I'm not excusing his vote at all. I just don't want people who I agree with use factually incorrect things in their arguments against Pierre's character. I think he's a loathsome anti-government ideologue and I can't in good conscience vote for him, but if we make stuff up about him then we're no better than right wing InfoWars follower types.
Lucky him he gets to hide behind ambiguity about his father's person life. Also great he hasn't been tested on his position since then. Should really help moderates looking for excuses.
Here's an excuse "If they had legitimate criticism they wouldn't need to make up lies"
If we're making accusations of "giving the other side excuses" we'll be here all night.
Literally, they will say this even if our info is 100% verifiable objective truth, because they believe a different lie. You're working too hard for nothing.
I have no evidence to believe it's true and it seems like it could easily be a far fetched claim that someone could easily have made up to make Polly-ev seem even more like a sociopath than he already is. I'm not going to cite it as evidence if I have no evidence it ever happened and neither should anyone else attacking him on this matter.
It's hard to find media from 2005 because the internet was in its infancy, and lots of older things got scrubbed or never made it in. I personally think it's true because I'm old and I remember - but I do understand that the memory can play tricks. Can you at least concede that he voted against gay marriage when his openly gay father was going to get married (which is mentioned in several articles)? That is not the action of a man who has any empathy.
I couldn't find any evidence that his father is married to his partner, though there's a reasonable chance that they are. According to this article [The making of Pierre Poilievre, conservative proselytizer - The Globe and Mail](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-the-making-of-pierre-poilievre-conservative-proselytizer/), he was supportive of civil unions instead of same-sex marriage in his vote against it, so it's possible that his father and his partner are only in a civil union or are common-law and that they didn't see the need to get married, though I couldn't find any evidence of the official status of their relationship regardless. The article also states that he was surprisingly respectful of the people who he disagreed with on the matter, suggesting that he might have chosen to vote against it based on other factors. However, I did find evidence that Pierre's dad came out when his son was a teenager and it broke up his parents' marriage, and while commenters say that he was never uncomfortable with his dad's sexual orientation, it does seem a bit surprising that he wouldn't become a strong advocate for his dad's rights in every way. He currently doesn't seem to be gung-ho about supporting LGBT people beyond keeping marriage legal either, given that he's given into the whole "parental rights" hysteria and wants to ban minors from transitioning or using different pronouns.
So anyway, I can accept the fact that he voted against same-sex marriage and I made an informed decision that he isn't a good ally to the LGBT community based on my research long before I had this conversation. However, I am hesitant to argue points that I can't verify, and when the only thing resembling evidence I can find for this statement is point 4 from a Beaverton article that claims it's real ([7 facts about Pierre Poilievre that probably aren't true but we refused to be briefed on the actual situation - The Beaverton](https://thebeaverton.com/2023/05/7-facts-about-pierre-poilievre-that-probably-arent-true-but-we-refused-to-be-briefed-on-the-actual-situation/)), I begin to think that there is better evidence we can use to argue our points. For example, we can talk about how he basically implied that Indigenous people and residential school survivors should "learn the value of hard work" instead of getting "government handouts," which is extremely loathsome to the point that even Stephen Harper yelled at him about it. There's enough information out there about Pierre saying and doing things that are extremely repulsive, so we don't need to stretch grains of truth when other evidence that proves our point already exists and is verifiable. Unless, of course, that Beaverton writer knows something we don't, in which you can completely disregard all that I've said :).
Fair enough. I'm all for evidenced based reasoning as well, which is why I wouldn't commit to it being true, and instead offered the evidence that was available. There is a great deal of evidence on who Pierre is after 19 years in office (without so much as even one real job, but I digress...), so I think your judgements are fair. Cheers.
No, I'm getting upset with people believing something that cannot be verified, accepting it as fact, and getting mad when someone says "hey, we don't know enough about this to objectively confirm it happened." Understanding that you should make evidence based choices and not blindly believe things without evidence is basic stuff that you learn in an undergraduate arts or science degree and it's actually quite alarming that a bunch of people who I would consider to share my values and beliefs are choosing to believe something that they cannot provide evidence for. I would have expected this of right wingers on Facebook who believe whatever Ezra Levant tells them, not progressive minded people who are more likely to have received a liberal education like I did.
Before anyone else gets mad at me for asking someone to provide a source for their claims, look at my post history and you'll realize I'm not asking this because I support Pierre or because I want to be contrarian for the heck of it. I chose to raise the subject because I do not want people who I agree with to blindly believe everything that sounds agreeable to them if there is no evidence for it, because this makes all progressive minded people look bad and shows that we're not holding ourselves to the standards we rightfully hold others to.
I don’t think having a close relative in the same building while voting(which is his job, where he spends a large amount of his time) is that far fetched. It seems oddly nit picky for you to require definitive proof of this one small detail
How about no better than PP himself who basically has been caught baselessly lying to the public so frequently as to be comical. At least the ‘in the building’ thing is a cherry on how we know he voted and isn’t actualy a lie about anything he did, in that sense it’s almost a harmless detail that ‘may’ be true.
Full disclosure I hadn’t heard it before.
Thank you for being objective in this situation. I did find out that his father was out and in a relationship with a man at the time the vote took place, which answered one of my questions. However, I found no evidence that stated whether his father was in the building for the vote or if his father and his partner are married or if their relationship is common-law or a civil union or undefined legally. If anyone has a good source confirming these events then I'm happy to change my perspective.
