Tuesday, September 28, 2021
PTBC is about normal
principled conservative viewpoints.

PTBC has over 12,000 articles written by several columnists, over 20+ years.

What the…? Tories resurrect Court Challenges Program

Related Articles

How to lose

BC Liberal Party website — They obviously put out a news release announcing their leadership debate, stating, as even their own website states, that you can stream it at their website. The Globe and Mail said so too, even. But go to their website, and nothing like an anticipatory video teaser is there. Like they're not even set up for it. Or don't care if you watch it. You can, they say, watch it on Facebook. But I won't support that crap. So heckofa job, Libbies.

Click to (not) watch it

 

Canadians love their cheap Chinese trinkets despite the moral question

Globe and Mail — Startling reports out of the Port of Vancouver indicate just how much Canadians care that communist China was (and still is) holding Canadian and American citizens illegally, steals intellectual property from everyone around the world, is a rogue racist state, an authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship, which is bent on global communist domination, which enslaves and arguably eliminates ethnic groups, and which pollutes the entire globe to beat hell.

The Port of Vancouver is sending record numbers of empty shipping containers to Asia ... The reason so many shipping containers are going back to Asia filled with nothing but air has to do with a surge in consumer demand for Asian goods ...

...There were 597,443 TEUs of empty containers exported from Vancouver in the first eight months of this year, up 89 per cent from the same period in 2020. And 2020 was previously the record-high year for empty-container shipments from the port.

Almost half of all the containers that have left Vancouver so far this year have been empty.

In total, the Port of Vancouver has handled 2.55 million TEUs of both imports and exports during the first eight months of 2021, up 17 per cent from the same period in 2020.

China is the largest shipper into the Port of Vancouver of containerized merchandise, including consumer goods.

What happened to all that bellyaching about "sustainability?" It doesn't apply to the country of Canada itself? Trudeau? Liberals? Maybe lose the woke BS, lose the love and admiration for "that basic dictatorship" and labels that read "Fabrique en Chine," raise the Canadian flag that you've shamed from its now months-long half-mast detention, and show you give more of a crap about Canada and its real, actual issues.

Hey has China relaxed its restrictions on tourists from the west yet? Asking for literally nobody.

Wall Street Journal —Don't plan your next trip to China without writing your will and saying goodbye to loved ones. The WSJ's editorial board is not impressed - with China or with President Biden and his team of surrender monkeys.

China’s Hostage Triumph

The U.S. lets Huawei’s CFO off easy, and Beijing frees two Canadians.   
By The Editorial Board
Updated Sept. 27, 2021 7:56 am ET

Westerners working in China are officially on notice. You could be arrested on trumped up charges at any time and used as hostages to promote Communist Party interests. That’s the message from the humiliating U.S. surrender to China’s hostage diplomacy in the case of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou.

Canadian authorities arrested Ms. Meng in 2018 at the request of the U.S., which charged her with bank and wire fraud. Under a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) reached Friday, Ms. Meng was allowed to return to China without going to trial. She merely admitted to facts she had previously denied. Shortly thereafter, and right on cue, China released two Canadians it had arrested on phony charges not long after Ms. Meng’s arrest.

China’s immediate release of businessman Michael Spavor and former diplomat Michael Kovrig proves their arrest was a hostage-taking to pressure Canada and the U.S. over Ms. Meng. In China the law serves the Party. But in the U.S. the law is supposed to operate independent of political interests. ...

I'd no sooner visit China than I would North Korea, Iran, or Cuba.

“Health Reasons.” Fer sure, China.

Globe and Mail — It's not the Globe and Mail's fault. In this case, they're just reporting. And it — China — is just utterly insulting our intelligence and totally disrespecting us. I didn't even read the article because I don't take well to being insulted by communists or a-holes. But on the other hand, this one is all Globe and Mail. For me it's about the contrast between how they treated the last president's handling of the border crisis — a problem not of his own making; and how they are treating this president's handling of a far worse crisis of his and his comrades' own making. Media bias 101? Or them more simply utterly insulting our intelligence and totally disrespecting us?

