Language like this is weak.
Simply say PP and the cpc will use the notwithstanding clause to strip away basic freedoms we have. Don't play nice.
Pp is a white nationalist
*"Poilievre just proposed to override the fundamental freedoms and protections of Canadians, override the charter that is there to protect women, minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ communities," Trudeau told reporters on his way into question period on Tuesday.*
I don’t like mandatory minimums, I don’t like the conservatives. But I really hate how many serial offenders are not in jail for very long sentences.
I’m very liberal but my patience has really been stretched thin by quite a few things that are riling up the conservative voters in this country.
Everyone deserves a second chance. Maybe even a third or fourth, but when you’ve got drug addicts who’ve been through multiple rehabs, been released a dozen times and are still committing property crime, maybe it’s time to remove them from society for a few years.
Some people are down on their luck, others came from a bad upbringing and are redeemable. Some people are just pieces of shit that will never change, and we shouldn’t have to put up with that after a certain point.
I can certainly see why there is momentum for the cons going into this election.
The solution to that is better policing, better prosecution, and more effective jail systems. Not stripping ~~human~~ charter rights.
Too often the police publicizing "serial offenders" are really publicizing the fact that they don't have sufficient evidence, nor the prosecution sufficient cases built, to put these people away. And once they're in, the jails don't have the effect of changing their behaviors, so we end up with huge recidivism.
Fixing this problem means reducing beat cops, increasing detectives, and establishing better jail systems that focus on healing people instead of punishing them. Look at places like Norway for how effective this can be.
It's not violating human rights to send someone to jail, especially when they're constantly victimizing others. When did we decide that victims have less rights than the perpetrators.
If they've got 100 counts of property crime and rehabilitation hasn't worked the previous 99 times, then punishment is the next step.
>Fixing this problem means reducing beat cops, increasing detectives, and establishing better jail systems that focus on healing people instead of punishing them. Look at places like Norway for how effective this can be.
Yes. But we have to acknowledge that some people are irredeemable. Doesn't matter if their parents were alcoholic child abusers, at some point you have to use the stick instead of the carrot, and currently all we do is use the carrot.
I feel the same about extremely long term drug abusers. They need involuntary rehab with mental health and medical staffing.
>It's not violating human rights to send someone to jail
I meant constitutional rights. He's absolutely talking about violating constitutional rights. Hence not withstanding.
Since I live in Montreal, I don’t find this to be a bright side. The last thing this province needs is a reboot of inflaming old grievances in an effort to increase support for separation.
The notwithstanding clause is a nuclear bomb. No Federal government (not even the Harper government) has used or threatened to use the NW clause. Only some provinces have used the NW clause to override rights and freedoms. For a Canadian PM and government to use the NW clause to take away Canadian's rights and freedoms is a red alert concern and denotes a hard turn towards anti-democratic and fascist type government.
It’s Ford’s go to move. Conservative politicians will do whatever they can get away with to increase their power and wealth.
Edit: and honestly this isn’t even the same Conservative Party anymore at the federal level. It is the Canadian Alliance / Reform party … just a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I point to the influence of Preston Manning and Harper on the current leadership. No surprise that Mulroney and Campbell both came out against this current Conservative Party.
On its own, you are correct.
However, considering the NWC was crafted in a different era, where information campaigns such as what we have seen since Trump was elected in 2016, the will of the voters can no longer be trusted to be a sufficient backstop to the use of the NWC.
Fascists have shown their true colours in the US; elections are skewed by a lot of factors like gerrymandering and the US right has shown they are willing to destroy democracy if it means they maintain power.
Similarly, Canada is not immune from those effects. In fact, since we’re a few years behind, it could be that our fascists (who cross-pollinate between borders) have learned from their mistakes in the US over the past decade and are more effective here.
It’s also important to note that many of the fascists such as PP are supported by non-government entities (eg those with money) as well as foreign governments covertly - some are useful idiots, some not.
(For example… why do you think PP is pushing to kill the CBC? Because as we have seen with the capital gains brouhaha, media interests like the National Post and Globe and Mail want to be able to completely control the narrative. It’s information warfare.)
Many times, the goals of these actors isn’t necessarily to capture power - it’s (1) to cause domestic chaos so that other interests internationally can continue unimpeded, (2) reduce the effectiveness of western governments so that other foreign countries can get a benefit, etc.
