Sep 222011

CannabisOn Sun News Network this week Brian Lilly lamented the fact that the country has no truly conservative politicians.  Not to let that one go, several people e-mailed Mr. Lilly and reminded him that the Freedom Party of Ontario has one of the most fiscally conservative platforms ever heard of in this province.  Subsequently Mr. Lilly had the Leader of the Freedom Party on his show and he was forced to rescind his previous notion that a truly fiscal conservative party doesn’t exist.

There is, however another kind of conservatism in Canada, social conservatism.  This has come to be embodied in the Conservative Party of Canada under its Leader Stephen Harper.  Mr. Harper’s Conservatives are certainly not fiscally conservative judging by their past two terms in power, albeit with a minority.  The next five years with a majority I fear will only reinforce the country’s opinion of them as foolhardy tax and spend liberals.

While we can fault them for their overtaxing and overspending we certainly cannot fault them not being socially conservative.  Although I wish we could.

This week Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, the same man personally responsible for incarcerating Marc Emery in the United States for selling cannabis seeds to Americans, introduced an Omnibus Crime Bill.  Some of the provisions of the crime bill (Bill C-10).  I actually support, coming down harder on youths who commit violent crime, increasing jail time for certain offence involving children and ending house-arrest for perpetrators of violent crimes, and allowing terrorism victims to sue terrorists and their supporters.  I have often thought that our criminal justice system was soft when it came to sentencing violent criminals.

But there are provisions in this new bill which can only be described as chilling.

I have written before about the nature of conservatism and its desire to control people based on a conservative’s unnatural sense of morality.  A morality based primarily on mysticism, religion and superstition.  I have previously identified conservatives as being intrinsicists, people who believe that things are bad in and of themselves with little consideration given to reason, or an individual’s right to decide what is good for them without interference from Big Brother.

Part of the Crime Bill calls for draconian prison terms for people who grow cannabis plants.  If you have 6 – 200 plants you are to be given an automatic 6-month sentence, with an extra three months if it’s done in a rental property or is deemed a public-safety hazard.  If you grow from 201 to 500 plants you get a minimum one year sentence or 1 ½ years if it in a rental or poses a safety risk.  The maximum sentence for growing any marijuana at all would double from seven to 14 years.

These sentences are something I might expect coming from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where individual rights don’t exist and the state dictates what it considers to be moral.

Compare these sentences to the new sentences being proposed for child sex crimes.  According to The Province, a British Columbia newspaper, the pot grower who is caught growing 201 pot plants would receive a longer mandatory sentence…

than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a five-year-old to have sex with an animal.

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

The 14 year maximum sentence for growing pot is…

the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.

The contempt Stephen Harper and his socially conservative Neanderthals have for the pot plant and for the literally millions of Canadians who have or do smoke pot is enormous.  Stephen Harper would obviously prefer you rape a child than grow a pot plant.  A little harsh you think?  I don’t.  As we speak Marc Emery has three years to go on a five year prison term in the United States after the Harper government turned him over to the DEA who came to Canada and arrested him on Canadian soil for selling pot seeds, something which is punishable by a only a small fine in this country.

Also in the Crime Bill are provisions which tug at that very fine thread of justice that has protected the innocent from an overpowering state.

The Bill proposes to allow the police to detain terrorism suspects for up to three days without charges.  It will also allow judges to jail witnesses who won’t testify about terrorism.  Now what can be so bad about these new powers we give to the police and the courts?  The problem is that giving the police and courts more power for one cause opens the door to giving them power for any cause.  Today you may be jailed for failing to testify what you know about your neighbour’s possible terrorist activities and tomorrow you will be jailed for not testifying about what you know about your neighbour’s pot growing activities.  It will only require a slight change of wording in the legislation.

It is a slippery slope Mr. Harper will create when he seeks to curtail our rights no matter how noble he believes the reason to be.  Catching terrorists by eroding our right not to be arbitrarily detained by the police or our right not to be compelled to testify only proves that the terrorists are winning with Stephen Harper’s help.  If their goal is to destabilize our freedoms and change this country into one they are familiar with, a despotic autocracy and if Prime Minister Harper gives into their demands and strips away our rights and freedoms then he will be hailed as a hero by the terrorists and a villain by peace-loving Canadians.

