fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

NAVARRO-GENIE: Want to help Harry and Meghan? Leave them be.

No matter what we think, they are entitled to personal autonomy and they alone must be responsible for the array of consequences their decisions bring.

mm

Published

on

Personal autonomy and the exercise of individual conscience are cornerstones of western civilization. We expect mature individuals to accept that personal autonomy includes embracing the consequences of independent decisions. We have entrenched these values in the canon, from Magna Carta (1215) to Canada’s Constitution Act (1982). So, when Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced they no longer wish to have official royal duties, our generous inclination is to support their desire for greater autonomy. 

Plenty of ink is being dedicated to the former Sussexes, but little has focused on an important consequence of their decision:  they have renounced their public duty. 

Dropping the bombshell publicly before advising Her Majesty the Queen showed an absence of good judgement, the main standard of public duty. In addition to being the family matriarch and their grandmother, the queen is also the reigning monarch and head of state. Any of these roles individually commands dutiful respect.

The crass action has public implications beyond the disrespect to our Monarch, and the most immediate for Canadians is our prime minister announcing his willingness to have Canadians pay for Harry and Meghan’s steep personal security costs, should they decide to settle in Canada.  

Prior to the invitation, came rash speculation backed by a flash opinion survey asking whether there is support for Harry to become our governor general. 

Both ideas are senselessness raised on stilts. 

The governorship general idea is tone deaf to the couple’s wishes. They have rejected public duties, wishing to be autonomous. How disrespectful is it to offer someone what they have just rejected? Do you stubbornly offer dog meat to someone wanting to be vegan?

However much Harry might know about Canada, the highest political office in the land should be reserved to someone who has the fortitude to perform his public duty –a standard also applicable to the present occupant at Rideau Hall, one might fairly say.  

The principal issue is that Harry and his wife are not interested in, or have the resilience for, performing public duties. Putting aside the question of ability, consider his judgement and disposition. Despite being raised in a royal household, prepared for a life of service and duty, Harry demonstrated anemic judgement in handling his exit from duty. 

However generously we wish to look at his exit, Harry reneged on duties he was trained to perform and unwisely embarrassed his people and his country, his grandmother and his monarch. 

And there is the rub!  We now want the former Duke of Sussex to come to perform in Canada for Canadians, in the stead of his queen and grandmother, greater duties with more consequence than those he rejected in the United Kingdom?

What kind of affront would this be to Her Majesty for Canada even to submit Harry as Canada’s choice for GG? (Let’s not forget the queen has the last word on who represents her personally). And if Harry and wife wish to demonstrate autonomy, how many shades of hypocrisy could we spot on Harry embracing Canadian public duties having rejected lesser duties at home? 

What is more, are there assurances that the former Sussexes would perform and stick with Canadian duties for the same Sovereign they rejected? Would Harry be more diligent and loyal in performing duty to strangers in a strange land than in his own country of birth?  

Provided they satisfy our immigration laws and regulations, the former Duke and Duchess of Sussex are welcome to come and stay in Canada, in accordance with their stated wishes.  But in keeping with their wishes, they ought not be treated as royalty. That’s how we can help!

They have not asked for financial help with their security costs. Absent any state duties, they are not Canada’s responsibility.  Offering to pay for them condescendingly insults their wish for autonomy as much as does offering them public duty they rejected. 

So let’s leave them be! If the former Duke and Duchess want to evade their royal kin in the United Kingdom, we can be for, against or neutral. No matter what we think, they are entitled to personal autonomy and they alone must be responsible for the array of consequences their decisions bring. 

Let us not push on them to receive monetary aid we claim we cannot afford for veteran Canadians, who have loyally and bravely performed their duties to queen and country. 

Marco Navarro-Génie is a Columnist for the Western Standard, the president of Haultain Research Institute and a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Marco Navarro-Génie is a Columnist for the Western Standard. He is President of the Haultain Research Institute and a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Opinion

MORGAN: Has Kenney dodged a bullet?

