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.

 

[Shiftless2]

BOOK BURNERS ON THE MARCH - POILIEVRE JOINS TRUMP'S ATTACK ON UNIVERSITIES - BEWARE OF PIERRE
CHARLIE ANGUS / THE RESISTANCE
APR 17, 2025

"Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well." —Heinrich Heine, 1820
Bebelplatz Square is in the heart of Berlin. It is a cultural hub in the centre of one of Europe's greatest cities. A university and the state Opera Hall border the square. Nearby is a cathedral and palace.
This square embodies the cultural, religious and historical institutions of Germany — and it's where the Nazis burned the books.
In my imagination, I always thought that the notorious Nazi book burning took place in some dark and isolated place. I was astounded when I visited Berlin and realized that the Nazis had launched their war on ideas in such a public setting.
This is the fascist playbook.
It’s essential to understand that fascism is different from traditional right-wing politics. It's not a case of an official trying to strong-arm or do backroom deals to move the needle; fascist politics thrives in the spectacle of force and the public theatre of abuse.
The book burning took place in May 1933 — the same month German trade unions were smashed, political opposition was crushed, and the persecution of the Jews accelerated. There was no secret agenda. Hitler boasted for years that this was exactly what he intended to do.
Once again: the fascist playbook.
I have been thinking a great deal about the moment that I stood in Bebelplatz Square in 2022. At the time, I was mystified how such a desecration could occur in such an open and brazen manner. And now I know.
Donald Trump's attack on American universities is a 21st-century book burning.
Trump is not going after small and regional campuses – he’s taking on the most powerful of Ivy League America. He’s threatening universities over the courses they teach, the concepts they study, the policies they have for keeping students safe, and who they hire.
If the universities buckle, intellectual life in the United States will cease to exist, except at the whim of a capricious narcissist.
Like the fascists of 1933, this pressure isn't being exerted behind the scenes. It’s happening in public. Columbia capitulated. Harvard, so far, is standing strong. Where it goes from here is very uncertain.
All of this, of course, is in the name of "free speech."
It's very Orwellian.
Because the MAGA definition of “free speech” used by Trump and Vance is about subservience to the President. It is about silencing people who have different views.
And they’re determined to export it.
Just look at how Vance is tying a trade deal with the UK to gut Britain's online hate protection laws. In the fascist mind, "free speech" is only reserved for those who espouse hate.
Maple-Glazed MAGA
Last week, Canadian university professors were warned against travelling to the United States because of the rising threat to academia. This kind of warning previously would have been reserved for authoritarian regimes like North Korea.
You would expect that Canada's political leaders would be calling out this frightening attack on teachers, academics and intellectual freedoms.
Not Pierre Poilievre.
He’s long been on board with Trump's “war on woke”. And despite tanking in the polls because of his links to the MAGA ideology, he is doubling down.
One of the first announcements Poilievre made after kicking off the federal election was his promise to target and defund "woke" universities. He promised to target scientific research as well.
"I will put an end to the imposition of woke ideology in the federal civil service and in the allocation of federal funds for university research."
He’s also threatening to deport students who participate in protest marches against Israel's genocide in Gaza. In the United States, students have been kidnapped, denied access to the rule of law and threatened with deportation.
This, of course, is also part of the MAGA "free speech" agenda: free for those who follow, punishment and deportations for those who resist.
If Poilievre were to attempt to arrest international students in Canada, it would likely trigger all manner of legal challenges, but Poilievre has a tool Trump could only dream of – the Notwithstanding Clause.
Section 33 of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms allows government to override the courts. The controversial clause was put in place as a backstop over the fear that unelected judges might overreach in striking down important legislation.
But Poilievre is threatening to use the Notwithstanding Clause to strike down legal protections. So far, he says it will be used to go after mass killers who are supposedly getting sweetheart deals from the courts (they aren't). But what he's really doing is telling Canadians that if elected, he intends to be both judge and jury.
Nothing secret here. It's in the open, and Poilievre would have a legal tool to accomplish what Trump is trying to do through brute intimidation.
Modern Concentration Camps
We have only to watch the horrific case of Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported to a prison camp in El Salvador. The Trump administration is defying the Supreme Court order to have him returned to the U.S.
Trump claims that since the man is in El Salvador, he is no longer under American legal jurisdiction. Trump is so keen on this dubious concept that he is floating the idea of sending "homegrown" Americans to El Salvador prison camps.
These prisons have been rightfully denounced as offshore concentration camps.
The United States Holocaust Museum has waded into the controversy:
"What distinguishes a concentration camp from a prison is that it functions outside of a judicial system. The prisoners are not indicted or convicted of any crime by judicial process."
Timothy Snyder, a world-renowned scholar on fascism, has challenged the Trump government for following the Nazi playbook of creating spaces of "statelessness" where rights are stripped and abuses made possible.
"On the White House's theory, if they abduct you, get you on a helicopter, get to international waters, shoot you in the head and drop your corpse into the ocean, that is legal because it is the conduct of foreign affairs. If we accept the idea that moving a person from one place to another undoes rights and disempowers the judiciary, we are endorsing the basic Nazism practice that enabled the killing of millions."
At this point, Poilievre's threats to deport protesters or suspend laws protecting the convicted have not moved over into the realm of sending people to El Salvador concentration camps. But if we look at the Trump’s playbook, we see how outrageous ideas get floated, talked about, initially denied and then become normalized.
Few in the media appear to take Poilievre's longstanding rants and threats seriously.
An affected world-weariness and cynicism in most Ottawa political punditry makes looking at worst-case scenarios impossible. Just as Trump was dismissed as "just being Trump" in 2016 and again in 2024, Canadian political watchers tend to treat Poilievre's rantings as him just stoking the base.
But they forget that the fascist playbook is all about boldly saying what you are going to do and then executing such tactics as brazenly and as publicly as possible.
I’ll give the last word to Timothy Snyder, who has fled the United States looking for intellectual freedom in Canada:
"The mistake is to assume that rulers who came to power through institutions cannot change or destroy those very institutions—even when that is exactly what they have announced that they will do.
This election matters more than any other in recent Canadian history.
We must take the posturing and threats of Maple MAGA with total seriousness.
They aren't kidding around.

