The exploitation of people in precarious housing situations, and/or people with drug addictions, and/or the combination of both is certainly a concern. I have some idea how the encampment sweeps work, how they begin by infiltrating the camps, working with people to try and help them. But I’m not sure how breaking the camps up and sending people out into the weather and more uncertainty helps.

The guy in this story says he lost both his legs due to a sweep like this in the past: https://livewirecalgary.com/2023/08/29/photos-calgary-police-social-agencies-sweep-long-term-encampment-in-the-southeast/

Anyway, Smith goes to a fancy private club to boast about how many homeless people she pushes around to the richest people in town. This is classic conservatism, working for the wealthy against the poor, guaranteeing the rich the lowest taxes nessecary to persecute the unhoused, perpetuating the class hierarchy and gloating about it.

Fear and anxiety is what this folks living and working in Ottawa were feeling.

So this would be pretty close to what we have now, but with so much social housing people wouldn’t have to worry about being homeless. Like a basic income, but for houses.

Can you help me understand what a non-commodified housing system looks like? Does everyone live in social housing or is there just a lot of social housing with a secondary open market? Are there restrictions on investing in housing, such as you may only own 1 home or maybe 2? I’m just trying to get my head around it.

I think it’s more a clarification than a walk back. They aren’t going to grow the road system, but road maintenance and safety upgrades were never on the chopping block.

Basically no more “one more lane bro”

I don’t disagree at all, but I do want to caution that as people who support changes in where investment money goes we have to make sure that “big city” changes like high speed rail aren’t all we talk about. The opponents have a good talking point regarding people who drive 10,20,50 km to work not having access to bus or rail. Yes, that is often the fault of those provincial leaders not investing in it, but it doesn’t change the criticism. We need to make sure we are investing in rural provinces and suburban areas to make public transport preferable in those areas too. Especially town to town transport or we won’t win rural support.

This is something I support for many reasons. Firstly, they don’t help reduce congestion over the long run. The fundamental law of congestion, which has been supported by evidence over and over for more than 50 years, says:

people drive more when the stock of roads in their city increases; commercial driving and trucking increase with a city’s stock of roads; and people migrate to cities that are relatively well provided with roads

Changes to transport infrastructure like investing in bus systems, subways do much more to relieve congestion anyway. Everyone benefits from improved air quality.

Do I need to mention climate change?

We only have so much money to invest, I say we put it into the most effective areas.

It’s an outward expression of Conservative hierarchical values (I rant about this too much maybe…). Conservatives conserve the traditional hierarchies of society, for example God over man, men over women, straight over lgb, white over PoC, self over society, rich over poor etc. For them, people listening to Greta represents a perversion of the traditional hierarchy. Why would they listen to a young woman, advising the betterment of society? She’s not an older man, she’s not saying get rich and think of yourself, she occupies a low spot in multiple hierarchies so she must be wrong. But it isn’t enough for her to be wrong, she needs to be dominated because that’s how hierarchies work, the higher levels dominate the lower. Sexual violence is one of the classic forms of human dominance, so they don’t imagine beating her in an argument, they imagine raping her into submission instead.

I didn’t tell you to ride your bike to the grocery store in - 30 weather, because that would be a very stupid thing to tell someone to do. I don’t know who you are arguing with. I’m saying that you likely don’t have very frequent days below - 30, and that this is information that can be looked up.

I do this because I usually see this idea, the frequency of days below 30, used as an escape valve against electric cars. The realty is though, that the cars work in that weather and that those days are rare, so I don’t like to let the frequency claim go unchallenged and speak up when I see it to help ensure people think critically about the claim when they see it.

Unchallenged claims become memes, which can be indistinguishable from truth for a lot of people.

Oh, and the “I’ll fix her with my dick” attitude and violence is something lesbians, bisexual and trans people are already very familiar with, unfortunately.

The argument is so normalized in those ‘free speech’ conservative spaces / social media circles that sometimes it bubbles into the physical world as stickers being handed out at oil company functions.

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/au/entry/greta-thunberg-sticker-canada-oil_au_5e5c5c2ac5b6450a30c0da9b

Oh, this story is from when she was a minor. The sticker is not custom either, it’s taken straight from a sexually abusive meme about her that I will not find and share here, but that I have seen.

If you want to know the general meme format, click through the spoiler tag

I don’t know why, but people saying it very regularly gets to - 30 really grinds my gears because we record the temperature, we know exactly how many days a year are like that. I think we have different ideas of ‘very frequently’, I’m curious how many days a year you think very frequently is.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/cold-weather-snap-saskatchewan-1.4997353

Edit: Just FYI, I’m not griping at the rest of your comment at all, not really addressing it, it’s just that one thing.

Same thing happened here in PEI.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-politics-prime-minister-hate-filled-comments-1.6535354

Conservatives react to Trudeau at a pub by flooding it with misogynistic sexually abusive and violent language aimed at the wait staff.

I mean, this newest happening isn’t a shock, this is the rape Greta until she is happy about climate change group, the women don’t deserve bodily autonomy group, not surprising at all given their long history with this gross behaviour and mindset.

The worst part is how normalized it has become among conservative politicians and supporters. I expect more and more of it because the Conservatives actively stoke this at worst, turn a blind eye at best. Will Pierre condemn it? Or should we expect him in a picture with these people next week?

On this court decision, all Pierre would say is he supports the “principle” of indigenous autonomy.

But his entire party voted against this bill, they spent the debates rambling on about it being unconstitutional and falling under provincial jurisdiction, and now that is has unanimously been found 100% constitutional all he has to say is the same stuff he was saying in 2019.

Take note, he’d of done nothing on this file and if he had his way this legislation would never have been passed.

Journalists should be asking Pierre if he thinks minors should be able to get abortion services without parental consent. Let’s see him square that circle with his smarmy face.

He is just about there now calling this Trudeau’s ‘radical ideology’

Good news is we have those checks and balances already. Since 2009 Canada has recognized the right of minors to obtain or decline health care services on their own or over the objection of their parents. This is the mature minor doctrine and it was settled in the Supreme Court.

In most jurisdictions, medical professionals and other licensed practitioners determine if the person seeking care can give informed consent or rejection of a procedure (including full understanding of the consequences, sound mind, etc) before performing it. This means doctors and patients determine the course of care and make private medical decisions.

In Pierre’s world, and Danielle’s world, they know better than doctors and patients and would deny care, which we know for a fact leads to suicidal ideation in trans teens. Pierre doesn’t care about that, he literally doesn’t care if these kids die because they can’t get the care they need as long as he can make a wedge out of it. The fucking nerve of Pierre to call this a distraction.

Poilievre called trans health care “a divisive wedge” that’s being used by the Liberal government to “distract…”

Classic Poilievre, disagree with him on the state banning life saving medical care and you’re the one being divisive and causing distractions.

I’m honestly sick of people like Pierre calling everything that isn’t about dollars a distraction, there is more to life than money, like human rights and healthcare for example, the things he wants to trample all over.

Everyone should notice the implication here, Pierre will not stop the provinces from interfering in private medical decisions.

What right do Canadian women hold currently that could be put at risk by this kind of weak federal attitude? What right have Conservatives worked to deny women in the past, and is currently the target of active pressure groups?

Abortion, of course, the answer is abortion.

Everyone should notice the deeper implications here, Pierre will not stop the provinces from interfering in private medical decisions.

What right do Canadian women hold currently that could be put at risk by this kind of weak federal attitude? What right have Conservatives worked to deny women in the past, and is currently the target of active pressure groups?

Abortion, of course, the answer is abortion.