“Whatever shortcomings he may have, it is undeniable that Jason Kenney is a master political player.”

mm

Published

on

Apparently the meeting was quick, but strategic discussions went well into the night before the Executive Committee (EC) of the UCP agreed upon the rules to set out for a future leadership review for Jason Kenney.

The political brinkmanship leading up to this meeting began months ago. While rogue constituency associations (CAs) were trying to meet a constitutional bar set for invoking a leadership review, Kenney loyalists were organizing to ensure the EC elected at the UCP’s November 2021 annual general meeting (AGM) could control the terms of the review. It appears the Kenney loyalists have won this round.

A total of 22 CAs issued a letter demanding a leadership review to be held by the end of March in 2022. That met the bar set out in the party bylaws to invoke such a review and it put Kenney on the spot. An attempt was made to raise the bar for calling a review to 29 CAs, but that motion was soundly rejected by party members at the November AGM. Plan B was to stack the party EC and that appears to have been a success.

A leadership review is now slated to be held in Red Deer on Saturday, April 9, 2022. This review will look nothing like what the 22 constituency associations wanted to see, however. The terms of this review have been set by the party executive and they will slant the odds in favour of Jason Kenney.

The CAs wanted the review to allow every member of the party to place a vote. The only party members who will be able to vote in the leadership review will be delegates who pay a fee and travel to Red Deer on April 9th in order to vote in person. That fee has yet to be determined, but we can rest assured it won’t be inexpensive. This will likely reduce the number of people voting in the leadership review down to well under 1,000. This provides a much more manageable number of members to manipulate in order to ensure a positive measure of support for Jason Kenney.

In the late hours of the last night of the legislative session, the UCP government invoked closure and passed Bill 81 that will allow a single person to purchase hundreds of memberships on behalf of other people in a political party. CAs that used to have to disclose the source of all donations will no longer be obliged to do so. This provides a mechanism for a political action committee (PAC) to funnel funds to CAs which could sponsor members to attend events such as leadership reviews. Theoretically, memberships could now be purchased for others who then have their transportation and convention fees sponsored in order for them to place votes favorable to the leader. Do you think this may happen?

Whatever shortcomings he may have, it’s undeniable that Kenney is a master political player. He knows rules and procedures inside out and he has decades of experience in winning campaigns from general elections to leadership races. Kenney is pulling out the stops to keep himself in the leader’s seat of the UCP and it looks like he may very well pull it off.

While Kenney may have just won the latest battle, it will remain to be seen if he wins the war. He is lining up the stars in order to ensure a winning leadership review, but he will be still facing a grumpy caucus and some infuriated CAs the day after the review if not sooner.

Kenney is buying himself time. With time he may win over ruffled caucus members and as we come closer to election time, CAs may become dominated by Kenney loyalists again.

While Kenney may pull off dodging a bullet with his leadership, his biggest challenge remains winning the next election. Being a skilled political operator may help keep him in the leader’s seat, but it doesn’t necessarily endear himself with the general electorate. Political intrigue can foster public mistrust.

Kenney is in a fight for his political life. This war will take place in a number of battles. So far Kenney is winning them.

The final battle will come in the spring of 2023 when Kenney faces the Alberta electorate as a whole.

Cory Morgan is Assistant Opinion & Broadcast Editor for the Western Standard
cmorgan@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Pipeline: YouTube cancels Western Standard

This week a Calgary Cop suspended for refusing vax, YouTube cancels Western Standard and D-Day on Kenney’s leadership vote rules. Join us live at 12 PM!

mm

Published

on

Continue Reading

Opinion

MORGAN: Free speech in comedy under siege

“What has happened to our society when a comedy festival may turn into a street battle? “

mm

Published

on

Standup comedians have always been on the front lines in battles over free speech and expression.

