And he's out

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,705
3,320
113
Liberal rules mean non-citizens could be choosing next prime minister
Forget foreign interference, the Liberal Party's own rules could see foreign teenagers helping to pick our next PM


Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Jan 07, 2025 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read

Will the people who decide who the next Liberal leader, and therefore next prime minister of Canada, is even be Canadian?


That’s not a crazy or racist comment as the governing party heads into a leadership race, it’s a comment based on their rules for voting.

The Liberal Party allows people who are non-citizens of Canada and who are as young as 14 to vote in leadership races. All the parties have rules that are too loose, but the Liberals have the craziest rules of all.

It means a 14-year-old from Wuhan in China, a 15-year-old from Belgorod in Russia or a 17-year-old student from Gandhinagar in India could have as much impact as voters from Etobicoke, Calgary or Ottawa in choosing our next prime minister.

What serious country does this?


To be a registered Liberal and to be eligible to vote in either a nomination race or a leadership race, the rules are fairly lax. Party documents show that you just need to be “at least fourteen (14) years of age” they ask that you “support the purposes of the Party” and that you “ordinarily live in Canada.”

Nothing requires you to be a citizen or eligible to vote in a general election but … you can help select the next prime minister of Canada.

The Liberals have more rules against you being a member of another party than they have against non-citizens who are residents of other countries voting to pick their next leader. If you are wondering why this should concern anyone, if you think this is no big deal, consider what we learned during the foreign interference inquiry.


Chinese nationals studying in Toronto, some as young as 14, were sent to vote in a Liberal nomination race to elect the candidate preferred by the Chinese consulate in Toronto. If they will do that for a nomination race for a candidate who never made it to cabinet, what do you think they will do for a candidate who will become prime minister as soon as they are elected leader of the Liberal Party.

And not just China but also Russia, India, Khalistanis, supporters of Hamas, and any number or groups who think they can gain influence through the ridiculously weak Liberal voting process. We need to tighten up the voting rules for all parties, not just the Liberals, and ensure the integrity of our system.

Essentially, if you are not allowed to vote in a general election, you should not be allowed to vote in a nomination race or leadership contest. If that makes it more difficult for parties to try to seek favour with various ethnic communities, then so be it.


We need to protect the integrity of our democracy and the current party voting systems do not do that.

In the last Liberal leadership contest that elected Trudeau in 2013, there were just 104,552 votes cast which at today’s population of 41,570,765 means about one quarter of one per cent of the Canadian population.

The current temporary population of Canada – those here on work or student visas mainly – is about 7.3% of Canada’s population or just more than 3 million people. If just 3% of the temporary population of Canada came out to vote in the Liberal leadership contest, based on the 2013 numbers, they could more than decide the vote.

We are in a time when clear and solid leadership at the federal level is needed. The threat of crippling tariffs from the United States is real and must be dealt with by a government with a strong mandate from the public.

Instead, we have a PM who has decided to step down, but refused to call an election, for selfish reasons. We have a governing party where the leadership rules allow non-citizens who aren’t even residents of Canada to select the next Liberal leader and prime minister.

It will be May or June before we have a properly functioning government. Every single time Donald Trump takes advantage of Canada, we can thank Justin Trudeau.

blilley@postmedia.com
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Taxslave2

bill barilko

Senate Member
Mar 4, 2009
5,973
548
113
Vancouver-by-the-Sea
All this drug & alcohol checking is something I've never had anything to do with I guess I just look innocent.

Keep in mind I worked commercially all over BC for decades and was stopped for speeding exactly once and let off with a warning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,623
111
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
What's the status of such things in Oz? Is compliance a law, a condition of one's license to drive, or is there some "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" requirement the cops are supposed to meet?
"Do you have the right to refuse a roadside breath test? No, you do not have the right to refuse a roadside breath test in Victoria. Under section 49 (1) (c) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (RSA), it is an offence to unlawfully refuse a breath test (PBT) when requested by a police officer."


There is no reasonable suspicion process. If the police have a road blocked off for testing, you proceed through the checkpoint and get tested, suspicion or not. If you try and turn off the road, do a U Turn or otherwise try and avoid the checkpoint, there are other police nearby to chase you down and then you're in shit.
 

bob the dog

Council Member
Aug 14, 2020
1,502
1,101
113
Isn't there something about going on a canoe trip in the story like his father before him?

On that note unfortunately it is not a Leap Year so scratch that one.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,191
1,216
113
60
Alberta
"Do you have the right to refuse a roadside breath test? No, you do not have the right to refuse a roadside breath test in Victoria. Under section 49 (1) (c) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (RSA), it is an offence to unlawfully refuse a breath test (PBT) when requested by a police officer."


There is no reasonable suspicion process. If the police have a road blocked off for testing, you proceed through the checkpoint and get tested, suspicion or not. If you try and turn off the road, do a U Turn or otherwise try and avoid the checkpoint, there are other police nearby to chase you down and then you're in shit.
I agree, this was another Tyranical Minority, MADD, who have walked on the rights of Canadians in the name of "Won't someone think of the children?"
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,301
8,445
113
Washington DC
"Do you have the right to refuse a roadside breath test? No, you do not have the right to refuse a roadside breath test in Victoria. Under section 49 (1) (c) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (RSA), it is an offence to unlawfully refuse a breath test (PBT) when requested by a police officer."


There is no reasonable suspicion process. If the police have a road blocked off for testing, you proceed through the checkpoint and get tested, suspicion or not. If you try and turn off the road, do a U Turn or otherwise try and avoid the checkpoint, there are other police nearby to chase you down and then you're in shit.
I'm glad I live in Maryland. First off, we don't have "detention" separate from arrest. In many states, you can be "detained," forced to ID, and account for yourself, on the basis of a "reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom" that you have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. We don't have that. The Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that any detention by cops is an "arrest," which must be supported by the higher standard of "probable cause."
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,724
12,939
113
Low Earth Orbit
I'm glad I live in Maryland. First off, we don't have "detention" separate from arrest. In many states, you can be "detained," forced to ID, and account for yourself, on the basis of a "reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom" that you have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. We don't have that. The Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that any detention by cops is an "arrest," which must be supported by the higher standard of "probable cause."
Reasonable articulable suspicion.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,191
1,216
113
60
Alberta
Reasonable articulable suspicion.
I was detained with a friend in the back of a car when I was 15. Someone had broken into the Canadian Tire and gotten paint on their shoes. They checked our shoes and let us go. I guess that's a reasonable detention. But as we walked away, I heard my pal say, "Fuck me. Fuck me." He'd dumped a 1/4 ounce of weed in the back of the cruiser for fear of being frisked.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,724
12,939
113
Low Earth Orbit
I'm sure that's what YouTube told you. but I was quoting Terry v. Ohio.
Uhhhh no. Your own reply says it all.

we don't have "detention" separate from arrest. In many states, you can be "detained," forced to ID, and account for yourself, on the basis of a "reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts and reasonable inferences drawn there from.
"Reasonable" aka "articulated on objective facts".

Sitting in a car outside a bank while wearing a ski mask is suspicious as fuck but its not illegal.

If you cant "articulate" an "article of law" as to why wearing a ski mask outside a bank shows intent of any kind to commit a crime then there isnt grounds to approach, detain let alone arrest. If ghe guy in a ski mask outside a bank had a bag with a $ thingamajig on it, a cutting torch and no weapon VISIBLE then yes that is "reasonable articulated suspicion" warranting detaining or arrest upon means allowed the constipimatution. It shows intent which is resonable grounds by being in possession of "tools" not just weapons An example:

In Georgia, possession of tools for the commission of a crime is a criminal offense that occurs when someone has tools or devices used to commit a crime, and intends to use them for that purpose. This offense is defined in Georgia Code § 16-7-20.

