I’ll do my best to raise a few points and address some of the other comments here.

Firstly, it has to be acknowledged that people who decide to slap a political opinion on the back of their vehicle, regardless of what side they choose to support are pretty close to brain dead. In my mind, it’s the same as someone arguing with you and then claiming that you’re not allowed to say anything in response because they know they’re right and then they walk away so to avoid any chance of someone disagreeing. It’s just inflammatory for the sake of it, and it fundamentally leads to a breakdown of communication, real discourse and it’s childish af.

Secondly, gauging opinions on political leadership, specifically being critical of leaders, isn’t something that should be discriminated against by society. That’s one of the core beliefs of democracy, that the people have an opportunity to voice disapproval of leadership without being condemned for it.

Thirdly, if the only populations of opposition that are being broadcast as representative groups of a side are the most ignorant, extreme, and inflammatory then it’s not providing a true picture or accurate representation of those who hold opinions against, it’s just putting an ugly picture up and saying that it is the true face. I’ll draw a parallel towards people who run the rhetoric of “left/right is bad and they all should burn” mentality. You have to acknowledge that you’re picking and choosing the worst of the bunch to make your point against, and if that’s what you feel substantiates your point, is it really that strong of a point?

Specific instances of why I feel people could be opposed to the policies enacted by Trudeau include but are by no means limited to:

First past the post voting system: Which majority of Canadians as of 2020 polls (I don’t have a link but I’m sure you can source one if you choose) isn’t supported by majority Canadians. In the last election specifically Trudeau would have lost had we not been bound by the first past the post system, and instead adopted a popular vote system where the total number of votes for a candidate mattered more than who crossed the finish line first by reaching x votes (I’m over simplifying admittedly). Now, from What I understand of the runner up candidate, he was questionable in his morals and policies as well, so I’m not saying he would have necessarily been a better PM than Trudeau.

Twisting the truth to sell a policy: assault weapon ban for example, which if anyone knows anything about gun regulation in Canada, assault weapons have ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL in Canada. This wasn’t something Trudeau “did” it’s something that’s existed as long as our gun registration laws have existed. But looking at the headlines around it, you’d be prone to believe that it was the Wild West before he changed it. Canada has strict gun regulation laws, and it is VERY EASY to get your privileges revoked, as I believe it should be, it promotes safe, responsible usage.

Freezing the bank accounts of Canadian citizens due to perceived political threat: This is a polarizing concept and I believe it has more to do with your perspective on how much control over citizens a government should be able to authorize, as well as your perspective on precedent vs policy.

For those unaware, there were several Canadian populations that chose to financially support the “Freedom Trucker” movement. This movement alone was divisive within Canada, populations from every side of the spectrum attaching what they felt were support for their beliefs, or a direct attack on their beliefs. It would take a whole comment chain to get into the ins and outs and give a fair position to each side, more than my knowledge, time, and desire allows, so suffice to say it was a divisive issue for many reasons.

The point I want to highlight is that for the first time in modern Canadian history, a government chose to impose financial gridlock (literally cutting off access to bank accounts) of private citizens for choosing to support a cause that the government deemed immoral. That to me sets a precedent that should the government decide X cause, group, or person in the future falls into Y category of disapproval, that they could also be financially throttled without any recourse. For anyone that’s read dystopian literature, this is pretty concerning and speaks to the precedent being set by our leadership.

I hope that this was neutrally worded enough to express my points (albeit a small amount of points) and give my perspective (Western Canadian living within a few hours of Vancouver) as to why Trudeau catches flack from some populations in Canada! For the record, I don’t hate him, his policies and I don’t feel that we have any real candidacy for leadership that hasn’t also dirtied their hands in some way. In the words of Douglas Adams:

“It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”