Racism, identity politics and the Left

Slavery is one of the most abject systems ever devised by man. Too often it has been used to be the starting point for describing racism, especially in the United States. Racism: the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities based on inherent superiority of a particular race are now used by many on the left to oppose everyone who disagrees with their views and ideology.

In light of what is happening in the United States with regards to Trump’s tweets and feud with the so-called ‘Squad’, it is important that we take a step back and examine the use of the word racism in politics. At the onset of this discussion, I must make it quite clear that I do not condone the tone used by Trump to explain his policies, but I do support the tenure of his policies and his condemnation of attacks against him, Israel and conservatism in general. To this effect we should look at the trend and escalation of the term racism to describe conservative policies around the world.

Obama, the first black President of the United States, was elected by a majority of white voters, given that the black community makes only approximately 14% of the entire U.S population. So America is not a racist nation. The continuous use of the term ‘white privilege’ by the left is often used to demonize capitalism. It is a demographic fact of life that there are more Caucasians than other minorities in the U.S. Over the years that will change, but it does not mean that we should demonize the achievements of a white majority. Those who talk about ‘reparations’ and ‘white privilege’ should ask themselves: How many white men died in the civil war to abolish slavery? How many of today’s colored people have ancestors who owned slaves?

While it has been slow for African Americans to make significant progress in certain areas, there is no doubt that there are many successes that have been achieved by blacks in all fields of endeavour. However, today skin color is being used to change the values of Judeo-Christianism, capitalism and to bring forth socialist policies. The left continuously proclaims that all policies dissimilar to theirs are racist. It is not racism that is at the root of the current problems but rather the rise of socialism and the use of a new tool – political correctness. The left believes that freedom of speech is only theirs to use, nobody else’s. Racism is the new ‘gag’ to silence conservatives.

Let us look at the current calls of racism: The left in many western countries have seen their failed attempt to bring forth socialism; as a result they are using the fight against racism to institute polices that favor “Open borders policies” and “sanctuary cities” which in effect means the destruction of national sovereignty. Just because most illegal immigrants are people of color, it does not mean that laws should be allowed to be broken to accommodate them. Homelessness is not a racist issue it is a social issue which includes mental health, drug addiction among other symptoms.

In the corporate world we see the new trend of blaming racism to explain the lack of success by certain groups, Recently it was revealed that racism may be at the root of white privilege in the cannabis industry.- too many white men . There is no doubt that racism exists in many parts of our society, but it is not always the root cause of failure.

While the world is consumed with the debate between the four Democrat Congresswomen who make up the ‘Squad’, we ignore the fact that under Trump there has been an increase in Black and Hispanics employment that the average wage is on the increase.

 The media is focussed on Trump’s tone but not his achievements. What is disturbing is that while  in Canada we have not reached the level of debate based on racism,  I cannot discard the view that in the coming months the Liberal and the NDP will portray the Conservative Party of Canada as being xenophobic, and racist. Canadians should watch carefully how the debates are framed and open their eyes to real policies and not tone or labels. The success of a nation is not based on division but rather in the unification of ideas and values and racism in any form, real or created by political rhetoric must be rejected outright.

Progressivism and the power of unelected officials

In the middle of national celebrations by Canada and the United States, there is a rising cloud of activism in both countries. The success of this trend may have serious repercussions in the rest of the world as we move towards more globalization. Is it time to revisit the appointment of certain officials who may have the final decision in our democracy?

Ever since the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States, we have seen an increase in decisions made by the judiciary rather than Congress. Every decision that Trump has made has been scrutinized and very often challenged in court. The Ninth Circuit, with the majority of its members appointed by Democrats have stopped most if not all of Trumps proposed legislation. Too often these judges have made decisions not based on the constitution but rather on ideological beliefs.  A Democrat majority Congress has no intention to address the growing immigration crisis, which exist on the  Mexico/U.S border. Increasingly courts have viewed immigration as a humanitarian issue rather than interpreting existing laws. The initial premise is true but what of the law of the land? Do they not apply anymore? There is no doubt that many leftist politicians believe that the world should have no borders an accept immigrants for  multiple reasons, as a result for purely political reasons elected officials have relinquished their legislative powers to non- elected activist judges.

The current Supreme Court of the United States has  a Republican appointed majority, and yet it seems that the Chief Justice has decided to show that he is ‘neutral’ in certain cases, and has been a dissenting voice in important cases.  Famed law professor Alan Dershowitz recently stated: “Chief Justice John Roberts' deciding vote to kick the census question back over "phony excuses" was designed to file what Chief Justice Roberts sees as his main role: "to make sure the court is not seen as a partisan institution." Dershowitz added: “The Supreme Court's indecision on the census question and decision to get out of the issue of gerrymandering was "utterly inconsistent" and a compromise to attempt to appear nonpartisan.” Of course we want judges to be impartial, but we also want them to  interpret the law as per the Constitution.

The status is no different in Canada as courts have recently rendered decisions on two important government legislation, namely Bill C69, and Bill C48. These two pieces of legislation have serious implications for the national economy, and even ultimately the national unity. Challenges to the government’s ability to impose a tax on carbon have so far been won by the federal government to the detriment of provincial governments. Majority decisions in these cases have been rendered by Liberal appointed judges with one exception. The dissenting voice came from Justice Grant Huscroft, who was appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal by Stephen Harper in 2014,  Justice Huscroft is a true legal originalist who believes that judges should resist  progressive legal interpretation and follow the founding documents of the nation. However, in Canada judges do not follow the ‘originalist’ interpretation of the law; they prefer to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a living document subject to their interpretation. Since many of our justices have been appointed by Liberal politicians, it stands to reason that their interpretation of the law trends towards progressivism rather than conservatism. Furthermore, another un-elected body, The Canadian Senate while  succeeding in amending C-69 and coming awfully close to defeating C-48 altogether,  was unable to make any change to the status quo  since the Liberal majority in the House has the final word it is  thus unlikely that things will change.
The appointment of justices will affect future decisions of national importance. In both countries the trend of appointing judges based on their political affiliations or ideology makes a mockery of the idea that justice is supposed to be blind. Trump has promised to appoint conservative judges and in Canada the federal Liberals have promised to appoint the "most meritorious jurists" to judicial vacancies across Canada, but they continue to appoint friends and family members of their party, as is the case in New Brunswick. The result will be that judicial decisions will be used to embolden progressivism.
This trend of un-elected officials having the last word on the laws of the land is very concerning as recent judicial decisions have proven to be. It seems that the law will no longer apply according to legislation or constitution, but will rather be based on progressive or conservative ideology. In other words precedence created by judges. I am not a legal expert, far from it, but as a citizen, I am very afraid of the dangerous slope of giving un-elected officials the final word. ‘Res ipsa loquitur’