On Feb 28 Brian Lilley, host of Sun TV’s Byline was in London to talk about his new book, “CBC Exposed.” I was on-hand to video the entire event which was hosted by the International Free Press Society (Canada). Introductions were by Mary Lou Ambrogio and before Brian took the stage we heard from Bjorn Larsen, President of IFPS, and Joseph Ben-Ami of the Meighen Institute. A Q&A followed were Brian answered questions on the CBC, conservatism, immigration and other topics.
On March 22nd, 2012 I sat down with Lord Christopher Monckton for a one-on-one discussion of education, journalism, Catholicism, Islam, conservatism, and philosophy.
Jerry Falwell came to prominence in 1979 with the creation of the so-called “Moral Majority.” A group of evangelical Christians whose aim it was to influence the politics of the United States in such a way as to have society conform to their notion of what was moral.
The target of this group was the Republican Party and in 1980 it was credited by some with getting Ronald Reagan elected President.
The one defining characteristic of evangelicals that is crucial to understanding how they influence, not only the conservative right wing in the United States but also the newly created Conservative Party in Canada is their literal interpretation of the Bible as the word of their Abrahamic God. Evangelicals believe that their God created the Earth in seven days. They believe in Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood and they believe that the world is about 6,000 years old. Most importantly they believe that everybody must be “saved” by recognizing Jesus as their personal “savior.” To this end they have become involved politically in an attempt to change the laws of the US and Canada to lead the population out of their “sinful” ways and into a path more “moral” whether we choose it or not.
I have written before about how alike the Conservatives are to the Liberals in their economic policies. They are both socialists. Up until the early 1990s there was little difference between the two spectra of the left wing; Conservatives were interchangeable with Liberals. With the alienation of Western Canada by the Mulroney Conservatives in the 1980s we have seen an attempt by the evangelicals to infiltrate the halls of Parliament Hill through the creation of the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance (for which I ran for as a candidate) and now the Conservative Party of Canada.
On many of the issues of personal behavior we can see a clear difference between the new Conservatives and the Liberals. Examine this list of issues and consider how a Conservative might approach the issue versus a Liberal.
- Assisted Suicide
- Embryonic Stem Cell Research
- Gay “Marriage”
- The Death Penalty
- Sunday shopping laws
- Human Cloning (if such a thing were possible). and
- The teaching of creationism in schools
Evangelicals, believing that your body, being a gift from their God, belongs to their God and that you should have no choice in tampering with their God’s creation. You cannot take your own life, you cannot adulterate your mind with drugs, you cannot tamper with natural reproduction etc.
A liberal, on the other hand, is more prone to allowing us a choice when it comes to our actions. This difference is due, in part, I believe from their religious beliefs, if they exist, of Liberals versus the religious beliefs of Conservatives (at least contemporary Conservatives). The following comparison of the professed religions of party leaders should illustrate what I’m talking about:
- Louis St. Laurent – RC
- Lester B. Pearson –United Church (which does not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible)
- Pierre Trudeau – RC
- John Turner – RC
- Jean Chrétien – RC
- Stephane Dion – RC
- Paul Martin – RC
- Michael Ignatieff – Russian Orthodox
Here are the professed religious beliefs of some recent conservative Leaders
- Joe Clark – RC
- Brian Mulroney – RC (which brings us to 1988)
- Preston Manning = Christian and Missionary Alliance
- Stockwell Day = Pentecostal
- Stephen Harper = Christian and Missionary Alliance
All three of the past conservative leaders since 1988 profess religions which are evangelical.
It should come as little surprise that the majority of Liberal leaders were Catholics. The Catholic believes that in order for an action to be moral the person must have made the action freely without compulsion. He must have had a choice. This tenant of Catholicism is partially responsible, I believe, for the relaxing of personal behavior legislation beginning with Trudeau. For example the abolishment of the death penalty which occurred under Trudeau but was attempted to be brought back in by the Conservatives under Mulroney. But Mulroney being a Catholic himself allowed a free vote and the attempt by the more evangelical Conservatives failed.
From the rise of the political evangelical movement in Canada beginning in 1987 to the recent majority government of evangelical Stephen Harper Canadians can expect, at the very least, a continuation of restrictions on personal freedom such as our repressive drug laws. We can expect some private member’s bills in the next five years attempting to roll back the clock on legislation which had gotten the government out of the bedrooms of Canadians. Look forward to a renewed effort to censor adult content on television, look forward to a crack down on prostitution and teenagers smoking pot.
Thankfully since many of the newly elected Conservatives are not of the evangelical persuasion the likelihood of these motions passing are slim. Especially given that Harper, evangelical or not, who no doubt wishes to be reelected will not give his support to this Conservative hidden agenda. The genie of personal freedom has slowly been let out of the bottle, thanks mostly in part to the courts and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to put it back in will mean that the Party that does so will be quickly relegated to the left side of the house.