Originally aired on Just Right #218, September 22, 2011.

Apr 072011

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)


Mar 242011

With the declaration of war upon Libya by the United Nations the face of world conflict has changed forever.  War has now become a perpetual means to enforce a New World Order based on altruism.  We have entered a new age of despotism and we are at the center of it.

The proper question Stephen Harper, Barack Obama and the other world leaders who have responded militarily to the UN Security Council resolution of March 17th should have asked themselves was “under what conditions should I, as a leader of a Western Democracy declare war on another sovereign nation?  What could possibly provoke my nation to send troops to their deaths and spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars?”  With the experiences of Vietnam in their history the United States answered that question in the form of the Weinberger Doctrine.  US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger listed the following conditions:

  1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
  2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
  3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
  4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
  5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
  6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort

To this list I would add a seventh point; that no proper government should go to war unless the men and women who serve are volunteers.

The war in Libya does not satisfy at least five of these seven points neither for the US nor Canada:

  1. The governance of Libya, whether by Muammar Gaddafi or whatever government may arise from his overthrow, is not in our vital national interests.  While Gaddafi has been responsible for several assassinations and terrorist attacks and has been a brutal dictator in Libya responsible for many deaths he has been kept at bay since President Reagan bombed Tripoli during Operation El Dorado Canyon in 1986.
  2. There is no clear intention of winning this war.  The Security Council’s Resolution 1973 calls for a No-Fly Zone to be enforced.  This will most likely not be enough to stop Gaddafi from protecting his strangle-hold on the Libyan population.  The operation is called Odyssey Dawn.  Aptly named since Homer’s Odyssey took 10 years.  This could very well turn out to by the dawn of a very long odyssey for us.
  3. There are no clearly defined political and military objectives.  Italy, France the US and Britain have already been arguing over whether or not taking out Gaddafi with an air strike is part of this mission.
  4. There is no reasonable assurance of the support of public opinion and (in the US) Congress.  In fact Obama went to war without even seeking approval from Congress which he is bound to do by the US Constitution.  There has even been talk of impeachment by some Representatives because of this breach.  (This is not a precedent however, as President Reagan invaded Grenada without the prior approval of Congress).  In Canada Prime Minister Harper unilaterally sent our troops, jets and committed the HMCS Charlottetown to the war without consulting Parliament.  He filled in the leaders of the Opposition on March 18th by phone.
  5. War is a last resort when all other methods have been exhausted.  This is usually a situation which would apply to a situation where our vital national interests are involved.  However since this is not one of these situations there is no need to even consider the last resort of war.

This war was instigated by a call from the Arab League and to a lesser extent the African Union.  Both of these organizations contain many states openly opposed to our political interests and many of the member states could even be considered hostile to us and dangerous to global peace.  While the impetuous for the war has come from these states they are offering virtually no material support for the war.  In fact, now that the war has begun they have even criticized the methods by which it is being carried out.

The war is at the request of the United Nations Security Council.  The UN has a long track record of acting against our best interests and those of the United States.  Any suggestion from them to go to war should be carefully considered for its long-term consequences.

The rationale for this war is not to keep the international peace but to protect the civilian population of Libya.  This is unprecedented.  The civil war in Libya must be decided by the citizens of Libya and in any civil war there are going to be casualties.  For us to pick sides of the Rebels over Gaddafi may backfire if the Rebels turn out to be worse than Gaddafi.  If they become led by the Mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood we could see many more civilians murdered by the Rebels than by the Libyan Army.  We could then be thought of as being complicit in their deaths.

The change in the mandate of the United Nations from keeping international peace to interfering in civil wars in order to protect civilians has come about largely due to a Canadian.  Former Jean Chrétien Cabinet Minister Lloyd Axworthy while President of the United Nations Security Council in 1999 and 2000 tried to pursued the UN to alter its mandate to include intervention into sovereign states on humanitarian grounds.  The UN found it too controversial so he convinced the Canadian government to fund a study on the consequences of such intervention.  A commission was established called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.  One of the panel members was none other than Michael Ignatieff now Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Commission attempted to answer the following question posed by UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan:

if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?

