this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
61 points (95.5% liked)

Canada

9519 readers
1007 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 55 points 5 days ago (2 children)

becoming the first Canadian prime minister to override Charter rights

We need to critically ask why this hasn’t been done before, and why this has never been used federally ever, before we go ahead and vote for a federal government that promises to override the charter.

Why are legislation and the Supreme Court not enough?

We also need to look at what the US looks like with their new rule by fiat approach, is that what we want here? A government that overrides the charter at any opportunity?

I’m not for murderers, I’m for using the tools in the system instead of breaking it.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I think Poilievre is also preying on people not understanding how our judicial system works. When someone is "eligible for Parole after 25 years" the key word is eligible. Our most heinous criminals will die in prison, but at a certain point, they have to right to go before the parole board, and I think that's a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago

Absolutely. It's beyond me why someone would be against a hearing taking place, considering a "no" would be practically guaranteed in cases like these.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago

He's counting on people not understanding how the judicial system works.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago

No kidding. Something like this should only be used when some unforeseen events happens, or to protect against abuse or emergencies.

Using it to correct a personal opinion, or worse to try and gain some votes, is absolutely disgraceful.