The Canadian Black List: Who's Discriminating Now?

“Bigot,” “radical,” “extremist,” “Alabama North,” and of course “homophobe,” words used regularly by the Canadian media to incite “hatred, ” against what has become the most downtrodden of all “identifiable groups” — the Canadian conservative. Not only are the names personally hurtful they are used to marginalize Canadian conservatives, by the use of slander and lies.

This full meal deal of vitriolic name-calling was published in a recent Calgary Herald column, where one writer has created a “black list” of conservatives refusing to toe the social-Liberal party line.

If ever there was an “identifiable group” worthy of “hate crime” protection it would have to be non-socially-Liberal conservatives in Canada. Member of Parliament, Svend Robinson’s Bill C-250 “hate crime” addition of “sexual orientation” does not go far enough: it should also include “conservatives” in the criminal code. Seriously, even though conservatives are within their rights, generally speaking, I don’t think they should waste much time taking journalists to the Human Rights tribunal. Mostly because the tribunals are stacked by patronage ridden, social-Liberal appointments similar to our Courts.

Instead, it is much more effective to embrace the stereotype. No, I don’t mean become a bigot, but embracing the names that marginalize you is the successful strategy employed by all other downtrodden groups throughout history. One example is the Canadian Metis, or “half-breeds,” descendants of the French and Native people. Those that called the Metis people “half-breeds,” I think are still worthy of derision even though it was the “norm” of the day, but many Metis found power in the name that was used to keep them down and out.

There is power in the names they call conservatives. When you embrace the stereotype, the slander finally slides off. Only when you are attacked, have you been successful in striking a blow for conservatism: your pro-active conservative agenda has been worthy enough to warrant a counter-attack.

When they accuse you of having a “hidden agenda”, embrace the stereotype: clarify your agenda and make it public. When they call you “extreme” because you believe in traditional Canadian values promoting an ordered, healthy lifestyle, embrace the stereotype: sign a petition against Bill C-250 and same-sex marriage. When they say you are nasty and mean-spirited, embrace the stereotype: hone your nastiness till it is razor sharp and then turn and direct it at the enemy — the LIEberals.

Next time you hear a journalist or even someone like Joe Clark label Alberta conservatives as "social-conservative extremists" realise this: Albertans are not so much extreme as they are confidentconservatives. That's because conservative culture dominates Alberta mainstream thinking. Of course the influence of Alberta Report, publishing for 30 years has been immeasurable. It is the availability of an alternative press that has helped solidify the confident conservative base in Alberta.

The Canadian Black List: Who's Discriminating Now? - J.L. Jackson

“Bigot,” “radical,” “extremist,” “Alabama North,” and of course “homophobe,” words used regularly by the Canadian media to incite “hatred, ” against what has become the most downtrodden of all “identifiable groups” - the Canadian conservative. Not only are the names personally hurtful they are used to marginalize Canadian conservatives, by the use of slander and lies.

This full meal deal of vitriolic name-calling was published in a recent Calgary Herald column, where one writer has created a “black list” of conservatives refusing to toe the social-Liberal party line.

So who’s discriminating now?

If ever there was an “identifiable group” worthy of “hate crime” protection it would have to be non-socially-Liberal conservatives in Canada. Member of Parliament, Svend Robinson’s Bill C-250 “hate crime” addition of “sexual orientation” does not go far enough: it should also include “conservatives” in the criminal code. Seriously, even though conservatives are within their rights, generally speaking, I don’t think they should waste much time taking journalists to the Human Rights tribunal. Mostly because the tribunals are stacked by patronage ridden, social-Liberal appointments similar to our Courts.

Instead, it is much more effective to embrace the stereotype. No, I don’t mean become a bigot, but embracing the names that marginalize you is the successful strategy employed by all other downtrodden groups throughout history. One example is the Canadian Metis, or “half-breeds,” descendants of the French and Native people. Those that called the Metis people “half-breeds,” I think are still worthy of derision even though it was the “norm” of the day, but many Metis found power in the name that was used to keep them down and out.

Wear your stereotype as a badge of honour

There is power in the names they call conservatives. When you embrace the stereotype, the slander finally slides off. Only when you are attacked, have you been successful in striking a blow for conservatism: your pro-active conservative agenda has been worthy enough to warrant a counter-attack.

When they accuse you of having a “hidden agenda”, embrace the stereotype: clarify your agenda and make it public. When they call you “extreme” because you believe in traditional Canadian values promoting an ordered, healthy lifestyle, embrace the stereotype: sign a petition against Bill C-250 and same-sex marriage. When they say you are nasty and mean-spirited, embrace the stereotype: hone your nastiness till it is razor sharp and then turn and direct it at the enemy – the LIEberals.

Next time you hear a journalist or even someone like Joe Clark label Alberta conservatives as "social-conservative extremists" realise this: Albertans are not so much extreme as they are confident conservatives. That's because conservative culture dominates Alberta mainstream thinking. Of course the influence of Alberta Report, publishing for 30 years has been immeasurable. It is the availability of an alternative press that has helped solidify the confident conservative base in Alberta.

The unacceptable secular, neo-theocrat "norm"

Have you ever noticed how in the 1960's all the free-lovin' Liberals were pro-free-speech? But now that they have successfully socially engineered society, moving our cultural norms to their low standards, all of a sudden Liberals become self-righteous if you don’t adhere to their beliefs. Or, have you ever noticed how those that promote “diversity” are always the first ones who jump up screaming “extremist” as if blasphemy has been committed against the great god of “tolerance.” While convenient and so far effective in shutting down debate, their endless stereotyping shows their “diversity” does not include those who think differently than themselves.

With a social-Liberal controlled media, conservatives need to realise a Sally Field "You really like me," moment aint gonna' happen. Yet, marginalizing those with traditional Canadian values is becoming ever more complicated, as a recent COMPAS survey shows 63% of Canadians support the current definition of marriage as being an exclusive union between one man and one woman. Once again proving Canadians are tired of having their values trampled on by the social-Liberals.

Perhaps even more so than the merger, the Larry Spencer affair is a defining moment in Canadian conservatism. And it is no coincidence that the two events have coincided.

No, I don't think Spencer was conspiring with David Orchard to scuttle the PC-Alliance merger, but now is the time to discuss if Canadian conservatives are willing to allow themselves to continue being hamstrung by a constantly-shifting, narrow construct of politically-correct dogma created by nonconservatives. As Link Byfield has pointed out, our Parliamentary democracy is becoming increasingly "weird," and as the Ottawa Citizen's David Warren has pointed out Spencer may be a conservative ahead of his time.

In a National Review Online editorial, Dr. Robert Martin, from University of Western Ontario was reported to have recently remarked "Canada is now a totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."

Poke a Liberal in the eye at least once a day

In defence of free-speech this is where I could pause to point out fellow Freedom Institute columnist, Rachel Marsden's recent editorial regarding MP Larry Spencer's opinions, was a closed-minded, self-righteous, secular, neo-theocrat attack on a fellow conservative, using social-Liberal verbiage with outright abandon.

But I won't do that.

Because I realize that Ms. Marsden, a fellow conservative, while being less informed on this issue, greatly contributes to a multilateral conservative attack on the Liberals. As loyal Canadians, conservatives should consider it their patriotic duty to poke a Liberal in the eye at least once a day (figuratively speaking, of course). And everyone needs to poke from a different angle.

I will, however, point out while Ms. Marsden focused on an obscure pro-family group in the U.S. that doesn’t like President Bush, she was negligent in not mentioning a single Canadian pro-family organization. Many people within these pro-family associations have dedicated their lives to research exposing the fallacies of social-Liberalism, or secular humanism in Canada (ramifications we are only beginning to witness as the court's attacking our precious Canadian traditions becomes more obvious). Just because Ms. Marsden and many other Canadian conservatives like her, are unaware of the contribution of pro-family groups like Gwen Landolt's REAL Women, the Canadian equivalent of Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum and these groups massive contribution to mainstream, conservative culture, does not diminish these great conservative ladies life's work. On the contrary, it shows many Canadian conservatives to be cut off and out of touch with mainstream conservatism.

(Editor's note: for a fuller list of Canada's pro-family groups go to the bottom of the page)

The conservative abyss in the avoid-at-all-cost social arena has become so huge in the political realm that the 100 Huntley Street ministry's Listen Up affiliate and the Canadian Family Action Coalition have found a very successful niche in the Canadian broadcasting market. This follows a trend pointed out in the same COMPAS poll mentioned above, where 49% of Canadians are calling for religious organizations to speak out about political issues. At the same time 46% of Canadians have lost faith in the Canadian judicial system.

Death by a thousand pokes

Individual conservatives cannot possibly know everything on all issues, so it makes sense that death by a thousand pokes, is the only strategy that will work in obliterating our Liberal foe. And has in fact, proven successful for the Reform to win the west and also continues to be the strategy the Republicans have employed to decimate the Democrats.

Make no mistake, just like Alberta; American conservatives have a confident aura. But in the U.S., in addition to confidence they also have synergy within their conservative infrastructure: rather than poking each other in the eye they poke the Democrats. For example, in the presidential election when the standoff between George Bush and Al Gore was at its height and all the world was focused on the "swinging chad," Freepers from the powerful internet Free Republic group showed up on the Al Gore’s doorstep with clever signs and held a protest vigil by chanting, "Get out of Cheney's house, Get out of Cheney's house." Bi-national author and columnist David Frum who belongs to the well-respected American Enterprise Institute did not snidely criticize the "extremism" of the Free Republic group. Frum instead took his dog and kids and celebrated freedom by joining the Freepers.

Likewise, when 200,000 pro-lifers march on Washington annually, pursuing limitations on abortion-on-demand, (Canada has no limitations on abortion up to the ninth month of birth since Morgentaler's 1988 decision) like the partial-birth abortion ban that was recently signed by President Bush; unlike Canada, GOP strategists do not fret about "pro-life taking over the party." Republican's also do not deem it necessary to distance themselves from “so-cons” hoping to appear more moderate to liberal Democrat voters. For Canadians desiring to learn more about successful mainstream conservatism I highly recommend Ronald Reagan's essay and book, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” published in 1983.

Social-Liberals have successfully pushed conservatives underground in Canada till the only thing Canadian conservatives can talk about without breaking into a sweat is the economy. But seeking to avoid negative headlines by pandering to a social-Liberal media does not work. Furthermore, hyphenated conservatism's (separating the “fiscal” from the “social”) multicultural agenda is to compartmentalize, diminish, and divide. Moving beyond hyphenation is the first step towards empowering conservatives; a vital dynamic needed if the Paul Martin Liberals are ever to die a death by a thousand pokes (figuratively speaking of course).

___________________________________________

As I am relatively new to Canadian politics, this article is an EXCELLENT primer to get me up-to-speed on the situation up here -- and as such is worthy of a full posting...

- ConservativeStLouisGuy

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.