U of Ottawa - a disgrace

With the recent uproar over the cancellation of Ann Coulter’s address to the University of Ottawa, the news is full of commentaries about that disgraceful behaviour on the part of the University (Provost Francois A. Houle and student union president, Shamus Wolfe). 

All columnists berate the students for their lack of intelligence in allowing “mob rule”.  I would just like to pick up on something candid written by Lorne Gunter:

 “Do you honestly believe commissions would choose to stand up for the groups they defend if those weren't the safe groups to stand up for? The fact of the matter is, they protect only those individuals who are members of groups currently in favour with the political, bureaucratic, cultural, academic and media establishments -- such as gays, feminists, Muslims, Francophones and immigrants -- while relegating to the back of the rights bus men, Christians, Jews, English-speakers and those of European descent.” 

Finally! A member of the media who has publicly acknowledged that Francophones fall into the group favoured by the establishment and English-speakers are shoved to the back of the bus. 

Read the rest of his article: 

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2718711

 

by Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen

The crowd was packed as tight as a Tokyo subway car. “Shut it down!” people bellowed. “Shut it down!” I raised my tape recorder to one of the young protesters and asked why she wanted to stop her fellow University of Ottawa students and hundreds of others from hearing Ann Coulter speak.

“Students know the difference between discourse and discrimination,” she began.

“Students know the difference between free speech and hate speech. We know the difference between conservatism and concerted attacks on individuals and on minorities.”

She glowed with righteous intensity, delivering her words with a clarity and force that would delight the coach of a debate team. “Students are here to say that we don’t want hate speech on our campus.”

OK, I said. So what’s the difference between free speech and hate speech? Where do you draw the line?

She hesitated. But then the righteousness flared back up and the words rushed out. “Most students I’ve talked to have said we don’t want her on campus and students are here tonight to say that we want a campus free of hate speech.”

Top marks for rhetoric, I thought. But a fail on substance. I thanked her for her time and she went back to shouting loudly.

An hour earlier, in the considerably different environment of the Rideau Club, I spoke with the object of the protesters’ loathing.

Read more:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Column+Even+Coulter+villain+villain+this+piece/2722622/story.html

 

Ottawa Citizen Editorial

Ann Coulter's opinions can be obnoxious, offensive and just plain wrong. But she's spot-on about one thing: that the University of Ottawa has shown itself to be a "bush-league" school.

The thuggery of student activists is a growing problem at Canadian campuses, but the spectacle at the University of Ottawa was truly a colossal embarrassment, for both the university and the city. Ottawa is the capital of a G8 country, yet our premier research university is evidently so insecure and insular that a talk-TV pundit from the U.S. represented an intolerable intellectual threat.

We wish we could blame only the students for shaming the university. But the administration was complicit in the successful campaign to shut down Coulter's much publicized talk on campus.

It began when the university's vice-president academic and provost, François Houle, sent Coulter a bizarre e-mail, in which he made it perfectly clear that he detests her polemical style and that she should watch her back, lest she find herself facing "criminal" or "defamation" laws. He told Coulter -- in the most condescending of tones -- that the University of Ottawa has a tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration" and therefore that is why he feels it is necessary to invoke what "may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression."

Read more:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/rules/2723151/story.html

 

 

The University of Ottawa took the time to admonish Ann Coulter in advance for committing crimes with her words. Why does it tolerate the actions of its own students?

by Ezra Levant, Ottawa Citizen

The University of Ottawa disgraced itself on Tuesday night with its treatment of Ann Coulter, the U.S. conservative pundit. In a spectacle that earned international attention, hundreds of shouting protesters stopped Coulter's speech from proceeding through pure physical intimidation.

The protesters had bigger plans than mere heckling. Just look at their venomous Facebook page dedicated to disrupting the event: Vanessa Alexandra Peterson wrote

"I wonder what the security would be like. I want to throw rotten veggies and eggs at her evil Barbie mask."

Saif Latif wrote

"somebody needs to throw a pie at her during her speech like they did at the University of Arizona,"

to which Guillaume Pelegrin replied

"I hope someone will get arrested."

More than 500 people on that group whipped each other up into a hateful frenzy, publicly spelling out their fantasies.

