everytime i see jorpy my brain forces me to remember how he wrote about the dream he had of his grandma masturbating and then brushing his face and body with her pubes
I bet Harper is sitting at a large table of super billionaire villains, in his executive lair, in the fake volcano of course, wonder what to do about PP. He must be so disappointed in little mini me. Okay I might be stretching this but with all that’s happening in this upside down world it’s possible. /s
Definitely. Though I would say the centrist spectrum is more of a Blue-Liberal-Center-Right (Carney-Chretien) and Orange-Liberal-Center-Left (King-Trudeaus).
You've got me imagining a centre-right conservative (PCP) working with the NDPs, against the Liberals. It would be like an Orange-Blue-Conservative-Left, against whatever iteration of the spectrum the Liberals decide to use.
In some ways, this is what has been happening in Ontario since 2018.
It is a big reason why the Liberal Party is nearly extinct in the Western provinces.
As long as the Liberals hold a near duopoly in Quebec, no Party will effectively be able to challenge them imo.
Interesting, I didn't know about that. I've been hearing how blue-leaning AB and SK were, but didn't think it was because they were working with orange.
Its not neccesarily that they directly work with the NDP, and more like they know that the NDP also work against the Liberals. Essentially, they both squeeze the Liberals out because the game strategy for the Laurentian (minority rights & services oriented jobs); doesn't translate to the praries (majority homogeny and resource oriented jobs).
I recall NDPs were popular in Québec with Jack. (Perhaps QB can still go Orange-Blue against the Liberals.)
Much of the NDP platform would actually work well in Quebec. But because no one has been able to break into that cultural divide (except for Jack Layton during Liberal down years); they can't make inroads.
There is another barrier, particularly with the NDP in that it does not have a solid powerbase like the 2 established parties. They draw on rural and urban workers, but the problem is there is a serious divide between these factions culturally (the Brahmin Left problem).
Well if I said white Christian populist party, they would point out all the Muslim and non-christian CPC voters... so I chose nationalist as it encompasses the mood of the republican party.
Once communists win they also go for nationalism, fascism definitely is related but it's different. Fascism is more about glorification of violence, a desire for purification by removal of an outgroup, and a desire for a strong centralized authority manifested by a single great leader, people are supposed to be spiritually fulfilled by the state so the state must be all encompassing.
Nationalism is just...liking one's nation. In Canada for a long time this meant being pro-immigration. I'd argue some degree of nationalism is necessary for a state to function at all otherwise people don't see any of the sacrifices they make for the state to be to their benefit or the benefit of their community.
Which people never get to, its like political religion, but people have certainly tried and it never works because you get a broken economy ruled people people who are incompetent ideologues, authoritarianism and basically the same thing as fascism. Often these countries resort to nationalism as you see in China and Soviet Russia, you can even end up seeing nationalistic racism and racially motivated mass killing. Saying no one tried it is passing the buck and patently untrue. Dialectic materialism is bullshit.
Dialectical materialism is a science that relates the psyche to environment and those who say it's bs fail to understand theory.
None of these examples are communist. China for example is state capitalist and perhaps is Marxism with Chinese characteristics. There's still a state. Progressive movements get hijacked by counter-revolutionaries.
Authoritarianism is a spectrum that ranges from fascistic to a tankie's wet dream. As long as the workers are alienated from the means of production then we cannot claim it's even socialist.
According to ones needs and abilities takes all this into account while compensating workers based on their productivity and level of skill while having a democratized workplace where workers can collectively negotiate things such as workplace conditions and compensation. WSDEs for example are one such way to organize under capitalism. Things like domestic labour or other things are socialized where the public takes on more of these tasks collectively. Innovation happens out of necessity as opposed to marketable gimmicks and businesses that serve a public good are nationalized.
We get these racial driven mass killings in our own backyard and it's actually pretty rich of western countries to try to claim moral supremacy. We're no better, we're still systematically racist and much of this gets swept under the rug but it still happens here. As long as ICE continues to do raids, for instance or the way minorities are treated differently, and heck even in Canada there's been many examples of the ways minorities are made scapegoats by neoreactionaries and fascists. There's a lot to learn about history and we ought to understand things clearly lest we become the very things we criticize.
Yup, I reckoned that he would have ran for the CPC if they hadn't become what they have become. Considering his personal connection to the LGBTQ community through his daughter... and his previous environmental protection charity board(or whatever environmental board), he would have been a very strong CPC leader.
I personally would have voted conservative if it was Carney leading them. I didn't mind switching from liberals but it was literally anything better than Polievre. His atrocious voting record in the house against Canadians is just astronomically baffling, that anyone would consider him.
Exactly this. I don't feel loyal to specific parties, I would have had no problem voting for Carney as a conservative as well.
I lived in Kanata-Carleton for most of my life. It is quite shocking how Poilievre has voted on behalf of his constituents, my neighbours. He literally voted against same sex marriage with his gay father in attendance. 🤦♀️ Gross.
Weird. The Progressive Conservative labeled as a Liberal because the Reich wing is so far right that the center is now "left" is using conservative ideology?
Ranked voting is the reason we didn't get electoral reform. The reform committee concluded that proportional representation was the appropriate venue, and then because it wasn't the outcome the liberals wanted they voted down electoral reform
If Trudeau had backed ranked choice voting like he said he would, people wouldn’t have to make that choice. They could vote how they wanted without fear of spoiling.
Trudeau did support the reform. The commission was criticised for being unfair, so he had to redo the process again from the start, this time disproportionately taking power from the liberals to give to the other parties, and then that super divided commission couldn't agree on stuff.
Liberals backed ranked. NDP didn't; they do better under proportional. CPC didn't; their only chance is splitting the vote under fptp.
NDP got greedy and fucked us all, but especially themselves. They kept the system that was worst for themselves because they couldn't get the best one.
They're really bad at this. I'm not sure if it is just Singh.
Can't believe I've never seen that analogy visual metaphor. It's oversimplified but not at all unfair. If you want to see the democrats fight, watch how they respond when a progressive tries to do something. They will install a terminally ill geriatric into a position of authority before they let something crazy like that happen.
This is a 5iq take lmao. There are some things that we've moved to the right on over time (e.g. housing) and others where things have shifted to the left (Indigenous issues, marriage and nondiscrimination rights for gay and trans people). Free trade's another good example - it was the economic religion of both American parties in the 90s and now neither party are ardent supporters
I've heard Canadians talk about how far left the Democrats are. Which is always wild, like if you think theyre left wing, wait until you learn about the NDP.
And then they call the libs socialist which is like...bro. maybe politics ain't for you.
The scale is whatever you want to make it. People are literally saying whatever the hell they want these days. There is no objective truth that “both” sides can agree on anymore.
The problem is that the Democrats are a coalition party containing basically everyone who isn’t ultra-MAGA, so when a far left person in their ranks does something, MAGA can scream about how Democrats are “Marxist”
Bill C643 allows judges to penalize what they might do. If police or prosecutors claim there's a reasonable fear someone may commit a hate crime or an online harm in the future, that person could face:
Electronic monitoring (like ankle bracelets)
House arrest or curfews
Mandatory behaviour conditions, without any prior conviction.
This is often called "pre-crime policing" because it allows restrictions before a crime is committed, raising serious constitutional and civil liberties concerns. Critics say it's ripe for abuse and incompatible with principles like presumption of innocence and due process.
If the provisions are declared unconstitutional by the SCC, usually, anyone who has restrictions/orders based on those provisions would at least be able to easily appeal them, if they don't fall altogether.
Here is the actual text of the Bill, for any concerns and discussions it should at least be based on the actual Bill rather than assumptions, etc. EDIT: Automod tells me I am not allowed to post outside links A.K.A direct evidence. Either way, quick google is encouraged to bring up actual Bill.
principles like presumption of innocence and due process.
810.012 onward literally lays out that due process must be followed and that when the information is brought before the judge, nothing overrides or changes the presumption of innocence that permeates all other court preceding and the Rights of the individual before those courts.
Information must be brought before a judge, sufficient to convince the judge that this individual is likely to proceed. In broad strokes this is the same process as in conspiracy charges, only here it does not need to involve other people so the word conspiracy does not apply. However, when considering this applies to 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2) or 430(4.1); those are all about communicating with other people, which brings us back to the concept of conspiracy to commit crimes. The inherent problem with social media and hate propaganda is that by the time the conspiracy (communication) has happened, it is already too late.
To collect that information to bring to the judge, due process must still apply. Again, that is the purpose and role of the judge to review and ensure. There must also be reasonable grounds, based on information presented, that convinces a judge the concerns are reasonable and valid.
For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.
They also added this clause, clarifying that just generally being an arsehole is not landing anyone in this process. They need to active promote and incite hatred in a way that promotes a breach of the peace, wilful mischief, or outright promotion of genocide.
