Columnist Q&A
In celebration of my fourth year as a weekly columnist with the Prince George Citizen, I thought it was right and just to give someone the chance to crossexamine me on behalf of readers. Without further ado, here are Grant Bachand’s questions and my answers:
Why do you think you are a controversial writer for a community as conservative as Prince George?
There are two main reasons. The first is as I’ve said many times now, this is not the Prince George of yesteryear; a great deal more liberal people have moved here for the public sector jobs that have become available. The second reason is a bit more subtle: I am a conservative idealist with deep Christian convictions. That makes both right and left unhappy.
Put briefly, idealism is something we find more on the left and it is the soil out of which springs their infernal good intentions.
On the right, people are more “pragmatic,” which at the lowest level lacks foresight and the highest level lacks principle.
Because I point out the faults of both sides, I make enemies. Finally, religious conviction is deeply disturbing to people on all sides, as it assumes judgment; we all prefer the darkness to the light, myself first and foremost.
You know the dangers a state can pose to faith communities, should the state be funding faith groups at all?
Actually, I’ve turned this same question over in my mind many times.
On the one hand, every time you take a coin from Her Majesty’s Government, you are going to owe it something; but on the other hand, there has never truly been a separation of church and state in this country, precisely because it’s too big to have a single service provider.
It would be entirely possible to retract government involvement in all the areas it has become commonplace – health, education, poverty – and give these areas back to faith groups or other voluntary associations.
From the incompetent management of public sector areas to the stubborn union bullies, it’s clear that public dollars are being badly used. Trudeau’s edict ought to be inverted – cut the taxes that fund public entities and see who steps up to provide services.
I see you as a young man with old sentiments. Do you ever feel trapped between two worlds, the young and old?
I do believe I’d be more at home in pre-Quiet Revolution Canada; the Ensign is still the
Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:
proper flag for this country, and it’s a good deal more multicultural than Pearson’s beer label.
However, I have no love for old inefficiencies or oligopolies: property taxes, the CBC, the dairy lobby, the big five banks, and the Indian Act are all due for abolition.
Q: You have been critical of Indigenous activist ideas, eg. cultural appropriation. Should we not learn how the actions of a majority can negatively affect a minority?
Absolutely we ought to learn such things – and such things can be learned without Marxist dogma turning over the applecart of civilization or historical facts.
My criticism is specifically addressed to a tiny minority of people who have made being a Status Indian an embarrassment by their tactics.
I am fully aware that EuropeanAboriginal relations still contain many issues, past and present, spanning from pride to prejudice.
But I am absolutely sure that European civilization has been a net gain for we the original peoples of Canada. And taking up the worst traits of our alleged oppressors – radicalism, playing the victim, virtue signalling – is no way to better our people. Our way forward is the same as every other minority: hardwork and perseverance.
Would you concede that a big state is necessary in a country as multicultural, diverse and large as Canada to promote social change?
It’s a tempting answer to the many problems we face as a society. And while Libertarians amongst us might fantasize about an entirely free Canada, this has never been the case. Look at our founding to the First World War: the CPR, RCMP, the immigration policies. We’ve always had strong government.
But where we’ve gone wrong is confusing equality of opportunity with equality of results.
Everyone ought to be equal before the law, and employers ought to have the scruples not to discriminate in hiring. But beyond that, when the government attempts to rebalance the playing field, everyone loses, except usually a tiny minority of lawyers or citizens who know how to game the system.
We don’t need more privileges – we need clear and fair rules of engagement.
Thank you, Grant, for the questions and thank you, readers, for your continued interest.
A: Q: A: