You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Canada’ category.
Policing in Canada has historically been grounded in the principle of equality under the law, where all individuals, regardless of identity, are subject to the same legal standards and enforcement practices. However, recent shifts in policy, training, and public discourse suggest that Canadian policing is increasingly adopting a model that applies different standards based on identity categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. This evolution is driven by a combination of social justice movements, government directives, and institutional reforms aimed at addressing systemic inequalities. While intended to rectify historical disparities, this approach raises questions about consistency and impartiality in law enforcement.
One clear indicator of this shift is the implementation of race-based data collection by police services across Canada. Initiated in response to allegations of racial profiling, agencies like the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police began collecting and analyzing data on the race of individuals stopped, questioned, or arrested, starting with pilot projects around 2019 and expanding since then. The stated goal is to identify and address “disproportionate” enforcement patterns, particularly against Black, Indigenous, and other racialized groups. While this data has confirmed higher rates of police interaction for certain communities—such as a 2020 Toronto report showing Black individuals were 2.2 times more likely to be involved in use-of-force incidents—it has also led to tailored policing strategies that adjust scrutiny or leniency based on racial identity rather than uniform application of the law.
Training and policy changes further illustrate this trend toward differential standards. Following high-profile incidents like the 2020 death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet and subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, Canadian police forces have overhauled training to emphasize “de-escalation” and “cultural competency,” often with specific focus on interactions with Indigenous and racialized populations. For instance, the RCMP introduced mandatory “bias-free policing” modules by 2022, which instruct officers to consider historical trauma and systemic factors when engaging with certain groups. While these measures aim to reduce harm, they implicitly encourage officers to alter their approach—sometimes reducing enforcement rigor—based on an individual’s perceived identity, diverging from a strictly neutral standard.
Legal and governmental frameworks also support this shift. In 2023, Bill C-92, an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children, youth, and families, effectively granted Indigenous communities greater autonomy over child welfare, including policing-related interventions, creating a parallel system distinct from mainstream enforcement. Similarly, hate crime laws and sentencing guidelines increasingly factor in identity-based considerations, with offenders targeting “vulnerable” groups facing harsher penalties, while enforcement in marginalized communities is often softened to avoid perceptions of over-policing. This dual-track approach—tougher on some, lighter on others—reflects a deliberate move away from universal standards toward identity-specific policing practices.
Finally, public and institutional pressure continues to reinforce this trajectory. Advocacy groups, such as the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and Indigenous rights organizations, have successfully lobbied for policies that treat identity as a mitigating factor in policing. Reports like the 2021 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry explicitly called for reduced police intervention in Indigenous communities, alongside increased accountability for officers dealing with these populations. Meanwhile, urban police forces face scrutiny for “over-policing” racialized neighborhoods, prompting initiatives like Toronto’s 2024 “Community Crisis Support Service,” which diverts mental health calls involving racialized individuals away from police entirely. These developments signal a broader trend: policing in Canada is increasingly calibrated to identity, balancing equity goals against the traditional ethos of equal enforcement. Whether this enhances justice or undermines fairness remains a point of contention.
Amy Hamm, a registered nurse with 13 years of experience, was recently fired by Vancouver Coastal Health following a ruling by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) that deemed her guilty of “professional misconduct.” Her termination stemmed from her public advocacy for sex-based rights, including her co-sponsorship of a 2020 billboard stating “I love JK Rowling” and her statements asserting that biological sex distinctions matter, particularly in contexts like women’s private spaces. This decision has sparked widespread debate, with critics arguing that her firing represents a severe overreach by her professional organization, punishing her for exercising free speech rather than any failure in her nursing duties.
The BCCNM’s investigation, which spanned over four years, focused on Hamm’s off-duty comments made in articles and a podcast where she identified as a nurse. The disciplinary panel labeled her statements about transgender issues as “discriminatory and derogatory,” claiming they undermined trust in the nursing profession. However, Hamm and her supporters contend that her views—rooted in the belief that biological sex is immutable—were not only unrelated to her professional conduct but also reflect a scientifically grounded perspective. The panel’s ruling, followed by her immediate dismissal without severance, raises questions about whether the BCCNM prioritized ideological conformity over fairness and evidence.
