Why is this so downvoted? I'm unfamiliar (and not Canadian) but it seems informative, apolitical, and not rebuked in replies (so far anyway).
I'm not about to downvote you for saying "crime against humanity" without reading whether or not you're advocating for one.
* not exactly amenable to liberal democracy
* the pro-leniency movement
* has gone too far,
* all across liberal cities
* it's become a free-for-all
* absolutely devastating all parties involved
* the ordinary citizens who become victims
* rampant property crime
* the vulnerable who are predated upon by drug dealers
* who themselves commit vast amounts of crime
* feed their habits
* the taxpayer
* hard-earned resources
* thrown
* a money pit
* worse than neutral effects
This reads as a list of right-wing scare phrases used in any political campaign to motivate conservative voting. This doesn't read as apolitical to people who actually live in the places these phrases are applied to and it seems to be characterizing the people in these places, "liberal cities", as either fools or sub-human villains. Also, if you are one of the people demonized you don't recognize yourself in the description.
I'm a big fan of liberal democracy, so this was an argument against involuntary commitment and forced labor, not an argument against liberal democracy.
The 'liberal democracy' reference is not using 'liberal' in the same context as the 'liberal cities' I referred to later.
>>the vulnerable who are predated upon by drug dealers
I wouldn't characterize that as a talking point associated with the right at all. The left is known for displacing blame for the misbehavior of drug addicts onto external forces, and this particular point does the same. Though it does sound critical of drug dealers, which is a right-ish argument.
Anyway, it's impossible to not sound political, when the problem is political. And it's impossible to not be critical of the left, when it is mostly the left that is to blame. Left-wing run cities are much worse off than right-wing ones with respect to homelessness, violent crime, drug-abuse, etc, by any metric you look at, and they got that way, from a starting state of much greater social order and more functional civic life, under decades of left-wing policies that gradually became more extreme.
QED
Unless of course you look at the generally much more left wing Western-Europe. But that doesn't fit your narrative.
That removes a huge number of potential confounding factors that could explain differences in outcome, letting the effects of differences in policy be better revealed.
It's the same kind of thing as right-wingers acting hostile to any negativity towards police/military, even if criticism is valid. Criticise lenient policies in cities with vagrancy problems, and it's touching a nerve.