Canadian Politics
- Thread starter JSanta
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
soliloquy
Well-Known Member
Given that the Conservative party merged a while ago, and given that the majority of Canadian population is more left leaning (about 60-70% supposedly is center-left)...
If the Orange and Red teams merge, would that give them majority and fix the issues we are currently facing?
Hypothetical, of course, but this may force the reds to be more left, and the oranges to be more center. Hell, throw the Greens into that mix too.
now if only both teams can set their egos aside and actually merge, rather than splitting the votes.
speaking of votes, our municipality is voting tomorrow for our leader. Whats irritating me is the one who is running for Conservatives previously funded the Liberals, and was a strong supporter of them. Think he got rich, and decided to switch teams
TedEH
Cromulent
I tend to think that as long as politics is a team sport, the same dynamics are going to emerge no matter how you re-arrange the teams.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Alberta is still a hellscape if anyone was wondering:
soliloquy
Well-Known Member
My math isn't math-ing right now, but if it is correct, then out of the last 94 years of Alberta history, 89 years have been spent under conservative parties...yet some how its the Feds fault.
Can we kick Alberta out? We lose Jasper and Banff, but we gain peace in return?
Dont they have a group already trying to secede
soliloquy
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it Montana that wanted to leave the US?
Let Alberta and Montana join forces to make a new nation who's constitution/charter of rights will be built on:
We can package Montana and both the Dakotas in exchange for three hockey pucks and some maple syrup.
zappatton2
Well-Known Member
Well, here's a disconcerting little quote about overriding the Charter rights of both prisoners and the accused (presumption of innocence be damned);
"All of my proposals are constitutional," Poilievre said. "We will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean."
Once again a Conservative leader doesn't realize that separation of powers is designed to prevent the sort of populist majoritarian action that precede many a descent into right-wing authoritarianism. He goes on to say "I will be the democratically elected prime minister, democratically accountable to the people, and they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional".
soliloquy
Well-Known Member
I'm ignorant in this.
If PP does want to change the constitution, what tools are available for him to abuse to be able to change the constitution? Aside from being elected, what checks are in place to avoid that? IE the supreme court might be able to block him, but if the supreme court is in his pocket, is that the last defense?
zappatton2
Well-Known Member
Sadly, the notwithstanding clause is the can of worms that Provincial governments have been getting into the habit of springing open every time they want to deny the rights of trans youth or women in hijabs, etc. This became an element of the Charter to placate Quebec, but it was always assumed no government would be petty enough to pull it out on a whim.
It was also assumed that a Federal government would respect the Charter enough not to pull out the clause to get around the law, and though it's never happened in the Charter's 40+ year history (at the fed level), it was only a matter of time before a rank populist would make such an attempt.
I'm no legal expert, but I suspect this will play out in a less than pretty manner, and if this becomes a precedent for the Poilievre government (assuming he wins), where exactly will it end?
It was also assumed that a Federal government would respect the Charter enough not to pull out the clause to get around the law, and though it's never happened in the Charter's 40+ year history (at the fed level), it was only a matter of time before a rank populist would make such an attempt.
I'm no legal expert, but I suspect this will play out in a less than pretty manner, and if this becomes a precedent for the Poilievre government (assuming he wins), where exactly will it end?
Every Canadian really needs to be aware of this:
I am kinda baffled that clause even exists, or that there isn't any wording on how and when it should be used.
Reactionary populism is a fucking societal cancer that needs to die a death by a thousand cuts, as far as I am concerned.
I am kinda baffled that clause even exists, or that there isn't any wording on how and when it should be used.
Reactionary populism is a fucking societal cancer that needs to die a death by a thousand cuts, as far as I am concerned.
Thankfully they immediately backpedalled on the transit pass thing, the councillor/bylaw thing remains utterly fucked.
thebeesknees22
SS.org Regular
the rights that can be overridden are kind of wild in that video. It's like.. all of the important ones.
"YoU'rE RiGhT to LiFe is.... DENIIIIIIEEED!!!"
if they so choose it.
Latest posts
-
-
-
What speaker should I pair with a Celestion H30 Anniversary in a 212?- Latest: Screamingdaisy
-
-
