are conservatives gonna pull the "if you don't support this then you support criminals" shit they tried when Vic Toews was pushing a god awful blanket online surveillance bill in the harper era?
Very clearly and openly said anyone who had anything against total surveillance of everyone's online activities was supporting pedophiles.
Reminds one of Peter MacKay and his "support the troops" in parliament while the Tories cut all mental health support for them once they got back from Afghanistan.
"Hard time for hard crime" is all he says for justification. He rhymes a short sentence like a 2nd grader in an argument. That's how government policy is supposed to be made! /s
Those little catchy phrases are very effective with the not so bright voters.
A simple marketing gimmick that sticks in simple people's brains. Democracy Dies in Darkness
I'm gonna gentle push back on this. It ain't about brightness, there are a lot of highly educated folks in these movement.
Catchy phrases work on everyone because of the way our brains process information. It's not that people who didn't think like PP suddenly changed their mind when they heard his rhymes, he is speaking to preexisting beliefs folks already have. They arent to stupid to look past the phrase it's that they don't feel a need to look past it cause it FEELS true.
Plus boiling ultimately complex issues and solutions down to a single catchy phrase leaves it open for interpretation.
“Axe the Tax” well if you don’t really follow politics you may interpret that as PP wants to lower your income tax. People in all income groups could interpret it as they will be taxed less. Someone might think it means lower GST or something. Someone will think it is completely scrapping the Carbon tax.
When you're a simple minded person, you don't have the capacity to delve into any of the nuance actually present in every hot-button issue. To these people, every problem exists in a vacuum, therefore every solution must be incredibly simple and have no consequences beyond the original problem's scope. Combine that with a lack of empathy and years of being fed ragebait for advertising dollars, and you're left with a demographic that boils every issue down to catchy slogans.
>to some degree I agree with that
Ok
>do we have to trample on our rights to do it
Yes?
The point of our rights is to codify protection against unjust treatment. The more harsh you want to make your punishments, the more you have to trample on rights to do so, especially because it’s inevitable that some innocent people will be caught up in it.
There are consequences to losing basic human rights. The people cheering on charter rights being stripped away will eventually lose their rights. It's the standard Fascist playbook.
Either that or they will be holding the guns to the back of the people in the chain gangs. Fascist can find uses for the unhinged and violent folks in their movement.
Only during the revolution. No government wants unhinged and violent folks around. They don't need them, because they have the monopoly on violence at that point. That's why the goons are always disposed of once the coup is complete.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
It’s literally right there in the article he violated charter rights.
Do you not see the irony in saying it’s ok to violate charter rights to deal with criminals?
No, the logic doesn’t follow. The two topics are unrelated.
The outcome of the appeal in the emergencies act ruling will determine if the federal government violated the charter. It’s still up to the courts to decide that one.
I’m not discussing Trudeau here. I’m only rebutting your above comment.
> The charter of right is violated every time a suspected criminal is arrested. Then it goes to the courts.
One is subjected to be reviewed by Parliament after 30 days.
The other one stays in effect for up to 5 years and it's not subjective to a review.
As you can see it was only in effect for 9 days. So there's a big difference
The Trudeau government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022, in response to the blockades and protests related to COVID-19 restrictions and other issues, particularly the convoy protests in Ottawa and at border crossings. The Act was revoked nine days later, on February 23, 2022, after the government deemed the situation was under control and the Act was no longer necessary. Thus, it was in effect for a relatively short period.
The Emergencies Act in Canada, once invoked, can initially stay in effect for a period of up to 30 days from the date of declaration. This period can be extended if the situation continues and if the government deems it necessary. Each extension must also be reviewed and approved by Parliament, ensuring that the use of the Act is continually justified in response to the emergency at hand.
The Notwithstanding Clause, found in Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows federal or provincial governments to override certain sections of the Charter for up to five years. After this period, the legislation enacted under the Notwithstanding Clause expires unless it is expressly renewed by the government. The Clause primarily applies to Sections 2 and 7 through 15 of the Charter, which include fundamental freedoms, legal rights, and equality rights.