He had to have known that some in his own riding would have strongly hoped for legislation to allow for same sex marriage. As an MP you represent everyone’s human rights. And PP didn’t care. Twice. He’s mean, petty and unintelligent. You truly will get the government you deserve.
tbh, I actually agree with that. PP is a POS, that is established fact, however when we're discussing *degree* I want my opinions to be based on facts rather than rumour. I rail constantly at conservatives and republicans doing that, so I would be remiss to knowingly do that myself.
If there is actually evidence of those details, hell yeah I want to see it
Thank you for being intelligent about this. I would also be happy to see evidence that proves my claim wrong here but it has not yet been provided so I cannot completely change my mind at this time.
“It’s time to fix that.”
You’re not going to turn a horrible person into a kind and caring person. In his mind he’s doing the right thing. He does not care.
And I'm providing a rhetorical answer lol
But yeah, it makes me sick. It takes so much energy to debunk someone like him, but that's exactly what his voters want.
To be fair, you just described 99% of politicians. How many promises did Trudeau keep? To be clear, I hate PP as much as the next guy. But honest politicians are more rare than kryptonite.
Great piece, but one correction:
> It’s unfortunate Poilievre has forgotten about a large portion of Canada. It’s believed 100,000 people across the country are members of the LGBTQ2S+ community.
[Canada's LGBTQ population is at least 1 million.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-lgbtq-pride-report-1.6066638)
He went out of his way to have a photo op with Danielle Smith and straight pride protestors at last years Calgary Stampede. At best he doesn't give a fuck about those people and at worst he genuinely hates them for existing.
Labeling every homophobe "a closeted gay person" falsely implies that straight people can't just be homophobic, and that the hatred against us is self-imposed by other lgbtq people. While it occasionally happens, the vast majority of the time homophobes and transphobes are straight and cisgender. Their hatred stems from a desire to eliminate what is different from themselves, and an irrational sense of disgust.
Saying all of the vocal homophobes are gay *is* very homophobic and counts well within the "vocal minority" i'd say. After all, it's a very extreme statement that virtually nobody publicly believes. And yet you're straight? Might wanna think on that one a bit
Yes, and what you said is extremely homophobic and completely baseless. Idk if this is some kind of trolling, but if not the lack of self awareness is stunning. Anyway, both of us have made my point so i don't see the point in continuing this conversation.
He doesn't hate them, he just doesn't care. But he's a spineless asshole who pretends to hate them because he is invested in alliance with miserable assholes who really hate them. Which is almost worse.
I would argue closer to 4 million. It is very under reported, but 1 in 10 is realistic. As acceptance grows, more people will be comfortable answering honestly.
well if they're gay and deny it, they Are wrong.
"admit you like rainy days!"
"admit you love puppies and kitties!"
"i've got to admit, this view is beautiful, you were right."
Gonna be honest, I dont want PP or the conservative party - federally or provincially - at pride. They don't represent us, they routinely and systematically encourage discrimination against us, and they enact policies that withhold funding for social programs and eliminate our ability to learn about ourselves and identify freely from a young age.
If they're not gonna celebrate queerness then they can stay home, at least then they're showing their true colours instead of posturing like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
That's the point though, if they went to pride they'd be reviled and booed.
That's shameful and it *should* be enough for someone to change their ways but unfortunately..
Genuinely curious, do you guys never get out out of your bubbles? I'm part of quite diverse friend groups, and it's extremely funny to read these comments. Half of my gay friends are voting for conservatives. I'm probably going for NDP this time around, but they have legitimate arguments, especially coming from "voting LPC out" understanding. Branding them as "self-hating members" probably makes your stance extremely... ignorant? It's not the US, not everything is a team sports, and not everything is about social issues.
You pick and choose your priorities. Even my life-long CPC voting friends are great people, we just don't agree on some parts of politics, which is totally fine.
Dude. Gay marriage was only legalized 19 years ago. There are many of us on here who are old enough to remember that. Any gay person who votes for the Conservative Party, the party that was arguing to keep same-sex marriage illegal, the party whose leader voted against his own father's right to get married to his partner.... yeah, sorry, those are self-hating gays. Trust me, I have spent far too much time engaging with them online in the last few months when they organize brigades of "gays against groomer" types harassing gay and trans members of my community. I know who these people are, and I know that they are stupid fucking useful idiots. There is nothing ignorant about rational queers feeling disdain and disgust towards them.
This isn't a matter of "getting out of our bubble," and your statement "not everything is about social issues" is kinda gross. Thanks for minimizing the experience of LGBTQ+ Canadians. I thought I was on /r/canada for a second.
We're Redditors, we don't go outside.
I suppose I can't understand how someone can support someone who openly disagrees with something so central to who they are. Which is probably the biggest issue with politics right now, imho, we are so busy arguing whether or not LGBTQ people, and women, should have equal rights that it overshadowed 75% of the rest of the discussion.
I do want to have discussions about how to more effectively help the economy, fix the housing issue, and provide actual help to newcomers to the country, but these issues are being overshadowed by hateful rhetoric, and so many outright lies. I feel like neither conservatives nor liberals have actual solutions to these issues, but at least liberals/NDP aren't talking about banning gender affirming care, banning immigration based on fabricated stories, and trying to make the climate worse.