The Commission responded by saying that

military action can be legitimate as an anticipatory measure in response to clear evidence of likely large scale killing. Without this possibility of anticipatory action, the international community would be placed in the morally untenable position of being required to wait until genocide begins, before being able to take action to stop it. (emphasis mine)

The Commission refused to define what they meant by large scale.

The United Nations has accepted the findings of the Commission and in doing so has set itself up as a World Police Force, it can now act if it suspects that harm might come to a large number of people.  It has become omniscient by saying that it can now anticipate when genocide will occur as it has done with Libya but will not do for Yemen, Syria, Bahrain or any of the many countries around the world which routinely murder its citizens, China for example.

The United Nations with the aid of Lloyd Axworthy, the Jean Chrétien Government of the day, and Michael Ignatieff has given itself new authority to wage war on sovereign states in anticipation of large scale violations of human rights.  For Canada, forever the lackey of the UN this is not out of character as our governments have acted on the evil philosophy of altruism since Conservative Prime Minister RB Bennett.  But for the United States to fall into this trap spells the death of any hope for freedom in this world.

President Obama has appeared on the world stage at just the right time to both destroy the productive engine of the US through his trillion dollar deficits and relinquish the moral might of that world power by acquiescing to the dictates of an altruist driven United Nations agenda.  On March 18th, 2011 the United States ceased to exist as we used to know it.  A new power has arisen in its stead, the right hand of the United Nations clenched into a fist to intervene in civil disputes throughout the world.

The question we should be asking now is what country will be the next to be bombed by the United Nations for so-called humanitarian transgressions.  The answer may be Israel.

A Reuters article from Tuesday, March 22nd reads as follows:

Investigator says evictions akin to ethnic cleansing

GENEVA — Israel’s expansion of Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and the eviction of Palestinians from their homes is a form of ethnic cleansing, a UN investigator said on Monday.

U.S. academic Richard Falk was speaking to the UN Human Rights Council as it prepared to pass resolutions condemning Israeli behaviour. The situation “can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing,” Falk declared.

Falk would like the Human Rights Council to ask the International Court of Justice to look at Israeli behaviour in the occupied territories.

The future of the world looks bleak.  Armed with this new rationale for war – the “Responsibility to Protect”, and a weak minded, immoral leader of the United States, Barack Obama we can only expect more interventions in even more countries, causing more cries of imperialism from third world nations, inciting even more acts of terrorism.

The proper action for Canada, the US, Britain, France and Italy to have taken when asked by the Arab League to intervene in Libya should have been that they must settle their own affairs, even though it may mean the death of thousands.  The only way for nations to evolve into capitalistic and democratic nations is for them to get there on their own.  Most often that path is bloody.   We may try to lead by example when we can (although that is getting harder with each passing day) but we cannot impose freedom and democracy upon other nations if their culture is not yet ready for it.  Until they establish freedom themselves the best we can do, the best we can hope for, is to keep their current medieval ideas from polluting the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, with the likes of Obama at the helm of the United States I believe such hope may now be lost.

(Broadcast on Just Right March 24, 2011 show #192.  To listen to the show visit

Sep 022010

General Douglas MacArthur was a leader.  In this case a military leader, but a leader who could command men to their deaths, change the course of history with his words and deeds, and do so with dignity and style.  In his speech to Congress of 1951 his language was not colloquial but formal and romantic in style.  He spoke with directness and it was impossible not to understand exactly the meaning of his words or his intent in saying them.  In the half hour speech to Congress MacArthur was speaking of the horror of war but yet its absolute necessity against potential advisories like Communist China and the Soviet Union.  The enemy was clear and the real in 1951.

