Canadians for Language Fairness

End the unfairness of official bilingualism. Stop wasting our tax dollars.

Canadians for Language Fairness

P.O. Box 40111

Bank & Hunt Club Postal Outlet

2515 Bank Street.

Ottawa, ON, K1V 0W8


Why should the Official Languages Act concern us?

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.

Read More


28 June 2018

Focus on the Equalization Payments Policy

The Equalization Payments Policy was part of  P.E. Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution, designed specifically to turn Canada into a socialistic, welfare state where provinces are forced to share their wealth.  Unfortunately, this has encouraged certain provinces to deliberately adopt policies that concentrate on spending & discourages the production of wealth.  Some provinces that have natural resources for the production of energy have opted not to exploit those resources but will happily live off the resources of other provinces that do – this is both hypocritical & unfair!!  Quebec & the Eastern Provinces have fossil fuel resources which they refuse to exploit but demand to share the earnings of those mined by Alberta & Saskatchewan – no wonder those provinces are complaining – they have every right to complain about being forced to support provinces like Quebec where the citizens enjoy better social services which are paid for by them.

I will include below the links to several articles on this topic.  I am particularly pleased to introduce Brian Lilley of CFRA radio station who has an excellent article & an interview with ex-Premier of SK – Brad Wall.  Brian was a resident of Quebec & knows the situation very well.  He knows, what most Canadians know i.e. Quebec is the main beneficiary of the E.P. policy.  This formula for the calculation of the transfer of taxes from “have” to “have-not” provinces is supposed to be negotiated every 3-4 years.  Justin Trudeau’s govt. has decided to shelve this till 2024, mainly because Quebec wants to continue to benefit from the current set-up. 

Most Western columnists point out that the policy has not worked out well for the country as a whole – it creates dissatisfaction between those who work hard & those who believe that they are entitled to live off those who do.  The latter are the “socialists” or the “leftists” who are getting to be heard more & more & include various minority interests.  Howard Galganov has an editorial on “Tyranny of the Minority” which is worth reading:

To continue with the topic of the Equalization Payments Policy, I have included two articles that support changing the EP Policy formula to stop the unfairness & one article that wants the situation to remain the same.  Have a look at the names & where these writers are from.  QC & ON are both provinces which support the idea of fiscal transfers (wealth redistribution), the basis of Socialism.  The academic elites of QC & ON have successfully manipulated the 1982 Constitution to empower QC & the people of QC, mainly the Francophones & Quebec now controls the country.  The French language has been legislated into a language of power – they are now totally in control in Quebec & NB & are moving very quickly to control ON. 

For the last decade, Ontario has fallen under the control of left-wing governments which believe in generous social services & has grown a provincial debt that is insupportable (  This is mostly the fault of citizens who don’t seem to care who’s paying for everything they want as long as they don’t have to.  Fortunately, Ontarians are awake at last & understand that spending more than you earn cannot go on forever.  The Ford govt. is now being given a chance to change things.  It will not be easy as the situation is really bad in so many portfolios.  However, Ontario can benefit from a revised EP formula – read on & find out how.

Kim McConnell

Brad Wall says Trudeau playing favourites with Quebec against the West

June 23, 2018 Brian Lilley Canadian Politics 11

“There is more Western Alienation right now in Alberta and Saskatchewan,” says Brad Wall, “than I have ever seen.”

Wall, the former Premier of Saskatchewan, is taking time out of his private life to discuss Justin Trudeau’s equalization move on my radio show. It’s a Friday night and like most Canadians, Wall would prefer to be kicking back. Instead he is fired up.

“Maybe it would have been hyperbole to say that a year and a half ago,” Wall said of claims that Trudeau is playing favourites. Now with the demise of Energy East, the killing of Northern Gateway, the special treatment of Energie Saguenay in Quebec and approval of a carbon spewing cement plant with no environmental assessment Wall said many in  the West now feel there are rules for Quebec and rules for the rest.

Like many, Wall believes Quebec is getting special treatment with this deal on equalization. The current formula favours Quebec and the three maritime provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI.

You could say this is about rewarding Trudeau’s power base.

