Category Archives: Opinion

Facts are Still Forbidden Terri-Tory: Tom Bartlett

Posted on by
2

By Tom Bartlett

Conservative M.P. back-bencher, Stephen Woodworth, from the Kitchener-Waterloo riding has put forth a Private Member’s Bill asking to revisit the determination of what constitutes a human being. Callers to the Arlene Bynon talk show led to questions about Mr. Woodworth‘s agenda and whether this was a blatant attempt to reopen the abortion debate. Of course, advocates of abortion denounced Woodworth as seeking to roll back women’s rights and deny them of their “right to choose.”

Asked to explain his rationale, the M.P. stated that the definition is 400 years old and based on the limited knowledge of the time. To put this into context, the science world at that time was being rocked by Galileo’s claim that the earth was round. He pointed out that scientific advancements now inform us far better on prenatal life and he expressed that human beings should not be considered non-persons based on failure to recognise the reality of their personhood. This is especially vital since human rights spring from their worth – not just in the eyes of others, but in the eyes of the law.

I have what I believe to be a more compelling question than whether Mr. Woodworth has a hidden agenda, but what is the agenda of his flat-earth opponents. In a country steeped in defences of rights for individuals and groups deemed to have long been denied those rights, why are these secular moralists of convenience looking to denounce the proposed bill from coming forward?

On his talk show, John Tory postulated that recent efforts to reopen the abortion debate were wrong-headed. Praising Harper for staunchly maintaining he would support the status quo, Tory argued in a brief segment (which he took no phone calls on) that re-opening the debate would be unwise. The only rationale proffered was to suggest it would reignite violence.

Given this argument, I have an obvious (at least to me) question: If pro-lifers are a danger to abortion providers, why has there been a paucity of violence despite having no abortion law for 24 years? Are we to believe that simply discussing the issue will lead to a spate of violent acts? What purpose does it serve for pro-lifers to engage in violence once the prospect that lifting potential restrictions on abortion may be in the offing?

Two obvious prospects can be postulated to give any relevance to Tory’s cautionary assertions:

  1. Pro-lifers have fallen into obsolescence and have largely given up the fight. If this is so, what is there to fear in re-opening the issue? Pro-lifers would be toothless and their risible and futile efforts would once and propel the issue into lasting obscurity, or;
  2. The violence would spring from abortion proponents trying to maintain their tenuous grasp on a position that is morally reprehensible and indefensible. In this scenario, abortion proponents would be shown up as hateful ideologues; deliberately imposing legalized killing on the public. It would prove that neither pro-lifers nor the unborn are the problem – pro-abortion activists and their message are.

I presented several reasons to John Tory for why re-opening the abortion debate would not only be prudent, but vital; affording him an opportunity for something he denied his listeners – a chance to respond. He didn’t. My points were:

  • There are presently no legal restrictions on abortion (they can be performed at any stage and for any reason) yet a majority of people support at least some restrictions.
  • No pro-abortion argument effectively refutes or disproves the scientific evidence that life begins at conception, therefore no one can refute that abortion is the sanctioned killing of innocent unborn lives. This is true even when defenders invoke even the most elastic philosophical standards (including legal abortion or viable babies).
  • Abortion is tax-funded at all public and private clinics. This is 2-tier health care that violates health care standards and is always medically unnecessary. It also robs pro-lifers of their “choice” refuse the forced funding of an act they deem morally reprehensible.
  • Dwindling population numbers elevate the costs of social programs and a ballooning deficit, imposing economic hardship on the rest of us.
  • There are established physical and psychological risks to women that are being ignored because the issue has become taboo to even bring up. Abortion providers counsel women toward abortion because that is where they make most of their money. Consequently, the status quo risks women’s health and heightens their isolation.
  • Evidence reveals that simple measures (informed consent, parental consent and showing ultrasounds) swells the ranks of women who choose to keep their baby, yet abortion organisations oppose and stifle these messages. Lack of education allows for women to be pressured into a decision they will later regret.

We can add to this the trampling of religious freedoms now in the U.S. as Obamacare plans to force Catholics to pay for birth control and abortifacients.

The fact is that it is abortion proponents only who benefit from not reopening the abortion debate since they hold all the cards on the issue. What is among the most disquieting aspects of this is that a man who ran as Premier under the “Conservative” banner has so little insight into the issue itself or many of the constituents he was tasked to represent. His very comments and apparent indifference are all the evidence we need that the debate must happen.

Click here to read Tom’s bio.

Just In: Trudeau Prefers Separation to Harper: David Krayden

Posted on by
Reply

By David Krayden

Canadians have found out, Justin time. OK, nobody likes a wise guy or a pun so excruciatingly bad that it hurts, but aren’t you beginning to wonder which planet or political miasma Justin Trudeau is inhabiting these days? In his latest attempt at dominating the national news, Trudeau mused that since the country had been taken captive by right-wing extremists, that it might be time for Quebec progressives, in that unique land of liberty, equality and fraternity, to carefully weigh their options: “I always say, if at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper — that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage, and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways — maybe I would think about making Quebec a country.”

Apparently this is not something that he always says. He would not have exceeded his quota of media hits this week if that were so. But what is so jarringly silly about the accusation is just how utterly inaccurate is the sentiment. Clearly the Canada of Stephen Harper and his majority government is doing nothing to address the fact of unrestricted abortion in Canada. It should. Most Canadians are fundamentally uncomfortable with the current lack of any abortion law. A clear majority do not believe that the “procedure” should be publicly funded. But no matter. The “right-wing” Harper government is not going to change that. As for gay “marriage,” the Conservative government kept its promise to social conservatives to have another House of Commons vote and did so on Dec. 7, 2006. The minority government lost the vote. Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nichols have both repeatedly said that the issue will not be reopened.

So that leaves just 9,998 other “different ways” for Justin to consider Quebec secession. Though one suspects that these separatist incentives might be just as fictitious as the first two.

When challenged by Parliament Hill reporters to clarify his words, PET II was defiant: “The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country, because the question is ridiculous.” Well thank you so much for making that clear, but it is probably more ridiculous to insist that Quebec should leave Canada because of Conservative government policies that have neither been discussed nor implemented.

Yet what is perhaps more indicative of extreme political egoism is Justin’s refusal to use the declarative of “I” and to speak instead of himself in the third person, as if he were discussing Douglas MacArthur’s return to the Philippines or ensuring we understand that every utterance from this political colossus is worthy of the historical record. Has he entered a dangerous political zone of detachment from reality?

Ultimately, Trudeau’s performance this week should not just be about his evident political immaturity or apparent desire to cripple a promising career in federal politics, one that seemed both assured and inevitable as the offspring of a former prime minister. Nor should it just be about the annoyance of a Quebecer once again insisting that a province of low-productivity, high unemployment and high taxes is setting the standard for the rest of the nation. The real question raised is why anyone expecting to occupy high office in Canada could possibly advocate the secession of a province because he disagrees with the current government of Canada – a government that was duly elected in a democratic vote.

Despite Trudeau’s denial, that question does not seem so ridiculous.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

 

CBC Misses the Big One! Again.: Rod Taylor

Posted on by
Reply

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

I could hardly believe it. Our national broadcaster (CBC) has a website which I check regularly. I know that they have an embarrassingly heavy bias on “social issues” and that their bias will be painful to experience, but I go there anyway because they do have an extensive (and expensive) network of reporters, researchers and technologies that allow them to discover and follow Canadian stories, big and small. Over the years, CBC has shown an inordinate interest in anything associated with the words “human rights”. Up until now.

On Wednesday, Feb 15, 2012, Bill C-304 passed its second reading. “What’s C-304?” you may ask. Apparently CBC (at least its online version) has not yet asked that question. Or, more likely, these news sleuths have analyzed the discussion around C-304 and don’t like it. But just because they don’t like it doesn’t normally mean they don’t cover it. In this case, CBC opinion-shapers probably have not figured out what to do with this decision. MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) tabled Bill C-304 “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)” on September 30, 2011. Two days ago, the House of Commons voted 158 to 131 to pass Bill C-304. MP Storseth’s bill would stop or reduce the constant attacks against free speech which are perpetrated and supported by the pernicious Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Under this section, good, morally-upright, common-sense Canadians have been charged and penalized for questioning things like Canada’s out-of-control immigration system and the wisdom (?) of allowing sexual perversions to dominate the education of our children.

For those keen on learning more about C-304, you may search in vain on the taxpayer-funded website of CBC. You may have to visit alternate information sources such as Roadkill Radio, ARPA Canada and SUN News. But the changes made by eliminating the oppressive and unfair Sec. 13 will benefit all Canadians and are a welcome breath of fresh air. No more will manipulative and self-serving troublemakers who populate the ranks of misguided sex activists and the crafty stealth supporters of radical Islamist Jihad groups be able to pummel law-abiding citizens with spurious taxpayer-funded accusations of “human rights violations”, merely for pointing out inconvenient facts. Forced out of the shadows, these activist will have to rely on the courts—where truth is still a defence and there are actually rules of evidence.

Since I favour cutting costs for taxpayers, I recommend that CBC-online close down one or two expensive departments lay off some of its highly-paid staff and pick up the news from ARPA, or Roadkill or No Apologies. On its front page today, CBC talks about Paul McCartney giving up pot-smoking, Sears’ price-cutting measures and the unhealthy result of eating a grossly huge hamburger. Yet the defense of Canadians’ freedom of speech by a plucky MP from Alberta received no mention. Before C-304 passes into law, CBC will figure out a spin and come out swinging (in a thoroughly-neutral, unbiased manner no doubt—wink! wink!). But for now, they seem not to have noticed that Canadians, including MPs have said “Enough!”

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are too important to leave to elite, taxpayer-funded broadcasters like CBC. I hope their radio and TV coverage has been better than their web presence but I spent so much time looking for it online I didn’t have time to turn on the tube. Everyone who cares about freedom: write to MP Brian Storseth, the PM, the Justice Minister and your own MP. Tell them to finish the job and deliver us from this evil Section 13. There may still be some sanity in Ottawa!

Dwarf-Tossing: A Canadian Dilemma: Rod Taylor

Posted on by
2

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

Until just recently, I was blissfully unaware of the ethical challenges posed by “dwarf-tossing”. In fact, I was blissfully unaware that such a sport existed, in Canada or anywhere else. Part of the reason for not being up-to-date on the latest in “competitive bar sports” is that I don’t hang around bars and spend very little time following the latest weird fads on TV.

However, I was shocked to discover – as are many – that tossing little people across the room could be considered a sport. Even recognizing that these little people give permission to be tossed and make a little money at it still does not dispel the sinking feeling that somehow their dignity and personhood are being assaulted. True, many of our gladiator sports – football, hockey, boxing, wrestling – put participants at risk of physical injury. However, the idea of Big People displaying their manhood and power by throwing Little People around as a public spectacle, still leaves me feeling uneasy about the direction of our society.

But wait! It suddenly dawned on me! In this country, Big People toss Little People all the time! They do it at abortion clinics. They do it for money. And even worse, they do it without asking the Little People for permission! In the bars, after a dwarf is tossed (presuming he is not badly injured) he can get up, collect his pay and have a beer with his “tosser”. Not my idea of a fun night but hey! Whatever floats your boat…?

Not so with the 100,000 babies “tossed” each year in Canada. After being salt-poisoned or dismembered or vacuumed into fragments, these Little People are literally tossed into the trash bin.

Although they have never agreed to being tossed, never signed a contract with the abortionist, who grows wealthier with every toss, never had a chance to give their opinion – they are tossed once-and-for-all. They don’t get a second chance. They will never read a newspaper article about dwarf-tossing or abortion; nor will they ever have a chance to vote for a politician, pro-dwarf-tossing, prolife or otherwise.

A lot of things are made to be tossed: salads, grenades, parting comments over your shoulder and bad laws. But people are not a thing to be tossed – for money, pleasure or convenience.

Republican Race Could Go the Limit: David Krayden

Posted on by
Reply

By David Krayden

The last time that the Republican Party went to its presidential nomination convention without the nominee already decided was in 1940. Wendell Willkie was the Republican candidate in the federal election that year. He lost to Franklin Roosevelt, who had already defeated two previous Republican challengers and would go on to pummel a forth in 1944. Willkie was an unlikely candidate for president. A Wall Street businessman and former Democratic Party supporter, Willkie was the compromise choice for GOP supporters who could not stomach the isolationism of Congressional leaders like Robert Taft or feared the relative youth and foreign policy inexperience of Thomas Dewey, a whiz kid DA from New York.

Well, here we are, 72 years later, and the Republicans could well meet this summer with a deadlocked nomination race, after what has proven to be an erratic and see-saw primary campaign that is leaving everyone wondering. Congressman Ron Paul is certainly an isolationist, 21st century style, but he does not command the prestige and party loyalty of Taft. But to Paul’s credit, he does have a worshipful crop of libertarian kids to cheer him that would have been an impossible dream for Taft, never a folk hero of the young. Romney would seem to bear the greatest resemblance to Willkie, a successful businessman who sometimes suggests that his venture capitalist career makes him a Washington outsider, if only people would forget that he was governor of the most liberal state in the Union and the father of Massachusetts health care.

The similarities end there. Newt Gingrich, a former House Speaker, is anything but an unknown quantity but would seem to possess an unknown potential for being president. He has journeyed all over the political map over the years in an effort to stay both well connected and well paid, written some very good historical novels about the Civil War and continued to admit they he has made mistakes and backed the wrong horses. His behaviour as what was essentially the Republican leader and spokesman during the Clinton era defies simple categorization. At times, when leading the Contract with America and the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994, Newt seemed both cognizant and in control of his place in history, relishing the opportunity to tell Americans that being “middle class is a state of mind. Lest we forget, he was Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1995. But when the Speaker ride was over for Newt, he lacked friends and confidence in Congress, and some of his colleagues speak of his leadership in terms that are anything but inspiring, flattering or reassuring.

One of those former colleagues is the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, also in this race. Santorum, who in one candidate’s debate almost described Gingrich’s work style as bordering on crazy, was a distant third place runner last week. But then he won primaries in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri and overtook Gingrich for second place.

So who to choose? It is important to choose a conservative, who is both principled and capable of beating Barack Obama. Romney may be able to beat Obama but anyone who governed Massachusetts can hardly brag about his conservative record. Paul is a libertarian and not a conservative; moreover, his isolationism is a dangerous repudiation of the commitment to global intervention that the Republicans first made in 1952, with the candidacy and presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, and then maintained ever since. In the very unlikely eventuality that Paul should win the nomination, the subsequent election campaign would be a repeat of 1964 when Barry Goldwater was obliterated by Lyndon Johnson.

The choice, barring any last minute compromise candidate, is between Gingrich and Santorum. Though both profess conservative principles and point to a conservative record, it’s the Gingrich private life of three marriages that leaves many conservatives nervous. Santorum, at least, as a proud family man would seem to walk as he talks.

Gingrich is a crap shoot, a fascinating political gamble to take at a time in history when it is necessary to bet on the unknown and to make that calculated risk. Few thought Winston Churchill could ever be prime minister of Great Britain in 1939. But by 1940, he was probably the only leader who could envision ultimate victory against the Nazis and the only prime minister with the brazen moxy to take the fight to Hitler and never accept defeat. The establishment choices for prime minister, like Lord Halifax, would probably have sued for peace and taken the best deal possible from Germany.

With the world economy poised on the brink and American influence evanescent, these may be the times for a Newt Gingrich.

 

It is certainly not the time for anther four years of Obama.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

Lady Thatcher Deserves Better Than This: David Krayden

Posted on by

By David Krayden

Liberals love to depict the lives of conservatives on screen. It is especially helpful when the subject is suffering from debilitating mental health and their lives can be seen as coming to the finish line with the gracelessness with which liberals like to endow conservatives. Such is how the life of conservative icon and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has translated onto the screen in The Iron Lady.

It is perhaps worthwhile to acknowledge at the start that this film would hardly be; worth watching if not for the talents of Meryl Streep. It may be difficult to praise Ms Streep because not only is she an avowed Hollywood liberal who loathes and despises conservatives, she has actually gone on the record as describing her antipathy towards Lady Thatcher. But unlike a Tina Fey, who is not only an annoying, verbose liberal but also a terribly unfunny comedian, Streep is an undeniably great actress and, at least for extended periods of this film that focus on Thatcher’s present state of mind, the grand dame of the cinema does an eerily  and uncannily effective portrayal of this great woman.

Unfortunately, far too much of the film is encumbered in this time period and beset by this depiction, where Thatcher is shown to be so unaware of reality that she chats at length with her deceased husband Denis when she is not throwing uncaring comments to her children or mistakenly writing her maiden name when she autographs a book for an admirer. The film is constantly moving back and forth from the very unflattering world of the present to the historical record – or Thatcher’s actual life. This directorial method may pass for artistic but it is frankly jarring, confusing and counterproductive to the creation of any feeling for the storyline. This, combined, with the mania in current film-making for the absence of any narrative to place historical events and personalities in some sort of frame or context, makes some of the movie bewildering or at least slightly incomprehensible and certainly out of reach for any in the audience who have neither lived through the era described on the screen nor read the history of the times.

In discussing the film with a friend post-viewing, I quipped that this treatment of Thatcher would be the equivalent of interpreting the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s life from the portal of a Boston pub, where, seeking to pick up twenty something girls, he reminisces of past political triumphs that are shown as flashbacks on the screen. Not so, my friend responded:  in the Ted Kennedy Story, one should be confronted with a terminally-ill cancer patient whose flashback memories would be of pub crawls and skirt chasing.

But that is not how any liberal filmmaker would choose to tell the story.

