The Great Right North?

onthebottom · Apr 6, 2005

It's so rare that anyone down here bothers to write anything about your politics that I felt compelled to post an article today that appeared in the National Review Online:

OTB

The Great Right North?
Conservatives may finally be getting their act together in Canada

By:John O'Sullivan

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece appears in the April 11, 2005, issue of National Review.

If you had swallowed the general view of the Canadian news media, the national convention of the (relatively) new Canadian Conservative Party in Montreal was likely to be a sad and solemn wake. Unfortunately, nobody told the corpse, who got up and danced a decorous Canadian reel. About 2,900 Tories had gathered in Montreal — a pretty large gathering by Canadian standards and, as the Tories kept emphasizing, somewhat larger than the national convention of the ruling Liberals two weeks previously. Despite the urgings of the media that they should split back into the two hostile parties whose merger had created the CCP less than two years ago, they showed a firm determination to settle their disagreements within a unified party. And they gave off strong whiffs of enthusiasm, combativeness, and momentum.

Maybe, like Rick in Casablanca, they were misinformed, for Canada's political terrain is pretty inhospitable to the Right in several ways. In the first place, the Tories are living in a pre-Goldwater country — namely, one in which an essentially conservative population lives under the hegemony of liberal institutions, a liberal political culture, and liberal elites. As in the U.S., the major cultural institutions, the media, and even business corporations are solidly liberal in their leanings. They shape a political climate of liberal orthodoxy that inevitably distorts both the opinions and the allegiance of the voters. Thus, some perfectly respectable policies, such as regulating abortion, become more or less unthinkable because they run counter to the strong convictions of the liberal elite.

What makes Canada still more inhospitable to conservatism is the 1982 adoption of a new constitution with a Charter of Rights written by Pierre Trudeau. That subjected Canada's traditional parliamentary sovereignty to a written constitution interpreted by the courts. It thereby entrenched liberal policies against conservative electoral victories. The courts, for instance, are currently in the process of introducing gay marriage through constitutional interpretation. So Canadian liberalism enjoys political as well as cultural hegemony...

red · May 3, 2005

yes its been hell living under the new constitution with all those guaranteed rights. damn you PET, damn you to hell

Truncador · May 3, 2005

O'Sullivan said:
Canada's political terrain is pretty inhospitable to the Right in several ways. In the first place, the Tories are living in a pre-Goldwater country — namely, one in which an essentially conservative population lives under the hegemony of liberal institutions, a liberal political culture, and liberal elites. As in the U.S., the major cultural institutions, the media, and even business corporations are solidly liberal in their leanings. They shape a political climate of liberal orthodoxy that inevitably distorts both the opinions and the allegiance of the voters. Thus, some perfectly respectable policies, such as regulating abortion, become more or less unthinkable because they run counter to the strong convictions of the liberal elite.

Ironically, part of the problem here is that Canadians are far more genuinely conservative than Americans. Conservatism in America is simply the brand name of what's really a radical, libertarian ideology with some conservative elements in it, Whig rather than Tory. In Canada, we have the genuine Tory article, which is less a definite political programme than a diffuse ethos to the effect of: Don't make waves; know your place; love, trust, and obey the authorities, whose actions it isn't up to you to question. This ideology permeates Canadian thought and social action from top to bottom. Even more ironically, this ideology's inherent distrust of individual initiative and autonomy forms one of the great pillars of the Leftist cultural hegemony O'Sullivan makes reference to.

What makes Canada still more inhospitable to conservatism is the 1982 adoption of a new constitution with a Charter of Rights written by Pierre Trudeau. That subjected Canada's traditional parliamentary sovereignty to a written constitution interpreted by the courts. It thereby entrenched liberal policies against conservative electoral victories. The courts, for instance, are currently in the process of introducing gay marriage through constitutional interpretation. So Canadian liberalism enjoys political as well as cultural hegemony...

The rationale for the fake Bill of Rights initially had more to do with Trudeau's totalitarian, centralizing aspirations than ideology as such; he saw in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution the model for an instrument to undermine the powers of the Provinces and substitute Federal will for regional autonomy. Some of the Provinces noticed that, however, and insisted on an override clause. What remained is a document that can't even enforce the rights it guarantees- not that it guaranteed many of those to begin with (of the three most fundamental human rights- right to property, to keep and bear arms, and to speak freely on all subjects- it ignored the first two altogether and explicitly provided for restrictions on the third

). Now we have an instrument that's good for nothing except giving the stamp of judicial legitimacy to the pet projects of the elite (most of which are based on crazy academic theories rather than law, and are often very explicitly defined in opposition to law and rights as traditionally understood in the Anglosphere).

langeweile · May 3, 2005

There is no way in hell, that Harper will be PM in Canada. He is just palin boring. A leader without charisma.

red · May 3, 2005

langeweile said:
There is no way in hell, that Harper will be PM in Canada. He is just palin boring. A leader without charisma.

that is the real problem. he has zero personality- he is a backroom guy who somehow got in front of the party. its ridiculous

onthebottom · May 3, 2005

This is an oldie but a goody, what got this post refreshed?

