i mean, if the prime minister wants to hold to the position that perpetuating a medieval system of violence designed to advance slavery and war is acceptable, while fighting against it is toxic, then i suppose he is entitled to his backwards opinion, but such is not an opinion that many observers would associate with descriptions like "progressive" or "liberal", but rather a pretty extreme form of far-right conservatism.

i don't think that his mishandling of the lavalin farce says much about his opinions on gender. these were poorly performing ministers that got demoted due to their clear incompetence; the media's insistence on making it about gender was vacuous.

but, his strange affinity with this violently anti-woman philosophy actually reveals a lot about where his head is about gender, and it's pretty damaging.

you can't be an apologist for islam and a feminist at the same time. this is a specific instantiation of the religion's broader incompatibility with the left, but it's one that cuts to the core of his astounding array of contradictions. and, if you ask me, his head isn't really with equality, but more with religion.

we don't need two conservative parties in canada; we already have one, and their track record at governing isn't very good.