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: As a BC Conservative member, and campaign worker, I will again state that the fact these errors were found -- AND brought to light BY Elections BC -- shows the system IS working

Sadly, two and a half weeks after the BC provincial election campaign, those who want to undermine our political process are still at.  PLUS, we also have one who doesn’t even live in our country, never mind our province. I speak of the buffoon running for President of the United States, who has poisoned the well when it comes to faith in the electoral process. Just today alone, comments such as the following, were being made of posts that I shared online: ... all the votes they keep finding has just favoured NDP on in all critical ridings and soon they will flip another riding in favour of NDP, Come on. ... Elections BC has ridiculed British Columbians, and I no longer have confidence or trust in their process and competence regarding the results Then there are others online, with comments like these – who are claiming fraud in the October 19th election: ... Who is the oversight for Elections BC? They should be investigated for election fraud! ... Fraudulent election ... should be red

“With the talent and dedication of this caucus we will hold David Eby to account for his government’s out of control spending and ongoing failures in healthcare, public safety and addictions" — John Rustad

Today, John Rustad, Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, proudly unveiled his shadow cabinet, a dynamic team of talented individuals ready to hold David Eby’s disastrous government accountable and present a strong alternative vision for British Columbia. “ Our shadow cabinet is a diverse and experienced group, committed to restoring prosperity, public safety, and affordability for every British Columbian ,” said Rustad. “ With experts in every field, we are focused on delivering real solutions for the challenges our province faces .” Rustad emphasized the historic appointment of Aaliya Warbus as House Leader. The shadow cabinet reflects the Conservative Party’s vision to build a brighter future for British Columbia. The appointments are as follows: Leadership Positions : Aaliya Warbus – House Leader Bruce Banman – Whip Sheldon Claire – Deputy Whip Portfolios : Tony Luck – Municipal Affairs and Local Government Sharon Hartwell – Rural Communities and Rural Development I

Labels

Show more