A lesson in how to lose voters

The Canadian conservative movement is becoming a growing liability for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Political parties always try to come up with the next big idea, the one idea that will either propel them to power or secure their hold on power. This is nowhere near as prominent a motive as in Canadian politics these days. The Conservatives have been at the helm of government for a bit over two years, but theirs is only a minority government. Despite his best efforts, prime minister Stephen Harper has been unable to boost his polling numbers or put a considerable distance between his party and the Liberal Party.

Considering that the opposition is led by an ineffectual, clumsy, non-English-speaking nerdish professor, Stéphane Dion, Harper’s inability to make any headway is no credit to Dion, but, instead, speaks of the inherent weakness of the conservative movement and the Conservative Party. Voters, even when faced with an outright caricature and joke on the Liberal side, are still reluctant to give Harper and his Tories a majority.

Canadians are afraid of extreme right-wing ideas. Even most of those who vote Conservative in Canada would never dream of voting Republican in the United States, for example. A recent survey on Anglo-Saxon attitudes and values done by The Economist also revealed that British Tory voters would vote for Barack Obama, a Democrat, rather than John McCain, a Republican.

Harper is not an extremist by any definition. In fact, based on his budgets alone, he appears to be more of a free-spending liberal than any Liberal government in recent history. He also skilfully sabotaged his own party’s renewed attack on same-sex marriage by throwing some carrots to the social conservatives in his party at first to calm them down, but then pulling out the stick and beating them, softly, into submission.

He has also discovered his greener side. Of course, he is still several light years away from deserving the label of environmentalist or Kyoto supporter, but he has learned and come around, slowly but surely, on some fronts. Environmentalists still scowl at his approach to CO2 emissions, but his targets are much tougher than, say, Alberta’s, and from the looks of it, Harper could well be headed for a major showdown with the Albertan government, whose environmental standards are a joke. Without any undue exaggeration, this simmering conflict has all the makings of turning the federal Conservatives, in the minds of Albertans, into pariahs no less reviled than the Liberals.

Therefore, when the Liberals accuse Harper of a "hidden agenda" - i.e., of extreme right-wing ideological provenance - the rest of Canada cannot help but laugh, as happened during the recent debate on Harper’s reasonable and common-sensical immigration-reform measures, which made Dion huff and puff, despite the fact that even the Globe and Mail, a Liberal newspaper, supported these measures wholeheartedly.

So, one would think that Harper was a safe choice for Canadian voters. He would be, too, if it were not for those in and around his party that gave voters every reason to be scared of a Conservative majority - after all, show me the company you keep, and I will tell you the kind of person you are.

The recent debate on freedom of speech, triggered by such conservative "luminaries" as Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn, has shown Canadians the ugly face of the Canadian conservative movement. In the wake of the debate, Canadians were treated to Holocaust denials, belittlement of the 9/11 events and a plethora of racist commentary. It has also demonstrated, yet again, the groupthink that dominates and permeates the conservative movement.

In the political blogosphere, it is an open secret that the conservative blogging group Blogging Tories is nothing but an echo chamber where groupthink is enforced swiftly and vehemently - criticize any aspect of conservative ideas or individuals, and you, an upstanding and progressive conservative yourself, will be branded a communist before the average Canadian conservative can figure out whether communist takes one or two m’s. Or try writing a critical piece about Mark Steyn - including one that affirms and agrees with his message but not his style - and conservatives will call you a left-winger and suggest you see a shrink.

This is not only childish, but also bespeaks an intellectual backwardness and lack of mental agility on the part of conservatives. Surely, David Frum, a conservative, must have been ostracized after he revealed in his latest book that he was - the "nerve" of that man - in favour of a carbon tax.

Canadians, who are extremely computer and blog-savvy, see what is going on, and they are becoming increasingly disgusted with the hatred, racism, bigotry and myopia exhibited by bloggers and other members of the conservative movement. When pseudo-conservative Gerry Nicholls, for example, announced recently that he would turn on every light in his house during Earth Hour, he made a light bulb go on over many people’s heads: Instead of doing something nice for the environment, which did not even require that much of a sacrifice, he tried to "prove" his point by powering up his electricity bill and volunteering to pay even more money to his utility company. No doubt, most people now consider Nicholls a synonym of dunce.

As a result of such conservative "enlightenment", a growing number of readers agree that, while they have confidence in Harper to varying degrees, they are put off by conservative bloggers and others in the conservative movement (for example, the National Post, particularly after one of its editors recently praised a Neo-Nazi as a role model for the freedom-of-speech movement). While Liberal bloggers only achieve positive feedback with other Liberals, without actually producing any converts for their side, the conservatives are doing their best to alienate and lose voters.

This alienation is not only affecting undecided voters or those who normally vote for other parties. Even conservatives are growing impatient with the infantile antics of their co-ideologues, to the point where even some of them may not vote Conservative anymore.

