You must log in or register to see media
Trudeau’s facade is crumbling and his true hateful divisive ideology is on show.
Unreal that he would accuse a Jewish person of being a Nazi. The guy has totally lost it.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Trudeau’s facade is crumbling and his true hateful divisive ideology is on show.
Unreal that he would accuse a Jewish person of being a Nazi. The guy has totally lost it.
Which facade? I don’t follow Canada and Trudeau enough. He does seem like an embodiment of “pretty privilege”
From reading the tweet replies and other reports Trudeau didn't refer directly to the woman but members of the CPC who support the protest rubbing shoulders with the alt right "leaders'. Family and friends in Canada don't think "the guy has totally lost it and regard Poilieve as a right wing opportunist along the lines of Spaffer Johnson AKA gobshites.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-curse-of-the-convoy/amp/
Remember when I mentioned the Diagolon guys being a part of the convoy? Four members of the protest in Alberta, including two Diagolon members, have been arrested for consipracy to commit murder:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7wpgy/freedom-convoy-murder-conspiracy-diagolon
He's not saying that the MP is a Nazi. He's saying that the MP is offering support to people who are Nazis (and other white supremacists) to score political points. And he isn't wrong. The Diagolon idiots are explicitly a separatist group that want to start a race war and form a whites-only nation out of the Prairie provinces, separate from Canada. They brought a truckload of weapons to the protest in Coutts so that they could kill cops.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned much about Russell lately, but I really appreciate his outlook on things at the moment.
Reading the comments above reminded me of this:
Reading the comments above reminded me of this:
You must log in or register to see media
In domestic politics, there is a quiet realignment taking place. Great article in the FT, explaining how Starmer and Davey are forming a non-aggression pact leading up to the next GE. Davey has made it clear that any kind of coalition would only happen if electoral reform actually happened:
https://www.ft.com/content/7d10aef7-1ed5-4e0d-a128-858cd0b2e2f0
https://www.ft.com/content/7d10aef7-1ed5-4e0d-a128-858cd0b2e2f0
Is paralysing a city and blocking border crossings for a number of weeks legitimate protest? These people are in the small minority that put individual freedom above collective responsibility. No problem with people refusing vaccination, they have to accept the restrictions that brings.
I'm even okay with non-violent protest that causes snarls, etc. But protests crawling with accelerationists, QAnon nutters and white supremacists who make frequent references to toppling the government (and occasionally just outright threaten to kill them all)? No, thanks.
I don't know enough about "legitimate" protests to answer properly I'm afraid, but from my own opinion on what a protest is it's to stand up for something you believe in and get your voice heard. It's like 'Insulate Britain' - they're a pain but they've taken drastic measures to get their voice heard.
To clarify, I don't necessarily agree with the way these protests are happening but I agree with what Russell was saying regarding media bias and government/ lobbyist agendas.
The concern really is : who gets to decide what a “legitimate” protest actually is? And what if they decide one that you think is perfectly legitimate is not legitimate
A move in the right direction that can help bring about change. This is interesting regarding tactical voting.
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/tactical-voting/
And this makes the point that 53 per cent of votes went to parties that supported Remain or backed a second referendum, the first-past-the-post electoral system delivered a majority government on a minority of votes.
https://www.bestforbritain.org/2019electionimpact
Exactly right.
If Trudeau was in charge using his new ridiculous laws, Martin Luther King wouldn’t have been allowed to make his famous speech.
Tell me you know next to nothing about American history without telling me you know next to nothing about American history.
And it's entirely possible, even likely, that MLK would have been prevented from speaking at the Lincoln Memorial if he showed up with a vehicle full of guns, ammo and body armor and talked about killing cops a bunch.
Certainly not the crime bill currently going through parliament which has been modified by the Lords but will come back to the commons and may pass with what some would say hobble the right to protest.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60032465
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/victory-greenpeace-reaction-to-police-and-crime-bill-vote/
There's this to come 28-02-2022, time for those supporting the HoL amendments to lobby their MPs
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839/stages/16093
Last edited:
How so?
Banning of protesting is a very dark path to walk.
I can’t think of many times in history where governments censoring free speech and blocking citizens bank accounts ends well
Ref Schad's post questioning your knowledge of American history and mine regarding the crime bill which is exactly the dark path you're referring to.
Schad is on my mute list so I don’t know what he said.
But the article you posted shows that our House of Lords is opposed to censoring protests too so I am still not sure what point you’re making?
Ultimately any government that has to censor its citizens and rule by censorship and degradation of human rights is not a direction any democracy should be embracing.
The entire point of democracy is to avoid this sort of infringement.