The Charlatan recently published an op/ed accusing Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People’s Party of Canada, of “being too comfortable with white nationalism.” I attempted to write a rebuttal, as this is a falsehood.
However, the article advanced no coherent argument against Bernier. Instead, it poses moral condemnations and half-truths framed in the wake of the vicious Christchurch, New Zealand shooting. Responding to the conjecture-based accusations of the previous article would not be productive.
Instead, this seemed to be a good opportunity to call out this tired bullying tactic of the left that is grossly opportunistic, exploitative, and worse: passive towards solving the problem.
Referencing Christchurch set the stage for the author’s accusations in the article. A brief scan over the reported facts of the Christchurch shooter makes it clear that he was not on the right at all. He was an eco-fascist who hated both conservatism and liberalism, favouring the totalitarian regime of China.
His attack intended to increase polarization between the right and left, to cause political decay across the democratic world. Many on the left took his bait, and used his heinous atrocity to bully conservatives on their language and policy.
A tragedy of this scale on a national stage provokes a reaction that is more traumatized than rational. The left has taken advantage of the rage and terror across the globe to silence their dissenters on gun control in New Zealand and on immigration and language in Canada.
Following this tragedy, it is reasonable to examine the changes we can make in our governance and in our language when dealing with each other. But, it is curious that the left-wing has a monopoly on that conversation.
Many on the left attack and condemn anyone who dares to disagree with their suggested changes to the other politicians’ language and policies. They defame conservatives like schoolyard bullies. And, they get away with it, because the public accepts the idea that the left has moral authority.
The real failure here is not the attempt to root out those corrupt elements of our culture or government, or our use of speech. The failure is the lack of epistemological humility. Our neighbours, friends, and family on the left assume their policies and language are morally superior to those on the right.
I implore them to hear us out, to let our voices be heard, and to contend with us on the basis of ideas, instead of defaming our character and integrity by grasping at straws to link us to terrorists and racists. Perhaps then, both sides engaging in debate and refining each others’ arguments will lead us both to improve.
In a calm, centred debate, whoever prevails in the realm of policy and language will be the ones with the most sound and logical arguments. It stands to reason that the most factual, logical position is the one to best address the problem at hand.
This is a gold standard for political problem-solving that gives no quarter to the political reality show of defamation and gossip that feeds into the chaos the Christchurch shooter aimed to cause. Conservatives abhor these racist, murderous individuals.
Yet, we are associated with them by a left-wing that would rather discredit us than contend with us. Many conservatives support reducing immigration. Racist piles of human garbage support these conservative policies to leech credibility towards their own vile agenda.
Conservatives condemn those racist people and will never support anyone who supports them. But, instead of condemning, it is more productive to debate how supporting a reduction in immigration rates is racist and unreasonable. On that day, I will happily nuance my position.
However, as long as we simply focus on unfounded condemnation, we do our culture and governance no favours—while adding fuel to the fire of those who seek to exploit the widening gap between the left and right.
