Tuesday, May 24, 2005

The Myth of the Moderate

The Hijacking of the Centre by the Radical Left

When an magician performs, his task is to keep your attention from his actions by distracting you with his words. The Liberals are masters of illusion. To keep our minds from the havoc they are wreaking on the democratic foundations of this nation, they are not above rending the social fabric and founding principles of Canada.

Somewhere, between 1999 and now, a seismic wave shifted the political spectrum. Views and values which, until then, were considered moderate and mainstream, are now denounced as being extreme and hostile. The ideology of the radical left has renamed itself 'moderate' and shoved aside conventional values and ideals.


There are further extremes on both sides, but the middle ground, the moderate position was the one in which both sides of the argument were respected and a compromise made to accommodate the extremes.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Belinda Stronach's departure from the Conservative caucus has sharpened the focus on social issues and the Conservative party. Critics denounce the party as extremist -- unable to appeal to the moderate (read urban) voter. Stronach's stance on social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion put her to the left of the CPC's base. The natural conclusion seems to be that if her position is to the left of the conservatives, then she must be in the middle-ground area. That conclusion is wrong.

Slowly, with the help of mainstream media, the Conservative Party of Canada has been painted as a bastion for hard-line, right-wing, bible-thumping, Neanderthals. Pro gay-marriage is not considered the radical position that it actually is; it is also touted as the only reasonable position, or in Lib-speak, the only position. People of principle and compassion, who for whatever reason, value upholding the tradition definition of marriage are ridiculed or castigated as anti-freedom, anti-gay rights, uptight, rigid, heartless, and unCanadian.

I believe the 2000 election campaign was the tipping point for social politics in this country. It might have begun with Warren Kinsella's infamous sneer at Stockwell Day. The Liberal strategist appeared on television and suggested that Day, an evangelical Christian, believed the Flinstones is a documentary.

From that day forward in the campaign, the HRDC scandal, Shawinigate, the APEC disaster, Business Development Bank debacle and the EI fiasco (these just from 1997 - 2000) all became irrelevant, because in the minds of the Canadian public, Stockwell Day became irrelevant. Pundits claimed that Stockwell Day self-destructed, when in fact what damaged Day's credibility was a poisonous, small-minded cabal of governing elite, bent on maintaining the power status quo.

After that, religious beliefs and mainstream values became fair game in politics.
This Liberal government has been rotting from the inside out for the better part of a decade. Their stranglehold on power exceeds their vision for governance. Lies, corruption, extortion, graft and ineptitude are the defining characteristics of the Liberal machine and yet the Canadian public prefers it to the alternative. Why? Because with one hand they fiddled the books, stripped away free speech and sold patronage appointments to the senate and judiciary, while with the other, they spun a crafty web of sweeping social reforms packaged as the 'centrist' position.

"Whose rights are you going to take away now, Mr. Harper?" asked Judy Sgro last year, during one of the many campaign stops ambushed by Liberal ministers or their cronies. And people were afraid. The right to resist the Liberal machine was squelched by widespread media adherence to the Liberal line. Whose rights indeed. Only our right to resist the perversion of our very societal foundations by a party so desperate to cling to power it diverts attention from its malfeasance by tearing the country asunder.

When did defining marriage as a union between a man and a women become radical? When the Liberals said it did.
Belinda Stronach is called a 'moderate' and Harper is told that he should be trying win over moderates.

Despite what the Liberals say, the Conservative position on same-sex marriage is the compromise position -- same-sex marriage is the extreme.

If gay-marriage is not the domain of the radical left, what is? And whatever it is, watch out, because it won't be long before they main street it.


Conservative=moderate. The Liberal spin can't change that.

Cheers,
canadianna

11 comments:

Les Mackenzie said...

The far left is communism - and we've been skiing down that slippery slope for niegh on 5 years.

Question Period said...

How can you argue that denying Canadians the right to eat what they want to eat or to walk where they want to walk is a moderate position?

Canadi-anna said...

