February 23, 2007

Feb. 23, 2007: Bud Talkinghorn

Welcome to the new world of Supreme Court security

I am flabbergasted by the Supreme Court's surprise decision to abolish one of the few legal safeguards against a remorseless Islamic enemy. This decision a few days before there would have been a vote in Parliament to renew the security certificates is proof of judicial interference. The decision has allowed the Liberals never to have on record their wish to cancel these certificates. So if a horrific attack on Canadian soil occurs the Liberals and NDP can say, "We didn't cause this". Blame the Supremes.

The implications for reduced security will not come from those held under the certificates. They will probably be released but kept under close police scrutiny. The danger is from the sleeper cells, who will be emboldened by ruling to be more active. By the time that the police have enough foolproof evidence to charge them it may be too late. This ruling is but another weapon in the hands of our sworn enemies. Perhaps it will take a successful attack on the CBC headquarters for the leftist elites to reconsider security.

© Bud Talkinghorn

I asked Bud to contribute his ideas based on a book that I mentioned this week; the result is below. Thanks for the contribution, Bud.

Politicizing the judiciary? Please!

The selection of judges, especially at the highest levels, is the oldest political game in town. This faux outrage by the Opposition parties would be laughable, if not so cynically hypocritical. One Liberal pol actually lost it and blurted out, "How dare they try to introduce their conservative ideology into the judiciary?" By definition he is saying only card-carrying liberal ideologues need apply. But of course, we shouldn't logically see this as naked stacking of the courts. The MSM certainly didn't make this assumption, under the Liberals.

Let us examine one of the Liberals' Supreme Court choices. Mr. Michel Bastarache was lauded by then Justice Minister, Irwin Cottler, as a "recognized legal expert on Acadian rights". In New Brunswick, amongst the anglophone community, he is recognized as a quasi-separatist author of the notorious Poirier-Bastarache Report. A report which paved the way to francophone control of senior Civil Service positions. The "I demand to be serviced in my native language" cry effectively meant that mainly Acadian bilinguals would man the government desks. Any francophone (who probably was fluently bilingual) could call every department (and its subsections) in the capital and demand a French speaker. It was the beginning of the exodus of bright anglophones, who realized that advancement in the Civil Service and much else was now impossible. Forget the earnest attempts by the English middle class to enrol their children in French immersion. Almost none of the graduates could pass the fluency tests to get hired, let alone to reach management level.

Let us now examine the June 19, 1986 report that made Michel Bastarache so famous he was made a Supreme. First of all it dealt with a dramatic shift in governmental policy, with a potentially devastating loss of power for the two-thirds English majority. The "tail wagging the dog" literally. Originally, the report called for a duality of services across the province, not surprising, as Bastarache was a believer in the Acadian Party's call for a separate province altogether. Duality of services in every department was a sidedoor substitute. The so-called information meetings turned into a fiasco, as the English saw the naked power grab for what it was. It didn't help that Bastarache's committee was composed of eleven francophones and three anglophones, hardly a balanced group. The report was filled with sneering sarcasm about the "puritanical English, who were inheritantly bigoted and who spoke Shakespearean English." Anyway, the public's opinion was beside the point as Poirier and Bastarache had drafted the key demands even before the information sessions began. The meetings were mere window dressing. All in all, the report disregarded any opinion that didn't come from a small francophone elite.

Bastarache hired a French researcher, Rene-Jean Ravault, to examine the situation and then ignored his key recommendation to soft-pedal some of the report's ideas, such as affirmative hiring of unilingual francophones in government, and duality. This, while demanding that top management be fluently bilingual (i.e. francophones). But Bastarache, a former dean of law at the francophone University of Moncton, was going to avenge The 210 year old Expulsion of the Acadians. His manipulative, ethnically biased and flawed report was condemned by the President of UNB, James Downey, and the Father of Equality himself, Louis Robichaud. It was also the death knell for Hatfield's Conservative Party. When the dust settled, the PCs lost every seat to the Mckenna Liberals and in the next election the anglophones rose up and the Confederations of Regions Party (COR) formed the official opposition, with a rump of three elected PCs. COR won eight seats and came a strong second in a dozen more ridings based on protecting English rights. The Poirier-Bastarache Report was a huge torpedo into the Good Ship Ethnic Unity.

Now the Civil Service of N.B. is controlled by francophones, predominantly. The exodus of the best and brightest anglophones has become a small flood. The N.B. government is rightfully panicked. It cannot admit the reason for this flight, so it tables committees to "analyze" this distressing situation. In Canada as a whole, we see the same linguistic ploy being played out. Now, if you are not fluently bilingual when applying for top federal positions, you are toast. In the West, we are not familiar with the travesty of The Poirier-Bastarache Report, but its insidious effects are being duplicated everywhere. Slowly the voters are waking up, and all the king's men and the CBC can't put the lie back together again. The election of Dion, an effete Sorbonne-educated Quebecois over his Ontario rivals has not been lost on Anglo-Canadians. How many years does that make the tail wagging the Canadian dog?

I'm sorry that I don't have time here to shine a light on Justice L'Heureux-Dube's influence on the Supreme Court--another institution that is heavily over-represented with francophones. She was a piece of work. Russ Limbaugh's "feminazi" made manifest. Not only is this court [SCOD] filled with liberal ideologues, so is its large legal team. Traditions are to be voided; Natives are to be given special legal rights; and the leftist, thug-infested U.N. is to be listened to on legal issues. As Justice Binnie has stated, "The Charter never said that moral and ethical issues couldn't be decided by The Supreme Court. Therefore we consider those issues be to be in our realm also." The various Human Rights Commissions became their shock troops. Between these two groups and their enormous unrestrained powers, the democratic freedom of speech withered. Eventually the average citizen would began to learn the totalitarian art of self-censureship. Ancient grievances, like The Acadian Expulsion or some "oral history" aboriginal land claim, could be kept on the front burner. The victim groups have come piling out of the woodwork. You thought that your divorce settlement was final? Forget that, Buster. Possibly the Supremes may have scripted "The First Wives Club".

Divide the anglophones and conguer was Trudeau's stategy, knowing that the francophones would vote as a bloc. It worked, as that is the main reason (along with the urban immigration vote) he won his last election.

The handwriting is on the wall, anglophones. Time to wake up to its dire message.

© Bud Talkinghorn--My information on Michel Bastarache was based on the biography of the NB Conservative Party, entitled "The Right Fight--Bernard Lord and the Conservative Dilemma." A large section deals with the Hatfield era and the Acadian rights movement. Jacques Poitras, a longtime CBC political reporter, was the author.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home