Conservatives need to stop appeasing liberal political correctness

Click for source.

Lorrie Goldstein’s article “Conservatives wrong to appease Liberals” in today’s Toronto Sun is bang on. Why? Because, as Goldstein says, appeasing political correctness simply doesn’t work.

Be it in the UK with Brexit, the U.S. with the election of Donald Trump, or here in Canada with the election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, the very people who condemn conservatives for being politically incorrect are the very people who would never vote for them.

For example, in Canada during the 2015 federal election, the Liberals, the NDP and the liberal media complained ad nauseam that the “nasty” Harper Conservatives had to change their “tone” — both in the House of Commons and elsewhere.

The problem was, the nasty tone was not coming from Conservatives. The phenomenon is called projection in psychology. The Urban Dictionary describes the condition as: An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else …. ”

I mean, you can see it in the U.S. since Donald Trump won the U.S. election. Protesters will stand in front of a silent conservative and scream that they are Nazis and fascists for daring to support Trump. I particularly remember the professor at the Berkeley riots screaming hateful epithets at a police officer who didn’t say a thing. On that topic, check out this Google page where there are 12,000,000 related hits on academics saying exactly what they criticize others for saying.

In Canada, during the Harper years, the Liberals and their media friends constantly cried wolf with never-ending “gotchas,” all the while claiming that PM Stephen Harper was cold, brittle and sarcastic. Unfortunately, during the 2015 federal election, too many Canadians believed the Trudeau Liberal “sunny ways” mantra and lies that they would be more transparent and accountable.

Anyway, fast forward to 2017.  Senator Lynn Beyak dared to say that she hoped that some Aboriginal students experienced some good while in the residential school system. The problem was that Beyak was hammered, not only by the liberal left for daring to suggest such a thing, but MP Rona Ambrose, the Interim Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). In fact, Ambrose removed Beyak from the Senate Aboriginal People’s Committee rather than support her right to free speech.

Talk about an overreaction to political correctness. But, it doesn’t end there unfortunately. Today’s Toronto Star recommends that Beyak “do the right thing” and resign from the Senate altogether.

Unbelievable! Our country is being overrun with liberal progressive “thought police.”

Well, enough already!!!! Goldstein is correct. The crux of the matter is that when Conservative politicians like Ambrose try to appease Liberals by being politically correct, conservative voters might just decide to stay away from the ballot box in 2019.

End note: If Senator Beyak reads this article, I want her to know that many conservatives like myself do not want her to resign because she has done nothing wrong. She simply stated an opinion, an opinion that in no way takes away from the horrors some Aboriginal students experienced in the residential school system. However, interestingly, it is obvious that some of the comments on Twitter under the hashtag #lynnbeyak, are examples of the very projection and fascist bullying I talked about in this post.

Is political correctness destroying diversity of thought in the West?

Whether in Canada or the U.S., liberal politicians and their supporters, particularly those in the mainstream media, love to tell us what to think and how to feel about just about everything. Well, I for one, am sick and tired of it. Take for instance:

Kellie Leitch: In Canada, Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch is being criticized and ridiculed for a video her leadership campaign put out that suggests all refugees and immigrants entering our country, should be screened for Canadian values. In fact, by making this view part of her leadership campaign, she is seen by some of her colleagues and the media as an extremist. Yet, a Radio Canada poll showed that 74% of Canadians surveyed agreed with her.

Motion103: M103 is an Ottawa House of Commons Private Member’s motion that essentially says Canadians should never be allowed to publicly question or criticize Islam. Yet, as far as I know, an Imam at a Toronto mosque has not been condemned for calling for the killing of all Jews. There is also the fact that the Toronto Public School Board allows Muslim prayers in secular public schools even though Christians have not been allowed to do so for decades.

Feminism: Feminism as it is preached today covers only half of the female population — those who believe it is their reproductive right to destroy a fetus that is growing within their bodies. Yet, when I came of age in the 1960s, the fight for reproductive choice was about the right for women to have access to the “pill.” Yet, now, when any woman says she is pro-life, she is dismissed as extremist and certainly not a feminist.

Climate Change: When Barack Obama was still president in the U.S., he declared climate change as the most serious threat to humanity. Thankfully, President Trump is grounded in reality and that view is changing. However, in Canada, PM Justin Trudeau and Premiers Rachel Notley and Kathleen Wynne have instituted either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system — which most of us know, that while those taxes will do nothing to reduce our emissions,  they will definitely destroy jobs and investment opportunities.

CINOs & RINOs: Unfortunately, it is not enough that conservatives are condemned by liberals and progressives. You also have to be a “real” conservative. Meaning, you cannot have any beliefs involving progressive policies — even though provincial conservatives are called “Progressive Conservatives.” If, however, you have the nerve to admit you are a progressive conservative, you will be called a CINO or RINO — a Conservative and/or Republican in name only.

The crux of the matter: Well, as I said at the start of this post, I am sick and tired of such political correctness and the lack of tolerance for a free exchange of ideas. In fact, as a former academic, I cringe at the notion that university students, like those at Berkeley and Middlebury College, no longer seem to know how to freely debate ideas, what Socrates called the dialectic. I mean, at Middlebury, a well liked Professor actually received a concussion when she tried to stop a student mob from attacking a sociology guest speaker — Charles Murray — who holds some controversial views.

In my opinion, then, the crux of the matter is that conservatives in the U.S. and Canada, be they considered “real” conservatives, moderate conservatives or libertarians, must fight against rigidity of thought and the intolerance of liberal political correctness. And, dare I challenge university faculty everywhere in the West — to teach their students how to debate a diversity of ideas.

Anti Trump & CPC leadership media bias in Canada & US

conservative-french-debate-20170117

Click for image.

The media and Left inspired nastiness regarding all things Trump and conservative politics these days is horrendous and non-stop.

Turn on the TV or your Twitter feed or pick up any newspaper, and the headlines say it all.

For example, on Twitter I read that a Liberal MP believes that Canada’s Conservative Party was responsible for the Quebec Mosque massacre. Politicizing the deaths is, of course, disgusting. Luckily former Conservative Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, corrected that faulty information.

As well, I have read and heard for months now,  that Conservative Leadership Candidate Kellie Leitch is anti-Canadian because she wants to vet newcomers from Muslim countries.

Of course, anything I hear or read about President Trump I take with a grain of sale — such as his latest behaviour at his most recent Press Conference. The media said he was unhinged whereas I thought the reverse.

Blah, blah, blah.

trumps-press-conference

Click for image.

In the US of course it is anti-Trump 24/7. In fact, I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that the mainstream journalists there are the ones who are “unhinged.”

President Trump is simply a showman, always has been and always will be.

Trump is also not beholden to anyone for anything. As a result, the media need to get used to him “telling it like it is” because it is his authenticity that supporters like about him.

As to Kellie Leitch and the Canadian Conservative Leadership campaign, there is, unfortunately some nastiness going on within the campaign. As I wrote here, Leitch has been attacked by several of her fellow Conservative leadership candidates, including Lisa Raitt.

In any event, while I like Leitch, I am leaning towards Andrew Scheer. Why? Because he is a young family man, much like PM Trudeau. As a result, I believe the media’s comparison to the current PM will be more favourable.

Scheer is also not going to be controversial because he is a known personality, having been Speaker of the House of Commons. Besides, in my opinion, Scheer is most like a young Stephen Harper. Meaning, while he does not glow with charisma, he has experience and statesman-like dignity.

The crux of the matter is that I will leave this thread open to provide a space where regular readers can discuss and debate the CPC leadership contest in the weeks and days leading up to the May 2017 vote.

Page separator

Endnote: If readers want to find this site after early May, 2017, I would recommend they change your “favorites list” for CotM to http://www.cruxpolitics.wordpress.com soon as I don’t plan on renewing cotmblog.com in August, 2017. Similarly, the domain crux-of-the-matter.com will expire in the near future because it has not worked for some time now due to the “dashes” between words.

Canada’s Conservative leadership race a crowded field

conservative-french-debate-20170117

Click for CBC column.

The current Conservative Party of Canada’s (CPC) leadership race is quickly becoming a crowded field. For starters, at 13, there are too many candidates, many of whom have no chance of winning.  As well, as Tuesday’s French debate showed, many of the candidates don’t speak even passable French, which is an essential skill in order to lead Canada.

Worst of all though, is the infighting. For example, as I wrote recently, it was completely unnecessary for Lisa Raitt to lash out at Kellie Leitch just because Leitch wants to screen  for Canadian values refugees and immigrants coming from countries where there is terrorism.

Still others, like Kevin O’Leary are, in my opinion, just trying to get attention and latch on to Donald Trump’s popularity to the south. Believe me, O’Leary is not like Trump, who praises all veterans and the military. O’Leary says that while peacekeeping is an honour, being a warrior is not.  Meaning, that to actually fight is not an honour. Well, excuse me. Try telling that to the thousands of men and women who fought, were maimed or gave their lives in World Wars I, II and Korea.

Anyway, at the moment, given all the factors, including passable French, I am leaning towards Andrew Scheer. I also like Leitch, Chong and O’Toole and hope that their French improves. In fact, I have joined the CPC so that I can vote in May when the leadership vote is held. However, that said, I am still willing to look at other candidates.

