Howard Galganov / Jean Serge Brisson Charter Rights case decision Thursday – CFN Exclusive

Howard Galganov / Jean Serge Brisson Charter Rights case decision Thursday – CFN Exclusive
The unrestricted use of the English language is now illegal!

CFN – Human rights activist Howard Galgalnov advised Cornwall Free News that he’s been informed that at 10 AM  on Thursday, December 6th, the Supreme Court will announce via EMAIL whether they will or will not give LEAVE to hear the case that he and Jean Serge Brisson are presenting.  The two are asking the court to uphold their Charter Freedom of Expression, that a Superior Court judge ruled could legally be trampled on.  They’re asking the court to respect all Canadians’ right to post commercial signs in any language of their choosing, rather than allowing individual municipalities, like Russell Township, to impose a form of forced bilingualism.

Viewers may be interested to know that Canadians for Language Fairness spokesperson Beth Trudeau reports that one or more Russell Township Francophone businesses have apparently found a way around the bylaw by claiming that, since they’re funded with tax dollars BECAUSE they’re a Francophone group, they are exempt.  In other words, Anglophones must abide by imposed bilingualism, but some French businesses do not.
La Maison des Arts in Embrun feels that they are exempt from Russell Township’s imposed bilingualism sign bylaw because they receive tax dollars to promote Franco culture.
The following is from Galganov’s press release.
The three Judges who will make that decision are:
Justice Michael Moldaver is a Conservative appointee of Steven Harper, originally from Peterborough who came under considerable criticism from French Activists because he cannot speak French. What is not in our favor, is that he does not like overturning legislation. But, at the same time, he is a strict Constitutionalist who does not favor people who play fast and loose with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Justice Marshall Rothstein is from Winnipeg, who was also appointed be Steven Harper. And like Moldaver, he cannot speak French, and was pilloried in the press (English and French) and by the NDP for “reneging on a promise to become bilingual”, even though Rothstein says that there never was such a promise.
It is because of Rothstein, French language Activists are demanding that all future Supreme Court appointees be 100% bilingual.
Rothstein’s biography indicates that as a Jurist, he was active with the Manitoba and Canadian Human Rights Commission. That said, if he was appointed by Harper, it is more likely than not that he is a Conservative.
Justice Maurice Fish is from Montreal, who has an extensive and celebrated record in Criminal law. He was appointed to the Supreme Court as one of the last Prime Ministerial Acts by Jean Chretien. He is fluently bilingual and is considered to be fair, very smart and tough-minded.
Here is how the appeal works:
We are asking for three of the rulings to be appealed.
1 – My status of STANDING.
The very good news here, is that in September 2012, the FULL Supreme Court, including the three aforementioned Judges ruled unanimously in an almost identical case as mine concerning STANDING, that people in my position do indeed have standing based upon nearly identical criteria as mine.
But, even before this particular Supreme Court Ruling, our lawyers (Bickley, Gowlings and Reynolds) were 100% convinced that under previous jurisprudence . . . that I indeed had standing.
2 – SECTION 2b . . . Whether the Ontario Municipal Act gave the RIGHT of municipalities to pass bylaws infringing upon Constitutional Rights as part of their authority. We argued that the municipalities have the right to legislate signs in terms of size, position and other physical attributes, but according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, NOT to dictate the message that goes on the sign or in which language.
All four Judges (Metivier and the three Appeal Court Judges) admitted that Section 2b was indeed violated by Russell’s FORCED Bilingual Sign Law.
Therefore, we contend that forcing one person to use the language of another person in any means, including upon signs is ULTRA VIRES (beyond the jurisdiction) of a municipality, otherwise, where are the limits of Municipalities when it comes to passing bylaws?
3 – Section 1 . . . The four Judges ruled that Jean-Serge Brisson’s RIGHTS were not violated by the Russell Bylaw, even though, as a French Speaking Canadian, his RIGHTS to post a sign ONLY in his language is now ILLEGAL as a result of the Russell law.
The most interesting aspect of this finding by the four Judges, is that even though a Section 1 argument was never really articulated by Casa on behalf of Russell, they favored the Russell Bylaw because it was the right thing to do. Our question is this . . .
What in law justifies their decision that it was the right thing to do?
CONCLUSION:
The way that I understand it . . . if just one of these three issues is accepted by just one of the three Judges, we will get LEAVE from them to hear our FULL Appeal.
I have no idea or feeling that we will be successful or not. So, just like all of you, my fingers are crossed in anticipation. But, whichever way it goes, everyone who has had any hand in making this defense possible should be VERY proud.
Don Smith reports on a variety of topics, notably good news items as well as social justice issues.

