Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

Thats fucking sad to see, I'm french, when I was a kid and used to picture Canada, I used to think about white guy speaking french with a weird quebec accent, great and spotless cities, Top 1 HDI, the good version of America. Sad to see how it turned out, same shit for Australia, glad we don't have this in france yet

We need Canada version of ICE. These thugs doing extortion deserve to be deported.

Pierre Poilievre’s Immigration Hypocrisy: A Study in Convenient Principles Disguised as Conviction Pierre Poilievre has never met a border he did not want to fortify, a refugee claim he did not want to scrutinize, or an irregular crossing he did not want to turn into a national morality play. For years, he has warned Canadians that the country is being overrun by “illegal border crossers,” “queue jumping asylum seekers,” and “abusers of the system.” He delivers these warnings with the solemnity of a man announcing a biblical plague, not a handful of exhausted families walking across a ditch in Quebec. In Poilievre’s political universe, Roxham Road is not a rural footpath. It is a symbol of national decline. It is chaos incarnate. It is the place where the rule of law goes to die. It is, in short, the perfect stage upon which he can perform his favorite role: the lone defender of order in a world gone soft. At least, that is the story he tells the public. The private story, as publicly reported, is considerably less heroic. The Public Record That Refuses to Behave: According to reporting from The Breach and the National Observer, someone described as the uncle of Poilievre’s spouse has an immigration history that reads like a greatest hits compilation of everything Poilievre claims to oppose. The reporting outlines that he entered Canada and made a refugee claim. That claim was refused. A deportation order was issued. He later re-entered Canada through Roxham Road. He then filed a humanitarian and compassionate application. Poilievre’s spouse reportedly helped prepare that application. This is not fringe gossip. This is what journalists documented through correspondence, interviews, and immigration records. In other words, the exact pathway Poilievre condemns as “abuse of the system” is the same pathway publicly reported to have been used by someone connected to him. And suddenly, the man who treats Roxham Road like a national security breach becomes quieter than a library at midnight. The slogans stop. The outrage evaporates. The border, once a sacred line, becomes a flexible suggestion. The Rhetoric: A Symphony of Outrage: Poilievre’s immigration rhetoric is a carefully orchestrated performance. He warns that irregular border crossings undermine the rule of law. He insists humanitarian and compassionate applications are loopholes. He claims the system is being gamed. He declares that Canada must “take back control.” He delivers these lines with the moral certainty of a man who believes compassion is a gateway drug. In his speeches, asylum seekers are not people. They are symbols. They are props. They are the raw material from which he fashions his political identity. He is the sheriff. They are the threat. The border is the battleground. And Canada is the damsel in distress. It is a compelling narrative. It is also a narrative that collapses the moment it becomes personally inconvenient. The Reality: A Study in Elastic Principles: When someone connected to Poilievre uses the very same system he condemns, the rules change with breathtaking speed. Irregular border crossings are no longer a crisis. They are a misunderstanding. A technicality. A regrettable but understandable choice. Humanitarian and compassionate applications are no longer loopholes. They are legitimate pathways. Necessary tools. Evidence of a compassionate system. The border is no longer a sacred line. It is a suggestion. A guideline. A flexible concept open to interpretation. It is a remarkable transformation, like watching a man insist that jaywalking is a crime against humanity until his friend does it, at which point it becomes a misunderstood act of civic expression. The Political Convenience of Shifting Standards: Poilievre’s political identity is built on the idea that he alone will restore order. He alone will enforce the rules. He alone will protect Canada from the chaos of irregular migration. But the moment the rules become inconvenient, they are no longer rules. They are preferences. They are vibes. They are whatever he needs them to be in the moment. This is not a minor contradiction. It is a fundamental collapse of the moral architecture he has built his political brand upon. If irregular crossings are a crisis, then they are a crisis for everyone. If humanitarian applications are loopholes, then they are loopholes for everyone. If the system is broken, then it is broken for everyone. But Poilievre’s version of justice is not universal. It is conditional. It is situational. It is deeply, profoundly personal. The Broader Pattern: Institutions Are Sacred Until They Are Not: This is not the first time Poilievre’s principles have proven to be more flexible than advertised. He has attacked the Supreme Court of Canada when its rulings do not align with his political needs. He has accused the justice system of being too lenient when it suits him and too harsh when it does not. He has framed himself as the defender of institutions while undermining them whenever they become inconvenient. It is a pattern. It is a habit. It is a worldview. And it reveals something essential about his politics. For Poilievre, institutions are not pillars of democracy. They are tools. They are props. They are instruments to be used when helpful and discarded when not. The Satirical Truth: A Philosophy in One Sentence: Pierre Poilievre’s immigration philosophy can now be summarized with clinical precision: Canada must crack down on irregular border crossings, except for the ones that are fine. And he will decide which ones are fine. It is a stance that bends so far backward it could qualify for a gymnastics medal. It is a stance that reveals more about political convenience than national security. It is a stance that exposes the gap between what Poilievre says and what Poilievre does. And it is a stance that makes one thing abundantly clear. Polievre's Hypocrisy