Hamm’s mistreatment highlights a broader issue of professional organizations stifling dissent under the guise of maintaining public trust. Her case suggests that nurses and other regulated professionals in Canada may face severe repercussions for expressing personal opinions, even outside their workplace, if those views clash with prevailing social narratives. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which supported Hamm legally, decried the ruling as a blow to free expression, arguing that it sets a chilling precedent for others in similar positions. This punitive approach effectively silences debate on contentious issues, forcing professionals to self-censor or risk their livelihoods.
The decision to fire Hamm also appears disproportionate when considering her exemplary record as a nurse. No evidence was presented that her views impacted her patient care or professional performance; instead, the BCCNM focused solely on the perceived social implications of her statements. This disconnect between her job performance and the punishment meted out underscores a troubling trend: professional bodies acting as arbiters of personal belief rather than guardians of competence. Hamm’s termination without severance after 13 years of service further amplifies the perception of vindictiveness, suggesting an intent to make an example of her rather than address any tangible harm.
In the aftermath, Hamm has vowed to continue speaking out, supported by figures like JK Rowling and a growing chorus of advocates for free speech and women’s rights. Her case exposes the fragility of individual rights within Canada’s regulatory frameworks and the potential for professional organizations to wield unchecked power against those who challenge orthodoxy. As Hamm faces a possible appeal, her ordeal serves as a stark warning: the mistreatment she endured—being fired for her convictions—may foreshadow a future where intellectual freedom is sacrificed for institutional control, leaving professionals vulnerable to ideological purges.
The media in Canada often frames voting Conservative as a dangerous shift toward regressive policies, economic stagnation, and social division. This narrative frequently highlights fears of cuts to social programs, environmental neglect, and a rollback of progressive values, as seen in coverage of leaders like Pierre Poilievre or past figures like Stephen Harper. However, this portrayal overlooks key facts: Conservative governments have historically presided over economic growth—Harper’s tenure saw Canada weather the 2008 global financial crisis better than most G7 nations, with a GDP growth rate averaging 1.8% annually from 2006 to 2015, compared to the OECD average of 1.2%. Moreover, claims of slashed social programs are exaggerated; Harper’s government increased healthcare transfers to provinces by 6% annually, reaching $40.4 billion by 2015. The narrative also ignores that Conservative platforms often adapt to public sentiment—Poilievre, for instance, has emphasized affordability and housing, issues resonating with younger voters typically dismissed as outside the party’s base.
Beyond disputing the media’s alarmism, there’s a strong case for why switching governments every decade or so benefits Canada’s democracy. A prolonged grip by any single party—Liberal or otherwise—breeds complacency, entitlement, and policy stagnation. The Liberals, under Justin Trudeau since 2015, have faced criticism for unfulfilled promises (e.g., electoral reform) and scandals like SNC-Lavalin, suggesting a fatigue that sets in without fresh competition. Historical shifts bear this out: Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives (1984–1993) broke a 20-year Liberal dominance, introducing the GST and NAFTA—policies initially vilified but later credited for economic stability. Similarly, Harper’s 2006 win ended 13 years of Liberal rule, forcing a recalibration of priorities like accountability (via the Federal Accountability Act). Regular turnover keeps governments responsive, preventing the calcification of power and ensuring policies reflect evolving public needs rather than entrenched agendas.
The media’s tendency to paint Conservative victories as a threat also dodges the reality that Canada’s system thrives on balance, not perpetual one-party rule. Voter turnout data supports this: elections with clear alternation potential—like 2006, when turnout hit 64.7% after years of Liberal governance—show higher engagement than landslides like 2015 (68.5%), where momentum favored Trudeau’s Liberals but later waned. A Conservative government, far from being a monolith of destruction, often acts as a corrective force, challenging orthodoxies (e.g., Harper’s focus on deficit reduction post-recession versus Liberal spending). Changing government every decade isn’t just healthy—it’s a safeguard against complacency, corruption, and the echo chamber of uninterrupted power, ensuring Canada remains dynamic rather than dogmatic.
