Pierre Poilievre is back as an MP, but a career politician is not what Canadians need in a potential prime minister

By compelling one of his own MPs to resign to run in his place, Poilievre undermines the will of his former constituents, raising questions about his commitment to accountability and democracy. 

  
By Fareed Khan 
  

After his easy victory in an Alberta by-election yesterday, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre will return to the House of Commons this fall, despite the voters in his Ottawa-area riding rejecting him in the April 2025 federal election—a seat he held for 20 years. His calculated move to run in a safe Conservative riding to re-enter the House of Commons raises concerns about democratic accountability. By strategically exploiting election laws to run in a less competitive riding, he prioritized personal ambition over voters' desires, casting doubt on his commitment to fair representation, democracy, and the views of the overwhelming majority Canadians who voted against his party on April 28th.

Less than four months ago the voters of the Ottawa area riding of Carleton decisively rejected Poilievre, signalling dissatisfaction with him as an MP, while nationally a plurality of Canadians favoured Mark Carney’s Liberals. Yet, by orchestrating an Alberta MP’s resignation to secure a seat in a Conservative stronghold, Poilievre circumvented these democratic verdicts—a manoeuvre that reeks of political opportunism.

His lifelong career as a politician, untested by experiences outside the political sphere, is another red flag, further underscoring a profound disconnect from the realities faced by most Canadians. This, along with his divisive political style, his proclivity for name calling (in the style of Donald Trump), and his habit of boiling complex policy issues down to annoying sound bites (e.g. “Axe the tax”, “Stop the crime”, “Boots not suits”), render him ill-suited to lead the nation as a potential future prime minister.

Unlike Poilievre, current Prime Minister, Mark Carney, and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, brought diverse career backgrounds outside of politics to their political career, grounding them in real-world challenges. 

Before entering politics, Carney built a distinguished career at global investment banking firm Goldman Sachs and served as the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.  His experience navigating global financial markets and economic crises equipped him with a deep understanding of economic pressures that affect ordinary Canadians.  Similarly, Trudeau’s career before politics included roles as a teacher, community activist and advocate, exposing him to the struggles of diverse communities. 

In contrast, Poilievre’s career trajectory is strikingly narrow—straight from university to a staff position with Canadian Alliance party leader Stockwell Day, followed by his election as an MP at age 25.  His entire professional life has been funded by taxpayers, leaving him without the real world grounding that comes from working outside the political sphere.

Poilievre’s lack of experience outside politics is exacerbated by his elite financial status.  When he was elected as an MP for the first time in 2005 he was suddenly earning a substantial six-figure salary—$141,200 per year—which put him in the top three percent of income earners in the country.  As Opposition Leader, he earns $299,900 annually, placing him in the top 1% of Canadian income earners.  This salary far surpasses the average Canadian household income of approximately $74,200, insulating him from the financial pressures that define the lives of most Canadians.  He resides in Stornoway, the official residence of the Opposition Leader, where he incurs no personal costs for rent, utilities, or maintenance.  His household is supported by a publicly funded staff, including a chef, housekeeper, and groundskeeper, and he has access to a $166,000 annual entertainment budget—resources unimaginable to the average Canadian grappling with rising housing and grocery costs.  Poilievre’s additional perks, such as a government-provided SUV, chauffeur, and 24-hour security detail, further entrench him in a world of privilege that bears little resemblance to the realities of those Canadians who don’t share his elite lifestyle.

This privilege stands in stark contrast to the experiences of most Canadians, who face mounting economic challenges.  Housing affordability has become a crisis, with average home prices in major cities like Toronto and Vancouver exceeding $1 million, while median household incomes lag far behind.  Renters, too, struggle with skyrocketing costs, with average monthly rents for a one-bedroom apartment in urban centres surpassing $2,000.  In the face of this affordability crisis Poilievre lives for free in a 19 room mansion in one of the most exclusive neighbourhoods in Ottawa

Grocery prices have have also risen sharply, with food inflation outpacing wage growth for many families.  For low-income Canadians, these pressures are even more acute, with many relying on food banks to make ends meet.  Poilievre, cocooned in a taxpayer-funded elite bubble, has never faced these sorts of struggles.  His lack of exposure to the private sector or community-based work means he has not experienced the issue of job insecurity, the grind of a low-wage job, or the challenge of balancing a budget on a modest income.