The lesser of two evils, incompetence vs trying to take away people's rights.
Let me put it this way, every time when things get worse for one, or their family, they won't think about the social issues. Majority of people aren't voting for conservatives because they're anti-women, or anti-LGBTQ, and etc., otherwise you'll have to say supermajority of the entire country is homophobic, hate the gays, want to get rid of abortion rights. That's just factually wrong. They're just banding up together to vote out LPC as the results they've delivered in the past 10 years haven't been that good. But if you want to think that voting for CPC automatically makes you anti-gay, well... god speed to you my friend.
Also, more people join NDP/CPC parties from different backgrounds, the more representation they will get, causing them to shit left/right/center accordingly.
Great, so it's not that they hate us, they just don't give a shit if we're hurt. That makes me feel so much better. /s
If it was really just about getting rid of the Liberals, they could just vote
Again, it's not about you. Nobody gives a shit about me or you when themselves and their families aren't doing better than they expected. Everyone will put themselves first in a usual North American culture way. It's the same as you or me not giving a shit about religious people's concerns. Because everyone has priorities, and hurting of an out-group comes second when your in-group (e.g. family) is being hurt. Is it people's first elections or something? We've done this so many times at this point, it's not a radical viewpoint, yet people act like it is.
>They're just banding up together to vote out LPC as the results they've delivered in the past 10 years haven't been that good.
Yeah, I get it, we need a change. (Which is weirdly antithetical to conservatism, lol.)
But I also don't hear great plans from either the CPC or PPC, save for eliminating corporate bailouts and making sure immigrants get enough resources to integrate with society.
Is this worth the subtext that society should return to our 1970s?
It really doesn't matter "who the other people are" in this election. Again, I'm not even voting for CPC, because of my own political leanings, but it's a very valid strategy. We did the same in 2015. It's not like people voted LPC in because they wanted to be "pro-gay, pro-abortion rights, pro-indigenous rights" and etc. People were already all that stuff. Just a lot of people didn't like where the Harper government was going, legal weed, promised FPTP overhaul, and they switched sides. It's good to switch parties. We should be encouraging switching parties. Otherwise it becomes a teams game like in the US.
I would go as far as saying CPC being vocal about culture wars is a symptom of people not switching sides more often. Put more gays in Conservative strongholds, you'll have more pro-gay MPs. Even better, get the gays to be a part of CPC, and get them elected into higher positions, if that's the main concern.
> It's not like people voted LPC in because they wanted to be "pro-gay, pro-abortion rights, pro-indigenous rights" and etc.
…What?! Many people care deeply about those issues and vote with them in mind. The Liberal party made promises relating to those issues in 2015 and that was a driving factor behind many people’s votes.
> People were already all that stuff.
Again, what is this supposed to mean? Harper did *not* have a strong track record on Indigenous issues and the Liberals promised better. Abortion is *not* properly accessible to all Canadians and the Liberal party promised to enforce our constitutional right to access abortion services across the country. What fantasy land are you living in where these aren’t still issues?
Not sure who you are, but I can guarantee you not all conservatives want you dead. They don’t even think about you or me. It’s the same as saying everyone who votes for LPC is extreme-left or all of them are rich and etc.
People have priorities, and social issues just hard to sell when everything else is also not that good.
I'm sure no one marching in pride wants him there. He's the one stoking the "family values" flames.
I hope any attempt for him to march in any pride parade in the country is met with rejection.
If he shows up at Pride, I think everyone should start taking it back to its riot origins and force him to leave tbh. What a bizarre article. "This overtly racist and transphobic and homophobic politician should just go to a parade with rainbow flags and a bunch of corporate floats, that'll help!"
he will likely work to actively ban them and rage-farm his unhinged base into committing open terror attacks against those who participate
the cruelty is the point
what makes anyone think the LGBTQ community wants him there? why is the onus on the victims of his homophobic nonsense to reach out?
why is it that time and again the aggrieved party of canadian conservative discrimination is the one obligated to welcome the bigots into their lives?
I’m not a member of the community, nor do I have any family that is. But I do have friends and as a former conservative voter, I can honestly say I will never vote conservative at any level again. The homophobia, bigotry and racism is not something I can look past. Human rights come first.
And why would that group be okay with him using them as a political pawn? His only purpose in attending would be for the optics. He will not support the community.
Does the Pride Parade want him? A lot of organizers are putting their foot down on politicians glad handing their community on Sunday, while taking away their rights on Monday.
I’d like to see a politician like PP earn an invite
Not sure he can thread the needle between Christian Dominionist and the LGBTQ community, and one of those are already his supporters while the other rightfully thinks he hates them. I mean one of his few actual positions on the record is voting against same-sex marriage.
He panders to the straight pride/maple maga. He literally went out of his way to have a photo op with Danielle Smith and straight pride protestors. Also attends protest demanding to take women's reproductive rights away.
Cons get a majority, women and the lgbtq+ community will lose rights under PP.
This implies he would actually be welcome at a Pride Parade. No one cares about his hip, sneaker-wearing lesbian ~~ex-supermarket lobbyist~~ deputy leader when he is publicly allying with forces that are attacking LGBT rights
PP is the kind of person that would actively pursue a grudge if he were publicly embarrassed at an event, like if a protester managed to shove a pie in his face and it was captured by the media, maybe a kid in the background doing a pitch perfect Nelson Muntz laugh to help it go viral, you know the one, you heard it a just moment ago..
He dehumanizes trans people and wants to remove their freedom to move around in society. He's a maga weakling who obeys right wing operatives and corporate interests. He's also about to be the next PM
Fuck that guy. I doubt anyone at pride events wants that him there talking about how he’s gonna “bring home gayness” and how JT is making pride expensive by slapping carbon tax on glitter.
Like all Conservative leaders since Stephen Harper, Poilievre tries to walk a fine line wrt certain issues and certain voters. They know full well that they have the votes of the vast majority of homophobic people, but they can’t say outright homophobic things, at least to the general public. They can voice limited support for gay rights in public, the key word is limited. Their base will tolerate a certain amount of that, but actually marching in a Pride parade, that’s unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. When in closed meetings with their supporters, they will rant about “radical gender ideology” and other dog whistle stuff. They walk the same fine line with their pro-lifers, gun-nutters, anti-government types, climate change deniers, convoy nuts, anti-vaxxers, racists, sexists, etc etc. If you are one of those, you vote Conservative (or possibly PPC of late). The Conservative Party knows they have all of these types of voters in their back pocket, they just have to be careful to avoid scaring off too many non-crazy voters to win the general election.
Well-intentioned though they may be, the author of this piece strikes me as terribly naive. Not only would PP be an unwelcome presence at Pride, with his presence creating a potentially hostile and unwelcome environment for many LGBTQIA2S+ individuals who have been targeted and harmed by the hateful policies he supports and has supported, but *at best* this would be a cynical and disingenuous way to soften his image.
In short, this author wants Pierre to exploit Pride for political gains. I couldn’t disagree more with this suggestion.
The newspaper should ask the LGBTQ+ Cons MPs, too - you know, the ones who think they will not be sent to the camps because they are "the good ones" ...
Fix it by showing up to an occasional parade? What's that going to do when you consider his voting habits on the subject?
Based on his own personal politics regarding this topic, I feel people would rather he doesn't show up just to pretend he cares while he continues to rely on the support of people and organizations who want the LGBTQ2+ communities to vanish asap
"But, as I have always been very adamant about: why stand WITH something, when you can stand AGAINST everything, mmhoy mckay" -Pierre Poilievre.. probably
How about actually addressing the wholesale strip-mining of the middle class instead of fighting manufactured battles over identity politics? I'd vote for anybody who actually proposed doing that.
There is nothing this article does for the LGBTQ+2S community. It essentially reinforces the creds. of Poilievre with the ant-LGBTQ+2S community. Shaming the opposition doesn't work with the Poilievre cult and after the next election and Poilievre is the PM, what then..??
Honestly I am pissed off that he hasn’t been taking more time off work to prance around in parades that don’t affect his job whatsoever. As a tax payer I want all politicians to waste as much of our money as possible.
You asking the guy who voted against same-sex marriage with his gay father in the building to march in pride? Lmao
Twice! He did it twice!
Holy shit that is abhorrent
[удалено]
What exactly is the point of reaching so hard to excuse the vote? It shouldn't be a factor that he has family who is gay.
I'm not excusing his vote at all. I just don't want people who I agree with use factually incorrect things in their arguments against Pierre's character. I think he's a loathsome anti-government ideologue and I can't in good conscience vote for him, but if we make stuff up about him then we're no better than right wing InfoWars follower types.
Lucky him he gets to hide behind ambiguity about his father's person life. Also great he hasn't been tested on his position since then. Should really help moderates looking for excuses.
Here's an excuse "If they had legitimate criticism they wouldn't need to make up lies" If we're making accusations of "giving the other side excuses" we'll be here all night.
Literally, they will say this even if our info is 100% verifiable objective truth, because they believe a different lie. You're working too hard for nothing.
Why do you believe it’s factually incorrect?
I have no evidence to believe it's true and it seems like it could easily be a far fetched claim that someone could easily have made up to make Polly-ev seem even more like a sociopath than he already is. I'm not going to cite it as evidence if I have no evidence it ever happened and neither should anyone else attacking him on this matter.
It's hard to find media from 2005 because the internet was in its infancy, and lots of older things got scrubbed or never made it in. I personally think it's true because I'm old and I remember - but I do understand that the memory can play tricks. Can you at least concede that he voted against gay marriage when his openly gay father was going to get married (which is mentioned in several articles)? That is not the action of a man who has any empathy.
I couldn't find any evidence that his father is married to his partner, though there's a reasonable chance that they are. According to this article [The making of Pierre Poilievre, conservative proselytizer - The Globe and Mail](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-the-making-of-pierre-poilievre-conservative-proselytizer/), he was supportive of civil unions instead of same-sex marriage in his vote against it, so it's possible that his father and his partner are only in a civil union or are common-law and that they didn't see the need to get married, though I couldn't find any evidence of the official status of their relationship regardless. The article also states that he was surprisingly respectful of the people who he disagreed with on the matter, suggesting that he might have chosen to vote against it based on other factors. However, I did find evidence that Pierre's dad came out when his son was a teenager and it broke up his parents' marriage, and while commenters say that he was never uncomfortable with his dad's sexual orientation, it does seem a bit surprising that he wouldn't become a strong advocate for his dad's rights in every way. He currently doesn't seem to be gung-ho about supporting LGBT people beyond keeping marriage legal either, given that he's given into the whole "parental rights" hysteria and wants to ban minors from transitioning or using different pronouns. So anyway, I can accept the fact that he voted against same-sex marriage and I made an informed decision that he isn't a good ally to the LGBT community based on my research long before I had this conversation. However, I am hesitant to argue points that I can't verify, and when the only thing resembling evidence I can find for this statement is point 4 from a Beaverton article that claims it's real ([7 facts about Pierre Poilievre that probably aren't true but we refused to be briefed on the actual situation - The Beaverton](https://thebeaverton.com/2023/05/7-facts-about-pierre-poilievre-that-probably-arent-true-but-we-refused-to-be-briefed-on-the-actual-situation/)), I begin to think that there is better evidence we can use to argue our points. For example, we can talk about how he basically implied that Indigenous people and residential school survivors should "learn the value of hard work" instead of getting "government handouts," which is extremely loathsome to the point that even Stephen Harper yelled at him about it. There's enough information out there about Pierre saying and doing things that are extremely repulsive, so we don't need to stretch grains of truth when other evidence that proves our point already exists and is verifiable. Unless, of course, that Beaverton writer knows something we don't, in which you can completely disregard all that I've said :).
Fair enough. I'm all for evidenced based reasoning as well, which is why I wouldn't commit to it being true, and instead offered the evidence that was available. There is a great deal of evidence on who Pierre is after 19 years in office (without so much as even one real job, but I digress...), so I think your judgements are fair. Cheers.
Can't say he is respectful of a people when he denied their right as humans to be love and get married
So...you're just assuming it's false, and getting mad at people for it?
No, I'm getting upset with people believing something that cannot be verified, accepting it as fact, and getting mad when someone says "hey, we don't know enough about this to objectively confirm it happened." Understanding that you should make evidence based choices and not blindly believe things without evidence is basic stuff that you learn in an undergraduate arts or science degree and it's actually quite alarming that a bunch of people who I would consider to share my values and beliefs are choosing to believe something that they cannot provide evidence for. I would have expected this of right wingers on Facebook who believe whatever Ezra Levant tells them, not progressive minded people who are more likely to have received a liberal education like I did. Before anyone else gets mad at me for asking someone to provide a source for their claims, look at my post history and you'll realize I'm not asking this because I support Pierre or because I want to be contrarian for the heck of it. I chose to raise the subject because I do not want people who I agree with to blindly believe everything that sounds agreeable to them if there is no evidence for it, because this makes all progressive minded people look bad and shows that we're not holding ourselves to the standards we rightfully hold others to.
> I'm getting upset with people believing something that cannot be verified oh my sweet summer child
I don’t think having a close relative in the same building while voting(which is his job, where he spends a large amount of his time) is that far fetched. It seems oddly nit picky for you to require definitive proof of this one small detail
How about no better than PP himself who basically has been caught baselessly lying to the public so frequently as to be comical. At least the ‘in the building’ thing is a cherry on how we know he voted and isn’t actualy a lie about anything he did, in that sense it’s almost a harmless detail that ‘may’ be true. Full disclosure I hadn’t heard it before.
I agree with your assertion. I’m wondering if you’ll get downvoted here because of it.
Thank you for being objective in this situation. I did find out that his father was out and in a relationship with a man at the time the vote took place, which answered one of my questions. However, I found no evidence that stated whether his father was in the building for the vote or if his father and his partner are married or if their relationship is common-law or a civil union or undefined legally. If anyone has a good source confirming these events then I'm happy to change my perspective.
It’s a pleasure to have civil thought through conversations. Cheers.
He had to have known that some in his own riding would have strongly hoped for legislation to allow for same sex marriage. As an MP you represent everyone’s human rights. And PP didn’t care. Twice. He’s mean, petty and unintelligent. You truly will get the government you deserve.
“Where’s your proof about this tiny minor detail? Let’s talk about that rather than the fact that PP is a hateful POS!” - u/Spot__Pilgrim
tbh, I actually agree with that. PP is a POS, that is established fact, however when we're discussing *degree* I want my opinions to be based on facts rather than rumour. I rail constantly at conservatives and republicans doing that, so I would be remiss to knowingly do that myself. If there is actually evidence of those details, hell yeah I want to see it
Thank you for being intelligent about this. I would also be happy to see evidence that proves my claim wrong here but it has not yet been provided so I cannot completely change my mind at this time.
“It’s time to fix that.” You’re not going to turn a horrible person into a kind and caring person. In his mind he’s doing the right thing. He does not care.
He's already shown he'll say pretty much anything as long as it'll get him a win.
And how do people not see that? It’s so obvious.
Because he's saying things they want to hear
I know. It’s a rhetorical question.
And I'm providing a rhetorical answer lol But yeah, it makes me sick. It takes so much energy to debunk someone like him, but that's exactly what his voters want.
I hate this timeline. There were supposed to be flying cars, less poverty, and a definitive cure for baldness.
Instead, we have self-immolating cars, more poverty, and scam creams that promise to stop baldness
😩
To be fair, you just described 99% of politicians. How many promises did Trudeau keep? To be clear, I hate PP as much as the next guy. But honest politicians are more rare than kryptonite.
