Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State in control (Canada's Liberals' matriarchal socialism = US 'Rats goal!)
Calgary Sun - Canada ^ | Fri, May 13, 2005 | LINK BYFIELD

Posted on 05/13/2005 8:34:45 AM PDT by GMMAC

CALGARY SUN
Fri, May 13, 2005

State in control

By LINK BYFIELD

Diane Francis, editor-at-large of the Financial Post, asked a good question in her Tuesday column.

Considering how badly the Liberals are performing, why aren't the federal Conservatives sitting at 50% or more in the polls? Why are they stuck in the mid-30s, same as the Liberals?

Francis guesses it's because too many people find the Conservatives "scary."

And what's so terrifying about them?

It's three things, she writes. "Same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage and same-sex marriage."

Boy is she wrong.

By opposing legal recognition of homosexual marriage, she argues, the Conservatives are telling city-folk, especially women, that they approve of backwoods bigotry.

Speaking on behalf of terrified urban womanhood everywhere, Francis says same-sex marriage is a "right" which doesn't adversely affect anyone else.

To subject this "right" to a free vote in Parliament, as the Tories propose, violates the Canadian commitment to "pluralism" and, besides, is unconservative, argues Francis.

I guess to qualify as an "unscary" conservative these days you have to be a sexual radical.

On all these points, she is way off base.

If homosexual marriage is already an established "right," why is there a bill before Parliament seeking to establish it?

Some judges and politicians think there should be such a right in law, others say it is not in the public interest. That's what the debate is about. Francis seems to think it's already over.

Decisions about extending new rights have always been made democratically, and this one should be, too. Opinion polls show the Canadian public either evenly split or against instituting gay marriage. Most European countries and American states have chosen not to do it.

But to call the debate "scary" is ridiculous.

So are appeals to "pluralism."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines pluralism as "allowing members of a minority group to maintain their independent cultural traditions." There is no cultural tradition of same-sex marriage.

The government is trying to create one, by imposing this innovation on Canadian society.

I think Francis answers very well why the Conservatives are "scary" when she states, approvingly, what a real conservative is: "A Canadian Conservative believes in free markets, free enterprise and restricting the role of the state to providing essential services and protecting individuals and their rights."

This is why Steve Harper and his party are unattractive to so many Canadians.

The idea of "limiting the state to providing essential services" is not universally popular.

Over the past half-century, the Liberals have cemented deep political loyalty by promising voters the state will give them more than it takes.

In other words, the right to live off someone else.

They do this in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the eastern prairies with equalization and EI, they do it through "progressive" income tax, daycare subsidies, the Canada Pension Plan, "family reunification" in immigration, "pay equity," and in a hundred other ways.

All criticism of this legalized theft and political bribery is silenced by declaring that these are "progressive" and "compassionate" measures allowing the government to control Canadian society for the public good.

A conservative, as Francis says, believes government must be "limited." A liberal believes its purpose should be open-ended and "progressive," claiming ever-greater control of our lives and institutions.

Business-minded conservatives such as Francis, and Red Tories like Joe Clark, often make the mistake of thinking (as she proposes in her column) you can be economically conservative and socially liberal.

You can't. If you allow the state unlimited, progressive control of society, you allow it an unlimited role in the economy. If something as fundamental as the family is not safe from political intrusion, why would our pay cheques and commodity markets be any different?

Canadians are facing a key question, and they know it. Will we limit government or not?

This question goes way beyond gay marriage.

After two or three generations of induced dependency and learned helplessness, it should not surprise us that many middle-ground Canadians are "scared" by the prospect of something less cozy.


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: canada; liberals; samesexmarriage; socialistcontrol
Note to our American friends:
"Red Tories" = CINO's / RINO's (same confused/opportunistic wimps - different location!)

1 posted on 05/13/2005 8:34:46 AM PDT by GMMAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fanfan; Pikamax; Former Proud Canadian; Great Dane; Alberta's Child; headsonpikes; coteblanche; ...
Librano$ PING!

2 posted on 05/13/2005 8:37:38 AM PDT by GMMAC (paraphrasing Parrish: "damned Liberals, I hate those bastards!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
conservatives such as Francis, and Red Tories like Joe Clark, often make the mistake of thinking (as she proposes in her column) you can be economically conservative and socially liberal.

You can't. If you allow the state unlimited, progressive control of society, you allow it an unlimited role in the economy. If something as fundamental as the family is not safe from political intrusion, why would our pay cheques and commodity markets be any different?

3 posted on 05/13/2005 8:39:46 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

I have reached the same conclusion albeit not as eloquent! But there is an undeniable truth in the arguement that you cannot be an economic conservative and a social liberal at the same time. They are in the end mutually exclusive and as such cannot be reconciled since the rationale for social liberalism is predicated on state imposed, social engineering that would not have grown organically in our culture/society. I would further the case that many socially liberal agendas run counter to the prevailing social traditions/norms and are in effect adversarial to the prevailing social order and a huge economic cost to the rest of society. This exercise in sophistry by the political elites ie Liberals and/or CINO's in our country is nothing more than the marxist two step being played out, of having those who have pay for those who don't. Controlling the means of production and denying private ownership of those means is the end goal. Socialism is an incedious beast and the only way to do so is to deny the state the power to impose it's coercive power over us. Canada I'm afraid may be too far down "the road to serfdom" to bring it back. The end result is the break up of this once proud nation. Too bad!


4 posted on 05/13/2005 9:01:01 AM PDT by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bubman
If anyone still hasn't read this article and viewed its linked video, they should and then rightly circulate it to every Canadian they know!
Martin is exposed as an outright sociopath!
5 posted on 05/13/2005 9:24:11 AM PDT by GMMAC (paraphrasing Parrish: "damned Liberals, I hate those bastards!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bubman

For conservatism to work, the wealthy must be reintroduced to the concept of morality and duty, in particular Noblesse Oblige (benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank.)

In my county, more than 30% of the children live below the poverty line and more than 54% in low income households as defined by the federal giovernment. A society cannot afford to have its future potential handicapped by poor diet, health, illiteracy and abuse and expect to survive. The wealthy have to voluntarily redirect money, assets (like their education, skills, influence) and time to building community and individual capacity so that people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That recycling of the economy is necessary to ensure its health through a stable distribution of wealth among classes.

So many times foundations give an organization within a poor community a grant then expect them to become sustainable off donations by the local community. Get real, these communities do not have the educational, financial, skill capital to do that. That is why the government teat has become plugged in. Until investment is made in building capacity, change will not happen so that the communities can participate and competitively compete in the benefits of a free market economy.

All we are getting now is a greater and greater chasm between the haves and have nots/alienated which, history has shown, will blow up at some point.


6 posted on 05/13/2005 9:28:59 AM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson