Culture [Canada] 'Equity cards' arguments take over NDP Leadership Convention: 'CANADA IS COOKED'

Sorry if this has been posted. I looked and could'nt find anything here.

Link to Toronto sun story.

'Equity cards' arguments take over NDP Leadership Convention: 'CANADA IS COOKED'​

The general consensus was disbelief that the videos from the convention were not satire nor clips from Saturday Night Live

Author of the article:
Denette Wilford
Published Mar 30, 2026 • Last updated Mar 30, 2026 •


Screenshot (261).png
As you already know, the New Democrat Party over the weekend elected a new leader in Avi Lewis.

But prior to him stepping into Jagmeet Singh’s Gucci loafers, there were some other events that took place during the NDP Leadership Convention in Winnipeg.

Equity cards were handed out to delegates based on identity categories including gender, race and ethnicity, LGBTQ+ and Indigenous status, and those cards — in various colours such as pink, yellow and green — allowed them to jump the line to ensure equitable representation in debates.

However, instead of debating on issues such as the cost of living, inflation, unemployment rates, the health-care system, or crime, the delegates with their equity cards seemed more interested in conveying why they were holding said cards.

Videos posted of disagreements​

One video posted to social media shows a person holding up their green gender equity card, claiming to be next to speak, while another woman responded holding up her pink race equity card, noting that it had been previously used inappropriately and that cards for people who identify as Black women “have no value outside of this space.”

Videos of individuals arguing over the misuse of the colour-coded cards, the pro/con speaking order, and the clash of hierarchy between the different groups sparked frustration among attendees and those who wanted to discuss and debate the real issues that are affecting all Canadians.

The speaker didn’t help with moderating the more frivolous battles.

In one instance, one delegate gained applause after making an impassioned speech against involvement in the war in Iran.

However, the speaker was cheered on after she reprimanded the delegate for misgendering the speaker, who identifies as “non-binary.”

The general consensus online seemed to be of disbelief that the videos from the convention were not satire nor clips from Saturday Night Live.

“Arguing who gets the most privilege is next level,” one person wrote. “As a Canadian I am embarrassed.”

A second user commented: “Canada is cooked,” while another added, “what a complete farce.”

While some defended the cards system, there were others who admitted how “performative” this would appear to the average person.

Then there were those who couldn’t believe how the NDP has changed.

“Went from the party promoting health care and workers’ rights to promoting bulls*** the common person does not relate with,” one person wrote on Reddit.

A second person wrote: “That’s literally it. Instead it’s a club of people that never wants to say ‘no’ or ‘that idea is stupid’ to each other.”

A third user agreed: “This. It’s an absolute nightmare working in a group with people like this. Positivity is a nice character trait, sure. But praising every idea out of fear of offending gets you nowhere but to the lowest common denominator, which is where the federal NDP has been heading for a while.”



Here are a couple of You Tube videos about it.



 
They do this assuming it'll make people feel more included but it ironically ends up excluding most of the people there.
 
All the freaks on "Tumblr" and in universities who started the "social justice" bullshit have physically grown up, and a number are now infiltrating business and government.
 
This whole thing is conceptually hilarious, because the core of the idea seems to be to make sure the people speak in descending order of marginalization, e.g. whoever they decide is the most marginalized has the loudest voice.

Putting aside the fact that even determining who is the most marginalized is something they can't figure out (because telling someone they're less marginalized than someone else risks upsetting them), just take a second to think about how that maps to social policy.

You're unambiguously attempting to define the most marginalized, smallest possible group of civilization and cater policy to them as your primary goal. That's the polar opposite of what people define as effective policy, e.g. the choice that helps the largest amount of people the most.

It's basically tailor-made to be the most ineffective legislation possible. If you sat down and tried to figure out how to run the least-representative country that can be conceptualized, this is mathematically what you'd come up with.
 
what's the difference between the two?
The difference is one is the party of the elites, and the other is a party of their useful idiots who occasionally get in the way. Right now Carney's government is trying to consolidate power and he doesn't want to have to deal with the NDP holding out on him over silly things like this
 
I like how the host looks like woke girl Hitler.
Very bold to go with that look.

As for the event itself, these people are useless.
Imagine one of these fucks trying to negotiate some trade deal with Xi or Vladimir, they would start crying right in front of them.

Good thing that the masses are not this stupid to vote these people into power.
 
I like that we're focusing on this, but why does it need to be explained to me by shitskinned minority women?

Rita the jeeta and Amala should be doing something else.

Once you notice this, you can't unsee it. So much to the YouTube algorithm is simply getting black women to explain stuff to you. Specifically black women, for some reason.

They'll also give you Indian if you can tolerate Indian.
 
Two positive things come out of this colour card scheme.

Firstly, while they are all arguing about who is the most marginalised, they are having no impact on real people.

Secondly, it makes the queue for the woodchipper far more efficient.
 
You're unambiguously attempting to define the most marginalized, smallest possible group of civilization and cater policy to them as your primary goal. That's the polar opposite of what people define as effective policy, e.g. the choice that helps the largest amount of people the most.
Incentivizing not fitting in with special privileges? What's next, incentivizing being a freeloader?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo