Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

As a lifelong conservative, I would be appalled if we stifled opinion


(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

Popular posts from this blog

GORDON F. D. WILSON: When The Trick Masquerades as The Treat

Thirty-seven years ago, Halloween 1987, I became the leader of the BC Liberal Party.   British Columbia was badly polarized. Social Credit held one side and the NDP the other. It had been twelve years, 1975, since Liberal MLAs Garde Gardom, Pat McGeer, and Alan Williams had walked away from their party to join Social Credit, one year after the lone Progressive Conservative MLA Hugh Curtis had abandoned his party to sit with Bill Bennett, the son and heir apparent to long-serving BC Premier, WAC Bennett.   An unwritten agreement by the biggest Canadian political shareholders, the federal Liberals and Conservatives, decided that if British Columbia was to remain a lucrative franchise from a revenue perspective, they couldn’t risk splitting the electoral vote and electing the real enemy, the NDP, so no resources would be used to finance either a Liberal or Conservative party provincially.   “There are two sides to every street,” I was told by a very prominent Canadian businessman who cont

FORSETH: You Have To Be A Bit Crazy

  Ward and his wife Carleen celebrating his win on election night.   In March of this year, I took on the role of Campaign Manager for BC Conservative candidate Ward Stamer.  It’s the third time I’ve had the opportunity as I took on the role for Peter Sharp in 2013, and for Dennis Giesbrecht in 2020. Now let me tell you, in the past, a BC Conservative campaign team generally consisted of myself, the candidate and one or two helpers – and very little in the way of a campaign budget. Thankfully, a benefit of having spent 30+ years in the broadcast media afforded me the ability to do ad copy and write candidate speeches, and prep both Dennis and Peter to deal with the media – it’s also something I have always enjoyed. That was part of my duties this time around as well, however having a team of a dozen and a half volunteers meant that for the first time we had people available to ID our supporters, put together and install campaign signs, distribute campaign literature, and help out at ou

Rustad will support policy for 'everyday' people, otherwise work to bring down NDP

  Conservative Party of B.C. John Rustad Tuesday (Oct. 29) said his party would support government policies that support "average, everyday working" persons in B.C., but also repeated earlier promises to bring down the B.C. NDP government under Premier David Eby. "If there are things that are moved forward that will improve lives for those people, we would be looking at support it," Rustad said. "But if he's going to carry forward with the destructive policies that he has, then yes, we are going to look at every opportunity possible to bring him down as soon as possible."  CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more