Contact us now: Phone: +111111111



A Hill to Live On

Tue, October 29, 2019   |   Author: Rod Taylor   |   Volume 26    Issue 43 | Share: Facebook | Twitter   

In post-election Canada, as political parties and pundits are surveying the wreckage of the 2019 campaign, various thoughts and theories are being laid out as to the reasons for the return to power of the most corrupt and arrogant Prime Minister in recent memory, albeit with a minority government.

Even with a bought-and-paid-for media ($1.6 billion for CBC and $595 million for a small cadre of government-approved papers goes a long way toward massaging the message), plenty of the PM’s indiscretions came to the surface in the lead-up to this campaign. The SNC-Lavalin scandals, the holiday with the Agha Khan, the treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould, the biased eligibility requirements for access to funds from the Canada Summer Jobs Program, the “blackface” incidents, the soaring deficits, the misguided border policies, etc., etc., were open sores one might have expected to have rendered the Liberals unelectable. Why didn’t they?

It’s easy to blame the media spin. The mainstream media’s collusion with the PM regarding climate-change hysteria and other bugbears may have led a shocking number of Canadians to vote for more of the same: carbon taxes, emissions-hype and glossy promises to “save the planet”. The Climate Strike and Greta Thunberg’s visit to Canada to rally the adherents of anthropocentric global warming and to frighten the children may have also frightened many voters into choosing once more to follow the path of least resistance and let Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna pretend that—with enough tax dollars—they can set the global thermostat. The media gave Greta more coverage than she deserved and it just happened to fit very nicely with election timing.

Some blame the Hon. Mr. Scheer for failing to inspire. The war-weary Leader of the Official Opposition tried in vain to set the tone and the parameters of the debate but was outmaneuvered by both the PM and his media friends. While the basic message of a return to sanity may have resonated with many Canadians, the vast majority were unable to distinguish genuine policy differences from partisan rancour. The much-touted national televised debate did nothing to put a separation between the leaders of the larger parties; most who watched it were disgusted by the rudeness and shallowness of some of the exchanges. Too much in the way of personal attack and too little substance. The party leaders not invited to the debate (like me, for instance) have policies that the media-favoured leaders just won’t talk about: policies to protect life, restore gender sanity, and protect personal freedom. But those ideas just weren’t there.

As Canadians review the results and contemplate what it would take to get different results, some members of the Conservative Party will be calling for a leadership review. The Red Tories will be claiming that it was Mr. Scheer’s hidden social conservatism that caused his candle to flicker and fail. Those in his party who still cherish the hope of a pro-life leader will say—on the contrary—that it was his failure to stand firm in defence of the pre-born and traditional marriage that resulted in such soft support. I agree with the latter group. Since before he became the leader, Mr. Scheer has stated over and over again that he will not . . . and his party will not . . . allow the abortion debate to be “re-opened”. Of course, that debate has never been closed. Only certain people have closed their eyes and have wished that it would go away. But it has not and it cannot just go away. The death of millions of innocent pre-born babies is a taint on our land, a stain that will not just disappear. It’s a stain that must be cleansed by national repentance, by humility on the part of our leaders and a return to the wisdom and ways of God. Leaders who want to bring our nation back from the brink will require courage and a willingness to be mercilessly attacked by the media and by every left-wing organization out there.

The Conservative Leader who now feels the undercurrents of dissent from within his own party has not shown that kind of courage and that kind of willingness. Until or unless he—or someone chosen to replace him—finds what it takes to boldly proclaim the truth and to defend the innocent, he will not inspire small-c conservatives to make the sacrifices necessary to overturn the Liberal oligarchy that now stifles free enterprise, free speech, and the free exercise of religion.

Mr. Trudeau, of course, is much worse . . . but he doesn’t stake his reputation on doing things differently, on balancing the budget, on being conservative. In the recent campaign, he told Canadians—who should know better—that government can solve their problems; apparently, many believed him. Others desperately wanted change. But when people want a real change, they look for a leader who will turn over the tables. They will not settle for a person who compromises on the most basic of human rights and who seeks to purchase power at the expense of the innocent.

It is an assumption of the left—including the Red Tories—that a pro-life position is a liability to a politician, but that is an unproven theory. And whether or not that is the case, moral integrity still requires that we support life, even at the cost of power. Some would say that abortion is a hill to die on. I say that protecting innocent human life is a hill to live on. We must not abandon the pre-born for partisan advantage. Other parties and other leaders are free to choose their own course and they will bear the responsibility for their decisions. As for me and our party, we will serve the Lord and in doing so, we will continue to uphold the sanctity of human life.

Stand with us in this, join today!

Download PDF Version

Other Commentary by Rod Taylor: