Poilievre’s divisive politics are a threat to Canada’s democracy
For interview requests, click here
Martin Niemöller was a Lutheran pastor who initially supported the Nazi rise to power. As he watched what was happening around him, he began to openly oppose the regime. As a result, he spent years in Dachau and other concentration camps. After his liberation, he made numerous speeches about his experience and is best known for the following quote:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
 Poilievre’s war on ‘woke’ is just Trumpism in a Canadian suit. |
| Recommended |
| Will Pierre Poilievre deliver the leadership Canada needs?
|
| Canadian Conservatism has lost its way
|
| Liberals keep trying to compare Poilievre to Trump, but it won’t work
|
The message is clear: when a leader targets any group, it is dangerous for everyone. In a healthy society, we challenge ideas, but we do not attack people. When a movement singles out a particular group, we must take notice. We do not know who their next target will be—it may even be us.
This is evident in Donald Trump’s rhetoric. When he first took office as president in 2017, he targeted Muslims. Then he attacked protesters calling for racial equality. After returning to office in 2025, he immediately began attacking the human rights of transgender people and immigrants. He has even threatened the sovereignty of Canada.
The danger of Trump’s policies is clear. Not only is he doing great harm to good people, but he may also be contributing to the demise of his own country.
Niemöller’s words should serve as a warning to every society. In Canada, the once dignified Conservative Party has engaged in disturbing discourse since Pierre Poilievre took the reins. While Poilievre did what opposition politicians are supposed to do when he rightfully condemned Justin Trudeau’s misuse of the Emergencies Act during the COVID-19 pandemic, he has continually used meaningless terms like “woke agenda” to attack his opponents.
He has also given unquestioning support to the State of Israel during its assault on Gaza, refused to engage in dialogue on the issue and has threatened the free speech of those who question Israeli actions.
Poilievre’s response since Trump began threatening Canada has also been concerning. Instead of uniting with other Canadian leaders to defend the country, he has chosen to attack the most marginalized and vulnerable groups in our society.
In a recent CTV interview, he stated: “I’m not aware of any other genders than men and women. If there are any others you’d like me to consider, you’re welcome to tell me right now.” After the reporter did so, Poilievre doubled down on the Trump-like rhetoric and then changed the subject.
I love our Canadian democracy. What makes our country great is that we can respectfully challenge each other’s ideas and move our government forward in a way that makes society both kinder and more effective.
For most of my life, I have engaged with Conservative members of Parliament in open, respectful dialogue. It was possible to have amicable, even casual encounters—sometimes over a cup of coffee in a local restaurant. But since Poilievre took over the party, my few interactions have been tense.
Poilievre is simply the worst and most un-Canadian Conservative Party leader I have ever known.
He has gone after gender non-conforming Canadians, pro-Palestine protesters and many others. Who will be next on his “anti-woke” list?
Now more than ever, Canadians need to come together and stand up for one another. Poilievre has shown us exactly who he is—and he is not the leader who will unite us in this time of crisis.
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.
Explore more on Conservative Party, Wokeism, Federal election
Troy Media is dedicated to empowering Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in fostering an informed and engaged public by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections, enriches national conversations, and helps Canadians better understand one another.
Gerry draws comparisons between Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre and U.S. president Donald Trump, alleging that Poilievre’s rhetoric and policies pose a threat to Canadian democracy. While political critiques are a necessary component of democratic discourse, such critiques should be based on concrete evidence rather than broad assertions. Upon closer examination, many of Gerry’s claims lack verifiable support.
Gerry asserts that Poilievre has engaged in “disturbing discourse” and has used the term “woke agenda” to attack his opponents. However, the term “woke” has become a widely used political descriptor, much like “far-right” or “populist.” Its use in political debates does not constitute an attack but rather reflects ideological disagreement. Political leaders often frame their opponents’ positions in ways that support their own perspectives, which is a common practice in political discourse.
