In the early years Warhammer 40k was satire on conservatives, Marget Thatcher,

We can add to that Priestley’s lived experience in mid 20th century Britain; the long-tail of the Second World War and the end of British Empire; the ongoing civil discontent of the '70s and '80s between trade unions and the government; the UK’s ongoing military operations in Northern Ireland; state sanctioned support for the South African Apartheid government; and the Falklands war. All fed into an early 40k corpus that was politically charged and anti-authoritarian.

Even so, the game’s general message was typical of most punk pop culture of the period: authorities are oppressive, corrupt, and bureaucratic; advanced warfare is still barbaric; systems of oppression inevitably create the rebellions that they use to justify themselves; and so on.

https://www.wargamer.com/warhammer-40k/satire

From the very beginning, Warhammer 40,000 wasn’t a straight military setting. It was a joke; a loud, gaudy, aggressively unsubtle joke told by people who were deeply suspicious of power and perfectly willing to mock it. The early writers weren’t trying to smuggle politics into a neutral universe; they were holding up a funhouse mirror to the authoritarian impulses of the late twentieth century and exaggerating them until they became grotesque. The Imperium wasn’t designed to be admired. It was designed to be too much; too cruel, too bureaucratic, too pious, too militarised. A warning dressed up as a wargame.

The satire was everywhere. The Imperium’s bureaucracy was so swollen it became a character in its own right, a kind of cosmic Civil Service (perhaps a DMV for our American cousins?) with skulls glued to it. The Inquisition was a parody of purity culture, a machine that valued suspicion over truth and zeal over competence. Space Marines were propaganda posters made flesh, the state’s ideal soldier stripped of humanity and sold back to the public as salvation. Even the tagline: “In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war”. This wasn’t a mission statement. It was a punchline. A bleak little wink that said: this is what happens when a society builds itself entirely around fear and obedience.

https://norerolls.co.uk/2026/02/03/the-strange-half-life-of-politics-and-satire-in-warhammer-40000/

In order to sell pot in Canada, you would need a license from the Federal government.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/industry-licensees-applicants.html

Growing and selling vegetables would mostly depend on local By-laws.

Blue orcs are lucky an’ don’t require meritocracy ta become a warboss.

Yes, Inquisitor. This one right here is sprouting heresy. Something about the Imperium of Man will be the downfall of mankind.

My money is on the baggage handlers completely destroying everything.

(like he killed a bunch of kids for laughing at a bald dude).

He went up from there to Bethel. As he was going up by the way, some youths came out of the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldy! Go up, you baldy!”

And no, I won’t apologize for referencing A Christmas Inheritance by the Apocalypse Players.

It’s called a “confidence vote”. It’s not every bill, and I forget what makes it confidential, b

Generally, budgets and throne speeches are considered automatic confidence votes. Other than that, the House can either propose a non-confidence vote or the Government can designate a vote to be a confidence vote. Generally, the games of chicken over confidence votes happen a lot in minority governments.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-4/ch02-4-e.html

The Constitution Act, 1982 doesn’t lay out how elections or electoral finances or voting or campaigns, etc are to be handled. The Constitution only says that elections have to happen every 5 years (s.4 of the Charter and s. 50) and anyone who can vote can be a MP/MPP/MLA (s.3 of the Charter), the conditions to suspend elections (s.4(2) of the Charter), and how many and how ridings are created for Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia(s. 40), and electoral officers (s.83) for Ontario and Quebec. The ridings and the electoral officers are subject to federal or provincial law.

Section 51(1) does lay how to readjust the ridings.

On a fun fact about the Constitution. Many people think it takes 7 provinces with 50 percent of the population to change the Constitution. Certain sections can be changed with a simple vote in the House and/or Provincial Legislature to change.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html

How elections are run is decided by either the Elections Act at the Federal level or a Province’s version of the Elections Act.

I remember reading years ago (2010?) from a lawyer who declined to get involved in a class action law suit against a car manufacture (Honda or Toyota?). The lawyer wanted to file in Small Claims and wanted other people to do it as they would get bigger pay outs and it would cost the car manufacture more money through litigating numerous law suits.

Thanks. I deleted the second post.

For thos who want to learn a new fact, it’s illegal in Ontario to discriminate against people because of their family status.

TLDR: The trucker protest was really just an anti-Trudeau protest and not about COVID restrictions

Time for a brief history of trucker protest, federal/provincial jurisdictions, and international borders.

Both Canada and the US exempted unvaccinated truckers when it came to crossing borders to help mitigate supply chain issues. Eventually, both Canada and the US decided that you need to be vaccinated to enter Canada or the US. The idea of a host country gets to control who enters their country is fundamental concept of international borders.

What this meant is that US truckers would need to be vaccinated to enter Canada and vice versa. As much as people think Trudeau is all powerful dictator, he doesn’t have the power to dictate to the US about their COVID restrictions.

The truckers should have protested at the US embassy or at the border to pressure the US to allow unvaccinated Canadian truckers in.

The protest morphed into general COVID restrictions. Cool, this is something that Canadian protesters can try affect change. The Constitution Act, doesn’t just lay out rights and freedoms. It lays out how governments are to operate (the legislative, executive, judicial), judges, the Courts, taxation, etc.

Section 92 lays out what is under Provincial jurisdiction.

7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
8. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

The Supreme Court in Schneider v. The Queen, 1982 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 112 dealt with the issue of public health and Provincial jurisdiction.

The Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (the Rowell-Sirois Commission) in 1938 commented on this absence of a specific head of power dealing with the administration of public health at pp. 32-33: In 1867 the administration of public health was still in a very primitive stage, the assumption being that health was a private matter and state assistance to protect or improve the health of the citizen was highly exceptional and tolerable only in emergencies such as epidemics, or for purposes of ensuring elementary sanitation in urban communities. Such public health activities as the state did undertake were almost wholly a function of local and municipal governments. It is not strange, therefore, that the British North America Act does not expressly allocate jurisdiction in public health, except that marine hospitals and quarantine (presumably ship quarantine) were assigned to the Dominion, while the province was given jurisdiction over other hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions. But the province was assigned jurisdiction over “generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the Province”, and it is probable that this power was deemed to cover health matters, while the power over “municipal institutions” provided a convenient means for dealing with such matters.

Dominion rather than by the province". "Dominion jurisdiction over health matters is largely, if not wholly, ancillary to express jurisdiction over other subjects … " Thus historically, at least, the general jurisdiction over public health was seen to lie with the provinces under s. 92(16) “Generally all matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province” although the considerable dimensions of this jurisdiction were unlikely foreseen in 1867.

This view that the general jurisdiction over health matters is provincial (allowing for a limited federal jurisdiction either ancillary to the express heads of power in s. 91 or the emergency power under peace, order and good government) has prevailed and is now not seriously questioned (see Rinfret v. Pope (1886), 12 Q.L.R. 303 (Que. C.A.), Re Bowack, supra, Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, 1979 CanLII 190 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914, per Estey J.).

The medical treatment of drug addiction is a bona fide concern of the provincial legislature under its general jurisdiction with respect to public health. The constitutional question to be answered is whether the “dominant or most important characteristic” of the Heroin Treatment Act is the medical treatment of drug addiction.

Public health squarely falls into the jurisdiction of the Provinces. Great, we know who have to protest. That would be the Premiers, so let’s all head down to the…Canada’s capital to protest the Federal Government who doesn’t have jurisdiction over public health matters outside very specific situations such as border controls and prisons.

Let’s all be clear that the trucker protest really was just an anti-Trudeau protest.