fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

McCOLL: The battle for Canada’s big blue tent

“The sacking of Sloan was a reversal for O’Toole and a betrayal of the social conservative wing. The battle for the heart and soul of the big blue tent has begun.”

mm

Published

on

In my last column I explained why centre and centre-right conservative leadership candidates court the support of social conservatives, only to throw them under the bus once they have won the leadership. Social conservatives are tiring of this habit and are demanding greater influence within the Conservative Party (CPC) and their provincial counterparts.

A conflict between social conservatives and other camps at the March convention seems certain as the former are growing in number and influence. A shift in the political landscape has altered the balance of power within the CPC; but what caused this shift?

British historian Dr. Stephen Davies argues that political realignments happen every 30 to 40 years. As the alignment of most voters shifts, so too do political alliances. This results in power struggles within big tent parties that end in schism, new political parties forming, or a shift in ideology. An example is how the Republicans of Abraham Lincoln were the northern party of black liberation while his opposition Democrats were (largely) the party of southern slave owners.

Davies points out that throughout history, politics has normally been a binary option around one primary defining issue. A two-dimensional political spectrum is created by adding the most important secondary issue as the vertical axis.

For most of recent history, the primary horizontal axis was economic: economic control (socialism) to the left, and economic freedom (free enterprise) to the right. The secondary issue – vertical axis – placed authoritarianism at one end, and social freedom (libertarian) at the other.

A diagonal line between the two dominant quadrants becomes the political left vs. right spectrum we know: with upper-left “social democratic” parties and bottom-right “free enterprise conservative” parties.

Most voters will fall into one of these two dominant quadrants with the minority of voters (normally swing voters) finding themselves in one of the two quadrants devoid of major political parties. The unionized blue-collar workers who voted for Trump, for example, can often be found in the empty economic-left and social-authoritarian quadrant.

Davies argues the new 21st-century primary axis is about issues of identity: nationalism vs. globalism; stability and order vs. dynamic innovation; rural areas and industrial regions vs. global metropolitan cities.

Davies’ new dominant quadrants – representing the primary coalitions – are the “globalist liberals & free market libertarians” and the “national collectivists & cultural conservatives.”

Traditional leftist parties made up of coalitions between environmentalists, socialists, liberals, and moderates will be difficult to maintain as the liberals and moderates will want to follow the majority of voters as they shift to more globalist and libertarian social positions.

While difficult, it is possible to build a big-tent coalition of the old left and the new globalist left under first past the post systems. However, traditional centre-right parties – like the Conservative Party of Canada – are in trouble and Davies argues they will almost certainly splinter as competing policy objectives pull the moderates and social conservatives in opposite directions. The growth of social conservative influence within the CPC results from this influx of economic-left cultural conservatives and a simultaneous departure of progressives and libertarians.

Examples of the realignment include the 2017 French elections where the traditional centre-left and centre-right parties were both shut-out of the Presidential run-off between the new globalist LaREM party of Emmanuel Macron and the National Front party of the cultural conservative Marie Le Pen. The LaREM-led coalition also won a substantial majority in the National Assembly, while the traditional centre-left and centre-right parties suffered significant losses.

Trump represented a dramatic shift in Republican policy towards national collectivism, and many of the newly elected Republican senators and members of congress share Trump’s nationalism and collectivist instincts. Hillary Clinton – who most readers would agree is a globalist liberal – tried to shift her party towards globalism but faced a backlash from the old socialist wing represented by Bernie Sanders and the new radical-environmentalist wing represented by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In Canada, the shift can be seen in Quebec’s provincial elections. The new Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) is a prime example of a national collectivist and cultural conservative party. Federal Progressive Conservative cabinet minister turned Liberal Premier of Quebec Jean Charest set the Quebec Liberal party down the path to become a Macron-style coalition of globalist liberals and free market libertarians.

Derek Sloan and Dr. Leslyn Lewis both clearly campaigned on national collectivist and cultural conservative policies. Up until Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, O’Toole seemed content to slowly shift the CPC in the direction of national collectivism. The sacking of Sloan was a reversal for O’Toole and a betrayal of the social conservative wing. The battle for the heart and soul of the big blue tent has begun.

Alex McColl is the National Defence Columnist with the Western Standard

Opinion

FROM: Why the secular mind cannot understand Pastor Coates’ civil disobedience

“Until the secular mind acknowledges that other coherent worldviews exist, the divide between it and the religious mind will remain intractable.”

mm

Published

on

My scissors don’t work very well. The rivet at the centre has fatigued and loosened over time so that the blades no longer meet. To my chagrin, almost anything I try to cut merely passes between the blades unmarked and unscathed. It appears to be a pair of scissors, but it’s incapable of functioning as one.

