--> Getting It Right: Conservatives are Canadian

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Conservatives are Canadian

I’m not quite sure I get the Federal Liberal re-election strategy this time around in BC.

It seems to many observers that they’ve played the “all Conservatives are evil and eat babies for breakfast” card a little too often in the last seventeen months for it to keep being effective.

Newsflash to Paul Martin - Conservatives are Canadians, too.

And we’re good ones, at that. We donate generously to those less fortunate, we volunteer in our communities and we care about the future of our country – even when the solution doesn’t follow your so-called politically correct guidelines.

By choosing to frame the debate in such a way that vilifies a large portion of the Canadian population, Paul Martin and the Federal Liberals have revealed the truth at the heart of their Party – their “tolerance” extends only to those who share their narrow, post-Trudeau version of events.

And Canadians who are willing to think for themselves and who embrace the concepts of individual and religious freedom, protection of property, support for the less fortunate, choice in how we raise our children, an open economy and other traditional tenets of liberal democracy should be celebrated, not shunned.

The Federal Liberals are usually masters of political inclusion, which is why I find this new brand of politics they are embracing so disturbing.

Last night we watched Hotel Rwanda, the story of the opening days of genocide in Rwanda, following the withdrawal of western peacekeepers. The Hutu and Tutsi groups have effectively no genetic differences – the distinctions between the groups are generally in the way they live their lives. But that didn’t stop them from slaughtering each other in the early 1990s after de-humanizing each other with labels like “cockroaches”.

Clearly we’re not to this level of conflict in Canada. But it is a slippery slope to discrimination when our political leaders disparage large groups of Canadians because they are followers of faith like Christians, geographically located like Albertans, or because they simply don’t believe that child care should be run by the government.

Over the next six weeks, there will be many who will stand up and cast doubt on the moral ability of the Liberal Party of Canada to lead after stealing millions of taxpayer dollars to fund their Quebec political operations.

But it is a long way from there to painting liberal Canadians as stupid or immoral.

This campaign, which started Tuesday morning when Paul Martin picked up the writ from the Governor General, is probably going to be the nastiest in our history.

The Liberal Government, after twelve years of rule, is flailing around for any message of fear that will stick in voter’s minds. They will use whatever tactic they need to achieve that goal. And if it serves to re-elect them, it will not matter one iota if it also serves to divide our country even further along ideological lines.


www.erinairton.com

18 Comments:

At 10:56 AM, Anonymous Pablo said...

Greetings Erin

Not many comments to your columns I noticed... In any case I just wanted to comment on anthropocentric semantics specifically regarding "genetic differences" that you chosen. Perhaps Life sciences were not your “fort” but more accepted terms are better suited for human populations such as for example in a paper "Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical" or "similar gene pool" source :
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,605798,00.html

Your choice of words coincides more with inter-specific differences…
Again an example:
Where sheep and Humans have genetic differences.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037E6A-9DA9-1C60-B882809EC588ED9F

Could this be do to the fact you eat babies for breakfast?

Sincerely

 
At 11:27 AM, Blogger Erin Airton said...

Thanks Pablo. I used an encyclopedia as my source, but it is true that life sciences is not my "fort". Thanks for your comment, though!

Gotta get back to breakfast :)

 
At 11:26 PM, Anonymous Larry said...

Appreciate the Dec.01/05 column-"Conservatives are Canadian" as do many others.

 
At 1:50 AM, Anonymous Bill S said...

A great big thanks to you Erin. Its so nice to see a drop of Conservatism amongst this murky ocean of liberal media we must endure on a daily basis.
As we all know, and, as people like our friend Pablo here continue to show us, The left is going to be relentless in its attempts to "Verbally assasinate"
Anything said by, or that could pertain to, Conservatism.
We need people like you Erin to voice the "truth" about what conservatism stands for.Once again, thank you for your articles, thank you for your bravery,(because thats what it takes to be a "Conservative" journalist, in this liberally dominated field) and thank you for your words.

 
At 10:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello,

Doesnt it bother you that Steven Harper proudly stated that Canada should send troops into Iraq and the only reason we didnt assist in the invasion is the fact that he is not P.M.? Isnt it a concern to you that if he ever became P.M. one of the first things he would do is "re-visit" the gay marrage issue sending Canada back to 2003? You cant see through his beadie little eyes and see that he is just obessed with power?

 
At 10:57 AM, Anonymous Peter said...