Joe Oliver for leader? Alas no. But heed to his leadership.

Financial Post — Joe Oliver penned a good column today offering good conservative sense for Conservatives. So that's something different and worthwhile for you to read today in the papers increasingly filled with total bunk and muck — usually from lefties — about how the Conservatives need to go still further leftward to win. It's headlined "Conservatives must persuade the electorate, not pander to the left." And it's worth your read.

"...There is an economic and cultural route to broaden the appeal of Conservative values and policies: bring the public to you, rather than mimic the left-wing’s latest faddish ideals and retreaded socialist truths. That is what leadership is all about. ..."

Ronald Reagan believed in and practiced this philosophy very effectively, making wonderful speaches counseling his fellow conservatives to speak up — "in bold colors" — to convince the electorate to vote for the values — conservative values — which most of their fellow electorate actually already believed in. And he was one of the best and most popular presidents in US history. Joe Oliver wrote today about some of those Canadian conservative values, which, similarly, are actually Canadian values.
Joe Oliver isn't running to be the leader. He's 81 and is rightly enjoying retirement. But anybody who wants to follow in Ronald Regan's — or Joe Oliver's — footsteps is more than welcome to step up at this time, please.

Advice to GOP, which Canada’s CPC should heed: Just. Say. No.

Washington Post — From this surprising source  — the...

Lefty Mayor caught maskless but it’s ok: “I was feelin’ the spirit!”

National Review — Another article you won't read in 99% of the "news" media because, oh do I even have to say it?... she's a lefty mayor! (and we can well imagine the "news" media's faux outrage if she was a he and he was a Republican):

The mayor of San Francisco [London Breed] says that she shouldn’t be criticized for breaking her own COVID rules, because, and I quote, “I was feeling the spirit and I wasn’t thinking about a mask.” CBS reports:

“We don’t need the fun police to come in and micromanage and tell us what we should or shouldn’t be doing,” said Breed during an interview to address the controversy.

The city’s health order states attendees at live indoor performances must remain masked except when actively eating or drinking. Breed maintained that she was drinking at the time.

“My drink was sitting at the table,” said Breed. “I got up and started dancing because I was feeling the spirit and I wasn’t thinking about a mask.”
As Charles C.W. Cooke points out, the hideousness doesn't stop just at her hypocrisy, her failure to take responsibility for her own actions, or her elitist rule-breaking, it's the fact that she laments the notion of "the fun police," when, in fact, as mayor and as the perpetrator of these asinine rules, she IS "the fun police."

Best post-election headline so far

Wall Street Journal — They get the headline just about right: Their opener:

The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher counseled that in politics “standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous. You get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.” That’s the lesson delivered to Canada’s Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole in Monday’s national election.

I like that they added this because Canadian "news" media are loathed to mention it:

Yet while they again won the popular vote, they finished a distant second in seat count with about 119, two seats down from 2019. (By the way, the Tories have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections, which is a lesson for Americans who think this only happens because of the Electoral College.)

They see what I see. O'Toole: Speaking in pale pastels — largely pink — instead of bold colors. Lesson #596 for the Conservative Party of Canada. They'll learn someday. Maybe.
Read the WSJ take here. (Free link)

BC’s NDP gov and their “news” media divisions hiding stats and facts? Here’s one.

health-infobase.canada.ca For all the noise from the Canadian national "news" media, you'd think Ontario was the only province in the country, and that it's doing terribly with regard to the Wuhan Virus (which everybody still calls "COVID" on orders from the Communist Party of China). That's not news to anyone outside of Ontario. What might be news to people both outside and inside of Ontario is that BC's rate of death is nearly twice that of Ontario.
Don't worry lefties, even people in BC don't know that, because the "news" media in BC are actually cheerleaders for the NDP government of BC — much as the national news media is actually a division of the federal Liberal Party (well and the Ontario Liberal Party of course). Ontario is led by a party with the word "Conservative" in it, even though "Progressive" is the first and foremost word and concept in their party name and style of governance. But, you know, it's just deathn shit. Politics is way more important to the "news" media.
Facts. Get 'em anywhere you can, because you can't reliably get them from the "news" media.
See also:
And from liberalvision CTV: Secrecy over B.C.'s true number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

The Article

For more than a year now, prominent conservatives have been warning – some publicly – about the drift of the Harper Tories away from conservative principles. Party apologists, chief among them the Prime Minister himself, have responded to the criticism by citing the need for “pragmatism”, given the government’s minority status. Their argument has merit, but how does it explain the decision to reinstate the Court Challenges Program successfully terminated in 2006? The answer is – it doesn’t.

Supporters of the Language Rights Support Program, as the new initiative will be known, say that it will be nothing like its predecessor, promising that it will be restricted to cases involving minority language rights only. Funds will not be made available to other minority groups, they say.

When I read this, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Clearly these guys don’t know how the game is played.

First, a bit of history.

The original Court Challenges Program was established in 1978 to provide funding for minority language cases based on sections 93 and 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867, and later, cases based on the language rights provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Like the new Language Rights Support Program, the original Court Challenges Program was never intended to provide support for cases involving the rights of other minority groups either. So why was its mandate expanded to include these cases? Simply put, it just made sense. There was never a logical reason for the government to fund the constitutional challenges of one minority group, but not others, and once the Charter was adopted in 1982, the practice of favouring one group over another quite likely became legally untenable too.

That argument is no less valid in 2009 than it was then. Of course, a future Conservative government could resist the inevitable pressure to broaden the mandate of the new Language Rights Support Program, but that would only provoke the sort of messy political confrontation that the Tories have been trying to avoid in an effort to prove their pragmatist credentials. Given the relatively small amount of money involved, I suspect that they’ll prefer to turn a blind eye to the problem rather than risk precipitating such a confrontation. History will simply repeat itself.

Even if the government succeeds in preventing an expansion of the new program’s mandate, that doesn’t mean that left-wing activists won’t be able to use it to advance their social agenda. How long before someone makes the case that Francophones in a particular Ontario community are discriminated against because there is no abortion clinic dedicated to serving them in their own language? This isn’t so far-fetched – the Ontario government was forced to keep an entire French language hospital open in Ottawa not long ago despite the fact that there was a fully bilingual hospital just a few miles away.

What about taxpayer-funded community programming for gay Francophone teenagers where “numbers warrant”? Or more women’s shelters? The possibilities are endless. Eventually, someone will bring a case like this to the independent committee overseeing the program, and the committee will agree to take the case on forcing the government to either intervene, or relent.

Again, given the small amount of money involved and the pitfalls of a confrontation, I predict that the government will prefer that latter course of action.

What really bothers me about the Language Rights Support Program is not that it is so susceptible to abuse though; it’s that it completely undoes one of the few big conservative policy successes this government has had since coming to office in 2006 – the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. In one fell swoop, the Tories have rendered meaningless the considerable effort expended at that time by their friends in support of that policy decision.

Why? Can it be that someone has made a calculation that this will help win an election, maybe even a majority? It’s hard to believe.

As the country braces for yet another election – our fourth in five years – I’m asking myself, as a principled conservative, if the Harper Tories are still worth supporting. Until this past week, the two answers that kept coming back to me in response were: a) the liberals would be much worse, and b) the Tories would be much better if they had a majority. The sudden and, in my view, gratuitous creation of the Language Rights Support Program has badly shaken my confidence in either of these answers.

To the untrained eye, all this may seem like a small thing, but it’s the small things that point to bigger, more serious problems.

The question is – are there any trained eyes left in the federal Conservative Party with any influence who even care?

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?
    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img