Classic Wonder Woman

Whither Conservatism

It’s been stewing for some time now -- my resentment over what I like to call the Liberal-not-so-lite tone of this so-called Conservative government and the not-so-conservatives who support their wishy-washy, I-wanna-get-elected agenda.  I’m not the only one, but you’ll have to forgive me if sometimes, I start to wonder.  With very few exceptions, I have heard little more than resounding silence from those among us who were so vocal, when it was the Liberals slathering our hard earned tax dollars on every small-minded, big-budgeted piece of nanny-state garbage.

Where are those voices of protest now?

Where are the condemnations for promises broken?  Where are the demands for the Conservatives to hold themselves to the principles they campaigned on?  Where are the expectations that the Conservative Party would govern like – oh, I don’t know – Conservatives?

Did the definition of conservatism change without me knowing it?  Or have I simply misunderstood what it meant, all along? 

Last I checked, it wasn’t about banning light bulbs, punitive taxation on our most productive, signing on to crackpot international income redistribution schemes, and bolstering the cause of the perpetual whiners in the “nation” of Quebec.  We’re not supposed to find it acceptable to buy off the provinces where we need the most votes, for the sake of winning the brass ring of a majority.

And for the love of all that is holy…can someone please tell me why the Conservative Party’s website has more pictures of Stephane Dion than anyone else?  And his name is everywhere.  Is this some colossal subliminal campaign, orchestrated by subversives within the party?  Or have we really just become the "Anti-Dion Liberal Alternative Party"?  (oh my, isn't that catchy!)

Conservatives I know – my nearest and dearest included – have tried to lull me with promises of some “great turnaround” once we get a majority.  But my question is…when did it become acceptable to trick the voters with a mushy-middle stance, only to pull the rug out once we get the power?  Do we really have that much-touted hidden neocon agenda?

Another common excuse is that in the uber-compassionate socialist backwater that is Canada, a truly Conservative agenda is all but unelectable, that we would resign ourselves to political oblivion, for even trying.  Well, why the hell bother then?  Let’s just give up now, and suckle ourselves to sleep on the teat of government largess, content in the knowledge that no matter what is right  – it’s all about the votes!

Here’s a hint for Stephen Harper – when the Canadian Press Gallery and the NDP are wasting inordinate amounts of time, sussing out the daily routines of your stylist, and the exact hue of your skin tone, it’s a sign that you’re not doing quite enough to piss them off about the really important stuff.  And if you’re not pissing these guys off well, you’re clearly doing it all wrong.

I have been told many times, to look at things more pragmatically and I have oft been criticized for being an ideological purist.  My answer to that is -- When did pragmatism become a virtue, to which all principle should be sacrificed and when did ideological purity become a bad thing?  We have had decade after decade of ideologically void vote-whores and pragmatic political crooks.  Look where it's gotten us.  I'd say we could use a little less pragmatism and a little more ideological purity, for a change.  This country deserves it.

If the Conservative Party of Canada wants to continue along the path of pop-culture fad-directed social engineering schemes, happy-faced fiscal gouging of the taxpayer and enthusiastic abandonment of all declared principles, more power to them.  But they may find there's a lot of competition in this country, for that crown.

Maybe they should try on a new one, instead.  Unless of course, it never fit in the first place.

It’s been stewing for some time now -- my resentment over what I like to call the Liberal-not-so-lite tone of this so-called Conservative government and the not-so-conservatives who support their wishy-washy, I-wanna-get-elected agenda.  I’m not the only one, but you’ll have to forgive me if sometimes, I start to wonder.  With very few exceptions, I have heard little more than resounding silence from those among us who were so vocal, when it was the Liberals slathering our hard earned tax dollars on every small-minded, big-budgeted piece of nanny-state garbage.

Where are those voices of protest now?

Where are the condemnations for promises broken?  Where are the demands for the Conservatives to hold themselves to the principles they campaigned on?  Where are the expectations that the Conservative Party would govern like – oh, I don’t know – Conservatives?

Did the definition of conservatism change without me knowing it?  Or have I simply misunderstood what it meant, all along? 

Last I checked, it wasn’t about banning light bulbs, punitive taxation on our most productive, signing on to crackpot international income redistribution schemes, and bolstering the cause of the perpetual whiners in the “nation” of Quebec.  We’re not supposed to find it acceptable to buy off the provinces where we need the most votes, for the sake of winning the brass ring of a majority.