Poilievre’s rhetoric has often invoked the struggles of “ordinary Canadians,” railing against “elites” and “gatekeepers” in impassioned speeches.  Yet, his lifestyle and career trajectory belie this populist narrative.  Receiving a taxpayer funded salary, residing in a publicly funded mansion and enjoying perks unavailable to to the vast majority, he is the epitome of the very elites he critiques.  The policy proposals that he presented to Canadians during the election, rooted in his time under Stephen Harper’s government, often prioritized fiscal austerity and support for corporate interests—approaches that historically favoured the wealthy and privileged over average Canadians he claims to champion.

Academic research underscores that politicians with diverse professional backgrounds bring a broader perspective to governance, enabling them to better address societal challenges.  Poilievre’s singular focus on politics, untested by the uncertainties outside the political arena, limits his ability to relate to those Canadians who navigate financial and social struggles on a daily basis.  His claims to understand the struggles of ordinary Canadians are political platitudes rooted in his desire to attain power. 

The Alberta by-election further highlights Poilievre’s disconnect from democratic principles.  His defeat in Ottawa was a democratic judgment on his leadership and representation.  By compelling one of his own recently elected Conservative MPs to resign and run in his place, he undermines the will of his former constituents, raising ethical questions about his commitment to accountability and democracy.  This maneuver, while legal, suggests a prioritization of personal ambition over democratic integrity, a trait ill-suited for a potential prime minister. 

In contrast, Carney’s entry into politics was marked by a competitive leadership race within the Liberal Party, while Trudeau built his leadership through grassroots engagement.  Poilievre’s decision to ignore the will of the voters in his Ottawa riding and seek a safer seat in Alberta can be seen as a form of political cheating, undermining the principle that elected officials should comply with the will of their constituents. 

The lavish benefits afforded to Poilievre as Opposition Leader further amplify his disconnect.  Unlike other parliamentary democracies, such as the United Kingdom or Australia, Canada provides its Opposition Leader with a publicly funded residence and extensive perks.  In the UK, the Leader of the Opposition receives a modest office budget and no official residence, while in Australia, similar roles are supported with far less extravagance.  

These benefits, while justified for a sitting prime minister due to security and representational demands, seem excessive for an opposition leader, particularly when there is no similar level of benefits provided to opposition party leaders in peer nations.  Canadians struggling to afford basic necessities might question why their tax dollars fund such luxuries for someone who claims to understand their plight.  This arrangement, unique among comparable democracies, underscores the systemic privilege that insulates Poilievre from the realities of ordinary Canadians. 

Poilievre’s ascent to political prominence raises broader concerns about the suitability of career politicians for leadership.  Unlike Carney, whose financial expertise informs his approach to economic policy, or Trudeau, whose community engagement shaped his social priorities, Poilievre lacks the experiential foundation to empathize with a vast majority of Canadians.  His policies, often cloaked in populist rhetoric, tend to align with the interests of the privileged.  For example, Conservative platforms under Harper, which Poilievre endorsed, prioritized corporate tax cuts and deregulation, measures that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and corporate elites, while doing little to alleviate the burdens of average citizens and those on the lower end of the income spectrum.  Recent analyses suggest that similar policies espoused by Poilievre during the federal election would likely continue this trend, offering little relief to struggling Canadians.

Canada deserves a potential prime minister who understands the weight of a grocery bill, the anxiety of a missed rent payment, or the struggle to secure stable employment.  Poilievre’s career, defined by taxpayer-funded roles and systemic privilege, offers no such understanding.  His rhetoric may appeal to those frustrated with the government, but his lack of real-world experience and elite lifestyle render him incapable of addressing the needs of most Canadians, even many of those who voted Conservative. 

Canadians must recognize the inherent risks of entrusting Pierre Poilievre with the keys to the prime minister’s office in future elections.  His career, confined to the insular world of politics without substantial real-world experience, raises serious doubts about his suitability for the job of prime minister. Career politicians, lacking exposure to the everyday struggles of ordinary citizens, often fail to grasp the practical perspectives needed to tackle complex policy challenges effectively.

Poilievre’s record, defined by political manoeuvring and manipulation rather than meaningful societal contributions, highlights his disconnect from the realities Canadians face. His decades within the political elite have shaped a lifestyle far removed from the average citizen’s, undermining his ability to bridge the growing divide between the elite and the public. 

 

The nation’s future demands leaders with diverse, grounded experiences to craft policies that address the needs of all Canadians. Poilievre’s lack of such experience renders him unfit to navigate these critical issues, and voters should not place their confidence in him or his party when the next general election takes place in a few years.