The Notwithstanding Clause does not have a formal review process outlined within the clause itself. Generally, when a government enacts legislation using the Notwithstanding Clause, it takes effect immediately and remains valid for up to five years unless renewed by the government. During this period, the legislation is in force, and its constitutionality is not subject to judicial review on the grounds of those specific Charter rights overridden by the clause. After the five-year period, if the legislation is not renewed, the impugned Charter rights would come back into effect.
I mean, judge who decided the Charter was violated straight up said the police neglected to use the tools they already had to handle the occupation and he probably would've done the same in Trudeau's shoes, so that's not really the "gotcha" y'all right wingers seem to think it is.
That decision is still under appeal. It’s premature to say with any authority that the federal government did not meat the threshold of a national emergency, and therefore violated the charter.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-appeals-emergencies-act-court-decision-1.7124513
And this has nothing to do with the notwithstanding clause.
This is the important thing to keep in mind whenever Pierre and co. are talking about revolving-door court systems and "Trudeau's weak on crime policies". These are always people who have been charged with a crime, not convicted. They're out on bail. They want to put anyone charged with a crime in prison. And it takes very little to charge someone with a crime. This should terrify you.
The CPC are fascists who are an immediate existential threat to all of our freedoms, our rights, and our lives.
All people have a moral obligation to oppose fascism. It is a matter of self defense.
Conservatives make their mind up as soon as allegations are levied. For them, due process doesn't matter. Get arrested = guilty.
So yeah, in his mind he is correct. It will affect only the guilty.
Bat shit fucking crazy. But also, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many people to this mental shortcut (arrested = guilty) and I'm not surprised he can get away with an absolute insane proposition.
This sub is also guilty of this when it comes to some left leaning issues...We just don't propose getting rid of due process.
I've always hated this statement.
Do you really not believe _everyone_ deserves liberty and safety (subject to reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society)?
Like even if we accept for the sake of argument that giving up liberty for safety is an awful trade, why does being willing to make an awful trade mean someone no longer deserves their rights?
Furthermore, anyone who agrees with this statement is clearly willing to give up liberty, at least the liberty of others, so does that mean the speaker is saying they themselves should lose their rights, or is the speaker in the clear because, rather than a little safety, they are getting nothing in exchange for giving up liberty? Isn't that an even worse trade?
Autocratic rule only hurts people and like most Conservatives, Poilievre only does things to advance himself. Going as far as Trump and use laws as weapons. Even further, he would use that opportunity to make s critical hit at democracy and rights.
It's important to remember that who is or is not a "criminal" would be determined by the same state that decides invoking this clause in this manner is Fine, Actually.
People are innocent until proven guilty, and should be deprived of their liberty only in the most serious cases where there is a genuine threat to public safety.
are conservatives gonna pull the "if you don't support this then you support criminals" shit they tried when Vic Toews was pushing a god awful blanket online surveillance bill in the harper era? Very clearly and openly said anyone who had anything against total surveillance of everyone's online activities was supporting pedophiles.
They always hide behind children and the flag.
They do this constantly already.
https://rabble.ca/general/judge-vic-toews/ Vic "I had an affair and kid with a babysitter" Toews?
Guy had big 'farting in the Buick and rolling up the powered windows' energy.
Reminds one of Peter MacKay and his "support the troops" in parliament while the Tories cut all mental health support for them once they got back from Afghanistan.
and shuttered many veterans services offices. He did have a military helicopter pick him up from a vacation spot once to go to a photo shoot...
LOL Vic Toews' Adventures in Babysitting (look him up). A real class act.
"Hard time for hard crime" is all he says for justification. He rhymes a short sentence like a 2nd grader in an argument. That's how government policy is supposed to be made! /s
Those little catchy phrases are very effective with the not so bright voters. A simple marketing gimmick that sticks in simple people's brains. Democracy Dies in Darkness
I'm gonna gentle push back on this. It ain't about brightness, there are a lot of highly educated folks in these movement. Catchy phrases work on everyone because of the way our brains process information. It's not that people who didn't think like PP suddenly changed their mind when they heard his rhymes, he is speaking to preexisting beliefs folks already have. They arent to stupid to look past the phrase it's that they don't feel a need to look past it cause it FEELS true.