And for the love of all that is holy…can someone please tell me why the Conservative Party’s website has more pictures of Stephane Dion than anyone else?  And his name is everywhere.  Is this some colossal subliminal campaign, orchestrated by subversives within the party?  Or have we really just become the "Anti-Dion Liberal Alternative Party"?  (oh my, isn't that catchy!)

Conservatives I know – my nearest and dearest included – have tried to lull me with promises of some “great turnaround” once we get a majority.  But my question is…when did it become acceptable to trick the voters with a mushy-middle stance, only to pull the rug out once we get the power?  Do we really have that much-touted hidden neocon agenda?

Another common excuse is that in the uber-compassionate socialist backwater that is Canada, a truly Conservative agenda is all but unelectable, that we would resign ourselves to political oblivion, for even trying.  Well, why the hell bother then?  Let’s just give up now, and suckle ourselves to sleep on the teat of government largess, content in the knowledge that no matter what is right  – it’s all about the votes!

Here’s a hint for Stephen Harper – when the Canadian Press Gallery and the NDP are wasting inordinate amounts of time, sussing out the daily routines of your stylist, and the exact hue of your skin tone, it’s a sign that you’re not doing quite enough to piss them off about the really important stuff.  And if you’re not pissing these guys off well, you’re clearly doing it all wrong.

I have been told many times, to look at things more pragmatically and I have oft been criticized for being an ideological purist.  My answer to that is -- When did pragmatism become a virtue, to which all principle should be sacrificed and when did ideological purity become a bad thing?  We have had decade after decade of ideologically void vote-whores and pragmatic political crooks.  Look where it's gotten us.  I'd say we could use a little less pragmatism and a little more ideological purity, for a change.  This country deserves it.

If the Conservative Party of Canada wants to continue along the path of pop-culture fad-directed social engineering schemes, happy-faced fiscal gouging of the taxpayer and enthusiastic abandonment of all declared principles, more power to them.  But they may find there's a lot of competition in this country, for that crown.

Maybe they should try on a new one, instead.  Unless of course, it never fit in the first place.

And they wonder why the rest of Canada hates them...

David Miller's Toronto -- bastion of perfidy and politically motivated stupidity, that it is -- has trudged one step further into the miasmic sludge of moral mastication with an insulting campaign to rid municipal vehicles of those unsightly "Support the Troops" magnets.  Because gawd knows...the wretched and over-burdened citizenry of our fair city should not have to suffer the onslaught of constant reminder that we are engaged in  battle for civilization, with a race of nihilistic bloodthirsty pedophiles...it is a tawdry affair, and we are all so much more refined and civilized than the imperialistic knuckle-draggers to the south of us, who wage war like it's the national sport.

So the Mayor (and I use the term loosely) gets a few phone calls from ungracious ninnies who's sensibilities are tarnished by the very sight of a magnet on the back of a fire truck, and he scurries out to remove the offending barnacles, lest the City of Toronto be construed as in support of Canadian soldiers who fight and die so we have the freedom to be the ungrateful, contentious, callous whelps that we apparently are.

A city counselor tries to pass off the expected cop out that "Toronto council should not be using city vehicles to promote political messages that do not fall within its jurisdiction. The federal government calls the shots about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan." Then I take it, the Toronto city counsel wouldn't mind returning any and all federal money allocated towards the procurement and maintenance of those vehicles...or perhaps the City of Toronto would prefer to be extricated from federal affairs, all together...set adrift without obligation to the rest of the country -- and without dipping their greedy little fingers into my wallet for that endless supply of tax dollars.

Probably not.

The fact that a handful of litigious pansies with no better use for their time, would get into a lather at the very sight of a ribbon on the back of an ambulance and phone the Mayor's office to complain, just goes to show how far up their asses the citizens of Toronto really keep their heads.

It would explain the smell there.

David Miller's Toronto -- bastion of perfidy and politically motivated stupidity, that it is -- has trudged one step further into the miasmic sludge of moral mastication with an insulting campaign to rid municipal vehicles of those unsightly "Support the Troops" magnets.  Because gawd knows...the wretched and over-burdened citizenry of our fair city should not have to suffer the onslaught of constant reminder that we are engaged in  battle for civilization, with a race of nihilistic bloodthirsty pedophiles...it is a tawdry affair, and we are all so much more refined and civilized than the imperialistic knuckle-draggers to the south of us, who wage war like it's the national sport.

