For my Canadian friends

[Shiftless2]

PART 3

𝟓𝟐. 𝑨𝒎𝒃𝒊𝒈𝒖𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑳𝑮𝑩𝑻𝑸+ 𝑽𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆
Many CPC MPs abstained from condemning rising anti-LGBTQ+ violence, indicating unwillingness to take a clear stand against hate.
𝟓𝟑. 𝑿𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒄 𝑹𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒔
CPC candidate Steve Shur openly called migrants “undesirable foreigners,” showcasing unchecked prejudice within party ranks.
𝟓𝟒. 𝑰𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒏 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑰𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒆𝒔
Poilievre criticized events commemorating residential schools, implying Canadians should “move on,” demonstrating disregard for Indigenous reconciliation.
𝟓𝟓. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝑻𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝑱𝒂𝒈𝒎𝒆𝒆𝒕 𝑺𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒉
CPC members mocked NDP leader Jagmeet Singh after he reported racist attacks, exposing a troubling lack of empathy towards victims of racism.
𝟓𝟔. 𝑹𝒐𝒃𝒐-𝑪𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒔 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍
CPC operative Michael Sona was convicted for misleading voters through fake robocalls, compromising the integrity of Canadian elections.
𝟓𝟕. “𝑰𝒏-𝒂𝒏𝒅-𝑶𝒖𝒕” 𝑭𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍
CPC was fined for illegally moving campaign funds between local and national levels, demonstrating willingness to breach electoral law.
𝟓𝟖. 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was found in contempt of Parliament for withholding crucial financial information, unprecedented in Canadian history.
𝟓𝟗. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑫𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid losing a vote of confidence, twice abusing this tactic to evade accountability.
𝟔𝟎. 𝑺𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓-𝑼𝒑
Harper’s chief of staff secretly paid Senator Mike Duffy’s questionable expenses, revealing deep ethical breaches at the top of the CPC.
𝟔𝟏. 𝑩𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒆 𝑪𝒂𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏 𝑳𝒐𝒃𝒃𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍
Former Harper adviser Bruce Carson was convicted for illegal lobbying, exposing troubling conflicts of interest within Conservative circles.
𝟔𝟐. 𝑹𝒐𝒃 𝑭𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕
CPC members continued supporting disgraced Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, prioritizing populist appeal over ethical leadership.
𝟔𝟑. 𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝑫𝒆𝒍 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒐 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒖𝒅
CPC MP Dean Del Mastro was jailed for violating campaign finance laws, further undermining trust in Conservative ethics.
𝟔𝟒. 𝑴𝒊𝒔𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒂𝒙𝒑𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝑭𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒏 𝑨𝒅𝒔
Harper’s CPC used taxpayer money for partisan advertising, essentially forcing citizens to finance their political promotion.
𝟔𝟓. 𝑭𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒆 𝑾𝒆𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑨𝒅𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝑬𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔
CPC spread false election ads on WeChat, misleading immigrant communities to gain votes, violating democratic integrity.
𝟔𝟔. 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝑳𝒆𝒂𝒇𝒍𝒆𝒕𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝑪𝒂𝒍𝒈𝒂𝒓𝒚
Anonymous racist leaflets targeting NDP leader Jagmeet Singh benefited CPC candidates, raising questions about the party’s silence on racial intimidation.
𝟔𝟕. 𝑽𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒎 𝑫𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 “𝑭𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒐𝒎 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒚”
CPC hesitated to condemn desecrations of national monuments during the Freedom Convoy, revealing a lack of patriotic responsibility.
𝟔𝟖. 𝑱𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒆 𝑩𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒆 𝑺𝒆𝒙𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕
Former Conservative leader Jamie Baillie resigned amid sexual harassment allegations, highlighting persistent issues of workplace safety in Conservative environments.
𝟔𝟗. 𝑺𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑴𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒂 “𝑩𝒐𝒕𝒔” 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍
Conservatives were found utilizing social media bots to unfairly smear opponents, undermining transparency and fair competition.