Kidding aside, Lady Thatcher deserves better than a film where about 70 per cent of the activity depicts a confused woman wondering around her house, emptying closets, viewing television and trying to read a mystery novel.  Her life and legacy as the longest serving British prime minister of the twentieth century is almost an afterthought. We are rushed through the great historical episodes of her life – her election as leader of the Tory Party, the seminal coal miner’s strike, the Falklands War – with the same reckless disregard as a real estate agent providing a quickie tour of a less than desirable house.

There is nothing in this film to outrage conservatives but nothing to inspire us either. Her legacy is vaguely presented as being something noteworthy, positive and lasting. Her will to govern is somewhat depicted as bold, decisive and courageous. But nowhere in the film do we even learn why Thatcher earned the moniker of “iron lady,” the very title of the film. We are not apprised of why Thatcher stands beside Ronald Reagan as the greatest conservative success stories of the latter twentieth century.

Ultimately, it is something of a mystery as to why this film was produced, except perhaps to provide another Oscar opportunity for Streep, who, with 16 other nominations in her acting portfolio, arguably didn’t urgently require further Academy Award recognition.

The Iron Lady will compel you to yearn for the moviemaking of the past where films focussed on the great deeds performed by a personality, the great deeds that justified the remembrance of this life and the production of a film in the first place. Unfortunately, the producers of this Thatcher biopic just didn’t seem to realize that the story of a great life is worth telling and worth telling well; that the decisions and actions that produced greatness must take precedence over the banality of everyday life.

Thank God that Winston Churchill was remembered in an era that could still tell a coherent story. Otherwise we might be alone with a celluloid memory of an octogenarian, drunken and drooling Churchill with only misty memories of inspiring a nation and indeed an entire world to “never surrender.” Somehow, it’s not quite the same.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

The Poor 1% in Ottawa: Rod Taylor

Posted on by

By Rod Taylor, Deputy Leader of the CHP

Isn’t it ironic that some of the loudest voices in Ottawa who are supposedly standing up for the rights, dignity and betterment of the poor are themselves members of the top 1% of wage collectors in the country? I speak, of course, of the NDP MPs who were swept to power last year by disillusioned voters in Quebec and other pockets across the country.

How do I figure? The top 1% of Canadians, by income, receive annual compensation of $169,000 or more. While base salary for a backbench MP is “only” $157,000, when you add in the $248,668 (!) average that taxpayers contribute each year to an MP’s pension plan (currently about $23.30 for every $1 contributed by the MP), the total compensation for the year comes to $405,668. This places the entry-level MP well above the $169,000 threshold of entry into the “1% Club”; in fact, it puts them ABOVE the average $404,000 received by others in that club, including the much-maligned CEOs of successful businesses.

Of course, the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Committee Chairs, etc. do even better. Stephen Harper, if he were to retire at the next election, would be eligible to begin receiving—at age 55—an annual pension of $223, 517. In fact all MPs—who qualify for the platinum-plated pension after a mere 6 years in Ottawa—can retire with a full pension at age 55, unlike their fellow Canadians in the private sector who put them in office. Recent discussions about the demographic and funding challenges of the Old Age Pension have many seniors and soon-to-be seniors wondering how old they will have to be before they can stop punching a time clock and settle back for a well-deserved rest…if they make it that far.

Canadians—especially those concerned about the wage discrepancies between Joe Lunchbox and the CEO of his company—should also be asking themselves whether the men and women they sent to Ottawa really have their best interests at heart. Why should government employees (MPs and other public servants) be drawing a wage and accumulating a luxurious pension so much greater than that of the hard-working, tax-paying public whom they claim to represent?

Now would be a great time for the NDP leadership hopefuls to throw their lot in with the working families they claim to love and push the government to lower the wages and perks of all MPs. The pension plan would be the place to start. Proposing dollar-per-dollar matching contributions from the MP and the taxpayer would be a noble gesture. After that, the question should be asked: why should a back-bench MP be making $157,000 per year? Most of us would be happy making $100,000. Surely the NDP leadership hopeful who suggests a reduction in MP salaries would receive a round of applause from his or her fellow MPs? After all, they are for the little guy, are they not?

Of course, Mr. Harper and his fellow Conservatives could pre-empt this action and introduce and pass legislation reducing their own salaries, their own pensions and their own perks. This would be a good will gesture, signalling Canadians that they “feel our pain” and that they are leading by example. Canadians would be much more willing to help salvage Canada’s economy if they saw this kind of servant-leadership.

I’m not holding my breath but I will be watching to see if any MP has what it takes to set a new standard of personal sacrifice for the good of the country.

Click here to learn more about Rod Taylor.