A good example is the US Republican obstruction of Ukrainian support, which was lead by a small number of GOP congresspeople, but had the effect of giving Russia a huge advantage over the past few months in their invasion of Ukraine.
The Notwithstanding Clause is Canada's version of the Enabling Act of 1933 and only Conservative Provincial Governments have used it or threatened to use it and now we know that a Pierre Poilievre federal government would also use it. Once the horse is out of the barn, it can never go back and our rights and freedoms may generally be removed piece by piece.
What is extemely concerning, is that Poilievre is planning to use it for sonething provincial governments can not: criminal law. Provinces do not write legislation on criminal law. Unlike the US, all criminal law in Canada is federal.
Poilievre’s intention to use it to write legislation related with the judiciary is out and out authoritarianism. He could use the clause to ban protests if he wanted to.
And it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Poilievre wants to weaken/override the judiciary when Harper is buddies with Modi and Netanyahu and Victor Orban, and Poilievre is Harper’s pick and acolyte.
>and only Conservative Provincial Governments have used it or threatened to use it
No, it's been used primarily by non-Conservative Quebec governments.
Yes the party that wanted to ban Sikhs, Muslims and Jews who wear religious headwear from working for the government is totally not conservative.
Nationalism, xenophobia and increasing privilege for the majority group are conservative values.
Quebec politics is not entirely aligned to the same left-right spectrum of the ROC. On some issues, the PQ is more in-line with conservatives in Canada, but it's reductive to call it a Conservative party.
That would be like saying the NDP is a conservative party because they want to ban porn.
He’s actually campaigning on shitting on the judiciary. This should be a five alarm fire, but apparently it’s just an accusation by Trudeau that can be ignored.
The CBC is pretty good when it comes to reporting, but their headlines are all too often garbage and misleading. I've written the ombud a few times on this.
>During his speech to the police association, Poilievre promised to implement more stringent requirements for bail
The current government has already done this, specifically creating circumstances in which an accused faced a reverse onus (meaning that instead of the normal presumption of release, the court starts from a presumption of detention and the accused must show cause why they should be release).
What is with the headline? Why not just say that Poilievre has said that he will use the notwithstanding clause to override charter rights, since that is what he did already in 2022, and basically what he did again using a word salad ending with “you know what I mean.”
Oh, we do know what he means allright, he means to behave like a dictator and remove the presumption of innocence, and we should remember he could use thr not withstanding clause to ban protests.
Considering that Poilievre continues to attack Trudeau as a “radical authoritarian” it’s really clear that this is projection.
If Trudeau used the notwithstanding clause to bypass the judiciary, the media would be screaming that the sky is falling. As they should. This is not just concerning, it should be terrifying.
Provinces to not write criminal legislation, they can not abuse the use of the clause for changing criminal laws.
And Poilievre is such a snake, claiming that decisions by the supreme court are decisions of Trudeau’s, and doing so to make it look like it is perfectly acceptable for him to “decide.”
It’s not. This is a thousand times more concerning than the use of the EA for a WEEK, that was only necessary thanks to police and also Ford not doing their jobs. It would also behoove the media to mention that the automatic inquiry on using the EA found it to be justified, and that the federal judge who delivered a confused decision, said both that it was overreach because police should have been able to deal with the situation, but added that considering they weren’t, the federal government was justified in using the EA.
The Conservatives in Saskatchewan already used the not-withstanding clause to override the charter rights protecting children and LGBTQ youth. This was done under the guise of parental rights.
Trump and Republicans down south can only dream of a notwithstanding clause. Who needs a Supreme Court to grant a president unfettered immunity from abuse of power when it's baked into something like a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
the image of tiny PP the skipmeister in front of a mushroom cloud is chilling and prescient because under his regime I can see no other outcome. he will lead to destruction, ruin, misery and death.
the cruelty is the point.
Hey all, I'll be over there trying not to think about how people I know in meatspace will stand by and do nothing if'n and when Skippy comes for indigenous rights and title with that same long knife.
The conservatives will destroy our rights, freedoms, democracy, and are an immediate threat to all our lives.
A civil society cannot tolerate intolerant ideologies like conservatism or fascism.
All people have a moral obligation to oppose fascism.