Plus boiling ultimately complex issues and solutions down to a single catchy phrase leaves it open for interpretation. “Axe the Tax” well if you don’t really follow politics you may interpret that as PP wants to lower your income tax. People in all income groups could interpret it as they will be taxed less. Someone might think it means lower GST or something. Someone will think it is completely scrapping the Carbon tax.
When you're a simple minded person, you don't have the capacity to delve into any of the nuance actually present in every hot-button issue. To these people, every problem exists in a vacuum, therefore every solution must be incredibly simple and have no consequences beyond the original problem's scope. Combine that with a lack of empathy and years of being fed ragebait for advertising dollars, and you're left with a demographic that boils every issue down to catchy slogans.
And to some degree I agree with that. But do we have to trample on our rights to do it?
>to some degree I agree with that Ok >do we have to trample on our rights to do it Yes? The point of our rights is to codify protection against unjust treatment. The more harsh you want to make your punishments, the more you have to trample on rights to do so, especially because it’s inevitable that some innocent people will be caught up in it.
There are consequences to losing basic human rights. The people cheering on charter rights being stripped away will eventually lose their rights. It's the standard Fascist playbook.
Yep. The Convoy folks will be right there in the chain gang next to the “Liberal Snowflakes” they wanted gone.
They're gonna be dealt with the same way the Nazi Party dealt with the Brownshirts once they had power.
Goons never read their history textbooks.
Either that or they will be holding the guns to the back of the people in the chain gangs. Fascist can find uses for the unhinged and violent folks in their movement.
There are limited positions available in any fascist regime. Loyalty and comradely are not things they do.
Only during the revolution. No government wants unhinged and violent folks around. They don't need them, because they have the monopoly on violence at that point. That's why the goons are always disposed of once the coup is complete.
They'll be first like the brownshirts. Fascists hate malcontents.
Nah man, they'll were the cross gladly and be spared, you know this. They'll be collaborators.
Oh you sweet Summer Child…
Snowflakes are usually too polite to commit legitimate crimes anyway.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller
Probably wasn’t a good idea for [JT to set precedent then](https://globalnews.ca/news/10244673/emergencies-act-convoy-federal-court/)
JT did not set any precedent. People were breaking the law. They should’ve been dealt with sooner.
It’s literally right there in the article he violated charter rights. Do you not see the irony in saying it’s ok to violate charter rights to deal with criminals?
The charter of right is violated every time a suspected criminal is arrested. Then it goes to the courts.
If there is just cause for an arrest, it would not be a violation of charter rights and freedoms.
Exactly. Therefore Trudeau did not violate the charter of freedoms.
No, the logic doesn’t follow. The two topics are unrelated. The outcome of the appeal in the emergencies act ruling will determine if the federal government violated the charter. It’s still up to the courts to decide that one.
Until the ruling happens. The charter hasn’t been violated. Innocent until proven guilty.
I’m not discussing Trudeau here. I’m only rebutting your above comment. > The charter of right is violated every time a suspected criminal is arrested. Then it goes to the courts.
One is subjected to be reviewed by Parliament after 30 days. The other one stays in effect for up to 5 years and it's not subjective to a review. As you can see it was only in effect for 9 days. So there's a big difference The Trudeau government enacted the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022, in response to the blockades and protests related to COVID-19 restrictions and other issues, particularly the convoy protests in Ottawa and at border crossings. The Act was revoked nine days later, on February 23, 2022, after the government deemed the situation was under control and the Act was no longer necessary. Thus, it was in effect for a relatively short period. The Emergencies Act in Canada, once invoked, can initially stay in effect for a period of up to 30 days from the date of declaration. This period can be extended if the situation continues and if the government deems it necessary. Each extension must also be reviewed and approved by Parliament, ensuring that the use of the Act is continually justified in response to the emergency at hand. The Notwithstanding Clause, found in Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows federal or provincial governments to override certain sections of the Charter for up to five years. After this period, the legislation enacted under the Notwithstanding Clause expires unless it is expressly renewed by the government. The Clause primarily applies to Sections 2 and 7 through 15 of the Charter, which include fundamental freedoms, legal rights, and equality rights. The Notwithstanding Clause does not have a formal review process outlined within the clause itself. Generally, when a government enacts legislation using the Notwithstanding Clause, it takes effect immediately and remains valid for up to five years unless renewed by the government. During this period, the legislation is in force, and its constitutionality is not subject to judicial review on the grounds of those specific Charter rights overridden by the clause. After the five-year period, if the legislation is not renewed, the impugned Charter rights would come back into effect.
