May 29, 2017

Pierre Lemieux: Social conservative values validated in results of CPC leadership race

Faith GoldyRebel Host
 

When the final results of the race for CPC leader were in, three of the top six candidates were social conservatives. One of those top finishers who carried a powerful life message, speaking for those with faith-based values was Pierre Lemieux. 

Watch as I speak with him about what I’m now calling the “social conservative spring” and discuss how to harness what he started and where we need to go from here. 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-05-31 13:06:15 -0400
Funny how some people believe family values were created in a vacuum. No outside influences; no historical context; societal mores and the like. Just poof – created entirely by a nuclear family! Amazing example of magical thinking, and, over estimating their own intelligence.
commented 2017-05-31 12:52:49 -0400
Peter Netterville, thanks for reminding me about the futility where Andrew Stephenson is concerned. She sure didn’t like it when I told her she is a Sharia and Islam apologist. She then decided to call it something else and soften her stance….hypocritical nonsense!
commented 2017-05-31 12:47:00 -0400
“Family values” were determined by my family, not the government, that’s what I mean. It’s a thinly disguised euphemism for “traditional” families, which is not something we should be forcing on people.

Sharia and fundamental Christianity both stand for ideology driven legislated behaviour. Both are anti-freedom. The only freedom arises in a secular government that respects individual choice.
commented 2017-05-31 12:42:24 -0400
Tammie, Andrew is going to view Christianity as the same as Islam regardless of how much he has to twist his mind into a pretzel to do it.

Christianity is precisely the opposite to Islam. Anyone who has read the Bible and then has read the Quran will realize they are the opposite. The Bible proclaims love. The Quran proclaims hate.

However, once a person … like Andrew for instance … has decided to twist his mind to see Christianity as the same will never be convinced of anything else.

It is not possible to change someone’s mind about Christianity and the Bible once that person has set himself against it. Trying to convince Andrew any different is futile until he decides to view the Bible objectively without his preconceived bias.
commented 2017-05-31 11:36:50 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, does your disdain for “family values” indicate you were raised by robots?
What specifically offends you about family, and family values? Concrete examples of what you are talking about is preferable to conditioned bafflegab!

Again, you are walking back on your proclamations as it pertains to your ill-informed ideas concerning Islam, Sharia Law. Comparing it to Christianity is strong evidence you have a juvenile understanding of it. So voluble, so fraudulent, so damaged.

You tell me what happened to freedom? What do you know about a loss of freedom? Where did so many Canadians die to protect our freedom? How have their efforts been over- shadowed by people who subscribe to revising history to suit their nihilism? How do narcissists benefit, you tell me!
commented 2017-05-31 10:40:08 -0400
I read his post, and I see someone that got triggered by the comparison between Islam and Christianity, that manifests in unpredictable ways.

I don’t want “family values” of any sort crammed down my throat, regardless of the mythology used to rationalize it. Whatever happened to freedom?
commented 2017-05-30 22:59:54 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, read your own posts again, see Peter Netterville’s response you….
People who know little about Islamic ideology or the Christian faith make a lot of assumptions when they glibly post arguments like yours.
commented 2017-05-30 22:52:05 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, you are now walking back your statements and proclamations. If you don’t like being viewed as a Sharia and Islam apologist, don’t communicate like one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
commented 2017-05-30 22:40:01 -0400
No, I am not. I apologize if that’s what you took away from it. I am comparing Islam to Christianity, and criticizing both. How you got an endorsement of Islam out of it is unclear.
commented 2017-05-30 22:29:49 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, re-read your posts for heaven’s sake….you are an apologist for Sharia law!
commented 2017-05-30 21:36:02 -0400
I don’t think I apologized for Islam/Sharia. In fact, I criticized it for the possibility it could encroach on my freedoms – then I criticized “family values”/Christianity for the same.

It’s not a binary situation. Freedom demands the third choice, which is pure secularism with minimal state intervention.
commented 2017-05-30 18:00:05 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, you are a Sharia and Islam apologist. Sick, sick, sick!!!!!!!!
Before you write another word of shit on this topic, get some research done and leave your contrarian nature at the door!
commented 2017-05-30 17:56:31 -0400
So, such things are legal, but not supported by either religion in principle.

