What is Conservatism?

It's based on absolute truths, wisdom of the ages, virtue, the natural family, traditions, and celebration of ancestors. In the case of western civilization, Christianity has had a huge influence. To the conservative, community is more important than individualism. Conservatism is actually middle-of-the-road when you comsider that Socialism strives to control everybody, and Liberalism to free everybody. Conservatism allows freedom as long as it doesn't undermine society. With Socialism you wind up with slavery, Liberalism, with anarchy, and Conservatism, a stable society. Everybody has some degree of conservatism in them.

Isn't individual freedom better than a restrictive structured society?

If Individual freedom trumps society, then say hello to anarchy. The reason that societies formed in the first place was security and co-operation between members, allowing specialization of skills. A code of conduct and eventually culture developed. The modern Individualist would call this restrictive, but actually, it is the base for freedom, because how can you be free when you are constantly worried above security. How can you feel secure if there is no protocol between you and your fellow humans.
There is also the argument that a person can Never be free in this world, there will always be something restricting them in some way or other. Western society evolved to give everybody the most freedom possible without hurting society.

What is so bad about equality?

Equality sounds good on the surface. Equality of Opportunity is a hallmark of western civilization, but not Equality of Outcome. Equality of Opportunity is conducive to freedom, Equality of Outcome has to be forced (socialism) and therefore conflicts with freedom.

Doesn't the Charter of Rights free everybody from oppression?

Generally, giving one person, or group of persons a right means that others lose their rights. An example of this is in the 1980s a woman wanted access to a men's club. Up to that point people were free to create voluntary clubs - it was none of the States business. But what happened is that those people (in fact everybody) lost the right of free association, just because one person's rights were deemed greater.

Wouldn't the Human Rights Commissions decisions mold a better society?

These commissions are about social engineering - Forcing what they want, to happen, rather than letting people have a choice and come to their own conclusion. Should we let a select few decide what's good for society? How do we know they will do the right thing? Most likely their bias will determine the direction. The result is we lose our freedom to chose, as we are herded into the coral of socialism.

Why are Conservatives skeptical of Human caused Climate change?

Conservatives look deeper and try to determine if something is a valid argument. Here are some obvious points:
(a)Carbon dioxide is a small percentage (2%) of green house gases - water vapor is 95% - it's not fully understood how water vapor works as a green house gas - why isn't the focus on water vapor?
(b) The temperature of the world is rising because of human burning of fossil fuels? In the Mediaeval times temperatures were a lot warmer than today and there was no burning of fossil fuels! In fact the temperatures have always been changing. (c) The percentage of carbon dioxide that is human caused is quite low 30%, the rest is naturally occurring. but humans are the guilty ones?
(d) It has been said that it's settled science. But we hear that there are Deniers. We are told that 2000 scientists are on board - but when is science a democracy? Science is decided by a hypotheses and experimentation, and things that appear to be true are always rigorously tested. Scientists are a skeptical bunch. In this "science" of global warming, dissenting scientists are shunned and lose their funding. Others are publicly denounced - is this science? ...No it's political.

Gay marriage is about rights isn't it?

Not really. Homosexuals always had the right to get married. They just had follow the same rules as everybody else and marry someone of the opposite sex. The institution of marriage requires qualifications, not rights. The qualifications go deep into history and are spread over many cultures world wide. Marriage is really about a Man and a Women and the family structure that comes out of (and goes into) that union. The family is the building block of a society. What people who support Gay marriage are really trying to do is to normalize the perversion. "Marriage does not honour some persons above others; rather, it honours a certain form of relationship" - Douglas Farrow

Sometimes I hear that Democracy is good and then I hear it is not so good - what gives?

The democracy of the french revolution morphed into a tyranny - mob rule. The democracy of The U.S. went another root and created a free liberal society. The difference rests on the model of Flawed Humanity versus Perfect Humanity. We always hear that British/Canadian/American democracy has checks and balances for the Flawed model. Please read William Gairdner's book The Trouble with Democracy for a detailed description.

The Nanny State - what's wrong with it?

Well for starters it infantilizes people. People go from self reliance, to reliance on the State. Always looking for a handout, they think they are entitled to anything they want. This kind of situation bankrupts the country because everybody is on the take. Any profitable business is bled to death to feed the Nanny State. Please read William Gairdner's book The Trouble with Canada

Isn't it better to be a 'Progressive' conservative?

The question is: "progressing to where?" True Conservatives want a stable society based on absolute truths and natural laws - change is only required if there is something that clashes with those truths. So careful progressing in that direction is good. Progressing into the unknown, buy cutting lose time honored traditions, is bad.

Diversity and Inclusion in society are good aren't they?

    These are two words used by progressives to describe their ideal society. It’s also a way to say that the previous society was not Diversive or Inclusive. But it was, up to a point.
    Isn’t diversity good? The word has a positive connotation. It seems more diversity would be better. But like a lot of things, it is a sliding scale where the extremes are not good. Total diversity is anarchy where nobody has anything in common. Total lack of diversity is a society of sameness, where there is total equality but nothing of note. So, diversity is not good or bad in itself. Where the pointer ends up on the scale depends on what society decides, what the people agree to be bound by. There can’t be diversity in the basic values of society - there have to be fixed values, if you want a stable society.
    Inclusion; what do progressives mean by inclusion - accepting everybody as a person first, without any qualifying reason (that would be discrimination!) That basically leads to equality - one person is as good as the other. In this way progressive inclusion disregards the differences, (good, bad, talent, laziness) between people - to the detriment of society.
    Now, how do progressives reconcile these two concepts - they seem opposite in purpose. Diversity celebrates differences and Inclusion ignores differences. Maybe diversity actually means (to progressives) no difference. Everything should be so diverse that there would be effectively no diversity. Every difference would be "atomized", leaving "persons" with no differences. Although it would seem like Utopia to some, it is actually more like Hell - A socialist "society" without any structure or direction.