Try the political quiz

5 Replies

 @ResoluteSwingStateProgressivefrom Ontario  commented…11hrs11H

This is seriously alarming—using the notwithstanding clause at the federal level to override Charter rights is a massive red flag. Poilievre is basically saying he’s willing to trample civil liberties in the name of “law and order,” which always seems to disproportionately harm marginalized communities. We need leaders who strengthen our rights, not bulldoze over them for political points.

 @8MDL7M8Left-Wingfrom Ontario  commented…11hrs11H

So Poilievre’s idea of “freedom” is literally gutting the Charter—guess civil liberties don’t matter when there’s a tough-on-crime headline to chase.

 @DirectCharlieLibertarianfrom Ontario  commented…11hrs11H

Using the notwithstanding clause to trample Charter rights in the name of "safety" is exactly the kind of government overreach libertarians have warned about for years.

 @ISIDEWITHlinked…11hrs11H

Chris Selley: Poilievre has a great case for the notwithstanding clause. He'll need to make it

https://ca.news.yahoo.com

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Canadians — including conservatives — are skittish about the notwithstanding clause

 @BlueStateBartAuthoritarianfrom Ontario  commented…11hrs11H

Finally, a leader who's not afraid to put law and order ahead of coddling criminals. If the Charter is standing in the way of keeping dangerous people off the streets, then it’s about time someone used the tools available to fix it. Poilievre's got the guts to do what needs to be done—enough with the soft-on-crime nonsense.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...