Open letter to CPC leader Erin O’Toole
2020 Sep 25
To: Hon. Erin O’Toole
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario
Subject: Open letter on conservatism in the CPC
Dear Mr. O’Toole,
I will tell you up front that I did not vote for you to be leader because you gave signs of not fully understanding conservative positions. Please give me a chance to render my understanding, including the ideological opposition. That opposition is firstly the socialist movement that began in the nineteenth century and has persisted in their intention of converting the whole world to socialism. A century ago they were joined by the liberal camp in a blend I call the socialist-liberal movement. Remember that all the goals in the CCF platform of 1933 were passed into law by Liberal governments. Today, the Liberals will probably try to bring in a guaranteed income under the umbrella of the Covid-19 crisis measures. That is a socialist goal.
The basic attitude of a socialist is that every person is born into a club called society and the club has rules. The basic rules are that every member is responsible for every other and the role of the club leadership is to manage the club as a whole. In the political arena it predicates the government’s role to create a society that looks good and not to be obstructed by any rights that get in the way. For example, if poverty is seen in one quarter while wealth is seen in another, then the government may take wealth from one and transfer it to the other, then take satisfaction in the result and consider their job done. What is missing in the action is justice for the individual and the right of people to security of their property, including in this case, their money.
The conservative alternative, as I see it, starts with the view that a person is born as a free agent into a situation and belongs to any club by volition, not by birth. It is a short reach from there to the idea that every person has certain fundamental rights that come before government (a priori). Government action should therefore be limited by these rights. The socialist liberal establishment will not admit to that but instead observes only those rights it told the population it has. Of course, these rights are designed to permit the government to design society by law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an example where there are no property rights so that the government may control all assets of the nation irrespective of ownership. The Charter also has a proviso that any rights stated in it will be sacrificed if necessary to the government’s design of society. Many conservatives believe that government should abide by rights, not ignore them.
A socialist-liberal government, such as we have, believes its mission is to design an ideal society and an ideal society should include everybody in all its workings. That government propagates a variety of notions to support its effort, such as the maxim that discrimination regarding people is always wrong. Because of incessant propaganda on this idea most Canadians now regard it as almost the eleventh commandment. In truth it was predicated by the government’s plan and is not a fundamental right. The fundamental right is that a person may control what he and she own and is best exemplified in ownership of their home. Hardly anyone would deny that a person may choose who to admit or not into their home for any reason and there is no appeal to their decision. Why? Because it is recognized that the person owns the home and therefore has the sole right to control it. Yet, inconsistently, this right is not accorded to other premises that the person owns, like his place of business for example. I attribute this to effective conditioning of the population by all media and places of learning.
Indeed, the first basic problem with socialist-liberal ideology is that it does not comprehend what fundamental rights actually are and in any case have put the design of society as paramount, over rights. The second problem is that they do not include in their design justice for the individual but instead justice for the group. Hence, the term “social justice”. Conservatives should shun this term.
The waywardness of left wing ideology on rights is evident in the following social issues.
Same Sex Marriage- the true right involved is that a group of people may join together to manifest anything about themselves that they choose. Millenia ago the heterosexual group did that in creating the ritual of marriage and it is reasonable to believe it is their ritual. In this century the socialist liberal GOC unilaterally expanded marriage to include homosexual couples because its goal was a completely undifferentiated society in accordance with its ideology. The goal is unrealistic because, for example, the difference between male and female is real and in Nature is not equivocal.
The government pushed its idea by the clever device of treating marriage as a generic thing, like mating. If it was just mating their idea was correct because mating is a natural thing requiring only the mutual consent of the parties involved. Even animals mate. Marriage, however, is not the same as mating. It is a man-made thing for the purpose of formalizing the union of a man and a woman. That is how it was invented and followed for thousands of years in every culture. The GOC ignored that precedent. Today, we recognize that the homosexual population has the same right which means they may create an institution like marriage but called something else.
I noticed that the Supreme Court did not pick up on the denial of the right of the heterosexual population to have a unique institution like marriage and I concluded that it was part of the ideological establishment.
Homosexual propaganda- in this century we have been inundated with messages from the government, the news media, the entertainment media, the education systems, gay pride parades and celebrities, that homosexual people have equal rights. That is a cover for the real message that homosexuality has the same value as heterosexuality- it is just a choice like choosing a career. Without doubt, a person has the right to choose a homosexual life (in our day, who believes they don’t?) but that does not imply that the choice is equal to heterosexuality. The latter brings new human beings into the world to replace the ones who die. Importantly, it also provides a natural purpose to a person’s life: to care for the new person he and she brought into the world as a product of themselves. The bond is natural and solid and includes the majority of humanity.