78 Responses to "Howard Galganov / Jean Serge Brisson Charter Rights case decision Thursday – CFN Exclusive"

  1. edudyorlik   December 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

    Go Howard and Serge 🙂

    We thank you for your efforts…

  2. edudyorlik   December 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

    “La Maison des Arts in Embrun feels that they are exempt from Russell Township’s imposed bilingualism sign bylaw”

    Figures. Just like Quebec deems itself “exempt” from providing the English Canadians who live in that “province” their constitutional rights as Canadian citizens (not withstanding clause anyone?)

    What a bunch of malarkey.

    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH…

    Women stood up to “take back the night”
    so we should stand up and “take back back Canada.”

    Three cheers Howard and Serge…

  3. Cory Cameron   December 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

    How do these naysayers feel about Francophone organizations not abiding by the Bilingual sign laws in Russel Township feel?

    I’m interested,

    🙂

    I guess these organizations feel obliged to use their Freedom of Expression!

  4. concerned citizen 2   December 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

    I lived in Embrun & I can tell you they do NOT like English…

    A friend of mine who was very pregnant was assaulted at a local grocery store by a customer & the management did nothing to help her. I never went back to that store again.

    I never felt welcome in that town & I am so thankful I moved away from there because obviously the situation has only gotten worse!

    I’m surprised they have not planted a Francho flag there, probably only a matter of time.

    Thanks Howard & Serge for all your efforts for language fairness!!!!

  5. highlander   December 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

    What did the La Maison des Arts in Embrun use the notwithstanding clause ?

    Like I have said before the charter has been violated more then a hooker,perhaps enforcement of the charter for once will affirm to others that the charter is worth backing.

    How is it that this entity ( La Maison des Arts in Embrun) is exempt from the bylaw ?

    What 2 different set of rules one for francophones the other for all other languages?

    Yet La Maison des Arts in Embrun is just another of the hundreds of francophone organizations sponsored by you the tax payer ,yet for use of only one cultural group …SIMPLY SEGREGATION.

  6. John Macdonald   December 3, 2012 at 1:14 PM

    Yes because if Beth Trudeau says its true then it is and no one actually has to check it out. LOL

  7. stellabystarlight   December 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM

    Not a word nor concerns from the freedom fighters about the waste of tax dollars in this ongoing saga…….a case that has been going on for years. Not a peep nor complaints about our tax dollars when it comes to fighting the french.

    Thinking the gang will have to have another BBQ to collect funds for the g should this continue **smile**

  8. mariah   December 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM

    Oh this is just music to my ears!! Congratulations Howard & Serge Freedom of expression is worth fighting for,so happy that you two have the gonads,please everyone,stop & donate to Howard,he needs our support,he is fighting for everyone regardless of language spoken, Freedom is not free!!!

  9. mariah   December 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

    Highlander..love this, LMAO……..Like I have said before the charter has been violated more then a hooker,perhaps enforcement of the charter for once will affirm to others that the charter is worth backing.

  10. Highlander   December 3, 2012 at 2:30 PM

    So when does the rule of law apply and not apply?
    Why are some exempt and others are not?

    Why do Canadians allow segregation in their own society ?

    If we are to sponsor cultures -why not ALL equally?

    stellabystarlight
    December 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    “Not a peep nor complaints about our tax dollars when it comes to fighting the french.”

    -We are not fighting the french -we are fighting the government institutions that provide discrimination.

    -What you are spreading my dear is hate propaganda -My English hater -stop spreading hate messages -Do this work for your group?

    I refuse to write to John as Stella is he .

  11. Elizabeth   December 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

    Stella, Serge Brisson, a French speaker is ALSO involved in this case and want’s to have the RIGHT to a French only sign. Your twisted logic that this is “fighting the French” is beyond me. Please explain.

  12. Touchez!   December 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM

    it won`t go anywhere and when it fails they will yell ‘tribalism” or frenchplot or some such ethnic slur…. Standing just means there is merit to go forward further… tying up the courts and CLF will be asking for more donations to continue this anti french campaign.. publish the 2 pamphlets and let the general public see what it is really about…. freedom of expression is already protected..

