- FrontPage Magazine - http://www.frontpagemag.com -
Rejecting the Left
Posted By Jamie Glazov On April 27, 2010 @ 12:03 am In FrontPage | 14 Comments
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Christine Williams, the Producer and Host of the Canadian National Talk show On the Line on CTS TV, which has been recipient of 6 International Awards. A past news reporter, covering mostly crime and political assignments, Christine is also a regular National Columnist with Metro News and has participated in a Frontpage Symposium, Homegrown Jihadis. She studied Broadcast Journalism and then Graduated in Research Psychology from McMaster University. She is also the first visible minority national talk show host in Canada. She can be reached at ChristineBWilliams23@gmail.com.
FP: Christine Williams, thank you for joining us.
It is a real honor for me to speak with you. Congratulations on the tremendous success of your show in Canada.
I would like to talk to you today about your own personal intellectual journey and how you came to see the lie of the progressive faith.
Let’s begin with your background. Tell us a bit about your parents, where you are from and your life as a new immigrant in Canada. Comment on the foundations you think this set for your eventual political discoveries.
Williams: Thanks Jamie, good to be here again.
My parents immigrated to Canada from Trinidad when I was 5. They were teachers who struggled to adapt as new immigrants. They both earned their Masters Degrees and placed a high value on formal education. I was the tiny, belligerent, and inquisitive kid who couldn’t sit still in class and asked a lot of questions. I did this in company sometimes, which was, on occasion, embarrassing to my parents.
As a visible minority in the divergent city of Hamilton, Ontario, I faced bullying in school. My dad was a tough gym teacher and taught me self-defense so I fought back against the bullies, even the big ones. My mother — with a proud Chinese heritage — instilled dignity in me. Socially, they were both submissive with passive personalities. They were apolitical, but loyal Pierre Trudeau supporters during the 60’s era of Liberal glory in Canada.
FP: Tell me a bit about the bullying, your fighting back, and perhaps some lessons you took from the experience.
Williams: When confronted with a bully, there’s a realistic fear of getting your keister kicked. Bullies want power and they get it by forcibly conquering their victims especially when they cower. Victims become trophies, usually in front of spectators. Bullies choose victims they deem to be weaker or unpopular for whatever reason. In my case, I was the ideal choice: a tiny, visible minority girl in the late 60’s-early 70’s. It’s the amoral, survival of the fittest strategy: me being down meant they were up. When victims do nothing, they invite other bullies to join in. Eventually, their self-esteem and dignity get flushed and they become subservient, grovellers in the eyes of their peers. This was against my notion of what dignity meant, even from a young age. I knew there was a risk in fighting back. You could lose big time, but I was driven to send a clear message to bullies that I wasn’t an easy target.
Much of this was an unconscious process, but consistent with my mom’s value of human dignity. Deep down I was determined to not passively fall under the will of another human being. I’m not advocating violence here, but bullies need to be challenged. That could mean going to authorities. In an alleyway confrontation, that’s another story: you either run, fight or take a beating. I fought back and mostly won because of how my dad trained me. The bullies eventually backed off and I ‘earned’ friends, even as the original unpopular visible minority.
Can we apply some of these lessons to our political environment today? Well let’s put it this way: the radical Left and radical Islam are bullying the West and free people on many realms. We’re not fighting back nearly enough.
FP: Your parents were Trudeau supporters, why didn’t this stick with you in making you a liberal?
Williams: It wasn’t easy to make the break. “Trudeaumania” was catching. Trudeau was a highly intellectual politician and constitutional lawyer with robust charisma. It was easy to fall under his spell, particularly for me when I observed the heroic stand he took against the FLQ during the October crisis of 1970, and the way he stood up against riotous Quebec Separatists. I was under 10 and still impressed. Trudeau also encouraged immigration from non-European locations, prompting a huge demographic shift in Canada that made him an instant sensation to visible minorities (creating loyal Liberal support to this day).
Now this one, I deplore: Trudeau also had an ambitious social agenda in favor of the welfare state. He fought nuclear proliferation, a stand I started to question in the face of Western enemies. He socialized with communists which raised red flags and alienated our U.S. neighbors unnecessarily; recall Lawrence Eagleburger notoriously disparaging Trudeau’s 1982 peace initiative as the “pot-induced behaviour of an erratic leftist.” Decades later, the groundwork set by Trudeau morphed into a destructive set of ideologies, perpetuated by the far Left that I found to be rather unappealing; ideologies that continue to promote individual disempowerment and state empowerment.
FP: Ok, let’s go back a bit again. Tell us as you were growing up how you ran into the Left.
Williams: Well, growing up I had lots of leftie family members and friends. I saw how some of them made decisions that were extremely detrimental to their own sense of well-being. It was their life, so I didn’t give it much thought. But deep down I internalized that some of these individuals were young and didn’t know how to exercise the power of choice for their own personal development because they didn’t think and didn’t have the tools to encourage their own thinking.
