BC Political Discussion: Election 2026 & 44th Parliament

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by mcj

Really? Is that where we're at? Opposition to civil liberties?

There reaches a point where "civil liberties" stymies all and any mode of notable change because it immediately buries movement in the ditch.

26 years ago, possession of hard drugs in any form (or even weed for that matter) other than in a government lab was illegal.

It's 2026 and while still illegal, it's unconstitutional to charge someone for trafficking, much less operating a storefront.

[chowhou]

Not sure if I support notwithstanding the federal criminal justice system but I cannot stand the pearl clutching "Oh, you want to touch civil liberties?? That's evil!"

We once had the "civil liberty" to have contracts absolutely unfettered by the state, including indentured servitude. We used to have the "civil liberty" to dump any industrial byproduct into the lakes, rivers, and ocean without the government interfering with our business. We used to have the "civil liberty" to have 12 year old brides without the government trying to stop us.

If you oppose these, you oppose civil liberties. Do you oppose civil liberties?

Just because something is the law does not mean it is just, and just because we have the freedom to do something does not mean it is good.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by MIPS

There reaches a point where "civil liberties" stymies all and any mode of notable change because it immediately buries movement in the ditch.

26 years ago, possession of hard drugs in any form (or even weed for that matter) other than in a government lab was illegal.

It's 2026 and while still illegal, it's unconstitutional to charge someone for trafficking, much less operating a storefront.

And a century ago, possession of alcohol was illegal. We're not going to solve any problems by stripping away civil liberties, that's a fascist take, not a conservative one.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

And a century ago, possession of alcohol was illegal. We're not going to solve any problems by stripping away civil liberties, that's a fascist take, not a conservative one.

And two centuries ago possession of indentured servants was legal. Do you think stripping people of that civil liberty was fascist?

(Also we did not really have prohibition in Canada, it only lasted a couple years in BC and a century ago it was legal.)

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

And two centuries ago possession of indentured servants was legal. Do you think stripping people of that civil liberty was fascist?

(Also we did not really have prohibition in Canada, it only lasted a couple years in BC and a century ago it was legal.)

Why are you trying to equate the prohibition of slavery to the prohibition of drugs and alcohol?

It's a pretty weird equivalency to make. Reminds me of the guy I once met in a bar that thought he should be able to say the n-word as his logic was he can identify as "black" since trans people exist. Just a weird take buddy.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Why are you trying to equate the prohibition of slavery to the prohibition of drugs and alcohol?

It's a pretty weird equivalency to make. Reminds me of the guy I once met in a bar that thought he should be able to say the n-word as his logic was he can identify as "black" since trans people exist. Just a weird take buddy.

No, I said indentured servitude. You used to be able to enter a consensual contract with someone saying "in return for X, I will work for you under your command for Y years." The government eventually decided to ban this fully consensual activity between adults. In practice, it was never fully consensual and the negative effects to society were plain and obvious. But it was a legal right for many, many, many years until the government decided to take away that right.

I personally think it was good for the government to take away the right to do that, don't you?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by MIPS

There reaches a point where "civil liberties" stymies all and any mode of notable change because it immediately buries movement in the ditch.

26 years ago, possession of hard drugs in any form (or even weed for that matter) other than in a government lab was illegal.

It's 2026 and while still illegal, it's unconstitutional to charge someone for trafficking, much less operating a storefront.

Exactly.

If the "waah my civil liberties" crowd can use the law to allow drug dealing and crimes committed by druggies then the law is an —.

The right of law abiding citizens to enjoy their cities should trump the rights of a junkie who wants to break windows, steal and — on the streets.

[SpongeG]

Well I hope everyone likes paying up to double for their car insurance.

I see loads of people on social media saying they will vote Green Party, and there is no swaying them; they obviously can't see what's gonna happen.

[chowhou]

Don't get me wrong, I think the Conservatives are strictly worse than the NDP (and so are the Greens) but I'm an East Vancouver voter; I don't get to decide what happens south of the Fraser or up the Island.

[Northern Light]

On the above discussion re: drug use.

The appropriate standard, I will argue, is that drug use that does not endanger others, and does not impair you're ability to lead something resembling a 'normal' life is none of the state's business.

Drug use that causes you to be disassociated from the real world, unemployable, unable to be good neighbour, a real or perceived threat to others does demand intervention.

I'm not, by the way in favour of 'jail' as such, punishing people for self-harm seems a bit redundant at best, and more than needlessly mean.
However, I do think compulsory care. (addiction treatment, including enforced de-tox) is fair game.

Its not a choice I think should be made frivolously, civil rights do matter, bodily integrity does matter.

But if you're sending yourself into a downward spiral or already there, to the point where you're clearly incapable of self-care, responsible judgement and where you are causing harm to yourself or others, there is no kindness in respecting boundaries. Watching someone commit suicide in slow motion and shrugging your shoulders with 'its their right' is not an ethical, responsible or reasonable answer.

Yes, there should be guardrails. People who can 'hide' their problems get some latitude to indulge their impulses. People who have never previously encountered the law, who are still able to hold a legit job etc, deserve some space to make decisions of their own accord.

But ultimately, if the downward spiral is out of control, the responsible choice is to stop it. We need as society to acknowledge that our responsibility is to respect autonomy up to near-crisis points; but once someone is across that line, the reasonable choice is intervention and the cruel choice is the abdication of responsibility to intervene.

Lets acknowledge that its challenging to draw that line; but that can't be an excuse for indifference to suffering.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by mcj

And a century ago, possession of alcohol was illegal. We're not going to solve any problems by stripping away civil liberties, that's a fascist take, not a conservative one.

The prohibition on alcohol was largely spearheaded by the church, who in the 20th century had far more control over civil ordinance (and politics) than they do now. (with a few notable exceptions) Like with slavery, once the ruling party fell out of power, the laws quickly fell in line with the rest of the developed world.

There's a pretty big difference between a bottle of Sleemans and 'fent cut heroine and I'd argue it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to rehabilitate someone with a drinking problem than someone who has been on hard drugs.
Source: me
I have always considered supervised public consumption and walk-in clinics ineffective at curbing the addiction and relapse rate because their core operation is just making sure people don't die. (and asking for funding to give yourself a paycheck, which if you think about it is a pretty lucrative economy to get into)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

On the above discussion re: drug use.

The appropriate standard, I will argue, is that drug use that does not endanger others, and does not impair you're ability to lead something resembling a 'normal' life is none of the state's business.

Drug use that causes you to be disassociated from the real world, unemployable, unable to be good neighbour, a real or perceived threat to others does demand intervention.

I'm not, by the way in favour of 'jail' as such, punishing people for self-harm seems a bit redundant at best, and more than needlessly mean.
However, I do think compulsory care. (addiction treatment, including enforced de-tox) is fair game.

Its not a choice I think should be made frivolously, civil rights do matter, bodily integrity does matter.

But if you're sending yourself into a downward spiral or already there, to the point where you're clearly incapable of self-care, responsible judgement and where you are causing harm to yourself or others, there is no kindness in respecting boundaries. Watching someone commit suicide in slow motion and shrugging your shoulders with 'its their right' is not an ethical, responsible or reasonable answer.

Yes, there should be guardrails. People who can 'hide' their problems get some latitude to indulge their impulses. People who have never previously encountered the law, who are still able to hold a legit job etc, deserve some space to make decisions of their own accord.

But ultimately, if the downward spiral is out of control, the responsible choice is to stop it. We need as society to acknowledge that our responsibility is to respect autonomy up to near-crisis points; but once someone is across that line, the reasonable choice is intervention and the cruel choice is the abdication of responsibility to intervene.

Lets acknowledge that its challenging to draw that line; but that can't be an excuse for indifference to suffering.

You might be interested in reading this article from The province newspaper. Vancouver's problem is so out of hand compared other Canadian cities, heck, other world cities. Canada and BC are doing something wrong.

Block after block of death and despair. This is Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, where all hope is now lost
Walk a block in any direction and there are derelict users on the sidewalks: initiates and old-timers, locals and come-from-aways, sisters and brothers
Author of the article: Allen Abel

....Between the ancient but still-thrumming Carnegie, with its spiral stairway and its stained-glass effigies of Shakespeare and Milton and Spenser and its generous cafeteria and its take-no-— security staff, and a seemingly abandoned office building that once was The Molson Bank, there is a narrow alley whose asphalt is smeared and slippery with breakfast cereal, urine and puke. In that little laneway are at least 30 reeling, half-alive drug users and their comrades and their sweethearts and their murderers....

https://theprovince.com/feature/vancouve...wcm/d7a0497a-9204-4b18-8a3b-6a840a55bf36

[mcj]

Originally Posted by MIPS

The prohibition on alcohol was largely spearheaded by the church, who in the 20th century had far more control over civil ordinance (and politics) than they do now. (with a few notable exceptions) Like with slavery, once the ruling party fell out of power, the laws quickly fell in line with the rest of the developed world.

There's a pretty big difference between a bottle of Sleemans and 'fent cut heroine and I'd argue it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to rehabilitate someone with a drinking problem than someone who has been on hard drugs.
Source: me
I have always considered supervised public consumption and walk-in clinics ineffective at curbing the addiction and relapse rate because their core operation is just making sure people don't die. (and asking for funding to give yourself a paycheck, which if you think about it is a pretty lucrative economy to get into)

Yes it's obvious the two are not alike. However, this is a dangerous time to start talking about "stripping away civil liberties" without any specifics.

Plus we still don't support the younger generations that are showing up as newbies in the DTES, it's not like we've come close to stopping the inflows of young people from bad situations in this Province that'll suffer in cells with their civil liberties stripped if some of us have their way.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by mcj

Plus we still don't support the younger generations that are showing up as newbies in the DTES, it's not like we've come close to stopping the inflows of young people from bad situations in this Province that'll suffer in cells with their civil liberties stripped if some of us have their way.

Some people are trying. Kids aging out of foster care form a relatively high percentage of homeless folks, so Aunt Leah's is trying to provide housing for them. They're building a 90-unit building in New West that'll provide affordable housing for young mothers and kids aging out of foster care, hopefully helping to break that pattern for at least a few people.

Tying this to elections, at least municipally, New West mayoral candidate Daniel Fontaine (and his colleague Paul Minhas) voted against the rezoning for this project. So not everybody's trying to help stop the inflows of young people from ending up on the streets, sadly.

[GenWhy?]

Not sure if it was mentioned but apparently the BC Greens want to pass vacancy control on rents?

It's really weird to see the NDP become left-centrist while the Greens are like the Federal NDP or COPE

[chowhou]

Vacancy control, commercial rent control, wealth taxes, AI data centre moratorium, anti resource development, anti hydroelectricity, free public transit, yeah they're pretty lefty. Pretty sure they're beyond the federal NDP, but definitely COPE voters.

[casper]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Some people are trying. Kids aging out of foster care form a relatively high percentage of homeless folks, so Aunt Leah's is trying to provide housing for them. They're building a 90-unit building in New West that'll provide affordable housing for young mothers and kids aging out of foster care, hopefully helping to break that pattern for at least a few people.

Tying this to elections, at least municipally, New West mayoral candidate Daniel Fontaine (and his colleague Paul Minhas) voted against the rezoning for this project. So not everybody's trying to help stop the inflows of young people from ending up on the streets, sadly.

Just under 70% of kids in foster care in BC are indigenous.

There are theories (I believe them to be accurate), that residential schools destroyed the family dynamics and resulted in failed parenting impacted future generations. While it would be great if we could go back in time and correct that, we cant.

What is also interesting is many of these communities want to bring there members back home. But they need on-reserve housing. The question then becomes how to effectively allow these kids to go home and how to ensure they have the support they need in their community.

That process may well start years before the kids reach the point where they age out of foster care. Having more foster care in the community may be a better starting point.

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Not sure if it was mentioned but apparently the BC Greens want to pass vacancy control on rents?

It's really weird to see the NDP become left-centrist while the Greens are like the Federal NDP or COPE

The BC NDP has always been more moderate than its federal counterpart.

[Changing City]

The Conservative candidate in Victoria-Beacon Hill is now the former Conservative candidate, after some of his social media posts were brought to the party's attention. "It's unclear if Agou will run as an Independent candidate." [CBC]

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Conservative candidate in Victoria-Beacon Hill is now the former Conservative candidate, after some of his social media posts were brought to the party's attention. "It's unclear if Agou will run as an Independent candidate." [CBC]

He can always join OneBC if he gets elected!