Canadians for Language Fairness
P.O. Box 40111
Bank & Hunt Club Postal Outlet
2515 Bank Street.
Ottawa, ON, K1V 0W8
What do you know about the Official Languages Act?
The Official Languages Act (OLA), passed in 1969, is a Federal law which is enforced at the federal level and one other province i.e. New Brunswick. The province of Quebec has passed several anti-English laws (Bills 22, 178 & 101) that effectively make French their only official language. The provinces of Nova Scotia passed the French Language Services Act (2004) as did the province of Ontario (1986), and the province of Prince Edward Island (2013). Limited service in French is offered in each municipality in each of these provinces in varying degrees.
What's wrong with that?
Elevating a minority language to equal status with the majority language is creating an over-emphasis on the minority language, especially when that minority language is concentrated only in the Eastern provinces of Canada, namely, QC & NB. Further using that minority language as the criteria for employment at the federal level and increasingly at the provincial level is creating a work-force which over-represents the French-speakers. French-speakers are the ones most likely to be bilingual as they grow up speaking the language. Non-French speakers do not grow up speaking French and learning it at school does not make them fluent, especially as the educated French is very different from the colloquial French.
The 2011 Census showed that "self-assessed" bilingual Canadians make up 17.5% of Canada's population, the figure of those who can pass the language test is only about 12%. The Treasury Board (2014) showed that 31.9 % of the total Federal Public Service are Francophones in a country that is made up of only 21.3% mother-tongue French-speakers (2011 census). This over-representation of French-speakers in our public service concerns us greatly.
The limited supply of bilingual Canadians & the over-emphasis on a minority language as a criteria for employment has resulted in a lowering of academic & professional standards in our governments. Many high-level positions are filled by people with just secondary school certificates or equivalent.
As French is spoken widely only in Eastern Canada, this has led to Western Canadians being left out of the picture. The division and disunity brought about will eventually destroy Canada.
This is why you should be concerned.
21 April 2018
An on-line consultation by the OL office was circulated by me yesterday. Only two people have participated from our distribution list. Comments are accepted until the end of May. We need to try and have our side heard. Many English-speaking Canadians have given up on the battle to be heard – this is a mistake because it will be interpreted as “Silence is Approval”. Please make your opinion heard.
( the end of this website page has a button "the floor is yours" to access the survey.)
Most Canadians are so angry with the OLA that they’ve either turned themselves off from caring or just submitted to the ignominy of being forced into 2nd class citizens by being forced to accept that French is as important as English. That will NEVER happen, in this world or the next!! English has been the internationally accepted language by more people than French will ever be.
Please do not be in the majority of Canadians who have accepted this policy without a fight. All you are being asked to do is spend half an hour on this survey so that we can at least let the FPTB (French Power That Be) know that a lot of Canadians are not happy with giving the French so much power & control in our Halls of Power.
I’ve decided to take a copy of all my answers so that you know that I care enough about this issue to make the effort. Do not ignore this one & only opportunity to let the OCOL know how you feel. You don’t need to identify yourself so if you’re a public servant, you won’t need to be afraid of the consequences. If you are nervous, don’t use an email that can be traced to you. As a citizen of this lovely country, it is your duty to speak up about this truly unfair policy that is designed to give a linguistic minority total control of the government.
I’ve received two people’s responses – I’m hoping to get more after this urgent request. You don’t need to be nasty or rude – just be honest!!
Politicians care about how their voters feel – contact your MPs & let them know that the OLA has not worked for the English-speaking majority. Tell them to speak up & stop allowing the French lobbyists to cow them into silence. Every Canadian knows that the number of bilingual Canadians is NOT growing!! Why are we spending so much of our diminishing resources on a policy where the returns for our investment is diminishing so rapidly?
COPY OF THE SURVEY
Please explain why you don’t think the Act needs to be updated.
The Act was updated by the French Ministers in the Chretien govt. to increase the power & influence of French-speakers (primarily the Quebecois). To demand more update is to demand more power for French-speakers & further diminish the participation rate in the public service of English-language speakers.
If you had to select from the list below, which themes are the most important to you in the context of the modernization of the Official Languages Act?
Roles and mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages (promotion, education, protection)
Governance and leadership (responsibility for official languages within the federal government, such as Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Canadian Heritage, etc.)
Languages used by the federal government when communicating with the public and delivering services
Language of work in federal institutions (language of training offered to employees, language of supervision, aligning language-of-work rights with geographical areas where services must be provided in both official languages, language of central and personal services, language-of-work rights for virtual teams and new work arrangements such as telework)
Access to justice (accessibility of court decisions in both official languages, Supreme Court judges are functionally bilingual)
Vitality of English linguistic minority communities
Vitality of French linguistic minority communities
Recognition of Metis, Inuit and First Nations languages
Inclusion of new technologies (translation tools, social media and websites)
Support of minority community media
Other (Please specify) *
None of the choices are important to me
* The rights of the English-speaking majority are being ignored & suppressed by the requirement to be proficient in the French language. The Language tests are not of the same level for the English tests as they are for the French tests. The English tests are of a much lower level than the French tests.
The Language tests are administered by the govt. which have been found to be very poorly done & very biased. This monopoly by the PSC should be ended. The tests are not open to public scrutiny - why are you hiding this?
Do you have any other comments or suggestions that you wish to share with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages about the Act?
Yes, I would like the OCOL to stop lying - Canada is NOT an officially bilingual country - the OLA only applies to Federal Institutions as the Provinces have the right to NOT adopt this language policy. We know that Quebec has decided to be Officially Unilingual French with various provincial laws like Bill 101. Only New Brunswick has adopted the OLA & is the only province that has done so. The other provinces have not adopted this foolish, money-wasting policy. At a time of great economic difficulties, why are we doing something which has done nothing but divide the country along linguistic lines for the benefit of French-speakers, mainly from Quebec.
The two responses received so far:
Well, well! After 50 years the politicians have decided to pretend to want our opinion. I’ve made my opinion heard, even though it will most likely be ignored. As you will see, there are a couple of sections where you can write out your opinions and observations in this so-called consultation. I have written the following:
“In all of the above listed themes, the act has done nothing but promote French. The Act itself is un-democratic, unconstitutional and discriminatory toward the English majority. These pieces of legislation have been written and passed in obscurity, without any input from the English majority and yet you continue to quote them in an effort to legitimize what is really happening. Official bilingualism is nothing less than forced bilingualism. The only 'updating' of this unfair scenario is to eliminate forced bilingualism altogether and stop shoving French down everybody's throat. There is absolutely no need for any North American to learn French other than to appease a minority that will never be satisfied. If you want to make changes, try a little democracy for a change. We've had 50 years without it.”
“Official bilingualism is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the citizens of Canada. We've already seen that wherever the French manage to eke out a majority their first step is to restrict and discriminate against English. Your further actions will cause further divisiveness and antagonism, eventually ending in conflict. We demand democracy, that thing wherein the majority actually has a say in their future!”
Filled it out and my suggestion was that RoC should adopt Quebec’s perfect example of making French the official and unilingual language of Quebec. Therefore, RoC should adopt English, officially and unilingually.
Finished it was an astronomical waste of time, money and efforts and those resources should be for the benefit of ALL Canadians and not just a linguistic minority’s.
01 April 2018
Our new Language Commissioner, Raymond Théberge, is off to a good start!! More money will be spent on forcing the French language on the Most of Canada (MoC), while misrepresenting the entire situation. When will the politicians (Federal, Provincial, Municipal) & ALL the elites accept that “Canada is NOT a bilingual country”?
1. Keith has presented the argument well enough, Canada CANNOT be a bilingual country as long as Quebec is UNILINGUAL & still part of Canada.
2. Raymond Theberge is wrong when he said, “Ottawa is officially bilingual” – it is not.
Bill 177 acknowledges that Ottawa has a bilingual policy (as per by-law 2001-170 & the City of Ottawa Act 199) but this does not make Ottawa “Officially Bilingual”. The City Of Ottawa Council is still in control of how bilingual it will be – NOT the courts. Once the City is declared OB, the courts will take control & do I need to remind you how biased the courts are these days? Do you know how far this French power & influence have grown since the OLA was nserted nto our flawed 1982 Constitution?
CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1999
The Schedule amends the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. It recognizes Ottawa’s bilingual character. It requires Ottawa to make a by-law for bilingual administration and services. It clarifies that an existing Ottawa by-law respecting bilingualism is such a by-law.
The Council of the City of Ottawa is still in charge – that situation stays as long as the citizens are mindful who they vote for in the next election because the French groups are putting pressure on the current & future councillors.
Read the Report from the Commissioner below.
3. Wait till you come to the part that is designed to make you cry!! The Language Commish says that the % of French speakers is steadily decreasing so we must bolster their numbers with increased immigration from French-speaking countries (usually ex-French colonies). So brace yourselves to accommodate more immigrants that will require more social services in French.
4. The Eastern provinces that have been depending on the amount of money being transferred from the Western provinces will soon find that the Western provinces no longer want to continue to support this Wealth Transfer Scheme. Sharon MacLise, leader of the Alberta Freedom Alliance, has her own ideas on a solution (read the item below by Dr. Michael Wagner).
5. The United Conservative Party, under the leadership of Jason Kenney, is thinking along the same lines (read the article on that below).
Wouldn’t it be good if these two like-minded entities were to work TOGETHER? Let me remind them of the old adage: “United we Stand, Divided we Fall”.
Figure 1.1: Federal investments in official languages
Federal investments in official languages - Text version
Excerpt from the report above
Decline in the percentage of Francophones outside of Quebec
Statistics Canada projections show the percentage of Francophones outside of Quebec declining from 4% in 2011 to 3% by 2036.
