Canadian Politics Today

Whatever Harper's social policy beliefs were he never acted on them

Removing funds from NGOs for social policy, both domestically and internationally
Imposing dress requirements on citizenship ceremonies
Cut funding to many cultural organizations, including getting rid of some tax credits for specific film and television productions they didn't like.
etc.

Removing funds from NGOs for social policy, both domestically and internationally
Imposing dress requirements on citizenship ceremonies
Cut funding to many cultural organizations, including getting rid of some tax credits for specific film and television productions they didn't like.
etc.

You don't think social policy is a factor in Liberal treatment of NGO's?

I'm in favour of dress codes for a lot of things.

Double yawn

You know how we've been talking recently about AI generated targeted messaging. This is the perfect example of it.

To you, Trudeau being a snowboard instructor is meaningless. To radical conservatives, it signals the characteristics of Ross Rebagliati and all of the "shame" that he brought to the country by losing his Olympic medal for smoking weed. So the propagandists insert innuendos on the internet about Trudeau being a snowboard instructor and let the rabid right fill in the blanks and amplify the propaganda. Those who see snowboarders as lazy stoners, begin to associate that image with Trudeau.

On the other hand, you and I don't get this messaging at all. I never even heard about him being a snowboard instructor until this moment. Why? Because it's irrelevant and meaningless to me because I'm not some uptight conservative.

The approach these days is to try so hard to make the discussion about personal qualities and "gaffes" or embarassments. It's not about policy ideas, social problems, or policy actions, which are the tangible efforts of government. It's about building a negative characterization of political opponents because the political ideas of conservatives were dying a slow death. Hell, the Liberals here in Canada were called the "Natural Governing Party." Youth are gradually more progressive as time passes. My point is that the ideas of conservatism were dead and are dead. The only way they can garner support now is by moving the discussion away from policy and creating grand mischaracterizations of their opponents.

You can see this tactic even amongst their membership. Look at Argus's comments. Almost every reply he tries to characterize "the left" or "progressives" or "social justice warriors." Very rarely do you see him discussing policy positions, actual legislation, or actual policy outcomes. It's about creating caricatures of people and ideas, rather than being about any tangible politics.

Welcome to the new political order, where politics is no longer about social organization and the welfare of a nation. It's about what a leader looks like, not the political ideas that a leader holds. It's about what a leader wears on a trip, not the political actions that were undertaken.

And why is that? Because conservative politics are unpalatable to the vast majority of people. Instead, they need to rely on the image of authority and legitimacy. They need to rely on the idea that they're natural leaders because they look like the leaders that we've had throughout history, not because they think like the leaders we've had.

Double yawn is about the most appropriate response to this kind of superficial politics that has no substance and is completely empty on the inside.

It's time for this adolescent social justice activist warrior to be put out to pasture where he belongs. Canada needs a real man to lead not a hippie. This young boy was never ready for the real world. He is stuck in diversity land, a bad place to get stuck in.

I don’t know many adolescents in their 40s

Fixed that for you.

Fixed it with a falsehood? The SCC has never ruled that any restriction on abortion is a violation of the charter. Trying to suggest it did is simply dishonest. Furthermore, the SCC has ruled that freedom if conscious *is* a protected right and to make government funding contingent on claiming to believe in a particular political party's interpretation of the charter is a gross violation of the charter.

Fixed it with a falsehood? The SCC has never ruled that any restriction on abortion is a violation of the charter. Trying to suggest it did is simply dishonest. Furthermore, the SCC has ruled that freedom if conscious *is* a protected right and to make government funding contingent on claiming to believe in a particular political party's interpretation of the charter is a gross violation of the charter.

The SCC removed any restrictions to abortion in 1988. The controversy is actually about the governments decision to limit funding to groups who want to argue against that right.

I'm sorry that you don't understand how that goes against those students' Charter Rights

The government is rejected all applications from organizations that claim to oppose abortion no matter what tasks the people hired would be asked to. I am sorry that you do not understand that the charter protects the right of people to believe whatever they want and no government program can be restricted simply because of a belief.

The government is rejected all applications from organizations that claim to oppose abortion no matter what tasks the people hired would be asked to. I am sorry that you do not understand that the charter protects the right of people to believe whatever they want and no government program can be restricted simply because of a belief.

Nope, they denied funding to those who wouldn't sign the attestation. What you fail to understand is that the government has the right to refuse funding from groups that support imposing restrictions on charter rights. You seem to be under the illusion that the charter was written solely by the current LPC which you don't happen to vote for.