If Pierre Poilievre becomes prime minister he would threaten Canada’s Future

The last thing that Canada needs is to imitate the failures of our neighbor. Unfortunately, Pierre Poilievre is poised to take us in precisely that direction should he become prime minister.

By Fareed Khan

 

Canada, we need to talk — no sugar-coating, no half-measures. As we stand on the brink of another federal election, the future of our nation hangs in the balance. If we don’t pay attention to the risks that lie ahead, we might very well watch our country succumb to the same harmful ideology and political chaos sweeping across the United States under Donald Trump. So as we look at the options available to Canadians it should be noted that a vote for Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre is not a vote for change as he claims.  Rather, it is a direct invitation for Trumpism to take root in Canada.

Let’s look south at the transformation of American politics under Donald Trump. His return to the presidency of the US has ushered in an era defined by misinformation, corruption, extremism and chaos, all of which threaten the very fabric of democracy. Trump’s brand of populism seems to have captivated millions of Americans, leading them to embrace narratives detached from reality — ones that rationalizes hate and bigotry, dismantle democratic norms, and champion chaos. The last thing that Canada needs is to imitate the failures of our neighbour. Unfortunately, Pierre Poilievre is poised to take us in precisely that direction should he become prime minister.

Make no mistake, Poilievre is not your typical politician, he is a wannabe disciple of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) cult, despite claiming otherwise. He offers a brand of far-right conservatism that is distinctly American in its origins, while proposing policies that would corrode the very values Canadians hold dear. The political platform he has been pushing since he became Conservative leader appears less concerned with the welfare of ordinary Canadians and more aligned with the interests of wealthy elites and far right elements in Canada. Poilievre’s rhetoric about “freedom” is hollow since that freedom would only be for those who align with his world view.  But his policies would inevitably erode the rights of a vast majority of Canadians and dismantle policies and programs that sustain them.

There is also the matter of one of the cornerstones of Canadian identity – publicly funded healthcare – an issue on which Poilievre has signalled a willingness to embrace American-style privatization. His cozy relationships with those who champion profits over patient care should alarm anyone who believes that healthcare should be a universal right. Under his leadership, we may witness the slow deconstruction of Canada’s healthcare system as we know it, pushing us towards a society where access to quality care is determined by one’s ability to pay — a far cry from the equitable access that Canadians cherish.

Poilievre was also a very vocal supporter of the so-called “Freedom Convoy,” a movement that was a threat to our democratic institutions, which became synonymous with disinformation, extremism, and even white supremacy. Supporting such a divisive movement was not only a support for insurrection, because of their call to overthrow the federal government, it was also indicative of the dangerous ideology that he is likely to embrace should the Conservatives become the government. Canada cannot afford to have a leader who panders to extremists, racists and bigots who are willing to threaten the collective well-being of Canadians.

If you feel uneasy thinking about this trajectory, you’re not alone. The spectre of American politics is already casting a shadow over Canada. We are faced with the possibility of being engulfed by a divisive and fractious political culture — one where loyalty to a personality supersedes loyalty to principles and Canadian values. Under Poilievre’s watch Canada could find itself marooned in a cycle of misinformation and hyper partisan belligerence, much like what we see unfolding in the US.

Conversely, there is a viable alternative on the political horizon: Mark Carney, the former Bank of Canada governor. Carney embodies the qualities that Canada so desperately needs — a steady hand, intelligence, international experience, and, crucially, a commitment to preserving the integrity of our democracy. He could be the leader that will stand as a bulwark against the toxic influences that threaten to infiltrate our political landscape. Unlike Poilievre, he isn’t a disingenuous figure shouting about “wokeism” and denying the effects of climate change while giving blank cheques to elites.  Canada needs a serious leader for serious times and it looks like Carney might be that person.

Canadians are living through an inflection point in history, a time where we need leadership grounded in reality rather than deceptive and performative politics. Carney is someone who, based on his experience, seems to embody a grounded approach, and understands the complexities of a global economy. In his role as Bank of Canada governor he prioritized the needs of Canadians, and his recent public statements during the Liberal leadership campaign indicate that he is committed to safeguarding Canada’s sovereignty from the corrosive influence of American extremism. If we are to avoid the fate of our neighbours to the south then Carney appears to be the man for the job.

The stakes for Canada have never been higher, and Canadians have one shot to halt the encroachment of a Trump-like agenda into our government and politics. History has shown us the dangers of ignorance and complacency, and as we watch Americans deal with the erosion of their democracy and the destabilization of their institutions we must heed the lesson from their example and not allow ourselves to be lulled into a state of apathy or indifference.

So, as the next federal election looms, think carefully about the future you wish to forge for yourself, your family, and your country. A vote for Pierre Poilievre is a vote to endorse the very ideologies that are tearing the US apart. For the sake of our future we cannot afford to make such a grave error, and we must take note of what is happening to our southern neighbour, and reject any path that leads us in the direction of societal division, economic chaos, and despair.

Wake up, Canada. The time to act is now. Let's choose hope, integrity, and leadership that upholds our democratic values.  The future of our nation depends on it.

 

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

OP-ED -- Trump’s meeting with Zelensky was a display of abuse and sociopathy

Donald Trump’s attacks on Zelensky are an example of how he dehumanizes those who confront him.

 

By Fareed Khan

https://rabble.ca/politics/us-politics/trumps-meeting-with-zelensky-was-a-display-of-abuse-and-sociopathy/

 

The February 28 Oval Office meeting between US president Donald Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, a meeting which was broadcast to the world, was a reprehensible display of manipulation and psychological abuse that revealed the unvarnished ugliness and sociopathic personality of the man leading the world’s most powerful nation.

 

 
Observing the disconcerting dynamics of the meeting it becomes strikingly evident that Trump’s approach to Zelensky reflected a mindset reminiscent of abusers in toxic interpersonal relationships. The tactics employed were not merely diplomatic manoeuvres, but rather an approach that belittled, blamed, and bullied a leader who was advocating for his besieged nation.

One of the most troubling aspects of Trump’s approach was his blatant victim-blaming, which is a tactic rooted in abuse. At the heart of the meeting was Trump’s chilling dismissal of Zelensky’s plight as a leader defending his nation against aggression when he asserted, “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This statement encapsulates the pervasive nature of victim-blaming, a hallmark of abusive relationships. By placing the responsibility of Ukraine’s dire circumstances on Zelensky, Trump effectively stripped away the accountability that should be directed toward the aggressor in this scenario — Russia. This rhetorical tactic not only ignored the reality of Russian aggression but also reinforced a narrative that denied Zelensky agency in his own nation’s defence.

Another alarming moment came when US vice-president J.D. Vance insisted that Zelensky express gratitude for US support. He insisted that Zelensky say “thank you” for aid that had been provided, ignoring the fact that Zelensky has thanked the US publicly many times in the past, including during his address to a joint meeting of the US Congress on December 21, 2022. Forcing someone in a subordinate position to show appreciation for that which they desperately need is a manipulative tactic often employed by abusers. This coerced gratitude exemplifies a toxic relationship and positions Zelensky in a vulnerable space — suggesting that any criticism or assertion of agency by Zelensky would be met with accusations of ingratitude. By setting this stage, Trump was not fostering a partnership but rather establishing a power dynamic permeated by manipulation.

Peace, a concept traditionally hailed as a universal goal, was also twisted in this meeting to serve the interests of power. Trump claimed that Zelensky was “not ready for peace,” but in reality, what he meant was that Ukraine should capitulate to Russian demands. This tactic — substituting the idea of just peace with the notion of surrender — is a common manipulation strategy. In pressing for a twisted notion of peace, Trump was advocating for a situation that would leave Ukraine even more vulnerable, effectively portraying surrender as a viable alternative. Such a tactic is a common strategy used by abusers to manipulate their victims into accepting less than they deserve.

Throughout the meeting, Trump repeatedly asserted that Zelensky had “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” These statements are indicative of psychological tactics used by abusers to undermine their victims’ reality. By portraying Zelensky’s authority as nonexistent, Trump sought to establish dominance, rendering the Ukrainian leader a mere vassal dependent on American benevolence.

In an attempt to bargain, Trump not only targeted Zelensky but also devalued the lives of the Ukrainian people when he said, “If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying.” This reductionist viewpoint neglected the complex realities surrounding ceasefires in volatile conflicts, and ignored the reality that a deal without guarantees would set the stage for further Russian aggression and additional loss of Ukrainian life. In doing so, this comment belittled the Ukrainian lives lost in the conflict as mere collateral.

Trump’s frequent interruptions when Zelensky was speaking — exclaiming, “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” and “You’re not in a position to dictate to us” — further illustrated Trump’s intent to exert psychological pressure and control and reinforce a toxic power dynamic, rendering Zelensky’s perspective as inconsequential. Such behaviour is emblematic of abusive dynamics, wherein one party seeks to monopolize the conversation and diminish the contributions of the other. Trump’s blatant disregard for Zelensky’s attempts to advocate for his country signalled an effort to position himself as the only one concerned with seeking peace.

The idea that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy” uttered by Vance, was another tactic used to obscure the aggressive nature of Trump’s demands. This diplomatic coercion, masquerading as a pursuit of peace and stability, implied that Zelensky should navigate an impossible diplomatic landscape created by an aggressor, framing Ukraine’s capitulation as a means to achieve peace.

A particularly perverse comment was Trump’s irresponsible declaration that “You are playing with the lives of millions of people,” which serves as a classic example of projection, wherein the abuser deflects their own culpability onto the victim. The reality is that it is Trump and his administration that are playing with Ukrainian lives, and control the critical military and economic support needed for Ukraine’s survival.

Lastly, it is vital to note that framing American military and economic assistance as a debt owed shreds decades of US policy where they have given aid to friends and allies in their time of need and seen it as investments in peace and stability. Trump’s assertion that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks” attempts to erase Ukraine’s resilience and agency. The narrative that Ukraine will receive nothing unless they bow to Trump’s demands underlines a relationship built not on partnership but on coercion.

An analysis of this meeting reveals that the tactics employed by Trump and Vance were a masterclass in abusive tactics including: gas-lighting, victim-blaming, and coercive manipulation. This meeting was not a negotiation but an attempt by Trump to force President Zelensky to bow to Russian demands.

As the world reflects on this interaction, it is imperative to recognize that true diplomacy arises out of respect, agency, and mutual understanding — qualities starkly absent in Trump’s treatment of Zelensky. What the world saw transpire in the Oval Office was a signal that the Trump administration values power and control over traditional diplomacy, and that manipulation, degradation and dominance are the tools he will use when dealing with other nations. In doing so Trump has shown that he is no longer part of the Western alliance and has chosen to side with the enemy of Canada and its allies, and this requires them to rethink how they will deal with this new world order in the years to come

 

© 2025 Rabble.ca.  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.