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

The voters have spoken. It’s time for Pierre Poilievre to exit Canada's political stage.

Leadership demands accountability, and Poilievre has failed that test by refusing to accept the voter’s will.  His party’s loss and his personal defeat were not accidents — they were verdicts by the voters of Carleton, who knew him best after 21 years as their MP and sent him packing.   

 

By Fareed Khan

 
The Canadian electorate has spoken, and their message to Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre could not be clearer.  It’s time to go.  Your career of becoming an extremely privileged elite and a multi-millionaire off the public dime is over.

In the recent federal election, the Conservatives suffered a decisive defeat, and Poilievre lost his own Carleton riding seat he had held for over two decades by a substantial margin. This was no mere stumble.  It was a resounding rejection by the voters who knew him best.   Yet, like a performer who ignores the curtain call, Poilievre refuses to leave the political stage.  He should take the hint from the more than 58% of Canadian voters who voted for other parties, rather than try to rise like a very flawed phoenix from a flaming dung heap. It’s time for him to step aside and let Canada move forward without his relentless, useless noise.

Watching Poilievre’s recent press conference, following the swearing in of Mark Carney’s new cabinet, was like witnessing a political ghost haunting a stage on which he no longer belongs.  Despite his electoral ousting, he strode to the podium with the audacity of someone who still believes he’s calling the shots.  His party is in disarray, his leadership is in question, and yet he is plotting a comeback via an Alberta by-election in a seat where a cardboard box with a Conservative Party sticker could be elected.  That reeks of desperation.  This is not a display of resilience.  It’s denial.  He refuses to accept that Canadians didn’t just vote against his party — they voted against him.  The path forward doesn’t involve a dramatic resurrection.  It requires Poilievre to accept reality and retire from the spotlight.

The absurdity of his current position is almost comical.  With Poilievre no longer an MP, the Conservatives have tapped Andrew Scheer as interim Conservative leader while Parliament is in session.  Yes that Andrew Scheer — the former Conservative leader who lost the 2019 election to Justin Trudeau.  The setup feels like a poorly scripted political farce, with Scheer as the understudy nobody asked for and Poilievre lurking in the wings, refusing to relinquish the starring role.  If Scheer is the temporary fix, it’s akin to swapping out a broken appliance with one that’s barely functional.  Canadians deserve better than this chaotic charade.

Poilievre’s refusal to fade quietly is matched only by his predictable rhetoric.  At his press conference, he leaned into his trademark style — soft-spoken indignation paired with a relentless narrative that everything is irreparably broken — Canada, the government, perhaps the laws of physics.

His attacks on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s newly formed cabinet were less a critique than a tantrum, the kind thrown by someone who wasn’t invited to the table and decides to shout from the sidelines.  Carney’s cabinet, while not flawless, reflects the challenge of balancing regional interests, gender equity, and expertise — a grown-up approach to governance.  Poilievre, by contrast, offers only grievances, mistaking volume for vision.

What’s particularly galling is Poilievre’s failure to acknowledge the courtesy extended to him by Carney.  The Prime Minister has pledged to call the Alberta by-election as soon as legally possible, a gesture that goes beyond obligation.  By law, Carney could delay the process for months, but he’s chosen the high road.  Poilievre’s response?  Not a word of gratitude, not a moment of humility — just more complaints.  Incidentally, this by-election comes with a price tag of between $1.6 to $2 million, footed by Canadian taxpayers to fuel Poilievre’s ego-driven comeback.  The least he could do is show some respect for the public’s tax dollars.  It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars plain and simple but you will never hear Poilievre admit that.

And yet, Poilievre carries on as if nothing has changed.  He remains ensconced in Stornoway, the official residence of the (elected) opposition leader, acting as though his mandate is intact.  His refusal to step back, even temporarily, is an affront to the democratic will.  Canada needs leaders who build, not performers who cling to faded relevance.  Poilievre’s insistence on dominating the conversation with his tired talking points — everything is broken, everyone is wrong — only deepens the exhaustion Canadians feel toward him.

Imagine if Poilievre chose to take a different path.  Picture him stepping away, even for a season, to reflect, recharge, or pursue something, anything, outside the political echo chamber he has lived in for his entire career.  He could find a lucrative job in the private sector, write a book, or, frankly, take up woodworking.  Instead, he has doubling down, banking on an Alberta by-election to catapult him back into Parliament.  If he succeeds, we can already envision the inevitable photo ops — Poilievre alongside his number one fan, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, striding through canola fields in a staged attempt at relatability.  It’s not leadership, it’s a performance, and Canadians are tired of the show.