Hi, To make up for the possible “nasty” letters you may get I decided to write some encouraging words. You expressed extremely well, what I am sure are the feelings of a great number of Canadians.
The question put to Stephen Harper by a reporter, which is being irresponsibly dismissed as stupid, was actually a sneaky disguised way to imply what you did mention on your column and is widely used by the Liberals as a way try to keep in power.
I hope that you will continue your common sense column, as I find that unfortunately there are few people in the media who have the courage of expressing their true feelings and instead disguise their biased opinions.
I can see from a couple of comments you received that as usual instead of rational argument you get, either rhetoric about semantics or the “Harper scary” mantra.
Keep up the good work,
Peter

 
At 1:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi,

As a woman I am surprised you give Harper and the Conseratives the time of day as the other two parties especially the liberals are a lot more sensitive to woman's issues.

 
At 3:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe the word Pablo wanted to use was "forte" not fort. A fort is a structure or encloser caple of defence against an enemy. A "forte" is "a person's strong point." Perhaps he meant that you continually enclose yourself within your very limited ideas that you continuously expound without the use of logic. As maybe that is your forte.

 
At 11:19 PM, Anonymous Larry said...

Marriage issue: Harper due to democracy will revisit the marriage issue and allow free votes on this matter for all MP's,which was not the case last time. Besides, fact is marriage is a heterosexual concept combine with religion. Judeo-Christianity was performing male/female marriages long before governments incorporated the marriage institution.Science,religion and philosophy knows theirs a difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple even if left-wing socialists won't admit this.

 
At 3:12 PM, Blogger PGP said...

Found your Blog nicely put together and I thank you for re-affirming the humanity of all us conservatives.
Nicely stated......
We do community work, we volunteer, we support charities and participate in many other socially postivie and constructive activities.

Keep the faith!

 
At 9:08 PM, Blogger PelaLusa said...

Erin,

You might enjoy reading this about the childcare debate: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14015236&postID=113390015514247479 including the comments. I'm arguing with someone who has clearly drank too much Liberal Kool Aid in his life. While he has been relatively polite to me so far, he has tried pulling the usual tricks of casting all conservatives with the same dismissive tone. But he came up with a new one: {Paraphrasing} "Most Canadians can't manage their money properly. That's why the Conservative plan is bad and the Liberal plan is necessary." Hmmm, someone who thinks that letting the Liberals manage our money is a good thing ... might I be debating Paul Martin in disguise?!? :-)

 
At 3:23 AM, Blogger kenny.trueblue said...

Chinese are Conservatives too ...

Like many of my friends and family, I am an immigrant and a proud card-carrying, money donating, volunteering member of the Conservative Party of Canada!

Unlike the myths that our Liberal friends want many of us to believe, the traditional Chinese philosophy aligns extremely well with what the Conservatives believe. Small government, free enterprise, family oriented, tough on crime, fiscal prudency, demographic reform etc. etc. If one politician / political party were to respect a culture so much so that he celebrates their New Year (the 'Gong Hei Fat Choi' mentra), or even publically names himself 'the Chinese son-in-law' (David Emerson 2004 campaign), it begs the question why that same person / party would not respect one of its core value (e.g. heterosexual marriage definition), and stubbornly determined to change their thinking / culture. Forget about lion dances, listen to my mother's frustration / complaints against SSM!!

Besides, they stole our tax dollars for their campaign use (Quebec MPs such as Paul Martin) and openly lied to us too (Raymond Chan on SSM / head tax)!

How does that saying goes?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on .....

 
At 9:43 PM, Blogger redhead_pt said...

Erin, in your latest column, you exemplify the very antics to which you profess your opposition. You quoted, “all Conservatives are evil and eat babies for breakfast.” Spare me your embellished paraphrasing of the Liberal Platform, because I have yet to see something so profound from either political camp. The closest thing yet, in my mind, came from Steven Harper, when he accused the liberals of “breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec with the help of organized crime” – please make note of the appropriate usage of quotation marks. Not only was this kind of association unprofessional, but it is also disrespectful, much like your likening the Liberal-Conservative conflict to the atrocities of the Rwandan genocide.

As much as we have heard of the hidden Conservative agenda, we have heard equally as much of Liberal corruption. If you are going to argue for a change in rhetoric, at least make some effort to recognize the deficiencies on both sides. And while I am on the topic of your self-serving views, let’s discuss the topic of alienation. Day one of the campaign and Steven Harper was already mentioning a free-vote on same-sex marriage in the house. How is it at all appropriate to resort to majority rule on a minority rights issue; democracy is far more than majority rule. The foundation of democracy lies in the tenet of equality – irrespective of age, sex, religion, race, and in this case, sexual orientation. So, you want to talk alienation- about dividing the country along ideological lines?!? The Conservatives embody it, even when the issue is already law, even when the majority of Canadians are accepting of the matter.

And, lest we forget, the legacy of the last Conservative government was one of unmanageable debt. Every year, this debt costs more than 35 billion in interest payments. That is 19 cents of every tax dollar, and a great deal more than the one-time millions squandered through the sponsorship scandal. As a journalist, should you not be more concerned in presenting the facts than mere matters of biased, hypocritical, and one-sided opinion?