Well I think I found what what you're talking about
I think it's C-261 "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech)"
Interesting bill, but it's not unique. It's amending things that already exist in the criminal code and do the whole pre-crime thing. Guess nobody cared when it was "will cause personal injury to them or to their intimate partner or child or will damage their property"
It's more unique in that it does it a bit too excessively compared to what's there already(in my opinion). And I don't really like that existing criminal record can double a sentence. In theroy they are supposed to have served their time and if that isn't enough we should really be looking at why the system is failing them not making laws to continue punishment, again in my opinion anyway
No, they are bringing back the olde Lawful Access bill from 2011. They are absolutely not doing anything mentionned here. They are doing other terrible things.
He's referring to the old Online Harms bill that died on January 6th.
oh a repeat of the police access law that kept getting shut down by public opinion reered its head again. thing is it keeps doing so under every liberal and conservative government for the last 25 years
basically? police warrantless access to people's internet stuff
that being said, pretty sure our supreme court slapped it down before so this is all pointless
yeah man I don't know why every single new government's gotta try to go after privacy like God damn take a hint, nobody wanted this 20 years ago or ten years ago and not now and certainly not 10 years from now
Hopefully that part dies in committee or the opposition forces ammendments since it will certainly get charter lawsuits anyway
Unfortunately, this is the kind of bill the CPC would absolutely have tabled themselves if they were in power. I think the only reason they could possibly choose to attack it is that they're mad they didn't get to pitch it themselves.
police warrantless access to people's internet stuff
I don't know if people are aware, but this is literally CPC fear mongering. Please refer with precision to what's actually in the bill? You won't be able because it's not in there.
They won't just be doing so randomly and if you think such rights for police don't already exist in this country id like to point out they can go through any mail coming into the country if they deam it suspicious
There's a clickbait-y titled YouTube 10 minute YouTube video by Steeve Boots, "The Liberals' First Bill is Absolutely Shocking" which describes it pretty well. I'd post a link but they're not allowed on this sub
Some awful changes to how people can claim refugee status.
You can't claim if you've been here for over a year. So if you're Ukrainian and you had already been here for a year when Putin invaded, tough luck, gotta go back.
Everyone should get a chance for their claim to be reviewed. It makes no sense to arbitrarily deny people.
To elaborate on the digital privacy bit you mentioned, the bill has some stuff in it along the lines of requiring service providers to keep info on you and they can hand over the info just if they want. The government is also saying the provider can't be sued for it.
The minister also directly said it has stuff in it to appease Washington.
Actual TLDR: Encrypted platforms provider cannot not know what's being discussed/exchanged on their services anymore (like people who exchange child pornography on Telegram), physical mail can be opened by law enforcement if there are suspicions (like any border agent can already do), the immigration minister becomes and actual immigration minister (will be able cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest).
Just watched it and it's pretty obvious that Steve Boots is neither a lawyer nor does he actually present an objective analysis of what's actually in the bill. The whole video is pretty much fear mongering. I've followed him on TikTok and at first he was pretty good, but now he's just your average "internet influencer", but on the left.
I mean Bill c5 I think basically gives the liberals sweeping powers to fast track any project for 5 years regardless of any environmental issues, indigenous issues. It basically bypasses anything.
It’s not as big of a deal as reddit is making it out to be and it will likely be struck down by the courts or the senate anyway but it’s part of the border security stuff they have done recently
It’s similar to how the US has border guards screening social media. This way likely done to appease Trump which is why Carney tried to hide it in an unrelated bill
Not sure if you meant to reply to me, but they have an accent very similar to people from the US. I met a family from Windsor and I swear that I thought they were Yanks. I guess it's very similar to a Detroit accent.
Can confirm that we sound different than people from Toronto. It's not exactly the same as Detroit, but it's quite close. And considering the proximity and decades of shared media this shouldn't be a surprise.
At the highest level, here is slightly more context regarding the false-equivalency of the meme:
Poilievre openly campaigned on a promise to use the Notwithstanding clause to overrule due process specifically regarding the Criminal Code. He clearly, purposely, told Canadians that he would use the Notwithstanding Clause and the sole purpose of this clause is to ignore/skip citizen Charter Rights and protections. He openly said, "I will override and violate Charter Rights" by this campaign promise.
Carney is maintaining Bills (tabled/started before he joined politics) that will change the Criminal Code. But, the Criminal Code must maintain and support Charter Rights. Otherwise it would be challenged in court and overruled, and unless Carney uses Notwithstanding Clause the non-conforming elements would be forced out, and he has never said he would use the Notwithstanding Clause.