For example: going to parties, finding an instant mate, believing lies, getting knocked up, going on welfare for some time then repeating the cycle. This is devastating, not only to the moms, but to the offspring born to such an environment. I don’t look down on people who make these mistakes, but I find it sad that such individuals are not taught how to be make choices that would yield fulfillment by furthering their own spiritual and psychological growth. Instead, leftie ideologues are screaming for more handouts and state-funded education for preschoolers. They exonerate these people from individual responsibility. And how about calling out for the responsibility of parents as well?
With the personal experience of raising my own family, returning to school and doing over 15-hundred live interviews, I contemplated what the gift of choice meant and how many people were caught up in a cycle of bad decisions and woeful consequences.
Then I started to notice inconsistencies and hypocrisies in the ideologies of the far left. They were critical of capitalism and the free market, citing economic inequities, yet they could never pinpoint a better alternative. There was no recognition of the fact that people from oppressive regimes are diving through hoops to immigrate to our free society. The leftist political elite was especially hypocritical, fattening itself off of the victimization of others, twisting facts and politicizing them for votes. They live a life of luxury off taxpayer dollars of which the lions share comes from the affluent — that they condemn. After the wine and caviar, they sanctimoniously parade themselves as champions of the poor, encouraging the victim complex and institutionalized learned helplessness through State handouts. Then they gleefully play the far left media like a fiddle, which makes them like the good guys to the public. Their hidden motto: strengthen the State, weaken the population.
FP: As a talk show host, what have been some of your personal observations of leftists?
Williams: My daily program covers a variety of current day issues, including Political ones where I often put left and right wingers to debate so I have seen the many shades of Leftists over the years. Some are hard core Leftists, but many of them I have found to be moderate Leftists who are rather pleasant and jovial. Some even share commonalities with their conservative counterparts, but for many you find a sore point, something that turns them off of Conservatism. For some, it’s guilt for the past sins of their country, yet even though they condemn our culture, they can’t find one that is more pure, one in which they are better off living in themselves. For others it’s personal guilt, they stereotype a Conservative as the old hat Christian — the stuffy shirt ominous Freudian super-ego, constantly pointing the finger at some aspect of their life.
FP: How about the Islamic community?
Williams: I’ve noticed something peculiar about “moderate” Muslims: they are mostly leftists, yet liberal policies are the very ones steering the country more toward what they escaped under Sharia and what they continue to fight against. It was moderates who intervened to reverse a plan for Sharia law in Liberal Ontario. Under the old regimes from where moderates came, Religion and State are oppressively intertwined, so when Conservatives even mention the need to protect our Judeo-Christian roots, it triggers a theocratic association and with it an irrational fear of being targeted for discrimination under a racist, Judeo-Christian rule. They don’t get it. It’s not that anyone wants to preach religion from Parliament or The White House. It’s about protecting the very freedoms that attracts immigrants here. Back home they have been historically brainwashed from young about the Great Satan America with her lackeys in Canada, especially the conservatives– so there’s confusion accentuated by the Leftist illusion about being champions of the oppressed.
FP: Your thoughts on feminism — leftist style?
Williams: This one is so ridiculous I can laugh and cry at once. A true feminist cares about the dignity and advancement of women everywhere. A healthy mind, a healthy soul and a healthy body is what I try to strive for and would like to see other women achieve the same. Personal choice determines outcome and education and awareness influence choice. The problem with radical leftist feminists: they are faux feminists who despise their own femininity; don’t like to talk about male-female differences, put down other women’s choices that differ from their own, and couldn’t care less about the plight of women abroad who don’t even have to right to choose; women who are getting burned alive, acid thrown in their faces, given as child brides, stoned for getting raped, mutilated and murdered to preserve the “honor” of a family.
These faux feminists also fight for a woman’s right to abortion on demand. The real question is: whose demand? Women are often coerced by someone at a very vulnerable time with no rights to informed consent and this is downplayed in our culture. In China, women are actually forced to have abortions with the one child policy. Where are the radical feminist voices here, to encourage education for the moral, ethical, and economic advancement of women everywhere?
The problem is that most radical feminists need to sort out their own inner rage. Many of them have their reasons to be angry, but when a cause is driven by resentment instead of genuine caring, nothing good and lasting can be accomplished.
FP: Radical Islam and the Left in the culture war?
Williams: Canadians are passive when it comes to the culture war and the threat of Islam. A lot of Canadians aren’t even familiar with the term “culture war.” We haven’t experienced a 9/11 here and since our collective media is very Left, cases highlighting the network of terrorists living in Canada and planning attacks in other countries have been downplayed.