It was not anti-Coulter hate that shut down her speech at U of O. Hate is a human emotion, not an action. Nor was it mere hateful words. Words can be noisy, but they can only hurt feelings. Rather, it was the assessment of police, campus security and Coulter's own bodyguard that there was too much physical danger to Coulter and the audience to proceed. As Ottawa Police Sgt. Dan Beauchamp said, "it's a public safety issue."

Read more:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/real+threat+civil+discourse/2723156/story.html

 

It is a sad day for free speech in Canada when students, of all people, force Ann Coulter to cancel her speech at the University of Ottawa.

By PAUL BERTON, QMI Agency, Ottawa Sun

Coulter, the American ultra-conservative commentator who has spoken at hundreds of universities, including the University of Western Ontario on Monday, says the Ottawa address was the first one to be “completely shut down.”

She is absolutely correct when she says it reflects poorly on the university and its students. It is also a black eye for all of Canada.

This country encourages debate, dissent and peaceful demonstrations, but we should not condone violence, bullying or other acts that stifle free speech.

“This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university,” she said later. “It’s always the bush-league schools.”

Canadians can only hope Coulter’s address in Calgary on Thursday goes more smoothly. In London, Ont., on Monday, it created the predictable amount of controversy, but went off as planned.

As for Coulter, who makes her living being outraged and outrageous, she couldn’t have bought better publicity. Who knows if she actually believes the stuff she spews; it’s simply an occupation, and an increasingly successful one thanks to folks such as those in Ottawa.

Read more:

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/editorial/2010/03/24/13347061.html

 

Bilingualism debate flares

English-rights activist rips policy, mayor in mail out

By TOM VAN DUSEN, Ottawa Sun

EMBRUN — Dormant for much of the past several months, the Russell Twp. mandatory bilingual sign bylaw controversy is being stirred once again.

Doing the stirring is English-language rights warrior Howard Galganov who launched a Charter of Rights and Freedoms action against the bylaw as soon as it was approved by township council in June 2008.

Earlier this week, Galganov circulated by mail 6,124 copies of a glossy brochure to every home, farm and business in the municipality with the front-cover wording: “How to Wipe Out the Franco Ontarian Language and Culture — Ban Any Stand-Alone Use of the French Language … Make it Illegal.”

A cover photo shows a gavel coming down bearing the name of Russell Mayor Ken Hill. The back cover shows a stern-looking Galganov, arms crossed, standing with one of the horses he owns at his Glengarry County farm.

Inside the 10-page unilingual English publication, Galganov flips the controversy, blaming Hill and councillors Lorraine Dicaire and Donald St. Pierre for prohibiting the use of French-only signs by approving the mandatory bilingual amendment. Hill cast the deciding vote while councillors J.P. St. Pierre and Jamie Laurin were — and remain — opposed.

Galganov wonders “how stupid people can be” who force themselves by law to use another language with their own.

In the pamphlet, Galganov claims “Ken Hill’s Folly” has stripped away rights from French and English speakers to post exterior commercial messages in whatever language they wish for the mayor’s own “selfish, arrogant and political reasons.”

Read more:

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/03/24/13348226.html

 

by Kim McConnell, Canadians for Language Fairness

Our issue has just been given a revival by Tom van Dusen.  Howard Galganov’s case has been postponed while they locate a bilingual judge so those who are waiting for news can relax for the remainder of this week. 

I have been given copies of Howard’s brochure which I will be glad to mail to anyone who is willing to send me a donation for Howard’s case.  We expect that win or lose, there will be an appeal and Howard is getting ready for that.  Russell Township has bottomless taxpayer pockets so if they lose (which they are likely to do), they will appeal. 

When CLF lost our case with the City of Ottawa, we didn’t have enough money to appeal so we had to give up.  Howard is NOT going to give up and just walk away so we have to get ready for an appeal.

Canadians should understand how important this case is – its implications are far reaching right across Canada.  If commercial enterprises can be forced to post signs that must “respect” the official languages (whether needed or not), Canada will have lost another freedom. 

Freedom of speech is already under serious threat and only those who are willing to use violence can over-ride normal security and force their views on the general public.  Our universities are no longer institutions teaching freedom of thought & the rights of people to make up their own minds about anything – student leaders and university authorities can shut down debate anytime they wish & this has been used mainly by left-wing groups who seem to favour the use of violence. 

This is just the tip of the iceberg – there are a lot of things happening in Canada where the general population is under threat from so many sources that one is totally lost as to which threat to deal with first.  As we are mainly concerned with the threat of a linguistic minority taking control of the lives of the majority, I hope you will excuse me for concentrating only on that. 

It is not a concern that affects most Canadians, unfortunately.  That is why we keep on beating the language drum even though we are discouraged by lack of support from any political party – even the Conservatives.  The Manning Networking Conference was an opportunity for me to ask why we’re being ignored:

http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=3764

The answer is that the Canadian public is to blame for not making it an important issue.  I guess not enough of us are suffering from this discriminatory policy.  Only the Anglos of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario are sufficiently aware of how far the policy can rob English-speakers of their place as majorities.  English-speakers are being sent to the back of the bus and they don’t seem to mind!!  Incredible!!

Just in case you are one of those who want to do something but don’t know what, here’s a suggestion.  Lobby your government to invoke the “notwithstanding clause”.  Start a petition to your own government to force them to understand that unless they are willing to emulate Quebec’s example and use this clause to declared English as the only official language, people like Gilles Caron has the power to force Alberta into translating your laws into French and force the hiring only of bilingual people. 

Neil Lensen has written a letter to Ted Morton to remind him of all the things that the powerful, generously funded French groups can do.  If you want to read his letter and those of others who understand the real nature of the threat, go to www.languagefairness.ca and open the link to Regional Issues – Western Canada.

We, in provinces which are succumbing to the French threat, know how serious it can get.  We can only tell you of our experiences and ask you (beg you) to help yourselves!!!  Only ONE province need to start and the rest will follow.  Alberta is the most likely one – so Albertans – this is an action call for you!!!

Kim McConnell

The public face of the Quebecois

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Language+home/2681097/story.html

In yesterday’s (Mar. 14) Ottawa Citizen, Janice Kennedy wrote that there is, in Ontario, an army of “sickly looking” people “vent(ing) their considerable spleen”. Indeed, there probably are many who simply don’t like the French for any number of reasons. They may not like the English either.

However, there is another army, an army of thoughtful people who have, over the past couple of decades, become aware of the extent to which the Quebecois are setting the agenda in Ontario. People who normally live and let live are growing increasingly concerned, and resentful, less against individual Francophones, but more so against the public face of the Quebecois.

A couple of years ago, a man boarded an Ottawa city bus, in Ottawa, and, to the driver, said “Bonjour’. The driver responded, “Good Morning”. The man got off the bus and promptly, and publicly, complained that the driver did not respond to him in French. This churlish reaction to a polite “Good morning” is the public face of the Quebecois.

Last year, Jeanne Barr, the acting Postmistress at the Pakenham Post Office for several years, was notified by Canada Post that, because she did not speak French, she would be reassigned to other duties with an appropriate cut in salary. The French population in Pakenham is virtually zero, but because Pakenham is within the NCC, CP is required by law to appoint to such positions only bi-lingual individuals. Arbitrary legislation that dictates which Ontario citizens can work in their own province is the public face of the Quebecois.

Last year, the City of Ottawa hired a unilingual Fire Chief. The new chief is, according to reports, well qualified as a fireman, a manager, and an arbiter. These qualifications were of no interest to the Francophones among us; they wanted a bilingual fire chief and they vociferously opposed any candidate that did not speak French. Such irrational behavior is the public face of the Quebecois.

Quebec legislation systematically suppresses the English language, and English-language education, in Quebec. Ontario legislation expressly promotes the French language in Ontario plus a vast, and very expensive, array of French-language services and education. These deliberate and very public discrepancies between the rights of English in Quebec and those of the French in Ontario represent the public face of the Quebecois.

