Skip to main content

The Globe and Mail

Liberals waste no time playing the anti-Christian card

Andrew MacDougall, a former director of communications to Stephen Harper, is a communications consultant based in London.

Well, it didn't take long for the clouds to roll in.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer barely had time to try on his new title before the "sunny ways" Liberals deployed two attack dogs to criticize the 38-year old Catholic father of five.

Story continues below advertisement

"Make no mistake about it," warned Toronto Liberal MP Adam Vaughan, "[Scheer] is somebody who has voted against every single civil rights advancement in the last 25 years."

"At the end of the day," added Montreal Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, "it was a contest between the far-right social Conservatives and the far-right economic Conservatives and the far-right social Conservatives won the day."

Mr. Vaughan's and Mr. Rodriguez's comments were in reference to Mr. Scheer's voting record supporting his Catholic beliefs: pro-traditional marriage and life, and opposition to transgender rights.

Not mentioned by the Liberals was the fact that Mr. Scheer has pledged not to reopen either the marriage or abortion debates. So much for the shinier, happier politics promised by Mr. Trudeau.

This kind of anti-Christian sneer is nothing new for the Liberals, and it comes from the top. It was Justin Trudeau who declared in 2014 that no candidate could run on the Liberal ticket in 2015 if they opposed abortion (existing MPs were exempted from the diktat).

So much for tolerance.

These actions have successfully silenced the Liberals' own socially-conservative wing, even if it has produced some discord. Long-time Liberal MP John McKay, an opponent of abortion who voted against his own government's same-sex marriage bill in 2005, even went as far as to label Mr. Trudeau's stance on abortion a "bozo eruption" before being forced to apologize.

Story continues below advertisement

One wonders if Mr. Trudeau was brave enough to scold Pope Francis today in Rome for holding the same beliefs as Mr. Scheer? Of course he wouldn't have been. Mr. Trudeau is quite happy to stump for Catholic votes so long as none of his MPs are allowed to remain true to Catholic beliefs.

Hypocrisy doesn't begin to cover it.

Of course, with Liberals, it's not the beliefs; it's who holds them, and from what religion. The Liberal position appears to be that you can be a social conservative, as long as you're not a white, Christian social conservative.

It's hard to imagine the Liberals would be so aggressive in criticizing the new Conservative leader had that person been a Muslim or Orthodox Jew who shared the same social beliefs as Mr. Scheer. If you were to survey these communities, you would find much more support for Mr. Scheer's social beliefs than you would the Liberal Party's.

This was one of Stephen Harper's great insights into so-called "new" Canadian communities; they are often socially conservative and could be made comfortable in a political movement that rewarded family, hard work, and a role for faith in life, if not state-sanctioned society.

It wasn't a perfect fit.

Story continues below advertisement

The Conservatives suffered the reverse blindness exhibited by Liberals; the Tories were happy to have faith-based socially-conservative voters unless they were Muslim.

Will one party ever be able to unify socially-conservative voters? Not likely. The Liberals don't like the beliefs and the Conservatives don't like some of the believers. That's not likely to change. It's also simplistic to assume voters only cast ballots based on their religion, or that all adhere to all tenets of their faith.

But in this existing battle of blindness, it's advantage Liberals.

For in today's Canada – and in most Western democracies, for that matter – you can get away with criticizing a Christian far more readily than you can for criticizing a Muslim, even if you're talking about the same social beliefs.

As the gleeful Liberal attacks on Mr. Scheer prove, that's not likely to change either.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading…

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.