More right-wing 'bullshit': Conservative Party MPs know a proposed 'three strikes' law would be a Charter violation – that's not their point
'Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are'
Chilliwack-Hope MP Mark Strahl shared a meme-style Conservative Party promise in the form of a digital poster on social media on Friday (Sept. 19, 2025) that's a great example of what Princeton philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt’s took a deep dive into in his 2005 book On Bullshit.
The full text of the poster: “Conservatives call for a 'three strikes and you're out' law - 3 serious crimes = 10 years jail: no bail, no probation, or house arrest." (See below text for poster.)
The Facebook post by Strahl, and presumably others, included this admonition to the governing Liberals: “The Liberal government must make dangerous, repeat offenders understand that there are consequences to their actions.”
Strahl is regurgitating an element of the Conservative Party's platform – or rather sharing the image all Conservative MPs were told to share by HQ – which doesn't involve truth or lying per se. It's bullshit.
“[Bullshit] consists in a lack of concern about the difference between truth and falsity, the motivation of the bullshitter is not to say things that are true or even to say things that are false, but serving some other purpose,” according to the late Frankfurt, who died in 2023.
“Liars at least acknowledge that the truth matters. Because of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
If one looks at Canadian law from 30,000 feet, Strahl and his boss Pierre Poilievre are either: a) intentionally lying; b) are ignorant of the law; or c) they are spreading bullshit.
No matter how mischievous one might think Conservatives are, they are not so belligerent as for it to be a), they aren't outright lyihng. And they certainly aren't stupid, it can't be b). So it's c), they are simply spreading bullshit.
I'm not a lawyer but even I know this so the Conservative strategists do too, but a "three strikes you're out law" would definitely violate Section 12 of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms, the constitutional provision that guarantees the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Canadian courts have already struck down Harper-era mandatory minimums before (e.g. for firearms offences) because they caught too wide a net – punishing minor offenders as harshly as dangerous ones. A three-strikes law would be even more blunt.
I will reiterate again that I am not a lawyer, but Section 7 of the Charter also protects life, liberty, and security of the person, and says you can’t be deprived of them except in accordance with “principles of fundamental justice.”
One of those principles is proportionality in sentencing: the punishment should fit both the crime and the offender. Canadian judges from the provincial up to the Supreme Court of Canada have always held true to the importance of tailoring sentences to specific offenders in the specific circumstances of any given offence. A rigid “third strike = 10 years” scheme would strip judges of the ability to do that, which Canadian courts view as essential to justice.
A three-strikes rule could also arguably have discriminatory effects in violation of Section 15 of the Charter. In the U.S., “three strikes” disproportionately hits marginalized communities because of systemic policing and charging practices. A Canadian version might raise Section 15 issues since Indigenous offenders, who are hugely overrepresented in the criminal justice system, would bear the brunt.
Poilievre and Strahl know that the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that mandatory minimums are constitutionally suspect. In R v. Smith (1987), a mandatory seven-year sentence for importing narcotics was struck down as cruel and unusual, a violation of section 12. In R v. Nur (2015), mandatory minimums for firearm offences fell for the same reason. A three-strikes law would be even more rigid than those.
The other element to consider is that this 10-year notion is simply redundant. When you hear the types of crimes Conservatives are in a rage about, the most serious violent crimes, don't worry, those offenders are already getting 10-plus years in prison. It's like promising to make sure hockey players who make other players bleed with a high stick get double the penalty. Ya, that's already the rule: high sticking + blood = four minutes.
So the above is the reason why this poster is bullshit from a Charter and court perspective, but the wording also says they will make sure there is "no bail, parole, probation, or house arrest."
Four elements to unpack briefly:
- Bail. Section 11(e) of the Charter gives everyone the right “not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause,” which means decisions must balance public safety, confidence in the justice system, and the accused’s right to liberty. Judges who deny bail have to justify it clearly, not because Pierre Poilievre shared it in a meme.
- Parole. Parole eligibility for serious offences is set at sentencing. For example, for the most serious crimes of first-degree and second-degree murder, the sentence is automatically life with no chance of parole for 25 years for first-degree and a judge decides between 10 and 25 years minimum for second-degree. Once a prisoner reaches that eligibility date, that doesn't mean they are released, and it's not up to judges or election politicians. The Parole Board of Canada, which is an independent administrative tribunal, reviews the case hearing input from the Correctional Service Canada (CSC), victims, and risk assessments, and then decides whether to grant or deny parole. The parole board does not shorten a sentence, it simply decides whether the remainder can be served in the community under conditions or in custody. If parole is denied, the person stays in custody until their next review date or until statutory release, which is two thirds of a sentence. This means offenders are automatically released after two thirds of a fixed sentence to live in the community under strict conditions. This serves an important purpose of helping an offender reintegrate into society. The movie-style trope of an offender serving his full sentence and being marched to the front gate of a prison to be set free is fiction, rightly so. Do you really want men to spend 10 years behind bars then walk back into the community unsupervised?
- Probation. Probation is the justice system's way of saying “we’re going to keep a leash on you in the community and see if you can walk a straight line,” and would be rarely used for the types of very serious offences the Conservatives are twisted up about. Not relevant.
- House arrest. House arrest is common parlance for a conditional sentence order and is not available for federal sentences of more than two years, i.e. the serious offences the Conservatives are talking about. Not relevant.
Listen, our criminal justice system is far from perfect, but for one of the two major federal political parties to adopt an old-man-shakes-fist-at– cloud hang-'em-high platform to address serious violent crime is nothing more than a hefty serving of bullshit to the general public, and is intentional red meat for their base who share "soft on crime" clichès and put "F*ck Trudeau/Carney" bumper stickers on their pickup trucks.
To paraphrase Frankfurt in On Bullshit, what the Conservatives are doing involves a lack of concern – I would call it a disdain – about the difference between truth and falsity.
"The motivation of the bullshitter is not to say things that are true or even to say things that are false, but serving some other purpose,” Frankfurt says.
Posters and memes such as this are meant to foment rage and spark fear. Real solutions are boring and nuanced and more complicated.
Enough with the bullshit already.
-30-
Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.
Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social