Contrast MacArthur’s speech with the speech given by Barack Obama on winning the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire In 2008 and you will notice a marked difference in these two “leaders.”  Obama’s speech is the speech of a man vying to be the Commander in Chief of the American Forces yet also of a politician.  He too could command men to their deaths and change the course of history with his words but not with dignity and style for in his speech his enemy is the American people, not some foreign aggressor.  He spoke not with directness but with evasiveness, with nebulous platitudes and clichés.  It was difficult to understand what he meant for example when he said “we can stop sending our children to schools with corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success.”  What is meant by corridors of shame?  How are you going to put them on a pathway to success? … by paying teachers more?  If the teachers are great why do schools have “corridors of shame?”  What is meant by the “tyranny of oil” when it is oil that got us out of horse and buggies and into cars and trucks and created a modern nation?  How exactly is he going to save our planet from a point of no return?

When Obama speaks he doesn’t speak of clear cut and real enemies to America, like Communist China, or North Korea, or the Jihadists.  He has to make up enemies to rally the crowd.  The enemies are pharmaceutical companies, big business (how big is big is left for you to decide), capitalism, the education system, the health care system.

The chant of “we want change” by the crowd is equally as unintelligible.  Change from what to what? How? When I first heard it I thought it was chilling, like the chants of a mob in Tehran or in 1937 Berlin.

The crowd was giving Obama a blank cheque for change.  What change?  It doesn’t matter just change.  Change for the better?  It doesn’t matter, just change.  Change at any price?  It doesn’t matter, “we want change.”  So when Obama spends a trillion dollars and sends the nation into a prolonged period of increased unemployment (which he has done) and recession (which he has done) the crowd that shouted “we want change” has only itself to thank for the change for the worse.

I’d like to quote from Leonard Peikoff…

“Niccolo Machiavelli was the first influential theoretician of power politics in the modern world, and tutor to a whole string of dictators in the centuries that followed.  Men, in his view, are irrational, passion-ridden, power-seeking creatures; “realism” therefore demands that political leaders dispense with moral idealism and with any ethical considerations, and confine themselves to a cynically amoral manipulation of men “as they are.”  In his famous manual for aspiring rulers, The Prince, Machiavelli outlines the techniques by which a sufficiently ruthless man can use force and lies to gain and keep political power.”

Nazi Politics by Leonard Peikoff – Excerpt from The Ominous Parallels reprinted in The Objectivist May 1969

You might be thinking that Machiavelli’s advice was to men like Hitler and Stalin, which it was.  But his advice is just as religiously followed by men like Barack Obama, George Bush, Stephen Harper, David Cameron, Angela Merkel and every other political leader in the world.  These people are creating enemies were none exist and  destroying western civilization bit by bit with the sole motive of staying in power.

Again from Leonard Peikoff…

“The American system is not a democracy.  It is a constitutional republic.  A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule… a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights… The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights.  In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government.  It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.”

Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 9.

According to Peikoff once you have a system of government in place with a constitution and a clear set of laws and values it only remains to select “certain personnel” to administer the system.  Over the past hundred years, with rare exception such as with war and the expansion of individual rights (for example to blacks and women) there has been no need for any of our so-called leaders to change laws, to increase regulations, to restrict people’s rights, to tax us into submission and servitude to the state.  These are not leaders, they are looters.

When I listen to the speeches of men such as General Douglas MacArthur, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Sir Winston Churchill I get a sense of awe at their passion for being reluctant leaders for positive change in difficult times with clear enemies.

On the other hand when I listen to speeches from Barack Obama, Dalton McGuinty, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff I get a sense of revulsion.  I know that I am not listening to leaders I am listening to men out to harm me.  I know that every time they open their mouths they are lying to me.  I know that with every word they are planning to rob me of more of my freedom and wealth and are planning on taking the country down a path of destruction towards a police state.

The modern political leader is a demagogue.  To quote the definition – demagoguery is from the ancient greek  (dēmos “people” and agein) “to lead”.  It is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda.

Unless the issue up for discussion is war – when you hear of someone calling themselves a “leader” or being called a “leader” by others you better run for hills because in this day and age what you are going to get instead of a leader is a demagogue.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right September 2, 2010.  To download the show visit //

Aug 052010

Of the two main political parties in Canada it is my belief that it is the Conservative Party which has the most detrimental effect on freedom.

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