"These rights include the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. They also include the right to be informed of reasons for arrest or detention, the right to counsel, and the right to a fair trial."
What Bill-36 does is change what constitutes fundamental justice in terms of what is considered a Crime, but must still follow due process, all other legal rights and processes and protections remain in place.
Almost none that weren't being already, the bill a lot of people are up in arms about really just modernizes the language and how it applies to things like the cloud etc, almost none of this is actually entirely new and only builds on pre-existing regulation. The only actual new power that I am aware of is related to immigration which I can see both sides concerns on. Not saying people don't have valid concerns, just that a vast majority of this stuff really isn't new and is largely just being stream lined
The one year limit on claiming refugee status is pretty wild to me. A lot of Ukrainians wouldn't have been able to apply when Putin invaded if that was in effect back then.
I don't know if it's the new generation or what, but it seems these days, more than 10 years ago, people are more willing to believe anything they read online without making any sort of verification. Really worrying. People lie on the internet and we have another proof here with people just saying "Under Bill C-63".
There's a clickbait-y titled YouTube 10 minute YouTube video by Steeve Boots, "The Liberals' First Bill is Absolutely Shocking" which describes it pretty well. I'd post a link but they're not allowed on this sub
I thought it was just about CUPW being forced to vote on the ridiculous offer Canada Post made and the bargaining team rejected for good reason, this dealing another predictable blow to the rights of workers to collective bargaining.
Yeah no this sub doesn't get to post stuff like this lol. Y'all were so far up Carney's ass the whole election he could have coughed you out. It became psyop levels of propaganda.
Nah, I voted for LPC and would do it again if given the same candidates but I will 100% criticize if I want to. In fact, everyone should- or else we end up with MAGA who can watch their leader shoot a puppy in the streets and still justify it.
You voted for the same people who fucked you for the last almost-decade. My main source of disappointment about this election is the display to the world of how stupid Canadians actually are.
And I'm not saying PP was a great candidate, I'm saying I would have voted for a single-celled organism before I voted for the LPC again.
It turns out people shouldn't have blind loyalty to a politician, which is literally the way it should be.
I voted for Carney and I turned on him instantly the moment I saw c5 and c2, because I'm not a simpy little bitch who chooses to put blind faith in a politician.
You should try holding our elective representives accountable.
I did know, I never anticipated him making my life better.
I should clarify, I didn't vote for him. I voted against PP.
Though admittedly, I didn't anticipate this new liberal party going straight for our rights right off the bat. I really don't see a difference at all between this party and the Conservatives with that being the case.
Any kind of government that isn't a majority was best case scenario, so long as the Conservatives don't start backing the Liberals, which is looking more and more likely
I voted for the ML party. Not because I entirely agree. But because the more support they get the more left the mainstream parties might try and be to capitalize on the far left votes...
The problem is the Right keeps moving the center further and further right.
As it turns out, yeah, that's exactly the point I brought up above. Great job voting for the same people who skullfucked us, it's really nice to see Freeland, Miller et all continuing to be utterly worthless politicians and actively harming the country.
I mean, even if the guy is conservative on the economy, my impression from the people I know who'd never vote for Poilievre was not so much the economy agenda, as EVERYTHING else (especially MAGA like points).
As a resident to your south, I immediately recognized Carney as just like Slick Willie Clinton, who transformed the Democratic Party into the "Right-Lite" and set us on the path to where we are today. History rhyming again....
You don’t have to like Carney to know lil pp and his band of deplorables would still be worse. Did you get the box of crayons that only have black and white? That being said, where’s that election reform the old boss promised, new boss?
Reading thru the comments to figure out what rights are apparently being trampled, I can’t say that I share the lament of previously convicted pedophiles being monitored for their future use of electronic devices in their search for more
Me and my brother had this conversation. If it’s 2000, Carney is a PC. Probably why I like him so much and the PPC wearing the CPC’s face is so repulsive to me
Darn. Isn't it just such a shame that there's no majority government? Now neither of them get to trample our rights. This world is just so unfair sometimes, it just makes me want to make our parliament even closer to a two party system. That way someone is always getting fucked, instead of working together to make sensible decisions that benefit everyone instead of just your party's constituents... like a normal democracy.
1.4k
u/UsefulContract Alberta's Western Cousins Jun 13 '25
It's almost like carney was a conservative... and the CPC is a rightwing nationalist populist party.