Thanks for watching! Remember to subscribe for daily uploads of news compilations, clips, and a weekly 30 minute show!Website: www.steveboots.netIf you'd lik...
That’s fair. I inferred a smug tone from it but text is a hard medium to convey or receive tone.
What I thought I recognized in your comment was an attitude I’ve participated in for at least a decade. Oh, I’m so smart, I’ll make some quip here to show that I’m way ahead of the curve here and you lot are just catching up. Look at me here on the sidelines, I’m so cool unlike you naive suckers trying to make a difference.
But I don’t know that was your attitude. If it helps, consider that I was speaking to my past self and not you.
Can you elaborate? I’ll admit I was living abroad during the Harper years, and I’m unfamiliar with any pledges to override our charter rights before. My understanding is that this type of open commitment to take away our rights is entirely new behaviour at the federal level.
The difference between “I don’t like their policy” and “these people will use section 33 to negate our fundamental rights” is a significant difference to me.
Harper worked to erode a lot of rights. You are correct that they never said it this openly, but a lot of their “tough on crime” or “anti-terroism” type policies always sought to limit freedoms and rights.
Conservatives have also been trying to repeal things like Marijuana legalization and gay marriage. One of Harper’s slogans was “you won’t recognize Canada when I’m done”.
One of the things that stands out that wasn’t even near the worst that they did; was the “barbaric practices hotline”. Which was meant to harras muslim and other non christians (or non whites but that was never proven IIRC).
Yeah, they’ve been attacking our rights and freedoms for decades.
Gay marriage may be a good example of your argument, because I’m not sure how they’d be able to accomplish repealing that in law without using section 33.
But while things like anti-terrorism or “tough on crime” were harmful, if section 33 is not employed then we still have charter rights and these things can be challenged and overturned in the court system.
Which still sucks, a lot. But having PP saying that they’d jump to using the big stick of notwithstanding to support a bullshit American policy that failed there is a significant step worse. Because now we know for certain that they will use this stick, and no courts or opposition can stop them if they get power.
This is why I get prickly at the idea of people saying this is no big deal, they always do this. Which is what I inferred from your original comment, apparently falsely. Because this is big and new and will enable much more harm in a way that will be unstoppable.
So we must act with urgency to stop them before it can start. It was already important but now its a crisis — and yet our newsmedia focuses on inane stuff because talking about policies only policy nerds care about doesn’t get clicks and views.
That’s fair. I inferred a smug tone from it but text is a hard medium to convey or receive tone.
What I thought I recognized in your comment was an attitude I’ve participated in for at least a decade. Oh, I’m so smart, I’ll make some quip here to show that I’m way ahead of the curve here and you lot are just catching up. Look at me here on the sidelines, I’m so cool unlike you naive suckers trying to make a difference.
But I don’t know that was your attitude. If it helps, consider that I was speaking to my past self and not you.
My comment was a mark born of confusion because if you have been paying attention he has been attacking our rights since he was Harper’s yap dog.
Can you elaborate? I’ll admit I was living abroad during the Harper years, and I’m unfamiliar with any pledges to override our charter rights before. My understanding is that this type of open commitment to take away our rights is entirely new behaviour at the federal level.
The difference between “I don’t like their policy” and “these people will use section 33 to negate our fundamental rights” is a significant difference to me.
Harper worked to erode a lot of rights. You are correct that they never said it this openly, but a lot of their “tough on crime” or “anti-terroism” type policies always sought to limit freedoms and rights.
Conservatives have also been trying to repeal things like Marijuana legalization and gay marriage. One of Harper’s slogans was “you won’t recognize Canada when I’m done”.
One of the things that stands out that wasn’t even near the worst that they did; was the “barbaric practices hotline”. Which was meant to harras muslim and other non christians (or non whites but that was never proven IIRC).
Yeah, they’ve been attacking our rights and freedoms for decades.
Gay marriage may be a good example of your argument, because I’m not sure how they’d be able to accomplish repealing that in law without using section 33.
But while things like anti-terrorism or “tough on crime” were harmful, if section 33 is not employed then we still have charter rights and these things can be challenged and overturned in the court system.
Which still sucks, a lot. But having PP saying that they’d jump to using the big stick of notwithstanding to support a bullshit American policy that failed there is a significant step worse. Because now we know for certain that they will use this stick, and no courts or opposition can stop them if they get power.
This is why I get prickly at the idea of people saying this is no big deal, they always do this. Which is what I inferred from your original comment, apparently falsely. Because this is big and new and will enable much more harm in a way that will be unstoppable.
So we must act with urgency to stop them before it can start. It was already important but now its a crisis — and yet our newsmedia focuses on inane stuff because talking about policies only policy nerds care about doesn’t get clicks and views.