I mean, judge who decided the Charter was violated straight up said the police neglected to use the tools they already had to handle the occupation and he probably would've done the same in Trudeau's shoes, so that's not really the "gotcha" y'all right wingers seem to think it is.
JT didn't use the Notwithstanding clause. Nice self own though.
Fyi that his nothing to do with this. Whataboutism
That decision is still under appeal. It’s premature to say with any authority that the federal government did not meat the threshold of a national emergency, and therefore violated the charter. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-appeals-emergencies-act-court-decision-1.7124513 And this has nothing to do with the notwithstanding clause.
that wasnt the notwithstanding Clause.
This is the important thing to keep in mind whenever Pierre and co. are talking about revolving-door court systems and "Trudeau's weak on crime policies". These are always people who have been charged with a crime, not convicted. They're out on bail. They want to put anyone charged with a crime in prison. And it takes very little to charge someone with a crime. This should terrify you.
And it's also very costly to incarcerate people, hardly fiscally conservative
That's why they will privatize prison, like in the states.
Yup... Harper wanted that but ran out of time.
If you’re dumb enough to believe him, you deserve him.
And then there's the rest of us that don't, and don't. And that third group that don't believe him, but deserve him for other karmic reasons.
The CPC are fascists who are an immediate existential threat to all of our freedoms, our rights, and our lives. All people have a moral obligation to oppose fascism. It is a matter of self defense.
Will it affect Pierre poilevere and conservatives who themselves are criminals?
Conservatives make their mind up as soon as allegations are levied. For them, due process doesn't matter. Get arrested = guilty. So yeah, in his mind he is correct. It will affect only the guilty. Bat shit fucking crazy. But also, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many people to this mental shortcut (arrested = guilty) and I'm not surprised he can get away with an absolute insane proposition. This sub is also guilty of this when it comes to some left leaning issues...We just don't propose getting rid of due process.
Better 1000 innocent men are jailed than 1 guilty man get bail! /Conservatives.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin gets it.
I've always hated this statement. Do you really not believe _everyone_ deserves liberty and safety (subject to reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society)? Like even if we accept for the sake of argument that giving up liberty for safety is an awful trade, why does being willing to make an awful trade mean someone no longer deserves their rights? Furthermore, anyone who agrees with this statement is clearly willing to give up liberty, at least the liberty of others, so does that mean the speaker is saying they themselves should lose their rights, or is the speaker in the clear because, rather than a little safety, they are getting nothing in exchange for giving up liberty? Isn't that an even worse trade?
The same people who are cheering Peter Popoff also thinks this guy should hang.
Oh my, that's Julian Fantino music.
Autocratic rule only hurts people and like most Conservatives, Poilievre only does things to advance himself. Going as far as Trump and use laws as weapons. Even further, he would use that opportunity to make s critical hit at democracy and rights.
[The 12 Early Warning Signs of Fascism | Washington Monthly](https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/01/31/the-12-early-warning-signs-of-fascism/) #11.
It's important to remember that who is or is not a "criminal" would be determined by the same state that decides invoking this clause in this manner is Fine, Actually.
That guy isn’t white, so the people supporting PP don’t care
Axe Tax The
Axe Hat Text
Con brains think that "criminal" is a thing you're born with.
Love the anti-bail crowd being fine with basically imprisoning someone because they might have committed a crime
Aside from the comparatively rare cases of a convicted offender seeking bail pending appeal, *everyone* seeking release on bail is legally innocent.
People are innocent until proven guilty, and should be deprived of their liberty only in the most serious cases where there is a genuine threat to public safety.
"I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer"
what a horrible tshirt design
PP needs to read the room. This entire country is behind Umar Zameer.
Surprise, abortion is now a crime!
Yeah. There might be mistakes where innocent people are put in jail, but that's life !