In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, most of the pearl-clutching busybodies came from the ‘moral majority’ religious right. They feared obscenity within comedy acts would degrade the moral fabric of the nation and for a while, the law agreed. Comedian Lenny Bruce was convicted and sentenced to four months in a workhouse in 1964 for the crime of spreading obscenity in his act. George Carlin was arrested seven times during the 1970s for his famous “Seven Dirty Words” routine.

Bruce died before the appeal of his sentence was completed. He was posthumously pardoned in 2003. Charges against Carlin were all dropped before he could be convicted. Carlin and Bruce refused to back down and in the end, the state couldn’t win. We will never know how many comedians allowed themselves to be cowed into changing their acts due to state and social intimidation in those days. Not all of them had the will or support bases Carlin and Bruce enjoyed.

The ability for comedians to freely express themselves is just as threatened today as it was 50 years ago. The source of puritanical outrage against comedy routines has changed, though. These days the prigs demanding the curtailment of free speech in comedy acts are the snowflakes of the politically correct left.

Canadian comedian Mike Ward found himself dragged before human rights tribunals and the Canadian courts for nearly a decade over a routine in which he mocked a disabled young Canadian performer. The case ultimately went to the Canadian Supreme Court where it was ruled in a tight 5-4 split decision Ward’s right to free speech was to be protected, and jokes were not subject to judicial review. We came dangerously close to having a comedian convicted for his routine during this decade. The threat to free expression is real and it’s ongoing.

The prime target of the cancel-culture mob lately has been American comedian Dave Chappelle. Chappelle has long enjoyed poking fun at the hypersensitive underbelly of the LGBTQ activist community and has never backed down in the face of the enraged blowback following one of his acts. In Chappelle’s most recent Netflix comedy special he went out of his way to antagonize the usual suspects as he made jokes about transgender ideological orthodoxy. The response to his act was immediate and predictable. Activists demanded Netflix pull the special down and small groups of Netflix employees staged widely publicized walkouts in protest of Chappelle’s act.

Netflix never pulled Chappelle’s special down and Chappelle has remained unapologetic for it. The controversy generated by apoplectic snowflakes in response to Chappelle’s act likely only increased viewership of the special.

It has just been announced Dave Chappelle is going to be headlining a Netflix comedy festival this coming April in Hollywood Bowl. This signals Netflix has done well with Chappelle’s routine despite or perhaps even because of the controversy it generated. In having a set date at a large outdoor venue and in such a populated area, Netflix is upping the ante in their battle with cancel-culture activists. Not only are they saying they won’t pull Chappelle’s older content, but they are also expanding the reach for his next act.

American and Canadian courts have proven they will protect the rights of free expression for controversial comedians, albeit grudgingly. Anti-free speech activists will have to take their case to the streets now and I suspect they will. With as many as 17,000 attendees arriving for a comedy festival being potentially greeted by a sizable number of protesters, things may get ugly.

What has happened to our society when a comedy festival may turn into a street battle?

Chappelle’s showdown this spring could be a turning point for comedy. Will he and Netflix stand their ground in the face of protests? Will local authorities ensure the show can go on even if activists vow to shut it down? This comedy event is going to be an important one.

As with any art, the enjoyment of comedy is subjective. Some people like simple clean humour, some like complex satire, and some like vulgarity-laden shock comedy. The only people who can judge good comedy are the audience and they should only be able to render judgment through voting with their feet (and wallets). In other words, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

Comedians ply their trade by observing the world and poking at sacred cows. They dig into subjects people commonly avoid and force us to think about them through the lens of humour. They provide a public service by pushing the boundaries of free expression and ensuring no subjects are ever out of bounds. They often make us laugh and we need a whole lot more of that these days.

Comedians will not be able to effectively practice their art if they fear censors or legal repercussions. They will be restrained and they will leave subjects that need to be brought before public scrutiny untouched.

If the speech and expression of comedians are allowed to be suppressed, no speech is safe. We need to stand up for our comics for both their sake and our own.

Cory Morgan is Assistant Opinion & Broadcast Editor for the Western Standard
cmorgan@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Share

Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

835 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**



The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.