Poilievre tells Winnipeg Jewish Review in an exclusive interview that he will defund all those with a Woke Anti-semitic Agenda

[Moonlight Graham]

On 12/25/2024 at 10:56 PM, CdnFox said:

Poilievre tells Winnipeg Jewish Review in an exclusive interview that he will defund all those with a Woke Anti-semitic Agenda

Woah!  Including universities, museums and any group that receives federal funding! 

He re-iterated that he plans to “defund” all “those who are imposing a radical, terrifying, toxic ideology” and this will apply to “everything that the federal government controls.” He stated “I will fire government officials throughout my administration who are imposing a toxic woke ideology.”  

Poilievre said under a future Poilievre administration, “there will be a crackdown on all terrorist networks that Trudeau has allowed on our streets.” He said that laws would be passed that give serious consequences to those involved in perpetuating radicalism in our streets. “We will also screen incoming immigrants” to Canada to ensure that they "have no terrorist links, "he added.

 

Holy shit!  That's going to ruffle a few feathers i suspect. 

This sounds fantastic.  Racial and sexual discrimination etc have no place in our society.

My only issue is that governments shouldn't be censoring university professors.  However, if PP means woke hiring and admissions practices based on things like race, sex etc then that may be ok.  We should protect academic freedom though.  Bad ideas should be fought with better ideas within universities.

I'm not really sure how much or if colleges/universities get federal funding since education is a provincial domain.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

On 12/26/2024 at 11:01 AM, ironstone said:

More than one trillion in debt and the Liberals keep blowing past their estimated budget deficits.

A massive expansion of the public service.

Maybe we are long overdue for some serious spending reduction(not cuts).

They'll call it the boogie-man "austerity"!

[Moonlight Graham]

14 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Woke is an imaginary word, that the alt-right uses to describe any person that has a difference of opinion. 

The left made up the word "woke".

[Moonlight Graham]

13 hours ago, I am Groot said:

It might mean nothing to you that job hiring and promotion is based on race. It might mean nothing to you that criminal sentencing is based on race. It might mean nothing to you that government programs, grants and benefit programs are based on race. That universities and schools teach young people that Canada is a horrific land of oppression, racism, homophobia, transphobia and islamophobia, or that its entire history can be written off as genocide, colonial evil and racism. It might mean nothing to you that our streets are clogged with jew-hating terrorist lovers the police won't touch because left-wing politicians are afraid it might cost them votes. It might mean nothing to you that every foreign ethnic. racial and religious group in Canada is awarded grants by the government to celebrate themselves while Canadians are told to shut the f*ck up and not offend anyone.

But it bothers a very highly significant number of Canadians.

Great post.

And yes, we're supposed to just STFU when discrimination and double-standards based on things like race, sex etc are happening in virtually every large organization across the country.  GTFO.

[NAME REMOVED]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The left made up the word "woke".

It has been around for decades. It was slang for "awake" in the Black community, meaning they were aware of their social situation, and wanted to be progressive to improve things, during thee civil rights movement.

Today, it means nothing, since it has been hijacked by the far right, to describe adversaries in a negative connotation. Yet, no one can give a clear, and precise definition.

Edited December 28, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This sounds fantastic.  Racial and sexual discrimination etc have no place in our society.

The liberal government didn't feel that way

Quote

My only issue is that governments shouldn't be censoring university professors.  However, if PP means woke hiring and admissions practices based on things like race, sex etc then that may be ok.  We should protect academic freedom though.  Bad ideas should be fought with better ideas within universities.

I think he's mostly concerned that some universities have been allowing and even promoting hate speech towards jews. 

Quote

I'm not really sure how much or if colleges/universities get federal funding since education is a provincial domain.

Well they do provide some:

In 2021/2022, Canadian universities received $4.6 billion from the federal government, which was an 18.8% decrease from the previous year.

But they can also hold back provincial funding of an amount equal to what the universities are getting from the provinces. 

So not nothing. 

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

I think you are not aware of how the Canadian political system works. Unlike how the political climate of America is, where everything is Republican vs Democrats, left vs right, etc, etc, Canada has a system where we allow multiple parties to run. I choose the best candidate. Unlike the MAGA hyenas, who are convinced there are "only" two choices.

There ARE only two choices. After the next election, either the Liberal or the Conservative will be Prime Minister. 

And taking pride in defining yourself as 'not american' is really so quaint. It harkens back to the days when Canadians considered themselves better than American. And I don't think that's the case any longer.