OTB

strange1 · May 3, 2005

Truncador said:
...(of the three most fundamental human rights- right to property, to keep and bear arms, and to speak freely on all subjects- ....

The fundamental human right to bear arms? That sound like a joke of Americanization to me. It has been far more common throughout civilized history for the right to carry and use lethal force to be restricted to those are required to use them to protect that civilization. Even though early democracies required all citizens to participate in national defence, the requirements for citizenship were extremely limited and those rights were not applicable to all other people in the society. In addition, those citizens were only allowed to bear those arms in protection of their state against their enemies. The greeks were not given the freedom to use their weapons against other citizens during peace time and were only allowed to possess those weapons through economic necessity and the need to prove their financial means. Even today, there is not a single civilized nation that does not limit the "right" to bear arms. (Unless you want to become an Afghani Warlord)

As for a couple of specific examples:
- At the time that the US constitution was put on paper, guns were still predominantly a tool that allowed hunters to provide food or to protect the farmstead from predators. The constitution merely aped the Athenian Democracy, requiring citizens to participate in national defence and as with the Athenians, they knew it was more cost effective to have the people provide their own weapons.
- Look at how useful the right to bear arms has been to Iraqi insurgents. Do they have the fundamental right to bear arms as well?

For a society to survive, it is essential that the society restrict all activities that could disrupt their way of life. People do have the fundamental right to possess the tools that support their lives. The ability to own guns in the modern world presents NO advantage to those owning them in their daily lives except to feel protected from others claiming the same "right."

If you accept the idea of fundamental human rights, it would be simply limited to the right to try to survive, meaning food and shelter. (or "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" if you prefer) Any other right are purchased by the individual. If a person is willing to gain the other "rights" associated with being a member of a particular society, they also have to accept that the limitations that the society puts on them.

Simply, if you find Canadian culture to "Socialist" for your tastes, you have the right to attempt to buy into another culture but don't let the border guard kick you in the ass on your way south.

BTW the charter is Law so by definition, laws based on it, whether "pet projects of the elite" or not, are based on law.

langeweile · May 3, 2005

strange1 said:
As for a couple of specific examples:
- At the time that the US constitution was put on paper, guns were still predominantly a tool that allowed hunters to provide food or to protect the farmstead from predators. The constitution merely aped the Athenian Democracy, requiring citizens to participate in national defence and as with the Athenians, they knew it was more cost effective to have the people provide their own weapons.
QUOTE]

This is only partially true.
The right to bear arms was put in place so the civil defense could remain in place.
At the time the USA had no regular standing army, and relied on it's citizens for defense.

Truncador · May 3, 2005

strange1 said:
The fundamental human right to bear arms? That sound like a joke of Americanization to me.

At its common law origins, the right to arms pre-dates written history in England. The theoretical basis for the right, as you note is of classical origin, and made its way to England (where it was individualized in accordance with the culture there) through the Italian renaissance works of Machiavelli, Guiccardini, and others (but mostly Machivelli).

It has been far more common throughout civilized history for the right to carry and use lethal force to be restricted to those are required to use them to protect that civilization.

Social relations in most of those civilizations are accurately described by Clint Eastwood's memorable line in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: "There are two sorts of people in this world: those with guns and those who dig. Now start digging".

Even though early democracies required all citizens to participate in national defence, the requirements for citizenship were extremely limited and those rights were not applicable to all other people in the society.

Although many civilizations, usually Monarchies or States of the modern sort, will make use of slaves or corvee to meet military manpower requirements, there is a strong cross-cultural and cross-historical tendency to see the bearing of arms and full citizenship rights as isometric and inextricable. See Clint Eastwood's remarks above. For example, among the Anglo-Saxons the ritual of manumission by which a serf was freed involved the bestowal of arms upon him by his former master. Among the Mahometans, Dhimmis were traditionally forced to pay a fine in lieu of bearing arms, which was forbidden them due to their degraded status. No patriarchal society allows women to bear arms or exercise citizenship rights; in modern America, children and felons are disbarred both from voting and owning guns. I could continue.

In addition, those citizens were only allowed to bear those arms in protection of their state against their enemies. The greeks were not given the freedom to use their weapons against other citizens during peace time

What they were forbidden from doing was hitting the streets decked out in armour and looking for trouble, not using arms for self-defense*. In cultures such as these, by convention a man who's entitled to bear arms can- and must- be willing and able to not only defend, but avenge himself. It is the latter that the ancient codes sought to address.