Who said anything about denying anyone the right to eat, or walk anywhere. If you are trying to equate the same-sex marriage debate with segregation you are way off base.
Marriage already discriminates on the basis of age, marital status, familial relation and gender.
If a man is the sole caregiver of a child it doesn't make him a mother. It's not discrimination -- it's a fact.
Gender discriminates. Nature discrimates. Acknowledging that does not make me anti-gay.
You have done exactly what the radical left loves to do. You have devolved the debate from same-sex marriage and the merits of it, and tried to make this about bigotry, which it is not.
Don't think the moment you cry discrimination that I will simply pack up and go home.
Marriage is what it is and has been for thousands of years -- before governments existed, before laws existed -- to suggest that maintaining a universal concept of marriage is the 'RADICAL' viewpoint is just irrational. You might not agree that it is the correct viewpoint, but it certainly isn't radical or extremist.
Trying to impose a drastic change to the concept of marriage IS radical.
Now, if you'd actually read my post, you'd understand -- it is not whether you agree with SSM that is the issue, it is the fact that NOT agreeing with it does not make one 'intolerant'.

Anonymous said...

Amen canadianna! Excellent post and excellent response to question period. As a gay person myself, I can tell you the militants in the far-left pride movement don't speak for me. The Conservatives have offered a reasonable alternative to the pride-induced gay marriage bill, one that will not challenge the biological and historical realities of marriage while acknowledging the union between gay and lesbian couples.

bob said...

C,
The point is this: The babies want to have all the peanuts, as my coalcracking grandfather once said. I would also argue that QP's off-the-map question is EXACTLY what the Libranos are trying to do... and that sure as shootin' ain't what you're arguin'.
If you were to draw a chart on a debate between a small-c conservative and a small-l liberal when the conservative opened the arguments, you would invariably find that the conservative points are never rebutted. Instead, you would find new threats totally off-topic, usually ad hominem, occasionally sprinkled with profanities and obscenities. These folks can't stand to have their world views challenged, because deep down they realize that their fortress is built on little more than quicksand.
Cheers.

McGuire said...

Amen sister. But one thing in praise of the Libranos is that they held true to the saying that good politicians move the middle to where they are. That's what the Libs did. What has to be done IMO is for the CPC to at least blur the lines b/w themselves & the Libranos & once they get in office slowly but surely move the middle to the right, which was done in the US. They way things are south of the border didn't happen overnite, which is something that is too often forgotten. It took a consistent strategy over a generation for the right to achieve their success.

Chris said...

Excellent, well thought out post on a controversial topic.

Even when Bill C-38 passes, it will not be over. This will be the defining issue of our lifetime. At the core of the same-sex marriage debate is the radical femist view that there are no differnces between genders and that traditional marriage is a form of slavery for women. Science refutes the former and history the latter. Nevetheless, the left will keep trying to push.

Many on the far left and in the gay community have said they will try to use this bill to shut down the Catholic Church in Canada as a hate organization. Make no mistake, they will try and the Liberals will eventually be swayed to this view even if it takes a few years.

Will we reach a point in the near future where teaching children Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism or Islam is seen as a form of hate? Before anyone says I am going too far...15 years ago did you ever think two men would be considered husband and husband?

'Peg City Kid said...

You kill me Canadianna!! "People of Principal and Compassion" That's what brought around residential schools, the Christians "compassion" for the native people and the "Principle" that directed them to "help". Very good, Canadianna.

You have done exactly what the far left loves to do, ignore the opinions of those who disagree, and replaced them with words you concocted with no purpose other than to show them in a negative light for your gain.

Yes, whether or not you can accept it, the Conservatives ARE far Left. You have a very skewed view of where the "Centre" is. It's almost as though you think the world revolves around you.

Since, I obviously don't understand your point if view, maybe you could explain to me how allowing same-sex marriage is detrimental to me. How does re-defining the definition of marriage effect me in a negative way? in anyway? How is this idea "radical", since church and state have theoretically been several for quite some time now?

Marriage is a "religious" idea, citizens of Canada have the right to practice their chosen religion. It is the responsibility of the Church to decide whether or not they accept gay marriage, it is the responsibility of the government to uphold rights.

I'm sorry that you some how feel allowing same-sex marriage is detrimental or encroaches on our rights, but like any opened-minded individual, I'm going to ask you to prove it. Like many Canadians, I'm not prepared to accept the denial of someone's rights based on an opinion, nor am I able to accept it based on a 2000 year old book.

What the Conservatives have purposed to do is deny same-sex couples the right to marry by singling them out using the 'not withstanding" clause. hence denying them the right to practice there own religion. This is not a "Liberal scare tactic" this is the truth, this is the result.

Religion is something that has long been separated from the state, and where as the people want it to remain this way, the Conservatives want to change it. If the people agreed with them, the Conservatives would have won the election. I don't think I have to point out they didn't.

Why this issue is even being discussed in parliament befuddles me.

To me, a silly left-minded individual this seems like progress, we are adapting to a changing society. The direction we progress in is up to the people, if the people didn't like it, they wouldn't vote have voted Liberal. THIS is how democracy works.

By re-electing the Liberals and denying the Conservatives a government, Canadian have reaffirmed what they want.

Your right, wanting to ban same-sex marriage doesn't make you "intolerant" it makes you a fascist.

Oh, and Canadianna, in regards to your worry that they will "main street" same-sex marriage, same-sex couple have already been granted the right to marry in 10 provinces.


Chris,

you are way off bat, so far off in fact that your opinion is offensive and dangerous. Just for your information, the first establishment to perform same-sex marriage in my city was a synagogue, don't drag us into this, as I can assure you, a majority of Jewish people do not agree with you.

anonymous,

You got some serious thinking to do. This is an issue of pride. This issue is about whether or not Gay or Lesbians will have the "pride" to be recognized as equal to any other Canadian under the law. We, the majority of Canadians, have made it clear we will not tolerate an "equal but different" mentality, That is a preposterous and backward view.

Bob,

Before you say something, make sure it's not a load of crap.

Mcguire,

We are Canadians, not Americans, and we have absolutley no intention of becoming Americans. In order for a government to be considered "middle", the people have to agree with them.

You're right though, things across the border did not happen over night, it took years of oppression, close-minded idealogies and total disdain for the international community. You have no idea how hard I have to fight the urge to rattle off a paragraph of insults, as that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That really is just a stupid comment. Canada has spent decades trying to define it's self as an indepentant and distinct nation (especially in terms of foriegn policies) and you want to go jump in the American's lap?

Seriously, get with it, for all the values we may share, there's two which we disagree on.

Just as an end note, I'd just like to point out that the Liberals managed to get re-elected in the midst of the scandal. Instead of accepting that this is the government the people want, you chalk it up to Liberal "deceit" and "lies". I'm sorry Canadianna, but that's just not it. You can point as many scandal, mistakes and whatever else you want about the Liberal government, just as I can do the same for any government before them, it doesn't change a thing.

Les Mackenzie said...

C-38 excerpt...

2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
==================================
The bill clearly states that it is NOT a human rights issue but a definition issue.

Funny thing is "Section 3" will have serious religious rights reprecussions.

And as for the rest of that lefty nonsense (making human rights issues where not exist etc.), everything is NOT equal. What's next? Polygamy? If so - are you interested Canadi-anna?

Shane said...

Wow... someone should start his own blog or something...

Good on ya girl. Well thought out and well argued. You can't make everyone happy, the same way you can't make everyone like you. It is too bad that some homosexual people still think they can force everyone to clap when they walk by. I am not sure what drives that need... 98% of Canadians don't require applause at their very existence...

the monarchist said...

Wow, Canadianna. Great post. I've suspended any notion of reaching my tipping point until after the next election. The Liberals have made Parliament a disgrace; my hope is that the people know disgrace when they see it, and will vote accordingly.