CONTINUED

 

[Shiftless2]

PART 4

𝟕𝟎. 𝑼𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝑭𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒏 𝑫𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒓𝒔
Reports exposed Poilievre’s leadership campaign receiving funds from undisclosed foreign and offshore sources, creating concerns about external influence over Canadian democracy.
𝟕𝟏. 𝑪𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑰𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 (𝑪𝒍𝒂𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒂 𝑴𝒆𝒍𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒆)
CPC MP Claudia Melchouse’s culturally insensitive photo scandal reinforced the Conservative Party’s persistent struggles with inclusivity and respect.
𝟕𝟐. 𝑷𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝑭𝒆𝒖𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝑺𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒘𝒂𝒏
Two CPC MPs publicly feuded over climate policies, showcasing deep internal divisions and a lack of unified leadership.
𝟕𝟑. 𝑬𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒔 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍𝒔 (𝑱𝒐𝒉𝒏 𝑩𝒓𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒓𝒅)
Conservative MPs, notably John Brassard, accepted luxury tickets from lobbyists, highlighting ethical lapses and questionable integrity.
𝟕𝟒. 𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒓𝒆’𝒔 𝑼𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝑩𝒆𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒓
Poilievre’s public use of offensive language against political opponents damages the dignity of political discourse.
𝟕𝟓. 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝑽𝒆𝒕 𝑪𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔
CPC nominated a candidate with a criminal fraud record in Ontario, demonstrating negligence and undermining voter trust.
𝟕𝟔. 𝑰𝒎𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑻𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔
Poilievre’s controversial ABBA-parody campaign video raises doubts about his seriousness and maturity as a potential Prime Minister.
𝟕𝟕. 𝑫𝒆𝒇𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑳𝒂𝒘𝒔𝒖𝒊𝒕
CPC MP Lars K.’s false allegations led to a defamation lawsuit, exemplifying reckless conduct damaging to party credibility.
𝟕𝟖. 𝑹𝒆𝒇𝒖𝒔𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒐 𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑴𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒂
Poilievre’s systematic avoidance of media scrutiny for nearly a year suggests disregard for transparency and accountability.
𝟕𝟗. 𝑮𝒂𝒈 𝑶𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑺𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔 (𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝑬𝒓𝒂)
The Harper government silenced scientists, notably on climate change, undermining informed policy-making and democratic openness.
𝟖𝟎. 𝑽𝒊𝒄 𝑻𝒐𝒆𝒘𝒔 𝑷𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒄𝒚 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒍
Former CPC Minister Vic Toews promoted intrusive online surveillance laws, framing critics as allies of criminals, showcasing authoritarian tendencies within the party.
𝟖𝟏. 𝑵𝒆𝒈𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒆𝒇𝒖𝒈𝒆𝒆𝒔 (𝑺𝒚𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒔)
Under Harper, Conservatives severely restricted aid to Syrian refugees, prioritizing Christian refugees and ignoring humanitarian responsibilities.
𝟖𝟐. 𝑶𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝑼𝑵𝑫𝑹𝑰𝑷 (𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑹𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔)
CPC opposed the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights, demonstrating ongoing resistance to genuine reconciliation and Indigenous autonomy.
𝟖𝟑. 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒚 𝑯𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒓’𝒔 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝑹𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒔
During the Freedom Convoy protests, CPC-associated figures like Randy Hillier made racist comments, with minimal response from party leadership.
𝟖𝟒. 𝑨𝒎𝒃𝒊𝒈𝒖𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒏 𝑾𝒉𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒄𝒚
The CPC has repeatedly failed to clearly condemn white supremacist groups, highlighting their hesitancy to alienate extremist elements in their voter base.
𝟖𝟓. 𝑷𝒐𝒐𝒓 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝑹𝒆𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
Only 18% of CPC MPs are women, with just two women holding top positions in Poilievre’s shadow cabinet, illustrating persistent gender imbalance.
𝟖𝟔. 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑨𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂
Despite Poilievre’s claims of neutrality, his shadow cabinet includes prominent anti-abortion advocates, indicating potential threats to reproductive rights.
𝟖𝟕. 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑭𝒂𝒓-𝑹𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝑭𝒊𝒈𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒔 (𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑮𝒐𝒍𝒅𝒚)
CPC politicians have been photographed with far-right extremists like Faith Goldy, raising serious questions about their associations.
