Liberals were always and forever the radicals. Always quick to overrule sovereign rights.
CPC want to turn back the clock of overreach by the liberals and turn the government back into a representative rather than authoritative tyrannical socialist nanny state.
Only one party used excessive force in subjugation of Canadians and that is the liberals.
If the majority rule for a party, they have a mandate. A minority government propped up by a coalition is so rare in Canada.
Yes but currently the Liberals are in power. So if you desire a radical change in social or political norms then you my friend are indeed the radical. Violence really has nothing to do with it. Nor does perceptions of right or wrong. To a leftist traditional conservative values are not the norm, rather radical far right extremists views.
You can be Canadian and have a view of the party in power. Look at how radical Peter C Neumann and Trudeau Sr were to the Diefenbaker government.
They wrote many very contentious things about that government through Cite Libre and the Neumann articles. In Canada you aren't ruled by a party in power because the party is not the ruler of the land like a tyrant but serve the public sentiment. They need consensus amongst the parliament and Senate to form a series of laws to manage. If polls show the party has consensus of the people I would say it's a measure of the public support to lead in such a way.
The sentiment is key. Last I saw the liberals have lost the public will and are in a challenging position where any unconstitutional activities may lead to a new government deciding to take constitutional action and boomerang.
The radical discussion is more just a function of a method of words. Liberals want to paint their political enemies as radicals rather than compete in the politician sphere where they are losing the will of the people to govern.
Refering to their failures is not radical. Jailing and debanking your political enemies is if the actions are unconstitutional as was the case I noted.
CPC is the party of rebellion?
And so the pendulum swings.
https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP16CH1PA4LE.html
Liberals were always and forever the radicals. Always quick to overrule sovereign rights.
CPC want to turn back the clock of overreach by the liberals and turn the government back into a representative rather than authoritative tyrannical socialist nanny state.
Only one party used excessive force in subjugation of Canadians and that is the liberals.
If the majority rule for a party, they have a mandate. A minority government propped up by a coalition is so rare in Canada.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-judge-ruled-trudeaus-use-of-the-emergencies-act-unconstitutional-so-what-happens-next
Both cases for the emergency act are considered unconstitutional and is the definition of "radical".
The government had to rewrite the war measures act because of the way Trudeau Sr abused his power by a backdoor invocation.
Yes but currently the Liberals are in power. So if you desire a radical change in social or political norms then you my friend are indeed the radical. Violence really has nothing to do with it. Nor does perceptions of right or wrong. To a leftist traditional conservative values are not the norm, rather radical far right extremists views.
You can be Canadian and have a view of the party in power. Look at how radical Peter C Neumann and Trudeau Sr were to the Diefenbaker government.
They wrote many very contentious things about that government through Cite Libre and the Neumann articles. In Canada you aren't ruled by a party in power because the party is not the ruler of the land like a tyrant but serve the public sentiment. They need consensus amongst the parliament and Senate to form a series of laws to manage. If polls show the party has consensus of the people I would say it's a measure of the public support to lead in such a way.
The sentiment is key. Last I saw the liberals have lost the public will and are in a challenging position where any unconstitutional activities may lead to a new government deciding to take constitutional action and boomerang.
The radical discussion is more just a function of a method of words. Liberals want to paint their political enemies as radicals rather than compete in the politician sphere where they are losing the will of the people to govern.
Refering to their failures is not radical. Jailing and debanking your political enemies is if the actions are unconstitutional as was the case I noted.