The previous day the Trudeau Liberals announced that the equalization formula would be staying the same until 2024. That puts it not just beyond the 2019 election but beyond the election after that.

In essence, Trudeau and his team have made sure that as long as they are in government, Quebec will continue to get the bulk of the money in equalization while the other three are also rewarded handsomely. Vote Liberal and the money will keep flowing.

Equalization is mentioned in the budget a mere five times. Compare that to the word gender which is mentioned 359 times or innovation mentioned 197 times.

And yet in those five mentions, which discuss extending the program with increased finances, there is no mention that the formula must stay the same. It’s the same with the budget bill.

While Bill C-74 says it extends the fiscal plan and formula until 2024, premiers across the country had been expecting talks and negotiations on the formula in the coming year.

So while the Liberals will point to the budget plan and the bill, any reasonable person could be forgiven for thinking that this was merely extending payments and that the talks on the formula would still happen.

Current Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe had just this week put forward a proposal on how he wanted to see the formula changed. He expected this to be a discussion at the summer meeting of the premiers.

Trudeau promised that he would consult.

Moe can be forgiven for thinking that Trudeau wanted to consult with the provinces. After all, the PM kept saying that he was going to be different than Stephen Harper, would engage in dialogue and consultations.

He said it in stump speeches, he said it in an August 2015 letter to Quebec Premier Phillipe Couillard.

“Transfers to the provinces are a very important issue in federal-provincial relations. Unlike Mr. Harper, I do not intend to deal with this issue unilaterally,” Trudeau wrote.

“With regards to equalization, we are completely open to engaging in a dialogue with the provincial governments.”

And yet Trudeau has done none of that.

He unilaterally imposed a new health transfer deal, much like the move Stephen Harper made that Trudeau so loudly criticized. Trudeau is forcing the provinces to enact a carbon tax or he says he will impose one and now he has unilaterally imposed the extension of the equalization formula.

This greatly rewards the areas where Liberals have seats.

Here are the payments by province.

Quebec $11.7 billion

Manitoba $2 billion

Nova Scotia $1.9 billion

New Brunswick $1.87 billion

Ontario $963 million

PEI $419 million

Newfoundland and Labrador get nothing and haven’t for years. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan similarly get nothing. See full details here.

Even though Alberta and Saskatchewan have faced difficult economic times of late.

Unemployed Albertans pay for Quebec daycare.

Please read the rest & listen to the interview with Brad Wall:

Better is still possible with equalization formula

Instead of a deadlock of grumbling and silence, Premier Moe’s concrete proposal is a place where the path to something better can start.

Todd MacKay

Updated: June 26, 2018

Premier Scott Moe discusses equalization at a press conference at the cabinet offices in Saskatoon. Matt Olson / Saskatoon StarPhoenix / Saskatoon

For decades, half of the country has loudly grumbled about Ottawa’s equalization scheme while the other half has remained diligently silent, and neither side has done anything. But Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is changing that with a proposal to reform the program.

Premier Moe’s proposal is simple: keep paying out half of the money through equalization’s current formula and pay out the rest as a per-capita transfer to each province.

Let’s compare that to the current scheme.

The federal government will hand out $19 billion to so-called have-not provinces through equalization this year, so each Canadian’s per capita bill is $516.

That’s where the equality in equalization ends. For example, the Quebec government will collect $11.7 billion from equalization and Manitoba will get $2 billion. Prince Edward Island will get $419 million, making it the biggest per capita winner, with the provincial government netting about $2,240 per Islander.

Ontario collects some equalization money, but, after accounting for the per-capita shares of the program’s costs, taxpayers there lose about $449 per Ontarian.

Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan will get nothing from equalization.

Premier Moe’s proposal would change that.

For example, the Saskatchewan government would collect $301 million and Ontario’s take would jump by $3.2 billion.

On the other side, Manitoba would lose $674 million and Quebec would lose $3.7 billion.

Premier Moe’s plan has one benefit: taxpayers would have more of their money stay in their own provinces. That’s important for taxpayers from contributing provinces who have been sending $500 each to distant provincial governments with no accountability year after year. Those long-suffering taxpayers will appreciate the change.