So the Mayor (and I use the term loosely) gets a few phone calls from ungracious ninnies who's sensibilities are tarnished by the very sight of a magnet on the back of a fire truck, and he scurries out to remove the offending barnacles, lest the City of Toronto be construed as in support of Canadian soldiers who fight and die so we have the freedom to be the ungrateful, contentious, callous whelps that we apparently are.

A city counselor tries to pass off the expected cop out that "Toronto council should not be using city vehicles to promote political messages that do not fall within its jurisdiction. The federal government calls the shots about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan." Then I take it, the Toronto city counsel wouldn't mind returning any and all federal money allocated towards the procurement and maintenance of those vehicles...or perhaps the City of Toronto would prefer to be extricated from federal affairs, all together...set adrift without obligation to the rest of the country -- and without dipping their greedy little fingers into my wallet for that endless supply of tax dollars.

Probably not.

The fact that a handful of litigious pansies with no better use for their time, would get into a lather at the very sight of a ribbon on the back of an ambulance and phone the Mayor's office to complain, just goes to show how far up their asses the citizens of Toronto really keep their heads.

It would explain the smell there.

Well, you asked for it...

According to this, the Prime Minister’s Office is looking for ideas for policy recommendations to form a fresh set of priorities and mandates for the government.  What will come as no surprise to anyone is that I have a few suggestions to make.

1. The Conservative party should relieve itself of the delusion that any measures they take to regulate the citizenry into Eco-goodness will afford them so much as an ounce of credit or votes from those who vociferously petition the government for those regulations.  You are wasting your time, and you are recklessly wasting my money.  Bowing to the Eco-horde will not win you votes from them, and you will assuredly lose conservative stalwarts like me, who resent a Conservative party which practices an NDPish environmental agenda.  Banning incandescent light bulbs is a cheap power-grab that will have little to no quantifiable effect on the environmental situation.  It will however have the effect of bringing my pen just that much closer to the “none of the above” option on my ballot.  There is one important lesson to be learned from the millions of dead attributed to the banning of DDT; submitting to eco-hysteria costs lives and frequently amounts to myth and fallacy in the end.  Embracing these policies with such rapture could lead to worse, and will never win over the side which is pulling for them.

2.  Your surplus is my money.  You do not have a mandate to spend it like a sailor on shore leave.  I want back what you don’t need and while we’re talking about it, I’m not so sure you need as much as you’re spending.  Axing the SOW was a fabulous start to what should have become a trend toward paring off the multitude of wasteful special interest programs currently on the taxpayer dole.  Your decision to reinstate the SOW after a modicum of carping from grievance mongers on the left was a shameful capitulation on a fight that by all accounts, you had already won.  If you will not exude the fortitude to deny funding to such an obvious waste of taxpayer dollars, for a program which is clearly biased and poorly managed with complete lack of oversight and accountability, what assurance do any of us have that you are capable of the stewardship required for the many billions of dollars entrusted to you, through the blood and sweat of working Canadians?  It’s really quite simple; Programs which do not produce quantifiable results should be ended and the money which was expropriated to pay for these programs should be returned to its rightful owners...Canadian taxpayers.

3. Someone in the defense department should take out a history book and slowly read it to each member of the PMO, with emphasis on the conduct of previous wars and the importance of exuding strength and steadfast leadership in time of.  The Canadian public is losing confidence in the war because all they hear from our leaders are apologies and feel-good platitudes about peacekeeping and nation building.  Its crap, and the average Joe knows in their gut that when they hear it from the leadership, it means they haven’t got the heart to make the tough choices that need to be made in a time of war.  No one wants to be the one to back the weak horse.  Quit talking to people like they don’t know what war is.  It only makes you look like you don’t know.  The crowd which bristles at any departure from the peacekeeping line will never understand, and placating their ignorance only exposes your weakness in will and leadership.  Not a good thing during wartime.  If you’re going to keep our troops there, you should let them fight and make it final.  Quit pussy-footing around.  Our troops are first class...making constant apologies for that, brings shame on us all.