Leadership demands accountability, and Poilievre has failed that test by refusing to accept the voter’s will.  His party’s loss and his personal defeat were not accidents — they were verdicts by the voters of Carleton, who knew him best after 21 years as their MP and sent him packing.  The broader electorate rejected his divisive tactics and defeatist rhetoric about the state of the nation.  Clinging to the microphone not only undermines the democratic process he claims to champion, but also shows him refusing to accept the democratic verdict an overwhelming majority of Canadians delivered to him and his party.

Mark Carney, ever the pragmatist, is focused on governing — making practical decisions to move Canada forward.  Poilievre, by contrast, remains unelected, uninvited, and unrelentingly loud.  His presence is a distraction and serves no positive purpose.  The most patriotic and sensible act he could perform right now is to step back, silence his megaphone, and let Canada heal from the divisiveness he’s fuelled.

It’s time for Pierre Poilievre to read the room.  The stage is no longer his.  For the sake of the country, he must exit — quietly, decisively, and for good.
 

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

Poilievre receives backlash to "racism is a recent phenomenon in Canada" comment in Jordan Peterson interview

This manipulation of historical facts is reminiscent of tactics employed by far-right politicians in other Western nations, the goal of which is to erase legitimate grievances and normalize hate, racism and bigotry. 

 

By Fareed Khan

 

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre sat down for an interview with far-right, extremist personality Jordan Peterson — a figure notorious for his racist, transphobic and misogynist views on social and cultural issues.  During the conversation, Poilievre supported a statement made by Peterson, one that sent shockwaves through the political landscape.  Peterson claimed that that racism in Canada is a recent phenomenon, and Poilievre added to the outrageous claim that racism was the fault of “socialists”, “progressives”, and “wokeism”. These claims are not merely misguided, they reveal a deeper, more unsettling reality about Poilievre's political ethos — the normalization of racism and revisionist history that serves his partisan interests as he lusts for power.

 

© 2022 Michael deader.  © 2022 The Hill Times.

Historically, Canada is not a pristine bastion of racial harmony, as Poilievre would like to suggest.  The country has grappled with a legacy of systemic oppression, racism and white supremacy, as evidenced by the genocide of Indigenous peoples, the Chinese “head tax”, a history of institutional antisemitism prior to World War II, the internment of Japanese Canadians during the war, systemic anti-Black racism, and more recently Islamophobia in the form of government policies targeting Muslims, as well as the decades of institutional and systemic racism against Palestinians.  Each of these instances demonstrates that racism and bigotry are deeply woven into the fabric of this nation, contradicting Poilievre's assertion that it is a modern invention of the left and the “woke”.  Such a blatant dismissal of history is not just alarming it is dangerous, and it fuels the delusions of racist and white supremacist elements in society.

By framing racism as a recent phenomenon, Poilievre effectively denies the lived experiences of countless Canadians who have faced racial injustice and continue to do so today.  Furthermore, it undermines critical conversations about the systemic and structural inequalities that racialized communities experience.  His rhetoric serves to advance a narrative that minimizes the past and misleads the public about the ongoing struggles for racial justice that Black people, Indigenous people, and persons of colour are dealing with today.

This manipulation of historical facts is reminiscent of tactics employed by far-right politicians in other Western nations, the goal of which is to erase legitimate grievances and normalize hate, racism and bigotry.  By declaring that racism is a recent import Poilievre emboldens extremist elements in society, creating a bullseye on the backs of BIPOC communities which are already vulnerable to discrimination.  It is an extremely cynical ploy demonstrating that Poilievre cares little for maintaining social harmony in Canada’s pluralistic society.

Rachel Gilmore, a journalist who analyzed the interview, points out that Poilievre’s comments resonate deeply with a broader trend of right-wing populism that thrives on division and fear.  The Conservative leader’s rhetoric is not simply an isolated moment but rather part of a systematic approach to galvanizing support from a voter base that finds solace in grievances against “woke” ideologies.  Such an agenda has the potential to foster an environment where social justice advocates are labeled as enemies of the state for challenging hate and bigotry in this country.

The implications of Poilievre's ideological leanings extend beyond mere dialogue.  They signal his support for a political culture increasingly hostile to conversations surrounding combatting hate and racism, and supporting diversity and equity.  Under his leadership, the Conservative Party appears poised to leverage a narrative that condemns advocates of social justice while promoting the idea that concerns about racism are exaggerated or unfounded.  This creates an atmosphere where discrimination can fester untreated, further marginalizing communities that have faced systemic barriers for decades, barriers which continue to exist today and will be augmented under a Poilievre government.