The math is interesting, but the politics in other provinces might give this proposal a chance.

“The program has not worked for Alberta, even during the depths of our recession,” said Alberta Finance Minister Joe Ceci. He promised to review Saskatchewan’s proposal. Alberta opposition leader Jason Kenney, who has threatened to hold a referendum on equalization, called Saskatchewan’s plan a “worthwhile discussion.”

More importantly, equalization reform could be a lifeline for newly elected Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Ontario got hit with another credit rating downgrade before the new premier could even hang pictures in his office. Premier Moe’s proposal includes 3.2 billion reasons for Premier Ford to get Ontario on board for equalization reform.

Continue reading at this link:

Todd MacKay is prairie director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Premier Moe’s equalization plan would curb redistribution  

It is easy to understand why focusing on equalization policy is a winning issue for Premier Moe. It is a way to blame others.

Daniel Béland, Gregory P. Marchildon, Andre Lecours & Rose Olfert

Updated: June 27, 2018

When provincial governments face difficult fiscal situations or see the federal government in a surplus position, a common political response is to find a justification to seek more money from Ottawa.

For example, in the early 2000s, Quebec and other provinces pushed the issue of “fiscal imbalance” onto the agenda to get more money from Ottawa, at a time when the federal government was running large budget surpluses. Today, both Alberta and Saskatchewan face fiscal challenges at home and, predictably, they blame fiscal federalism for contributing to their budgetary problems. Politicians in both provinces have found an easy culprit to mobilize their political base and seek a better fiscal deal with Ottawa: The federal equalization program.

Under the equalization program, required by the 1982 Constitution Act, the federal government has the responsibility to allocate resources from the federal treasury to those provinces whose fiscal capacity falls below the national average. The formula for the redistribution is routinely revised, and a proposal to reform the federal program has been voiced recently by Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has put forward what he called a 50-50 formula. According to this new formula, only 50 per cent of the nearly $19 billion now paid as part of the equalization program would be distributed to provinces with a lower-than-average fiscal capacity. The other half of the equalization pool would be distributed across all 10 provinces on an equal per capita basis, unrelated to regional disparities.

Under this proposal, the “winners” would be Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, the four provinces that currently do not receive equalization payments. The “losers” would be the six other provinces that currently receive equalization payments, but would then receive less.

From a purely political standpoint, it is easy to understand why focusing on equalization policy is a winning issue for Premier Moe. It is a way to blame others — the federal government (for the current formula) and recipient provinces such as Quebec — for the fiscal challenges facing Saskatchewan.

Although Premier Moe’s plan is dead on arrival because the Trudeau government just renewed the existing equalization formula until 2024, it is worth examination.

Continue reading at this link:

Daniel Béland, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy; Gregory P. Marchildon, University of Toronto; André Lecours, University of Ottawa; Rose Olfert, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy. They are among the co-authors of Fiscal Federalism and Equalization Policy in Canada (University of Toronto Press).

If you are within travelling distance of Ottawa, you may want to join us for brunch on July 8th at the Carlingwood Restaurant in Ottawa.  Please register your intention to attend by June 30th.


Read More


28 July 2018

Western Separatism

To ALL Language Fairness supporters!!  Our battle to stop the discrimination faced by unilingual English-speakers because the Official Languages Act has been changed so drastically since its inception in 1969, getting worse with each change!!  This message has to reach more people.  The caveat (in the original Act) of “where numbers warrant” is no longer the guideline.  The demand has now been extended wherever the French activists have been given enough resources to organize & form pressure groups.  Even the retired G.G. ( has been recruited to help pressure Premier Ford to recognizing the “special needs” of the 3.6% Mother-tongued French Speakers.  The 3.69% figure comes from the 2016 census - ask for details.

The French-speakers are already over-represented in the Federal & Ontario’s public & private sectors & we are chasing out many well-qualified unilingual English-speakers from Eastern Canada. They tell me that they are moving out west where there is NO such discrimination.  Meritocracy is what we need if we want a properly managed country – not Affirmative Action based on a minority language.