4. Quit paying off and entertaining extortionists.  Be they Quebecois or Native or any other manner of professional whiners and kneecap breakers.  They have never voted for you.  They never will vote for you.  And legitimizing their outrageous and ever-increasing list of demands is alienating those of us who do.  There should come a time when we gather up our guts and assert our authority to the pick-pockets...those entitlement queens who think nothing of holding the rest of the country hostage, in order to fund in perpetuity, their lavish ignorance and apathy.  The specter of autonomous, distinct-society self-governance should not be shunned and feared but instead, should be regarded as an opportunity to excise the dead weight of this country – the trouble making rabble which contributes nothing but requires exorbitant means to fund and maintain.  If they want to be autonomous, we should let them.  Cut them off the taxpayer dole and let them govern themselves how they see fit.  Quebecers get the rock they inhabit and Natives get the enormous swathes of land they already own, but neither will be permitted to gorge on the public trough any longer.  In addition, incendiary protest-junkies who incite violence and disrupt the social order should be treated as any other violent hostage-takers...haul their asses off to jail or if they present armed resistance, cut them down with sniper fire.  Make no mistake; when you talk about “distinct societies” and preserving their unique heritage, as a way of dodging the real subject – their unwillingness to make a meaningful contribution to a society which has generously funded their guerrilla war against it – what they take from that is the blatant signal that you would like that broom handle shoved in just a wee bit further.  And the rest of us – the vassals to these armed and enabled beggars – are left with no choice but to hope and pray that somewhere in that group, someone brought petroleum jelly.  In a prison rape-type scene, the inmates who hold your arms and legs to keep you still during the assault, are just as culpable for the crime as the one who holds the broom.  They wear their own shame, for the act of allowing violation and injustice to be inflicted upon an innocent.  Please, I beg you...let go of my arms and legs and tell those slathering parasites that they aren’t going to get their rocks off on me, any longer.  Tell them to either join and contribute, or piss off and take care of themselves.  So many of us are waiting.

If I had the time, I could surely write volumes.  But for now, these are the main slivers in my side.  The notion that a self-proclaimed Conservative government has stooped to the level of weak-willed pandering to nearly every latest victim-fad, has shorn them of all credibility as Conservatives, either fiscal or social.

Stephen Harper wants advice on which direction to take?  Here it is:  Read and heed the advice of figures like Edmund Burke and Milton Friedman.  Throw in a dollop of warmongering from Mark Steyn, just for spice.  And above all, start listening to those of us who are not just “in it for the money”...the ones who supplied the rungs by which you ascended the ladder of Canadian politics, from fledgling splinter-faction of conservatism to ruling party of the day.

Forsake your flank, and the enemy’s arrows will surely find their mark...and you will have no one to blame but yourself.

According to this, the Prime Minister’s Office is looking for ideas for policy recommendations to form a fresh set of priorities and mandates for the government.  What will come as no surprise to anyone is that I have a few suggestions to make.

1. The Conservative party should relieve itself of the delusion that any measures they take to regulate the citizenry into Eco-goodness will afford them so much as an ounce of credit or votes from those who vociferously petition the government for those regulations.  You are wasting your time, and you are recklessly wasting my money.  Bowing to the Eco-horde will not win you votes from them, and you will assuredly lose conservative stalwarts like me, who resent a Conservative party which practices an NDPish environmental agenda.  Banning incandescent light bulbs is a cheap power-grab that will have little to no quantifiable effect on the environmental situation.  It will however have the effect of bringing my pen just that much closer to the “none of the above” option on my ballot.  There is one important lesson to be learned from the millions of dead attributed to the banning of DDT; submitting to eco-hysteria costs lives and frequently amounts to myth and fallacy in the end.  Embracing these policies with such rapture could lead to worse, and will never win over the side which is pulling for them.

2.  Your surplus is my money.  You do not have a mandate to spend it like a sailor on shore leave.  I want back what you don’t need and while we’re talking about it, I’m not so sure you need as much as you’re spending.  Axing the SOW was a fabulous start to what should have become a trend toward paring off the multitude of wasteful special interest programs currently on the taxpayer dole.  Your decision to reinstate the SOW after a modicum of carping from grievance mongers on the left was a shameful capitulation on a fight that by all accounts, you had already won.  If you will not exude the fortitude to deny funding to such an obvious waste of taxpayer dollars, for a program which is clearly biased and poorly managed with complete lack of oversight and accountability, what assurance do any of us have that you are capable of the stewardship required for the many billions of dollars entrusted to you, through the blood and sweat of working Canadians?  It’s really quite simple; Programs which do not produce quantifiable results should be ended and the money which was expropriated to pay for these programs should be returned to its rightful owners...Canadian taxpayers.