Secularism gave us the freedoms we have now. The Church has more than a little heretic blood on its hands, and it’s only after its stranglehold was broken that we truly became free. Even then it was frequently because of successful legal challenges rather than legislation.
commented 2017-05-30 17:10:17 -0400
People who equate Christianity with Islam are either completely stupid, lying, or know absolutely nothing about either Christianity or Islam.

Christianity has given our Western society the freedoms we have now, whether people want to believe that or not. History is proof of that. The fact that people have the freedom to criticize Christianity, politicians, etc is proof of that.
commented 2017-05-30 17:03:20 -0400
Andrew said, “Do we, though? The religious right hates freedoms such as gay marriage, abortion, or recognition of transgender individuals. How is that different than Sharia?”

What does it matter if the “religious right” hates gay marriage, abortion or does not recognize transgender individuals?
- Gays have the legal right to marry
- Women can legally choose to murder their babies right up to 1 second before birth
- the law recognizes transgender individuals
So what the “religious right” believes or not believes is irrelevant.

However, Sharia Law enforces killing gays, will not allow abortion, does not recognize transgender individuals through the force of Sharia Law, and all with the penalty of death. THAT is the difference.

Even when many years ago gays could not marry and transgender individuals were not recognized by law, enforcement of Canadian law did not include death. As a matter of fact, gays were never penalized under the law for living together, they just could not get married back then. No fine. Not put in jail. Not murdered for being gay.

Andrew, can you see the difference now?
commented 2017-05-30 16:38:19 -0400
“Peter Netterville commented 1 hour ago
Andrew, the “pro-freedom secularists” have the freedom to be pro-freedom secularists when they live in a Conservative “traditional” pro-family society, but the pro-freedom secularists will not have the freedom to be a pro-freedom secularist in a pro-Sharia society. "

Do we, though? The religious right hates freedoms such as gay marriage, abortion, or recognition of transgender individuals. How is that different than Sharia?
commented 2017-05-30 15:18:04 -0400
Andrew, the “pro-freedom secularists” have the freedom to be pro-freedom secularists when they live in a Conservative “traditional” pro-family society, but the pro-freedom secularists will not have the freedom to be a pro-freedom secularist in a pro-Sharia society.
commented 2017-05-30 12:23:26 -0400
“Billy Howard commented 9 mins ago
Unlike previous elections, the next one will include 2 clear choices:
Conservative “traditional” pro-family values or
Liberal “progressive” pro-Sharia values "

that’s basically two different flavours of the same choice. Oh, the Abrahamic mythology used to justify it changes somewhat (not much) , but both represent top-down, state-enforced value systems.

What’s the pro-freedom secularist to do?
commented 2017-05-30 12:14:17 -0400
Unlike previous elections, the next one will include 2 clear choices:
Conservative “traditional” pro-family values or
Liberal “progressive” pro-Sharia values
commented 2017-05-30 10:02:53 -0400
Andrew Stephenson said, “Actually, progressives advocate for the freedom for you to raise your kids how you want, without the State’s intrusion.”

Classic liberals/progressives of 20+ years ago, yes that is true. Recent liberals/progressives no, they do not advocate freedom to raise your kids how you want, without the state’s intrusion. These recent liberals/progressives are socialists. Socialism advocates everything belongs to the state.
commented 2017-05-29 23:56:05 -0400
“These “progressive” forces simply abhor children being raised by loving and firmly-guiding parents who raise resilient, emotionally & psychologically strong individuals. Why? Because those kids can’t be targeted by the lunacy they’re selling (Gender identify, salacious and perverted sex-ed, identity politics, harmful & inferior “positive” parenting systems, etc…) We each are responsible to make sure our children aren’t poisoned as Sweden and much of the EU has become. I know mine won’t be, how about you? "

Actually, progressives advocate for the freedom for you to raise your kids how you want, without the State’s intrusion.
commented 2017-05-29 23:54:50 -0400
The actual so-cons got a fifth of the votes in the early ballots. “Validated”? Snicker. You’ve got a fifth, of the third of the population that identifies as Conservative – or maybe 7% of the total population.