Slow growth of bilingualism
Statistics Canada projects that the national bilingualism rate will go from 17.5% in 2011 to 18.5% in 2036, while the rate of bilingualism of Anglophones outside of Quebec will go from 6.6% to 6.7% for the same period.
After the billions we’ve spent chasing this dream, should we be impressed?
Speech for the Dialogue Canada Annual General Meeting
Ottawa, Ontario, March 26, 2018
Raymond Théberge - Commissioner of Official Languages
Beginning of dialog
Good morning/afternoon/evening ladies and gentlemen.
First, thank you for this invitation. I feel privileged to have been appointed Commissioner of Official Languages and to be with you today to start our discussion. I know that it will give me food for thought throughout my mandate.
Thank you for your work over the years toward making the City of Ottawa bilingual. I am very proud that our capital has become officially bilingual. It is an important symbol, and it reminds us that official languages are part of our country’s DNA.
My history is very similar to that of a number of Francophone families in Western Canada. My grandfather left Quebec to settle in Saskatchewan on 160 acres of land. He was one of the early settlers of Western Canada, and along with many others, helped to build his adopted province.
I was born in Sainte-Anne-des-Chênes, Manitoba. At the time, the village’s population was almost 100% Francophone, yet there was no French public school. My parents sent me to a private school so that I could receive a French education.
When it was my brothers’ turn, they were able to attend a French public school. Things had changed. The Francophones’ demands had finally been heard.
The migration of Francophones to Western Canada did not affect their strong desire to preserve their language and culture. That is what makes the Francophone population so resilient. In my parents’ view, a French education was not optional, it was non-negotiable.
Before going to Ottawa to study, I was a French Canadian. When I returned home a few years later, I was a bit surprised to learn that I was part of an official language minority community. It was the first time that I was referred to as a minority.
French Canadians, as they were called at the time, were originally descendants of immigrants from France. Of course, they were also descendants of other peoples. For instance, some First Nations members married French immigrants. The Francophone migration to Western Canada was driven by the opportunity to prosper and settle, given the fertile soil and the railway. It was the right time to acquire land. French-speaking Canadians initially came from Europe. Nowadays, they come from Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean and other places as well.
Both the official language majority and official language minority communities are becoming increasingly diverse as a result of immigration and mixed marriages. The communities are also becoming more and more bilingual, or even trilingual. This situation has contributed to Canada’s rich cultural fabric, but also to the growing complexity of individual linguistic identities.
While this situation has led to new opportunities, challenges have also emerged, especially with respect to linguistic duality. I believe that bilingualism and a knowledge of Canada’s two official languages constitute more than just a list of characteristics of a person or community. Linguistic duality is a fundamental value of our society.
(Ask any New Brunswicker what this really means. Linguistic Duality has come to mean that French-language institutions stay French but English-language institutions must become bilingual!! This will lead to SEGREGATION – the main reason given is to stop ASSIMILATION!! How’s that for a nation-building exercise?)
According to recent language data released by Statistics Canada, the bilingualism rate has increased in almost every province and territory, which is a good sign. However, Statistics Canada’s projections indicate that between now and 2036, the percentage of Francophones in the country will continue to decrease. In addition to demographic and linguistic challenges, some communities face significant socio-economic challenges.
I believe that Statistics Canada’s language projections are a call to action for immigration, one of the foremost ways to maintain the demographic weight of Francophone minority communities. I also believe that, to fully ensure the future of language minority communities, there must be a continuum of education, from early childhood services to post-secondary institutions. I plan to focus on these two major issues during my mandate.
You already know that promoting linguistic duality is part of my mandate. However, for me, it is far more than just a responsibility. I have worked on official languages my entire life. Like Obelix, I swam in the potion, the potion of official languages. I lived in a small Francophone minority community. I saw my parents fight endlessly for the right to a French education. All of my studies and academic work in linguistics have helped to shape my current vision. I have worked in Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick, and official languages have always played a key role in my activities.
So, for me, it is more than just a responsibility … it is a calling.
Our current government must make a commitment to linguistic duality and minority language communities. We need strong leadership to increase bilingualism and to ensure that children in language minority communities have equal access to early childhood services and education in their language.
The government can do this through its Action Plan for Official Languages. We are eagerly awaiting this plan, which should provide a good overview of the federal government’s commitment. However, the plan is not an end in itself. It is only a beginning. Next comes the leadership that I just mentioned. It is encouraging to see that the Action Plan for Official Languages is being revamped. I was also pleasantly surprised to see official languages specifically referred to in the budget. However, I look forward to hearing who will be taking the lead on this issue, who will be coordinating the plan and who will be holding the departments accountable to ensure that the plan achieves results for Canadians.
I would now like to take a few minutes to talk about another matter that is just as important, and which I believe will affect the future of linguistic duality and official language minority communities.
As you probably know, the Office of the Commissioner has started to look at modernizing the Official Languages Act. Since the Act will turn 50 in 2019, the time is ripe for proposing to the government that it make changes to the legislation.
I have been here only a few months, but I am convinced that the Act must be modernized to reflect the many ways that Canadian society has changed since 1988. These changes include the demographics of the country, immigration and urbanization, and technology changes and their impact on federal institution workplaces and new ways of delivering services to the public.
Now more than ever, we need legislation that can proactively respond to the changing face of Canada.
While I focus on a number of issues, my team will continue to consult key stakeholders and will start a broader public consultation very soon. These consultations will significantly contribute to our discussion.
Key issues in this important exercise include linguistic equality in justice, the possibility of asserting the Commissioner’s historic role of promoter and educator, the need to consider potential regulations for the promotion of English and French by the federal government, and the inclusion of a provision for periodic review of the Act.
I hope that you will participate in these consultations in some capacity. The Office of the Commissioner wants to take a position that Canadians and language communities can agree upon.
Since my time as a student in Saint-Boniface, I have experienced both the highs and lows of my Francophone community in Manitoba. Through the various positions that I have held, I have seen all the progress made by the Francophone and Acadian communities.
From French Canadian to Francophone Canadian to Francophone, my identity has evolved in step with Canadian society.
I am certain that much work remains to be done to ensure the future of linguistic duality in Canada, as well as Francophone minority communities. We must build on the foundations of official languages and linguistic duality and face the challenges ahead. With the support of organizations such as yours, which have connection at the core of their mandate, I am sure that we will succeed.
Date modified: 2018-03-26
Impaired charges against Sudbury man stayed because police didn't speak to him in French Judge rules Charter rights were violated during 2016 arrest
Not rude, just French
ALBERTA FREEDOM ALLIANCE
Dr. Michael Wagner, a PhD historian, is a Friend of Alberta Separation. You can read his several posts on our webpage here. They will help you understand that Alberta Independence isn’t just a novelty – it is an absolute possibility. But keep dreaming – people in the ROC need to live in disbelief or they’ll be too scared shitless to sleep at all, if they are forced to contemplate Alberta leaving them on their own.
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 28, 2018
Towards an Independent Alberta: A Brief History of Alberta Separatism
Alberta Freedom Alliance is proud to call Michael Wagner a Friend of Alberta Separation. Dr. Wagner has been a defining voice in Alberta’s conservative community and has accumulated years of knowledge in Alberta political history doing extensive research along with many years of personal observation of its trends. He knows more about Alberta conservative politics and the many great “movers and shakers” in our conservative community than perhaps any other “expert”. His latest book, True Right, a must read for students of Alberta politics’, defines them all. A previous book, Alberta Separatism: Then and Now is the only one of its kind. It describes the background and history of Alberta Separatism. You can find them both on http://merchantship.generationalfamilies.net/.
Michael first became politically involved in the early 1980s as a result of Pierre Trudeau’s attack on Alberta’s freedom and resources. He joined Elmer Knutson’s West-Fed organization in 1981 and the Alberta Western Canada Concept Party in 1982. Much later, in 2009, he wrote his sympathetic history of the Alberta separatist movement to ensure that the movement would be recognized as a legitimate and rational response to the socialistic policies of the federal government. He has a PhD in political science from the University of Alberta where his research focused on education policy in Alberta.
“Chesman also notes that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Secession Reference case of 1998, along with the federal government’s subsequent Clarity Act of 2000, give Alberta a legal pathway to independence.”
Interim Leader, Alberta Freedom Alliance
Jason Kenney taps into deep well of Western alienation
There’s a story Jason Kenney enjoys telling on the rubber-chicken circuit in Alberta these days that is being particularly well-received.
It begins with the leader of the United Conservative Party denouncing the federal government and politicians in Quebec for effectively sticking a dagger in the Energy East pipeline project, while continuing to accept tankers full of oil from unscrupulous foreign regimes whose industries are subject to little or no environmental oversight. And he uses the point to segue into an account of a cement plant in Quebec’s Gaspé Peninsula that, a few years ago, received an exemption from environmental review.
This, despite the fact that it would spew nearly two million tonnes of CO2 emissions a year into the atmosphere – vastly eclipsing the discharge levels of many oil sands operations in Fort McMurray. The plant received $400-million in provincial subsidies, Mr. Kenney tells his audience, a portion of which, he surmises, came from the $11-billion in equalization payments Quebec receives annually, the largest percentage of which is contributed by his province.
In other words, Alberta is helping to subsidize this plant, too!
“And it gets better,” the former federal Conservative cabinet minister says. “The guy who owns the cement plant is the chairman and largest shareholder of Bombardier.” It is here the crowd often gasps and Mr. Kenney pauses for effect.
“I’m sorry,” he says. “I can’t make this up.”
“Yes, Bombardier,” he continues, “who we subsidize to produce planes that burn oil and produce CO2 emissions which are not subject to regulation. Ladies and gentleman, this is becoming cloud cuckoo land.” Mr. Kenney finishes by telling the assembled that when he becomes premier he will fight against this type of duplicity, fight against a federal government and provinces that take from Alberta with one hand, and whack it with the other.