𝟖𝟖. 𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒎 (𝑭𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒐𝒎 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒚)
During the 2022 convoy protests, CPC leaders failed to unequivocally denounce antisemitic elements within the protests.
𝟖𝟗. 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑱𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔 (𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒍 𝑮𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆)
Journalist Rachel Gilmore faced threats and harassment after questioning CPC associations with extremist groups; CPC leadership responded weakly, prioritizing criticism of media instead.
𝟗𝟎. 𝑬𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒔 𝑽𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 (𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑)
Multiple CPC MPs, including former leader Erin O’Toole, were cited by Canada’s Ethics Commissioner for violating ethical disclosure rules, indicating systemic ethical negligence.
 𝟗𝟏. 𝑺𝑵𝑪-𝑳𝒂𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒏 𝑨𝒇𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒓 (𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗)
Conservatives leveraged the SNC-Lavalin scandal to broadly label Quebec as corrupt, fueling regional tensions for political gain.
𝟗𝟐. 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑱𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆
CPC members openly criticized Supreme Court justices as “activists,” undermining the credibility and independence of Canada’s judiciary.
𝟗𝟑. 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒐𝒏 𝑨𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒄 𝑭𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒐𝒎 (𝑬𝒓𝒊𝒏 𝑶’𝑻𝒐𝒐𝒍𝒆)
During his leadership campaign, O’Toole promised punitive measures against universities not protecting “conservative speech,” threatening academic freedom.
𝟗𝟒. 𝑨𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑷𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆
Poilievre has frequently attacked public servants, calling them “bureaucratic gatekeepers,” demoralizing essential workers and undermining trust in government institutions.
𝟗𝟓. 𝑺𝒚𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒚 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑺𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒔𝒎 (𝑨𝒍𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒂 𝑺𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒕𝒚 𝑨𝒄𝒕)
Conservative MPs have shown sympathy for separatist initiatives such as Alberta’s Sovereignty Act, risking Canadian unity.
𝟗𝟔. 𝑻𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑩𝒂𝒏𝒌 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒅𝒂’𝒔 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆
Poilievre publicly threatened to fire the Bank of Canada governor over inflation, a dangerous intrusion into monetary policy and economic stability.
𝟗𝟕. 𝑩𝒐𝒚𝒄𝒐𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑫𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔 (𝑷𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝑰𝒏𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒓𝒚)
Conservatives refused participation in public inquiries into foreign interference, demonstrating a disregard for transparency and democratic accountability.
𝟗𝟖. 𝑼𝒏𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝑪𝒍𝒂𝒊𝒎𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑬𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑩𝒊𝒂𝒔
The CPC falsely accused Elections Canada of Liberal bias during riding boundary changes, echoing Trump-like election fraud conspiracies.
𝟗𝟗. 𝑭𝒍𝒊𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝑹𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄 (𝑺𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒘𝒂𝒏 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏)
CPC MPs from Alberta and Saskatchewan have expressed openness to discussions around secessionist ideas, risking national unity.
𝟏𝟎𝟎. 𝑶𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑬𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚 𝑳𝒂𝒘 𝑨𝒄𝒕 (𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟐)
Despite severe disruptions in Ottawa and border blockades, CPC unanimously opposed invoking the Emergency Act, prioritizing partisan conflict over national security.
𝟏𝟎𝟏. 𝑶𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒐 𝑪𝑷𝑪 𝑳𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑 𝑹𝒂𝒄𝒆 (𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒)
Allegations emerged regarding irregularities during Ontario CPC’s internal elections, including suspicious spikes in memberships just days before voting—raising serious doubts about their commitment to democratic integrity.
𝟏𝟎𝟐. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒉𝒐𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝑪𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓
Over these 101 points, the CPC under Pierre Poilievre shows a pattern of populist rhetoric, disregard for democratic norms, neglect of climate action, and tolerance of extremist affiliations. Canada’s future deserves a better choice.
It’s time to stand together for Canada’s democracy, inclusivity, and prosperity. Spread the word, share these truths, and ensure Canadians choose wisely.
Follow my Facebook page to learn more
𝑹𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔,
Click

Serhiy Rafalyuk
𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒒𝒖𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒊𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒆 𝑷𝒐𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒔

 

[Shiftless2]

Text borrowed :

The following is a verbatim piece by Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne. A very eye opening piece on how dangerous Polievre really is:

“Poilievre isn’t proposing to use the notwithstanding clause to pass his crime bill — the point of the crime bill is so that he can use the notwithstanding clause.”

“Not three months into Donald Trump’s second term, the United States has entered the constitutional crisis everyone knew was coming, but somehow hoped would never arrive.

The Trump administration is now openly defying a Supreme Court ruling ordering it to bring home Kilmar Abrego Garcia – a U.S. resident who, though he has neither been charged with nor convicted of any crime, it nevertheless deported, without a hearing, in violation of a court order, and in what it admits was an “administrative error,” to a bestial prison in the police state of El Salvador.

The details of the case, horrific as they are, do not concern us here. The point, rather, is that if Mr. Trump can successfully defy the courts on this matter, he can do so on any other – as he will, again, and again, until the courts give up even trying. The rule of law, the notion that the government, in the end, must defer to the courts – must obey the law – is the ultimate backstop against abuse of power, and the rule of law is in serious peril in the United States.

And yet if the same case were to arise in Canada, there would be no crisis. A Canadian government would not need to step into a legal void to override a Supreme Court ruling. It could simply invoke the notwithstanding clause. To be clear, it could not invoke the clause to shield mere executive acts. But it could pass legislation to make its unlawful acts lawful – yes, even imprisonment without trial – and use the clause to immunize it from judicial scrutiny under the Charter of Rights.

As, indeed, governments have taken to doing, again and again: eight times by four provincial governments in recent years. True, the notwithstanding clause has more usually been reserved for beating up on unpopular minorities – trans kids in Saskatchewan, anglos and Muslims in Quebec, public sector workers in Ontario – than for depriving individuals of fundamental procedural rights, but there’s no reason in principle that it couldn’t. And if Pierre Poilievre has his way, it will.

The Conservative Leader has just formally stated what he had previously broadly implied: that if his Conservatives are elected he will use the notwithstanding clause – for the first time at the federal level – to revive crime legislation, passed by the previous Conservative government but ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The example at hand is a bill that would subject multiple murderers to consecutive, rather than coincident life sentences, meaning they could be sentenced, absurdly, to terms of 150 years or more. But it’s clear that this bill would only be the start. Mr. Poilievre shares the aim of his provincial confreres: to legitimize the notwithstanding clause by repeated use, and so to neutralize the Charter as a constraint on government.

He’s picked the perfect starting point, of course. There can be few less sympathetic figures than multiple murderers. But even the worst among us is entitled to some rights, as most would agree, given a moment’s thought. For all the enduring popularity of “an eye for an eye” as a principle of justice, we do not actually practice it in this country: we do not rape rapists, or torture torturers, and we gave up killing killers long ago.

So there exists within even the most pitiless Inspector Javerts among us a lingering sense of the prisoner’s humanity. There are some prisoners, it is true, who are simply too dangerous to be released back into the community. Most multiple murderers remain confined long after the minimum 25 years: the law does not guarantee them the right to be paroled, but only to be considered for it.

But what of the prisoner who has truly been rehabilitated, who exhibits genuine remorse and is clearly no longer a danger? Is it not a matter of simple justice that he should be treated differently than the unrepentant psychopath? Is it not a matter of practical good sense that there should be some reward for good behaviour?

What urgent necessity demands that 90-year-olds be left to rot in perpetuity? What would it achieve? There is no epidemic of mass murders in this country: the legislation would apply to a handful of prisoners at most. Overall, the murder rate remains no higher than it was 20 years ago – and far lower than it was in decades previous.

But this isn’t about crime, or justice. It isn’t even about winning elections, though that is plainly part of it. What Mr. Poilievre really wants is an unassailably popular test case for the first federal use of the notwithstanding clause, with which to accelerate the project begun at the provincial level – of normalizing the clause, and eviscerating the Charter.”

 

[Shiftless2]

Young voters today were too young to realize the damage done by the Cons during the "Lego Hair" Harper years, ergo, it’s easier for them to consider voting for PP.

So I made this list for you, my young friends. It’s all fact checked if you don’t believe me, fact check it yourselves.

Harper’s Greatest Hits:

1. He Silenced the Scientists about issues like the environment. It’s like he thought: “You can’t spell scientist without silent,” and ran with it.

2. He actually did hurt the environment.
By pulling Canada out of the climate deal like it was a group chat with people he hated.

3. He Cut Arts Funding
The arts budget meant: Exposure Funds only.

4. He spied on People
Bill C-51 was basically Harper’s way of saying, “You up?” to the entire nation’s DMs.

5. Senate Scandals
The senators spent taxpayer money like it came with free shipping and a Prime membership.

6. He totally ignored Indigenous Issues
Harper’s strategy on Indigenous issues was the same as when you leave someone's message on read and hope they forget.

7. He cut Social Programs
He made the healthcare budget so slim, it could fit into skinny jeans from 2008.

8. He shut down Parliament several times
Harper hit pause on Parliament like it was a TikTok ad he didn’t want to sit through.

9. He pushed oil like it was oxygen and our lives depended on it.

10. He Divided Canadians
Attack ads were so savage, they made the Reddit comment sections look wholesome.

 

[sear]

For our Canadian friends

"Young voters today were too young to realize ... He Divided Canadians" #64

Depressing.
Disgusting.
Sickening.

Please do not misinterpret this post #65 as dismissive or contemptuous.

We serve a voting constituency well for candidates to candidly, honestly present the facts, and offer sincere if divergent visions for a brighter future,
and allow a legitimately informed electorate to choose. This

For my Canadian friends​

topic clearly confirms a bitter lesson that apparently has prevailed within humanity for millennia, tracing back to the ancient Roman senate, and beyond.
A U.S. Founder mentioned it candidly in confidence:

"In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in factor principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act.
Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 24 Nov. 1808, to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph

Certainly Canada has her own problems. But it's former trusted ally to the South has disgracefully developed troubles of our own.

A determinative U.S. plurality though hopefully not a majority has plunged the world into crisis.

For the moment we can offer little if anything more than a rhetorical gentle hand of sympathy and reassurance to the shoulder of our Northern brothers.

Though it may seem darkest just before dawn, the brightest glimmer of hope is provided by history itself.
In context of this pestilence of political prevarication the indisputable reality has demonstrated that despite all this,
humanity has collectively brought us to this 3rd millennium of modern miracles.

Doesn't mean our short-term politics looks any less grim.
But history proves, we endure.

So at the holiday weekend onset of this 4/20 religious and secular celebration of resurrection, let us be reminded that in our time of global crisis,
at very least, our coffee / beer mug, our goblet, our celebratory bottle is half-full. Molotov !

cri·sis (krīsĭs)
n. pl. cri·ses (-sēz)
1. A crucial or decisive point or situation, especially a difficult or unstable situation involving an impending change.
2. A sudden change in the course of a disease or fever, toward either improvement or deterioration.
3. An emotionally stressful event or traumatic change in a person's life.
4. A point in a story or drama when a conflict reaches its highest tension and must be resolved.
[Middle English, from Latin, judgment, from Greek krisis, from krīnein, to separate, judge; see krei- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

 

[Shiftless2]

Well - Canada's election is the 28th so lets see what happens

 

[Shiftless2]

Susan McDonald​

ensoodpSrti2lgmha5t1l16l58cift5ah230l01u7i7cug9i124c5u412a6t ·

I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. What are we coming to?

Tonight the CBC’s David Cochran reported that the situation after the federal leaders’ debate tonight became so dangerous that extra RCMP and Montreal police had to be brought in, and bomb-sniffing dogs were deployed to sweep the CBC set for explosives.

Let that sink in—bomb-sniffing dogs. In Canada.

After a federal election debate. None of this happened in a war zone. It happened in Montreal, Canada.

And it happened solely because Pierre Poilievre has not only welcomed toxic groups into the political mainstream—he has empowered them. They are his echo chamber. His enforcers. His disinformation arm.

What happened after the debate was not for a drill. Not for a dignitary. But for a Canadian political debate—and all because of the violent, chaotic atmosphere created entirely by Rebel News and True North.

Two far-right winged propaganda outlets that exist solely to push an extremist agenda in Canada.

Bomb-sniffing dogs. In a Canadian media space. Because of the extremist circus that follows only one Canadian political leader wherever he goes. The leader at the centre of it all?

None other than Pierre Poilievre.

These two groups aren’t just friendly to Poilievre—they are extensions of his campaign. He gives them full access. He appears on their platforms. He lifts them up while attacking credible journalists and media outlets. He doesn’t just tolerate them—he relies on them to do his political dirty work.

This isn’t even media. This is manipulation. It’s intimidation. More importantly it’s anti-democratic. And it’s deeply dangerous.

No one can ever define Pierre Poilievre as a principled conservative. Not now or ever again after tonight!

He is a political arsonist with an evil smile.

He’s using Rebel News and True North the exact same way that Donald Trump used Breitbart and Fox News—to divide, to mislead, and destabilize the American democracy.

And Pierre and the Conservative Party of Canada - Parti conservateur du Canada are even attempting to hide it anymore. In fact, Pierre is flaunting it.

BUT let’s be crystal clear: Rebel News and True North are not journalists. They are propaganda outlets, registered as third-party political advertisers, designed to lie, to smear, to distort—and to intimidate anyone who gets in their way.

And Pierre Poilievre is their king. And with less than 2 weeks to our democracy saving election we are already seeing the very real consequences—and the real threats to the public’s safety, and the real damage he will do to our democracy if we accept what happened tonight!

What happened in Montreal is the five alarm fire that will soon be out of control if we do NOT stop Poilievre and his election rage machine in its tracks on April 28.

Canadians can longer afford to be passive after what unfolded tonight. If anything Pierre has proven beyond any doubt that he is not fit to lead.

He is not interested in governing-he’s interested in burning everything down.

So we must reject his toxic politics. We must reject him and his extremist mouthpieces.

Poilievre wants Canadians to still believe he’s not like Trump. But Trump also had his “alt-right media” cheerleaders spreading hate, vilifying journalists, and destabilizing trust in institutions.

Trump also claimed the “mainstream media” was the enemy. And we all saw how that story ended—with broken glass in the halls of the now dying American democracy.

This is our moment to stand the hell up.

It is the moment to reject Rebel News. To reject True North and reject fascism. And above all, reject Pierre Poilievre—utterly, completely, and forever. Loudly. Clearly and without further hesitation.

Because if we don’t, the next bomb-sniffing dogs might not be checking a set. They’ll be checking the wreckage of our democracy.