The rise of this type of political rhetoric in Canada is indicative of a troubling trend in democracies across the globe — a calculated attempt to rewrite history to fit a politically expedient narrative.  Just as we have seen in the United States, where figures like Donald Trump have dismissed and downplayed America’s long history of racism, Poilievre's words signal an unsettling alignment with those ideologies.  We must not forget that Poilievre himself has benefitted from white privilege and has built a career as a professional politician in a country founded on racism, white supremacy, genocide and colonialism.  In the process of being a politician and becoming leader of the Conservatives he has put himself in a position where he is out of touch with the day to day realities faced by his fellow Canadians, many of whom live in the shadow of Canada’s racist history, and will never live the privileged life that he does.

Failing to confront or denying the ugly truths of our past allows attacks on racial justice movements to flourish.  This dangerous rhetoric nurtures an environment where hate can thrive unchecked, posing a grave threat to social cohesion. As we’ve seen in other countries, the results can be catastrophic — fostering division, hostility, and an erosion of the rights of marginalized communities.

As citizens, it is crucial that we hold our political leaders accountable for their words and actions. Rather than remaining passive observers, we must actively engage in conversations about racism, social justice, and historical accountability.  Organizations like Canadians United Against Hate and others have rightly called upon the public to reject Poilievre’s dangerous ideas and demand transparency and accountability from a leader who seeks the highest office in the land.

The moral imperative to confront and dismantle these harmful narratives has never been clearer.  Like other nations, Canada is not immune to the rising tide of far-right politics, and if Poilievre is to become our next prime minister, his denial of the country's history of racism risks not only the integrity of Canadian democracy but also the safety and well-being of minority and marginalized communities.

In combatting this dangerous rhetoric, we must recommit ourselves to building a society founded on diversity, acceptance, equality, and racial justice. The vast majority of Canadians embrace pluralistic values that promote equity and respect for all.  Allowing divisive political rhetoric to dominate our discourse is unacceptable. We must proactively counter these ideologies by lifting up the voices of those marginalized by racism and advocating for systemic change.

It is imperative that we stand together against the normalization of dangerous narratives like Poilievre's.  We must acknowledge and engage with our history, recognizing the injustices that have shaped our society, and continue to affect it today.  In doing so, we can foster a Canada that is not only aware of its past but is also committed to creating a more just and equitable future for all its citizens.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every Canadian to challenge the dismissals of racism and to fight against those who push ideologies that seek to undermine our values.  The stakes are too high to remain silent in the face of such dangerous rhetoric.  We must act, ensuring that hate remains on the fringes, while we collectively strive for a more inclusive and just society.  This is not merely a political responsibility; it is a moral obligation we owe to ourselves and to future generations.

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

Pierre Poilievre: A Leader Unfit for Canada

His willingness to cozy up to individuals and movements that espouse hate — be it racism, Islamophobia, anti-LGBTQ2 sentiments, or conspiratorial ideologies — reveals the depths of his moral depravity.

By Fareed Khan

 

The political landscape in Canada is undergoing a significant shift and 2025 will be a pivotal year for Canada politically.  With Pierre Poilievre at the helm of the Conservative Party, many Canadians find themselves grappling with the prospect of his ascendance to the role of Prime Minister at the next federal election.  While some might find solace in his substantial polling leads over Justin Trudeau, a closer inspection reveals a deeply concerning portrait of a man whose values, behavior, and ethos are fundamentally incompatible with the needs of our diverse and complex society.

This is a man who has been described as “Canada’s most dangerous, appalling politician.”  A man who willingly and knowingly taps into some of voters’ worst instincts, stoking populist rage in Canada in much the same way that Donald Trump has in the US.

 

 
Pierre Poilievre is the embodiment of the career politician and white privilege -- a man who has never held a job where his salary wasn't paid through the public purse.  He earns a staggering $300,000 a year paid by taxpayers (five times the Canadian average), and his entire political existence is predicated on the very system that he claims to abhor.  