Cue the standing ovation.
Mr. Kenney’s story is mostly an accurate one. The plant he talks about was owned by Quebec’s Beaudoin family, who are synonymous with Bombardier, but it was taken over by the Canadian pension fund Caisse de dépot et placement du Québec in 2016. The factory did not get a $400-million subsidy, but did benefit from a $250-million government loan and received another $100-million from the province for an equity share in the operation as well as $100-million from the provincial pension plan for a stake.
Still, the yarn serves as an illustration of the double standard that exists in this country when it comes to Alberta generally, and its oil in particular.
Like many politicians, Mr. Kenney doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good tale, especially if it helps him make a broader point. And if it helps undermine a Liberal government in Ottawa that he loathes, all the better. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not a popular man in Alberta these days, with approval numbers lower than those suffered by his father after introducing the disastrous National Energy Program in the early 1980s.
Mr. Kenney is tapping into that sentiment. Albertans feel betrayed by Ottawa. Even if the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion goes through, Mr. Trudeau won’t get much credit for it now. People hate the carbon tax and blame him for it as much as NDP Premier Rachel Notley. They see special rules for Quebec when it comes to the environment and associate that fact with the federal Liberals as well.
“In the past year, I have heard more expressions of support for Western or Alberta separatism than I’ve heard in my whole life,” Mr. Kenney recently told me in an interview in his office.
“It’s a reflection of deep frustration from people who think: We helped the federation pay the bills, we’ve played by the rules, we haven’t really complained about it, and yet we’re getting royally screwed here.”
Alberta is still more than a year away from going to the polls. If an election were held today, it would be the United Conservatives in a landslide. It would take a miracle for the NDP to pull off another win, but we’ve seen these upsets before.
At the moment, more likely is a new Alberta under Mr. Kenney. It would not only mean a shakeup for the province, but the country, too. One of the most experienced and effective politicians in Canada is loaded for bear and is serving notice Alberta is tired of being treated as a detested cash cow.
“The hypocrisy in this country is driving a level of alienation here I haven’t seen in my whole life,” he said. “People are angry, and they should be.”
17 September 2017
Those of our readers who have followed our efforts to tell Canadians about why we oppose the Official Languages Act will be very familiar with the valiant attempts by Ret'd Lt. Commander, C.A.F., J.V. Andrew, to alert Canadians to the diabolical efforts to Frenchify Canada. J.V. Andrew wrote the book, "Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow" in 1977, followed by "Back-door Bilingualism in 1979 & "Enough" in 1988. Jock, like many of Canada's military leaders, saw very early on what P.E. Trudeau was doing when he included the OLA in the 1982 Constitution.
He decided to make his predictions about the eventual result of the OLA in his writings. We decided to make an audio version of his 3rd book, "Enough". The book was divided into three audio files, each about an hour long, all available at this link:
Reading the written word is not the same as hearing it read by someone, especially someone who has a good, well-modulated voice. Somehow, the effect is more powerful.
Mr. Andrew was given a very hard time for having written those books, all criticizing the OLA for pushing the French agenda onto an unsuspecting English-speaking country. Has his predictions come true? Are the French given far more power than they should have in their bid to force the acceptance of the equality of the minority French-speakers with the majority English-speakers? Has Canada spent too much money in this effort to force French on Canada, especially when the effort has failed? After nearly half a century, the number of bilingual (English/French) Canadians has not increased substantially. This has not stopped them from making bigger & bigger demands for more money to be spent & more laws to be made for using more force.
PM Lester Pearson introduced the initiative of bilingualizing the F.P.S. in 1966 in an effort to unify the country. Has that ploy worked - are we more united? P.E. Trudeau passed the official Languages Act in 1969 & made it part of the 1982 Constitution. Since then, the OLA has been increasingly strengthened.
The Armed Forces was Trudeau's first target.
Official Languages - Bilingual Officer Corp in the military started in 1988
Regular Force Bilingual Officer Corps
On June 28, 1988, the Armed Forces Council adopted the concept of a Regular force "Bilingual Officer Corps." With a target date of January 1, 1998, promotion to the rank of Lieutenant- Colonel/Commander would be restricted to those officers who are bilingual. It was agreed that a Bilingual Officer Corps was necessary, since senior officers needed to be ready, on request, to command troops from both language groups. The need for bilingual officers therefore enhances the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. In June 1995, the Armed Forces Council adopted an expanded definition or concept of the Corps to include bilingual competency for all officer ranks.
In its early years, the primary focus of the Directorate of Official Languages was implementing and enforcing the Official Languages Act. Today, official languages have become entrenched throughout the public service, including the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. The directorate now focuses on providing guidance and support to managers and commanding officers to help them fulfill their official languages obligations and commitments.
By 2008, 73.1% of the Officers were bilingual. Anyone with more current figures? I imagine that ALL officers are now bilingual (mostly French).
Readers who are interested in the CBC report on the 2016 census:
Bilingualism at its highest level
The share of Canadians who speak English at home increased to 74.7 per cent in 2016 from 74 per cent in 2011, while those who speak French fell to 23.3 per cent from 23.8 per cent.
But the number of Canadians who are bilingual increased to 18 per cent, the highest level of bilingualism on record
In 1961, just 12.2 per cent of Canadians reported being bilingual.
Fully two-thirds of the growth in bilingualism since the 2011 census was due to Quebec, where a majority of bilingual Canadians live.
J.J. McCullough wrote a very revealing article in the Huffington Post, 2014:
"Let Them Learn French": Canada's Bilingual Elite Hold All the Power
"This is an awful lot of power to concentrate in just 17 per cent of the population. If you heard of some third world dump where a linguistic minority of less than 20 per cent held a permanent, legally-protected monopoly on all of the country's top jobs, you'd probably think it wasn't much of a democracy.
You'd be right. Discriminatory, arbitrary barriers to full civic participation remain a blight no matter where they're practiced, and we undermine any pretence of being a truly egalitarian nation when we seek to normalize or rationalize them. Yet a lot of Canadians seem distressingly eager to do so.
After nearly 50 years, the proportion of Canadians able to function in English & French is 18%. The high rate of immigration has brought other languages into play (Chinese, Tagalog, Arabic, etc.). Most immigrants prefer English & even though French is forced on Canadians by various means, French-speakers are not growing fast enough to satisfy the French extremists' demand for equality.
What follows is a translated article from the French media. Readers in Western Canada, please note - they are putting the pressure on for more French coming your way!! They've got control of Eastern & Central Canada - now they're coming after you & if Bill-209 is successful, the number of French-speakers will be artificially increased to enable them to do so!!
OTTAWA - A delegation of French-speaking youth activists from the French-Canadian Youth Federation (FJCF), invited to submit their ideas, proposed a number of recommendations on Friday, September 8 to modernize the Official Languages Act (OLA).
BENJAMIN VACHET bvachet@tfoorg | @BVachet
During a round table that often resembled a survey of the Francophonie outside Quebec viewed by Francophone youths rather than a consultation to review the OLA, participants did not hesitate to draw a sometimes bleak picture of French in a minority setting.
"In Saskatchewan, we can not flourish in French! French is seen as a headache and not as an asset, "illustrated the Fransaskoise, Gabriela Quintanilla.
" Saskatchewan is probably reading the Official Languages Act, when we are here talking about modernizing it! - Gabrielle Quintanilla
The same is true in British Columbia, where, according to Louis Roux, Franco-Colombians often find it difficult to identify with the Francophone community and where the provincial government lacks leadership, the province being the only one have neither a policy nor a French Language Services Act.
"It's not just a law to say where you can speak in French, it takes places to do it," says Seth Fraser of Nova Scotia.
"The problem is that the culture in Canada should already be bilingual and include French. If we are really Canadian, we should be bilingual! I would like to see that in 100 years, we stop talking about French and English, but we are talking about a true bilingual Canada, "said Julien Gaudet, director of the Youth Association fransaskoise (AJF).
Lack of access to post-secondary education programs in French, places to speak French and share French culture, linguistic insecurity, lack of connection with immersion students, insufficient funding for youth organizations ... So many issues raised that a modernization of the OLA will undoubtedly be difficult to resolve.
But for the president of the Franco-Ontarian Youth Federation (FESFO), Pablo Mhanna-Sandoval, it was necessary to raise these points.
"The main goal today is to bring the general reality experienced by young people across the country directly to the ears of senators who are busy modernizing the Fa. It will then be up to them to put our remarks into action in a new piece of legislation. The fact that the Act was designed almost 50 years ago has an impact on its effectiveness. She does not answer, for example, digital needs that youth reality of 21 th century. I think there is potential for this new piece of legislation to define the linguistic duality of the country and the linguistic and cultural richness of Canada. "
Learning French required?
The FJCF has several ideas for modernizing the OLA.
"The notion of the quality of French in the services offered to the population must be introduced in the Act, but also the concept of" important demands "that justifies where services are offered. The definition of what constitutes a francophone should also be revised to make it more inclusive and provide for preliminary consultations with respect to Part IV of the Act, Communications with and Services to the Public ". enumerated Gillian Theoret, treasurer of the spokesperson agency for young francophones in minority communities.
The Vice-President of the FJCF, Sophie Brassard, also calls on the federal government to raise awareness and promote French and linguistic duality through a national campaign.
Other, more ambitious ideas have been put forward, such as making French language courses compulsory for all young Canadians, or giving more teeth to the OLA so that it is finally respected.
"When the federal government gives money, the services that flow from it should necessarily be bilingual," Gaudet said.
For Mhanna-Sandoval, a new OLA should also take First Nations languages into account.
Chaired by Senators Lucie Moncion and René Cormier, this meeting was part of the national consultations conducted by the Senate Committee on Official Languages to modernize the Official Languages Act, as we approach the 50 th anniversary of the Act in 2019 .