 
At 10:05 AM, Blogger Erin Airton said...

Dear Redhead...

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your post earlier - I didn't realize that you were looking for an answer.

I agree 100% with you about the debt. It is horrible and sucks money that could be returned to taxpayers. The PC government of the time was dealt with harshly by the voters (returned only two seats in 1993) and spent years in the political wilderness trying to re-build the blown-apart conservative movement in this country.

Regardless whether or not you agree with Stephen Harper re: same-sex marriage, he did promise after the vote was passsed that he would revisit it. To go back on that now would only serve to inflame that "hidden agenda" charge. If you don't support our parlimentarians having that vote again, don't vote conservative. By the way, if it was a straight referendum, it would be majority rule. It isn't - it is a vote in the House, just like the one we had in the spring.

To defend my column: yes, it was hyberbole. That's how you get people's attention when they are sitting on the bus long enough to capture their imagination. Sometimes, I'm over the top.

Many, though, ARE tired of feeling like a second class citizens because we don't buy the "government is the best deliverer of services" Canadian model. We're tired of hearing that our faith makes us "scary" and "anti-woman".

Finally, I have never claimed to be a journalist. I represent a view from the conservative side of the spectrum. It is commentary and discussion - not unbiased reporting.

I really do appreciate you taking the time to stop by and hope that you will continue to visit. The public sqaure in Canada can be high on rhetoric, but I do believe that most Canadians share a common set of values: compassion for the less-fortunate, caring for family, and working hard to make our communities safe and healthy.

Have a wonderful Christmas and thank you again for your patience.

 
At 3:47 PM, Anonymous Peter said...

If you just did read this column, please find further comments on the latest comments,

 
At 4:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Erin,

The other day you wrote an article in 24 Hrs (01st December 2005) entitled Expect One Nasty Campaign. I apologise for the length of time it has taken to respond, however, please allow me to thank-you for the succinct, penetrating and insightful thoughts that you shared with your readers and I dare say detractors.

I am a landed immigrant from South Africa (01st May 2005) and experienced some of the tensions, sensitivities and very real threats that you so poignantly and passionately spoke about.

Rwanda, stands out as a testimony to the reality of a world’s inability to understand and subsequently come to terms with tribalism and its vehicle of intolerance; Namely extreme violence.

In South Africa, there is a “low grade” civil war that has been active for decades. It is Zulu on Zulu and has only recently gained some international notoriety because there is a modernisation of the old lines and demarcations of the feuds. What has happened in this process is that the vendettas have become aligned with present political alliances and ambitions. These excuses for combat have provided opportunity for and fertility to Marxist noise. The outcome of dialogue is a simplistic guise which provides credibility for a malady which is largely hidden from us. It is also hidden because of the grandstanding and up-staging of the apartheid regime’s proponents and opponents. Furthermore, our understanding of the centuries old culture is crude, rudimentary and ineffective when sieved through Western filters.

It is not generally known or reported that in the last ±25 years, there has been a total of recorded deaths in the KwaZula-Natal area that exceeds the total recorded deaths of the Vietnam War.

What we need to recognise is that a balance between tolerance, freedom of religion, rights and cultural sensitivity must be achieved and maintained.

I am in support of good responsible governance and demand a high degree of integrity from my leaders. Opinion driven dialogue is, I believe, fundamental to the success of democracy. Unfortunately, it comes down to numbers. Why should the majority need to consider the minority?

However, as these very important groups are ignored and compelled to accept and practise beliefs that are irreconcilable to their beliefs and family values, that the stage is set for resentment and frustration. This coupled with the “slippery slope to discrimination” that you mentioned is a breeding ground for inevitable conflict.

Your cautionary sentiments in the article, are timely and laudatory.

Regards

Ray Dye (Mr)

 
At 3:49 PM, Anonymous Peter said...

Hi Ray,
I just did read your comment and having spend 11 years in South Africa, I am well aware of the problems you did mention.
However, I did leave in 1975 and I am sure that the situation must have deteriorated since then.
Peter

 
At 1:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I must say that one of the key differences between socialists and conservatives is the emphasis placed on biological/genetic make-up as opposed to social construction when deciding ethical considerations. Perhaps attention to social history on the part of the latter as opposed to capitalist Hollywood portrayals of history is also a key distinction.

You don't know this, but Tutsi and Hutu were categories constructed by the conservative Belgian government as a way of celebrating and elevating the Tutsis as "whiter" than the Hutus.

This has nothing to do with genetics as indeed most things do not.

And well done, making fun of someone for their best effort at written communication and determination to share this with you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home