*the modern equivalent would be going out in public in a bullet-proof vest and armed with an assault rifle- something you wouldn't even survive long enough to be prosecuted for doing in most of America.

Even today, there is not a single civilized nation that does not limit the "right" to bear arms. (Unless you want to become an Afghani Warlord)

This proves nothing. The modern notion of an inherent right to arms is not an all-or-nothing proposition and was never understood as such. It holds that individual have a right to own and carry defensive weaponry (small arms) for defensive purposes as regulated by law, which right is not presently recognized in Commonwealth countries (in spite of being guaranteed at common law) and much of Europe.

At the time that the US constitution was put on paper, guns were still predominantly a tool that allowed hunters to provide food or to protect the farmstead from predators. The constitution merely aped the Athenian Democracy, requiring citizens to participate in national defence and as with the Athenians, they knew it was more cost effective to have the people provide their own weapons

Although cost-effectiveness was, and remains, a key selling point for the right to arms (as it is for rights in general), the right was articulated, first and foremost, as a right, not a policy instrument. Your argument is perhaps more suitable for Canada, which pre-Confederation had pretty much the same militia ordinances as neighbouring US states, but which did not mention anything about rights.

Look at how useful the right to bear arms has been to Iraqi insurgents. Do they have the fundamental right to bear arms as well

Actually they did. Out there, being disarmed is about on a par with being forced to have a sex change, and even the tyrant was forced to allow male heads of households to own weapons (including full-auto assault rifles).

If you meant that as an ethical question, everyone who behaves is entitled to the right to arms, among others. Penitentiary and gallows (or immediate termination in combat) for the rest.

Truncador · May 3, 2005

Cont'd

If you accept the idea of fundamental human rights, it would be simply limited to the right to try to survive, meaning food and shelter. (or "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" if you prefer)

Isn't defense of your food and shelter against human and animal predators part and parcel of survival ?

For a society to survive, it is essential that the society restrict all activities that could disrupt their way of life. People do have the fundamental right to possess the tools that support their lives. The ability to own guns in the modern world presents NO advantage to those owning them in their daily lives except to feel protected from others claiming the same "right."

See the standard criminological reference sources on this subject by John Lott and Gary Kleck for dissenting analysis. Above and beyond the dollars-and-cents of crime deterrence and such, in a free democracy it is essential that the masses be armed in order to socially put them on a par with their leaders and thus prevent the re-introduction of paternal government.

If a person is willing to gain the other "rights" associated with being a member of a particular society, they also have to accept that the limitations that the society puts on them.

The socialist fallacy lies in reasoning that since rights must be limited in order for society to exist, they inherently threaten the social and must be restricted infinitely or eliminated altogether. Again, the notion of the right to arms already incorporates social restrictions in its very concept; there's a big difference between a handgun in a nightstand and private fortifications or nuclear weapons.

Simply, if you find Canadian culture to "Socialist" for your tastes, you have the right to attempt to buy into another culture but don't let the border guard kick you in the ass on your way south.

the charter is Law so by definition, laws based on it, whether "pet projects of the elite" or not, are based on law.

One of the reasons English-speaking countries never have dictatorships or extermination death camps is because it's held that law is never simply the will of the Sovereign, but must conform to certain standards enshrined in custom. If radical feminists talked the Feds into outlawing male genitalia as a rape-prevention measure, that would not be seen as deserving of the name "law", but rather as a wild act of arbitrary will- no matter whether the State is legally authorized to do it or not. Ironically, this principle is a cornerstone of legitimate judicial review (as opposed to the judicial activism that plagues both Canada and the USA).

wollensak · May 3, 2005

Thanks, Strange1

Excellent rebuttal. I think our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is terrific.
We actually live by it up here, instead of constanly yakking about how great it is and then trying to circumvent it. I am sure if you took a poll, a majority of Canadians would view it as fundamental to our society. Liberal elite, my ass.

strange1 · May 3, 2005

Truncador said:
At its common law origins, the right to arms pre-dates written history in England. The theoretical basis for the right, as you note is of classical origin, and made its way to England ....

You keep mentioning common law. England has an oustandingly long history of common law but STILL puts severe restrictions on fire-arms. I wouldn't be surprised if the right to own other types of arms (swords, spears, etc) was protected but not guns (probably because guns were a more recent and government controlled invention).

Truncador · May 3, 2005

strange1 said:
You keep mentioning common law. England has an oustandingly long history of common law but STILL puts severe restrictions on fire-arms. I wouldn't be surprised if the right to own other types of arms (swords, spears, etc) was protected but not guns (probably because guns were a more recent and government controlled invention).

Guns were protected too. (link to useful summary). Apparently, it was only following WW1 that the English lost their gun rights.

