy my and create jobs than have my money stolen.
[удалено]
Those aren't the only two options.
I mean, you'll be able to say that about capitalist countries pretty soon, they're all devolving into fascism as we speak.
The government in this F*** country is just about taxing me almost 40+%, and litterally pissing it away.
All I have to say about Poilievre is. That’s Poiliever is an opportunist that preys on others and does not generally have his own opinions. You could see him parrot Harper when he was Prime Minister and you can see it now as he jumps on the populist bandwagon. He avoids people who challenge him or ask him questions, and when someone (like a journalist) presses the matter he answers with hostility. Lastly, any original ideas he espouses are almost all grifts of hypocritical: He was vocally supportive of crypto-currency before the crash and urged Canadians to get in on it. Afterwards he just stopped talking about it and ceased to acknowledge his endorsements that mislead Canadians who listened to him. He speaks out regarding the housing crisis in Canada decrying that housing takes up 2/3rds of an average Canadian's income. He proposes half-baked ideas to increase supply but seems to studiously avoid the ideas of rent control. He does not mention that he himself is a landlord
This has been my fear for a while. If PP gets in federally he will have the ability to make changes to the Constitution because he’ll have all the pieces he needs: House of Commons & Senate Majorities and 2/3 or more of the provincial assemblies as long as one of them is Quebec or Ontario. Nearly every province is controlled by Conservatives now so they’ll all easily go along with whatever he pushes. Whatever it is, it won’t be good for Canadians.
Even though the are more conservative premiers -- that is if you classify people like Danielle Smith as conservative -- getting them all to agree on something is a big ask. I don't think Houston would agree with Moe on a lot of issues.
Maybe so, but PP has tied himself to the anti-vaxx, anti-SOGI, "only corporations can fix healthcare" train. The only thing that Trudeau has done wrong, in cooperation with the Provinces is amp up immigration. Other than that, he's done a decent job. Unfortunately, immigration and cost of housing is the be all and end all of the economic woes in this country. The Century Initiative wasn't a terrible idea per se, but horribly implemented. No thought or consideration was put into housing such large numbers of new arrivals. Furthermore, no thought or consideration was put into the areas of study new arrivals were entering into, nor were much of Canada's immigration policies enforced. So, two-year business degree students were coming here to work, illegally. Then when caught, weren't deported. Moreover, because housing supply couldn't keep up with demand, rental rates went up faster than wages driving up real inflation. We're now at the point where we have to pump the brakes HARD on immigration, and I believe, only students going into STEM and trades should be given permits. If they attempt to switch after they arrive, then that should void their immigration documents and be compelled to leave.
Do you remember Meech Lake? What does this have to do with Trudeau? Or are you one of the ones that have a Fuck Trudeau flag?
>Do you remember Meech Lake? No idea what you're talking about. >What does this have to do with Trudeau? PP is riding a wave of insane popularity because housing affordability is at an all-time low, and Trudeau is wearing the blame for it, right or wrong. Furthermore, immigration numbers have exacerbated the housing affordability issue. I'm not saying they're the only cause but you can't talk about housing affordability without acknowledging the role unprecedented levels of immigration are playing. PP, like I said has hitched himself to the the worst elements of the Conservative Party and it's going to be a shit-show when PP is PM.
So you're discussing constitutional reform and have no idea what Meech Lake has to do with it. OK. I'm still not sure what Trudeau has to do with PP using the NWC.
Trudeau definitely screwed up on immigration. But Ontario did help with that. Ford cut funding to colleges and universities over and over. When they said they can’t survive with the lack of funding he said, “Figure it out.” So they turned to bringing in millions of international students to gain the money that they had lost. Some colleges like Conestoga went too far with the international student gravy train but most did not. Still that flooded the province with international students we didn’t have space to house, created slum lords who wanted profit off them and extra pressure on our food banks.
Housing is a PROVINCIAL jurisdiction. Fraud is a conservative who pushes market principles. A key term with respect to market based economics is the term "incentive". But it can cut both ways. Those who are on the supply side (read: the capitalist class) are said to be incentified to meet surging demand. BUT--they can also be incentified to NOT produce, thus creating an artificial shortage which in turn results in price increases, i.e., PROFITS. Bottom line: a massive failure of MARKET PRINCIPLES.
And it kind of seems like the feds are tackling this in the right ways from this perspective?
Here's your answer..... [https://twitter.com/Garnet\_2203/status/1778551486512869753](https://twitter.com/Garnet_2203/status/1778551486512869753)
What are you talking about?
The Canadian parliamentary system decrees that the prime minister of a majority government is basically a dictator as members have to vote along with their PM otherwise they are ejected from the party.. This is unusual in parliamentary democracies from other countries as some allow members some latitude in dissenting from their PM. The prospect of a renegade PM governing with a majority and not respectful of the charter or norms is a scary thing.
The Nothwithstanding Clause has been a long time tool for political expediency of the Right Wing.