Senators Lucie Moncion and René Cormier. (Photo Credit: Senate of Canada)
At the end of the round table, the Acadian senator was not surprised by the comments made by the young people.
"I did not have huge surprises, but I saw young articulate, lucid and for some, extremely committed to this desire that the Fa has more bite, that it has more impact in life of Canadians and that the federal government plays a leadership role so that all Canadians see official languages as our common history. "
For her part, the Franco-Ontarian senator particularly appreciated the proposal to make learning French compulsory across Canada.
"This is an interesting proposition, because it could set us apart from American culture and give Canada a unique character with respect to its linguistic diversity. It would be quite realistic to see children learning both languages from an early age. But afterwards, we must also think about how they will use it and not lose the use of it by growing up. "
In addition to the youth, the Senate committee planned to consult with official language minority communities, witnesses to the evolution of the Official Languages Act, the justice sector and federal institutions.
Comment from a Concerned Citizen
In response to this we need to understand something very basic about the Canadian "mentality." Canadians are in many ways Americans in lifestyle with similar lives of prosperity and access to a wide variety of goods and services. However, Canada has also been subject to some very traditionally un-Canadian leadership such as that of the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau (PET) who brought Canada into the high-taxed welfare state syndrome that he learned while a student at Harvard, the London School of Economics and at the Paris Sorbonne - all known for their Marxist-driven ideologies. As such Canada began a march toward diverging paths from those in America. And to somehow justify all of this as anti-American sentiment was brought upon our land to help create a distinctiveness that was hitherto not easily visible or otherwise recognizable. In short, a great deal of what now consists of the "Canadian identity" is little more than an anti-American sentiment. Canada needs somehow to justify its very heavy top-down statism by elevating itself as somehow more morally superior than its American neighbor. And there are numerous examples that have been used to reinforce this sentimentality not the least was Trudeau's sweet embrace of the communist mass-murderer Fidel Castro and exemplified when he (Trudeau) and his young wife, the former Margaret Sinclair, attended a mass rally in Havana where Margaret would sport a bra-less, nipple-protruding white T-shirt, wildly cheering on her man, Castro. Indeed, Canadian "leadership" was significantly different from America's.
And one of the main proponents of that anti-American sentiment is driven by Canada's own fake-news media that relentlessly denigrates just about anything and everything American. Indeed, it is now almost impossible to find a Canadian news outlet that reports fair and balanced news about anything American. (There are "elements" in the American embassy in Ottawa that will agree that Canada is sometimes (sssssh!) referred to as the "Soviet Socialist Republic of Canada..." ...ssssh...hush.......)
And much of this is now coming to a head with the current Trump administration. Do not believe for a minute that what is written here is not known and accepted in Washington with greater detail and clarity than can be described here. The opening salvos have already been fired with the Canadian soft-wood lumber exports to the USA now taxed at more than 30% and more to come. A new American ambassador to Canada is on his way and NAFTA has been re-opened and the Americans will no longer tolerate that smug, self-righteous anti-American attitude that has so profitably benefited Canada that has never had to pay its full share for its own defenses and pays less than it should in support of the NATO alliance. It has lived handsomely as an "ally" of America and the very generous trade surpluses that has sustained all kinds of "social" programs characteristic of the unsustainable welfare state syndrome. The late Canadian philosopher George Parkin Grant in his Lament for a Nation clearly articulated Canada's position vis-a-vis America where he painted Canada as little more than the spoiled stepson of a rich father - a stepson never really held accountable. But that accountability is now almost upon us and our failed and failing leadership class will be wondering where the money will come from to sustain the utopian illusions of the welfare state where everyone is entitled to a government cheque. Anticipate much more of the fake news Canadian media denigrating America at the upcoming re-negotiations of NAFTA where Canada is virtually powerless to stop the America-first juggernaut. Contrary to hyperventilating governmental authorities that the two economies are completely integrated, there is little the Americans need from Canada that they can't produce themselves - including energy - and at lower costs. The only question remaining is if Canada will continue to pretend it still has the moral high ground or come down to earth and accept the real world for what it is. Reality can sometimes be regained with a good spanking.
24 March 2018
The irony of the situation, exposed by Kelly MacParland’s article below, is worth our attention. Quebec, the perpetual “have-not” province (raking in $12B – 2018 estimate) from the Equalization Payments Program, part of the “Welfare State” philosophy entrenched in P.E. Trudeau’s flawed 1982 Constitution, is climbing out of its hellish economic situation while Ontario, once touted as the richest province in Canada, is facing a greater economic future than ever. Ontario is racing towards bankruptcy with a debt of $312B & a deficit this year of $8B. Why should that concern us?
As an organization that is focussed on the unfairness of the Official Languages Act (1969 Federal legislation - also part of the flawed 1982 Constitution), which has worked consistently to promote the minority French-speakers at the expense of the majority English-speakers, how does the situation affect our attempts to be heard? Well, for a start, a large number of Canadians seem to believe that Canada is an officially bilingual country; an egregious error that we have consistently attempted to refute. Even our politicians (federal, provincial & municipal) don’t seem to understand that language legislation is the purview of the provinces – how else can anyone explain that Quebec is officially unilingual French and New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province, having passed its own laws stating so in 1969? Suffice it to say that the other provinces are, by default, NOT officially bilingual. Ontario has passed various versions of the French Language Services Act (1986) which, through the years have been given more money & more power in the attempt to elevate the status of the 3.69% (2016 census) mother-tongue French-speakers. Proof of both claims can be supplied to anyone interested.
So, has the years of receiving Equalization Payments from the other provinces (including Ontario) be the main reason why Quebec’s economy is doing so well? Details for Federal Transfers to all provinces are available here:
From 2007 - 2017, the total federal transfers to Quebec (Health, Social & Equalization) total $21,402,000,000 ($21.4 Billion); for the same period, the total federal transfers to Ontario (Health, Social & Equalization) totalling $21,303,000,000 ($21.3 Billion). The difference is that Equalization payments to ON only started in 2009:
Having to supply government services to the public in both English & French is expensive (an expense that Quebec does not have to shoulder). The French Language Services Act cost the Ontario government $27,036,630 in 2013 & in 2015-16, the estimate was $39,419,300. The Ontario PC Party has never shown any interest in this topic, despite our efforts to enlighten them to this file. Whether it’s the fear of being called “racist” or “anti-French” or just the fear of such a powerful group, fully funded & with so much organized support, we leave to your imagination. Patrick Brown is fully bilingual & supports the French cause so we’re glad he’s out as the leader of the ON PCs. What about Doug Ford, the new PC Party leader? He says that Ontario is in dire economic straits – has he got the courage to say “NO” to the powerful French lobby when they come calling for more money? Does such a small minority have the right to demand more, just on the basis of the fear of assimilation?
We are not just concerned from the money angle – we are concerned that making more government services bilingual (and not just where numbers warrant) will mean that French becomes the criteria for employment & not MERIT, which should be the way our very well-paid public servants are selected. It places the French-speakers (who are usually also fluent in English) on a higher employability scale. It also puts pressure on parents to send their children to French Immersion schools where the emphasis put on learning French takes time away from learning English, Maths, Science & other more valuable skills. Some kids can handle this but most kids cannot as shown by studies done in NB where F.I. has been a failure. Dr. J.D Willms (University of NB) has an interesting report; Jane Sherrard is very concerned about the English schools in NB & I’ve collected a number of articles on the failure of French Immersion schools to graduate properly educated students, in either English or French. Ask for these items if you are concerned.
We are gathering statistics to help us show Canadians that the public service is over-populated by French-speakers. Any public servant who can provide us with a break-down of your department’s employees (the % of employees who are French by mother-tongue), please forward them to:
Canadians for Language Fairness
P.O. Box 40111
Bank & Hunt Club Postal Outlet
2515 Bank Street.
Ottawa, ON, K1V 0W8
21 October 2017
John Ivison's article about the Federal bureaucracy's attempt to make French an increasingly important part of Canada's government expresses what a large number of Canadians think but dare not say. That's how bad the situation is - talk to any Federal public servant & you'll hear the frustrations that are expressed by many but are kept silent from fear of repercussions. It is a topic which has been avoided by most politicians & journalists because it has resulted from P.E. Trudeau's 1982 Constitution & the entrenched elements in it like the Charter & the Human Rights code which have given extraordinary powers to minority interests. The courts are obliged to follow the dictates of the 1982 Constitution which ties the hands of ALL politicians. We can only hope that a free press might show Canadians that this policy has gone too far. Such truism, as expressed by John Ivison, have been obvious to anyone paying any attention to this issue.
Some high-lights from the article:
1. "nearly five decades after the passage of the Official Languages Act, the public service is not bilingual enough"
2. " many public servants working in bilingual regions do not feel comfortable using their language of choice at work"
3. "The solution".... "is to raise the linguistic requirements for those in supervisory roles"
4. " The complaint is that even when French is used, it is symbolic"
5. "public service that is already over-represented in executive positions by French speakers"
6. " Raising the linguistic bar is likely to exacerbate the dominance of French speakers in the upper echelons of the public service"
7. " outside of Quebec and New Brunswick, just eight per cent of Canadians are bilingual"
8 " If the Liberals adopt a policy that makes the federal public service even less representative of the Canadian public than it is already, they will stoke the impression that the West, in particular, is being frozen out.
Responses to the high-lighted items:
1. To the French zealots, nothing short of total capitulation is enough. Just look at what they've done to the English-speakers in Quebec - are they satisfied with that victory?
2. French is a language forced on the majority by a linguistic, aggressive minority & as such, it will always be "symbolic" - unless the whole public service is run by the Quebecois.
3. The obvious over-representation of the French should NOT go un-noticed & it isn't. Such a relief to see it in print by a well-known journalist.