Keywords

Blogs Canada Politics Free Speech

reactions article

0 vote

by Orision (xxx.xxx.xxx.191) 15 April 2008 23:33

The author seems to believe that freedom of speech is an issue only to right-wing wackos. His belief that Liberals are the only safe choice because they will continue to cap our free speech shows not only that he against freedom of speech, but also displays his ignorance. Many Liberals are also decrying the Human Rights Commissions thwarting of fundamental Canadian freedoms. The myopia is not ours, Werner, but yours. You fail to see that not only are the current limitations on speech from the HRCs terrible, but that if they aren’t stopped and reversed they will inevitable worm their way into every debate, every controversial discussion, silencing those that they disagree with under the banner of "Human Rights". There is no right not to be offended, but there is supossed to be a right to freedom of speech. Many Conservatives hate racism. I know that I hate racism. But I believe that just because I hate hearing things, I don’t have the right to stop people from saying them. For example, I hate your beliefs that freedom of speech is trivial, you apparent underlying belief that being a conservative is evil, that fact that you are offended by someone daring to show their beliefs about Environtology and pretty much any display of anything that goes against your values, but I still respect your right to say such things. If only you respected mine, and the rights of every human to express vieews that are contrary to yours. Silencing dissent does not increase human rights, it limits them. The very censoring that the HRCs commit destroys Human Rights, not upholds them. In summation, you have failed to recognize that many Liberals support freedom of speech, which you obviously do not, to the point where a Liberal MP has proposed a bill to amend legislation in favor of freedom of speech, you do not appreciate that others have a right to their opinions despite what you think of them, and you are a traitor to Canadian values.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
- 0 vote
  
  by Werner Patels (xxx.xxx.xxx.245) 15 April 2008 23:51
  
  I am not a traitor to Canadian values, but Steyn and Levant and a bunch of others are. Freedom of speech is one thing — and we must protect it — but protecting Neo-Nazis and racists and professional libellers is not part of freedom of speech. I think you need to go back to school and seriously upgrade your education because you are as dumb as a sack of hammers.
  
  Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by Orision (xxx.xxx.xxx.191) 16 April 2008 00:27

Note: before instructing me to go back to school, you should try learning to spell the words you really like to use, such as “libelers”, not “libellers". Note: I am currently in my third year of a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, so my education is already upgraded from the average. Even if my education wasn’t upgraded, that alone would not invalidate my opinions. I would ask you your education, since it seems that you have little, but I really don’t care whether you’re an imbecile or a genius, you should still be allowed to discuss things in a friendly manner.

Libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person

Speaking of libelous comments, "you are as dumb as a sack of hammers". How dare you insult hammers in that manner? Hammers have a fundamentals right to protection, a protection that should be granted by the HRCs. Your defamation of hammers is a view which must be silenced before it causes people to take their hammers out of sacks.

Also, there is definitely an intelligence difference between inanimate objects and humans, making your statement obviously false. At least I believe in your freedom to express your opinions, which this is, as evidenced by the "I think..." part of you statement (a part of your statement which I seriously question).

Moving right along, away from the childish insults (speaking of being educated)...

It is not up to the state to decide what opinions are acceptable for people to express. Bear in mind that means that expression of opinions should be protected, not necessarily everything that people have to say.

Libel can destroy a person’s life, and as such, libel should not be protected. Also, an attempt to deliberately provoke violence should not be protected (that would not be an expression of an opinion, but rather an attempt at endangering human safety).

I, personally, hate racism, but I believe that all, regardless of the validity of their opinion, have a right to express it. If we do not have the right to express our opinions, then we are not free. Freedom, to me, is more important than life, and I would fight, even if it would cost me my life, to prevent the loss of freedom of expression in Canada to the extent that it is approaching. The freedom of expression is a fundamental belief that our fathers and grandfathers fought in WWII to protect. Wars have been fought for the freedoms you would so gladly give away, falsely believing that you give them away in the name of human rights. The freedom of speech is a value that has been held as sacred by many throughout the world, especially Canada. By supporting the end to freedom of speech, you are betraying a Canadian value. Steyn and Levant are Canadian heroes, fighting for the rights of us all to express that which we believe, to worship as we see fit, and listen to the views of others.

You claim to believe in freedom of speech, yet you fail the test of whether a person truly supports freedom of speech. Noam Chomsky put it quite succinctly: If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.

As you do not believe in freedom of expression for racists, which it seems that you hate, you do not believe in freedom of speech, and as freedom of speech is a fundamental Canadian value, you are a traitor to Canadian values.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
- 0 vote
  
  by Werner Patels (xxx.xxx.xxx.245) 16 April 2008 00:30
  
  Libellers is the proper spelling in REAL English (ie, not in American English). You can take your American English and shove it.
  
  As I said, go back to school.
  
  Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
- 0 vote
  
  by Werner Patels (xxx.xxx.xxx.245) 16 April 2008 00:32
  
  Steyn and Levant are not heroes (Levant even allowed a death threat to be published on his site). They’re only in for their own sick game, but heroes they aren’t.
  
  Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
- 0 vote
  
  by Orision (xxx.xxx.xxx.191) 16 April 2008 01:18
  
  I thought I was dealing with someone capable of discussing their viewpoint civilly. You have proven me wrong. Congratulations, a victory to you! With the way you defend your views when questions, it is probably the only type of victory you are capable of achieving, so please, feel free to have a trophy made!
  