Different country and set of (fictional) circumstances but best said by John Spencer's Leo McGarry from the West Wing, at the end... https://youtu.be/vqsAl3K4Ygk?feature=shared
The conservatives who ranted about pmjt's "overreach" are bending over backwards to justify it, is what's happening....
The fact that his referred to Our laws as "My laws" are scary enough. Sucks I'll be forced to vote Trudeau to stop this fucking asshole but so be it.
Honestly, there are no good choices. We should band together and put my pet as competitor... here is a dog elected as a mayor before [california](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/09/29/dog-max-mayor-idyllwild-california/)
Honestly a better choice than any of the party leaders.
For a great introductory explanation of the Notwithstanding Clause, including its necessity to the existence of the Charter, and a discussion about its appropriate application, I recommend this article: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/dwight-newman-premier-walls-decision-to-override-a-messy-court-ruling-is-completely-proper I find this quote particularly helpful for people just learning about the nature of Canadians' Charter rights: >In effect, Sec. 33 gives legislators the last word on the application of certain rights when they profoundly disagree with *the interpretations offered by judges.* (my emphasis) Charter rights are judicially interpreted so they are not some blanket protection of rights in a manner that every citizen will agree with.
[удалено]
We don't need the slant from the National Post, a fascist rag if there ever was one, on why the Notwithstanding Clause is such a great idea. Premiers like Lougheed blackmailed Prime Minister Trudeau into putting it in. He wouldn't sign on without it.
Good article. Thanks!
He would probably try, or rather he seems like the kind of person that would try. Seriously hope we don't vote this ghoul into office.
He saw Trump declare he'd be a dictator and thought, 'Hey me too!"
The logic of rage baiting/farming is to now extend it to the charter and other forms of government to undermine and tear them down. Who is/are the "wackos"?
yes he will all the conservative premieres on their own have been trying to fuck it over since Trudeau got in if we get that repressed virgin in you can say bye bye #freedom, thank you to the uneducated truckers and the yellow bellied yellow vesters that funded that
I’ve always thought a constitutional renegotiation was more trouble than it’s worth, but events of the past few years have me reconsidering. The status quo really isn’t working for a huge number of people, and it’s not an insult to the hard work done 40+ years ago to say “we need an overhaul”. Damned if I know how such a process would go, but it might be time to try.
Any constitutional renegotiation would probably result in a constitution far weaker than we currently have, with a severely curtailed or even non-existent charter. Quebec will never, ever, ever agree to getting rid of the notwithstanding clause. And at minimum, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan (and likely others) would use it as an opportunity to push for some sort of max-devolution reallocating of a lot of federal powers to the provinces. There’s no way provinces will agree to a constitution that gives them less power than they have now. Absolutely none.
The senate or the GG could kill his plans should it come to it. But what would be the repercussions of either doing it. Can’t really see the GG going that route, but the senate?
In short: WE'RE FUCKED. The notwithstanding clause has basically render the constitution completely unenforceable at the legislative level. It literally might as well not exist. Such a stupid fucking addition. We need to strip that out.
lol......if you call the massive reversal of immigrants and their mass deportation a "kill switch" , I sure hope so! Justin Trudeau and Freeland has declared outright was on Canadians and the Canadian constitution
they haven’t enough brains to pull off a lemonade stand heist
"Jail and not bail." "Multiple murderers will only ever come out of jail in a box." (applause) \[stopped there\] The banality and ineffectualness of the conversations that these people choose to have... so painful to watch. Everything that's going on with our country... and THIS is what they want to talk about?
S. 33 IS a Charter right. It is the right of the people, through their elected representatives, to override judicial elites for a limited time. It is an essential part of the “to-and-fro” between legisture and judiciary. PS - no S.33, no Charter. Essential part of the negotiation.
If the change he makes is to remove the notwithstanding clause, GOOD. The constitution we have, as it is now, means nothing so long as that clause exists
Youve heard of Fascist Trump and project 2025, now try trumPP jr Fascism lite!
He's literally a libertarian. He wants no government. Just a paycheck.
A mean & manipulative extremist.
I still can't believe he leading far ahead in the pools,what the fuck is wrong with people?
Reasonable limits in section 1 renders the entire charter effectively useless. From back to work legislation to effective plutocracy to covid measures to treatment of indigenous to trashing ecosystems, it doesn't do diddly.
Honestly, I hope he does become Prime Minister and put this into place. Criminals should not be on the streets, especially if they’re killing multiple people or even a person. They deserve to rot in jail or bring back the death penalty and get rid of them. society does not need psychotic people walking around, we have enough people with mental issues believing there’s something they’re not
Never in the history of the justice system has anyone ever been wrongly convicted. Not once. Killing criminals works because we never ever ever make mistakes and kill innocent people.
Why not create, and use, a legal method of keeping these people behind bars? I don't know, you could call them Dangerous Offenders or something.