To me, the key to who has the best chance of running against Justin Trudeau and winning is the candidate who can match Trudeau’s “sunny ways.” Scheer would definitely be equal in that regard as he is young, experienced, personable and has a young family as well. Similarly, O’Toole has presence. Yes, I know they don’t have the charisma of Trudeau but if Canadians get fed up enough with the direction the Liberals are taking the country, I believe that, by 2019, a majority would look carefully at the CPC leader.

The crux of the matter however, is that, for the good the party and country, some of the current candidates need to get out of the race and those who are left need to criticize the Liberals rather than each other.

Free speech in Canada except when we talk about Muslim values

Kellie Leitch was right to bring up the topic of screening immigrants and refugees for Canadian values — a topic I wrote about last week here and here.   Leitch was right because it has opened up the opportunity for a national debate — finally.

Of course, the progressives and liberal media are all over Leitch for daring to bring up the topic. Their favourite put down, it seems, is to compare her views to those of Donald Trump. This is laughable because Trump has millions of supporters and could very well win the U.S. election in early November 2016.

All the criticism ignores reality. There was a recent Canadian poll,  for example, that showed 67% of us think we should do more to screen immigrants. Then, of course, there is the inconvenient truth that Canadian values include “free speech.”

Strangely, no matter how many Islamic terrorism episodes we see happening throughout the Eastern and Western world, the media doesn’t think we should talk about them in realistic terms so that we don’t offend Muslims. Just imagine this type of politically correct reaction in the 1940’s when, as my mother has told me repeatedly, the media and political establishment talked freely about Nazi terrorism. I mean, terrorism is terrorism.

Anyway, for the latest:

  1. Check out the CBC’s “At Issue Panel” from Thursday, September 8th, 2016. In their second segment (Line 650), they talk about the motivation for Leitch to bring up this topic. All three journalists — Andrew Coyne, Chantel Hebert and Jennifer Ditchburn — couldn’t imagine why she had done so other than for strategic reasons. Huh? I mean, these are usually excellent mainstream journalists, yet they seem so out of touch with reality. Can’t they see why so many Canadians are scared about the society they are going to leave their grandchildren and great-grandchildren? Talk about head-in-the-sand thinking!
  2. Check out the Sunday Night Panel on Wendy Mesley’s National (above). The three panelists were John Kay of the Walrus, Adrienne Batra of the Sun, and Alamin Abdelmahood of Buzzfeed Canada. You can listen to the whole video but the key part is towards the end at line 11:14. Abdelmahood suggests that talking about screening immigrants from the Middle East is racist. Wow! Which motivated me to look up what he has written at Buzzfeed. As expected, he called Donald Trump’s ideas racist. The thing is, Islam is not a race, it is a religion and Muslims coming from the Middle East represent many ethnicities.

The crux of the matter is that screening immigrants is common sense. Talking about such screening is an aspect of “free speech” that we are allowed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  And, to throw epithets like “racist” in our faces is nothing but political correctness and extreme intolerance of differing views. I mean, imagine how Muslims would react if they were called racists simply for complaining about Christians!

Yes, one of the positives of Canada is that people of all sorts of ethnicities and religions are welcome to come to Canada, but, and this is a big but, they need to be willing to tolerate all Canadian values, not try to change our society to be like the wretched ones they left behind.

 

 

 

Kellie Leitch has forced debate re immigrants & Canadian values

kellie-leitch-2A few days ago, I wrote a post explaining how Kellie Leitch, a CPC leadership candidate, was right to want a national discussion about Canadian values in relation to whether or not immigrants and refugees should be vetted for those values. I was hardly alone. Many others have written the same message, including Candice Malcolm.

While it is true that immigrants coming legally into this country are screened for health and financial considerations, as far as I know, they are not asked whether they accept Canadian values.

For example, are they asked whether they agree with the value of free speech, the equality of men and women, and the rule of law under our Constitution (as opposed to Biblical or Shariah law). Certainly, refugees are not asked those questions. I mean, more often than not, they have no papers at all.

Yet, I watched the Power Panel of four journalists on the CBC’s “Power and Politics” earlier today and it was like there was something very wrong with Leitch asking a question related to immigrants and values. For sure, Host Rosemary Barton seemed nonpartisan and just asked the questions, but the journalists certainly were not. They all seemed to agree that, because a few of Leitch’s  fellow Conservative MPs disagreed with her opening this discussion, that she should just quit.

Talk about progressive bias. That journalist panel was suggesting, in effect, that Canadian politicians shouldn’t even talk about Canadian values — with the hint that anything goes or that to have such a discussion might offend someone.

Which makes me wonder how progressives like the four journalists on P&P view our military who are training foreign troops and/or risking their lives on behalf of Canadians. In fact, David Krayden has an excellent column on that topic today in the Toronto Sun. The military at home and abroad have a Canadian flag on their arm. He legitimately asks: Does that flag mean nothing?

Well, obviously to the military, it does mean something. It means that Canada values:

  • Freedom of speech,
  • Gender equality,
  • The rule of law under our Constitution,
  • Tolerance towards other views,
  • Freedom of religion, and
  • Freedom of political affiliation.

The crux of the matter is that today’s CBC P&P panel was wrong to suggest that Leitch simply quit the Conservative leadership campaign so that everyone will stop talking about Canadian values.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is only common sense that new Canadians, immigrants and refugees, not only know about our values but be willing to integrate into our society with a clear understanding of how those values will affect their lives.

For example, Muslims coming to this country have to understand they can only have one wife. Yet, as Tom Godfrey wrote in Sun Media in 2008 and updated in October 2015, Muslims were claiming social benefits for more than one wife. (H/T NewsWatchCanada).

Page separator

Endnote: While the Canadian media want Canadians to think that we don’t have an immigrant problem in terms of conflicting beliefs, the truth is out there on the Internet thanks to Google. For example, check out Jack’s Newswatch for his main entry on  “Canadian Values” by Candice Malcolm (also linked in my post above). His many sub-links under that main entry are all related to this topic as well. It may be inconvenient to the CBC but there “are” journalists who are asking the same questions as Leitch.

  1. In one recent column, The CBC compares Leitch to Donald Trump in the U.S. I agree with Leitch that such a comparison is unfair in that it has ntthing to do with who Canada accepts as immigrants and refugees.
  2. In another column published in 2010, Gerry Caplan of the Globe and Mail talks about Honour killings being worse than we thought.
  3. In yet another column, published sometime n 2012, Tobi Cohen, an expert on honour killings, says most such killings are done in the Muslim community. Specifically, he states:”The killing of one’s own child — usually a daughter — because her behaviour is believed to have brought shame to the family. It [can also be] the fate of some rape victims, as well as women accused of infidelity or premarital sex in countries such as Pakistan. But in the West, it’s increasingly popping up in courtrooms as first-generation Muslims struggle to balance the strict old-world ways of their parents with a desire to fit into a more liberal society.”

So, while I did not include the Canadian value of treasuring life and not believing in killing our loved ones for any reason, many immigrants still hold to these barbaric beliefs. Surely, they can be screened on this topic.

Kellie Leitch is right about screening immigrants re Canadian values

kellie-leitchKellie Leitch is currently running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, a position she is well qualified to hold.  She not only has political and governing experience but she is a well-respected pediatric orthopedic surgeon.

So, what precisely is so wrong with what she asked in a survey such that the entire political class thinks the sky is falling?

She apparently asked if Immigrants and Refugees coming to Canada should be vetted in terms of whether or not they accept Canadian values.

Well, duh? Is that not simply common sense?

I mean:

  • Do we really want people to come to our country who believe in honour killing simply because their female children want to wear western dress?
  • Do we really want people to come into our country who don’t believe women are equal to men?

Yes, I know, people can lie to be accepted. But, what we have here is a politically correct fear of asking — for one reason alone — of being called Islamophobic.

Why? Because the majority of immigrants from European countries, Australia and/or the East, once here, usually try very hard to fit in to Canadian society. Many Muslims from the Middle East do not.

In fact, oddly, Muslims from the Middle East try to make Canada into the hell hole country they left. Prayer rooms in schools. Acceptance of niqabs. Wanting Shariah law in family courts. I mean, take a look at this Google page and you will see to what extent some Muslims want to change Western society.

Anyway, does my telling it like it actually is make me Islamophobic and a bigot? No, it does not, because everything I say is true. What it does make me feel, however, is fear, fear that certain immigrants and certain refugees not only won’t agree to accept established Canadian values, but openly oppose those values.

So, Ms. Leitch, hang in there. Ignore the naysayers because you have the silent majority behind you.

One more thing, ignore all the politically correct naysayers regarding the so-called snitch line. No one, in all the time in the year since you made that announcement, has said what help is actually out there for any young female who is threatened with genital mutilation. No one. Meaning, instead of dealing with the issue, they sweep what is happening under a politically correct rug.

The crux of the matter is that political correctness is the biggest danger we have in our society today and I am thankful that at least one of the Conservative leadership candidates — Kellie Leitch — has the guts to stand up and say it like it is.

O Canada! Some of us continue to stand on guard for thee!