Maybe my memory is faulty but as I recall the first time Harper prorogued parliament it was to avoid the emerging scandal where his government had ignored intelligence that Canadian forces had been complicit in the torture of Afghan detainees.
Your memory is faulty (but, since some of this happened a decade ago, its understandable.)
Harper's first prorogue was in 2008, over the attempts by a coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to force a non-confidence vote.
The second was in 2009/2010. I already dealt with this one.... As I pointed out, the opposition claims it was to defuse a scandal over actions in Afghanistan, but it was also during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver (which was the excuse that was used).. So, could the opposition have been right and it was all about the Afghanistan issue? I am skeptical about that, since I doubt a scandal about a war half way around the world that both the Liberals and Conservatives supported would have had much of an impact (especially at the early stages of the investigation.)
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Afghan_detainee_issue
With all due respect, I haven't heard anyone claim that a Poilievre government will be the end of abortion rights or same sex marriage.
I never claimed people were saying that about Poilievre. I said they were attacking Harper over the issue, as an example of how people sometimes base their attacks on straw men rather than issues of policy/actions.
The criticisms I hear, and I share are that he is a chronic liar (true), seems to have no policy positions beyond 3 word slogans (very true)
You see, neither of these should be a major issue. All politicians lie (or did you really believe chretien would "scrap the GST"? Or that Trudeau was being honest about "never buying the F35"?)
As for his use of "3 word slogans"... if you do some searching, you can find plenty of policy positions on the conservative web site. That a politician would want to condense things into simple, easy-to-remember slogans makes some political sense.
Those type of criticisms are the ones that make me cringe.
and his flirtations with the freedumb convoy and the various extremist groups associated with it, like diagolon, is extremely troubling.
Now you see, THIS is an actual criticism, and one that I agree with. The freedumb convoy protesters were scum and should have been treated with distain. And the fact that Poilievre had any sort of association with them is indeed a problem. (And for me, its a deal-breaker... once reason I will never vote for him.)
I can point to other criticisms too... his interest in crypto currency, his anti-environmental policies (all of which I oppose).
These are real criticisms, based on stuff that he has actually done and/or plans to do. Much more relevant than allegations than "I don't like him using campaign slogans".
Like Trump, he is a pure opportunist who comes across as a truly unintelligent human being...
Is Poilievre "unintelligent"? He did get a university degree, although he did a portion of it on line. Not sure how good his grades were.
Of course, when Trudeau started his political career many people considered him a pretty intellectual light-weight. (What, the Liberals have picked a guy who is a drama teacher and is more interested in snow-boarding?)
en.wikipedia.org
www.ctvnews.ca