  13. Ken   December 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

    @Stella,

    You still do not understand your tax dollars are being used by the opposition to obstruct the rights and freedoms of ALL Canadians, even including you. Galganov pays his own way.

    Go for it Serge and Howard. Maybe this time the scales of Justice will tip the right way.

  14. Eric   December 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM

    Thanks for the clarification stellabystarlight, I was not aware the English were fighting the French again. In the name of equality then, the French must be fighting the English.

    What waste? The Judges get paid if working or not, but Mr. Galganov will be adding thousands of after taxed income dollars to Canada.

  15. Jimmy Olsen   December 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

    Other than La Maison des Arts, what other businesses have been allowed to break the law?

  16. Cory Cameron   December 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM

    “La Maison des Arts in Embrun feels that they are exempt from Russell Township’s imposed bilingualism sign bylaw because they receive tax dollars to promote Franco culture.”

    Is that right? As the article points out, I guess it’s a two tier system. One law – however one group is permitted to break that law and all others have to follow it?

    Well folks, better wake up soon. Or else when you do, you’ll wake up to an apocalypse – Quebec style!

  17. Cory Cameron   December 3, 2012 at 3:42 PM

    Still waiting for an official response as to the article’s contents from that other bunch….cue the crickets Mr. edudyorlik please…

    BTW, great video this morning good sir!

  18. Cory Cameron   December 3, 2012 at 3:55 PM

    Another thing….

    At least the Francophone groups have admitted to being funded by OUR tax dollars. Hey, we’re getting somewhere now!

    And, as a result of being funded by MY and YOUR tax dollars, do we have a say as to how it’s spent?

    How about cutting off taxpayer’s funding for those who do not follow the By-laws of Russel?

    Apparently, those Franco groups in the area as the article reports, negate the very laws that force bilingual signing.

    Is it the Franco groups that are leading the cause of Freedom of Expression knowing full well that Mr’s Galganov and Mr. Brisson are in the right and will win in the long run?

    I wonder, I guess some just cannot wait for a possible Supreme Court Ruling and have decided upon their own course of action?

    Wow, what enlightenment!
    Wow, what persistence!
    Wow, what gall!
    Wow, what reckless abandon!

    Perhaps the Franco groups of Russel Township should be leading the way of Freedom of Expression!

    Hell, they already go by their own rules, right?

    Cory

    Cory

  19. james quealey   December 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM

    Good for Mr. Galganov and Mr. Brisson, and hopefully this will turn out in freedom’s favor.

    The bias exhibited by the town of embrun reflects how the french communities have reacted to a law that is blatently designed to advance the power of the french populace over the English

    As for wasting tax dollars, the Canadian Government, supported by an 82% Englsih population , has paid for forced bilingualism, which is totally unnecessary and unwelcomed :

    BY THE MAJORITY of the people.

    The success rate of forced bilingualism- a wopping 17% of the country is bilingual. There is simply no justification for this, no will on the part of people, and certainly no economic reason
    to justify this expense.

    How many MRI’S could be purchased for the millions and millions spent on an issue very few Canadians want.

    This potential hearing, by the supreme court, is about having the FREEDOM to post a sign IN ANY LANGUAGE.

    Can someone explain to me how that is anti-french?

    UNLIKE racist quebec, where YOU MUST BY LAW POST FRENCH ONLY SIGNEAGE , this gives us the FREEDOM of expression, what Canada is all about:

    THE RIGHT OF CHOICE IN ANY LANGUAGE

    Jim Quealey

    Mississauga

  20. Christopher Cameron   December 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

    Is this law were lead to believe implemented for the sole purpose of English businesses to provide bilingual signage ,however French organization are exempt and can provide french only signs?

    WELCOME TO THE NEW JIM CROW LAWS OF CANADA.

    Christopher Cameron

    President
    Language Fairness For All.

  21. Lolochuck   December 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

    Howard and Jean Serge you are to be commended for standing up for what is right! May the rights and freedom of expression of all Canadians be upheld as stated in the charter. This is not a language issue but a freedom issue. Surely the supreme court will see that!!!!!!!