A few days ago, in response to the federal budget, Gilles Duceppe said that Canadian federalism has nothing to offer Quebec. Hmmm. Duceppe typifies the hypocritical public face of the Quebecois; their one hand is twisted into a fist to brandish at us while their other is palm-up to demand ever more welfare from us. Such blatant hypocrisy is the ugly face of the Quebecois, because every Quebecer knows that without ready access to the federal treasury – which is regularly topped up by the very people they despise - Quebec would fall abruptly into bankruptcy.

The public face of Quebec in Ontario is bifurcated. One fork is represented by those who resent circumstances that deny people jobs and promotions in their own province because they speak English only.

The other fork is represented by Janice Kennedy, who thinks it is unacceptable for people to resent being denied jobs and promotions in their own province because they speak English only.

This brief sampling skims the surface of a deep pit of bitterness welling up among people who, Kennedy says, “... leave behind a large toxic footprint.”

While my footprint is not toxic, it is clearly defined.    --JGP

Gilles Duceppe: tied to our security blanket

In response  to the federal budget, Gilles Duceppe claimed the other day that Canadian federalism has nothing to offer Quebec.

Duceppe typifies the hypocritical public persona of Quebec; one hand twisted into a fist to brandish at us and the other extended into a open palm to demand ever more welfare from us.

If the Quebecois had the courage to match their faux bravado, they would have separated long ago. As it is, they hold tight to their security blanket, trembling at the thought of being cut loose from the comfort of our federal treasury. --JGP

Bilingualism: appeasing a narcissistic and besotted people

French language training in Canada squats on the peak of all that represents incomprehensible government waste. Official bilingualism represents, by itself, the costliest failed program ever conceived by a Canadian government. And it continues, decade by decade, to swallow billions to achieve just one end; to appease a narcissistic and besotted people so immersed in self-pity and so infused with insecurity that it beggars the imagination.  --JGP

 

Fleurdelisé *

February 26, 2010

by Kim McConnell

Canadians for Language Fairness www.languagefairness.ca

The article reproduced below (in an earlier blog) from the Winnipeg Free Press is very revealing.  Indeed, Canada is very fragile and why is that?  Pierre Elliot Trudeau said, “"There is no way two ethnic groups in  one country can be made equal before the law....and to say it is possible is to sow the seeds of destruction".  Pierre Trudeau, 1966. 

He was correct!!!  By forcing this on Canada when he entrenched the Official Languages Act into the Constitution, he allowed the 23% French-speakers to displace the 77% English-speakers from Canada’s Halls of Power. 

The French-speakers of Quebec, by their intransigence and general bloody-mindedness, thumbed their noses at English-speakers and won the battle of nerves.  The English-speakers, like peaceful people everywhere, took the easy way out – instead of meeting the French-speakers head-on in open confrontation, they withdrew and in many cases, even capitulated. 

In Quebec, the Stockholm Syndrome kicked in and the media led the way in convincing English-speakers that the French-language and culture should take precedence.  Historical revisionism was allowed to teach the French Quebecers’ version of history (British conquerors - bad, conquered French – good). 

Anyone who has seen a copy of the book, “Fleurdelisé”, published by Guerin in Montreal will know what I’m talking about (see note below).

There are other problems of course:

1. The way Canada was set up with the senior provinces (e.g. Quebec, New Brunswick, PEI) having more seats in Parliament despite their dwindling population and younger provinces like Alberta having fewer seats despite their growing population resulting in an imbalance in representation.  This is true in the House of Commons as well as the Senate.  Any attempts by the Conservative government to bring about any correction have been thwarted by the Opposition (Liberal, NDP & Bloc Quebecois).
2. The Equalization Payments policy which is now under attack from the Western provinces who are sick & tired of always paying the freight & always coming out on the losing end.
3. Quebec, despite endless efforts on the part of the Rest (Most) of Canada to appease them inevitably end up less patriotic & less caring .
4. Quebec, especially the French-speakers, are getting more & more unpopular because they seem to be ever more demanding & less cognizant of the fact that they are a minority and it is not the obligation of the majority to put them on a pedestal and give them priority consideration, at great cost to themselves.  It is not human nature to acquiesce to this reversal of the democratic philosophy of majority rule!!!  So should we be surprised that we have become a very unhappy country?