 

[Shiftless2]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/407...1vosE71_jIp96SRoj3ni5DpmK5QaYXU&__tn__=,P-R-R





https://www.facebook.com/stories/12...E71_jIp96SRoj3ni5DpmK5QaYXU&__tn__=<<,P-y-R-R

Democracy Inc.​

Sdstponero920m7m80c1850a334a34166f6188mtat40fimmc9h0uh306u01 ·

THE MANY DANGERS OF PIERRE POILIEVRE ’S WAR ON ‘WOKE ’

The Conservatives are following the lead of the far-right in the U.S. by purposefully inverting the meaning of the word to mislead Canadians.
by Patrick McCurdy, Kaitlin Clarke
April 15, 2025

As the federal election campaign tightly focuses on the ongoing trade war with America, we must also consider the implications for Canada of the culture war – in particular Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s weaponization of the word “woke” and what he means by promising action against it.

The term woke is rooted in the African-American experience of racialized violence and originally meant being aware of racial injustice. Progressives then adopted it to encompass broader societal injustices related to feminist, LGBTQ+ and intersectional concerns.

However, Poilievre and his party are following the lead of Donald Trump and the far right in the U.S. by purposefully inverting its meaning, recasting social justice advocacy as an authoritarian threat.

As Canadians head to the polls in the April 28 election, it’s important to reiterate what Poilievre’s anti-woke crusade is – an exploitative strategy designed to stoke fears and resentment, entrench divisions and legitimize extreme positions in mainstream politics.

In addition, his repeated use of the term, coupled with a lack of detail about his anti-woke policies in key areas, evoke fears that he could emulate Trump’s policies against equity-deserving groups in Canada.

For example, in a recent interview, Poilievre said he wants to eradicate the woke culture which he said was forced into the Canadian Armed Forces by the Trudeau Liberals. “We will rebuild our military, and our soldiers will once again, have a warrior culture, not a woke culture.”

He provided no details but does that mean mass firings of top Canadian military leaders who enacted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, or attempts to remove LGBTQ+ members from military service, as Trump did?

Poilievre has also argued that wokeism “invented in many ways” race, arguing it “seeks to divide people into different groups.” He urged Canada to “put aside . . . this obsession with race.”