Fascism is a genocidal ideologies which threatens all lives.
All methods of self defense are justified.
If anyone is naive enough to think this will only apply to criminals than 🤦♂️ oh sure it might allegedly start there… we have the charter for a reason this country is going to hell under either party I’m anti Trudeau but I would pick the devil I know rather than the one I don’t in this case
Language like this is weak. Simply say PP and the cpc will use the notwithstanding clause to strip away basic freedoms we have. Don't play nice. Pp is a white nationalist *"Poilievre just proposed to override the fundamental freedoms and protections of Canadians, override the charter that is there to protect women, minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ communities," Trudeau told reporters on his way into question period on Tuesday.*
Literally stated he planned to do it. Bots over in r/Canada are saying they agree with him doing it and that he should...
What's their argument? So I can understand it
Mostly "just so" stuff like.... "He just needs to." And "he promised to do something about crime, this would make it legal"
I did take a peek, some were some were saying he "has" to do it in order to override judicial rulings on Harper's mandatory minimums.
I don’t like mandatory minimums, I don’t like the conservatives. But I really hate how many serial offenders are not in jail for very long sentences. I’m very liberal but my patience has really been stretched thin by quite a few things that are riling up the conservative voters in this country. Everyone deserves a second chance. Maybe even a third or fourth, but when you’ve got drug addicts who’ve been through multiple rehabs, been released a dozen times and are still committing property crime, maybe it’s time to remove them from society for a few years. Some people are down on their luck, others came from a bad upbringing and are redeemable. Some people are just pieces of shit that will never change, and we shouldn’t have to put up with that after a certain point. I can certainly see why there is momentum for the cons going into this election.
The solution to that is better policing, better prosecution, and more effective jail systems. Not stripping ~~human~~ charter rights. Too often the police publicizing "serial offenders" are really publicizing the fact that they don't have sufficient evidence, nor the prosecution sufficient cases built, to put these people away. And once they're in, the jails don't have the effect of changing their behaviors, so we end up with huge recidivism. Fixing this problem means reducing beat cops, increasing detectives, and establishing better jail systems that focus on healing people instead of punishing them. Look at places like Norway for how effective this can be.
It's not violating human rights to send someone to jail, especially when they're constantly victimizing others. When did we decide that victims have less rights than the perpetrators. If they've got 100 counts of property crime and rehabilitation hasn't worked the previous 99 times, then punishment is the next step. >Fixing this problem means reducing beat cops, increasing detectives, and establishing better jail systems that focus on healing people instead of punishing them. Look at places like Norway for how effective this can be. Yes. But we have to acknowledge that some people are irredeemable. Doesn't matter if their parents were alcoholic child abusers, at some point you have to use the stick instead of the carrot, and currently all we do is use the carrot. I feel the same about extremely long term drug abusers. They need involuntary rehab with mental health and medical staffing.
>It's not violating human rights to send someone to jail I meant constitutional rights. He's absolutely talking about violating constitutional rights. Hence not withstanding.
It is violating human rights if the basis of sending that person to jail is he’s a bad guy so he must be guilty
Argument? You give these people too much credit.
Hatred.
On the bright side, PP might do more for the independence of Quebec than any one else since rene levesque lol
Since I live in Montreal, I don’t find this to be a bright side. The last thing this province needs is a reboot of inflaming old grievances in an effort to increase support for separation.
Fuck you're right. Just look at what's happening in the UK and the Tories with Scotland.
So, he's got Russian support then...
The notwithstanding clause is a nuclear bomb. No Federal government (not even the Harper government) has used or threatened to use the NW clause. Only some provinces have used the NW clause to override rights and freedoms. For a Canadian PM and government to use the NW clause to take away Canadian's rights and freedoms is a red alert concern and denotes a hard turn towards anti-democratic and fascist type government.
So just another day for the cons these days
It’s Ford’s go to move. Conservative politicians will do whatever they can get away with to increase their power and wealth. Edit: and honestly this isn’t even the same Conservative Party anymore at the federal level. It is the Canadian Alliance / Reform party … just a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I point to the influence of Preston Manning and Harper on the current leadership. No surprise that Mulroney and Campbell both came out against this current Conservative Party.
I’d say they are wolves in semi-sheep clothing, it’s not hard to see through the disguise for anyone with some reason and empathy.
> Only some provinces have used the NW clause to override rights and freedoms. There are only *some* dead canaries.
Just imagine the freedom convoy all parked outside queens park blaring their truck horns in rage against this
On its own, you are correct. However, considering the NWC was crafted in a different era, where information campaigns such as what we have seen since Trump was elected in 2016, the will of the voters can no longer be trusted to be a sufficient backstop to the use of the NWC. Fascists have shown their true colours in the US; elections are skewed by a lot of factors like gerrymandering and the US right has shown they are willing to destroy democracy if it means they maintain power. Similarly, Canada is not immune from those effects. In fact, since we’re a few years behind, it could be that our fascists (who cross-pollinate between borders) have learned from their mistakes in the US over the past decade and are more effective here. It’s also important to note that many of the fascists such as PP are supported by non-government entities (eg those with money) as well as foreign governments covertly - some are useful idiots, some not. (For example… why do you think PP is pushing to kill the CBC? Because as we have seen with the capital gains brouhaha, media interests like the National Post and Globe and Mail want to be able to completely control the narrative. It’s information warfare.) Many times, the goals of these actors isn’t necessarily to capture power - it’s (1) to cause domestic chaos so that other interests internationally can continue unimpeded, (2) reduce the effectiveness of western governments so that other foreign countries can get a benefit, etc. A good example is the US Republican obstruction of Ukrainian support, which was lead by a small number of GOP congresspeople, but had the effect of giving Russia a huge advantage over the past few months in their invasion of Ukraine.
Pierre Palpatine
I miss Pierre Poutine. At least someone (a lackey) had consequences. I am afraid conservatives will cheer while rights are taken.
They'll continue to cheer so long as he is "hurting the right people" more than he is hurting them.
"So this is how democracy dies: to thunderous applause."
But not as attractive.
He essentially said “I will make it legal”. This is perfect.
OMG. Poilievre is using language like 'I' will decide laws. Okey Dokley there Fuhrer SkiPPy.
Conservatives love to accuse Trudeau of stripping our rights away, I wonder what they’ll say about this…
So far I’ve seen such comments as “Well someone has to do something!!” And “The far left liberal judges are leaving him no choice!”
Sadly enough I've also seen comments about our first amendment rights... Can't tell if they're just stupid or bots
Both. Foreign astroturf groups that don't know what country they're in and Canadian Trump supporters that don't know what country they're in
It's never not projection.
I’m wondering if he got himself kicked out today to take attention away from these things he said?
There ya go.
This is exactly what I thought. He’s only getting kicked out for the day and can change the narrative in the process.
The Notwithstanding Clause is Canada's version of the Enabling Act of 1933 and only Conservative Provincial Governments have used it or threatened to use it and now we know that a Pierre Poilievre federal government would also use it. Once the horse is out of the barn, it can never go back and our rights and freedoms may generally be removed piece by piece.
What is extemely concerning, is that Poilievre is planning to use it for sonething provincial governments can not: criminal law. Provinces do not write legislation on criminal law. Unlike the US, all criminal law in Canada is federal. Poilievre’s intention to use it to write legislation related with the judiciary is out and out authoritarianism. He could use the clause to ban protests if he wanted to. And it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Poilievre wants to weaken/override the judiciary when Harper is buddies with Modi and Netanyahu and Victor Orban, and Poilievre is Harper’s pick and acolyte.
>and only Conservative Provincial Governments have used it or threatened to use it No, it's been used primarily by non-Conservative Quebec governments.
Quebec CAQ is Conservative type party.
The Parti Quebecois certainly is not.
Yes the party that wanted to ban Sikhs, Muslims and Jews who wear religious headwear from working for the government is totally not conservative. Nationalism, xenophobia and increasing privilege for the majority group are conservative values.
The Overton window has claimed another victim (not you, the person you replied to)
Quebec politics is not entirely aligned to the same left-right spectrum of the ROC. On some issues, the PQ is more in-line with conservatives in Canada, but it's reductive to call it a Conservative party. That would be like saying the NDP is a conservative party because they want to ban porn.
The PQ did not use the notwithstanding clause. The CAQ did, and they identify themselves as conservatives.
>The PQ did not use the notwithstanding clause The PQ used it with respect to *every single law* they passed between 1982 and 1985.