A Canadian Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could offer significant positives by tackling the perennial issue of bureaucratic bloat. With a mandate to optimize processes, cut waste, and boost accountability, DOGE could save taxpayers billions—think of trimming redundant programs or digitizing outdated paper-based systems. Inspired perhaps by Elon Musk’s and Vivek Ramaswamy’s vision for a U.S. version, it might bring a results-driven ethos to Ottawa, using data analytics and AI to identify inefficiencies, like overlapping agency roles or sluggish service delivery. For a country with a sprawling public sector, this could mean faster disaster relief, shorter healthcare wait times, and a leaner government that actually delivers what citizens need without the usual red tape.
However, the negatives could stack up quickly if DOGE isn’t carefully designed. Critics might fear it becomes a Trojan horse for slashing essential services under the guise of “efficiency”—imagine cuts to social programs or environmental oversight that hit vulnerable Canadians hardest. There’s also the risk of over-centralization: a ministry obsessed with streamlining could steamroll local nuances, like the unique needs of rural provinces versus urban centers, creating one-size-fits-none solutions. And let’s not ignore the irony—if DOGE itself gets bogged down in political infighting or mismanagement, it could end up as another layer of bureaucracy, costing more than it saves while fueling public cynicism about government competence.
The success of a Canadian DOGE would hinge on its ability to balance ambition with pragmatism. Done right, it could be a game-changer, modernizing governance and restoring trust in a system often seen as sluggish and out of touch. Picture a DOGE that collaborates with provinces, respects regional diversity, and prioritizes citizen outcomes over blind cost-cutting—like speeding up infrastructure approvals without gutting safety standards. But if it devolves into a ideological buzzsaw or a toothless paper tiger, it’d just be another acronym in the alphabet soup of government failures. Canada would need clear metrics, transparent oversight, and a willingness to adapt to make DOGE more than a catchy name—it’d have to prove efficiency isn’t just a buzzword, but a promise kept.
The Kamloops grave hoax, sparked by the 2021 announcement from the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation claiming the discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, ignited a firestorm of outrage across Canada. This claim, based on preliminary ground-penetrating radar findings and later proven to lack physical evidence of human remains, fueled a wave of anti-Christian sentiment that resulted in the burning or vandalism of over 85 churches, predominantly Catholic, between 2021 and 2024. These acts of arson and destruction were not random; they were a direct response to a narrative that falsely accused the Church of mass atrocities, a narrative amplified by political leaders and media without rigorous verification. The churches, many of which were historic and served as community pillars, were reduced to ashes, leaving congregations devastated and their sacred spaces irreparably lost.
The case for reparations for these destroyed churches rests on the principle of justice for the innocent. The Canadian government and media played a significant role in perpetuating the hoax, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lowering flags and offering statements that fanned the flames of retribution, while outlets like the CBC reported the claims as fact without evidence. This reckless endorsement led to millions of dollars in damages and the loss of cultural heritage, all based on a falsehood that has yet to yield a single confirmed body despite nearly $8 million spent on investigations. The churches and their parishioners, who were not complicit in the alleged crimes, bore the brunt of this misinformation campaign. Reparations—whether through government funding or community restitution—would acknowledge this wrong, providing resources to rebuild and heal the wounds inflicted on these faith communities.
Moreover, reparations align with the broader call for truth and reconciliation, ironically the very framework used to justify the initial outrage. If reconciliation is to be genuine, it must extend to all victims, including those unjustly targeted in the fallout of the Kamloops narrative. The destruction of churches did not uncover hidden graves or bring closure to Indigenous communities; instead, it deepened division and punished the blameless. By offering reparations, Canada could demonstrate a commitment to correcting the record and supporting the restoration of these sacred spaces, many of which had served both Indigenous and non-Indigenous congregants. This act would not erase the painful history of residential schools but would rectify a modern injustice born of haste and falsehood, ensuring that the pursuit of truth does not leave new victims in its wake.