Despite his rhetoric condemning “elites,” he has positioned himself squarely within the upper echelon of society for his entire adult life.  He currently lives in a taxpayer-funded mansion and enjoys a suite of benefits that includes a chauffeur-driven SUV, personal chefs, staff to maintain his house and property, and  24/7 security detail.  In addition, all of his household expenses – heat, hydro, phone, internet, etc. – are paid through the public purse.  During his time as an MP he has also become a millionaire due to his taxpayer funded salary, and amassed a sizeable real estate portfolio.  Living such a life of privilege makes Poilievre’s connection to the average Canadian utterly non-existent, despite his claims to understand the pain that Canadian families are experiencing at this time.

In an era where many Canadians struggle with the rising cost of living, Poilievre’s opulence feels like a slap in the face to those who are genuinely striving to make ends meet.  How can any Canadian trust a man who benefits so enormously from public funds but has demonstrated no real understanding of the challenges faced by everyday citizens?  If elected as Prime Minister, this disconnect would only widen, potentially leaving millions to navigate the economic landscape without the leadership and empathy they deserve.

Like Trump has done in the US, Poilievre has also cultivated and stoked hate and division among Canadian voters.  His embracing of the convoy protesters that occupied downtown Ottawa in 2022 also gave support to white supremacist, racist, Islamophobic, antisemitic, and anti-LGBTQ elements.  This approach is alarming and raises fundamental questions about whether he has a moral compass.



His willingness to cozy up to individuals and movements that espouse hate — be it racism, Islamophobia, anti-LGBTQ2 sentiments, or conspiratorial ideologies — reveals the depths of his moral bankruptcy.  By embracing individuals within the Diagolon movement and echoing extremist views, he has consolidated a following that thrives on division rather than unity, fostering an atmosphere of intolerance in a country where inclusion and diversity essential to maintaining the pluralism that a large majority of Canadians embrace.

His divisive political rhetoric, which has increased in tenor since he became Conservative Party leader, is not only shredding the fabric of Canadian society but it is also encouraging a cultural mindset where hate is normalized.  For a leader who claims to protect “freedom,” he paradoxically undermines the freedom of many minority communities by compromising their safety and dignity.  Rather than offering a vision for a better Canada that embodies empathy, acceptance and political stability, Poilievre’s rhetoric often borders on the incendiary — propagating an agenda that stands in stark contrast to what an overwhelming majority of Canadians truly desire.

For most Canadians, empathy, compassion, and progressive values should be foundational traits for any leader aspiring to guide a diverse nation.  Unfortunately, Pierre Poilievre has shown little to no understanding of these values, and instead has embraced the ideology and political practices of Donald Trump.  His tendency to fabricate, manipulate, and gaslight demonstrates a willingness to deceive at the expense of those he should represent.  It’s a troubling reality that has allowed him to build a base loyal not to truth or integrity, but rather to his ability to stoke anger and resentment.

Rather than fostering dialogue and understanding among citizens, Poilievre opts to exploit fears and grievances.  His aggressive demeanour and penchant for personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with his political views reflects a desperation for power that is unbecoming of anyone who seeks the highest office in the land. When scrutinizing his record, one cannot help but conclude that he thrives in chaos, and seeks instability to construct a platform on which he can rise to the pinnacle of power in Canada.  He is the complete opposite of a visionary leader, who would work to bridge divides and not exacerbate them.

The idea of Pierre Poilievre becoming Prime Minister is one that should instill fear in every Canadian.  His policies seem tailor-made for the privileged and powerful, prioritizing the interests of corporations and elites over programs for the most vulnerable among us, and those that benefit the middle and working class demographic.  By proposing deep cuts to government spending, which would target essential programs, he neglects his responsibility to foster community resilience and improve the lives of the bottom 90% of Canadians who are struggling to maintain their homes and support their families.

His agenda would cater unabashedly to the wealthy and privileged, projecting a vision of Canada that sidelines ordinary Canadians and marginalized voices. In a country that has historically prided itself on providing a safety net for everyone, Poilievre’s inclinations represent a stark contrast to the progressive ethos that most Canadians support, one that recognizes our collective responsibility to uplift one another.  

Furthermore, he has stated his willingness to use the Canadian Charter of Rights “notwithstanding” clause to overturn the fundamental rights of Canadians to achieve his political goals.  When a leader denies basic human rights for the sake of political expediency, this reveals their fundamental unfitness to lead and the danger they pose to all Canadians.

It's telling that brave Conservative political staffers have described Poilievre’s personality as one of “anti-charisma.”  The disconnect he maintains with the electorate, paired with his inclination toward petulance, further alienates him from the core values that bind Canadians together.  Rather than being a unifying force, he embodies a politics of irritation that fosters discontent rather than broad national solidarity.