Recent criticisms of Pastor James Coates of GraceLife Church by our politicians and those in the mainstream media are just like my scissors. They have failed to meet at an intersection. A grand missing-of-the-point. Even politicians and media outlets that I assumed would be receptive to Pastor Coates’s plight have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of his position, and, presumably, of those in his congregation. Until these critics sincerely consider Pastor Coates’s arguments and acknowledge the worldview that compels him to behave as he has, these criticisms will continue to completely and utterly fail.

Premier Jason Kenney – whom I’m told once considered entering the priesthood – provided an unsolicited and backhanded homily to Pastor Coates, on the final day of Danielle Smith’s radio show, by outlining his view on what being a Christian means for the rest of us.

Dr. Deena Hinshaw – whose mandate concerns the maintenance of the public healthcare system, not theological matters – advised Pastor Coates to be “compassionate.” (This term seems to be eclipsing “we’re all in this together” as Dr. Hinshaw’s favoured bromide.)

Then there’s Mayor Naheed Nenshi who believes it is within his expertise to lecture Pastor Coates – a graduate of The Master’s Seminary – on the “tenets” of Christianity.

Even Sun Media’s Lorne Gunter joined the chorus of those admonishing Pastor Coates on his ethical responsibilities.

None of these critics has sincerely engaged Pastor Coates’s position, but it’s not their fault. There’s a crucial divide between them because their worldviews are so fundamentally different. This is an example of a secular mind being unwilling to acknowledge or understand the religious mind. And just like my failed scissors, Pastor Coates’s critics have not addressed his position, and so it remains unmarked and unscathed.

On the Sunday before his incarceration, Pastor Coates thoughtfully and eloquently surveyed his view on ecclesiology; a term for the theology of the Church. The biblical Church (notice the capitalization?) is commanded to be obedient to Christ and to submit to the state. If the state oversteps its God-given jurisdiction and requires believers to be disobedient to Christ, civil disobedience becomes their moral imperative.

Historically, the Bible has been held to command Christians to meet together for the important religious ritual of corporate worship. Can you see the dilemma yet? Obedience to Christ conflicts with what the Alberta government demands. And just as our constitution is superior to ordinary statutes, Pastor Coates views his moral duty to obey Christ as superior to obedience to the state.

Now, if you scoff and say, “obedience to Christ” is a meaningless and hopelessly vague moral directive either because one, it’s impossibly idiosyncratic or two, Christ is fiction, then all you’ve done is demonstrate my thesis. Until you sincerely consider Pastor Coates’s arguments and acknowledge the worldview that compels him, you lack even the capacity to understand his actions.

Pastor Coates’s actions stem from a view of the world where Christ is a real person that places real demands on the lives of those claiming to be his followers. If you reject this – and many people reasonably do – you cannot criticize Pastor Coates as an intellectual charlatan or, worse yet, someone lacking in compassion. All you’ve done is reject his faith in Christ. And, quite frankly, that’s boring.

Notice that Pastor Coates’s religious convictions do not mean that the state has no jurisdiction within the Church. The state has outlawed murder, rape and assault. So has Christ. There is no conflict. If the state wants to punish a congregant from GraceLife Church for unlawful violent actions, I do not doubt that Pastor Coates would recognize the authority of the state. It’s only when there is a conflict between Christ and the state that the state must be opposed through civil disobedience.

Until the secular mind acknowledges that other coherent worldviews exist, the divide between it and the religious mind will remain intractable.

Derek James-From is a columnist for the Western Standard and a constitutional lawyer

Continue Reading

Energy

OUELLETTE: To save Canada’s energy industry, we need to end dependence on the US market

“The construction of new Canadian pipelines would maximize the volume of fuels transported by the safest, greenest means, and allow us to seize a golden opportunity to diversify the markets for our oil.”

mm

Published

on

Guest column from Miguel Ouellette, Economist and Director of Operations at the Montreal Economic Institute www.iedm.org

Oil: Let’s put an end to our dependence on the United States

By Miguel Ouellette, Economist and Director of Operations at the Montreal Economic Institute www.iedm.org

Imagine for a moment that you are the head of a popcorn company. You know that the demand for popcorn is strong, and that contrary to what anti-fast food lobby groups say, demand will continue to increase in the coming years. But you have a problem: 98 per cent of your popcorn is purchased by one single cinema, because you didn’t diversify your client base. This cinema, however, has just named a new CEO who, to please some nutritionist friends, wants to keep your popcorn out. What do you do? Would it maybe be a good idea to try to sell your popcorn in other cinemas in order to save your company, and all its associated jobs?