The Liberal Party of Canada’s (LPC) strategy of proroguing Parliament, seemingly to bide time for external political currents like Trump Derangement Syndrome to shift public sentiment, is a calculated maneuver that reeks of opportunism. By suspending legislative proceedings, the Liberals create a convenient pause, allowing them to sidestep immediate accountability while waiting for a wave of anti-Trump sentiment to bolster their image as a preferable alternative to the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). This approach hinges on the hope that Canadians, distracted by U.S. political chaos, will overlook the LPC’s own inconsistencies and rally behind them as a bulwark against perceived extremism. It’s a crafty exploitation of timing, leveraging international headlines to mask domestic shortcomings, but it betrays a cynical reliance on external factors rather than a principled stand.
The LPC’s subsequent pivot to adopt key planks of the CPC platform—eliminating GST on new homes, scrapping the carbon tax, and revoking the capital gains tax—further exposes their strategy as a shameless theft dressed up as pragmatism. These policies, long championed by the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre, were once derided by the Liberals as impractical or regressive, yet now they’re conveniently repackaged as bold, voter-friendly moves under Mark Carney’s leadership. This isn’t adaptation; it’s a bald-faced grab at populist appeal, executed with a sleight of hand that assumes Canadians won’t notice the hypocrisy. The Liberals’ willingness to jettison their own ideological moorings—once centered on progressive taxation and climate action—demonstrates a craftiness that prioritizes electoral success over coherence, revealing a party more devoted to power than to any governing philosophy.
This unctuous display underscores the LPC’s unflinching and unethical commitment to clinging to power at any cost, even if it means sacrificing integrity. Proroguing Parliament to dodge scrutiny, waiting for Trump-related hysteria to tilt the field, and then pilfering their rival’s playbook isn’t just strategic—it’s a slimy betrayal of public trust. It paints the Liberals as a party willing to bend any principle, adopt any stance, and manipulate any situation to avoid losing their grip on Ottawa. While the tactic may prove effective in the short term, especially with polls showing a Liberal surge as of March 22, 2025, it leaves a lingering stench of desperation and dishonesty, suggesting that for the LPC, the ends will always justify the means, no matter how greasy the path.
Mark Carney’s daughter Sasha, frequently spun by the media as a cherubic “kid” in pigtails, is actually a 24-year-old Yale grad churning out freelance pieces in Brooklyn. Forget the teddy bear; she’s been writing about her non-binary identity and Tavistock Clinic visits since her teens. But why bother with accuracy when you can slap a “kid” label on her? It’s a cute, cuddly way to dodge her real story and keep Carney looking like the wise, protective dad—while hinting he’s all in on the gender ideology train that says identities can be as fluid as his old Bank of England policies.
This isn’t just lazy journalism; it’s a calculated twofer. Infantilizing Sasha strips her of agency—bye-bye, complex debates about her non-binary life or Yale-honed views—and doubles as a dog whistle that Carney’s a card-carrying believer in gender ideology. Why else let the “kid” narrative slide unless he’s nodding along to the idea that biology’s just a suggestion? It’s a slick move: keep her a helpless prop, sidestep the messy adult reality, and signal his progressive cred without him ever saying a word. Meanwhile, the media gets to skip the nuance and bank on us not noticing.
The deceit’s purpose is as clear as Carney’s Goldman Sachs resume: control the story, polish his image. A “kid” Sasha keeps the spotlight on him as the steady patriarch, not some guy whose grown daughter’s out there challenging norms he’s implicitly endorsed. It’s a bonus that this manipulation paints him as a gender ideology ally—perfect for the woke crowd—while the media rakes in clicks from the saccharine family vibe. They’re not clueless; they’re just betting we’ll swallow the sugarcoated lie over the sharper truth of a 24-year-old living their own life.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…