The Hypocrisy of so-called "Progressives"

"Progressive" politicians and their supporters, which in Canada refers primarily to the Liberals, New Democratic Party and the Green Party, love to put on airs and swagger about, expounding about how intellectually and morally superior they are. In fact, however, they are simply typical misguided busybodies with an overweening obsession for gaining control over others, and an even larger helping of the hypocrisy characteristic of that species.

The essence of democracy is twofold. A proper democracy balances respect for the legally expressed will of the people with respect for the will of the individual and minorities. "Progressives" fail spectacularly on both counts.

The contempt in which "progressives" hold the will of the people reveals itself whenever the people fail to provide the result they want. During the Harper administrations, for example, they never failed to point to the fact that a majority of Canadian voters had not voted for the Conservatives. Yet once our Dear Leader Justin was elected, with an even lower percentage of the vote than the previous Conservative administration, the narrative quickly switched to how a majority of Canadians had rejected the Conservatives in the election, thereby "endorsing" every aspect of the Liberal platform, and any new planks they subsequently decided to tack on (in fact of course, the deciding factor was not any love of the Liberal platform, but dislike for Harper personally, as well as his tone-deaf handling of some issues critical to public perceptions of his character). Here a "progressive" might object that they are trying to "fix" our electoral system by replacing first-past-the-post with some other formula. Yet it is clear they fear the people will not share their enthusiasm since they refuse to hold a referendum on this issue, the most basic foundation of our democracy. Canadian "progressives" are not alone in their contempt for the people's will, as evidenced by attempts to overturn the Brexit vote in the UK. Had the proportions been reversed, the outcome of that referendum would have been hailed as a crushing rejection of Brexit and any attempt to overturn it ridiculed as sour grapes. But I digress.

Holding "progressive" views is also viewed as carte blanche to violently impose one's will. The "enlightened" claim to abhor violence, but in fact they seek not only to obtain control of and exploit the coercive power of the state, but to supplement it with mob rule whenever it suits them. Look back at the recent history of demonstrations that turned into riots. Almost with out exception they have been promoting "progressive" causes. And when small groups attempt to block projects or simply impede the access of ordinary Canadians to infrastructure and services, what are their political allegiances? With the exception of a few anti-abortion protestors, who have also adopted such indefensibly violent methods, pretty much always left-wingers. People have a right to hold and express in private or public whatever views they may hold, however irrational, but they do not have the right to prevent others from going about their daily business. This would be illegal if done by an individual, and the might of a group does not make it right. Any group that attempts to do so and refuses to disperse should immediately be arrested to a person and dragged off for a lengthy period of reflection, using whatever level of force is required to do so. To do otherwise privileges those who attempt to use force over those exercising restraint, a result hardly conducive to a healthy society.

Are there situations where the will of the majority should not be respected? Absolutely, but they are emphatically not those where there is simple disagreement over policy matters. A full democracy must reject attempts to persecute minorities or other demographic groups, no matter how popular they may be. Nowadays Canadians like to point fingers at various Middle Eastern countries which enshrine at best second-class treatment for religious or ethnic minorities, not to mention women. In fact, of course, Canada has a long and unfortunate history of discriminating against various groups, including women and racial minorities, not to mention the LGBT(Q2...) community. Usually the measures institutionalizing such discrimination were actually popular, enjoying the support of the majority of the population and most political parties, including those that like to think of themselves as “progressive”. For example, the devastating internment of Japanese-Canadians in World War II was actually implemented by a Liberal administration.

Unfortunately, such persecution is far from a thing of the past. To this day Canada continues to use the legal system to actively persecute other law-abiding groups, most notably the firearms community (persecution of which actually intensifies during "progressive" administrations). The rights of individuals to fair treatment and the liberty to pursue their personal lives and dreams without outside interference are very selectively interpreted by "progressives". There is acute concern about protecting the rights of criminals, even when this allows them to continue to run amok on our streets. Racial, ethnic and religious communities get kid-glove treatment even when this impedes law enforcement efforts to root out the few bad apples that shelter in their midst. Yet the most law-abiding group in Canada, the firearms community, which is subject to continuous screening and surveillance of a sort that would be tolerated by no other group apart from prisoners and parolees, is perceived to have no rights, either individual or collective, and to be fair game for scapegoating whenever some connection can be made to them, however tenuous. This injustice is perpetuated by a mistaken view of rights as privileges granted by the authorities rather than as inherent to individuals by virtue of being human: Americans have a right to bear arms not because the Second Amendment says so, but because it flows from other basic rights such as the right to liberty and self-defence, and Canadians have a similar right for the same reason, even if it is not enshrined in a Second Amendment equivalent (more on this in a separate essay).

What am I suggesting? An end to double standards. "Progressives" must abandon their cruel, unjust and violent methods and extend the same respect to the rights of those they disagree with as they do for the groups they currently privilege. Only then could they be accepted as legitimate participants in the Canadian political process, instead of the usurpers and perverters of democracy that they currently more closely resemble.

To return to the “Essays” home page, please click here:

http://members.shaw.ca/tallteri/essays.htm