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.

York U should NOT permit sexist intolerance!

Originally published January 10th, 2014. Featured again on February 8th, 2014.

York University

Click for CBC article.

Many Canadians will have heard of the York University’s so-called religious rights incident by now.

A male student taking a York University online course, asked to be excused from a group work requirement because he would have to work alongside his female classmates and that apparently was against his religion.

Hogwash. That type of sexist prejudice is cultural and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Rather, let’s call it what it is — intolerance! As Michele Mandel writes, gender rights are inalienable bedrock truths in Canada.

Thankfully, the York University sociology professor involved, J. Paul Grayson and his department, understood that and had more sense than either the Centre for Human Rights or the York Social Sciences Dean. As Grayson rightly suggested in a CP article posted on the CBC,  that type of decision “takes us back to the dark ages.”

As a former professor myself, I can only assume Grayson had tenure, and therefore academic freedom, to be able to stand his ground like that — although the fact that his entire department stood behind him was no doubt the key to his being able to stand firm.

Anyway, dark ages indeed! The reality is we don’t even have to go back that far. I was an adolescent during the 1950s and know first hand about gender inequality — a sexist chauvinist inequality that was seen simply as the social norm.

I remember, for example, that our universities had few female students. I remember that women were not allowed to work for any police force, including the RCMP. I remember that women could not be trained for or considered as pastors for any of the mainline protestant religions. I also remember that employment ads were separated into “Male Help Wanted” and “Female Help Wanted” and that all the good jobs were on the Male side.

No, that is not paranoia. That was simply the female reality after WWII once the men came home.  In fact, my mother was one of the thousands of women who were asked to leave the offices and the factories and go back into the kitchen. Luckily for her, she was able to get into the federal public service in the mid 1960s when things started to improve.

Yet, only a few years earlier, when I was hired for my first job after high school (as a key punch operator), I had to sign a form that agreed to my automatic and immediate dismissal if I got married. And, guess where that was?  No, not at some private sector white elephant of a company. It was at the Canadian Government’s Central “Bank of Canada” in Ottawa.

Meaning, vigilance is very important if women do not want to go back to that kind of future.

What is especially interesting about this York University incident is that negative reaction to the Dean’s orders is completely apolitical. For example, in the last few paragraphs of the CBC posting it states:

    • Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that having men and women attend school together was precisely what Canada fought to accomplish when it sent soldiers to Afghanistan.
    • Liberal MP Judy Sgro, who represents the riding of York West in which the university is located, said the professor made the right decision.
    • Conservative MP Mark Adler, who represents the adjacent riding of York Centre, says there is no place in Canadian society for sexism.
    • NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said universities should not be accommodating such a demand.


Canada is a welcoming and inclusive country but our “Rights and Freedoms” — which include gender, sexual and racial equality — should not be allowed to be trampled on to accommodate the religious or cultural rights of others. In other words, if one person’s religious rights impact hard-fought gender rights, the latter rights should prevail.

Professor Grayson was right to stand firm and I commend him for doing so.



(1) H/T Jack’s Newswatch (# 1).

(2) See also this Sun Media video with Michael Coren who refers to the issue as to misogyny and gender apartheid. Those are tough words but they show the extreme to which appeasement can go. (H/T right column under “Religious Misogyny“).

(3) Of course, it goes without saying that had the situation been the opposite — that a female student demanded group work accommodation or segregation from men –  the answer to the request should have been the same.  Men and women are equal in this country and sexism is sexism whether it is anti-female or anti-male.

Update re “Is Halloween being destroyed by political correctness?”

Update November 2nd: I agree with parent Kim Holford who said on Charles Adler last night: “Canada can’t become a blank slate that everyone can write on except us.” Exactly. But that, it seems, is precisely what the politically correct want.

Black and Orange Spirit Day? That may not offend the few who feel “uncomfortable” with Halloween, but it sure offends the majority. I mean, don’t we count anymore?

By the way, the original Samhain Festival was not devil worship, it was simply the day and night the people celebrated the harvest and made sacrifices to keep bad spirits away for the new year — shutting down their own fires and building community fires instead.  Remember, the early people were superstitious and knew nothing about science.  In fact, even later it was connected to remembering the Christian martyrs who died for their faith, as well as the recently departed.

So, nothing about Halloween is actually about the devil or black magic. Rather, it is about the departed — as in the dead — and keeping bad spirits away, just the opposite to what some think Halloween represents. See the link in my Endnotes for a complete history.

Original article starts here: Continue reading

Is Equal Employment Commission contributing to U.S. downfall?

This morning, I read an interesting Washington Times article at Jack’s Newswatch about how a recommendation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was suggesting that when an employer expects a high school diploma, he or she may be discriminating against someone with learning disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

My first reaction was that political correctness was going to be the downfall of the U.S. economy. So, I left a comment about the history of high school diploma labelling and how all this was ignoring the reality that we are not all created equal, no matter how much progressives want that to be so. It is also a negative reaction against the values of merit and competition.

My second reaction, however, was to visit the EEOC’s website where I came across a page on the lawsuits and activities completed by EEOC during the last year or so.Unbelievable! I knew the U.S. was litigious. But, scan the list of law suits and settlements and it comes to millions upon millions of dollars against employers, the very businesses that are supposed to keep the U.S. economy afloat. And, those settlements have been going on for the entire 35 years since Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the agency into law.

What can anyone say about this? I mean, on the surface, it is about fairness. But, surely, there is a better way because all that this type of political correctness does is make sure America is not competitive within the global economy, particularly against China and other Asian countries where individuals either measure up or they don’t get or keep jobs.

As I mentioned in my comment at JNW, what is next? Right now we can’t say anything about our age, marital status or sexual preferences. Is it not too far off that we also won’t be able to disclose our education level, because that might discriminate against someone who couldn’t or wouldn’t reach the same level? Or, will it become unfair to tell about our work experiences because that too would discriminate against those who didn’t have to look for those same opportunities?

In other words, if the EEOC is about fairness for those with disabilities, how is it actually fair?  Like the Occupy movement, which may have started out with worthy goals, has this agency become nothing more than ensuring entitlements to individuals who may not deserve them — which makes everyone who has a disability look bad. Whereas, I believe the opposite. If given a chance, with or without accommodations, most with disabilities can indeed compete in the mainstream!

Update Wednesday, January 4, 2012 — Revised final paragraph slightly.

Continue reading