Blog post # 9 - FRENCH FIRST FOR "FEDERAL" GOVERNMENT WEBSITES

-- Disclaimer

-- The 80% rule

A fellow concerned Canadian citizen sent me the following email.

-------------------------------

Hi, 
I Just went to the government job board, and because it is under repair till the 25th, this other page comes up.

Check it out...

-------------------------------

So, I  "checked it out" and, voila...  This is what I saw.

That's right.  Whomever was in charge of the web service (three guesses which clan he / she belongs to) decided that, despite Canada being represented by a majority of approx. 80% + English speaking Canadians, they took it upon themselves to present the face of the Canadian  -- FEDERAL -- government with FRENCH FIRST and French in the DOMINANT POSITION.


My fellow concerned Canadian then took the next logical step and did the right thing.  He stuck up for all English speaking Canadians citizens who belong to the majority in this country and sent a request to have this corrected.

-----------------------------

Now, just to be sure everyone understands. 

This "re-action," --- 

yes, that's what it is A "RE-ACTION" And, a normal and noble one at that

---  is only being taken at STEP 1 because my fellow Canadian understands that... 

NOT RE-acting

in the face of these types of things is never a good thing.

Having the experience from prior situations and knowing the history of the folks we are dealing with, and how they view such things, was what played a large role in the necessity for his immediate RE-action.

Now, for those of you who are not aware, things like disregarding the rules as to which language should be presented first on federal government sites, is not just a trivial matter to many in this clan.  

It is often done with a sense of entitlement by some among them who believe the French language deserves to be prominent, thus it becomes a form of "one_up_man_ship" and a way to demonstrate power and control.  

Experience has also shown that similar actions, if left unchallenged at STEP 1, only serve to embolden them to push the boundaries even further and progress to STEPS 2, 3 and 4.  


In other words, no action at all, is often misinterpreted as license for them to move to STEPS 2, 3 and 4. 


Plus, experience has further shown that being lenient and easy going regarding STEP 1 in order to see if there will be future liberties taken past STEP 1, only leads to the following type responses when challenges are indeed made at STEPS 2, 3 or 4 

"well, we thought it was OK since you never said anything at STEP 1."


------------------

This indicates that, like children, they have to be given distinct boundaries right away and told when they are crossing the line.


Thus, we can clearly see that my fellow concerned Canadian's requests are absolutely reasonable.

------------------

Now, considering the time frame, it didn't make one bit of difference either way.  The notice ended up being posted in French first for the duration of the outage.

This whole blatant show of disrespect regarding, what should be common sense regarding how English should appear as the dominant language, is the prompt for this ...

"informational blog and response."

---------------------------------

Hi, 

thanks for sending that.

This kind of thing, if nothing else,
is the kind of thing that offers up a window into how "these folks" think and how they operate.

In this case, it's not too serious and is kinda like the famous ad campaign...

You know... 

-- just do it --  

and then by the time (and if) anyone complains at all, it will be pretty much "a done deal" and the {FPTB} will reap the benefit, and will have once again demonstrated dominance over the majority.

Presenting their own French language in the dominant more respected position of authority.

One might think.  Ah, it's no big deal. 
But, don't kid yourself.

To these folks, it is "a big deal" and it's -- ALL ABOUT -- dominance and the associated respect that goes with that.

As in, whichever language or cultural symbol holds the dominant position is viewed by most folks, as the one garnering the most respect.
 
If you're looking for a pure hard lined example of this, go check out the French language / slash / province of Quebec "constitution", Bill 101.

That law (if you can call it that) is a clear testament and solid proof of this "French MUST ALWAYS BE dominant" way of thinking.
 
--------------------


A similar type of ploy (but, on a grander scale, of course) was used in the implementation of bill 101 itself.
 
There is generally some element of forethought that goes into -- what "they" do and, how "they" do it --

It is pretty evident that they don't typically "JUST DO THINGS" on the cuff.
 
EVERYTHING has a deeper more meaningful side to it ...
 
Using chess (the board game) as an analogy which involves thinking three, four and sometimes, depending on things like skill level and the level of "deceptive nature" associated with the character of the participants ---
 
(a trait, which I can honestly say, from all the close family exposure I experienced in and among my French relatives when I was growing up, was a VERY prevalent trait.  A trait that also showed signs of having been passed along through the generations.
 
--- we could be talking about five, six or even more, moves ahead.
 
A noble trait to be sure, when it comes to playing chess.  

But, when such a trait is cleverly used against you or against those you care for personally in a physical battle or in a battle of wits over control of say, 
--- a country ---
and subsequently renders you and or your kin diminished of value and or worse

Defeated and taken advantage of

That is NOT something that should be accepted without regress.
 
So, if we apply both the strategic element and the deceptive nature to things like say, the implementation of bill 101, it's not too difficult to imagine the planning process going into something like that.
-----------------
Begin by implementation of the bill in its harshest, most non-constitutional overreaching form

{a smart strategy in most any type of negotiations}

-- the idea being that you start by asking for the moon --
 
Then, if any concessions or compromises are reached or given, it could take things back to what was intended in the first place.

From that point forward, it's simply a matter of time before the democratic / slash / constitutional challenges begin.


In the meantime this EXTREMELY restrictive language law (bill 101) sits in place, "doing it's job" so to speak, as THE LAW OF THE LAND.

--------------------------
BTW, as an aside... 
Has it ever occurred to Canadians in the rest of Canada why "a province" inside a country that already has a constitution would need it's own "constitution?"
--------------------------

Stores are forced to change their signs immediately and businesses MUST act with due diligence in accordance to the new law, etc etc etc...

