Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Michael Cloud: Privatize business | Main | Liberals should love the free-market »

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Roadkill Radio returns

Kari Simpson and I are "on the air" tonight again with Episode Two of Roadkill Radio, 7:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. Pacific time at www.roadkillradio.com.

We'll start by exploring the impact on B.C. public education of the Corren agreement*, and will interview Ron Gray, erstwhile leader of the Christian Heritage Party and currently heading a small activist group called Parents For Democracy in Education.

Next up will be an in-depth look at polygamy, featuring a discussion with Doris Darvasi of Real Women B.C.

We'll take phone calls and e-mails from listeners. All in all, it should be fun, fascinating and provocative.

*A unique legal agreement between the B.C. government and two homosexual-rights activists, which gives the two men special input into provincial curriculum revisions, and which mandated the creation of a controversial "social justice" course.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on March 10, 2009 in Media | Permalink

Comments

I looked at some youtube videos put out by Gray. I thought Gray made perfect sense. I only wish that the party could place a candidate in every riding. I found a lot more that I liked on their website compared to the COnservatives site.

Posted by: Jim | 2009-03-10 3:15:14 PM


Jim, I agree. However I think that the name of the party turns off people who otherwise agree with their policies. I have been told this by devout Christians, including practising Catholics. It is not a call to change their policies or to water them down and certainly not to renounce Christianity, but changing it to the Canadian Heritage Party, for example, would likely increase their base.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-10 3:31:06 PM



Religion continues to lose its relevance.

Who ****ing cares about some useless religion based political party. And why are you no longer promoting your other hopeless cause, your Llibertarian nutbar party?

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-10 3:49:31 PM


epsilon, that's a rather closed minded post. I thought you were much more open minded than that. In fact, I still think you are.

Posted by: TM | 2009-03-10 7:30:24 PM


Epsilon, I suggest before you judge that you look at the platform and policies of the CHP. From what I have seen they are common sense conservative, much more so than the CPC, and I say this as a non Christian and not a particularly religious person. If afterwards you still find it a useless or nutbar party, you will at least have made an informed decision.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-10 7:51:42 PM


The big problem is that the Christian Heritage Party has never run in more than 65 ridings. There has to be some way to get them organized in all 308 ridings. I don't know if its a funding problem or something else. I mean 20% of Canadians are regular churchgoers and there are quite a few economic conservatives. The party has not run candidates east of Ontario.
I would think that their conservative social policies might appeal to some in New Brunswick or Newfoundland. In addition, I would think that they would have wide appeal in Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC(outside of Vancouver), Manitoba(outside of Winnipeg) and rural areas of Ontario. The potential base for the party would appear to quite significant. One portion would be socially conservative protestants, catholics, and jews. Another would be economic libertarians who should agree with the party's economic program. The question is whether or not these components are enough to set up a future majority government. Another question is what other constituencies could be won to this party. Could the party's mix of free enterprise and family values on the reservation allow it to win the support of large numbers of First Nations voters? How can such groups as IndoCanadians and Chinese Canadians be convinced that the CHP best represents the family ties and entrepeneurial spirit that shape these communities? Would most Quebecers hatred of social conservatism(reminder of the pre-Quiet Revolution days) cause them to just casually write the party. So, many questions. The Canadian right spend 60 years putting up with a party(Progressive Conservative) that called itself conservative but often one upped the liberals. Either Harper moves right or a new conservative party needs to be formed. My advice to Harper is permanently destroy the gun registry, disband the human rights commissions, and see about amending the charter.

Posted by: Jim | 2009-03-10 8:31:39 PM


Are the great grey "they" already censoring Roadkillradio.com? Or is it just my old Windows 95 operating system? Whatever it is, hitting the link to listen live only produces a 404 web page not available and a link to www.fiascobros.com which doesn't even get one to that website, let alone to any on-air broadcast.

But I did download half of their first program in MP3 format --- it only took 2.5 hours. YCCH. Ya, I know. Get a new operating system, computer and life. Still, did anyone have the same problem in not being able to connect to the live broadcast of Ms. Simpson and O'Neil???

Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | 2009-03-10 10:23:33 PM


OK everybody, lets start yet another right wing fringe party to draw votes away from the Conservatives and elect more leftoids. We've got the Llibertarians and now the Fundies all competing against Harper.

Use your heads people.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-10 10:30:31 PM


Epsilon, you disappoint me with your flippant comments. Even if one does not wish to vote for the CHP, one would do well to look at their policies which are conservative. They have a lot of excellent ideas that the CPC would do well to adopt and you could help by recommending it.

I agree that we shall probably continue to disagree on supporting the CPC no matter what. For me having "conservative" in the name of a party is not enough. I expect, in fact I demand, that the party be conservative. Blind loyalty was not unknown to me in my youth I admit, but I am well past that stage.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-11 11:49:47 AM


I couldn't care less whether I disappoint you or not. How is your reaction to me of any relevance whatsoever?

If you want to have conservative policies enacted, splitting the right of centre vote is the wrong way to do it.

Or have you learned absolutely nothing from the Reform Party experiment which brought us years of Chretien corruption and more deeply embedded socialism that will take just as long or longer to root out.

Even Preston Manning himself said his Reform Party failed.

Yet people like you seem to want to repeat history except this time with even farther right fundamentalist parties that are simply abhorent to average Canadians.

You need to think far more strategically about Canadian politics my friend.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-11 1:35:04 PM


You need to think far more strategically about Canadian politics my friend.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-11 1:35:04 PM

Are you a Canadian citizen yet?

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-11 2:14:58 PM


Stig is completely preoccupied with me. Like Alain, the idea of talking to a 20 something right of centre female redhead seems to distract and prevent him from concentrating on the argument.

Neither of you has a clue about the new generation of voters let alone smart political strategy.

Men like you are so easily played.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-11 2:37:29 PM


Stig is completely preoccupied with me.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-11 2:37:29 PM

Bwahahahahahahaha. Go back to reading the Broons and drinking Irn-Bru bairn.

Posted by: The Stig | 2009-03-11 2:54:56 PM


LoL!

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-11 3:52:48 PM


Re Kevin's message about tech problems:
We did, in fact, sustain some sort of attack on the site last night, which led to the 'broadcast' being interrupted for about 15 mnutes. The entire show is now archived, though.

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2009-03-11 4:26:49 PM


I’d like to give Epsilon, Alain and others some useful background on the CHP’s struggle to gain a place in the public’s political mindset.

The CHP is now the sixth-largest federal party in Canada. Its National Board has set a goal of establishing local riding associations (now called EDAs) in every riding, and running a full slate of candidates.

Finances are a problem: at the same time the four parties already in Parliament voted to share $30 million a year of taxpayers’ money among themselves, they also imposed draconian restrictions on fund-raising. The CHP has always agreed that labour unions and publicly-traded corporations should not be allowed to donate to political parties, since the managers of such enterprises are allocating “other people’s money”—and the union members or shareholders might not agree with the managers’ choice. But Parliament also closed the door on donations from sole proprietorships and partnerships, which had been a significant source of funding for the CHP.

Nevertheless, the Party is growing, albeit slowly.

One factor that has recently stimulated growth of the CHP is the way Stephen Harper, in his quest for power, has made the CPC the defender of the abortion industry; and that he broke so many promises—including taxing income trusts, wimping out on the review of C-38, delaying repeal of C-68, and spending even more lavishly than his predecessors.

About a dozen years ago, a BC businessman commissioned a poll by the pollster with the best record in BC for predicting election outcomes. That poll revealed some interesting facts:
• When the CHP’s major platform planks were read to the respondents (with no party identifier), the response was 71% favorable.
• The poll included a double-barreled question: (a) “Have you ever heard of the [Liberal, Reform, NDP, Christian Heritage] Party?" (b) "What do you think they stand for?” 76% had never heard of the CHP (which tells me, as a journalist, that the media are not doing their job—informing the electorate!)

But when we evaluated the responses to the question “What do you think they stand for?”, only the CHP got more than half positive responses (CHP 55% vs Reform 44%, Liberals 37%, NDP 27%). Since only 24% had ever heard the Party’s name, that meant that in 31% of the conversations, the respondents said, on the basis of the name alone, they thought the Party stood for “something good”.

I think that refutes the idea that the name “Christian” is an impediment.

Canada is not as secular as the left-liberal media paint us. And many members of minority faiths want to live in the kind of society that Judeo-Christian Biblical values would produce.

The CHP’s main problem is that most Christians have bought into the media’s false portrayal of the CPC as having a “Christian core”; and the CPC has capitalized on that false image to seduce Christians away from their true principles.

If we persevere, and stay true to our principles, those principles can eventually overcome the money-power of the big four parties.

For those who contend (like Epsilon) that religion is fading: I agree. But true Biblical Judeo-Christianity is not about man-made “religion”; rather, it is the only faith rooted in history and verified by archeology.

Ron Gray
Langley, BC


Posted by: Ron Gray | 2009-03-12 12:22:19 PM


Mr. Gray, it is good to hear from you. I am an American who often visits this site to get a different Canadian perspective. The information that I usually get about Canada(CBS, NBC, ABC, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail) is such things as: 82% approve of Obama, Canadians support Democrats 4 to 1 over Republicans, Canadians staunchly support abortion and gay marriage, gun control and socialized medicine are popular in Canada. Also, we hear such wonders as social conservatism is virtually dead in Canada. The left-wing American mainstream media uses these images(and similar images about Europeans) to attempt to convince Americans to abandon their traditional principles. They try to make it seem that Americans natural conservatism places them fairly out of whack with the rest of the world. In fact, the media and numerous Democrats stated that Obama's election would make the peoples of other countries like us more. Unfortunately, I think some of our young fell for it in 2008.
I believe that the rise of Ronald Reagan saved my country. His coalition shifted my country sharply to the right for the next 28 years. It was his tough line on anti-communism that led to the Soviet defeat.It was his willingness to go on the offensive against communism in Latin America that stopped its spread there. His economic policy of lowering taxes to increase private investment and entrepeneurship in the country was brillant. My only regret is that he failed to significantly cut government spending. Finally, his support of social conservatism has strengthened my country. The right to bear arms is more secure in America because of such groups as the NRA and the Federalist Society(which were strengthened by Reagan's support). The rise of Reagan and his appointment of conservative judges(and the Federalist Society) played a role in upholding the partial birth abortion ban. This was done by motivating conservative jurists to organize and recommending strict constitutionalists as judges.There are still issues that need to be resolved(the size of government, taxes, abortion, homosexual agenda, school prayer). However, I feel that he left us a firm foundation.
My first question to you is why has conservatism had so little success in Canada? The Liberals have controlled Canada for 55 of the last 74 years. The left-wing parties(Liberals, NDP, Bloc, Greens) have polled over 60% in the most recent elections. Mulroney and Diefenbaker were the only two that ever got majorities. Mulroney and Diefenbaker were so far to the left that Harper is considered a right-wing radical by some Canadians. How come a Reagan or Thatcher has never arisen in Canada? What can the CHP do to get around the biased media and Quebec to win a majority government? I like your party but it has been around since 1988 and failed to win a seat. Conservatism has had some successes in the U.S. Why can't this movement model succeed in Canada? The American left uses your country's economic and social policy model as one we should adhere to. This is because they think that you are socially leftist and an economy more like Sweden. I would appreciate having a Canadian government that could aid American conservatives in the battle of ideas.

Posted by: Jake | 2009-03-12 4:14:46 PM


Democracy, literacy, science, the rule of law and effective commerce have strong christian roots and none would have ever come into existence without the precursory existence of the church.

That being said, we have moved on. Christian religion plays an increasing lesser role in the daily lives of more people as individual's spiritual needs diversify and are satisfied in an almost infinate number of ways. This is a function of a larger trend within western society. Just look at the number of TV channels or websites that can satisfy virtually every need.

To consolidate this spirituality under one entity, Christianity, and politicise it is to fail to recognize modern social trends. And secondly, it erodes the requirement to keep the damned socialist hordes out of my purse, from interfering in my freedom to choose from an increasingly diverse set of products and services and from eroding my personal freedom in general via vote splitting on the centre right.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-12 4:53:44 PM


Jake,

I think the assessment in Canadian and American media—that the Canadian public is much further left than the American public—is probably true… although the degree of shift is probably exaggerated. Historian Mark Noll, one of the authors (with Nathan Hatch and George Marsden) of The Search for Christian America, said in a lecture at Queen’s University, “If you’re looking for Christian America, you should look north of the 49th parallel — and before 1959; until the era of the ’60s, public policy in Canada was far more influenced by biblical principles than it ever was in the United States. But since the ’60s, Canada has slid further and faster than the U.S., until it is now about half-way between semi-Christian America and secular Europe.”

I think Professor Noll got it about right.

A large part of Canada’s slide into left-wing secularism has been the result of the capture of our universities by philosophical Marxism and/or postmodernism. I’ve often said that the only places Marxism still gets any respect are Cuba, North Korea — and the faculty lounges of our universities.

Because Canada does not have the free-speech protections you enjoy under the First Amendment, conservative talk radio has not had the traction in Canada it's had in the USA. And we don’t have nearly as many conservative think-tanks as you do.

An Australian political scientist who visited Canada about a year ago said, in an article in Reformed Perspective magazine, that Stephen Harper’s “conservative” party is somewhat to the left of the Australian Labour Party; and that if Mr. Harper were in the USA, he’d be considered a Clinton Democrat.

Because Canada's mainstream media are so radically anti-Christian and anti-free-market, we true conservatives in Canada (i.e., both social and fiscal conservatives) will have to become our own media, making use of the “new media” to circulate our ideas… and even that is under threat now, as the CRTC examines the possibilities of regulating the content of the Internet.

But the bottom line is that the struggle for truth must go on. Giving up is not an option.

And to reply to Epsilon: truth isn't a function of popularity. The Judeo-Christian stream of faith is uniquely rooted in fact and history, which is why it became the fountainhead of science. An honest examination of science and history has to begin with the question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” One of the foundational principles of science is that every effect—including the universe itself—must have a cause that is as great as, or greater than, the effect. And if the answer to that question implies a God, then — as the Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares, our founding principles demand that His ideas be taken into account.

William Blackstone, whose book Commentaries on the English Common Law was for two centuries a foundational textbook in law schools throughout the English-speaking world, wrote that "no enactment of man can be considered a law unless it accords with the Law of God."


Posted by: Ron Gray | 2009-03-13 11:43:44 AM


Ron Gray says:

"One of the foundational principles of science is that every effect—including the universe itself—must have a cause that is as great as, or greater than, the effect. And if the answer to that question implies a God"

To that I say nonsense. The real answer to this question is: we don't know...yet.

Posted by: epsilon | 2009-03-13 11:24:01 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.