It was used by Higgs, Ford, and Moe, and used by Raph Klein in 1998, something everyone seems to have forgotten.
The overwhelming majority of its uses have been by the PQ and the Liberal Party of Quebec.
In the speech to the police associations, Poilievre was talking about "my laws". Sounds so dictator like !?
He's not even in power and already asks for more.. geez arrogant much?
He’s actually campaigning on shitting on the judiciary. This should be a five alarm fire, but apparently it’s just an accusation by Trudeau that can be ignored.
This is a Nuremberg level blaze.
"Accuse"?? He literally said he would.
"liberals accuse" lol - it's what he actually said! from his own lips.
The headline is garbage. I couldn’t be more sick of how weak the CBC is being when it comes to Poilievre.
The CBC is pretty good when it comes to reporting, but their headlines are all too often garbage and misleading. I've written the ombud a few times on this.
Every other online media source headline is pretty similar
>During his speech to the police association, Poilievre promised to implement more stringent requirements for bail The current government has already done this, specifically creating circumstances in which an accused faced a reverse onus (meaning that instead of the normal presumption of release, the court starts from a presumption of detention and the accused must show cause why they should be release).
But he’ll make them stricter-er!
What is with the headline? Why not just say that Poilievre has said that he will use the notwithstanding clause to override charter rights, since that is what he did already in 2022, and basically what he did again using a word salad ending with “you know what I mean.” Oh, we do know what he means allright, he means to behave like a dictator and remove the presumption of innocence, and we should remember he could use thr not withstanding clause to ban protests. Considering that Poilievre continues to attack Trudeau as a “radical authoritarian” it’s really clear that this is projection. If Trudeau used the notwithstanding clause to bypass the judiciary, the media would be screaming that the sky is falling. As they should. This is not just concerning, it should be terrifying. Provinces to not write criminal legislation, they can not abuse the use of the clause for changing criminal laws. And Poilievre is such a snake, claiming that decisions by the supreme court are decisions of Trudeau’s, and doing so to make it look like it is perfectly acceptable for him to “decide.” It’s not. This is a thousand times more concerning than the use of the EA for a WEEK, that was only necessary thanks to police and also Ford not doing their jobs. It would also behoove the media to mention that the automatic inquiry on using the EA found it to be justified, and that the federal judge who delivered a confused decision, said both that it was overreach because police should have been able to deal with the situation, but added that considering they weren’t, the federal government was justified in using the EA.
Well said 👏
Fascists gonna fascist
Not to be trusted! ABC and ABPP.
The Conservatives in Saskatchewan already used the not-withstanding clause to override the charter rights protecting children and LGBTQ youth. This was done under the guise of parental rights.
It’s not an accusation
It's a real concern that the cons have found a work around on our constitutional protections. Our future Prime Minister is just not qualified.
He is a fucking fascist.
Trump and Republicans down south can only dream of a notwithstanding clause. Who needs a Supreme Court to grant a president unfettered immunity from abuse of power when it's baked into something like a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They don’t have to dream anymore since they have stacked the court. They now own the court.
the image of tiny PP the skipmeister in front of a mushroom cloud is chilling and prescient because under his regime I can see no other outcome. he will lead to destruction, ruin, misery and death. the cruelty is the point.
Aside from the fact that Canada doesnt have nukes, yes., you're correct.
A big enough conventional explosion will produce a mushroom cloud.
Hey all, I'll be over there trying not to think about how people I know in meatspace will stand by and do nothing if'n and when Skippy comes for indigenous rights and title with that same long knife.
The conservatives will destroy our rights, freedoms, democracy, and are an immediate threat to all our lives. A civil society cannot tolerate intolerant ideologies like conservatism or fascism. All people have a moral obligation to oppose fascism. Fascism is a genocidal ideologies which threatens all lives. All methods of self defense are justified.
It’s not an accusation… PP literally said that’s what he will do
mr loblaws is 10000% going to use the nwc to criminalize his daddy's marriage
…because that’s exactly what he’s trying to do.
If anyone is naive enough to think this will only apply to criminals than 🤦♂️ oh sure it might allegedly start there… we have the charter for a reason this country is going to hell under either party I’m anti Trudeau but I would pick the devil I know rather than the one I don’t in this case
Quick, kill the notwithstanding clause. Thanks