K Douglas · May 4, 2005

red said:
yes its been hell living under the new constitution with all those guaranteed rights. damn you PET, damn you to hell

What new rights did the Charter entrench that we didn't have prior to its enaction? The only people that benefit from this flawed document are minority and special interest groups, immigrants (including illegals) and criminals. No native rights, no distinct society recognition for Quebec, no elected senate, extended judiciary powers at the expense of elected parliamentarians. Great legacy PET, not to mention the invention of patronage and running up huge deficits, wage and price controls, a bloated bureaucracy..................should I continue?

The Brus · May 4, 2005

It always bothers me on this board, that whenever a good conversation goes on, jerks like bbking have to call people names. He also regards anyone who disagrees with him as cement heads or other epithets. Truncador has good reasoned arguments for one point of view. Others have equally good arguments for other points of view. They are not idiots or morons, but serious individuals with an opinion.

red · May 4, 2005

K Douglas said:
What new rights did the Charter entrench that we didn't have prior to its enaction? The only people that benefit from this flawed document are minority and special interest groups, immigrants (including illegals) and criminals. No native rights, no distinct society recognition for Quebec, no elected senate, extended judiciary powers at the expense of elected parliamentarians. Great legacy PET, not to mention the invention of patronage and running up huge deficits, wage and price controls, a bloated bureaucracy..................should I continue?

LMAO

Truncador · May 4, 2005

Of Common Laws and Cement

While most European countries are governed by formal legal codices that every once in a while re-design society and life from the top down at the will and pleasure of elites, English-speaking countries rely in the main on a mass of court rulings, acts of Parliament, ancient statutes, and unwritten customs dating back to the late Middle Ages and beyond. This common-law heritage is the font from which stems, variously, fundamental rights such as the right to arms, jury trials, and habeas corpus; basic institutions of government from Parliament at the top to justices of the peace at the bottom; and the rules which order Canadian life to this day. The businessman of 21st century Toronto thus abides in his fast-paced modern life by laws and institutions his medieval ancestors would recognize- and above all insists on many of the same rights as the latter.

In most of Europe, the customary rights and privileges of the Feudal era were summarily wiped out by absolute monarchs who rescinded the privileges of the nobles, dissolved the local Parliaments, and exclusively identified their will with law. The absolute unlimited will of the State found expression in the great written legal codes, the detailed and all-embracing "police" regulations, the metric system, and other attempts to engineer a perfect social machine from the top down, a project that was taken to its reductio ad absurdam conclusion in the Nazi death camps and Soviet gulag.

England and her colonies were spared that fate because, thanks to the common-law heritage, absolutism never got off the ground in England; by the time various Kings started getting these sorts of ambitions, it was held that the common law, the traditional liberties, and the "ancient Constitution" were binding on the Crown and not emanations of Royal will, that the law of the land and the will of the Prince were not the same thing, and moreover that an absolute monarch, far from being the father of his people entitled to unconditional loyalty, was himself a mere rebel or traitor- who could and would be put on trial as one- if he overstepped his bounds or encroached on the ancient liberties of the subject.

The feudal origins of the common law also colour Anglo notions of freedom and legal equality in a very important way. In most of Europe, legal freedom means, above all, obedience to duly enacted and impartial rules, and equality means all stand equal in their subordination before the public power without preference. The common-law mind construes freedom in terms of personal sovereignty; it models its notions of liberty after the inviolable privileges and autonomy the feudal aristocracy claimed against the Prince; it understands equality to mean that every adult ought to be a peer of the realm and enjoy the liberty once reserved for haughty barons.

In short: The common law and the mentality associated with it is one of God's greatest gifts to humanity. If we are to renounce common law rights such as the right to arm on the spurious grounds that it was associated with "slavery", we might just as well renounce life as we know it in favour of a more suitable model- say, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Cement head, indeed- it is an honourable name.

Peeping Tom · May 4, 2005

Sorry, but when the left practices shrill hoplophobia decent citizens dismiss this as the chattering of mush heads. Me, I'm fine with cement, it beats mush any day of the week.

bbking said:
Guys like Trunc will tell you over and over again about their individual rights to own guns and their just simply wrong and passing off more right wing cement head BS.

bbk

strange1 · May 4, 2005

T.

What do you have against the metric system? Too easy to use?

Truncador · May 4, 2005

strange1 said:
T.

What do you have against the metric system? Too easy to use?

The will to power behind it. The same reason why NASCAR is superior to that despicably totalitarian Formula 1 racing.

The Great Right North?

Never Been Justly Banned

you must be fk'n kid'g me

New member

Banned

you must be fk'n kid'g me

Never Been Justly Banned

Guest

Banned

New member

New member

New member

Guest

New member

Half Man Half Amazing

Guest

you must be fk'n kid'g me

New member

Boil them in Oil

Guest

New member