  22. mariah   December 4, 2012 at 7:12 AM

    This is a giant step for mankind & all who believe that the charter of rights & freedoms be upheld at all costs.How can bulling be ever stopped in all ways when our own government is the top bully!!! Go Howard & Serge!!!

  23. Highlander   December 4, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    How do you think these judges on the supreme court feel that there is a push to have ALL supreme court judges bilingual ?

    For 17% of the population all supreme court judges must be bilingual?

    So to choose the best judiciary choice it is only from 17% of the population of which chances are they are from only 2 provinces!

    If representation like all government entities including the supreme court less then 1 in 5 would be deemed bilingual.

    I am sure that this will be heard at the supreme court level ,if not it would be considered a travesty to the charter of rights.

    If this charter is not protected through the supreme court it would only validate that the charter is not worth the paper it is written on as it has been violated more then a hooker -thank you mariah.

    From above article:
    “The most interesting aspect of this finding by the four Judges, is that even though a Section 1 argument was never really articulated by Casa on behalf of Russell, they favored the Russell Bylaw because it was the right thing to do.”

    -I have to question when is right for the judiciary to violate ones rights in the interest of bilingualism?

    -For are the rights of the individual lost at the rights of an interest group or collective?

    -For when individual rights are lost ,socialism prevails and society will inevitably fail .

    -Does not democracies realize that individual rights are the foundations of democracy?

    -Socialism can exist till you run out of other peoples money.

  24. james quealey   December 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

    To Highlander:

    Bravo,

    Excellent points both in law the actual intention of the charter. and the questions asked go to the heart of the issue.

    The favoring of the russell by law :because “it was the right thing to do” is putting them ABOVE THE CHARTER AND THE LAW.

    That initself should be enough for the case, not only to be heard , but to be successful as well.

    When a judicial body supercedes the law, by rulings that are not based on law, then they should be removed.

    What they are saying is that although they don’t agree with the russell by law, it should be implemented because “they don’t feel
    it is right” not to implement it.

    They themselves have said there “is a basis in law” for this law to be struck down , but what the hell, we feel it is ” ok” to allow it anyway, becuse “it is the right thing to do”

    If this is allowed to stand, then what is happening, is that the very foundations of our judicial system is ripe for corruption and therefore NOT in the bests interests of Canadians and should be completely overhauled. It is also NOT THE LEGIMATE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE

    Jim Quealey

    Mississauga

    Mississauga

  25. edudyorlik :-)   December 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM

    james quealey wrote,
    “The favoring of the russell by law :because “it was the right thing to do” is putting them ABOVE THE CHARTER AND THE LAW.'”

    — And “THEY” should be put above the charter law. Insanity.

    — The concept of what they claim is “saving a language and culture” is one thing but the extent to which this is being pushed is COMPLETE and UTTER insanity.

    james quealey wrote,
    “That in itself should be enough for the case, not only to be “heard , but to be successful as well.”

    — ABSOLUTELY… We certainly HOPE our highest judicial system is functioning properly. And, if it is then YES, this SHOULD BE successful.

  26. c`est drole   December 4, 2012 at 2:35 PM

    I don`t remmeber reading anything in the Charter of RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS that says french people have no rights…don`t believe anything this little gang says….it`s not about freedom of expression it`s about doing away with a whole part of CANADA and begging for donations to do it.. prejudeice has been around since the first clans were formed thousands of years ago… time has taught us to recognize it and not give credence to it.. don`t tell them that the newest judge on the Supreme Court of Canada is fully bilingual in both french and english and 2 more judges are coming soon…

  27. Highlander   December 4, 2012 at 6:08 PM

    c`est drole
    December 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    “I don`t remmeber reading anything in the Charter of RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS that says french people have no rights”

    ” prejudeice has been around since the first clans were formed thousands of years ago…”

    Hate propaganda YET again(NO surprise) can any of you English haters put forth an informed comment or do you just attack the presenters or the group ?

    No c`est drole – EQUAL RIGHTS under the law.

  28. james quealey   December 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM

    It is painfully evident that certain people cannot be reasoned with, nor do they deserve a response .

    One person blogs that the fench have no rights. This blogger hasn’t appreciated the fact that racist quebec is most discriiminatory jusrisdiction in all of the western democracies.
    Passes anti-Englsih legislation for sport.

    Now this same type of segregation comes to Ontario and this means the french have no rights.