The claim that Poilievre has “threatened free speech” for critics of Israel also lacks substantiation. While Poilievre has condemned certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic, condemning speech is distinct from restricting it. Criticizing speech, even labelling it antisemitic, is not the same as legally restricting it. There is no evidence that Poilievre has sought to impose limits on free expression to silence critics of Israel’s policies.
Similarly, the assertion that Poilievre has “gone after” gender non-conforming individuals and other marginalized groups is presented without concrete evidence. The article cites a CTV interview in which Poilievre stated that he recognizes only two genders. While some may disagree with his position, expressing a belief about gender does not in itself constitute an attack on a community. There is no documented instance of Poilievre advocating for policies that would infringe on the rights of transgender individuals in Canada. Without evidence of policy proposals or actions that restrict rights, this claim remains speculative.
One of Gerry’s most significant claims is that Poilievre’s leadership mirrors that of Trump. However, the comparison lacks substantive evidence. Unlike Trump, Poilievre has never attempted to overturn an election, incited violence or enacted policies widely criticized as discriminatory. Without clear policy parallels, this comparison is misleading and does not contribute to a factual discussion.
Gerry also contends that Poilievre failed to unite with other Canadian leaders in response to Trump’s supposed threats to Canada’s sovereignty. However, it does not specify how Poilievre’s response differed from other political leaders. As leader of the Opposition, Poilievre’s primary role is to critique domestic policy, while foreign relations fall under the purview of the federal government. There is no evidence that he has expressed support for Trump over Canada’s national interests.
While Gerry presents Poilievre as a divisive figure, it does so largely through broad assertions rather than verifiable claims. While Poilievre’s policies and rhetoric are open to critique, political debates should be grounded in concrete evidence rather than broad generalizations. A well-informed political discourse relies on factual analysis rather than speculation.
Gerry draws comparisons between Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre and U.S. president Donald Trump, alleging that Poilievre’s rhetoric and policies pose a threat to Canadian democracy. While political critiques are a necessary component of democratic discourse, such critiques should be based on concrete evidence rather than broad assertions. Upon closer examination, many of Gerry’s claims lack verifiable support.
He asserts that Poilievre has engaged in “disturbing discourse” and has used the term “woke agenda” to attack his opponents. However, the term “woke” has become a widely used political descriptor, much like “far-right” or “populist.” Its use in political debates does not constitute an attack but rather reflects ideological disagreement. Political leaders often frame their opponents’ positions in ways that support their own perspectives, which is a common practice in political discourse.
The claim that Poilievre has “threatened free speech” for critics of Israel also lacks substantiation. While Poilievre has condemned certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic, condemning speech is distinct from restricting it. Criticizing speech, even labelling it antisemitic, is not the same as legally restricting it. There is no evidence that Poilievre has sought to impose limits on free expression to silence critics of Israel’s policies.
Similarly, the assertion that Poilievre has “gone after” gender non-conforming individuals and other marginalized groups is presented without concrete evidence. The article cites a CTV interview in which Poilievre stated that he recognizes only two genders. While some may disagree with his position, expressing a belief about gender does not in itself constitute an attack on a community. There is no documented instance of Poilievre advocating for policies that would infringe on the rights of transgender individuals in Canada. Without evidence of policy proposals or actions that restrict rights, this claim remains speculative.
One of Gerry’s most significant claims is that Poilievre’s leadership mirrors that of Trump. However, the comparison lacks substantive evidence. Unlike Trump, Poilievre has never attempted to overturn an election, incited violence or enacted policies widely criticized as discriminatory. Without clear policy parallels, this comparison is misleading and does not contribute to a factual discussion.
Gerry also contends that Poilievre failed to unite with other Canadian leaders in response to Trump’s supposed threats to Canada’s sovereignty. However, it does not specify how Poilievre’s response differed from other political leaders. There is no evidence that he has expressed support for Trump over Canada’s national interests.
While Gerry presents Poilievre as a divisive figure, it does so largely through broad assertions rather than verifiable claims. While Poilievre’s policies and rhetoric are open to critique, political debates should be grounded in concrete evidence rather than broad generalizations. A well-informed political discourse relies on factual analysis rather than speculation.