15 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

You seem like a novice at politics, believe it or not, there was a time not too long ago (2015 and before), where one could vote for the candidate who best represented their predicament, and not have to worry about people with an "us vs them" mentality. 

I don't worry about 'us vs them'. Politics is the art of choosing the possible. And as there are never any good candidates, I vote for the least worst candidate. Compared to what else is being offered right now it's very difficult to logically argue that's not Poilievre. 

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

My only issue is that governments shouldn't be censoring university professors.  However, if PP means woke hiring and admissions practices based on things like race, sex etc then that may be ok.  We should protect academic freedom though.  Bad ideas should be fought with better ideas within universities.

The idea of academic freedom is nice, in theory. It hasn't existed in reality for quite some time, though. Repeated surveys have demonstrated that universities hire people like them, with their beliefs, their ideology. As such, the staff at these institutions are mostly left and far left. And if anyone is on the right, they keep their mouth shut if they know what's good for them.

The twisting of the curriculum in a wide variety of courses, esp liberal arts courses, in order to push that same ideological world-view is a major part of 'woke'. It's what indoctrinates the young and impressionable with CENSORED world-views like cultural relativism and post-modernism that taught that everyone was the same, every culture the same, every group the same. Why would you feel any sense of pride in your country when every country is the same, when no country, no people, no culture were better than any other?

Of course, some could be worse than others: Ours.

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I'm not really sure how much or if colleges/universities get federal funding since education is a provincial domain.

Student loans are one way. Oh, you're taking gender studies? We're not giving you a grant or loan for that, sorry. Federal grants are also given to universities for a wide variety of scientific, technical and social studies, all of which now require extensive information regarding DEI. You have to tell them how many of those involved in your group are of the favoured identity groups, for example, and how your study will further the interests of equity and inclusion.

7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Today, it means nothing, since it has been hijacked by the far right, to describe adversaries in a negative connotation. Yet, no one can give a clear, and precise definition THAT I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT.

FTFY

[NAME REMOVED]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

There ARE only two choices.

Last time I checked, there were several parties on the ballot. CPC, LPC, NDP, Green, PPC, etc.

[CITIZEN_2015]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Lies are what the left use to describe any word they don't like

You realize that's what Christina Freeland said about Justin and the liberals right now.

The hypocrisy is insane.

Yes Justin Trudeau is also after power, self interest and without having the interest of the country, the nation or the party in mind. Trudeau must go. Right now,

[CITIZEN_2015]

20 hours ago, I am Groot said:

 

His 'hidden agenda' is a conspiracy theory of the Left you seem to have swallowed whole. I trust it tastes good?

Then why all he does is to criticize the government (which is mostly true) without offering alternatives as how he is going to fix grave issues facing the country? What is he going ro do with immigration (be blunt as Trump was). Is he going to deport 4.9 million illegals he announced last week are in Canada. How he is going to resolve housing crisis? How many government workers he is going to lay off? How much and where he is going to cut? Health? Social programs? 

Edited December 28, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[Legato]

38 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Then why all he does is to criticize the government (which is mostly true) without offering alternatives as how he is going to fix grave issues facing the country? What is he going ro do with immigration (be blunt as Trump was). Is he going to deport 4.9 million illegals he announced last week are in Canada. How he is going to resolve housing crisis? How many government workers he is going to lay off? How much and where he is going to cut? Health? Social programs? 

You don't give the enemy your invasion plans just before an invasion.

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

You don't give the enemy your invasion plans just before an invasion.

This is not an invasion. This is an ELECTION. The way it works in  democracies like Canada is that each party announces its platform as what they would do if they are elected to government and how they would tackle issues facing the country and then the nation listens to them and based on those platforms would decide whom to cast their votes for. 

Edited December 28, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Then why all he does is to criticize the government (which is mostly true) without offering alternatives as how he is going to fix grave issues facing the country? 

Because that is absolutely 100% not how our system works.

The government's job is to propose and then the opposition criticizes. The theory is that this will lead the government to strengthen its positions and improve its policy to be more resistant to criticism and therefore the country gets better policy.

But this is not rule by committee. While opposition hardee's can bring legislation to the table if they feel that something has been grossly missed, by and large the policy is for the federal government to propose and enact. If you don't like it then you throw them out at the next election.

During the election is when the parties come forward and say how they would handle things moving forward. And the parties are also judged on their performance, for the government on their performance for delivering the things that Canadians wanted, and the opposition is judged on whether or not they were correct and their criticisms given the results.