Watching the ballot results, it appears that Erin O’toole’s very centrist platform contributed as much, if not more, to Scheer’s total count. He was deliberately mushy on the SoCon issues and Bernier was too extreme for a lot of moderates.
commented 2017-05-29 22:06:51 -0400
HAROLD HOFF commented, “Pierre Lemieux also strongly supports solid traditional and effective parenting, and the nuclear family as the basis of society”. On the other hand, Red Tory Michelle Rempel, part of the CBC panel for the election, explained that what Scheer meant by “strong families” was families who were fiscally well off.
commented 2017-05-29 19:10:38 -0400
DON ARMITAGE, your list is very close to our’s as my NGO polled each candidate on Parental Rights and protection of children and family from predatory over-reach by the “State” into our homes. We had 1 Trost, 2 Lemieux, 3 Scheer and somewhere next Bernier. We send Brad our CPC Candidate Choices in Poem! :-) hope you enjoy

Who’s the one I like the Most? That one’s easy, he’s Brad Trost

Who would I put in number two? There I’d take Pierre Lemieux

The choice for number three is clear, He’s no one other than Andrew Scheer!

Alexander, Bernier, Leitch and Raitt, They fill my slots before choice eight

I don’t know from eight to ten, But Michael Chong is none of them!
commented 2017-05-29 19:04:34 -0400
Pierre Lemieux also strongly supports solid traditional and effective parenting, and the nuclear family as the basis of society. The progressive ideologists fear this, because they wish to indoctrinate children via education and supersede or entirely replace the parenting role. Anyone who understands this can see the multitude of predatory anti-child / anti-parenting laws proposed now (ON Bill 89, C-16, S-206, as examples).

These “progressive” forces simply abhor children being raised by loving and firmly-guiding parents who raise resilient, emotionally & psychologically strong individuals. Why? Because those kids can’t be targeted by the lunacy they’re selling (Gender identify, salacious and perverted sex-ed, identity politics, harmful & inferior “positive” parenting systems, etc…) We each are responsible to make sure our children aren’t poisoned as Sweden and much of the EU has become. I know mine won’t be, how about you?
commented 2017-05-29 16:49:48 -0400
Thanks Faith so much for endorsing Pierre and for the interviews over the course of the campaign. Especially thank you for this interview. I can appreciate your “fan girl” moment at the end because that’s exactly how I feel about Pierre also :-) He was my #1, followed by Brad Trost and Andrew Scheer… so I was able to watch my vote cascade to the finish. I was supporting a “David” and hoping for no less than a “Silas” as Scheer never ran his campaign as a so-con but was considered “so-con friendly”. I met Pierre twice and volunteered for his campaign, and he and his wife, Audrey, are amazing people. As soon as Pierre issues the charge, I will be right there to follow him into battle again, and I know many of his supporters feel the same way. He’s an inspiring leader and it is very unfortunate that Canadians will not benefit from his leadership style and life experiences. One last thing, Faith… now that the campaign is over I would love to see you challenge Pierre to a shooting competition and share the video on The Rebel :-)
commented 2017-05-29 16:28:32 -0400
Don said, "It seems like the Liberals, NDP and MSM think that social Conservatives are the worst thing that ever happened. "

Oh, the MSM has nothing but pure unadulterated seething irrational hatred for social Conservatives.
commented 2017-05-29 15:56:07 -0400
I put Trost 1st, Bernier 2nd, Lemieux 3rd and Scheer 4th. It seems like the Liberals, NDP and MSM think that social Conservatives are the worst thing that ever happened. This is a measure of how much morality in general has slipped in our modern world. I really hope our Conservative spokesmen going forward stand up unapologetically for high moral standards and the sanctity of life.
commented 2017-05-29 15:04:30 -0400
Faith, you couldn’t find Brad Trost?
commented 2017-05-29 14:43:40 -0400
Pierre Lemieux is great! He would have made a very good PM! Thank you Pierre for all your hard work and for serving our country Canada so well!