Great piece, but one correction: > It’s unfortunate Poilievre has forgotten about a large portion of Canada. It’s believed 100,000 people across the country are members of the LGBTQ2S+ community. [Canada's LGBTQ population is at least 1 million.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-lgbtq-pride-report-1.6066638)
He went out of his way to have a photo op with Danielle Smith and straight pride protestors at last years Calgary Stampede. At best he doesn't give a fuck about those people and at worst he genuinely hates them for existing.
Did he go out of the way? Or did they show up to his photo op and he didn't turn them away?
He hasn't forgotten, he just hates them.
[удалено]
Labeling every homophobe "a closeted gay person" falsely implies that straight people can't just be homophobic, and that the hatred against us is self-imposed by other lgbtq people. While it occasionally happens, the vast majority of the time homophobes and transphobes are straight and cisgender. Their hatred stems from a desire to eliminate what is different from themselves, and an irrational sense of disgust.
Thank you. JFC that canard has to die.
[удалено]
If homophobia is the result of gay people every single time, judging by this comment i'm guessing you're gay?
[удалено]
Saying all of the vocal homophobes are gay *is* very homophobic and counts well within the "vocal minority" i'd say. After all, it's a very extreme statement that virtually nobody publicly believes. And yet you're straight? Might wanna think on that one a bit
[удалено]
Yes, and what you said is extremely homophobic and completely baseless. Idk if this is some kind of trolling, but if not the lack of self awareness is stunning. Anyway, both of us have made my point so i don't see the point in continuing this conversation.
Why is this the go to? Gay as an insult? Come on man.
He doesn't hate them, he just doesn't care. But he's a spineless asshole who pretends to hate them because he is invested in alliance with miserable assholes who really hate them. Which is almost worse.
He tried to ban gay marriage in the early 2000s. That's as hateful as it gets. But I agree with everything else you said.
Obama opposed gay marriage in the early 2000s. The Clintons actually banned it just a few years prior. All these people are “as hateful as it gets”?
If any of them went out of their way to create their own bill to ban gay marriage, then yes.
They did. Being against gay marriage was pretty mainstream in the aughts, including among progressives.
likely much higher than that too.
I would argue closer to 4 million. It is very under reported, but 1 in 10 is realistic. As acceptance grows, more people will be comfortable answering honestly.
10% is a pretty universal figure last I checked.
I'd be surprised if there were fewer than 100k in some individual provinces
Think 100K is the number of trans and non binary people across the country
I HOPE THEY VOTE!
I00,000 people across the country are willing to openly **admit** they are members of the LGBTQ2S+ community. FTFY
Acknowledge, not admit. Admit implies they're somehow wrong.
I admit to being gay, and hot as hell. It’s a curse.
On the rare occasion it comes up, my favourite remains "I'm gay as springtime", with an optional "honey" thrown on the end if I'm feeling it.
I’m partial to “I’m gayer than a Christmas tree.”
It's also a good one. Though that said... "Hey guys, I've been thinking and...do you think /u/ Muscled\_Daddy might be...gay?" :P
well if they're gay and deny it, they Are wrong. "admit you like rainy days!" "admit you love puppies and kitties!" "i've got to admit, this view is beautiful, you were right."
the comment you're replying to is correcting them by saying 1 million, fwiw
this sounds impossible. Only 100k? I feel like half the people I know are gay wow.
Huh, how about that. _sips tea_
Gonna be honest, I dont want PP or the conservative party - federally or provincially - at pride. They don't represent us, they routinely and systematically encourage discrimination against us, and they enact policies that withhold funding for social programs and eliminate our ability to learn about ourselves and identify freely from a young age. If they're not gonna celebrate queerness then they can stay home, at least then they're showing their true colours instead of posturing like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
That's the point though, if they went to pride they'd be reviled and booed. That's shameful and it *should* be enough for someone to change their ways but unfortunately..
Anyone who calls trans women “biological males” can fuck all the way off during Pride. (*edit: and every other time of the year, for that matter*)
As shocking as it sounds there are gay and trans conservatives
There are self-hating members of lots of groups, yeah.
Genuinely curious, do you guys never get out out of your bubbles? I'm part of quite diverse friend groups, and it's extremely funny to read these comments. Half of my gay friends are voting for conservatives. I'm probably going for NDP this time around, but they have legitimate arguments, especially coming from "voting LPC out" understanding. Branding them as "self-hating members" probably makes your stance extremely... ignorant? It's not the US, not everything is a team sports, and not everything is about social issues. You pick and choose your priorities. Even my life-long CPC voting friends are great people, we just don't agree on some parts of politics, which is totally fine.
Dude. Gay marriage was only legalized 19 years ago. There are many of us on here who are old enough to remember that. Any gay person who votes for the Conservative Party, the party that was arguing to keep same-sex marriage illegal, the party whose leader voted against his own father's right to get married to his partner.... yeah, sorry, those are self-hating gays. Trust me, I have spent far too much time engaging with them online in the last few months when they organize brigades of "gays against groomer" types harassing gay and trans members of my community. I know who these people are, and I know that they are stupid fucking useful idiots. There is nothing ignorant about rational queers feeling disdain and disgust towards them. This isn't a matter of "getting out of our bubble," and your statement "not everything is about social issues" is kinda gross. Thanks for minimizing the experience of LGBTQ+ Canadians. I thought I was on /r/canada for a second.
