Something very disturbing has happen as regards the many social issues that have arisen to prominence in the last 20 years. Opinions that were once very common and widespread now get vilified whenever they are expressed publicly. In many cases, the opinion remains very common and very widespread, but now those who publicly express these opinions are assumed to have hateful motives – or else they are simply dismissed for being “ignorant”.
Fifteen years ago, a person could publicly declare that they support the traditional definition of marriage, that they don’t believe in global warming, or that there are only two genders. They could express concerns regarding radical Islam, or express a desire to secure our border. Today, if you still believe in traditional marriage, your heart is full of hate and you don’t believe in inclusion, or equality, or diversity. Today, if you even suggest that climate hysteria is not likely to produce good environmental or economic policies, you are a heretic, a denier. Today, if you say there are two genders, or express concern about the lack of parameters surrounding a whole plethora of SOGI 123 policies that might transform our public and private schools, you are a transphobic/homophobic bigot. Today, expressing concerns about Islam’s political goals (or the means some Muslims choose to advance them) makes you Islamophobic. Today, if you say that our immigration system is broken, that our immigration process should favor high-skilled immigrants, that those who enter illegally and cut the line should not be unfairly rewarded, that we should direct more resources to law enforcement so to stem the flow of illegal crossings, and that we should increase the speed by which those crossing illegally are deported, you are a racist. You may be quoting Barrack Obama in 2009, but you are a racist. You are not allowed to worry that “immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time they already feel they’ve gotten a raw deal for over a decade.” Again, you are quoting Barrack Obama, but how dare you? Such talk makes you alt-right, a white supremacist, a Nazi. Today, if you publicly defend freedom of expression, you are a Fascist.
Political correctness allows certain “progressive” radicals to set the boundaries on what ideas are acceptable within a society, and what ideas are not. It was designed to shift the balance between Right and Left by silencing the views of the Right while giving a megaphone to the views on the Left. The Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens have been using it to great effect. Within the culture they have managed to frame the Right as being hateful, while the Left is presented as a movement for peace and for humanity. These “progressive” radicals use words like “tolerance”, “respect”, “diversity” and “inclusion”, but they ignore what these words actually mean.
Political correctness is not nice. It is not peaceful. It has only one tool to compel the kind of behavior and speech it demands – fear of the mob. It seeks to shut down voices of dissent and shame those it regards as the “oppressor”. The goal is to make the price of voicing dissent too high (lost friends, lost wages, lost careers, etc.).
Many today fearfully censor what they say, living in terror of using a word or expressing a thought that will have them labelled as a bigot, a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe. Making things worse is that the standards of political correctness are ever-shifting, and a term or opinion deemed respectable today might be deemed hateful tomorrow.
So, if you’re not in alignment with the agenda that “progressive” radicals are aggressively advancing, how do you fight back? Conservative leader Andrew Scheer seems to think that he can win by being evasive and offering concessions. Conservatives avoid weighing in on the most polarizing issues because they don’t want to be called nasty names. During the SOGI 123 debate in Chilliwack, Conservative MP Mark Strahl said nothing. Local MLAs weighed in, but not our Member of Parliament.
Scheer’s team has disqualified candidates for publicly supporting the traditional definition of marriage or for proclaiming that there are only two sexes/genders. In the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Dr. Ann Gillies was prevented from being a candidate for the Conservatives for this very reason. Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson twice applied to run as a Conservative Party candidate, but the CPC rejected her application because she was an outspoken critic of LGBT ideology who had the audacity to express her biblical beliefs publicly.
Scheer wants the pro-life vote, but he has repeatedly stated that he’ll oppose any attempt to open the debate on abortion. Many Conservatives seem a little confused concerning their leader’s stance. While many insist that a Conservative MP would be allowed to bring forth a private members bill on the issue, Deputy Leader Lisa Raitt says any attempt by backbench MPs to re-open the abortion debate would be shut down by a Conservative government. Raitt told CBC Radio that Scheer’s position has been clear: a Conservative government would not muzzle any of its MPs, but it would work to defeat any moves to restrict abortion. So, Conservatives MPs would be allowed to bring forth a private member’s bill, but they would probably be punished by the party for doing so. Also, to maintain cabinet solidarity, any member of Scheer’s cabinet would have to vote against any bill restricting abortion.
The “progressive” agenda is a giant threatening the Canada we know and love. It works to transform Canada into something we can no longer recognize. One of the most famous stories in the Bible is David verse Goliath. Goliath was a giant who intimidated the whole army of the Israelites, destroying their morale, rendering them dismayed and greatly afraid. When David shows up, he is young, he is small, and he is untrained in war, but he is bold. He wants to take on the giant. His eldest brother, Eliab, angrily opposes David, ridiculing him for being a mere shepherd and calling him conceited and wicked. David wonders where such anger comes from. He appeals to King Saul, and Saul tells him “You are not able to go out against the Philistine and fight him; you are only a young man, and he has been a warrior from his youth.” A lot of people know how this story ends. David goes, and David triumphs.
The PPC is a young party, and we are bold. Many accuse us of being conceited and wicked. They hurl angry insults at us for daring to discuss things they don’t want discussed. They dismiss us a small and irrelevant, and they tell us that we cannot possibly take on the giants threatening our land, and win.
When it comes to political correctness, the contrast between Scheer and Bernier is stark. Maxime Bernier has a very different approach to dealing with political correctness: don’t play. Why play by rules written by “progressive” radicals – rules that even they won’t abide by? The PPC has a leader who calls out the “progressive” radicals when they cross lines that defy logic or common decency. When a trans-woman was dragging actual women before a human rights court because they did not want to wax “her” balls, one party cried foul and spoke up in defense of the women. On SOGI 123, on abortion, on climate change, on immigration, the PPC speaks. We don’t always agree with each other, but we speak. We know we must engage with the culture on these issues because politics is downstream of culture, and if you surrender the culture to the “progressive” radicals, the politics will eventually follow.
The PPC won’t retreat from having the hard conversations, knowing full well that we invite insult after insult for refusing to surrender. Political correctness is a perilous game for those who champion traditional values and common sense – – the only winning move is not to play.
People's Party of Canada
Join our team of supporters and help us bring freedom and prosperity to Canada!
Sign up to our Free Newsletter
Not a member of the People’s Party of Canada? You can still sign up to receive our newsletter!