4. Western Alienation is already happening - let's not under-estimate the anger growing out west against a Federal government that is so dominated by the interests of Quebec.
5. There seems to be NO limit to the amount of money the French extremists are willing to throw at this policy
The linguistic bar has been raised many times & each move has resulted in increased power given to French speakers & the province of Quebec as that is the bastion of French power. I will refer to some of these bars - you can send me any that I've missed:
A. The caveat of "where numbers warrant" was never defined which left the French bureaucracy total freedom to define it. This link: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-92-48/page-1.html shows that provinces with 5% of the population speaking French must provide French Languages Service and Ontario is coming under that level soon. Of course this won't happen unless the govt. accepts the redefinition of a Francophone from "mother-tongue" to "anyone who speaks French" as is being proposed by Bill S-209. The 2016 census notes that under the 1st definition, Ontario has 490,715 (3.69%) Francophones; under the 2nd definition, the number rises to 597,070 (4.45%).
B. Using Orders in Council (which are not debated by Parliament), the Privy Council through the machination of Lucienne Robillard, among other Francophone elites, brought in the "Right To Work in the language of choice" & "Right to be supervised in the language of choice". Anyone with any power of observation will agree that both instruments have increased the demands for more Francophones (mostly Quebecois).
C. The $800 bilingual bonus was initially to encourage unilingual English-speakers to become bilingual. Most of the Federal positions where this bonus apply are now designated bilingual so the applicants would have already passed the language tests so the bonus is an additional reward which should be unnecessary. Instead of chasing after small businesses to squeeze more taxes out of them to fund extravagant govt. services, maybe we should think of taking away these "extras" from public servants who are already paid at least 30% more than employees in the private sector for similar jobs.
Just in case you\re not yet convinced that Canada is now firmly in the hands of the French-speakers, here is more bad news for English-speaking Canada:
OTTAWA - NDP MP François Choquette's bill to make bilingualism mandatory for Supreme Court of Canada judges has resumed on Thursday, October 19. His chances of succeeding, however, are very slim.
BENJAMIN VACHET bvachet@tfoorg | @BVachet
On the government side, as well as on the Conservative side, we praise the will behind Mr. Choquette's bill, but we do not seem to want to support it.
"This is an important bill that reflects the values we all share in the House of Commons, but the focus is misplaced. It would be more useful to strengthen the bilingual capacity of the superior courts, because that would increase the pool of bilingual judges, "said Ville-Marie-Le-Sud-Île-des-Sœurs, Quebec MP for the province, Marc Miller.
An opinion seconded by his colleague David Lametti, reiterating the arguments put forward by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his August 2016 opinion letter in which he ensured that, from now on, appointed judges of the Supreme Court of Canada would be bilingual .
"The law is not always the most effective at solving a problem and I think that in this case it is neither desirable nor necessary. We have put in place a new appointment process that makes bilingualism a primary criterion and has already been proven by Judge Malcom Rowe. "
Michael Albert, Conservative MP for St. Albert-Edmonton, believes that Mr. Choquette's bill addresses a problem that does not exist.
"The Supreme Court of Canada already provides services and communications in both official languages. Since its creation, there has not been a single case of error because of a problem of interpretation. Moreover, if it happened, there would be possible remedies. "
" This bill is well-intentioned, but it will create problems, including reducing the pool of good candidates. Language skills should not take precedence over skills, knowledge and experience in law . "- Conservative MP Michael Cooper
Currently, there are eight out of nine bilingual judges in the Supreme Court of Canada. Only Judge Michael Moldaver uses simultaneous translation services.
Guy Caron quips
The official languages critic, François Choquette, has taken up the torch of his predecessor Yvon Godin who, on three occasions, proposed such a bill . In 2008, 2010 and 2014, his proposal was defeated, despite the common front of the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Liberal Party of Canada (PLC).
"Do principles change when you're in government?", Quipped NDP House leader Guy Caron. "It is not enough to say that we will appoint bilingual judges, we need to enshrine this principle, because otherwise we have no guarantee. Bilingualism is not an asset, but a fundamental skill. "
NDP members have repeatedly cited the testimony of lawyers, including linguistic rights specialist Michel Doucet, who shared their sometimes unfortunate experiences when they pleaded in French at the Supreme Court of Canada .
"If the Liberal government is committed to appointing bilingual judges, why not enshrine this objective in the law?" Questioned New Democrat Erin Weir. "It would send a very clear message to the Canadian judicial community."
The NDP tried to convince the few members present to support the bill at second reading so that the Justice and Human Rights Committee could study and improve it.
Official Languages Spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, François Choquette. Image credit: Archives
"There are improvements to be made, including the issue of access to the Supreme Court of Canada for Aboriginal judges. We are open to amendments and that is why it is important to have a second reading, "explains Mr. Choquette.
The example of Alexandrine Latendresse
At the end of the debate, the NDP member remained optimistic, while the vote of the bill at second reading will take place Wednesday, October 25.
"I am not discouraged because I know it is a legitimate right for all Canadians to have access to the highest court in the country in the official language of their choice. The Liberals are starting to get bogged down in their arguments when they say that a law is not necessary and that we have to give ourselves a small margin to appoint perhaps unilingual judges! "
2013. Choquette relies on the example of Alexandrine Latendresse's bill on the bilingualism of certain agents of parliament, adopted in 2013.
"I hope many Liberals and Conservatives will vote in favor of this bill. Many tell me that they are ready to support it. Will they do it? It remains to be seen ... We managed to get Alexandrine Latendresse's bill passed, the next step would be the bilingual judges at the Supreme Court of Canada. "
13 April 2018
April 11, 2018
With just about everyone being so confused about the City Of Ottawa’s Language policy (from the pronouncements of the new Language Commissioner - Raymond Théberge, to just about every French language activist in existence), we had to get Mayor Watson to clarify the situation. So we wrote to Mayor Watson & all the Councillors on April 8th & Mayor Watson replied the very next day.
According to our best brain in the BoD – “In a word, YES, the status quo prevails - for now. No changes needed as the previous By-law, 2001-170, fulfills all the requirements stipulated in the Bill 177. The City of Ottawa is NOT official bilingual”
Everyone can keep a copy of Mayor Watson’s response & if ever they hear of another person saying that “Ottawa is Officially Bilingual”, feel free to send them Mayor Watson’s response.
April 8, 2018
Dear Mayor & City Councillors
City of Ottawa
We would like the City Council to clarify the status of the City Of Ottawa as per its language status. We understand the following:
Bill 177 acknowledges that Ottawa has a bilingual policy (as per by-law 2001-170 & the City of Ottawa Act 199) but this does not make Ottawa “Officially Bilingual”. The City Of Ottawa Council is still in control of how bilingual it will be – NOT the courts. Once the City is declared “Officially Bilingual”, the courts will take control & dictate to the City how bilingual the city’s administration has to be. Am I wrong in this assumption?
CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1999
The Schedule amends the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. It recognizes Ottawa’s bilingual character. It requires Ottawa to make a by-law for bilingual administration and services. It clarifies that an existing Ottawa by-law respecting bilingualism is such a by-law.
To clarify this situation once & for all, will the City Council let the citizens know the answer to this question:
“Is the City of Ottawa Officially Bilingual”?
From: Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire) [mailto:Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca]
Sent: April 9, 2018 4:44 PM
To: 'Kim McConnell'
Cc: Monette, Bob; Mitic, Jody; Harder, Jan; Wilkinson, Marianne; El-Chantiry, Eli; Qadri, Shad; Taylor, Mark; Chiarelli, Rick; Chernushenko, David; Ward 9; Deans, Diane; Tierney, Timothy; Fleury, Mathieu; Nussbaum, Tobi; McKenney, Catherine; Leiper, Jeff; Brockington, Riley; Cloutier, Jean; Blais, Stephen; Darouze, George; Moffatt, Scott; Qaqish, Michael; Hubley, Allan; Egli, Keith
Subject: RE: Is the City of Ottawa "Officially Bilingual"
Dear Ms. McConnell,
Thank you for your email seeking clarification on the bilingual character of the City of Ottawa.
On December 14, 2017 Bill 177, the Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017, received Royal Assent after being adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This was an omnibus bill that amended a variety of statutes, including the City of Ottawa Act, 1999. The amendments were intended to recognize, within provincial legislation, Ottawa’s bilingual character, and require the City to pass a by-law providing that the administration of the municipality shall be conducted in both English and French and that all or specified municipal services to the public shall be made available in both languages, in accordance with Subsection 14(1) of the French Language Services Act.
In keeping with this, the Bill 177 amendments acknowledged that the City’s existing Bilingualism By-law (No. 2001-170), originally passed in May 2001, already fulfills the City’s statutory obligation to adopt a by-law, and they also explicitly recognize City Council’s discretion to determine the “scope and content” of that by-law.
Though the City’s bilingual character is now officially recognized in the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, the recent changes did not expand the City’s obligations in terms of the provision of French-language services, beyond the requirement of having a By-law under Subsection 14(1) of the French Language Services Act or beyond those obligations that already existed under the Bilingualism By-law (No. 2001-170).
As a result of these changes, Section 11.1 of the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, now reads as follows:
11.1 (1) The city’s bilingual character is recognized.
By-law respecting use of English and French languages
(2) The city shall pass a by-law under subsection 14 (1) of the French Language Services Act.
Same, board of health
(3) The by-law applies with respect to the administration of the board of health and the provision of services by the board.
Scope and content of by-law
(4) The scope and content of the by-law shall be as determined by the City.
(5) For greater certainty, City of Ottawa By-law No. 2001-170 (Bilingualism) meets the requirement of subsection (2).
The City is proud to support the diversity of its residents, including its active Francophone community, which greatly contributes to growing our city. Our bilingual character is one of Ottawa’s strengths and the City of Ottawa will continue to provide quality programs and services to its residents and employees in both English and French.