3. Someone in the defense department should take out a history book and slowly read it to each member of the PMO, with emphasis on the conduct of previous wars and the importance of exuding strength and steadfast leadership in time of.  The Canadian public is losing confidence in the war because all they hear from our leaders are apologies and feel-good platitudes about peacekeeping and nation building.  Its crap, and the average Joe knows in their gut that when they hear it from the leadership, it means they haven’t got the heart to make the tough choices that need to be made in a time of war.  No one wants to be the one to back the weak horse.  Quit talking to people like they don’t know what war is.  It only makes you look like you don’t know.  The crowd which bristles at any departure from the peacekeeping line will never understand, and placating their ignorance only exposes your weakness in will and leadership.  Not a good thing during wartime.  If you’re going to keep our troops there, you should let them fight and make it final.  Quit pussy-footing around.  Our troops are first class...making constant apologies for that, brings shame on us all.

4. Quit paying off and entertaining extortionists.  Be they Quebecois or Native or any other manner of professional whiners and kneecap breakers.  They have never voted for you.  They never will vote for you.  And legitimizing their outrageous and ever-increasing list of demands is alienating those of us who do.  There should come a time when we gather up our guts and assert our authority to the pick-pockets...those entitlement queens who think nothing of holding the rest of the country hostage, in order to fund in perpetuity, their lavish ignorance and apathy.  The specter of autonomous, distinct-society self-governance should not be shunned and feared but instead, should be regarded as an opportunity to excise the dead weight of this country – the trouble making rabble which contributes nothing but requires exorbitant means to fund and maintain.  If they want to be autonomous, we should let them.  Cut them off the taxpayer dole and let them govern themselves how they see fit.  Quebecers get the rock they inhabit and Natives get the enormous swathes of land they already own, but neither will be permitted to gorge on the public trough any longer.  In addition, incendiary protest-junkies who incite violence and disrupt the social order should be treated as any other violent hostage-takers...haul their asses off to jail or if they present armed resistance, cut them down with sniper fire.  Make no mistake; when you talk about “distinct societies” and preserving their unique heritage, as a way of dodging the real subject – their unwillingness to make a meaningful contribution to a society which has generously funded their guerrilla war against it – what they take from that is the blatant signal that you would like that broom handle shoved in just a wee bit further.  And the rest of us – the vassals to these armed and enabled beggars – are left with no choice but to hope and pray that somewhere in that group, someone brought petroleum jelly.  In a prison rape-type scene, the inmates who hold your arms and legs to keep you still during the assault, are just as culpable for the crime as the one who holds the broom.  They wear their own shame, for the act of allowing violation and injustice to be inflicted upon an innocent.  Please, I beg you...let go of my arms and legs and tell those slathering parasites that they aren’t going to get their rocks off on me, any longer.  Tell them to either join and contribute, or piss off and take care of themselves.  So many of us are waiting.

If I had the time, I could surely write volumes.  But for now, these are the main slivers in my side.  The notion that a self-proclaimed Conservative government has stooped to the level of weak-willed pandering to nearly every latest victim-fad, has shorn them of all credibility as Conservatives, either fiscal or social.

Stephen Harper wants advice on which direction to take?  Here it is:  Read and heed the advice of figures like Edmund Burke and Milton Friedman.  Throw in a dollop of warmongering from Mark Steyn, just for spice.  And above all, start listening to those of us who are not just “in it for the money”...the ones who supplied the rungs by which you ascended the ladder of Canadian politics, from fledgling splinter-faction of conservatism to ruling party of the day.

Forsake your flank, and the enemy’s arrows will surely find their mark...and you will have no one to blame but yourself.

Just don't call me Maverick

It was Friday evening when I first noticed something wasn't quite right.  Surfing through my blogroll -- which I regularly do -- I noticed one of my daily reads was missing from the Blogging Tories roll.  A quick check of his place confirmed he still had the blogroll up and no posts indicating he had left for any reason.  So I fired off a note to ask what was up.

It wasn't long before I got a response which confirmed my growing suspicions.  He had been turfed from the blogroll and the aggregator in a unilateral decision by it's administrator, Stephen Taylor, in response to something he posted which Stephen had taken exception to.  I had suspected this very thing, only because I had been witness to a similar incident a little over a year ago, with Richard.

Without getting into the ugly details of the various breakups I will say that by all accounts and appearances, I am left with the impression that Stephen aims to excise the more incendiary figures from his blogroll in order to shape a more unified, politically palatable, genericized face for the Canadian Conservative blogosphere.  A prudent measure, if your goal is to present the Blogging Tories as a virtual extension of the Conservative party -- a sort of echo chamber information mill, if you will.  Unfortunately, that is not what I signed up for because that is not what I was lead to believe the Blogging Tories was meant for.

Don't get me wrong; I fully support Stephen's right to do whatever he chooses with the organization.  It has always been his baby and it has steadily grown into something for which he should be very proud.  I would never dream of implying that any decision he makes, regarding the direction he wants the group to take, should be subordinated to anyone else, for any reason.  The exception I take, is not with the decision itself, but with the impression that it all seems rather arbitrary.

Conservatism as I know it has always taken the form of classic liberalism, which holds among its most sacred tenets, that of the freedom to speak your mind and the expectation that each person be held accountable for their words by those who dissent, through reasoned debate and fair denunciation.  Many of us adhere to this principle quite rigorously, defending the expression of even the most abhorrent of statements based on the belief that censorship is an act of far greater offense. 

Censorship and the silencing of unsavory opinion is a road littered with the scat of Liberals and Dippers.  Those who profess to be Conservatives take this road at their peril, with the assurance that they are likely to get their shoes very dirty.

Stephen is concerned about enabling statements that may be used as embarrassing fodder against the Conservative Party, in the event of an election.  Such concern is not unwarranted.  It is however, in contradiction with what I was lead to believe our purpose was, as a group.

As a Blogging Tory, I have on many occasions reiterated and defended our autonomy from accusations of collusion with the government and hypocrisy regarding dissent.  One post in particular was a personal defense of Stephen and the group, and carried this heartfelt endorsement...

I am a member of the Blogging Tories role, and I believe I can speak for most of us, when I say that I have never been expected to tow the "party line" on any subject.  I have never been coerced to post information for the Conservative Party.  I have not corroborated with anyone else on the Blogging Tories' roll, to act on behalf of the Conservative Party, in an official (or even unofficial) capacity, in any way.  This blog is mine.  I post what I want.  Sometimes I talk about American politics, lately I've been preoccupied with international events.  I have used this page to tout birthday wishes, discuss the book I'm reading, lambaste the rude punk at the Tim Horton's drive-thru, and I have even discussed my propensity for wearing men's underwear.  When I discuss Canadian politics, the views I state are mine.  My personal opinion.  My free right to shout it out, in my little corner of cyberspace.  It's all about me, baby.  Sometimes I give kudos to the Tories, and often I criticize.  And if Stephen or Craig EVER told me that I had no right to do that, and remain on the Blogging Tories role, I would kiss them goodbye and never look back.

I am afraid now that time has come.  I did not have a dog in this most recent fight, but I have been witness to this disturbing act of random censure not once or twice, but 4 times.  The most recent victim was offered his place back on the roll and he chose to take it -- a decision which was totally his to make.  I however, have seen enough to prove to me that this group is not what it purports to be and that my understanding of its purpose was based on a falsely stated premise of shared conservative values and respect for individual opinions.  That is what I signed up for.  That is what I have ruthlessly defended, time and time again.  And that is clearly not a goal shared by those who administer the Blogging Tories.

I like Stephen.  I have always enjoyed the few conversations we have had, and I consider him to be an exemplary blogger in his own right.  I hold that opinion of many of the bloggers on the Blogging Tories roll and I wish the group nothing but good things, in future campaigns.  However, I do believe the time has come for me to leave the fold, with the understanding that there are some principles which we, as bloggers and conservatives, should never breach in the name of political expediency, lest we develop into nothing more than a crutch for a political machine seeking to hold on to power.  That is the direction I see this going in.  That is why I have removed the blogroll from my sidebar.

