The United Nations defines human rights violations as deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labor; arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda; discrimination; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred. In 1997 the U.S. Congress passed the “Leahy Laws” which cutoff security aid to specific units of foreign militaries if the Pentagon and the State Department determine a country has committed a gross violation of human rights, such as shooting civilians or summarily executing prison…
Read moreStatistics are shown for this demographic
Political party
Province/Territory
Response rates from 201 Conservatism voters.
76% Yes |
24% No |
72% Yes |
19% No |
2% Yes, but I would prefer a ban on all military aid to any foreign countries |
5% No, this could prevent our allies from defending themselves against our mutual enemies |
1% Yes, and ban all sales to countries with human rights violations |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 201 Conservatism voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 201 Conservatism voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Conservatism voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@B46V7MR4wks4W
Most Canadians cannot even agree on who our allies are and who they ought to be. For instance, it would be preferable to arm and facilitate Russia in the conflict in Ukraine, as it is likely to bring the conflict to a close faster, potentially with fewer deaths
@B4V2HBT16hrs16H
Yes there should be restrictions, but somehow they end up getting weapons anyway, so what do you do?
@B4TXJ28 18hrs18H
Yes and i would prefer a ban on all foreign countries unless we have a agrrement of defense with them
@B4SLS4Y3 days3D
Yes, I believe there should be restrictions—with a clear, transparent process for reviewing who Canada sells arms to. Human rights should be a core part of our foreign policy. That said, it should be nuanced: not every accusation is equal, so decisions should be based on solid evidence and include room for diplomatic pressure or reforms.
@B48VY3B4wks4W
Yes there should be if we are sure these accusations come from legitimate sources and are not concocted. We must also consider that most, if not all countries have been accused of committing human rights violations to some degree.
@B3V76NJ1mo1MO
Yes but I think that this should be a case by case basis and there is a difference between a country being accused of something vs being found to have committed violations.
@B2XR6VF2mos2MO
I don't support making any decisions on "accusations". Accusation is not guilt. Current politics, and more specifically propaganda makes it very difficult to tell what accusations are likely to be real, and those that have a political agenda.
@B2SWR5Q3mos3MO
In general yes, however any accusations of Israel violating national law are false, there fore I believe it arms sales need to be examined on a case by case basis.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