Much like Donald Trump — his political and ideological comrade — Poilievre is adept at creating an atmosphere rife with hostility and divisiveness.  This reactionary approach appeals to the lowest common denominator and does little to inspire hope or a collective vision for a better future.  The manifestation of such politics is not just dangerous, it is potentially destructive.

Each turn of the election cyclel presents an opportunity for re-evaluation.  And as the next federal election looms Canadians must reflect deeply on whether Pierre Poilievre embodies the values they want in a prime minister.  If Canadians want a progressive government that caters to the needs and interests of the majority it is incumbent upon us to reject a political figure who thrives on manipulative rhetoric, embraces hateful elements in his party, gaslights the electorate, and promotes division.  Canada deserves a leader who embodies a vision that seeks to unite and uplift — not one who revels in chaos and dissension.

In this pivotal moment, we cannot remain passive observers since the stakes for the country are far too high.  it's time for Canadians who oppose Poilievre's vision for Canada to band together to confront the toxic politics represented by the Conservative Party and ensure a future that aligns with the values of inclusion, compassion, and unity that all Canadians can hold dear.  The time for action is now.  Together we can build a better Canada — one that rejects the dangerous allure of divisive politics and instead champions progress for all.

Fareed Khan is the founder of Canadians United Against Hate, a human rights activist, and has spoken and written extensively on public policy issues affecting the lives and the rights of Canadians.

© 2024 The View From Here.  © 2024 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

The fundamental rights of people who are LGBTQ2 are under assault like never before. How did it come to this?

The September 20th protest organizers and their allies and those that supported these protests are trying to eliminate the presence of those who are LGBTQ2 from schools and from the public space . . . This hateful agenda is being supported by some conservative politicians who are using hate to further their political ambitions and agendas.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

How did it come to this?

 

How is it that in the second decade of the 21st Century Canadians are protesting the rights of those who are LGBTQ2, trying to push back those hard won rights, and trying to erase the visibility of people who are transgender from the public sphere and from schools in particular?  Did we not already deal with the fight for equal rights for those who are LGBTQ2 in the 1990s and then revisit and win similar battles in the 2000s when it came to equality of marriage?

 

 

Recent heightened aggression and outright narratives of hate targeting the LGBTQ2 community are deeply troubling and dangerous, not just to that community but to Canadian society at large.  It is up to governments and Canadians at large to ensure that the hateful societal and social media narratives that led to Canadian Muslims being murdered in hate-motivated crimes over the last several years does not get repeated with the LGBTQ2 community.

 

The recent surge in hate targeted at this community started with protests opposing men dressed in drag doing “Drag Story Time” events at libraries and schools.  However, the people protesting these events are clearly ignorant of the long history of drag entertainment in our society.  Drag performances, whether men dressing as women or women dressing as men, has been around since the era of black and white films, and even earlier in some instances.  During Shakespeare’s lifetime and beyond men dressed as women to play female roles in the public performance of plays.  It was not unusual and it certainly was not condemned.

 

Robin Williams, Barbra Streisand, Dustin Hoffman, Julie Andrews, Eddie Murphy and Eddie Redmayne, are only some of the high profile actors who have played roles of the opposite gender in entertainment coming out of Hollywood, and their films were watched by tens of millions of people (including children), unlike local Drag Story Time events.  Oscar winner Tom Hanks got his big break playing a cross dressing character in the TV series Bosom Buddies which ran for two seasons in the 1980s.  The CBC comedy series The Kids in the Hall ran for six seasons from 1989 to 1995, and at least one of the characters dressed in drag for practically every episode, without outraged people picketing the CBC for its "perversity".  In fact, the films Tootsie starring Dustin Hoffman and Victor, Victoria starring Julie Andrews were nominated for Academy Awards.  And it would be remiss not to mention that The Rocky Horror Picture Show, starring a young Susan Sarandon and Tim Curry in the title role, became a cult classic.  The movie played at midnight every Friday at the Roxy Theater in Toronto's east end from 1976 to 1983, with similar runs in theaters in New York City and other cities across the US.  Many people who showed up to these screenings dressed as characters from the show, including many who came in drag as Tim Curry's character.  In none of the instances mentioned was there the degree of venom and hate directed at those involved in the production of these films or TV shows as Canadians have seen over the past year towards local Drag Story Time events, or towards the LGBTQ2 community.

But for some reason Drag Story Time, and then subsequently any LGBTQ2 event where children are present (like pride parades), have become a “child safety” issue, an idea imported from far right and fascist political and religious movements in the US.