City of Ottawa
Comment from Al S.:
The great tragedy here is that it is never explained that there is a huge difference between bilingualism and official bilingualism.
Being bilingual or even multilingual is always desirable insofar as it allows communication in more than one language. No one will argue with that.
Official bilingualism however means that now the government is involved where government at any level can compel bilingualism on the population. And in Canada's case, that means being compelled (forced) to know both "official" languages, English and French, if, for example, you want to qualify for a certain range of jobs or a promotion - usually in a government bureaucracy.
But that still does not explain the whole story - otherwise why does the Nation of Quebec not have official bilingualism as a law or policy?
Under official bilingualism, to be considered for a job or a promotion, a person would need to prove he/she is proficient in both languages. This language proficiency test is then "loaded" (skewed) in favour of the demographic that is perceived to be needing some "help" in passing this test. And that demographic is always, in English Canada, the Franco community.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, only those born under the Fleur-de-Lis manage to pass the Quebec French dialect knowledge test leaving those not so born at a distinct disadvantage.
As is amply evident in the federal civil service and increasingly so in the Ontario civil service (not to overlook various municipalities that have bought into this "theme") increasingly the Franco individuals get the jobs and the English speakers do not, no matter how well otherwise they may be qualified.
In short, we have to see Official Bilingualism for what it is: a government enforced program of enforced racism.
It is an all-out tribal warfare pitting one language group against another with a badly corrupted Canadian "Constitution" providing "legality" of this skewing in favour of one tribe over another.
Official Bilingualism is the manifestation of manufactured and contrived grievances that somehow Canada was stolen from the Franco/Acadian community following its loss on the battlefield of the Plains of Abraham in 1759.
Not able to compete in the sea of English North America and severely hobbled with its insistence of clinging to that failed French (Napoleonic) Civil Code, the Canadian Francos managed over time to obtain a national leadership that shared these contrived grievances - that hatred - of the minority tribe and that "leadership" would level the playing field for them.
But more than merely leveling the playing field Official Bilingualism was meant to go beyond that and also ethnically cleanse all English speakers in all levels of government in all positions of influence and control - especially control of the public purse. All it would take is government enforcement and highly biased language tests all conducted seamlessly and "under the radar."
We have to see Official Bilingualism for what it truly is in Canada: it is a revenge-filled, hateful and racist Statute designed to completely overturn - take away - the rightful ownership of this great country and put it in the hands of those whose long history is a demonstrated stream of failure.
Wherever the French have gone throughout the world colonizing this and then that country or region they have failed with the follow-up miseries still in evidence today.
But that won’t stop them from now colonizing Canada.
After all the Constitution is on their side.
How can they fail?
Cohen: Why does Canada just accept incompetence?
Published on: April 3, 2018 | Last Updated: April 3, 2018 12:05 PM EDT
Less than a month ago, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario chose its new leader. The process was cloudy and chaotic. In a word, it was a fiasco.
At different stages in the electronic balloting, the two leading candidates – Doug Ford and Christine Elliott – cast doubt on the legitimacy of the contest. Before he was declared the winner, Ford had warned of irregularities, seeking an extension of the vote. According to the National Post, he called the process “corrupt, unfair and biased.”
When his victory was announced, though, Ford’s concerns vanished (much like those of Donald Trump, who questioned the integrity of the 2016 election until it made him president).
Elliott, having lost despite winning more votes than Ford – blame her party’s peculiar version of the electoral college – protested. In the complex voting system based on geography, her representatives “identified entire towns voting in the wrong riding.”
The point here isn’t who won. It is that no one seems terribly upset about this shambles – the latest example of Canada’s institutional ineptitude.
We cannot seem to get things right these days. Once we saw things as a matter of confidence. Now we ask if things are a matter of competence.
Justin Trudeau’s visit to India was a disaster because his staff ignored advice on when to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi and how to balance his time. They did not foresee the optics of Canada’s prime minister wearing more national outfits than a runway model. This followed a bad trip to China. A question: Who’s responsible?
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, right, his wife Sophie Gregoire Trudeau, left, their daughter Ella Grace, second left, and son Xavier greet in Indian style during their visit to Golden Temple, in Amritsar, India, Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2018. Public Relations Office Govt. Of Punjab via AP
The federal government cannot fix the beleaguered Phoenix system (inherited from the Conservatives) to pay its employees. It could not organize the security for celebrations in Ottawa on July 1; thousands were caught in long lines, in the rain, unable to get on Parliament Hill.
It could not unveil the National Holocaust Monument without controversy. It could not build the unfinished Collections Conservation Centre next to the Canada Science and Technology Museum without huge cost overruns. It cannot fill many senior administrative and judicial positions.
We continue to have a crumbling 24 Sussex Drive because no one will make a decision. It will take 10 years or so to renovate Centre Block, forcing Parliament to move. Why do other countries finish big projects faster?
The Conservatives made little progress on pipelines and it is likely the Liberals won’t either, despite their efforts. More broadly, funds for infrastructure projects are slow to reach their destination.
The City of Ottawa, run by the most overrated mayor in Canada, cannot build things on time. It was hilariously late on the pedestrian bridge over the Airport Parkway and it is late on the light-rail system, for which it will not penalize the contractor. Wait for the new central library – mistakenly planned for LeBreton Flats rather than downtown – to come in smaller, later and costlier than promised.
As for LeBreton Flats, don’t be surprised if its development is as disappointing as Lansdowne Park, the once-in-a century opportunity the city squandered by putting up a shopping mall.
Noticed Ottawa’s potholes this spring? Yes, we have winter. But why does this city have roads like a developing country? Inferior materials? Crooked contractors? Hopeless municipal staff?
Incompetence, incompetence. Is it more common now than before? Perhaps. True, governments do not get credit for things that work – utilities that supply power and water, medical care that heals, pensions that are paid on time. These, governments do well.
It is also true that governments receive no applause for what we don’t see – such as Trudeau’s quiet, able management of the bilateral relationship with the mercurial Donald Trump as NAFTA is renegotiated. Canada is a case study in focus and self-discipline.
When we see excellence in quality in business, we know it. There is a reason that Mercedes Benz, EQ3, Apple, Enterprise Car Rental and L.L. Bean succeed; they have exacting standards of service that they apply relentlessly.
Yet too many today have no standards at all. We accept the results with polite resignation.
Andrew Cohen is a journalist, professor and author of Two Days in June: John F. Kennedy and the 48 Hours That Made History.
Bilingualism to blame for incompetent government
Re: Why do we just accept incompetence? April 4
The answer to Andrew Cohen’s question is because we are used to it in Ottawa. When the most important qualification for anything in the National Capital Region is bilingualism, we have become complacent with the lack of excellence.
Tina Phillips, Ottawa
Bilingualism has nothing to do with competence
Re: Bilingualism to blame for incompetence, April 5
I beg to differ with a recent letter writer’s comment that the reason for our government’s incompetence is as follows: “When the most important qualification for anything in the National Capital Region is bilingualism, we have become complacent with the lack of excellence.”
In my 42 years of service within the federal government, I saw incompetence, mediocrity and excellence. None of these had to do with bilingualism. It was, and continues to be, each individual’s work ethic which show whether one is satisfied with oneself – and others – working at an incompetent or mediocre level.
A.A. Roberts, Ottawa
WHICH OPINION IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH?
Patriot Pride Canada Wide - Cut the Cord
SPOOFING: THE NEW SCAM!
Video about this new scare is available upon request
"Where numbers warrant" will be met by boosting the numbers artificially. You'll note that the English-speakers in Quebec will still have to live under the French-language zealots who want the French language dominant in Quebec.
Folks, Bill S-205 died on order table when Harper govt fell. It was tabled again as Bill S-209 in December 2015 when Trudeau came to power. It aims to amend Part IV (Service to the Public) of the OLA, changing the definition of "francophone" a la Ontario FLSA.
Issues related to implementing the Official Languages Act
Commissioner lends his support to Bill S-205
In April 2015, the Commissioner of Official Languages presented his position in support of Bill S-205, which aimed to update Part IV of the Official Languages Act. In his briefFootnote 11 to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, the Commissioner gave three reasons why Part IV needs to be updated.
First, he noted that the criteria set out in section 32(2) of the Act to assess potential demand for services in the minority language are not inclusive, because they do not take into account all of the people who use the minority language in the public or private sphere. For example, the current criteria as they are applied exclude people whose first official language spoken is not the language of the minority but who:
speak the minority language at home (as can be the case for francophiles, anglophiles and newcomers);
speak the minority language in the workplace; or
receive their education in the minority language.
Second, he pointed out that significant demand is defined in relation to the proportion of the minority population (i.e., the 5% rule). However, the chief factor to be considered in determining significant demand in a region served by federal offices should be the presence of an official language community that shows signs of vitality. (It means presence of even one French school, according to their previous discussions - E.B.).
Third, he stressed that Bill S-205 is important because it codifies the principle of substantive equality by explicitly imposing on federal institutions the duty to provide service of equal quality in both official languages and to consult with the English and French linguistic minority population concerning the quality of those communications and services.
The Bill died on the order table after the federal election was called in August 2015 and was tabled again in December 2015 as Bill S-209. The Commissioner reiterated that this bill makes an undoubtedly significant contribution to fulfilling the purpose of Part IV of the Act and helps official language communities to strengthen their identity, to develop and to thrive.
Analysis needed of the impact of the Official Languages Regulations on the vitality of official language communities
In 2013, the Société franco-manitobaine made public a complaint that had been filed with the Office of the Commissioner concerning the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.Footnote 12 The complaint alleged that the method used to determine the first official language spoken in order to establish what constitutes significant demand does not take into account large segments of the population that speak the minority language and would want or be likely to use it in federal offices.