--------------

The effects are immediate and palpable and changes are felt by every segment society, either directly or as a "trickle down effect."
 
 
Those who do not want to follow the HARSH new unconstitutional version of this law must either ...


A) Leave -------------- 

  "One of the great migrations of Canadian history."













B) Defy the law and face fines and charges which are handed down immediately and of course, guilt vs innocence is not debated and prosecution is swift and definite.

(IE:huge fines with payments due ... or court appearances expected)
 
or C)
Enter a challenge in the court system.  A choice (if you can call it that) that still entails changing ones signs in the interim and spending money to do the very things that are ultimately going to eventually be challenged in court.  Humm, right !!!
 
Now, in keeping with the "chess game" concept of thinking several moves ahead, it is somewhat clear that the {FPTB} who drafted such a harsh version of this law must have known that it would be constitutionally (or otherwise) challenged to some degree.
 
However, a further chess like strategy involving planning four, five, or six moves ahead, means that they also would have had a high degree of appreciation for how the legal system works and, everything that goes with that (money and the time involved etc).

This means they would be aware that a "constitutional challenge" (as opposed to the average typical court case or challenge) would not only incur astronomical legal fee's (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range) but, were also aware these cases could take upwards of nine, ten or even many more years just to reach the supreme court level.

 

Either way, those implementing this HARSH VERSION of bill 101 had to know these things and would have also realized that there are  ...

A) few who would have such enormous financial resources to invest for such a challenge.

and or,
 
B) Even fewer who would bother, even -- if -- they had the funds and resources and were not concerned about wasting these funds in this way.

In other words, the strategy implemented by the {FPTB} forced an unjust totalitarian style law on a segment of Canadian society
with the use of exorbitant times frames and the financial burden associated with trying to stop it, as the VERY FACTOR that would see to it that it was NOT going to be stopped.

NICE !!!

And besides, if all else fails Trudeau was sure to leave them "an out."  

It's called the not withstanding clause.

Then, ---
 
and again keeping in mind the strategy involving the chess game element of planning many moves ahead, 

--- we see the {FPTB} taking further advantage of the reality of those restrictive elements as they begin to see small businesses conform
and change their signs while others deal with huge fines for not complying within the time frames announced.

Those few who do decide to challenge the law... 

Groups that can afford to by virtue of the fact that they are INDEED part of a "group" (ie: civil rights groups etc)
as well as large corporations who already have legal budgets set aside for such things, carry on down the long arduous road of many years of financial burden towards the hope of eventual litigation ... 


Several years after implementation of bill 101 it became perfectly clear that the "thinking many moves ahead chess strategy" had pretty much worked it's magic.  

Everything sort of got -- solidified and entrenched -- into every day life & reality while the very few court challenges made their way through the courts.

{Some of which are just entering the supreme court now in the year 2015

With entities like, The Quebec Office of the French Language being one of the main examples of

this "solidification."

Many things are now so firmly entrenched that, those challenges which are finally just now reaching the higher courts, end up having little to no consequence at all.

IE: Most victories in the courts became symbolic at best, and many defeats in the courts are attributed to the fact that financial resources ran out, or were never really substantial enough to "buy" the best legal counsel that money could buy in order to really have any chance in the first place.

And voila.  Here we are, the year 2015 with the tiny 17.5% ---

(4% if you count only those who are -- French ONLY and not those who are bilingual -- ) 

--- being represented in the dominant position on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT web pages which are supposed to be representative of the the 80% ---

(94% if you don't count the socially engineered and manipulated numbers emanating from the province of Quebec)

---majority English speaking population.

There is also have a whole host of Canadian citizens living in a "province" inside the country of Canada who are being forced to conform to totally unjust laws which sees these Canadians being treated like second and third class citizens.







Meanwhile there are some who want to add to those original quasi constitutional laws 




with NEWER laws which were passed on the back of the original so called "constitutional bill 101" law.

For the record, bill 101 can only be referred to as "constitutional" because, as was previously stated, they made it such that it was practically impossible to challenge it.
  
What's worse, is that hard line {FPTB} ---

DO NOT comprehend (or perhaps more aptly put -- wish to purposefully live in their fantasy world that has no room for the reality which was pointed out above)

--- go around boasting about the fact that bill 101 has passed the "constitutional sniff test" and is a perfect good and decent "constitutional law. So, everyone is obliged to follow it."

Yikes... I am not even sure I want to ask what color the sky is in their world.

One thing is for sure though...

These folks who claim that bill 101 is constitutional (in a REAL sense) are among the same type of folks that claim the province of Quebec gives more to the federal
government than the federal government (and the people of Canada) give to the province of Quebec.

Which, of course is, totally absurd unless perhaps these are folks from the same rogue group associated with those recent scandals in that province and using the same fuzzy math on those numbers as well.

----------------

The motto of this story...
 
Remember that YOU are the chess player and, just like my concerned fellow Canadian did...  YOU have a responsibility to speak up early in the process.

Don't wait until unjust musings from some web master or some bureaucrat has been turned into laws like bill 101 and the latest attempts to pass a law that makes Ottawa an officially bilingual city have gone through and been passed.

You HAVE A RIGHT to have your say...

Remember...

Once a law (good or bad, just or unjust) has passed into being a law, 

there are certain folks who then can

AND NO DOUBT WILL...

Point to that law and proclaim, 

"it's the law, therefore, YOU MUST follow it."

YIKES... 

What an awful position to be in, Don't_cha_think?

-- 
_____\||/
_____(o o)
—-ooO-(_)-Ooo——-