Does that mean he would try to delete historic references to discrimination, as Trump is doing in the U.S.?

Use of woke as insult

Our recently published research analyzing Canadian parliamentary uses of “woke” underscores how calculated this shift has been.

In 2019, Hansard records show just two mentions of the word. By 2023, Conservative use had surged to 63 times. Poilievre alone was responsible for 33 instances that year, making woke a pillar of his political rhetoric.

Now, in campaign communications, Poilievre and the Conservatives continue to use woke as shorthand for a supposedly dangerous ideological enemy that they promise to defeat through a “Canada First” agenda – a clear echo of Trump’s “America First.”

This isn’t just talk. In 2022, Poilievre hand-delivered coffee and donuts to so-called Freedom Convoy protesters who occupied downtown Ottawa for weeks, legitimizing a movement with documented extremist connections while positioning himself as a defender of freedom against woke control.

More recently, while launching his Quebec election platform, Poilievre pledged to end “the imposition of woke ideology in the federal public service and in the allocation of federal funds for university research.”

This pledge closely mirrors Trump’s unfolding war against DEI, which has included direct attacks on academic freedom, defunding research and threats to universities for not conforming to his ideological agenda.

In Canada, shades of what Poilievre is pledging are already taking shape.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government – closely aligned with Poilievre’s federal ambitions – has used anti-woke language to justify sweeping anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, echoing Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s restrictive Parents’ Bill of Rights.

Echoes of the U.S. far-right are no coincidence

Poilievre’s strategy of portraying woke as an existential threat isn’t unique. It’s part of a broader, troubling alignment with American far-right politics. Just recently, Smith praised

Poilievre on the far-right platform Breitbart, explicitly positioning herself and the federal Conservative leader as “in sync” with Trump’s politics.

This then garnered endorsements from notable right-wing figures, including Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Conrad Black and Alex Jones.

While Poilievre portrays himself as defending Canada against Trump’s economic aggression, his cultural rhetoric tells a different story. He’s not resisting Trump’s tactics. He’s importing them.

When Poilievre declared in Parliament that woke has “one purpose . . . control,” he deliberately and dishonestly twisted a term rooted in principles of social justice into something sinister.

According to this distorted framing, being woke means dividing Canadians by race, gender, ethnicity, religion and vaccine status to justify increased government control. The irony is, of course, profound.

While Poilievre conjures imaginary woke authoritarians, a real authoritarian threat is unfolding south of our border. Trump’s presidency has seen unprecedented attacks on judicial independence, democratic norms and fundamental rights, yet Poilievre conspicuously avoids criticizing this genuine democratic erosion.

The normalization of such discourse has tangible consequences. Police-reported hate crimes surged by 32 per cent between 2022-23, totalling a staggering 145-per-cent increase since 2019. As well, attacks motivated by sexual orientation were up nearly 70 per cent in one year alone.

Politicians demonizing marginalized groups under the guise of opposing woke culture embolden acts of discrimination and violence.

Action is needed to counter this abuse of language

All political leaders share responsibility for confronting this dangerous rhetoric, yet they have largely failed to meet this challenge.

What is particularly concerning is the ineffectiveness of responses to this rhetorical strategy. Our research reveals that when Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPs challenged Conservatives’ use of woke, they often inadvertently reinforced its negative framing.

Most responses either accepted the term as an insult without questioning its meaning or attempting to reclaim it through positive self-presentation and without addressing its appropriation by the far-right. Only once in our study did an MP explicitly identify this language that way.

Politicians must confront the normalization of far-right language. Rather than treating woke as merely a partisan insult, they must explicitly call out the strategic inversion of its meaning and reject attempts to normalize extremist discourse.

By failing to do so, they become unwitting participants in the normalization of rhetoric undermining the foundations of the inclusive democracy they claim to defend.

If we allow language to be hijacked and truth to be inverted, we risk more than polarization. We risk erasing the values of inclusion and fairness that underpin Canada’s democratic fabric.

