View topic - Social Conservatism in Canada needs a battle plan :: Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics

This synopsys of social conservatism in Canada sounded all too accurate to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism_(Canada)

Compared to the United States, social conservatism is not as widespread in Canada. Social conservatives are usually restricted to more rural settings, especially in Western Canada and have generally had very little influence in the Canadian government, although that may be beginning to change with the emergence of the Conservative Party of Canada. Strong expression of social conservatism is usually marginalized in Quebec.
...
In modern Canadian politics, social conservatives were largely regarded as abnormal oddities or religious zealots by officials in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Over the years, many of them felt shunned by a party that was largely led and run by Red Tories for the last half of the twentieth-century.
...
Despite this, social conservatism is viewed with suspicion among the general public in Canada, where only a small minority were polled as being favourable to George W. Bush's reelection as president of the United States. This sentiment contributed to the Conservatives' defeat in the 2004 Canadian election, as many Canadians suspected the Tories of having a hidden social conservative agenda

Long before social conservatism can make any real political headway, there is a huge public-image job to be done. Years of smear hve to be swept away. And clear, easy-to-understand, non-religious arguments for the benefits to society of social conservatism have to be presented.

There needs to be some group organized to undertake this.

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 12:33 pm Post subject:

you guys are already orginized enough. do a search for groups in canada with "christian" in thier name. heck, the biggest orginization on the planet - the roman catholic church - is a social conservative orginization
_________________
Opinions posted on Free Dominion are those of the individual posters and are not necessarily the opinion of Free Dominion or its operators. Free Dominion does not advocate violence, hate speech or an overthrow of the government.

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 12:38 pm Post subject:

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 1:19 pm Post subject:

lol. only with psudo-science and the argument of "tradition" - the same arguments that were used against blacks, and women getting the vote. not to mention non property holders, and non protestants.
_________________
Opinions posted on Free Dominion are those of the individual posters and are not necessarily the opinion of Free Dominion or its operators. Free Dominion does not advocate violence, hate speech or an overthrow of the government.

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 1:32 pm Post subject:

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 1:34 pm Post subject:

Pellaken, you have interesting pre-occupations that are so far removed from modern social conservatism that I won't address them.

Try this example instead:

Families, and women, should have freedom to choose their lifestyle without economic coercion by the state. But Canada's tax system taxes a single-earner two-parent family more heavily than a dual-earner two-parent family making exactly the same income. Add to that a national daycare program that will require more tax revenue and make dual-working even more seductive, and you have the state effectively coercing pepl einto a particular ideological lifestyle choice.

A social conservative would level the playing field so that families and women can truly make free choices.

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 2:03 pm Post subject:

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 2:04 pm Post subject:

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 2:12 pm Post subject:

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 2:20 pm Post subject:

Well, there's an economic aspect to them, but they are not purely economic. There are many way sgovernments oppress people without locking them up in camps. Unfairly taxing families who make traditional lifestyle choices is one of them. This is economics geared to favour one lifestyle over another. It's a social issue.

Queers and abortion constitute only a tiny, infinitesmal part of the universe that is modern life.

How about this - Ontario spends millions of dollars each year - I believe it's around $5-million - providing heritage language classes to teach immigrants' children their parents' mother-tongue. At the same time, it was reported recently that many Toronto schools are unable to pay their utility bills without raiding other parts of their budget. And we all konw the funding mess health care is in. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, it might be nice to teach kids non-Canadian languages, but a socon would recognize that resources are not unlimited and that hard working people have a right to retain at least some of their earnings, and so it seems a little insane to be funding luxuries like heritage language classes for some children when we can't even afford necessities like timely heart operations for Canadians or heat and lights for all school children.

Again, money involved. But with serious social effects.

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 2:49 pm Post subject:

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 2:59 pm Post subject:

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 2:59 pm Post subject:

It is one thing to disagree with a homosexual's choice of lifestyle.
This can be done without being insulting or denigrating to the individual.

At the same time, I'd expect anyone - homosexual or heterosexual or whatever - to be mature enough and capable enough to handle criticism and disagreement without running to the human rights tribune or whatever.

And your attempt to label all so-cons as necessarily Christians is just plain wrong.
Try and argue the merits of homosexuality in a Jewish Temple, or an Islamic Mosque.
For that matter, try it in the atheist homes of immigrant/ethnic groups like the Chinese or Koreans.

I doubt you'll find much agreement or approval with your views.
_________________
http://dai-head-jai.blogspot.com/

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 3:16 pm Post subject:

Posted: 09/ 08/ 05 3:46 pm Post subject:

Gays, gays, gays.

How about demographics, CPP, and immigration?

Canadian baby-boomers (Pellaken's parents, judging by his posted age) are retiring in droves soon, and most ha've been so preoccupied with materilaism and liberal-vlues that they've not prepared a generation of Canadians to follow them to pay for their retirement. Liberals say that we must have massive immigration to make up the shortfall or there'll be economic apocalypse. But in doing so, they are liikely to change the very nature of Canada though importation of radically different cultures. A socon would first say that the nvael-gazing boomers should be allowed to reap what they've sown, rather than sell the country's soul, and then ask for the proof of this economic doomsday, proof which as yet to be produced from among the left-wing rhetoric.

	The time now is 09/ 02/ 10 3:41 pm
	Home ∴ Forum ∴ Recent ∴ Register ∴ Profile ∴ Log in to check your private messages ∴ Log in FAQ ∴ Search ∴ Donate ∴ Activist's Toolbox ∴ FD Links ∴ FD Swag [ Login to join chat ] FD Arcade - Click Here-->