Adoption- the soc-lib establishment says that a homosexual couple have the same right to adopt a child as a heterosexual couple. The real right is that both have an equal right to apply to adopt a particular child. In any adoption situation, however, the dominant right is held by the child. He/she may choose the applicant who appears to offer the best environment to him/her. Since the child is presumably immature, the right is normally exercised by a guardian who has the responsibility to make the best choice for the welfare of the child. Concurrent with the responsibility is the finality of the guardian’s decision. He/she may therefore attach demerit to a homosexual application when there is a worthy application from a heterosexual couple and the child is probably heterosexual.
Abortion- The soc-lib establishment claims that a woman has the right to control her body and this includes the right to terminate the life of a baby in her womb. The premise is false. The baby in her womb is not a regular or even a contiguous part of her body (it is connected only thru an umbilical cord) and is, in fact, a new body- that of a new human being. This is completely clear when the baby emerges from the womb. Why would anyone think its essence is different when in the womb? The right the soc-lib camp accords to the mother is to terminate a life when it is inconvenient to her. However, that is a gross violation of the baby’s right to personal security and morally repugnant to people who value every human life.
Immigration policy- we have a prime minister who has, on a number of occasions we know of, coloured himself to look like a person of another race. Not just his face but his limbs too. When he became prime minister he vacationed with his family on an island owned by the leader of a Muslim sect. When he came back he appointed a black Muslim man as Minister of Immigration. Since then a high proportion of immigrants have dark skin. Can you connect the dots? It appears that Mr. Trudeau is trying to destroy the hegemony of white people in Canada. Someone should ask him, “what is wrong with white Canadians that it is necessary to replace them?”
People of European descent who condone this immigration policy are supporting the destruction of their own heritage.
Moreover, the socialist-liberal view on immigration is idealistic and naive. They believe the world is composed of people who are thoroughly the same underneath skin that may vary in colour. Actually, the world is a patch quilt of groups who evolved more or less in isolation from each other until a century and a half ago. Each manifests a variety of beliefs, ranging from the mundane to the supernatural, physical characteristics, mental ability, attitude to the place of the individual person in a society of people and the status of women. It can be a mistake to mix incompatible groups and we have witnessed that in our southern neighbour since 1865.
Fundamentally, the people of a country have a right to preserve their heritage, especially when it included much sacrifice by ancestors and defense in wars. That right is trod on by all the left wing parties and some Conservatives.
Taxation- the socialist-liberal programs of wealth redistribution simply take money from those who have it and give it directly or through subsidy to those who do not and the taking is under the threat of violence if there is not compliance. If that does not meet the definition of robbery, what does?
A Conservative government should prefer taxation on a quid pro quo basis as much as practical.
Economic development- you have probably heard/read the adage that in a work project twenty percent of the people will do eighty percent of the work. Rewarding the twenty percent justly for their contribution is the key to economic progress. It probably explains the amazing ascendance of the United States after their civil war. A socialist system offers nothing to that twenty percent except the burden of carrying everybody else. That is probably why the socialist experiments of the last century failed. The twenty percent got fed up and did no more than the eighty percent for the same reward. The goal of rewarding the twenty percent justly should be part of the Conservative program.
The socialist-liberal establishment has succeeded almost totally in taking over all levers of power in the Western World. They succeeded because so many people saw the coming ideas for political and social norms as trends, like the “in” wall colours or fashion trends. Many regarded them as a tide that could not be stopped. Ideas, especially in the political arena, are not just trends or tides. They are prime movers that should be evaluated before adoption or a country can go down the wrong road. We saw that in the last century too. I believe Canada is going down the wrong road. The destiny of man is not to be the human equivalent of cows grazing on the human equivalent of pasture which appears to be the extent of socialist-liberal ideology. That is not a worthy vision. I see man’s destiny as enterprise, one after another and many in parallel, driven by the twenty percent who shoulder responsibility, take risks and do eighty percent of the work. That, if I may say so, is the conservative vision of the future.
Robert Stephen Higgins
Author of Human Rights, What Are They Really? (2008) and Governance for a New Era (2020)
Filed under: Comments to gov't organizations, Uncategorized | October 1st, 2020