Canadian oil is in a similar situation. His very first day in office, new US President Joe Biden revoked Keystone XL’s permit, and this project will likely not be his last victim. As in our hypothetical example, 98 per cent of Canada’s oil exports go to our southern neighbour. What should Canada and its industry do, then, to sell its product? The answer: Build new pipelines in order to reduce the risk associated with this one-client strategy and maximize oil export revenues.

According to the latest estimates, global oil demand will grow by 9 per cent by 2045, and by more than 40 per cent in a number of Asian countries. New pipelines would allow Canada to transport its oil to a larger number of refineries and terminals that could then export it to these new markets.

We therefore need more pipeline infrastructure to diversify our exports, and the Canadian government should do everything in its power to allow these projects to be completed. Putting all of our eggs in the same basket is a risky strategy. The Keystone XL cancellation alone represents over $50 million a day in potential exports for Canada that have fallen through.

Over the past five years, the federal government collected an average of $14 billion a year from the oil and gas industry. This tax revenue totals more than half of the sum of all provincial deficits during the pandemic. And the energy sector directly or indirectly employs over 830,000 workers, and accounts for around 10 per cent of our GDP. It’s therefore not just “Big Oil” that would benefit from such a strategy, but all Canadians.

Finally, it bears repeating: Pipelines are the safest and “greenest” method of transporting oil. New pipeline projects compromise neither our safety nor the protection of our natural environment. On average, over 99.99 per cent of the oil transported by federally regulated pipeline arrives without incident every year. Not to mention that transporting fuel by pipeline emits from 61 per cent to 77 per cent fewer GHGs than transport by rail.

In short, the construction of new Canadian pipelines would maximize the volume of fuels transported by the safest, greenest means, and allow us to seize a golden opportunity to diversify the markets for our oil.

So I ask you again: If you were the boss, what would you do?

Guest column from Miguel Ouellette, Economist and Director of Operations at the Montreal Economic Institute www.iedm.org

Continue Reading

Opinion

MORGAN: Sexual assaults & extortion just the latest reasons to shut down Trudeau’s prison-hotels

“We never should have begun locking up innocent citizens in quarantine facilities in the first place. In light of these alleged assaults, all forced-quarantine facilities should be closed immediately and people allowed to go home.”

mm

Published

on

As if the incidents of law-abiding Canadian citizens being swooped away in unmarked vans from airports to be imprisoned incommunicado from concerned family members wasn’t enough, we are now learning of serious reports of extortion and sexual assaults on people forced into quarantine.

The time is long since past to shut down Trudeau’s prison-hotels.

In an all too familiar story; a woman had arrived from the United States only to be told that she had taken the “wrong” COVID-19 test and was forced to quarantine in a government-run hotel in Montreal. She was told that she was not allowed to disclose her location, even to close family. A neighboring “guest” in the hotel allegedly forced his way into her room and sexually assaulted her. Robert Shakory faces one count of sexual assault, one count of breaking and entering, and one count of criminal harassment in the incident.

In Oakville Ontario, a quarantine screening officer allegedly demanded cash from a woman before sexually assaulting her at her private home. Privately contracted government screening officers essentially are enforcing house arrest upon people under quarantine. Police have arrested a man they identified only as Hemant, 27, of Hamilton. He has been charged with sexual assault and extortion. Apparently, he only goes by a single name.

Canada should not be imprisoning law-abiding citizens in the first place. The least we could hope for and expect though is that the citizens being imprisoned for mandatory COVID-19 quarantines would be kept safe. It is horrifying to imagine a vulnerable loved one being assaulted while under quarantine, yet it appears that these cases are becoming increasingly common.

Whether in homes or in hotels, when a person is locked there by law and force, it is imprisonment. The prison power dynamics quickly take over. Prisoners are dejected and vulnerable while other prisoners and authority figures take advantage of them. It’s unthinkable that Canadian citizens are enduring this sort of experience for the crime of having traveled, as the constitution is supposed to guarantee is their right.

In Toronto at Pearson International airport, there are reports that returning travelers are refusing quarantine orders and walking out of the airport. Peel region police are now refusing to enforce the quarantine orders. As Martha Stuart says, “and that’s a good thing.” People refusing to comply with government-ordered quarantine orders whether at home or in a prison-hotel have a very real defence in saying that they fear for their safety.

We never should have begun locking up innocent citizens in quarantine facilities in the first place. In light of these alleged assaults, all forced-quarantine facilities should be closed immediately and people allowed to go home. If the state can’t keep citizens safe, it must release them. This is only going to get worse. Innocent people are being stripped of their liberties, harm is being down, and expensive lawsuits are pending.

When we look back on our pandemic responses, we are going to see a great many errors that were made. Locking up our citizens is by far our most egregious one. History will not look kindly at the leaders that forced it to happen.

Cory Morgan is the Podcast Editor and a column for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.