    Lets see: 62% of all federal positions are filled by francophones, in a country where they comprise only 32% of the population

    The province of Ontario , passed, if you want to call it that ,the OLA ( the official language act) that promotes french in a aprovince that is 92% English. The fact that many of the francophone institutions are primarily paid for by English tax dollars, is beyond obsene

    Poor french people, boy are they mistreated.

    Another blogger, cannot identify specific English words, goes so far as to say they don’t exist.

    To lend any type of credence to these people based on their lack of crediabilty is laughable.

    This is about fairness based on fact, not an attack on any race,culture, creed or language or person.

    Please do not attack people, but rather debate, base your points of view. on fact.

    Being sarcastic, accusing people of being anti-french, and trying to intimidate with obsolete rethoric just won’t cut it.

    Jim Quealey

    Mississauaga

  29. Edudyorlik   December 4, 2012 at 7:09 PM

    “prejudeice has been around since the first clans were formed thousands of years ago…”

    — Maybe we learned it from the French in Quebec. After all, if one thinks back the beginnings of this debacle (for lack of a better term at this very moment) wasn’t it the French who started deciding they were above everyone else and passed those bills 101 being the final one of the three which basically outlawed the English language inside the country of Canada (a country with English as it’s common language). Yup, i remember it clearly now. The separatists had several votes on sovereignty then outlawed the English language. What great teachers they were. ;p

  30. Edudyorlik   December 4, 2012 at 7:12 PM

    RE: December 4, 2012 at 6:38 pm POST by:
    james quealey

    VERY SIMPLY PUT. A GREAT POST james.

  31. c`est drole   December 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM

    Canadian Broadcast Standards Council was not so amused august 14 1998… CIQC radio station did not take kindly to Mr G`s views on air. look it up anyone can with this here internet thing…prejudice does not work well with public airwaves/

  32. Highlander   December 4, 2012 at 9:46 PM

    c`est drole
    December 4, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Canadian Broadcast Standards Council -What their political puppet masters didn’t agree with what was being said on the airways?

    That’s history 14 years ago besides -OH by the way The french got their buts kicked badly at the plains of Abraham you knew that right ?
    But that is history as well,but now the English are paying for it!

  33. james quealey   December 4, 2012 at 10:15 PM

    The definition of prejudice is: the pre -judging of events without knowing the facts.

    At CIQC Mr. Galganov did indeed have all the facts and honestly stated the truth of what had happened. His insights were , due to his honest characterization of these events is what got him into hot water with CBSC.

    Having lived in Montreal for 41 years,, I know first hand how weak the media there is, regarding the quebec separatists.

    Any one who dares to tell the truth regarding language issues and like are castongated by all of the nationalistic organizations .

    Therefore the media treads lightly. This is an example of an honest dipiction of events being silenced, by an institution that condons the french arm of the C.B.C. and its pro french stance on many a language issue.

    So please, lets not use the airways as an example of prejudice, when it was a truthful factual commentary, that was berated by the french influences of the media.

    This what forced bilingualism leads to: a divisiiveness between good English people and good French people

    Jim Quealey

    Mississauga

  34. Dukers 1   December 4, 2012 at 11:43 PM

    @ highlander 9:46 pm

    “OH by the way The french got their buts kicked badly at the plains of Abraham you knew that right ?”

    I heard a story recently with regard to the British defeat of the French on the Plains of Abraham………thanks for the lead in Highlander.

    The story goes like this:

    The British and the France were negotiating over whether one should have Canada and the other would enjoy two islands in the Caribbean.

    One was apparently St. Martinique, the other I am not sure.

    However the French saw no value in a land covered in snow half the year and with little else to offer. That is why they did not back up the Quebecois……they preferred ”””abandonment”””of Quebec for the prosperity of two southerly islands known then as ‘Big Sugar Islands”.

    The British saw differently and stopped pushing for the islands for trade and the expanse of land and its hidden treasures in Canada.

    So Quebec, what do you think of your fathers now.

    You see, sugar then was a new discovery and was relegted to the status of todays gold.

  35. edudyorlik :-)   December 5, 2012 at 11:03 AM

    RE: Dukers 1POST December 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    good one Duckers 1. I had heard something like this before and forgot about it. Glad you reminded me and others as well.
    Of course, that is not to mention the fact that treaties and agreements were signed where by France absolved anything to do with Canada.

  36. edudyorlik :-)   December 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM

    More of the same old cr@p
    Once the “separatists” government sanctions this kind of bigotry then the population at large deems it to be OK to do so themselves.

    http://www.cjad.com/CJADLocalNews/entry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10463823

  37. edudyorlik :-)   December 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

    A post on craigslist today sent to me from a sympathizer i know in Montreal.

    I preface this post with this…
    It’s really too bad in a way that it’s so easy for people to just get up and go (like this young man) and leave.
    That’s what happened in Quebec originally and is happening in many other parts of Canada NOW. “They” depend on it. Once people and businesses move, they simply move in and fill the void.

    IF that continues and people don’t stand up and fight instead of running, we may as well just say Canada is theirs. AND that, for the Canada that i grew up in and love,
    is a VERY SAD state of affairs.

    “Yes, despite speaking three languages perfectly, i left QUEBEC in the late 80’s. during the political turmoil with language issues.
    I spent a wonderful 24 years in beautiful BC, enjoying a cohesive and harmonious society, beautiful weather and scenery and a career that shot through the roof.
    Aging parents and other circumstances brought me back to Montreal this summer. What a mistake. I thought for sure, things have improved and that they have ironed out the differences with regards to language issues.
    No…instead, i got bullyied by a police officer on my first day arriving here, i quickly saw the mess still existing around the language issues, a decrpit infrastructure,
    a shaped society, through policy, creating dissonnance between generations, moreso parents and their OWN children. I witnessed many individuals exerting illegitimate power over others, teachers and principals, police, doctors who bully patients, and the worst: Schools who report parents as neglecting or abusing their children because the parents are not collaborating with school officials. When they are asked why: Its simple: They dont speak a freakin word of FRENCH and the principal is insisting on this. PATHETIC.
    I hope people realize that this arrogance is fear based, and coming from mal educated persons.
    I saw corruption across the board, archaic laws around issues such as pets, language, and even to be a registered professional in QUEBEC.
    Then i am required to register with one of the many professional “ORDRES”, who are themselves, filtering out anyone who cannot pass the Office de la langue francaise 4 hour exam. So here too, to become a registered professional, you must be able to speak fluent french. WHAT A MESS
    Anyhow, it is cheaper for me to cut my losses, buy a plane ticket to another COUNTRY, and never look back. I leave TUESDAY. Thank goodness for options, for empowerement.
    GOODBYE QUEBEC

  38. james quealey   December 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM

    To Edudyorlik:

    The reference to the person leaving racist quebec is dead on accurate. as is your comment of people leaving various jurdictions of eastern Onartio.

    This is a mirror image of what happened to anglos in the 70’s and 80’s

    Can it not be more obvious that the time has come to stsrt thinking about a federal and a provinical party, that has as its main platform:

    1) racist quebec being given the boot out of canada

    2) repeal all laws bilingual

    3) the creation of a 10 year cooling off period to iron out all of the issues surrouning a nine province Canada.

    The ONLY way to stop this virus of bilingualism is to have racist queebc out of Canada.
    I know i have stated this before, but the more of these blogs I read the more painfully evident it is, that this is the way to go.

    There is NOTHING CANADIAN about racist quebec. Why are they in Canada, if only to suck every dollar of of us, while, spitting in our faces, by the laws they abide by.

    All of this, and the federal conservative government stands by ,like all the others and does NOTHING.

    Well if they don’t do anything, then it is time for the people to take the initiative.

    Jim Quealey

    Mississauga

  39. Edudyorlik   December 5, 2012 at 5:57 PM

    ON December 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm
    james quealey wrote, “Can it not be more obvious that the time has come to stsrt thinking about a federal and a provincial party, that has as its main platform:”

    Maybe just to repeal bilingualism as it stands now and force Quebec to decide. Are you a “province” in Canada? Or are you considering yourselves n independent country? If they consider themselves a province in Canada then they should respect the Canadian flag and the fact that, despite there being two official languages, there is still ONLY ONE common language in Canada and that is English and THAT needs to be respected as well.

    OR
    And if they DO consider themselves a separate country then they should no longer benefit from transfer payments infrastructure money Canada’s health care system etc etc etc..

    james quealey wrote, “”There is NOTHING CANADIAN about racist quebec. Why are they in Canada, if only to suck every dollar of of us, while, spitting in our faces, by the laws they abide by.”