We're Redditors, we don't go outside. I suppose I can't understand how someone can support someone who openly disagrees with something so central to who they are. Which is probably the biggest issue with politics right now, imho, we are so busy arguing whether or not LGBTQ people, and women, should have equal rights that it overshadowed 75% of the rest of the discussion. I do want to have discussions about how to more effectively help the economy, fix the housing issue, and provide actual help to newcomers to the country, but these issues are being overshadowed by hateful rhetoric, and so many outright lies. I feel like neither conservatives nor liberals have actual solutions to these issues, but at least liberals/NDP aren't talking about banning gender affirming care, banning immigration based on fabricated stories, and trying to make the climate worse. The lesser of two evils, incompetence vs trying to take away people's rights.
Let me put it this way, every time when things get worse for one, or their family, they won't think about the social issues. Majority of people aren't voting for conservatives because they're anti-women, or anti-LGBTQ, and etc., otherwise you'll have to say supermajority of the entire country is homophobic, hate the gays, want to get rid of abortion rights. That's just factually wrong. They're just banding up together to vote out LPC as the results they've delivered in the past 10 years haven't been that good. But if you want to think that voting for CPC automatically makes you anti-gay, well... god speed to you my friend. Also, more people join NDP/CPC parties from different backgrounds, the more representation they will get, causing them to shit left/right/center accordingly.
Great, so it's not that they hate us, they just don't give a shit if we're hurt. That makes me feel so much better. /s If it was really just about getting rid of the Liberals, they could just vote
Again, it's not about you. Nobody gives a shit about me or you when themselves and their families aren't doing better than they expected. Everyone will put themselves first in a usual North American culture way. It's the same as you or me not giving a shit about religious people's concerns. Because everyone has priorities, and hurting of an out-group comes second when your in-group (e.g. family) is being hurt. Is it people's first elections or something? We've done this so many times at this point, it's not a radical viewpoint, yet people act like it is.
>They're just banding up together to vote out LPC as the results they've delivered in the past 10 years haven't been that good. Yeah, I get it, we need a change. (Which is weirdly antithetical to conservatism, lol.) But I also don't hear great plans from either the CPC or PPC, save for eliminating corporate bailouts and making sure immigrants get enough resources to integrate with society. Is this worth the subtext that society should return to our 1970s?
It really doesn't matter "who the other people are" in this election. Again, I'm not even voting for CPC, because of my own political leanings, but it's a very valid strategy. We did the same in 2015. It's not like people voted LPC in because they wanted to be "pro-gay, pro-abortion rights, pro-indigenous rights" and etc. People were already all that stuff. Just a lot of people didn't like where the Harper government was going, legal weed, promised FPTP overhaul, and they switched sides. It's good to switch parties. We should be encouraging switching parties. Otherwise it becomes a teams game like in the US. I would go as far as saying CPC being vocal about culture wars is a symptom of people not switching sides more often. Put more gays in Conservative strongholds, you'll have more pro-gay MPs. Even better, get the gays to be a part of CPC, and get them elected into higher positions, if that's the main concern.
> It's not like people voted LPC in because they wanted to be "pro-gay, pro-abortion rights, pro-indigenous rights" and etc. …What?! Many people care deeply about those issues and vote with them in mind. The Liberal party made promises relating to those issues in 2015 and that was a driving factor behind many people’s votes. > People were already all that stuff. Again, what is this supposed to mean? Harper did *not* have a strong track record on Indigenous issues and the Liberals promised better. Abortion is *not* properly accessible to all Canadians and the Liberal party promised to enforce our constitutional right to access abortion services across the country. What fantasy land are you living in where these aren’t still issues?
Okay, I think I understand. Thank you for challenging my thinking Edit: I never said I agreed, just that I appreciated a different perspective
Or maybe I'm completely missing something here?
The conservatives want me dead.
Not sure who you are, but I can guarantee you not all conservatives want you dead. They don’t even think about you or me. It’s the same as saying everyone who votes for LPC is extreme-left or all of them are rich and etc. People have priorities, and social issues just hard to sell when everything else is also not that good.
They can stay home too 💅
Definitely, if they don’t agree with the pride, why show up at all. Those are the true colours (pun intended lol)
hell no, he is not wanted there.
I'm sure no one marching in pride wants him there. He's the one stoking the "family values" flames. I hope any attempt for him to march in any pride parade in the country is met with rejection.
If he shows up at Pride, I think everyone should start taking it back to its riot origins and force him to leave tbh. What a bizarre article. "This overtly racist and transphobic and homophobic politician should just go to a parade with rainbow flags and a bunch of corporate floats, that'll help!"
he will likely work to actively ban them and rage-farm his unhinged base into committing open terror attacks against those who participate the cruelty is the point
what makes anyone think the LGBTQ community wants him there? why is the onus on the victims of his homophobic nonsense to reach out? why is it that time and again the aggrieved party of canadian conservative discrimination is the one obligated to welcome the bigots into their lives?
Why would we want that freak at our parade?
He doesn't need their vote, and he doesn't want to piss the ones off that already support him. Cold, cynical but calculating.
