Following a series of controversial tweets from Maxime Bernier—the Conservative’s poster child for political incorrectness—Andrew Scheer is faced with increased pressure to kick Bernier out of caucus.
In response to Bernier’s tweets, Arif Virani, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage, denounced Bernier’s “extremely troubling [backwards views]”, posting a letter on Twitter that called for Scheer to a) disassociate himself from Bernier and b) to subsequently call for his removal from caucus—the latter, which has yet to be exacted. To do so, a majority of the caucus would have to vote in favour of Bernier’s dismissal (i.e., Michael Chong’s Reform Act).
Scheer has since condemned Bernier’s ‘identity politics,’ stating “He’s just poking us in the eye for no reason.”
While it is true that issues of integration and multiculturalism are not ‘encompassing of Tory policy,’ should Bernier face disciplinary action for stating his mind?
Though responses to the ongoing migrant crisis remain concerning, he placed the party in an awkward position. Getting wrapped up in controversy is the last thing the CPC needs, given their recent electoral defeat was attributed partly to its floundering social media image.
While there’s a difference between espousing racist ideas and criticizing identity politics, Bernier went about it poorly and without any real thought of its implications.
Yes, the far-left’s desire to redefine what it means to be Canadian, through a cultural Marxist perception of the world is dangerous. Declaring all aspects of all cultures equal in all regards, irrespective of the consequences to the nation’s social fabric is foolish.
Female Genital Mutilation, a culturally-accepted practice in parts of Northern and Eastern Africa should never become a widely accepted practice here. Suggesting otherwise is a morally asinine proposition.
As is naming a Winnipeg Park after Pakistan’s Founder—a move I’m opposed to given Pakistan’s lack of regard for human rights protections amongst other issues.
These are just two of many examples of the LPC’s reckless engagement with identity politics.
When it came to statues of Sir John A. Macdonald, the same authoritarian demagogues of the Left virtue-signalled out the wazoo with their faux-progressivism. Their logic or lack thereof, riddled with hypocrisy, lacked any real substance in reconciling past mistakes, like the Residential School System and its associated horrors.
For the LPC’s “diversity is our strength” mantra to be twisted by the proponents of social justice could undo what decades of struggle have fought against—soured perceptions towards multiculturalism.
While the far-left is hell-bent on doing away with ideological hierarchies that leave society grounded, the far-right does the same in suggesting ‘race,’ not ideals, defines one’s sense of superiority or victimhood complex.
However, with the latest round of controversial tweets by Bernier, it seems that those with a proclivity for social justice conflate fact with fiction, punishing people for their ascribed statuses (i.e., skin colour) like its far-right counterparts.
In the end, how are the extremist segments on either side any different from one another? Both employ ‘divide and conquer’ tactics that leave society worse off. Hence, their views should be marginalized, as they do not actively reflect what most Canadians view self-evidently.
Take Faith Goldy, for example, a quasi-ethnic nationalist who has consistently failed to differentiate between the racial composition of the West and the Judeo-Christian values that shape said societies. Holding said views has often landed her at the centre of controversy, and rightfully so.
However, that was not what Bernier was promoting in his critique of Justin Trudeau’s “cult of diversity.”
As a third-generation immigrant, I believe that when the diversity of thought is not advocated on behalf of all free men and women, then no other forms of diversity should matter.
Reducing the worth of a nation’s ideals to ascribed stances is what procures tribalism. Hence, intersectionality or tribalism by religious, racial, or sexual affiliation is not that what we need.
It is vital we do not discriminate by race, gender, religion and so forth—that’s a given—however, debating our nation’s core values and how flexible we are willing to be should never be shunned. If specific Canadian values do not coincide with aspects of different cultures, the goal shouldn’t be to change Canada radically but to ask for said immigrants to make necessary concessions.
What some may view as hateful and bigoted, others may see as the ‘truth.’ Sometimes, one side is right over the other, while other times neither holds. Irrespective of one’s perceptions, what proves concerning is the Left’s appeasement of the far-left’s ‘politics of division.’
As Bernier would put it, their embrace of “extreme multiculturalism.’