Tony sent this very interesting article about Quebec losing its young population – there is the suggestion that it could be the language divide.  What do you think?

Kim McConnell

Is Western Alienation justified?  Read this message from Sharon Maclise from Alberta and decide if she has the answer:

Message from Sharon Maclise – leader of the Alberta Freedom Alliance:

For 60 years Alberta has been the driving force of Canada. We now find ourselves stuck with a provincial and federal government whose economic and social values are foreign to us. We are surrounded by hostility from our provincial partners from coast to coast. Alberta politicians, here and in Ottawa, are full of promises, never realized. The electoral realities of Canada guarantee none of this will ever change – it never has and never will. The time is now for the Alberta People to take charge of their future and insure their dreams can be realized.

JOIN us in making that happen. To sign up for volunteering email us at


Jay Hill: The case for western independence

Calgary Herald

Updated: July 21, 2018

 By Jay Hill

As I’ve interacted with countless folks over this summer, many here in Canada’s heartland of the Prairies have voiced their belief that a strong case can be made that Confederation is no longer working in the best interests of the West, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan

Action, or in some instances, inaction by our “national” Liberal government is once again fuelling western alienation. A number of these previously patriotic Canadians have spoken softly, some much more volubly.

I’ve been encouraged by several to rationally consider the case for western independence. Some, but certainly far from all, of the issues that should be considered, are:

Equalization formula: $19 billion a year is currently distributed from the so-called have provinces to the have-not under the equalization formula.

This year, the existing formula will result in nearly $12 billion of that figure flowing to Quebec. Since the program’s inception in 1957, Quebec has received almost $300 billion.

In 1982, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau amended the Constitution to include equalization payments for have-not provinces, making the program almost impossible to undo.

Despite Alberta and Saskatchewan expressing their desire to renegotiate the formula, in June, our current prime minister, Justin Trudeau, quietly extended it for another five years.

Federal carbon tax: The Trudeau Liberals are now threatening to impose a massive carbon tax of up to $50 per tonne on provinces unwilling to go along with their climate change policy.

Despite relentless pressure from Conservative MPs in Parliament, Trudeau refuses to disclose what his carbon tax grab will cost Canadians, although one expert opinion has pegged it at $35 billion a year.

A just-released Saskatchewan study estimates the cost at $1,000 per household in that province.

Unlike most other businesses, for farmers, it’s even worse, as any increase in taxes cuts into thin margins because they’re held hostage to world prices and cannot pass higher input costs onto a customer.

By far the biggest fear when it comes to the net cost of this federal Liberal imposed tax is the fear of the unknown. Obviously, Trudeau’s 2015 election promise of transparency was just more empty rhetoric.

 Pipelines: Justin Trudeau has also recently added to historic grievances such as the National Energy Program of the early 1980s levied by his father, which saw more than $100 billion transferred to Ottawa, primarily from Alberta.

He’s now made changes to the way the National Energy Board investigates major energy developments, such as pipelines — changes that give the NEB even more power to decide whether to approve them or merely unnecessarily delay them.

Disappointingly, prior to these latest Liberal additions to the regulatory burden, Canada had a majority Conservative government with a prime minister from Calgary for nearly 4.5 years. If the system is so dysfunctional that we couldn’t get a pipeline to either coast built then, or even started, is there really much hope now?

Ever since May 29, when the federal Liberals announced they would be buying Kinder Morgan, I’ve wanted an answer to one question: How does having Canadian taxpayers own the company get the Trans Mountain pipeline expanded, when the Liberals refused to override the illegal protests, B.C. government opposition and bogus court challenges when it was privately owned?

If Trudeau was unwilling to expend the political capital in the national interest and use the Declaratory Power Clause contained in the British North American Act of 1867, and the potential reading of the Criminal Code’s Riot Act, then why should we believe he will now?

If the police are unable to protect construction workers and remove illegal protesters, would he be prepared to call out the army to do so?

With B.C. blocking pipelines to the west (Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain), Quebec blocking them to the east (Energy East), and to some extent, the U.S.A.blocking them to the south (Keystone XL), the only option remaining is the north — across the southern Yukon to tie into Alaska’s pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, and then through the port of Valdez to access Asia, and across northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba to the port of Churchill to access Europe.