If they didn’t want Indians to be in their country, then probably the British, French and Portuguese shouldn’t have forced their way into India. Especially Britain, stealing around £38 Trillion from India. Actions have reactions.😂😂😂😂 And if people want to UNDERSTAND why people from mostly Punjab move to Canada, they need to learn history. The short version is - Sikh Regiment, business in the 19th and 20th century. For a longer version why the migration exploded in the late 20th and 21st century, the seeds were sown back in the early 20th century - Brits favouring a handful of Khalistanis to weaken Indian National movement before Indian Independence (read Sanjiv Sanyal’s book - “Revolutionaries”) and keep the Jewel (India) in the crown. Post the assassination of Indian PM Indira Gandhi by the Khalistani Terrorists (concentrated in Punjab) in 1984 and the Indian government crackdown on them - many found refuge in Canada aided by Pakistan’s Intelligence Service Agency and off course the USA and Canada 🫡🫡🫡 Indian government repeatedly pleaded the West to hand over the terrorists but surprise surprise, the West wants to use these elements to keep India in check and support its ally Pakistan. Fast forward, Khalistani sympathisers (Khalistan was a violent separatist movement in Punjab)find their refuge in Canada. Their relatives move in shortly and encourage others from Punjab to do so. Why ?? To build the base for Khalistan movement in Canada against India (all this being supported by the West while India cries its lungs out) 😢😢😢. Canada becomes a mini Punjab for the Khalistani terrorists/sympathisers. The Punjabi culture takes root courtesy of the Khalistanis - brings in more migration. Fast forward to today, the movement is now a tsunami with people from Punjab moving in large numbers. Why ? Because of the Khalistan movement, Punjab got destroyed economically (it was the richest state in India) as a result people are forced to move out. And the best place is their second Punjabi 🫣🫣 ie. Khalistani homeland Canada.

Americans have been in shock over the last few weeks after all the Somalian corruption that has been exposed in Minnesota, Brampton is Canada's version of the Minnesota case except it's so much worse, the corruption in Brandon is in its own league and i highly suggest anyone who's interested to do some of your own research, most of this stuff is hidden in plain sight yet the government doesn't react or do a single thing about it, and in some cases they are literally part of the corruption. The downfall of canada enabled by its greedy corrupted politicians will be studied by future generations and i'm glad that history will not be kind to them.

In the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, ethnic populations are being replaced. Within the next two decades, people with roots in these regions will become a minority. The worst part is that you will be walking on eggshells due to cultural differences. All of this can be blamed on liberal politicians who allowed such population replacement. This is a real-world version of the Hunger Games. Good luck, everyone—as Effie from the Hunger Games always says: “May the odds be ever in your favor!

As a Brit, my perception of Canada only ten years ago was of lumberjacks, pine forrests, maple syrup and generally just being a cleaner, more orderly version of America. Now when I think of Canada I think of Sikhs and Hindus. Mindblowing how quickly things can change (if the powers that be facilitate it!)

Liberal is like Democrats when it comes to immigration, we need trump version to save Canada heritage because the foreign countries are slowly changing the culture, religion, businesses, jobs and etc. They do not need a military forces to take over Canada, it's already been invaded from "WITHIN" and some Canadian are worried about the US invading this country.

Where is Canada's version of Gandhi?

As an immigrant to Canada (in 1982), my family and I integrated into Canadian culture. That is what immigrants used to do. Yes, you can keep aspects of your own culture, but the expectation was that you become Canadians first and foremost. I don't see that with many new immigrants today. They just milk Canada for all it is worth and try to make it a version of their country of origin. I love diversity and multiculturalism, but it has gone way too far IMO.

The problem is, if the immigrants keep coming in, it would change canada so much that it ceases to be a liberal democratic country that values people's rights; it's easy enough for immigrants to "roll back" their beliefs to a previous version, if even one or two charismatic new immigrants start fomenting those beliefs. The very thing could undermine itself, so there should be tighter bordres. The people who've been there since 1979 don't have to leave.

So it's just Canada's version of Bradford UK 😂

is it time to bring a version of ice to canada?

Is this Canada's version of ICE 👀

Canada needs its own version of ICE!

Here comes Canadas version of ICE! 👋

Canada needs its own version of ICE. An ICE that does its job but at the meantime doesn't go unchecked.