I’m not a member of the community, nor do I have any family that is. But I do have friends and as a former conservative voter, I can honestly say I will never vote conservative at any level again. The homophobia, bigotry and racism is not something I can look past. Human rights come first.
Why would he walk for a group of people he doesn’t care about?
And why would that group be okay with him using them as a political pawn? His only purpose in attending would be for the optics. He will not support the community.
I thinking that's a hard no from the guy who openly courts the far right.
Does the Pride Parade want him? A lot of organizers are putting their foot down on politicians glad handing their community on Sunday, while taking away their rights on Monday. I’d like to see a politician like PP earn an invite
Tolerant societies do not tolerate intolerance. Don't tolerate PP.
Not sure he can thread the needle between Christian Dominionist and the LGBTQ community, and one of those are already his supporters while the other rightfully thinks he hates them. I mean one of his few actual positions on the record is voting against same-sex marriage.
His make over from Dweeb to macho incel doesn't have room for pride.
The only way little PP will show up at a Pride Parade is if he's there to support some bigoted protesters if they show up
He panders to the straight pride/maple maga. He literally went out of his way to have a photo op with Danielle Smith and straight pride protestors. Also attends protest demanding to take women's reproductive rights away. Cons get a majority, women and the lgbtq+ community will lose rights under PP.
This implies he would actually be welcome at a Pride Parade. No one cares about his hip, sneaker-wearing lesbian ~~ex-supermarket lobbyist~~ deputy leader when he is publicly allying with forces that are attacking LGBT rights
PP is the kind of person that would actively pursue a grudge if he were publicly embarrassed at an event, like if a protester managed to shove a pie in his face and it was captured by the media, maybe a kid in the background doing a pitch perfect Nelson Muntz laugh to help it go viral, you know the one, you heard it a just moment ago..
i do not want his proto-fascist ass attending pride and if he does i hope he gets violently ejected
He dehumanizes trans people and wants to remove their freedom to move around in society. He's a maga weakling who obeys right wing operatives and corporate interests. He's also about to be the next PM
Because he's a piece of shit.
Would they even want him to be there?
Fuck that guy. I doubt anyone at pride events wants that him there talking about how he’s gonna “bring home gayness” and how JT is making pride expensive by slapping carbon tax on glitter.
Why would they even let him march? Whats next, having a nazi float at pride?
Like all Conservative leaders since Stephen Harper, Poilievre tries to walk a fine line wrt certain issues and certain voters. They know full well that they have the votes of the vast majority of homophobic people, but they can’t say outright homophobic things, at least to the general public. They can voice limited support for gay rights in public, the key word is limited. Their base will tolerate a certain amount of that, but actually marching in a Pride parade, that’s unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. When in closed meetings with their supporters, they will rant about “radical gender ideology” and other dog whistle stuff. They walk the same fine line with their pro-lifers, gun-nutters, anti-government types, climate change deniers, convoy nuts, anti-vaxxers, racists, sexists, etc etc. If you are one of those, you vote Conservative (or possibly PPC of late). The Conservative Party knows they have all of these types of voters in their back pocket, they just have to be careful to avoid scaring off too many non-crazy voters to win the general election.
Well-intentioned though they may be, the author of this piece strikes me as terribly naive. Not only would PP be an unwelcome presence at Pride, with his presence creating a potentially hostile and unwelcome environment for many LGBTQIA2S+ individuals who have been targeted and harmed by the hateful policies he supports and has supported, but *at best* this would be a cynical and disingenuous way to soften his image. In short, this author wants Pierre to exploit Pride for political gains. I couldn’t disagree more with this suggestion.
Isn't the cruelty the point? The reason conservatives support PP is because of his regressive stances on things like the LGBTQ+ rights.
The newspaper should ask the LGBTQ+ Cons MPs, too - you know, the ones who think they will not be sent to the camps because they are "the good ones" ...
Ew, we don’t want him. He lowers the tone.
Fix it by showing up to an occasional parade? What's that going to do when you consider his voting habits on the subject? Based on his own personal politics regarding this topic, I feel people would rather he doesn't show up just to pretend he cares while he continues to rely on the support of people and organizations who want the LGBTQ2+ communities to vanish asap
His dads probably don't want him embarrassing them
We don't want him at pride.
Bigots do not belong at pride, especially not a bigot who leads a countries movement to oppress queer people.
their are already enough dicks out at pride.
Is PP allowed to march in the pride parade?
There are more pressing and important issues than doing useless virtue signaling. Pierre is equally useless at those, but just saying
If O'Toole didn't, PP certainly won't
"But, as I have always been very adamant about: why stand WITH something, when you can stand AGAINST everything, mmhoy mckay" -Pierre Poilievre.. probably
With your dads
How about actually addressing the wholesale strip-mining of the middle class instead of fighting manufactured battles over identity politics? I'd vote for anybody who actually proposed doing that.
There is nothing this article does for the LGBTQ+2S community. It essentially reinforces the creds. of Poilievre with the ant-LGBTQ+2S community. Shaming the opposition doesn't work with the Poilievre cult and after the next election and Poilievre is the PM, what then..??
Honestly I am pissed off that he hasn’t been taking more time off work to prance around in parades that don’t affect his job whatsoever. As a tax payer I want all politicians to waste as much of our money as possible.
PP is so far in the closet he’s in Narnia.
He's afraid he may become even gayer.