We must obtain a global price for our resources (especially oil and liquefied natural gas) if we are to maintain our standard of living. Yet the federal Liberals have united with the B.C. and federal NDP in support of a tanker ban off the West Coast — unlike our East Coast, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, which have millions of barrels of foreign oil transit them every year.

Perhaps if the Prairie provinces were an independent nation, we could transport our oil via tanker from Churchill, around Quebec to Montreal and St. John, N.B., and thereby access the markets of Eastern Canada, Quebec and Ontario, just like other foreign countries?

First Nations: As a new country, the West could negotiate a completely modernized new deal with the First Nations of the Prairies and territories, built around future shared economic well-being, rather than continuing to dwell on past grievances.

Property rights: The West could enshrine a precise reference to property rights in our new constitution so law-abiding citizens could better protect themselves and their property from criminals with some assurance that they themselves wouldn’t face criminal charges for doing so.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The West would no longer be beholden to our existing Constitution and  Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which some argue have been poorly interpreted and abused by our courts; but rather, start over and perhaps rebalance rights with the responsibilities of all citizens.

Regional unfairness:  One current example of how the federal Liberals moved quickly to protect eastern jobs (in addition to Bombardier) to the detriment of the West is the retaliatory imposition of counter-tariffs on steel rebar imports.

This action will drive up construction costs in the West, as nearly 85 per cent of our rebar comes in from Asia and the U.S.A. because steel mills in Eastern Canada cannot supply competitively priced rebar to Western Canada.

Leadership: Last, but certainly not least, the single biggest obstacle to an independent West is the absolute necessity of an experienced, credible and charismatic leader. Without the need to be proficient in French, perhaps Brad Wall could be convinced to take up the cause.

While western independence may never achieve the critical momentum necessary to become a reality, these issues need to be addressed before it does. With their party convention coming up in Halifax next month, now may be the perfect time for Conservatives to bring forward policies that will ensure westerners want to remain Canadians.

Jay Hill, who lives in Calgary, is a former Conservative member of Parliament and cabinet minister.

Read More


17 September 2017

J.V. Andrew's "Enough" in 'FREE' Audio format

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!!

Kim McConnell

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.

No surprises

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.


Read More


24 March 2018

Social Transfer & Wealth Redistribution

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:

  • 2009 - $347M;
  • 2010 - $972M;
  • 2011 - $2,200M;
  • 2012 - $3,261M;
  • 2013 - $3.169M;
  • 2014 - $1,988M;
  • 2015 - $2.363M;
  • 2016 - $2,304M

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

Kim McConnell

National Post


Issues & Ideas

A budgetary divide; As Quebec gets its house in order, Ontario continues bankrupting itself

Read More


21 October 2017

French Over-representation

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:  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.  

Kim McConnell

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. "

Bilingual, Justice Malcom Rowe was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada a year ago according to the new process put in place by the Liberal government .

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. "

Read More


13 April 2018

Is Ottawa Officially Bilingual?

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.

Kim McConnell

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?



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”?

Kim McConnell

From: Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire) []

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.

Existing by-law

(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.


Jim Watson


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?

Andrew Cohen

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


Patriot Pride Canada Wide - Cut the Cord


Video about this new scare is available upon request

Read More


Here's how Justin Trudeau's government will ensure that French-speakers (whether they are mother-tongue French-speakers or not) will be able to demand French-language services right across Canada. 

"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.

Recommendation 2

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.

Read More


27 August 2017

No Return on Investment

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 Columbiain 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:

  • youth;
  • official language minority communities;
  • individuals who have seen firsthand the evolution of the Official Languages Act;
  • individuals who work in the justice sector; and
  • individuals who work in federal institutions.

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. 

Kim McConnell

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: 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.

Kim McConnell 

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

Kim McConnell


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.


Correspondence Unit

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:

Hi Kim,

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]


Read More



The various opinions expressed on this website are not necessarily shared by everyone whose photo is displayed.

This website has been visited 280547 times.