Good luck to all the Blogging Tories and thanks for all the fish.

It really is a sad day for Conservatism in this country...

"As long as you live under my roof, you will follow my rules!"

It is a mantra that everyone - at least if you were a kid like me - heard from their parent's, over and over.  It amounted to a summation of the fact that they were responsible for providing the roof and the walls, but that fairness and consideration was not a static commodity and would be doled out at their discretion.  Some of us were lucky enough to get as much fairness and consideration as was possible within all circumstances.  Others were not.  But either way, the fact remains that they were right.  They paid the bills.  They made sure the TV worked and there was always food in the cupboard.  They made it possible to take creature comforts for granted.

They were also expected to lead by example.  In this arena, some were miserable failures and that is where we find ourselves today.

When I left the Blogging Tories, Stephen offered me an explanation of his side regarding what I had perceived as censorship of another member on the roll.  His reasons for administering the blogroll with an eye to weeding out incendiary content centered around his culpability, should a lawsuit arise from something posted on a site he administers.  In the political climate of this country, this is a very valid and very real concern.  Why should Stephen be expected to defend his name and reputation in a litigious human rights tribunal, just because one of the BT's wants to refer to the handicapped lieutenant-governor with the comment "pimp the gimp"?  Why should he be expected to continue an association with someone who's average discourse includes such language?

The short answer...he shouldn't.  Stephen is free -- as we all are -- to place his associations wherever he chooses.  And as host to the Blogging Tories forum, he is free to administer it in any way he sees fit.  He pays the bills.  He answers the door to those pesky Jehovah's Witnesses and hustles them back on their way.  We, as members of the roll have no right to expect to be allowed to scream whatever we want from the upstairs window to the street below, and let him answer the door when the cops come calling.  It is unfair to expect such freedom in a forum where he bears at least some small measure of the responsibility, without giving him some say in what he will bear responsibility for.

Having said all that, the reason I decided to uphold my decision to remove the blogroll from my site was due to the fact that despite these very good reasons for doing what he did, I still thought it was wrong. 

I hear, by way of my friend Gerry Nicholls, and since through Richard and Kathy, that since my discussion with Stephen, he has decided to openly declare his intention to censor any discussion on the site which would leave him open to prosecution.  I applaud this choice only because my main argument with the previous instance was that as a Conservative forum, meant for the proliferation of Conservative values, I was under the mistaken impression that free speech was a value held most high and that it was also something worth fighting to uphold.  In that fight, sometimes the other guy lands a few punches and no one wants to be the one to catch them, but someone has to.  Those of us who are willing to take the brunt of that fight don't appreciate weaker nellies who walk under the banner but duck when the fists start flying and being a member of an organization which purports to be fully engaged in that fight, but which turns out to be one of those weaker nellies, feels like a betrayal.  Having an open declaration that some speech will be censored is at very least, honest, and affords the members the choice of whether they are willing to accede to those standards.  Those who find these restrictions acceptable will remain Blogging Tories and thus, have no right to bitch about curtails on their freedom of expression.  Those who do not are free to leave the roll as I did and be responsible for their own words, without saddling Stephen with the burden of defense.

This is the way Conservatives are supposed to do it.  I'll tell you what the rules are and you can follow and stay or rebel and leave.  Stephen told us what the rules are and agree or not, it is his place.  Stay or leave, the choice is yours.

I missed out on the support bandwagon for the latest human rights tribunal scare tactic regarding Free Dominion, only because I had slacked off blogging for long enough that it had come and gone before I ever knew about it.  Had I been aware, I would have proudly declared my support and jumped into the fray with both feet.  I do not believe in conceding to secret persecutions, designed to silence unsavory opinion and shield insidious grievance mongers from criticism and oversight.  I would risk impoverishment, the savaging of my reputation and even imprisonment, in order to tear down such a system.  If enough of us were wiling to do the same, we would not long be forced to suffer beneath the burden of the oppressive political correctness which has laid waste to the social discourse in this country.

Stephen chooses to work within the confines of this restrictive burden, and that choice is his to make  just as any blogger who does not approve of his choice, has a choice of their own to make about whether they wish to continue an association with the Blogging Tories, under these newly declared guidelines.