The objective of the investigation was to determine the nature of the obligations incumbent upon the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat under Part VII of the Act in the context of the Official Languages Regulations Re-Application Exercise. The exercise seeks to review and update federal institutions’ language obligations every 10 years using census data: in this case, data from the 2011 Census.
In the spring of 2015, the Commissioner released his final investigation report to the parties involved. The Commissioner concluded that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had to identify the impact of the results of the re-application exercise on the vitality of official language communities that would no longer be receiving bilingual services because of changes in the linguistic designation of some federal offices. The Commissioner also concluded that the institution should present options to the President of the Treasury Board to mitigate the negative impact of these results.
Because the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat had stated that it did not intend to conduct an analysis on the impact of the results, the Commissioner concluded that it had not met its obligations under Part VII of the Act and that the complaint was founded.
The Commissioner therefore recommended that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat undertake a thorough review of the impact of the Official Languages Regulations on the development and vitality of the official language communities affected by the results of the re-application exercise. He also recommended that the findings of the analysis be shared with the President of the Treasury Board, along with opinions and advice on solutions to be considered in order to mitigate any potential negative impact of the Regulations.
A follow-up is under way to determine whether the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat will be taking the appropriate steps to implement the Commissioner’s recommendations.
Société franco-manitobaine takes case to court
In February 2015, the Société franco-manitobaine applied for a court remedy in Federal Court under Part X of the Act. The Société petitioned the Federal Court to find that parts of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations are inconsistent with section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and with several provisions of the Act) and to order the government to amend the Regulations. The Société maintained that:
the Regulations contain an unduly restrictive definition of the word “Francophone,” i.e., they do not make allowances for the recent expansion of the Francophone space to include mixed families, newcomers, people who are bilingual and people who are able to converse in French;
the use of formal numerical thresholds is inconsistent with the objectives of the Act; and
the Regulations were adopted without consulting the French-speaking minority, and they have not undergone any significant review or consultation since they came into force in 1992.
The objective of Senator Maria Chaput’s Bill S-209 was to correct the very shortcomings cited by the Société franco-manitobaine in its court remedy. The Commissioner strongly urges the government to update Part IV of the Act and to review the criteria for defining significant demand.
The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends:
that Parliament make Bill S-209 a priority so that the parliamentary committees examining it are able to conduct a diligent review; and
that, by March 31, 2017, the Treasury Board undertake an evaluation, in consultation with official language communities, of the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies and directives for implementing Part IV of the Official Languages Act.
27 August 2017
A reader sent me a link on the Senate's Committee on Official Languages with the comment that the Return on Investment (ROI) of spending on the Official Languages Act is not likely to be worth the effort
The French have never been interested in the ROI of the OLA - they are only interested in the advancement & empowerment of French-speakers, specifically of the Quebecois variety. The non-Quebecois in Quebec are not considered of any importance & a series of articles from the Gazette reports that Bill 101 has successfully killed off English language schools. Even the English-language organization (CVESPA) is dead, due to apathy on the part of English-speakers themselves. Those who didn't follow the 600,000 who left after Bill 101 have decided to put up with the situation; others have assimilated. They're not well looked after but then, who cares? They used to be a vibrant group but for most of them, it was too difficult to stay & fight the anti-English atmosphere so they left - what else could they do?
I've attached the link to the article about the 40th anniversary of Bill 101 & if you have time to read the supporting articles, you'll find that the French have won in Quebec totally. The non-French are struggling in NB - how can we help them? How can we stop them from taking over in Ontario? NO political party dares to challenge the French power in ON or indeed, in any part of Canada.
Subject: Return on investment
Does not look like a worthy return on investment (ROI) An entire Senate Official Languages Committee session provides a report with 17 recommendations and start a study to modernize the official languages act, which turns 50 next year.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has the mandate to study all matters relating to official languages generally. It examines questions pertaining to the Official Languages Act (OLA) and pays particular attention to the federal government’s role and its commitment to advancing English and French in Canadian society and to enhancing the vitality of the official language minority communities.
During this parliamentary session, the committee published one report and began a new study.
In the fall of 2016, as part of their study of the challenges surrounding access to francophone schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia, committee members conducted a fact-finding mission and held public hearings in Vancouver and Victoria. They met with teachers, parents and students, as well as numerous associations and organizations. In addition, they visited francophone and French immersion schools.
After hearing additional witnesses in Ottawa, the committee tabled its report, Horizon 2018: Toward Stronger Support of French-Language Learning in British Columbia, in May 2017.
In this report, the committee made 17 recommendations to the federal government to enable it to live up to its official languages commitments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.
With this report, the committee resoundingly reaffirmed its commitment to promoting Canada’s two official languages, which are at the heart of the Canadian identity.
Last fall, the federal government announced that it would be conducting a review of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. However, the government chose to focus solely on the provision of services in both official languages, and will not be reviewing other important parts of the Act.
Considering that 2019 will mark the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Official Languages Act, it is an opportune time for the Official Languages Committee to engage Canadians on ways to bring this legislation into the 21st century.
Accordingly, in the spring of 2017 the Senate Committee on Official Languages began an in-depth study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. The Committee is conducting a five-part study and expects to present a series of interim reports on its progress. Senators intend to hear testimony from the following groups:
Committee members have begun engaging with the target group for the first part of the study: individuals aged 14 to 25, more specifically, high school students, post-secondary students and young people heading into the workforce. The committee would like to learn more about how the Act can help better promote and advance opportunities in both official languages.
The French take-over is almost complete because the OLA has created a very pro-French employment situation in the Federal govt. They are over-represented in almost all Federal Ministries & Departments & English-speakers are only taken on when they cannot find bilingual French-speakers of similar qualification to fill a position.
Much to the dismay of the pro-French elite (which include all politicians & Francophiles), the number of French-speakers is still not growing fast enough & they are desperate to do something about that.
The message circulated on August 25th contained information about Sen. Chaput's private member's bill - Bill S-209 that will attempt to inflate the French-speakers' number. We're mounting a petition against the effort to falsify statistics & we need your help. Please email me for a hard copy of that petition & I will mail you a copy along with an appeal to CPC Leader Andrew Scheer alerting him to that bill.
If you did not receive the last message, I will repeat it below:
August 25, 2017
Those who attended our Farewell Party for Jurgen Vollrath had a good afternoon. The weather cooperated & there was plenty of food to munch on while we listened to our MC (Ron Barr) roast Jurgen, our guest of honour. Jurgen has been a host of the DCN show called "Against the Grain", available at this link: http://www.dunet.ca/pastshows.html which gives links to all of Jurgen's past shows.
Jurgen has always been a supporter of the fight for the rights of English speakers. He led an organization called CESCO (Coalition of English-speaking Canadian Org.). At the DCN, he gave the language issue three separate shows:
On July 28th, he interviewed Beth Trudeau, Spokesperson of CLF (Canadians for Language). Callers from NB - Joan Seeley, Sharon Buchanan.
On August 4th, he took calls on the last show & we heard from Claire Dykeman & Sharon Buchanan of NB.
On August 18th, Jurgen had a very informative conversation with Kris Austin, leader of the PANB (People's Alliance of NB).
If you get periods of silence, don't worry - just keep tuned in & the show will continue. You'll find it worth your while because Jurgen is a very well-informed person on this issue & he's very emotional & expresses his thoughts well. He really gets fired up but never loses control of his information. When he moves to Alberta & gets his show there, we hope that all the Westerners will tune in & support his attempt to spread the language battle out there.
CLF gave Jurgen an award for being a "Brave Warrior" & we had a great time listening to Ron Barr of the Ontario Truckers Asso. roasting Jurgen.
We gave awards to Howard Galganov - for being a Free Speech Patriot; Jean-Serge Brisson & Tom Black for speaking up in our support.
We also heard from Al Speyer who had a report on the financial disaster that has resulted from the Grant School being turned into a Francophone Centre; Bob Yaciuk, leader of the Ontario Trillium Party; Jack MacLaren who left the Ontario PC Party to represent the Trillium Party; Elsa Scheider whose website is very much against the Muslim invasion Her poem "It's not alright" is quite cute. Lynn Jenkins appealed for more attention to be paid to the Gaelic language, once a language spoken by the majority of the early British immigrants.
My focus is on Bill S-209. If you remember, this is a private member's bill which Senator Chaput is pushing through the Senate. This was brought to our attention by one of our readers & I think that this bill should be brought to the attention of more people. We wrote a letter to Andrew Scheer, leader of CPC, to alert him to this bill & to appeal to him to NOT support its passage if it should gets through the Senate & gets to the House of Common.
I asked one of our better informed readers (a refugee from Quebec) to help me write up a petition. The petition is attached - please help us by circulating it to your family & friends.
I was pleasantly surprised to get a response from the leader of the CPC - Andrew Scheer. If you remember, we wrote to him to tell him about Bill S-209 on July 20th. Although his letter didn't say very much, I was pleased that he read that he is now aware of the attempt by Senator Chaput to change the Federal government definition of a Francophone.
August 24, 2017
Canadians for Language Fairness
Dear Ms. McConnell:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding Bill S-209, An Act to Amend the Official Languages Act (communications wit6h and services to the public). We appreciated having the opportunity to review your constructive input on this legislation.
We have taken the liberty of forwarding your correspondence to the Official Opposition Critic for Official Languages and La Francophonie, Sylvie Boucher, for her review and consideration.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition
cc Sylvie Boucher, M.P., Official Opposition Critic for Official Languages and La Francophonie
I received an alert from one of our readers that the insanity that is now spreading in the US regarding historical revisionism is now in Canada. Our education system is being inundated with teachers who want to change our history. The target is Sir John A. MacDonald:
It figures the individual spear heading a motion for the Peel teacher union is a French Canadian!! Misère Felipe Pareja
That debate hit the floor of a meeting by the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario days ago, ending with a resolution to urge school boards across the province to consider removing the name of Canada's first prime minister — Sir John A. Macdonald — from public schools.