 

[Shiftless2]

Text borrowed :

In the U.S., defying the courts is a constitutional crisis. In Canada, it’s a simple matter of paperwork.
IApril 15 2025

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]

Relax - the Cdn election is on the 28th so you only have to listen to me on this topic for a week






https://www.facebook.com/groups/407...FsC3OCh0LiN-JKcrCjnozTIapUZ&__tn__=<<,P-y-R-R

Stuart Smith​

spnoorteSd42g194881tul8hlfctf4lmuh1tl335gggti37125f9a407t810 ·

After having had my photo taken with the Prime Minister today I was asked tonight by a friend worthy of a thoughtfull reply,

What's he like in-person? Does he exude the qualities of nation-building, because that's why he has my unequivocal support.

This was my response, in case you are on the fence of who to vote for.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I asked chatgpt to clean it up because i was speed typing on my phone and there were many mistakes, but the words are mine.
Interesting question—because he’s not a big man, physically. In fact, he’s pretty compact. But when he speaks about the economy, it’s with the same ease and clarity that a good teacher brings to a classroom. He clearly has the knowledge—there’s no doubt about that—but what makes him so relatable to the average voter is how naturally he explains complex ideas. He’s like a mix of a cool grandfather and Mr. Rogers.

His smile feels sincere, and there’s nothing about him that comes off as abrasive or smug. I’m sure some will disagree but I didn’t see it. His French? Sure, it’s not winning him fans among Quebec purists, but he tries with this kind of earnestness—like he really thinks he might nail the sentence—and that makes it easy to forgive.

He’s renounced his British and Irish citizenships and, moving forward, is only paying taxes in Canada. It’s a symbolic gesture, sure—but it shows a real commitment to the country and to the role he’s stepping into.

And this is where I see the contrast with Poilievre. PP’s whole career has been in politics—this is his climb, and becoming Prime Minister is the summit. Carney, on the other hand, is choosing to take this on. He didn’t have to. He’s stepping into what could become an economic war with the U.S. because he believes he’s the right person, with the right experience, at the right time. It feels more like a calling than a campaign.

If I had to describe him in one word after meeting him today, I’d say capable. If I were allowed a hyphenated version? Supremely capable.

I believe him. After years of watching JT deliver choreographed speeches, it was refreshing to see someone who could not only read a teleprompter, but improvise, make jokes, and engage with the audience—especially while releasing a costed platform.

And that’s the thing—it was a costed platform. I’m not an economist or a mathematician, but as we move into a real trade fight with the U.S., it was comforting to hear someone speak about the numbers with clarity and confidence—and off the cuff, no less. Most leaders are being fed scripts from partisan strategists. With Carney, it feels like he’s the one doing the advising. The guy’s a world-renowned economist—he’s probably teaching the bureaucrats more than they’re teaching him.

How can any party pretend their leader has more knowledge and experience to face off with Trump than Carney does?

Anyway—how’s that for an answer? I could go on.

I can recommend that you watch https://youtu.be/TZmh_PNMImE?si=RGU4hqwX4MyERIZU

 

[Shiftless2]

In a bombshell interview with the Winnipeg Jewish Review, Poilievre promised a sweeping purge of Canadian institutions that don’t align with his ideology. Universities. Museums. Civil servants. All on notice. Why? Because they promote what he calls “a toxic woke ideology.”

Let’s call this what it is: a roadmap to authoritarian rule.

Poilievre said, in his own words, he would fire government officials, defund educational and cultural institutions, and crack down on so-called “radicals” and “terrorist networks” — terms he’s conveniently leaving vague enough to apply to protestors, progressives, immigrants, or frankly, anyone who dares to disagree with him.

And now, he’s taken it a step further. Poilievre has openly stated he will use the notwithstanding clause “as he sees fit.”

Not as a last resort. Not to safeguard vulnerable communities. But as a blunt-force tool to bypass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the very foundation of Canadian democracy.

This is not the language of leadership. This is the rhetoric of a regime.

And here’s the kicker: this is coming from a man who has refused top-level security clearance.

His MP-level clearance expired years ago, yet he wants Canadians to hand him the keys to the kingdom so he can wage ideological warfare, purge public servants, defund truth-telling institutions, and override constitutional protections at will?

He won’t even submit to the national security checks required to lead a scout troop — and he’s threatening to dismantle the rule of law?

This is Trumpism in a Canadian suit and tie.

Trump called journalists the enemy. Poilievre calls truth “woke.”

Trump attacked civil servants. Poilievre threatens to fire those who disagree.

Trump unleashed fear about immigrants. Poilievre wants security checks on newcomers even when no terrorist links exist.

Trump promised to ignore laws. Poilievre has the notwithstanding clause in his back pocket and the arrogance to use it whenever it suits him.

These are not coincidences. This is a calculated strategy:

Weaponize fear. Vilify knowledge. Consolidate power. Erase dissent. Bypass the Constitution.

Poilievre isn’t running for Prime Minister. He’s auditioning to be Canada’s Trump — our very own culture-warrior-in-chief. And just like Trump, he’s counting on people being too tired, too distracted, or too misinformed to see what’s happening until it’s too late.

But here’s the truth: Canada is not broken. But it will be if this ideology takes power.

 

[Shiftless2]

RoseAnna Schick​

ponoStders0c5h12u01718ug0l6t4953585mg6m8fi5hfit55gucgcu61h21 ·
Hi everyone.
Over the weekend I sent emails to CTV News, Global News, and CBC News. I plan on sending emails to more media tomorrow. And the next day. And every day. Until Election Day.
You are welcome to use this message, too, to send to your own media contacts, or to share on your social media pages. Rewrite it as your own, or use it 'as is'. Whatever works. It's made public for anyone who wants to use it.
--RoseAnna
*****************************************

MESSAGE TO CANADIAN MEDIA:

I’m writing with a plea to Canadian media.

To preface, I’ve been a publicist for 30 years, and have cultivated relationships with outlets and journalists across our country. I’ve been an avid consumer of media coverage, and a supporter of unbiased news in general – especially at a time when “fake news” is running rampant.

During this very important election, Canadians are concerned about the growing hate in our country - and would like to hear from our media about it.

First, is the presence of “F*ck Carney” flags being paraded on our streets, outside rallies, and in residential neighbourhoods. There are also upside-down Canadian flags, Americanized-Canadian flags, and the vandalizing of election signs with hateful symbols.

When it comes to Mr. Poilievre’s rallies, apparently MAGA merchandise is being removed and ‘held’ at the door, so as to not reveal that some of his supporters are MAGA. It is also rumoured there have been chants such as “Kill Carney” – reflective of the “Hang Mike Pence” chants we witnessed in the USA. Is this rumour, or is it actually happening? We'd really like to know.

Voters are also sharing that Conservative candidates are not showing up for public debates in their ridings. Mr. Poilievre himself didn't show up for the debate in his Carleton riding.
He doesn’t allow media to travel with his campaign, takes four pre-selected questions per day, doesn’t allow follow-ups, and has his team control the microphone at all times.

Why does Mr. Poilievre have such a tight gag on media? Why is he not willing to attend his riding's debate and be accountable to the residents of Carleton that he has represented for 20 years? Why aren’t Canadian media pressing him about any of this??

In advance of the English language Leaders’ Debate, I sent an email to debate organizers, the CBC, the CRTC, and the moderator, asking to please ask our leaders about hate flags and sign vandalism. The reply I received back was that there is no evidence this is happening on the campaign trail.

Actually, there IS evidence this is happening. Because Canadians are seeing it with their own eyes every single day. And it's happening more frequently, too, as we get deeper into our election.

I would like to add that Mr. Carney was taken to task by CBC News over campaign buttons – BUTTONS! Being the solid leader and gracious human that he is, he was swift to denounce it with an official statement, and by taking accountability as the Liberal Party leader. End of story.

Yet it appears that NOTHING is being asked of Mr. Poilievre about the “F*ck Carney” flags and vandalized election signs. Which to most Canadians is a lot more serious than a few buttons.

What is happening on our streets is very real, highly intimidating, and extremely alarming. This is NOT the kind of Canada that most of us want.

It would appear that Mr. Poilievre is aligned with Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. Why? Because of the language he is using, the repetitive slogans, the childish name-calling, the parroted policies, and his ‘blindness’ to hate flags against his primary opponent. These things suggest he is just like Trump.

Mr. Poilievre has also been publicly endorsed by some of Donald Trump’s closest allies, AND by Mr. Trump himself. Yet it appears that our media are not questioning or investigating this. Why not? We deserve to know the truth of what is going on in our Canadian politics. It used to be the media's job to find out.

The politics of Mr. Trump and his MAGA/Republican regime are NOT welcome here. It would be a huge disservice and injustice to Canadians across our country if the hateful flags and vandalized signs and rumoured chants remain unchallenged. If the hate is allowed to fester because it is not being questioned.

MEDIA - if you are seeing anything that I mentioned, we ask you to please start reporting about it. And if you are not seeing it, we ask you to please start paying attention. Also, please start asking Mr. Poilievre about it. He is also a leader in our country, and should be willing to denounce hateful rhetoric coming from his supporters.

For the record, and full disclosure – yes, I am voting for Mr. Carney, and am active in my advocacy to get him elected. This is not because I am a “Liberal” partisan. It’s because I care deeply about Canada, fellow Canadians, our unity, and our sovereignty. At the same time, I am very bothered by the Trump/MAGA-style hate that is surfacing here, thanks to Mr. Poilievre's supporters.

Thank you for reading this, and for taking this seriously.

RoseAnna Schick
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Treaty 1 Territory

 

[Shiftless2]

Samanta Fuentes Tapia
People need to understand what the security clearance means, it's only a "gag" if you are thinking of spreading false information or top secret information from the government without consequence. Without the clearance, you "don't know better" and can claim ignorance if some of your statements are proven untrue or backfire. Once you have clearance you have direct (and publicly known) access to information (in his case, it would be top secret info), which makes you liable for your own words and actions.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be afraid of this security clearance.

On the other hand, how does he intend to rule without having full knowledge of how the country works and its different information agencies? This either shows intent to lie/be a traitor, OR prefer to rule blindfolded in ignorance. None of those are good options and none of those show true commitment and responsibility towards the country. The other one is that if he waits to get clearance until the last minute, then he is now liable for his actions and can't continue lying, so he may be waiting until the votes are in when it doesn't matter anymore, he doesn't need to continue spreading the hate that he has. In short, nobody should trust this case, it is not about defending the liberals, it is about this particular case in which the conservative candidate shows many many red flags and no reliability.

 

[Shiftless2]

Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre

​

Rob Johnson · oetdnsropSfc7gl6m819a7g3262496hgf44g1lm45784402l7htcacm3m1u5 ·

https://www.facebook.com/#
As this election is coming to its conclusion, the conservatives are hoping we have forgotten the kind of nasty tactics they have resorted to in the past. I had largely forgotten the Robocall scandal of 2011, so I went back and did a little research. Here is a quick recap of what happened.

Jenny Byrne, Pierre Poilievre’s one time girlfriend, was Stephen Harper’s campaign manager in 2011. That election, which gave Harper a majority government, witnessed the dirtiest campaign in Canada’s history. But Canadians’ distaste after the conservative tactics were partially uncovered resulted in the conservatives losing 67 of their seats in the election of 2015, in which Byrne also held the position of campaign manager. She is back in 2025, but has obviously not learned the lesson of 2015: Canadians don’t like their politics dirty.

The conservative dirty tricks campaign of 2011 used recorded calls to prevent non-conservative voters from getting to the polling stations. As well, conservative campaign workers made calls pretending to be liberal staff belligerently asking for money, mocking ethnic accents, and calling late at night and during religious periods. Fake names were also added to voting lists, and it is estimated that around 200 of Canada’s ridings were affected by the dirty tricks campaign. It is hard to know how many ridings went to the conservatives because of these tactics.

Conservatives responded first with total denial, them by putting the blame on the liberals, then on Elections Canada, then on a few lower-level campaign workers. They were able to mostly stonewall the investigations and few were actually prosecuted. They then brought in legislation formulated and forced through by Pierre Poilievre (The ‘Fair Elections’ Act) which was designed to bury their past misdeeds and make it easier to get away with more in the future. The Trudeau government subsequently repealed most of it.
Fast forward to this election in 2025. Jenny Byrne is back in charge, presiding over a campaign which is looking even more sleazy than that of 2011. Stephen Harper is providing advice, support, and connection to the US right through the IDU he heads. And Pierre Poilievre has graduated from just gutting democracy for Harper to running for his old boss’s job.

The difference this time is the medium, not the message. In 2011, the conservatives used mostly phones, and phone technology. Though they may yet use that again in 2025, the real tool now is social media, with its bots, malicious and mendacious attack ads, and AI deep fake photos.