Elements of the crime

  • Possession: The accused must have the tools in their possession.
  • Intent: The accused must intend to use the tools to commit a crime.

Penalties

  • The penalty depends on the intent of the accused.
  • If the accused intended to commit a felony, the offense is a fifth-degree felony.
  • If the accused intended to commit a non-felony, the offense is a first-degree misdemeanor.

Examples of tools

  • Crowbars or pry bars
  • Lock picks
  • Slim Jims or big easy lockout tools
  • Bump keys
  • Screwdrivers
  • Master keys or skeleton keys
  • Bolt cutters
  • Drills
  • Glass cutters
  • Flashlights

Take note of the word INTENT which seems to have eluded you on more than one occasion.

Intent can mean difference between a class a felony and a class 3 misdemeanor.

In a mandatory roadside stop "reasonable suspicion" is based on Act ___ Code ____ ARTICLE____" (hence articulated) such as smell of booze of weed, erratic behaviour, slurred speech, body language eyeballs and driving shitty.
Same as the US the next step under Canadian law to confirm or relieve suspicion is the roadside dance and maybe the alphabet backwards. If you fail that they have an "article" for that requiring the reasonably suspected person to blow into the kazoo or be detained and taken to the cop shop for a blood sample.

There isnt an arrest until BAC or piss/swabs for drugs show a fail or a sample is refused.



Free pizza.
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,724
12,939
113
Low Earth Orbit
I agree, this was another Tyranical Minority, MADD, who have walked on the rights of Canadians in the name of "Won't someone think of the children?"
Another NGO that lobbies heavily after getting what they wanted but still fund raise millions for no apparent reason?

Dont get me started on War Amps the Shriners and riding mowers...
 
Last edited:

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
27,847
7,615
113
B.C.
Uhhhh no. Your own reply says it all.


"Reasonable" aka "articulated on objective facts".

Sitting in a car outside a bank while wearing a ski mask is suspicious as fuck but its not illegal.

If you cant "articulate" an "article of law" as to why wearing a ski mask outside a bank shows intent of any kind to commit a crime then there isnt grounds to approach, detain let alone arrest. If ghe guy in a ski mask outside a bank had a bag with a $ thingamajig on it and a weapon VISIBLE then yes that is "reasonable articulated suspicion" warranting detaining or arrest upon means allowed the constipimatution. It shows intent which is resonable grounds.

Its the same thing in Canada. In a mandatory roadside stop "reasonable suspicion" is based on Act ___ ARTICLE____" (hence articulated) such as smell of booze of weed, erratic behaviour, slurred speech, body language eyeballs and driving shitty.

Same as the US the next step to confirm or relieve suspicion is the roadside dance and maybe the alphabet backwards. If you fail that they have an "article" for that requiring the suspected person to blow into the kazoo or be detained and taken to the cop shop for a blood sample. There isnt an arrest until BAC or piss/swabs for drugs show a fail or sample refused.

Cops also need to be articulate and not use phrases like you smell "LIKE" weed". Quite a few other things smell LIKE weed


Free pizza.
Can you rattle off the alphabet backwards without total concentration ? I don’t think I could .
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
27,847
7,615
113
B.C.
Another NGO that lobbies heavily after getting what they wanted but still fund raise millions for no apparent reason?

Dont get me started on War Amps the Shriners and riding mowers...
Yup we have a good gig here ,, It would suck if something happened to it . We best apply for even more guverment funding least we become irrelevant.
 

Hoof Hearted

House Member
Jul 23, 2016
4,443
1,152
113
the Shriners
I went to the Shriner's Circus in town when my daughters were just toddlers. When I was driving out after the show there were protesters mad about the treatment of the elephant in the show. I yelled out my car window..."Relax! The elephant looks better groomed than all of you put together!"

The protesters all went ballistic on me! It was hilarious...the air was blue! :)