It is absolutely against our entire system for the opposition to be coming forward and making suggestions about how to do things differently when it comes to policy.

Just now, CITIZEN_2015 said:

This is not an invasion. This is an ELECTION.

Yes. An election is a confrontational system whereby both parties compete. That is how the system is designed. And you absolutely do not give away your information before the election. No party does.

Have you seen the NDP release their platform? No?

How about the liberals? Where's their policy plans for the next 4 years? Pretty much non-existent.

You announce your platform during the election. Is there currently an election in progress? No? Then what the hell are you whining about?

[CITIZEN_2015]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because that is absolutely 100% not how our system works.

The government's job is to propose and then the opposition criticizes. The theory is that this will lead the government to strengthen its positions and improve its policy to be more resistant to criticism and therefore the country gets better policy.

But this is not rule by committee. While opposition hardee's can bring legislation to the table if they feel that something has been grossly missed, by and large the policy is for the federal government to propose and enact. If you don't like it then you throw them out at the next election.

During the election is when the parties come forward and say how they would handle things moving forward. And the parties are also judged on their performance, for the government on their performance for delivering the things that Canadians wanted, and the opposition is judged on whether or not they were correct and their criticisms given the results.

It is absolutely against our entire system for the opposition to be coming forward and making suggestions about how to do things differently when it comes to policy.

I  am not sure this is entirely true. After living in Canada for several decades I know criticizing  without offering an alternative solution is not the way to go. Remember thr famous RED book in 1993. We knew exactly what we were voting for.

Edited December 28, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I  am not sure this is entirely true. After living in Canada for several decades I know critiquing without offering an alternative solution is not the way to go. Remember thr famous RED book in 1993. We knew exactly what we were voting for.

the red book was all bullshit, so no

[CITIZEN_2015]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

How about the liberals? Where's their policy plans for the next 4 years? Pretty much non-existent.

You announce your platform during the election. Is there currently an election in progress? No? Then what the hell are you whining about?

As for Trudeau liberals, the policy is do nothing everybody knows that.

We will see if he is going to detail as how he will handle issues like immigration, housing crisis and health. Lets see if he deports 5 million illegals or how much exactly he will cut services and social programs vital to poor Canadians.

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

the red book was all bullshit, so no

It was not. Then everything you say is discredited. 

Edited December 28, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[Legato]

7 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It was not. Then everything you say is discredited. 

I think it is arguable that the Liberals failed to keep five of their six main Red Book promises in 1993, 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I  am not sure this is entirely true.

I am, and more importantly parliamentary historians are. Our system was designed to be a confrontational rather than cooperative one. 

Which doesn't mean parties can't work together from time to time but it is not the job of the opposition to run the gov't. 

Quote

After living in Canada for several decades I know criticizing  without offering an alternative solution is not the way to go.

After being born here and living for well  over half a century i know you're simply wrong.

Quote

Remember thr famous RED book in 1993. We knew exactly what we were voting for.

Sure, Erin O'toole did the same thing last election. And trudeau waited till Erin released it and basically stole everything from it and just added a bit. When erin promised a million dollars in housing spending, trudeau just said 1.2.  Even the liberals in 1993 said afterwards the red book was probably a mistake. 

However - the important part is that both were introduced... wait for it....  DURING THE ELECTION.   They were platform documents, not policy suggestions BEFORE the election. 

So at the end of the day you simply prove what i say to be true.  People release their platforms during the election, not before.  The handful of times people HAVE released it before the other guys have used that against them very effectively. 

And i'm also correct that the role of the opposition in between elections is ... perhaps unsurprisingly.... to oppose.  Not to offer suggestions but to point out weaknesses so that the gov't can address them OR fail to and be replaced. 

4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

As for Trudeau liberals, the policy is do nothing everybody knows that.

That's like saying that the conservatives policy is to do better, everyone knows that.

It's a glib answer that indicates that you realize that what you said was not correct and you can't defend it.

Maybe you should look at taking on the conservatives platform yourself  

[Gaétan]

That topic is enriched by Biden and Israel agents.

[I am Groot]

On 12/28/2024 at 10:49 PM, Gaétan said:

That topic is enriched by Biden and Israel agents.

I think you are secretly a Jew.

Admit it.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

I think you are secretly a Jew.

Admit it.

You remember those old star trek episodes where spock would disable computers by asking them to calculate Pi  to the last decimal place thus chewing up all their computational power?

I feel like that question may have been somewhat similar for him