 

The claim that protesting drag or LGBTQ2 events, or removing any mention of the reality of sexual and gender diverse communities from school teaching materials is about “protecting children” from “depravity”, or preventing “sexual indoctrination”, is laughable and dangerous.  It is no different than historical narratives that painted Jews, Black men in the US south during the Jim Crow era, and gay men as a threat to babies, white girls and children respectively.  Such hate motivated narratives resulted in the brutal beatings and murders of people from these communities.  What better way to isolate a minority community and portray them as a threat than to dehumanize and demonize them, and propagate the fiction that they are “predators” who target children?  If we want to see examples of indoctrinating children just look at children who mimic the prejudices and bigotry of their parents.  That sort of hate is learned behaviour.  During the protests there were multiple incidents of children shouting hateful slurs targeting people who were gay, lesbian and transgender, as well as incidents of children being told by parents to stomp on and tear up pride flags.

 

Parents who are protesting about “parental rights” also need to understanding that their rights as parents do not supersede the basic human rights of people (and kids in particular) who are gay, lesbian, queer, or transgender to live in peace and equality under the law.  These parents do not get to overturn the use of government approved academic studies and materials used by teachers to make students aware of the reality of sexual and gender diverse communities, and to create safe spaces.  In fact, “parental rights” are not party of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and since there is no such thing those throwing around that term need to get educated about what human rights are, and why children’s rights (particularly if those children are part of a minority community) must be protected.

 

For those who agreed with the ideology underpinning the “march for children” protests, or oppose the very concept of an LGBTQ2 community, they need lessons about why children who are LGBTQ2 need to feel included in school activities, need to be seen as normal by other kids, need to be protected, and need to have a safe space in their schools.  Canadians or our governments would never accept such narratives if they were targeted Black people, Muslims, Jews, or other racialized communities.  So why is there not an aggressive push back against the people pushing dangerous narratives against the LGBTQ2 community?

 

The parents who joined these protests, especially those who came from racialized and religious minority communities, need to be aggressively educated about what the concept of human rights truly is, and that just as kids need to learn about the reality and history of Indigenous people, Black people, Muslims, Jews and other minority communities in our society, they also need to learn about the reality of those who are LGBTQ2, and the historic persecution they have faced.  In addition, these parents need to shed their ignorance and prejudice and learn that this community has a right to equality under the law just as they do, and that the rights of people who are part of this community must be protected and defended without exception the same way we would defend the rights of other communities being attacked, and their right to be visible in public spaces.

 

For those who cannot do that the least they can do is not add to the ecosystem of hate through their support of anyone, especially right wing politicians, who are playing with a ticking time bomb by supporting, endorsing or pushing hateful and ignorant anti-LGBTQ2 narratives.  It is the only way that we can prevent the fabric of our diverse and pluralistic society from being shredded, and from letting a hateful minority change Canada for the worse.

 

Finally, for those of any faith who use their faith’s teachings and scriptures to justify their view that “God is against this”, how would they know since they are not God?  Religious teachings have been twisted and misinterpreted by very flawed human beings with their own prejudices and agendas for centuries.  People of all faiths who believe in the existence of a supreme deity have to accept that like all humans anyone who identifies as LGBTQ2 was created by God.  And if they accept the idea that their God is a perfect being then how can anything He created be imperfect?

 

The LGBTQ2 community is under assault by hateful elements of society. The September 20th protest organizers, their allies and supporters are trying to eliminate the presence of those who are LGBTQ2 from schools and from the public space, and take back their fundamental human rights protections.  This hateful agenda is being supported by some conservative politicians who are using hate to further their political ambitions and agendas, and they must be opposed at every turn.

 

Those who oppose hate and believe in the sanctity of one’s fundamental Charter rights have to stand with those who are LGBTQ2 and prevent Canada from becoming like the state of Florida, where the government approved a “don’t say gay” law, which essentially criminalized teaching kids about the reality of the sexual and gender diverse community.

 

If Canadians want to avoid this country becoming like some US states where demonizing and vilifying the human rights of people who are LGBTQ2 is becoming more frequent, then those who call themselves human rights defenders have to be vocal, visible, and actively oppose those voices, including conservative politicians and provincial governments, that are are openly or quietly supporting and enabling this hate movement.

 

If we want to protect our diverse, inclusive and pluralistic society it is as simple as that and it is up to the silent majority of Canadians to make it happen.

 

© 2023 The View From Here.  © 2023 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.