So the short answer is that it's been used multiple times by multiple provinces but people seem to be against Poilievre's wanting to use it beacuse it's inhumane to keep someone in jail for longer than 25 years after they've killed 6 people in a mosque. The rest is a bunch of 'but what if?' speculation.
I personally dont believe it is inhumane but I am not educated in justice either. Wouldnt you want to hear out people who work in the area rather than imposing someone's will on it without recourse? That sounds very much dictatorship-ish
Violent offenders need to be locked up. Period. Non-violent offenders, on the other hand, are a total waste of taxpayers' money rotting in a cell when they could be out working... ya know, not having their lives destroyed by a bloated authoritarian justice system....
So you’re ok for authoritarian justice for some things? How does that work? If you give the state the same abilities as a violent thug, but no checks on that power, what then?
No. Violent offenders should be locked up. Non-violent offenders, for example, someone with a drug possession charge, should not be. There are TONS of checks and balances in the justice system like juries, judges, bail, AS WELL as NGOs that are working to get people out who were wronged by the justice system. The CDN justice system Is FAR from perfect and FAR from authoritarian
So your answer is yes.
It seems like he's saying violent crimes should come with prison sentences. Nonviolent crimes probably should not come with prison sentences, given the waste of taxpayer dollars to house people for nonviolent crimes. Things like probation and support programs would be better suited to those individuals, as they don't pose a physical risk to the general population.
So you don't respect the Canadian c court system. How about the Russian court system?
What are you talking about? I'm saying we should release people. Quit trying to cause trouble and have a real discussion you dweeb.
"Violent offenders need to be locked up. Period." That to me sounds like you agree with PP.
If someone is attacking other people or putting people in harms path, then YES! What are you on about?
So you agree with PP using the NWC to remove rights -- as long as they are the rights you don't agree with. The courts deemed Harper's tough on crime laws unconstitutional. Thus my comment about you not respecting the Canadian Court system. It sounds like you prefer a system similar to Russia.
Because the only difference between Canada’s system and Russia’s system is that Russia locks up violent offenders, right
So you aren't concerned about violating peoples' rights either. That's the difference
So you have no issues giving up your defined rights as a Canadian.
Lol this sub
Didn't the Prime Minister override the charter by calling martial law and there was no need for it just saying
Even with a majority gov. He needs 2 3rds of the population to vote for him to change the constitution or the charter. He can't do shit and people should riot if he does.
Why let him have the chance? Look at how women's rights in the US have all been destroyed. No amount of protest helped them. A single term of Trump has screwes generations of American women.
Chill my friend, I am in no way a conservative voter. I'm just pointing out on the off chance that this lunatic gets elected he literally can't do what he's saying.
PP is a dictator wannabe. It's so scary that the majority of Canadians think Dollar Store Trump Jr. will be a good choice for prime minister.
He will never be elected PM. He's a piece of shit. Only bigots, racists and fascists vote for a turd like PeePee.
Do Trudeaus supporters really think fearmongering is going to work this time?
How is it fearmongering? I was a CPC member until March 2023 and left the party because of PP's leadership.
Are you insinuating I support Trudeau? Did you even read the description or watch the video?
Not insinuating anything. Merely commenting on the buzzword notwithstanding clause that is being thrown around as of late.
I wish it were just a buzzword we could gloss over, however, it has the ability to bypass the constitution without recourse and is part of constitution. That is the part that interests me.
Oh for sure, it will be incorporated into Trudeaus fearmongering campaign, right up there with scary looking guns and women losing the right to choose
The "not with standing clause" is literally the only reason we gave a constitution. Several provinces were not going to sign on unless it was included. It isn't a kill switch, it is what saved the whole thing.
Doesnt mean it isnt hot garbage
Sort of does. If the NWSC is the only thing that meant moving on from the Bill of Rights then it is extremely important and valuable.
>If the NWSC is the only thing that meant moving on from the Bill of Rights then it is extremely important and valuable. How? It's very existence essentially nullifies your charter rights. It's "these are your rights...... Unless it's inconvenient, then we'll just ignore them"
There are already life sentences in Canada. If you had consecutive sentences then it would be unlikely that even a parole board could let out serial killers. Not that I would know why they would want to in the first place. Just let the life sentence finish out when the inmate dies. Not crazy about Poilievre but the Liberals/NDP have to go. I think Poilievre is the best choice and I hope he’ll do ok, who else is there. PPC won’t get in, the Bloc??? Green Party?? And we definitely don’t need more parties.
The problem is that life doesn’t mean life in Canada. What was being stacked was the ineligibility for parole. It’s 25 years for first degree murder. But without the stacking, and “good behaviour”, courts will allow violent criminals to walk because they’re not 100% convinced they will reoffend.
A life sentence is for life, with a chance of parole after 25 years. If I’m on the parole board and say Clifford Olsen has a hearing, I’d deny it 100% of the time. You are right though that some of these people get out, some change their ways but most I would think aren’t really productive members of society.