Say what you like about Stephen, we all owe him a debt of gratitude for launching what has become an organized and respectable forum which allows many conservative voices a larger reach, in a blogosphere which is millions strong.  He stepped into a void and brought legitimacy to what was little more than a rag tag rabble of like voices, singing a similar tune.  The Blogging Tories put conservative bloggers on the mainstream map, in this country.  No mean feat in the Liberal wasteland it was born into.  With this credit though, comes the stipulation that as the declared and recognized loudspeaker through which conservative bloggers may spread their message, the Blogging Tories roll also bears the responsibility to represent conservative values.  The BT roll is the publicly recognized face of the conservative blogosphere in Canada and for those who are prone to take the forum at face value, the impression of censorship will justifiably be viewed as hypocrisy among conservatives and cause for distrust of those who purport to support free speech, but in practice tend to stifle it. 

Not to mention the signal it sends to those who are itching for the chance to land that big fish through a malicious prosecution.  Openly declaring that you are willing to bend and fold at the whim of a system which you find contemptuous and wrong is a betrayal that bares you as the weak elk in the herd, and those are the ones the lions pounce on first.  They do so, because they never want to work too hard for it.  They'd rather win the tiny battles incrementally, because they know in the longer term it will afford them more power.  It also helps to foster and heighten their hubris.  So when a big fish like Stephen offers his throat to the beast, it hurts us all.

That is why he is wrong.  That is why he is losing the more fervent members of his roll.  That is also why he will not be able to keep those malicious prosecutors at bay with such overtures of cooperation.  Terrorists never respond favorably to capitulation and they do not exercise mercy to those who play nicely.  Stephen should know that.

But I don't get his mail.  None of us do.  And we have no right to expect him to take on more risk than he is willing to, on our behalf.  At least he has now been open and honest about his limitations, which is really all we can rightfully expect from him.  I understand and appreciate the reasons for his choice.  I simply disagree with it.

The Right to Offend

A regular reader emailed yesterday, to humbly ask what my opinion is on all this Mark Steyn business going on, on my doorstep.  It is not often I am silent about things like this, and he understandably misunderstood that silence as having been the result of faintheartedness, in light of the possible legal ramifications I could face for weighing in.

The truth is, with my hectic schedule leading up to Christmas, and the abundance of coverage being given in other corners, by Kathy, Kate, neo, Tim, Melanie, Wendy, the team at The Corner and Mark himself, I simply had very little more to offer that hadn’t already been said by others.

However, in a matter so vitally important to the freedom I take so casually for granted, and in order to cut off at the knees any impression that I could be stifled by hypocritical PC censors, I will take measures to stand up and be counted among my betters as listed above.

Let me make one thing abundantly clear; I hold fierce grievance with anyone who thinks that an assault on their delicate sensibilities is an apt excuse to pierce my lips with needle and thread.  I consider it a heinous injustice for them to be allowed to do so, in the absence of any adherence to justice and fairness.  The crack of the whip stings all the more, that they are enabled to do so, at my expense, through a taxpayer-funded victim-cult hive, with extra-judicial powers and no requirement of due process.

The impotent whiners who exercise such a process are cashing in on a racket designed for the sole purpose of excising all independent thought and opinion, from the public discourse.  And every fine imposed by the dictators on the HRC, is a reward to the parasitic victim-horde which openly flays us – and then tells us it is for our own good.

Where the specific case against Mark Steyn is concerned, I intend to open a subscription to Maclean’s magazine, as well as buy a few spare copies of his book, to pass around to friends and family.  I am composing letters to the PM’s office, my MP, the HRC and the Canadian Islamic Congress, in protest of this detestable process.

To the cry-babies of the Canadian Islamic Congress (and their confederates), when they spend a little less time fundraising and making excuses for goat-humping, self-detonating, dickless head-hackers who bomb nightclubs, malls and school buses and fly airliners into office towers -- when they denounce a culture and religion that treats me, as a female infidel, no better than uncovered cat meat and a legitimate target for slaughter -- when they devote as much dedication to instilling freedom in their own land, as they do instilling fear and slavery in mine -- when they begin shunning and eradicating the bloodthirsty, hate-filled chaos junkies among their co-religionists -- then and only then, will I even consider giving a rat’s ass about their feelings.

Or when Mecca is a smoldering pit of ash and glass.  Whichever comes first.