  Again with the libelous statements from someone who claims to hate libelers. It appears we differ significantly on the motives of Steyn and Levant. I believe that Levant is doing what he is doing to protect freedom of speech. I don’t care if you believe that or not, we are all free to believe as we wish. Except that under your system, we would not be allowed to discuss what we believe, and under freedom of speech we would be.
  
  The so-called “death-threat” that I found is as follows:
  
  “Somebody must grab that creep Warman, put a noose around his neck, stick electrodes up his ass and mike it look like erotic self-asphyxiation, something that he practiced all his life as a matter of fact!!!”
  
  While that statement indicates that the writer has questionable self-control and little decency (something which your own statements here indicate about you), it is not, in fact, a death threat. A death threat is just that; a threat to cause the death of someone. That quote is not a quote of a death threat, but rather, a quote of someone wishing someone else a violent and immediate end. Wishing someone to have a violent and immediate end is not a death threat; threatening to kill someone or have someone killed is a death threat. Were you to have the same education which you claim I need, you would already know this.
  
  It appears I was mistaken in my statement that your spelling was wrong, as British spelling is every bit as real as American spelling and your spelling is British. Then again, the spelling of things is relatively unimportant, and as such, I probably shouldn’t have brought it up. Another victory to you! Want a second trophy? Then again, it is very hard to find either “libelers” or “libelers” in many of the online dictionaries I have tried… maybe we are both wrong. But, as I said before, it doesn’t matter.
  
  For you to state that American English is not real English is absurd, and that statement indicates that you have some sort of prejudice against America and/or Americans. Is this true? Bear in mind that if you say you have a prejudice against Americans, you are now guilty of racism, and had better watch out for the HRC… oh wait; they only go after people who say things they don’t like to hear.
  
  Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
- 0 vote
  
  by Werner Patels (xxx.xxx.xxx.245) 16 April 2008 01:57
  
  No, no particular problem with Americans, just with morons who cannot think straight. Don’t bother to reply, because I won’t. I only set aside a limited amount of "pro bono" time for replying to comments from the unwashed and uneducated.
  
  Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by Powell (xxx.xxx.xxx.175) 16 April 2008 04:27

I may not be as far to the right as Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn, but I am am conservative and these so-called human rights commissions scare the hell out of me. I consider them to be the left wing equivalent of the book banning idiots of the U.S. based Moral Majority. Both these groups are peopled with mind-control zealots who would impose their extremist views on the populace at large. The only difference between them is that the human rights commissions in Canada are government sanctioned and funded. Thus they become just another bureaucratic empire staffed and supported by incompetent social engineers who live off the public purse as they seek, through punitive disciplinary activities, to force society to conform to their definition of probity.

As an example: A case was filed with the B.C. Human Rights Commission by a lesbian couple who had hired a Knights of Columbus hall for their wedding reception. When the church learned of their sexual orientation they cancelled the agreement. The case went before the commission and the ladies in question agreed that they had not informed the hall managers that they were lesbians. They also stated that, had they known the K of C was the social arm of the Catholic Church, that they would not have applied for the use of the hall. The K of C responded by stating that, had they known the couple were lesbian, they would not have made arrangements to rent them the hall. The Commission found that the incident resulted from a misunderstanding on the part of both parties and that neither was at fault. However, a fine was levied against the K of C on the grounds that it was their responsibility to determine the sexual orientation of people to whom they rent their facilities. To determine this the church would have had to break another ruling by the Commission that found that requiring anyone to reveal their sexual orientation as a condition of a business transaction is a violation of a person’s civil rights. These dangerous self-regulated commissions are able to make up their own rules to suit their own philosophy and apply them as they see fit. Shades of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse
0 vote

by Forrest Higgs (xxx.xxx.xxx.157) 16 April 2008 15:08

"Freedom of speech is one thing - and we must protect it - but protecting Neo-Nazis and racists and professional libellers is not part of freedom of speech."

I think that the question that wants asking is whether it is a crime in Canada to be a Neo-NAZI or a racist. When I say a crime, I mean is it a crime in the Canadian criminal code, not whether in the opinion of some like Werner that is either is or ought to be.

If being either of those are actually a crime then one might ask why the people committing those crimes aren’t being charged under the relevant statutes? If the act of being a Neo-NAZI or a racist isn’t a crime then one could hardly suggest that the expression of sentiments by people subscribing to either of those two disgusting philosophies could be a crime, either.

Similarly, Werner refers to "professional libelers". We’ve been over this ground before. Canada does have criminal libel laws, but they have only very rarely been invoked in the last century and, indeed, the Law Reform Commission recommended that criminal sanctions for libel be abolished in 1983.

Werner regularly claims that he respects freedom of speech. When he says that he always caveats it with a list of types of speech that he does not think apply.

Sadly, what that works out to is that Werner in fact supports only a freedom for others to say things that Werner agrees with.

Comment on article React to that message Report an abuse