What can we do about this frustration?  We can help to educate other Canadians and let them know that we shouldn’t put up with this insane situation.  Circulate our message to as many people as you can so that they can also start to understand.  Ask them to pay attention before it’s too late.  --Kim

* Fleurdelisé: Quebec’s “national” flag

Federal transfers to hit record $54B

Canwest News Service

National Post: Saturday, December 19, 2009

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2361820

Federal transfers to the provinces and territories will reach a record $54.4-billion in the coming fiscal year, the Finance Department announced yesterday.

The announcement coincided with a meeting in the Yukon capital involving federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and his provincial and territorial counterparts.

The total payments, including everything from equalization transfers to health transfers, will be $2.5-billion more than the current fiscal year. Transfers to Ontario mark the biggest increase, rising about $1.2-billion to $15.48-billion in the coming fiscal year.

Funding to the three territorial governments will climb by $166-million, to $2.7-billion.

Tim's knows

Quebecers are less patriotic than other Canadians - just ask our doughnut shops

The Gazette: February 25, 2010

By DON MACPHERSON

Tim Hortons isn't the official doughnut-providing "partner" of Vancouver 2010, but that hasn't stopped it from trying to cash in on Olympics-inspired patriotism with an offering adorned with red sprinkles on white icing.

In English, it's sold as the "Canada donut." But in French, the chain hedges its bets by calling it the "beigne rouge et blanc"- the red-and-white doughnut, with no mention of the name Canada.

And the fact that the sprinkles are in the shape of tiny maple leaves is pointed out on the chain's website in English, but not in French.

It's as if Tim Hortons hopes that the references to the Canadian flag on its doughnut will somehow escape notice in this province, where the flag is still associated with the sponsorship scandal.

("Encouragez-les," potential buyers in Quebec shops are exhorted instead, as if our athletes in Vancouver would somehow be cheered on by the knowledge that somebody is eating a red-and-white doughnut in Montreal.)

Since the 1960s, national companies have had distinct advertising campaigns and even brands for the Distinct Society; for example, Molson sells its Canadian lager only in English Canada.

And even during the Olympics, "Canada" doesn't sell in this province.

It's not only doughnuts. Team Canada jerseys and other Olympics gear are a rare sight in the windows of sporting-good stores or on the streets of Montreal.

This impression is borne out by results of a survey last week in which the Ipsos Reid polling firm measured national pride across the country during the Games for the Historica-Dominion Institute (snipurl.com/ui0ty).

The results suggest that Quebecers were less likely than Canadians in general to say they would display or fly the Canadian flag or wear Canada or Olympic clothing during the Games.

This comes as no surprise. In a 2007 Ipsos Reid-Dominion Institute survey, Quebec households were only half as likely as Canadian households in general to own a Canadian flag, and those that did were only half as likely to fly it in their yard or display it in a window.

In part, this can be attributed to social pressure or feelings of intimidation.

Despite the impression Lucien Bouchard might have left, there is still significant support for sovereignty in Quebec - 50 per cent of francophones would have voted Yes in another referendum last week, according to a Léger Marketing survey for Le Journal de Montréal.

Sovereignists tend to be more outspoken about their political opinions than federalists. A francophone who declares himself a federalist risks insult as a sellout. And to show the Canadian flag or wear the Canadian colours can be to risk vandalism or confrontation.

But while support for sovereignty has declined in the 20 years since the failure of the Meech Lake constitutional accord recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, Quebecers' feelings of attachment to Canada remain strained.

In unpublished results of an Ipsos Reid poll a year ago, Canada easily ranked first in allegiance in all the other regions of the country, but only third among Quebecers, behind their province and even their town or city. Only 23 per cent of Quebecers answered that they belonged "first and foremost" to "your country."

And while the polling firm credited the Vancouver Games with an increase in Canadian patriotism across the country, Quebecers appeared to be holding out.

The proportion of all Canadians saying they belong first and foremost to their country increased to 45 per cent last week from 38 per cent a year ago. But among Quebecers, there was a statistically insignificant increase of only three points.

Olympics announcers and advertisers keep telling us the Games are bringing the country together. But there's not much evidence of that in this province - in the doughnut shops or anywhere else.

dmacpher@thegazette.canwest.com© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette