Discussions

Again I have to express serious concerns about our federal conservative party.  
 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/patrick-brown-disqualified-conservative-leadership-1.6511407  
 
Who is lying? Patrick Brown insists this is not true as there is no evidence being presented by the Conservative party. If this is so then manipulation of the conservative party leadership is a concern we should all be aware of. Who is pushing for Pierre P to win the leadership bid? Who is pushing their agenda to get into the Federal seat of Canada? My concerns around PP's support of the trucker convoy (which if you support them you support the white supremacy faction), totally against mask mandates etc etc  
 
I truly fear for our country's democracy.

the fact that this is going on in public says a lot.. The conservatives need to get their house in order. The last three leadership races have been a comedy.

I agree. But this one is showing potential to be dangerous to democracy which should be concerning to every Canadian no matter their political leaning.

They don’t care if their actions are made public. They push their oppressive views with no regard for anyone else and call out opponents for being the ones who are oppressive. Their narrative is predictable and dangerous. What concerns me more is what is going on behind closed doors.

but what we see in public, is shocking enough. Can only imagine what is happening behind the scenes.

It's rapidly morphing into fascism. Electoral system is clearly failing. Voting is not enough. Take direct action to prevent this sort of thing taking root here.

Do you have any links, quotes or policies that support your view of the Conservative party pushing oppressive views? What do you feel is the party's narrative?  
 
Edited by Brandon,Brandon, 2022-07-07 12:33:45

"Most definitions agree that fascism is authoritarian and promotes nationalism at all costs, but its basic characteristics are a matter of debate.  
 
"[Fascism is] based on an ethnic division between 'us' and 'them', an extreme ethno-nationalism."  
 
Do you mind noting what in particular makes you think the conservatives are trending towards fascism. I see a lot of people throwing labels like these out there but no one seems to be able to support it or use these labels correctly.  
 
To support my own opinion that they are not in fact trending to fascism is the popular liberal target Pierre Pollievre. For one his wife is Venezuelan which goes against the fascist ethnic nationalism. Second, he has been advocating to reduce barriers that new Canadian's face related to transfer of professional accreditation for doctors, engineers, etc.  
 
If you have support for your opinion great, but I feel like a lot of people are really stretching words beyond their meaning to paint opponents of our current government negatively.

Could you please post some proof of the white supremacy? Other than the liberals saying so. Tamara, (one of the organizers) is metis, From all the footage I have seen on CPAC and social media, the convoy was all ethnicities. The lady that got trampled by horses was mohawk native, Lots of Muslim, black and native participants. Explain how they can be part of white supremacy.  
By the way, if you do some research you will find that Patrick Brown has been disqualified from running in politics a few times for breaking campaign rules.

There are extremist people on the far right and the far left. Extremism itself is what needs to be rooted out. The democratic system of voting is the only way forwards . Calls to protest, disruption or non democratic behaviour will only further extremist causes and achieve nothing.  
Today on my morning walk my daughter and I were disappointed to note that a homeowner had erected one of those signs “ expletive Trudeau” a classic extremist measure. Whatever your views of a politician (and I am not a particular fan) I find this distasteful behaviour and not becoming of a civilized society. Whatever one’s views I still believe that a serving prime minister should receive the respect that the office commands and the town should remove such material. The way to achieve change is at the ballot box.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2022-07-07 13:03:53

A few people asked for clarity on my comment about conservatives morphing into fascism, and some asked for sources of proof of white supremacy at the "Freedom Rallies".  
 
I am not a sociologist, so I cannot speak as eloquently as others on the topic but instead I'll provide two fairly candid definitions of fascism that I think are relevant here.  
 
First, Ernst Nolte (german historian) defined fascism as the "rejection of modernity", in all that it encompasses: the rejection of liberalism, of marxist ideologies, of progressiveness, and paradoxically you could even say capitalism. Check out "Fascism in Its Epoch" if you want to learn more about he has to say.  
 
Second, Umberto Eco (an italian philosopher), who listed 14 generalized fascist properties:  
 
(1)The cult of tradition, (2) the rejection of modernism, (3) the cult of 'action for action sake', (4) disagreement is treason, (5) fear of difference, (6) appeal to a frustrated middle class, (7) obsession with a plot (this is a huge one: we've been told over the course of the pandemic - almost entirely by right wing pundits - that there is a plot or conspiracy afoot), (8) casting their enemies as either too strong or too weak (whichever whips up fervor more), (9) pacifism is compliance with the enemy and there must be perpetual conflict to weed out the weak, (10) contempt for the weak, (11) machismo (extreme patriarchal values, firmly set gender roles), (12) selective populism, (13) newspeak (Think Orwell's "1984" as an example), and (14) the idea of everyone being a hero and dying for the greater good, as it were. This plays nicely into hyper nationalism.  
 
I would recommend every reader of this thread compares these two definitions against what we see as general trends and themes amongst the conservatives (and PPC) here in Canada, and world wide.  
 
Lastly, someone asked for proof of white supremacy at the Ottawa protests. Here you go:  
 
White Power Music label -

White Power Music Label - Band is from South Ontario #FluKluxKlan https://t.co/lfukIi2nX2

&mdash: Mike Smith (@projectsmith) January 29, 2022

 
 
Conservative MP with Swastika flag in the background -

From CBC: Edmonton MP on Parliament Hill handing out coffee to protestors, with upside-down Canadian flag with swastika in background. Disgraceful. #FluTruxKlan #FluTrucksKlan #KarenKonvoy pic.twitter.com/RoU2tmh2Kl

&mdash: Barre Campbell (@bgrantcampbell) January 29, 2022

 
 
Nazi Flag with a maple leaf -

I believe this flag is used by a particular group, but I can':t put my finger on who. Anyone have any idea? pic.twitter.com/vEu37ybooe

&mdash: Justin Ling (@Justin_Ling) January 30, 2022

 
 
Group of transphobic protesters -

Nothing says ":grassroots campaign to end vaccine mandates": like professionally-made transphobia placards. Via @TheCanuckMD pic.twitter.com/G4DvflHSOI

&mdash: Michelle Cohen, MD (@DocMCohen) January 30, 2022

 
 
Nazi flags: https://imgur.com/a/0R0LX59  
 
Nazi stylized sowilo runes / "schutzstaffel": https://imgur.com/a/xLRfEm6  
 
More "white power" music labels: https://i.imgur.com/AKp9Dq7.png  
 
More nazi flags: https://imgur.com/a/fjL6A1T  
 
An alternative nazi flag: https://i.imgur.com/x4TWsVx.jpeg  
 
Pierre Poilievre, the conservative front runner, was very supportive of a movement that supported this.  
 
Let me be very clear:  
 
If you are involved with a movement that does not openly condemn and immediately revoke nazis, you are part of a nazi movement.  
 
Conservatives were all to happy to capitalize on this movement, and they will capitalize on further movement.  
 
Edited by MotorCycleMan, 2022-07-07 18:41:14

I think that you need to think very carefully before you openly call ordinary hard working people “Nazi’s” or otherwise just because they don’t openly speak out against such.  
Most of us speak with our vote.

I am not calling ordinary hard working people nazis. I am saying many hard working people supported a movement which had nazis within it's ranks. If such a movement attracts such people, and politicians endorse such a movement, it may be time to ask some hard questions about what that means. It's important to critically analyze these things, and it may make some uncomfortable.  
 
Edited by MotorCycleMan, 2022-07-07 18:42:42

While I vehemently disagree with any use of Nazi symbols/flags, upside down Canadian flags, My interpretation of the use of such fascist symbols was that the protesters were calling out our current government as being fascist, not that they support fascist movements. Either way I feel like the use discredits what ever argument you are making.  
 
I don't think the CPC or any of it's members actually thinks Fascism is where we want to go. I think talking to the protestors was just doing their job of hearing all Canadians voices. I don't think alienating any group benefits anyone. "When something bothers me, I try to learn about it." - Daryl Davis.  
 
If you have time to watch a few videos about Daryl Davis I'd highly recommend.  
 
Per wikipedia "Daryl Davis (born March 26, 1958) is an American R&B and blues musician and activist.[1] His efforts to fight racism, in which, AS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN, he has engaged with members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), have convinced a number of Klansmen to leave and denounce the KKK"

So if a small group showed up with a rainbow colored flag would that have made the entire group a LGBTQ movement?

The whistleblower was from Browns campaign office she came forward and identified herself in light off all the controversy.  
 
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/whistleblower-says-patrick-brown-arranged-her-payment-by-third-party-company-1.5979115  
 
Edited by Mac72, 2022-07-08 09:11:33

But you need to analyze the very words that you wrote because that is exactly what was implied.  
You also used a previous post to promote unrest and disruptive behaviour as a method to disrupt the current democratic system. That is completely unacceptable.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2022-07-08 09:20:05

It is about tolerating oppression in our community. Any activist and all politicians who stand by and allow groups who represent oppression such a those spewing nazi, white supremacy agenda opens the door for tolerating these movements. If the trucker convoy aka Freedom Convoy really stood for freedom of rights they would have cancelled the rally the minute they knew these groups were joining the rally or they would have had the police remove these groups from their rally. And especially Pierre Poilievre absolutely never never never should have supported the rally as this raises the question if he tolerates and supports these violent movements. IMO this ruins his credibility.  
The minute we all turn a blind eye to oppressive groups, groups who represent intolerance for the differences in our community, groups who use violence, guns to make their point .... then it shows tolerance for those groups. You allow these groups to join your rally then you allow the oppressive voice, violent groups to grow, gain membership by brainwashing people.  
 
in your example of LGBTQ movement - that movement is about live and let live. It is about acceptance of LGBTQ people to have the same rights as everyone else. There is no comparison here.

I'd like to point readers of the thread who suggest there is a middle ground or tolerance needed for the extremist elements of the freedom convoy (and indeed the foundational leaders - Pat King, one of the prime organizers, has been openly involved with white supremacist groups) to Karl Popper's "Paradox of Intolerance".  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance  
 
Alternatively, I've attached a short infograph if Wikipedia isn't your thing.  
 
If the idea of being considered associated with nazis and/or white supremacists makes one uncomfortable, this is a good thing. There must be no tolerance for white supremacist or fascist ideology in society. There is no middle ground to be had. You cannot co-exist with nazis and white supremacists. And if one finds themselves involved in something that also i:ncludes these types of people, it is imperative to closely examine why that is. There needs to be unanimous condemnation of white supremacists from all parties and affiliations, but as of late there have been political safe havens for them. That concerns me deeply.  
 
As for your other point, I advised direct action. This can take many forms including protests and walk outs, or it can be more passive, like unionizing work places (a bit tangential to the topic at hand, admittedly) or forming mutual aid groups. These are all entirely legal. Unionizing your work place is disruptive to capital profit to benefit the worker. Protests are disruptive to the status quo to shine light on issues that need to be addressed. That's the point. Civil disobedience is necessary.  
 
Democracy is intended to serve the people, the people are not intended to serve it.  
 
All of this to say that the conservative parties direction and leadership seems to be more and more focused on retaining the votes of this extremist base, as I initially stated. Luckily they remain a minority, but this is not always the case. Too much tolerance can lead to intolerance. I am concerned given Poilievre's tactics and, given our last election, the surge in popularity of the PPC in this area of the country. The conservative voting base of Canada for a long time has been centered around CPC, but PPC has shown they can hemorrhage votes. What will CPC do to possibly win those votes back? Where does that take the party? What kind of leadership do they require?  
 
Edited by MotorCycleMan, 2022-07-08 12:26:04

Civil disobedience had absolutely no place in a tolerant, democratic, civilized society and should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.

But I suspect history would disagree with you.  
 
https://rebellion.global/blog/2020/11/03/civil-disobedience-examples/  
 
IMO the key point to make is that any protest should be peaceful and not oppress others. It should also be done with respectful practice. There are times when government either due to recent policy changes or past outdated racists/adverse environmental policies, need to be changed and sometimes change comes through protest. This sometimes is the only way to push for change and make your voice heard. Sometimes civil disobedience results in an law being broken. Usually it is a law that is deemed immoral and oppressive.  
 
The blockades on the borders along with the trucker convoy was oppressive, people disrespected those living in the area, there was an organized group deliberately focused on who knows what?? possibly to bringing the government down, blocking trade routes and the presence of guns/violence. This is not civil disobedience. This is anarchy, chaos and oppressive. This is wrong and why I started this thread about the Conservative leadership race.  
 
A democracy can exist with the right to protest,

"A democracy can exist with the right to protest, "  
 
Can a democracy even exist without the right to protest? If protests aren't allowed, doesn't that start treading into the territory of something else?  
 
I'm not versed in political science, but logic would seem to suggest that it's a founding and critical factor in democracy.  
 
I agree with everything you say, but I'm wondering if the line between civil disobedience and anarchy can only be drawn in retrospect. The extremes on both sides is easy to identify, but there's a whole lotta grey in the middle.

Where the line is drawn for me is when an agenda oppresses or hurts a person to the benefit of another. I am a strong believer in live and let live. That we do not have a right to judge another person based on race, religion or lifestyle choices. I believe in the strength in diversity. Though it is human nature to judge others based on our own life perspective. As long as we temper those judgements with tolerance and awareness of our own biases.  
 
Anyone who goes into politics should be highly aware of where their own biases stand, be willing to set those biases aside for the good of all. Something not often found if ever.

Your reply has prompted another question lol. Does the harm someone is protesting against have to real, or can it be a perceived harm?  
 
Lots of people caught up in the Freedom Convoy/Yellow Vest movement legitimately believe they are being socially/economically harmed and their freedoms are being restricted. Is that enough to make a protest legitimate? Most is based on disinformation, but does that matter if they are sincerely held beliefs?  
 
I'm finding this discussion fascinating and is making me wonder about my own biases..

You want to protest? Protest, but don't affect anyone else. Follow noise bylaws, don't block traffic, don't make a nuisance. As well, protesting anything is acceptable, but one of the aims of the February event was the dissolution of the democratically-elected government. Don't like JT? Get in line, but find a solution (like finding an electable, sane alternative) to run against the Liberals. Asking convoy supporters who they wanted to replace Trudeau as PM (name of person) was the fastest way to end any conversation with them.

Reason for protesting? Real harm versus perceived harm: based on facts versus disinformation.  
 
I worked in healthcare for almost 30 yrs. The recommendations I made for my clients were all based on the most up to date research available. the only other option is to promote unproven treatments creates chaos, potential to harm the individual. I would be liable, lose my license and rightly so.  
 
Does this not apply to every one though? If a person or group is going to protest, they do so to affect change, to make their voices, their agenda heard. These people may also take other routes such as becoming involved in government policy development, advocating with local governments and education of the general population etc, If you are going to do that, what benefit is all that effort for some perceived harm or based on misinformation? In my opinion a person or group who intends on protesting any issue better make sure they got their facts straight. For myself I do not see any benefit in protesting because you believed your rights were taken away when in fact they were not. In my view this person needs more education on what their rights are, what the government has the right to do for the safety of the whole population etc.  
 
On the other hand if someone or group wants to use their time to stand on a street corner, in front of the parliament buildings and peacefully picket over a perceived harm or based on misinformation, who am I to say they can't. This is a democracy.

This is one of 3 major political parties. If they get into power then their main agenda had better be based on facts and for the betterment of our country. Not based on misinformation and perceived harm that leads to oppression, authoritarian policies. That only mirrors trumpism and goes the way of US politics.

"Canada Freedom Protest" had many wanting Trudeau arrested for Treason, but can never explain what treason is. Or for other crimes that that make zero sense. They came up with some weird plan to get the Governor General to remove Trudeau and install people they want, like in a coup.  
 
Think they say it's treasonous because Canada is working with China. But Canada kinda has to after Harper signed a 32 year trade deal with China.  
 
Conservatives don't want Chrest because he's not Conservative enough for them. Yet Chrest is likely the one that appeals to most of Canada.

That is a narrative many on the far right are using to bash any o:bjection to their way of thinking. It is becoming comical it is so predictable.  
 
IMO Charest will be quiet in his leadership, attempt to unit the Conservative party. Has the best chance to become next PM. While Poilievre will be disruptive, alienate party members. Doubtful the voters on the east of Canada will vote him in as PM.