Notwithstanding Poilievre

Cards facing up on the table; I value compassion, conversation, collaboration; I abhor competition, collusion, and condescension. Call me wimpy; it’s what has worked best for me over the years. Readers of this blog are well aware that my own politics lean progressive and left, so a criticism of the Canadian federal opposition leader Pierre Poilievre will surprise no one. My chief and present concern however, is Mr. Poilievre’s appeal to, and engagement with far right and extremist elements of the Canadian political landscape.

Previously this territory belonged to the People’s Party of Canada and its dashingly handsome leader, a former conservative himself, Maxine Bernier. Echoing the Mike Harris (1995-2002) Ontario conservatives banner of “common sense” Bernier continues to pick away at the mainline right with limited success. A new and growing alliance between Poilievre and other leading conservatives now sups with and endorses the antics of an extreme populous right that looks more like a biker gang. The former seems tame in comparison and is now eclipsed by the latter, and no, I don’t mean “latter day saints.”

In Conservatives are emboldening violent extremists Soon-to-retire Charlie Angus (NDP) describes the shifting political landscape well. “The extremist fringe must feel over the moon. Thanks to recent actions by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, they have moved from the fringe to the very heart of political debate in Canada. It began with a ringing endorsement of Poilievre’s leadership by the hate agitator Alex Jones. This was followed by a blockade appearance where our would-be prime minister posed by a protest trailer adorned with defaced Canadian flags and the extremist Diagolon symbol.”

Canadian conservatives have often proposed forceful measures especially around crime and punishment prior to Poilievre and his team. Recent events have made their growing ambitions and questionable strategy increasingly clear. They are building new alliances to strengthen their position, with anyone who might amplify their influence. Angus: “Poilievre knows exactly what he is doing. The Conservatives are the one party to understand the powerful and distorting influence of the conspiracy fringe on the Canadian political scene. And they have put a lot of effort into exploiting its dark energy.”

This strategy has a name: the “politics of intimidation, something we see playing an increasingly toxic role in Canadian political life,” a trend we mostly repudiate in US politics, except, that, well some welcome the same gutter politics here in “our home on native land.”

Writing in the Winnipeg Free Press Tom Brodbeck queries how far Poilievre will go to grasp power, and what will come after (unless something changes) the likely election. He plans to use the charter notwithstanding clause to make exemptions possible, initially regarding bail conditions.

“The question now is, how far would Poilievre go in denying Canadians their fundamental rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? He plans to start with bail. But what other rights might he target to further his hard-right political agenda? Protection against unreasonable search or seizure? Arbitrary detention? Cruel and unusual punishment?”

“The list of charter rights subject to the notwithstanding clause is long. It includes Sec. 2, which contains basic rights such as ‘freedom of conscience and religion’ and ‘freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media of communication.’ The list is long and broad. “It also covers Sec. 7-15, which includes one of the most fundamental judicial rights: ‘To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.’”

If Poilievre is now an icon for authoritarianism, conservative supporters face a real quandary. Are they/you prepared to accept such a strategy as a gateway to government and power?  Do populist, authoritarian alliances, despite their questionable, even objectionable, and sometimes illegal practices justify an electoral end. And if elected, allowing a conservative government to move in a more authoritarian direction, what comes next? This would not be the first time an administration got drunk on power. Ask Benjamin Netanyahu how things are going politically in the Holy Land. Ask Boris Johnson, an enthusiastic supporter of Poilievre, that infamous author of Brexit—things not looking so good at home now Boris.

Charlie Angus gives this new alliance another name: the “rage machine . . . The people behind it come from a unique sense of entitlement. They can impose their will because they didn’t like the results of the last election, and they are willing to go where no one would have gone before. Their favourite conspiracy bugaboos — the World Economic Forum, New World Order, the woke “communist” agenda — are regularly validated and amplified by the Conservative benches.

One does wonder what conservatives stand for these days—apart from hating Trudeau and quips like “axe the tax” (three short words which fit well on a T-shirt while lacking a coherent and robust climate action policy). One wonders if there are any “red Tories” left? Where are those on the right who tend to favour communitarian social policies, while maintaining a degree of fiscal discipline and a respect of social and political order.” [Wiki] Was Joe Clark the last of a dying breed?

Lest you think that such increasing authoritarianism is unique to federal benches, consider the threat to democracy named by Jared Wesley in THE TYEE. Wesley asks the same question, this time in a provincial context: “How much of a shift toward authoritarianism are we willing to accept? Where do we draw the line between politics as usual and anti-democratic activities?”

Let’s hear from conservatives; please. Are you prepared to endorse this new politics on the right? Will you still vote conservative notwithstanding Poilievre? Or will you park your vote elsewhere? Will you write your MLA (from any party) and express concern; better still, request an in-person or zoom meeting? Canadian parties are whipped in parliament and legislatures which is problematic; it’s hard to believe that individual constituents have any real influence. That said, if we give up, if we abandon our democratic rights all is lost. The circumstances of our lives will be dictated totally by others. Not a state in which I want to live and move, and likely not your preference either.

.