(Andrew) Scheer not worried about rifts in party as
Conservative convention wraps ~~ Teresa Wright and Keith Doucette
The Canadian Press, National Post ~~ Aug 25, 2018
"…
it began with a maverick MP throwing a hand grenade into the party he once
tried to lead and ended with contentious debates on abortion. The three-day
Conservative policy convention in Halifax was anything but boring… "
The piece is written by liberals who refuse to appreciate, or understand,
the value of dissenting opinion. In the liberal world, those who disagree are
demeaned, disparaged and dismissed. You are aboard the train or not.
As a lifelong conservative, I would be appalled if we stifled opinion.
We value our freedoms above all else. The freedoms of association,
belief, conscience, expression, opinion, peaceful assembly, religion and thought
are the underpinnings of democracy and the conservative party. They don’t come
easily or gracefully. We have to accept we will hear beliefs that clash with
our own and opinions we dislike. The price for freedoms is to accept that we
will face dissenting opinions, and must allow them to be fully heard before
passing judgement.
When we have a convention with 3,000 representatives from every corner
of the nation, we will have different views expressed in the form of
resolutions to consider.
We spend months gathering and compiling those
resolutions. Selecting those with the broadest support in terms of numbers, and
area, defines those that will be considered at convention. Resolutions going to
workshops at the convention are not the work of a few disgruntled people; they
need support from multiple electoral districts.
We take time to debate resolutions that are contrary to existing policy,
and that alter existing policy, or introduce new policy. Those that move
forward do so based on delegate votes. Only the ten with the strongest support
from each of several workshops move forward to debate, and vote, by the main
body of the convention.
To describe that process as showing ‘rifts’ within the party is
erroneous. We are open to considering and debating the strongly held views of
our members and their representatives. It is important that they have the
opportunity to convince us that their resolutions have merit and should be
adopted.
Some resolutions are defeated at workshops, others are defeated in the
main session. What observers fail to notice is that the proponents of failed
resolutions are not there solely to deal with the resolution(s) they sponsor;
they consider and vote on all of the resolutions in the workshop they attend,
and all of the resolutions sent to the main body. They are considering, and
setting, the overall direction of the party … not just one or two aspects
thereof.
The defeat of a particular resolution does not mean the end of debate.
Very often, during the course of debate, lessons are learned, and a modified
version of the resolution may appear at a succeeding convention and will be
debated again. Delegates had the opportunity to participate in amendments and
changes to our constitution and policies and are satisfied with the overall
results they achieve.
Contrast that with political correctness which has morphed from its
original meaning:
The avoidance of forms of
expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult
groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against into a form of censorship where any action or expression that might
offend someone is considered forbidden.
Our human rights codes cover the subject matter of
the original definition, so political correctness should fall into disuse.
However, it is now used to stifle opinion and debate on any topic that elitists
and liberals/progressives consider to be settled (in their minds).
It is a direct attack on our freedoms.
John Feldsted
Comments
Post a Comment