    Well said and it is for this reason whatever NEW party takes on this task they must force an ANSWER to the question i pose above. DO YOU OR Do YOU NOT consider yourselves to be Canadian province? and proceed from there. Matter of fact, this question should be posed by present federal governments and that should be something we the people FORCE them to do by protesting …

  40. c`est drole   December 5, 2012 at 6:14 PM

    did not know all Quebecors were separatistes . The news reports i see from Montreal are way more peaceful than you guys..i would not believe any gang that paints a whole province with one big black brush…

  41. John Macdonald   December 6, 2012 at 3:15 PM

    So the Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal and ordered Galganov et al to pay the Township of Russell’s costs.

  42. stellabystarlight   December 6, 2012 at 5:28 PM

    OMG…..Am I seeing things or is this for real? The Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal? Fire up the BBQ….donations may be needed.

  43. Ken   December 6, 2012 at 6:16 PM

    @edudyorlik
    Your question, “Quebec, are you in , or out”.
    Who in the Francophone Federal Government has the nerve to ask?

  44. Jane Doe   December 6, 2012 at 7:25 PM

    haha looking good on dear Howard.. When are you guys going to understand that it was silly to begin with….. Stella if you stat up the BBQ I will come and eat but no donations to dear Howard 🙂

    Maybe Howard will take a step backwards but I doubt it.. People in QC do not act like these folks c’est drole…. I think it is very drole too!!!

  45. stellabystarlight   December 6, 2012 at 9:52 PM

    Jane Doe….hmm not many comments the radical activist tonight I wonder why? LOL

  46. John Macdonald   December 6, 2012 at 10:26 PM

    In my hope of hopes he and others are going to direct their energies to organizations that have unfair bilingualism requirements for hiring. But I’m beginning to realize that the moderate voice for change on this topic will always be overtaken by the anti-French extremists. When LFA said their mission was fair hiring practices for all I thought maybe they’ll do some good. But then they got involved with this stupid sign issue and trying to get municipalities that allow you to use any language you want on your signs to pass a bylaw that said you can use any language you want on your signs … useless!

  47. stellabystarlight   December 6, 2012 at 10:49 PM

    John…..the local group could not do it on their own and the g jumped to the occasion. They are making it a national issue which I think will blow up in their face…..then perhaps we will get peace of mind.

  48. Highlander   December 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM

    John you are mistaken ,This has always been about government policy,and will always be for its only human nature to take advantage of a situation by government policy for it to be legislated and enacted.

    Sadly this decision is against democracy now the state like socialism can tell the business owners what to put on their signs -welcome to socialism folks now the state will decide for you in the interest of ALL (well all the french zealots).

    For now the rights of the few trump the rights of the many.

    If only Canadians new what this really means by setting this precedence,but I believe most Canadians are uniformed you therefore may not get a backlash their loss of rights.

    Too bad Canadians are falling asleep at the wheel,while democracy slips away.

  49. Cory Cameron   December 7, 2012 at 5:36 AM

    Excellent!

    More fuel for the fire I say! I hope Sun News picks this up and gets the ball rolling on all of this still. Canadians need to hear about this. Thanks too to all of these individuals who keep tribalism alive. Without your anti-character rants, you would have lost this fight a long time ago.

    So now, please prove me right and start at square one again – for my sake 🙂 Please attack my character and continue not to answer these 2 fundamental questions:

    1) Why can’t the majority of a country’s citizenry who don’t speak one of it’s minority languages not work in it’s governmental services?

    2) Why can’t businesses print in the language of their choice?

    Edudyorlik, Ken, Highlander, etc. I am very interested in this idea of forming a political party at the provincial or federal level. How do we go about doing this? What are the starting stages?

  50. Cory Cameron   December 7, 2012 at 5:43 AM

    I find it frightening as well those who post such messages as, “Well, we’re not worried about what happens in Quebec as we don’t live there,’ and these types of rants. Comments like this are uttered by non-educated citizenry. I’ve also heard it from the past from OAC level students…

    It’s odd. Much the same as the idea of the United States keeping out of the Second World War until December 7, 1941. Isolationism doesn’t work. If you don’t take care of a problem, it will eventually come and bite you in the ass – twice as hard. But this is fine. As things get worse and worse, I’ll just declare refugee status in the United States, that’s all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.