Felipe Pareja, a French teacher in Peel region just west of Toronto, is behind the motion.
Pareja says the decision was by no means unanimous, but that it passed by a substantial margin.
So not only are we going to confuse our children about which gender they belong to, which wash-room they should use, we are now going to confuse them about which part of our history is legitimate. I suppose Felipe Pareja wants Canadians to revolt against the British conquerors that defeated the French & turned Canada into the successful country it became.
Unfortunately, after the Liberals took control & used all the tricks in the book to vilify the British, the slow erosion of our British legacy (a substantial part of which is the powerful English language) & the concepts of Freedom embodied in the Magna Carta are now being turned towards more Socialism & the concept of Globalism. The ideas that we should erase all borders & let the whole world become ONE entity, ruled by the United Nations, may be a concept that is gaining strength. The Liberal Party are supporters of this idea - that is why we are welcoming everybody who wants to come into Canada. Someone sent me a message saying that a Canadian pensioner gets $12,144/yr; an immigrant/refugee gets $28,290/yr. How long this largesse from the Canadian taxpayer will last, I have no idea. Most of these immigrants are not well educated in either English or French & will be social liabilities for years to come. The Haitians will be welcomed because they will enlarge the French-speakers & increase the demand for French-language services.
There are so many battles to fight that it is difficult to decide which ones to fight first. The Charlotteville tragedy should not be directed at the people who wanted to protest the destruction of their historical monuments; they should be totally placed at the feet of the counter protestors who represented many groups (all of them Trump haters). Fortunately for those of us who see the situation only too clearly, we have Allen West to help set the story straight:
Ok folks, here’s what REALLY happened in Charlottesville – and what everyone is missing
This past weekend I was honored to be in a most picturesque place with some great and hospitable folks ib Prescott (Yavapai County) Arizona. I was there to address the Republican Women of Prescott, the nation’s largest Republican women’s club, on their 75th anniversary. The scenery there was just breathtaking and there was just a sense of solemnness that we all need experience from time to time. How great a contrast it was from what was happening across the country in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Let me begin by saying, I deplore any form of supremacist view — white, black, Hispanic, Islamic. I will be the first to openly state and embrace, a sense of American exceptionalism and supremacy that is rooted in our founding principles and values. Any and all else that is contradictory is to be condemned. What I have witnessed post the events of Saturday 12 August is the typical Rahm Emanuel mentality and political posturing: “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Therefore, I seek to assess what really happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.
First, may God rest the soul of 32-year-old Heather Heyer who tragically lost her life. My sincere condolences to her, her family, and those others who were injured. I fully support seeking the death penalty for 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio who committed this horrific act of violence. But, how did we get to this place?
This all began because someone decided, as other elected officials have across the country, to cave in to partisan political pressures and seek to erase American history. History is not there for us to love or hate, but for us to learn from and seek to not repeat its mistakes.
If there are those who truly believe we protect ourselves by trying to revise history due to false emotions, then we miss out on who we are as a nation, and our evolution. The statues of long since deceased leaders of the Confederate Army do not stand to remind anyone of oppression. And if a statue can oppress you, then I submit that you have greater issues.
I certainly did not appreciate former President Barack Obama taking a photo op in Cuba before the image of Che Guevara, nor do I enjoy seeing anyone wearing said image on t-shirts here in America…but I do not go into some whimsical state of “oppression.”
And so it is that we do possess in this Constitutional Republic a freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It would appear that said group who didn’t wish to see the statue of Virginian, General Robert E. Lee, who was a commissioned U.S. Army officer, graduate of West Point, and served the nation in the Mexican War, taken down did apply for a permit to hold a rally. We can dislike these individuals, but they took proper measures to secure permission to express their First Amendment right.
Contrary to their position, the word went out for a counter-protest to occur which included groups from a different side of the political spectrum, who have also been very guilty of hateful rhetoric and violence. What should have happened is that these two groups should have been kept miles apart. I do not understanding why any local law enforcement agency would allow these two groups close proximity…first lesson learned. And we must also ascertain, did the counter-protest group seek permit or did they just “show up” in order to provoke, and elicit a response they could use “politically?” Yes, motivations are important to understand in this case, if we’re serious about getting to the bottom of what happened in Charlottesville and not just the typical media-driven frenzy.
I find it rather odd that so many are seeking to lay blame on President Trump for what happened in Charlottesville. And there are some voices out there who want to blame all white people, and all Republicans. How odd that when it was the New Black Panther Party outside a voting precinct in Philadelphia in black fatigues and with clubs, nothing was said. As a matter of fact, they weren’t even prosecuted for voter intimidation. And when it was the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore fueled by media false narratives and a presidential administration’s rhetoric, there was no blame laid on Barack Obama. It appears to me that there is a blatant hypocrisy when an individual commits a horrible crime, such as in Charleston, South Carolina, and a collective group of people are to be held accountable.
But, when there’s an Islamic terror attack people say, “we cannot rush to judgment” or “this is not indicative of all Muslims”…to wit I agree, but why not call the enemy for what it is” militant Islamic terrorism or jihadism? Why must some be browbeaten into condemning the actions of a few, yet we have others who have fully admitted their support to groups calling for a “resistance?” And where were the voices to condemn the violence in Washington DC on Inauguration Day, or even at UC-Berkeley…or the violence committed against those who support the current president or hold beliefs aligned with Constitutional conservatism?
If we want to condemn groups such as the neo-Nazis and others, then we must also condemn groups such as BLM and Antifa. And we need to stop the cherrypicking, as they all should be investigated. Let’s end this absurdity of trying to connect the Republican Party with the Ku Klux Klan, since it was a creation of the Democrat Party. And I seem to recall Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, infamously known as a grand wizard of the Klan, lauded over at his memorial by Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton. It was Senator Byrd who was vehemently against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who supported its passage.
James Alex Fields will be punished to the full extent of the law, and I truly believe he should never see the light of day again But if we blindly do not realize there has been an atmosphere of hatred fomented in this nation, we are ignorant. Who even remembers the fella who attempted to gun down several Republican Members of Congress at a baseball practice, severely wounding Rep. Steve Scalise? The mainstream liberal progressive media pushed that aside rather quickly, and let us not forget MSNBC commentator, Joy Reid, who on her Sunday show actually sought to justify Rep. Scalise’s shooting because of his voting record. Now, where was the condemnation there, and why is it that Ms. Reid still has a position and a show on that network?
Fareed Zakaria praised the Central Park play depicting the “Caesar-like” stabbing to death of President Trump — last time I checked he was still on CNN. And how many Democrat elected officials were pressured into making statements of condemnation of one Kathy Griffith who notoriously held up the bloodied severed head resembling President Trump?
There’s plenty of guilt to be passed around here, but the progressive socialist left will sadly exploit this for all they can. They will horribly believe this will provide them some sort of electoral advantage. They fail to realize they’re just as complicit in what happened in Charlottesville. Let me ask that age-old rhetorical question: “if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there, does it make a sound?”
If we were to go back and ponder this incident and just let a small group of disaffected individuals hold a rally to protest the possible taking down of a statue of General Robert E. Lee, and no one had showed up…Instead a call went out and trouble, violence ensued. Or maybe, if we had courageous elected officials who would just say, those statues aren’t offending anyone; they’re part of American history, and they stay. Imagine that, would there even be a story, any rally, and violence?
What happened in Charlottesville must not be allowed to happen again. And that means we need to hold ANY group responsible that promotes violence. “What do we want, dead cops; when do we want them, now”…”Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon”…no more. Our streets aren’t the place for hoods and masks, such as Antifa wears, and their violence and destruction of property. Let’s call them all out, and not have this selective enforcement mentality rooted in partisan political hackery. If we don’t stop the blatant hypocrisy, which is truly the problem, then we’re sitting on a powder keg — which I believe some wish for.
I have an idea. If y’all want to fight, sign up in the U.S. military — if you meet the standards. There are plenty of folks who do indeed hate the United States. Channel your angst against them…not each other.
[Learn more about Allen West’s vision for this nation in his book Guardian of the Republic: An American Ronin’s Journey to Faith, Family and Freedom]
|416||Message from NB, AB & ON||2018-02-27|
|415||Political Correctness - the new disease||2018-02-05|
|414||A New Threat To Canada||2018-01-26|
|413||Why are English-speaking Quebecers so badly treated?||2018-01-16|
|412||Duality Policy - what it means||2017-12-29|
|411||Bill 177 Being Mis-represented||2017-12-09|
|410||clf christmas message 2017||2017-12-02|
|408||Omnibus Bill 177||2017-11-24|
|407||More Good News||2017-11-12|
|405||Francophone Affairs - Full fledged ministry||2017-10-05|
|403||Petition to Set Aside Bill S-209||2017-08-26|
|402||Farewell to Jurgen Vollrath 08-19-17||2017-08-26|
|401||Bilingualism not growing in Ottawa||2017-08-05|
|400||Descrimination in Quebec||2017-08-03|
|399||Struggle for Human Rights in Canada By Allan C.||2017-07-26|
|397||Canada rewards Omar Khadr - why?||2017-07-10|
|396||Hurray!! Madeleine Meilleur bows out!!||2017-06-16|
|395||D-Day - A Victory To Remember||2017-06-07|
|394||Opposition to Madeleine Meilleur as Language Commissoner||2017-06-04|
|392||Bulldog Blog + Letters to PM on M. Meilleur||2017-05-27|
|391||Madelene Meullier - Poor Choice||2017-05-22|
The various opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily shared by everyone whose photo is displayed.
This website has been visited 241088 times.