In the case of the “Toronto 18″ — with their thwarted plans to bomb the Toronto Stock Exchange along with other profile targets — this grabbed more attention, but because the plans failed, people continue to go about business as usual and minimize the threat. Canadians in many ways scoff at American efforts because they either don’t want to or are too scarred to admit this very real threat.
Take my country of origin for example: Trinidad was a model country of a predominantly Christian, Muslim and Hindu population living peaceably together, even celebrating each others’ holy days. That was until the beginnings of aggressive Islamism in the late 80s. Abu Bakr, the leader of the Jamaat al Muslimeen, a Muslim group in Trinidad, had long-standing links with Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. Under the leadership of Abu Bakr, the group staged an attempted coup d’état in 1990. Since then, radical Islam is on the radar in a once very peaceful country.
Through the combined forces of political correctness and multiculturalism — Canada is now struggling with what reasonable accommodation means as conservative Muslims push for special rights according to their customs: to wear the niqab, have segregated swimming sessions, and even segregated living communities. The most dangerous aspect has been the effort to curb free speech as we saw with the Human Rights Commission shakedowns of Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine.
FP: What concerns you about multiculturalism in Canada?
Williams: Multiculturalism is a loophole which threatens our national security and rich heritage. Under the Multicultural Act, all cultures are deemed equal, including those that subjugate women. This clashes with our cultural mores. Yes, we are a country of many cultures, but equality, human rights and democracy are important to us and enshrined in our constitutions. The promotion of multiculturalism and sensitivity toward visible minorities has become a power tool of special interest groups.
Is racism alive and well in our culture? It certainly is and obviously needs to be fought against. It is insidious and appears in both subtle and overt forms. But rather than tackle it directly, some groups have chosen to target free speech instead. So when Mark Steyn reports about Radical Islam in Macleans Magazine, he and the publication get dragged to the Human Rights Commission because special interest groups cry that the report is promoting racism. We need to get serious about fighting both racism and Radical Islam, not fighting the truth. Free speech in the West has been an issue raised repeatedly by the O.I.C as a human rights issue, calling on the U.N. to adopt an International resolution to counter Islamophobia. Islamists wanting to push their global agenda against the ‘infidels’ know how to manipulate the multicultural loophole very cleverly. We have to stand up to them and their agenda.
FP: You have talked quite a bit about “choice” in this discussion. Free choice is obviously something that matters to you a lot and it is an issue that concerned you, and that you have thought about, since your youth. The radical Left and radical Islam do not allow choice. I think it is no surprise that you never became a leftist or an apologist for Islamism, for this reason (among others). Can you talk a bit about this?
Williams: Choice is power, period. It determines what you become. On a practical level, carefully thought out choices usually produces favorable results. However, if life deals unexpected blows, you can stand on something intangible, yet deeper: integrity, personal self worth and dignity. You emerge with an honored sense of self that no one can take from you. For a culture to offer no choice to women, it is an unconscionable, horrifying amputation of a woman’s human value. How anyone in our culture can undermine this is mystifying. But this is totally what the radical Left and radical Islam support doing.
FP: What concerns you the most about the radical Left’s alliance with radical Islam and the inroads that unholy alliance is making in our free societies? What do you think is the best thing concerned citizens can do to stand up to what the radical Left and Islamists are trying to perpetrate?
Williams: I see it as being about two things: courting the Muslim vote and lack of knowledge about the various branches of Islam. The radical Left has sucked up to leaders in the Islamic community without screening who they are. This is actually a derogatory display of how they see all Muslims, virtually dumping all Muslims who appear integrated in the same pile. They can’t be bothered to do their homework, so it’s an embarrassing expose of their own ignorance and how Islamists can use this ignorance against Western civilization. The leftist elite is largely unable to differentiate between subtle radical agendas and the goals of honest moderate Muslims, which inadvertently leads to the unholiest of alliances because of their burning lust for the Muslim vote, particularly in multicultural Canada. Concerned citizens need to understand their personal value in protecting the hard work of our founding fathers for the sake of the future generations and let their voices be heard by politicians.
FP: Christine Williams, it was an honor and a privilege to speak with you today, thank you for joining us.
Williams: Jamie, thank you for this honor.
FP: I appreciate that. I’d like to conclude by saying that I have been graced by your presence several times, and during each of those occasions it was very clear that one was in the company of a very special and unique person. Your intellectual sharpness is outweighed, perhaps, only by your noble and combative fearlessness. You are a true warrior for the truth, and the magnanimity that radiates from your mind and soul is something that one feels immediately — and cherishes. Thank you Christine for being who you are and for coming to the frontlines in our culture and terror war to fight for liberty and freedom. They don’t make many people like you anymore. It is a privilege for me to call you my friend.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jamie-glazov/rejecting-the-left/
Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.