(Originally broadcast on Just Right #200, May 19, 2011)
A capitalist in Canada is faced with no candidate he can support in this election. Just as with every other federal election prior. Some might think that the Conservative Party is the party favoured by capitalists but may be because either 1) they don’t understand the definition of capitalism or 2) they don’t understand the Conservative Party of Canada.
A capitalist is one who seeks the abolition of force from society and the separation of government from the economy. He would not advocate any law which would tax any of his fellow citizens. He would not expect the government to bailout businesses with loans or grants. He sees as the only purpose of government the protection of each citizen’s individual rights – nothing else.
There are no parties in Canadian federal politics which fit this definition. All three of the main parties are socialist. All three hold policies which vary only slightly and only in degree not substance. For example, all of the socialist troika are in favour of universal, government run and financed health care. All three favour to one degree or another corporate largess such as with the recent bailout of the auto industry. All favour deficit spending with the Conservatives recently racking up a deficit of $53.8 Billion in 2010. All favour business regulations which prevent foreign competition lowering our standard of living. All favour so-called ‘stimulus spending’ which destroys one person’s job to create another person’s job. The list of agreement between the three is endless.
What complicates the matter is the deliberate misconceptions by the media who often portray the Conservatives as capitalistic. The recent CBC Compass poll which has been taken by over 1 million Canadians to-date has incorrectly positioned the Conservatives far from the other parties both fiscally and socially. It ranks the parties by their stated rhetoric and published policies rather than on the actual actions of each party. Here are a few examples from the 30 statements and questions on the poll:
For the statement “The federal budget deficit should be reduced, even if it leads to fewer public services.” The CBC stated that the Conservative Party’s position is “somewhat agree” while in reality the Conservatives are responsible for some of the largest deficit spending in Canadian history.
For the statement “Canada should adopt a carbon tax.” The CBC says the Conservative Party position is “strongly disagree” and yet Prime Minister Harper has, on several occasions, indicated he supports government enforced reductions in CO2 emissions, having bought into the left’s climate change scheme.
For the statement “How much of a role should the private sector have in health care?” The CBC states the Conservative’s position as “somewhat more” and yet the Conservatives have categorically stated that they support and uphold the Canada Health Act which limits all private involvement in the administration of health care and outlaws any private health insurance; the identical position of the other two socialist parties.
The poll correctly grouped the Liberals, and NDP together in policies but the separation of the Conservatives from the group is contrived and dishonest and perpetuates the myth that Conservatives are fiscally responsible when the opposite has been demonstrated to be true.
If there is any difference in the parties at all it may be in what motivates them. The Conservatives are motivated by faith and tradition, God and the Queen. Something is good because it is revealed as such in the bible or because it what our parents did. Contrarily the Liberals support a position based on science (mostly pseudoscience like climate change) or because it is new and progressive. Neither party support a position because it is rational or right to do so but only because it is supported by priests, mullahs or scientists or because it is a conservative or a progressive position. Note that regardless of the motivation of the Parties the position held is the same for all, that position will always involve government intervention into the lives and economy of the people. It will always be statist and it will always be socialist.
(Broadcast on Just Right Show #194, April 7, 2011)
When Stephen Harper’s Conservatives where elected to Parliament in 2006 I was hopeful that this new breed would change the direction of conservatism in Canada. I was mistaken.
Because of their willingness to debate ideas and their wish for greater economic freedom I have always felt a kinship of sorts with conservative-minded people; so much so that I became involved with them on a personal level. I was once the President of the London-Fanshawe Progressive Conservative Riding Association and I ran as the Canadian Alliance Candidate in the 2000 Federal Election. My campaign office was opened by Preston Manning with whom I pressed the voting flesh at Masonville Mall, I went door-to-door with Diane Ablonczy and I stood shoulder to shoulder on stage with Stockwell Day on at least three occasions.
In the past I was generally more interested in economic freedom than personal freedom. Many of the constraints on personal freedom can be simply overcome by staying inside and closing your curtains. Economic freedom however is not so easy to regain. Ann Coulter may have said “you have to pick your poison” but the end result of such an action is of course that poison is still poison and the lesser of two evils is still evil. If given the choice, which I still gratefully have, I chose life and I choose freedom, both economic and personal freedom.
I must now atone for my political sins and admonish conservatives for taking me down the garden path; a path that has led to a loss of freedoms rather than towards freedom.
Ayn Rand once described the agenda of conservatives to be the implementation of freedom by stealth. In this one area Rand was wrong, at least in Canada if not the United States. I have come to realize that conservatives in general have an agenda of socialism, not Capitalism.
Stephen Harper has recently said that he believes in freedom, family and faith and that freedom must be tempered by faith. To put it unequivocally Stephen Harper believes that your personal liberty must be tempered by his personal faith. This same application of faith to freedom can be seen in Ahmadinejad’s Iran or Karzai’s Afghanistan.
Witness Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day’s recent pledge to put over $9 Billion into building new prisons to (as Paul McKeever recently surmised in his blog) to house the countless cannabis users in this country, the so-called unreported criminals. Our sons and daughters will be subject to a minimum jail term of 6 months for smoking pot. Stephen Harper’s Faith will destroy your family and your freedom.
As far back as the beginning of this nation the Conservatives’ socialist streak has been written large in the names of their party. Sir John A. Macdonald led the Liberal-Conservative Party, a name that survived with little change until 1942 when it became the Progressive Conservative Party which again became the Conservative party to finally hide the Liberal leanings of the Conservatives.
Recently Liberal John Turner wrote that we should erect a statue to Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett. Why? Because Bennett, a Conservative was our version of America’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt and as such was a champion for socialism.
In 1935, Bennett introduced a Canadian version of the “New Deal,” involving unprecedented public spending and federal intervention in the economy. Progressive income taxation, a minimum wage, a maximum number of working hours per week, unemployment insurance, health insurance, an expanded pension program, and grants to farmers were all included in Bennett’s plan.1 He also proposed the formation of the CBC and he nationalized the Bank of Canada.
In one of his addresses to the nation, Bennett said:
I am for reform. And in my mind, reform means government intervention. It means government control and regulation. It means the end of laissez-faire. 2
This kind of Liberal Conservative has not changed. Even under the Harper Conservatives.
With every Liberal government comes a new socialist program. The two most expensive programs are “official bilingualism” and “official multiculturalism”. “Official Bilingualism”, although entrenched in Canadian law since before Confederation, was greatly enhanced under Progressive Conservative Brian Mulroney in 1988 with his amendments to the Official Languages Act. “Official Multiculturalism” was a Trudeau idea implemented by Brian Mulroney again in 1988 with the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.
Provincial Liberal or New Democrat governments have dreamt up new welfare programs, free education for four year olds, then three year olds, free day-care, Human Rights Commissions or Tribunals, and this list goes on. What is conspicuous is that when the conservatives finally ascend to power do they repeal these socialist pipe dreams? No. They fall all over themselves fighting to show that they can manage these programs more efficiently than the Liberals. They support the programs and revel in putting more money into them.
Socialist programs are not the only intrusion on our freedom condoned and supported by conservatives. Institutions like the Human Right Commission which are affronts to free speech and fundamental ideas of justice hundreds of years old are left untouched by the Conservatives.
The following is from MacLean’s Magazine:
In a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report newsmagazine Harper said, “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” he said “It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” He went on to complain about the “bastardization” of the entire concept of rights in modern society.
Of course, that was back when Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. Today he’s Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. And he appears to have lost his fear of totalitarianism.
So we asked Harper if he intended to correct this threat to the basic existence of a democratic society.
“The government has no plans to do so,” was his casual reply. “It is a very tricky issue of public policy . . . It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be.” 4
After four years of a Conservative government we still have the long gun registry.
After 500 hundred years of boating in Canada the Conservatives say we now have to get a government issued certificate to operate a boat. What would the Voyageurs have said to the creation of such a bureaucracy?
In the 1984 election the Progressive Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney was elected to a majority in the House of Commons with the support of Western Canada after campaigning against the National Energy Program. However, Mulroney did not eliminate the last vestiges of the program until two and a half years later. The conservative government’s delay was a contributing factor to the creation of Western Canada’s Reform Party of Canada.
And probably one of the worst instances of Conservative socialism, the first incarnation of OHIP the biggest drain on Ontario’s budget was passed under the successive Conservative governments of John Robarts and Bill Davis.
There is no practical distinction between the Liberal and Conservative parties, provincially or federally. Both parties, regardless of Conservative rhetoric, believe and support our massive welfare state. Both parties support bureaucracy and red tape. Rarely is it ever heard of that the Conservatives have repealed any legislation that a preceding Liberal government has imposed. They can’t ever repeal the long form census!
They do not attempt to roll back socialism and bureaucracy they seek only to make them more efficient. This, if such a thing could possibly work, would only make socialism more palatable to the public and longer lived. They may say they oppose the statism of the Liberals while they are in opposition, but when the gain power they maintain the very socialist endeavors of their like-minded left-wing predecessors. It is this inaction, this failure to rescind the ever encroaching power of the state into our daily personal and economic lives which makes the Conservatives worse than the Liberals. It is this inaction that gives tacit post-approval of every left wing action of the Liberals or the New Democrats.
But, ultimately it is the hope we sometimes get when they talk about repealing gun laws, lowering spending, cutting red tape that has the worst effect on people who love freedom. They continue to support the Conservatives even when their hopes are always dashed when their party gets into power. If these good people took the energy they spend getting the Conservatives elected and channeled it into real action to promote freedom in this country, like supporting the Freedom Party, we wouldn’t be in the mess we were in.
(Originally aired in an edited form on Just Right show #163 August 5th, 2010 and given as a speech to Freedom Party supporters in London, Ontario on November 20, 2010.)
2 – Ibid