Andrew Scheer and Unlucky Section 13

An important life lesson: never trust a man (or woman) who is always smiling.

I think Andrew Scheer has made a major blunder. He seems unaware that politics has changed. Scheer has pleased no one with his censure of Edmonton MP Michael Cooper. Half of the commentators are outraged that Cooper was disciplined; the other half are outraged that he was not thrown out of caucus.

Scheer was doing the old politics of triangulation to grapple the Liberals for the centre. But there is no centre any more. We agree on nothing any longer. In such a climate, compromise only looks like lack of principle. Because it is. It is exactly that. It is appeasement.

Had Scheer backed Cooper, at least half of the population, those who are naturally inclined to vote Conservative, would have cheered him. By distancing himself from and disciplining Cooper, he has alienated them, and gained the support of no one. Had he even gone so far as throwing Cooper out of caucus, he would probably have gained nothing. Those on the left have too many alternatives already.

Cooper’s supposed offense was berating a witness before the Commons Justice Committee who tried to link mass shootings with “conservative commentators.” Crucially, the committee was considering bringing back the notorious Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which restricted free speech in Canada by punishing “hate speech.”

In making his point that the charge was nonsense, Cooper quoted from the suppressed manifesto of the Christchurch shooter, in which the latter condemned conservatives and conservatism. He might also have pointed out, but did not, that if conservative commentators can be held responsible for mass shootings, so, by the same logic, could every Muslim imam or commentator, including the man before him.

Scheer, in taking the stance that he did, seems to actually have endorsed the concept that censorship in general is a good idea, that conservative commentary leads to mass shootings, and that it ought to be suppressed.

With friends like that, conservatives hardly need enemies?

If the Conservative Party is not going to defend the right to conservative opinions, what is the point of a Conservative Party? If the Tories as well as the Liberals are happy to take away free speech, why is voting Conservative any better than voting Liberal?

Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party may look too far down in the polls to drain away many votes on the right, but that could now change. Compare Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, which went from creation to dominance in six weeks. That’s the new politics. Bernier’s group seems to be doing well at finding candidates.

Aside from this, there is the danger that conservative activists may now not work the phones, or just stay home. “Firing up the base” is claimed to be what netted George W. Bush his two wins.

And suppose Scheer wins, then goes on to govern as he seems set to campaign, as just another Liberal administration? That’s what Mulroney tried. The result was to break the old PC party into three pieces. When an opinion held strongly by a large proportion of the electorate sees no outlet in the major parties, something has to give.

It is a great pity Scheer won the Conservative leadership instead of Bernier. Scheer apparently won because everyone in caucus liked him. His skills were the skills required in a House Speaker. He is miscast as a leader.

It is as Confucius said:

“If an appointee to public office has no friends, it is necessary to make inquiries. If an appointee to public office has no enemies, it is necessary to make inquiries.”