The methods may be different, but the intent is the same: to steal an election. We must not let them succeed.

 

[Shiftless2]

Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre​

Greg Duval · poSnrodest604u3c65i1f487at202c1444f5ti03c38i9it58i53ccula2h1 ·

https://www.facebook.com/#
Indeed...is it a surprising that the Conservatives deliberately mislead the voter when they get a chance?

Debbie RiederEyes on Canadian Democracy​

Debbie Rieder · poSnrodest604u3c65i1f487at202c1447f5ti03c38i9it58i53ccula2h1 ·

Conservative’s flyer claims fact checked.



Cheryl Bakke Martin
poSnrodestt0M 3c65p1fi87al002c1A 565ti1ar38i9 t:8i512cuAa2 1 ·

Copied from a Friends page. Well worth reading. FINALLY the truth backed up by facts. FACTS, not accusations .

We just got this flyer in the mail from our Con candidate. It makes a lot of accusations against the NDP and Libs so I decided to look up the facts.

1. Accusation: Liberals doubled rent.
Nope. They do not have control of rents. The rise can be traced back to moves made by Harper and Poilievre. PP has made millions as a landlord, and he's voted against affordable housing 7 times (2006, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2018, 2019). He and Harper sold off 800,000 affordable housing units to corporate landlords. Under Harper and PP housing prices went up between 60% - 70% versus 45% - 60% under Trudeau. This is a complicated issue with many factors at play, but the claim here is disingenuous at best and a flat out untruth at worst.

2. Accusation: the Libs tripled the debt.
Harper and PP took surpluses and turned them into deficits (127 billion) before the recession of 2008. The economy grew 41% under Trudeau vs 18% under Harper and they didn't have to deal with a global pandemic and global inflation and a trade war and rapidly accelerating and costly climate disasters. The Libs have been far from perfect, but did a better job with the economy than Harper and Poilievre.

3. Accusation: Blocked resource projects.
Nope. Many, many factors go into getting big projects off the ground. The Libs spent 34 billion to twin the Trans Mountain, however you might feel about that. Trudeau also invested heavily in our aerospace industry and saved our auto industry.

4. Killed jobs.
False. The pandemic killed jobs. Per capita incomes grew 23% under Trudeau versus 18% under PP and Harper. Our debt to GDP grew from 43 in 2015 - to 50 in 2023 and we are rated as second only to Germany in fiscal responsibility.

5. Accusation: Trudeau made us more dependent on the US.
This one is hilarious. The deep enmeshment with the US was Harper's initiative after Mulroney got the ball rolling. Time Magazine called him "the most pro-American leader in Canadian history". Before Trump collapsed the global economy PP was still saying (10 days ago) that we need to work more closely with the US. His supporters include Trump, Elon Musk, Alex Jones, and Politico talks about his "legions of American conservative fans". (After learning that he was harming Poilievre's chances, Trump has recently claimed not to like him: wink wink. The move is reminiscent of Putin pretending to want Harris to be elected.)

Nanaimo residents need to be aware of that these are flawed and misleading statements. We deserve better from someone who wants to represent this riding. If your Conservative candidate puts forth information like this AND actually attends town halls, ask them some hard questions.

This person is very likely to win this riding thanks to vote splitting. I wish I had confidence that she would be honest in her communications with this community and would keep in mind that approximately 65% of the people she wants to represent are centre, centre left or left wing in our beliefs. She's a sophisticated person: a lawyer from Toronto who started running for the Conservatives less than a year after moving here. She was on the board of Ontario Hydro and has had jobs in Ontario that suggest she can tell facts from propaganda.

The problem with many Conservative politicians, in the US and in Canada, is that they take power by radicalizing and enabling the worst instincts of their voters. Then they need to get ever more extreme and endorse conspiracy theories to keep that base on side. Beware candidates who can be dragged ever lower by populist political winds.

 

[Shiftless2]

Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre​

Onibas Orierreug · Sotdnsproe6647au8h7g0fia4lmc151548665mfi1u49c1a570l84muaif08 ·

The STD that does not go away, has the worst economic record of any prime minister since WWII. And he lies. He keeps saying that Carney worked for him. He did not. Governor of Bank of Canada is independent from interference fromt the Government.

6 charts show Stephen Harper has the worst economic record of any Prime Minister since World War II

It turns out the emperor has no clothes after all. Although Conservatives like to drone on like robots about how Stephen Harper is a “steady hand on the wheel” of the economy, that myth is increasingly hard to square with reality. Not only does a recent poll suggest Harper’s reputation as a competent manager of […]

It turns out the emperor has no clothes after all.

Although Conservatives like to drone on like robots about how Stephen Harper is a “steady hand on the wheel” of the economy, that myth is increasingly hard to square with reality.

Not only does a recent poll suggest Harper’s reputation as a competent manager of the economy has plummeted, a new analysis shows Harper with the worst economic record of any Canadian Prime Minister since the end of the Second World War.

The report, authored by Unifor economists Jim Stanford and Jordan Brennan, crunches the numbers on Canada’s nine Prime Ministers between 1946 and today on issues relating to work, production, distribution and debt, and ranks each according to 16 economic indicators.

The results? On 13 of the 16 indicators, Harper ranks dead last or second last. In fact, Harper does not rank higher than sixth on any single indicator.

Here are six examples of what these data show:

1. Stephen Harper has steered Canada’s economy to its lowest levels of growth in 69 years
2. Harper has the worst job creation record of any Prime Minister since 1946
3. Harper is the first Prime Minister since the 1950s to oversee a decline in the employment rate
4. Stephen Harper is kind of a lousy salesman
5. It has been good times for Canada’s richest 1% under Stephen Harper
6. Meanwhile, the standard of living of everyone else has never risen so slowly

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[sear]

"6. Present the opposition as the enemy.." #78

Presenting political opponents as enemy enables identity-deficient opponents to falsely perceive themselves as heroic.
It's not merely casting a ballot. It's heroically saving their entire nation from the unspeakable adversity of civilization.

 

[Shiftless2]

Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre​

Bounty Fisher · eoodtSnsrplgltham2l101ga0tu738f006icf4c4gu2a1c670l93m88mt6c4 ·

During the debate, this exchange seen below captured and distilled why Pierresite needs to be completely avoided.

While Pierresite was iterating how he plans to build 2.3 Million new homes in Canada, Jagmeet Singh holds up six fingers.

Nevermind that Pierresite is rounding off 5 years to construct, in a 4 year term, and already projecting he will need consecutive terms to see him achieve an impossible number, or that this means 38,000 homes per month.

What Singh is actually saying is that during the period Pierresite likes to constantly draw on, where Pierresite has repeatedly claimed 'he was housing Minister', he only built 6 homes.

First, Pierresite was never housing Minister under Harper. In 2015, he was named the Minister of Employment and Social Development, and Minister of Democratic Reform. There was no housing Minister in Harper’s cabinet at the time. Many housing issues got rolled into Pierresite;s domain under the title of social development.

The six houses number stems from non-profit housing built by the Conservative government in the 2015-16 fiscal year, when Pierresite had the file. Under Harper, Canada had less social housing per capita than many other countries. The specific number originated from a breakdown of federal funding that BC MP Jenny Kwan asked for. The data showed that year, only six non-profit or community housing units were built, all in Quebec.

If you were to ask Pierresite about this, he would continue to say he was housing Minister, and that he built 200,000 homes in 2015-16 fiscal year.

Where does the 200,000 number come from? That would be the 194,461 total housing units that were built across the country during that time. Pierresite looked-up the stats for housing of all of Canada in that fiscal year, and took credit for all of it, despite 98.1% of those builds having NO CONNECTION to the Feds. The real number of houses is 3,742, when you include non profit housing built by other developers with government assistance. Essentially, Pierresite took credit for private developer builds.

So, in sum, you have a guy who talks about being a housing Minister, when he never was.

Takes credit for buiding homes he never built, and essentially embellishes what he's done in the past to make himself look qualified to talk about building an impossible 2.3 Million new homes in Canada?

In past posts, I've explained my deep disdain for Pierresite, and the reasons for not using his real name rooted in his disrespect towards our First Nations. However, there is probably nothing that bothers me more than someone taking credit for something they never did.

If you ran a business, and were looking to employ someone, how would you feel if you found out an applicant embellished their resume? Would you still hire them?

If not, then why would you vote for Pierresite?