CHIDIAC – Poilievre’s confrontational style is eroding our political standards
Pierre Poilievre in the heat of debate.
His aggressive approach is contributing to a negative shift in the tone and quality of political discourse in Canada
ON SEPT. 17, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh confronted a heckler who shouted “corrupted bastard” at him while he was walking outside the Canadian Parliament buildings.
Singh stopped, turned around, and challenged two nearby men to face him directly. Both denied responsibility, claiming the insult came from behind them.
Lacking proof that either of the two men hurled the insult, Singh moved on, but the message was clear: Canadians have had enough of cowards who hide behind anonymity to spew insults and threats.
Respect is earned by owning up to your actions, not by hiding behind a wall of fear and avoidance.
I may be nostalgic, but I remember when politicians debated ideas in the House of Commons and crafted sharp, clever insults while still respecting parliamentary decorum.
Outside the chamber, they had meaningful discussions and created legislation that actually benefited Canadians. It may sound eccentric, but I found those question periods quite entertaining.
Today, Parliament has become an uglier place, much of it fueled by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who has adopted a confrontational style popularized by U.S. Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. That style suits Canada about as well as “Rollin’ with the Gangsters” fits Weird Al Yankovic’s White and Nerdy music video.
Poilievre’s behaviour is out of place because Canada’s political system is “nerdy” but effective. Canadians deserve elected officials who are serious, not angry clowns chasing clickbait.
Poilievre has repeatedly shown himself to be unwilling or incapable of showing simple human decency. He often lashes out at reporters from media outlets he dislikes. After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a rally in August, where law enforcement snipers killed the gunman, Poilievre offered condolences for the victims but added, “I am also happy that the suspected shooter is dead.”
What kind of leader feels “happy” about the death of a misguided young man with grieving parents? No other world leader made such a cruel remark.
It’s terrifying to contemplate where this disregard for human life is taking us. Recently, in Lebanon, electronic devices exploded, killing dozens, including children, and injuring thousands more. We can only imagine the devastation if one of these devices had made its way onto a commercial airliner.
No one has claimed responsibility for what former British MP George Galloway called “the biggest act of mass terrorism since Sept. 11.” We all now feel less secure with our technology.
The best we can hope for is that the international judicial system holds those responsible accountable and that our leaders insist on upholding humanitarian law in the future.
Canada urgently needs stronger laws to protect its citizens, including our politicians. Much of the violence is fueled online, often resulting in anonymous threats that must be taken seriously. Our parliamentarians need to unite to create laws that protect civil liberties while holding criminals accountable. This is no easy task, but it must be done.
Earlier this month, Singh ended the supply-and-confidence agreement with the Trudeau government after securing significant improvements in dental care for millions of Canadians and making progress on pharmacare legislation. However, while the dental care program has been successfully expanded, the pharmacare plan is still in development.
If parliamentarians fail to collaborate, an early election could potentially hand power to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives. This raises the question: what would it mean for Canada if Poilievre were given a prominent platform on the international stage?
His confrontational style and preference for conservative, business-first policies could drastically alter Canada’s traditionally progressive stance in global forums.
Previous Canadian leaders earned our country a global reputation for being principled, congenial, and tough. Thank you, Jagmeet Singh, for reminding us how this is done.
Gerry Chidiac specializes in languages and genocide studies and works with at-risk students. He received an award from the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre for excellence in teaching about the Holocaust.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
The political standard where corrupt politicians keep themselves in power, making themselves and their friends wealthy, destroying the middle class, defying the will of the majority of Canadians with bad policy after bad policy? Well, good riddance to that. Only the entrenched elite, including the taxpayer funded media, think it’s “erosion” is any cause for concern.
LikeLike
Here are just a few characteristics of a typical leftie:
Displays narcissistic compassion
Thinks harm reduction is working
Supports safe supply, just not in their neighborhood
Thinks giving drug addicts free housing will solve the drug crisis
Thinks drug addicts have a Charter right to consume drugs in public
Thinks it’s a Charter right to establish encampments anywhere
Set up a vending machine at the hospital to dispense crack pipes
Thinks doing the same thing that everyone else tried and failed will work
Draws analogies to Donald Trump for any political viewpoint that is not aligned with their own
Highly hypocritical
Invented and participates in cancel culture
Can be seen wearing a mask when mandates are lifted
Averse to scientific rigour when discussing the drug crisis
Thinks handing out even more opioids without a prescription is a good idea
Loudly proclaimed diversion isn’t happening. Then said it’s not happening very much. Then just went silent about diversion
Is typically OK with the stifling of expression that does not align with their own worldview
Likes high taxes and high spending
Treats criminals as victims
Doesn’t see a problem with the rise of disorder and crime across the country
Thinks redistribution of wealth is an economy
Says Pierre is eroding political standards, but says nothing about Mr. Singh walking into the House floor and doing a “come at me bro, I’m right here bro”, as if it were a UFC faceoff
Just a few to get you started, Amy!
LikeLike
Gerry, you have made some sweeping comments about our political system including “Canadians have had enough of cowards who hide behind anonymity to spew insults and threats”. I sure have had enough of politicians defending false flags and hiding behind national security and outright propaganda to justify our complicity in war zones world over.
How is anonymity different from control of the narrative? Why is it that we loudly oppose interference in our political system but we are OK when we participate in regime change in nation after nation?
Did you ever ask yourself why did Canada vote against a UN resolution whose intent was to ban glorificationof Nazism, neo–Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia? Why is it that we support the ICC for others but not for us and our allies? Is this the justice that you write about?
Gerry, how many times can you fool most of the people? How many times will people tolerate the use of parliamentary privilege that shapes the way politicians are allowed to conduct themselves.as they hide behind national security.
The key provisions of the United Nations Charter state quite clearly that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
Gerry, how many times in the last decade have we, our political leaders, invented and promoted “you are with us or against us” to get around the UN Charter in order to clear the way for wars whose final purpose is regime change and economic advantage. I am sure we could write several books about this.
We speak about our support for free trade and competition, however, when we can’t compete, we place sanctions and tariffs on imports in order to protect our comparative advantage. The politicians never tell us that we can’t compete because we have outsourced our comparative advantage to the Mexicans, Chinese, Vietnamese and the Filipinos.
Pierre Poilievre’s aggressive approach concerns me but I am also concerned that we are caught between a rock and a hard place, a difficult situation where you have to choose between several equally unpleasant courses. I personally don’t like any of them.
LikeLike
I hear that Poilievre doesn’t support the LGBTQIA+ community, thinks they are abnormal. So, that combined with everything you said leads me to believe he has little to no human decency. It would be absolutely terrible for him to get in power! He would wreak havoc and most likely the power would go to his head.
LikeLike
Could have been that with the “lefties” stuck in committees and study groups about inclusivity and other perhaps relevant but nevertheless never-solvable social issues the rest of the country is getting annoyed and restless?
LikeLike
what’s a “leftie”?
LikeLike
Anyone that we don’t agree with or understand. Now you need to ask who benefits calling someone a leftie? A leftie is never defined as someone who wants cooperation, regulation, fair taxation, safety standard. Human Rights equal pay for work of equal value, never a democratic socialist who brought, labour laws, but always a dictator.
LikeLike
I wasn’t about to reply to Amy nor Walt but since Wilma made a good list I will refer Amy and Walt and the “lefties” to it. Thanks Wilma for compiling that short list…
LikeLike
so true, I fear what his type of leadership will bring.
LikeLike