Equivalence Is The Ugliest Word In The Word Arsenal Of The LEFT

For some things there is no room for negotiations.

When Arab TERRORISTS murder INNOCENT Israeli and non Israeli Jews, including sleeping infants in the most cold-blooded and gruesome fashion, and are then hunted-down and brought to JUSTICE by the Israeli government; the media and LEFTIST leaders describe the Israeli response as “EQUIVALENCE”.

This comparison is as UGLY as it gets, yet, it is the weapon most used by the LEFT when there is nothing else available to them.

When Conservatives say that government has a SPENDING problem as opposed to a REVENUE problem, and what the government has to do is STOP spending; and the LEFT says that what the government needs to do is tax MORE, the LEFTIST Pundits describe that as political “EQUIVALENCE”.

In the world of the LEFT, where they have no argument, they seem to always resort to the color gray and the concept of “EQUIVALENCE”.

Whenever I read or hear the argument from the LEFTIST media that BOTH sides in the American economic debate are intransigent and are NOT negotiating in good faith, making them EQUALLY responsible for not coming up with a solution, the first thought that comes to my mind is PROPAGANDA.

Yellow Journalism has become the new media standard. And in spite of what the LEFTIST spin-doctors are saying . . . in our modern world of hyper-speed communications NOT restricted to the ELITIST media because of the Internet and Blogs like this one, the “EQUIVALENCE” mantra will no longer win the day for the LEFT if the RIGHT stands FIRM.

About 15 years ago, when participating in a LIVE television debate over ethnocentric French nationalism in Quebec, and the threat of Quebec separation from the rest of Canada, here is what I said to an Anglo apologist . . . but first let me set the stage.

There were four or five people on this panel of debaters including me. All of whom were English, but, with the exception of me, all of whom from one degree to another thought we should negotiate with Quebec’s ethnocentric nationalists who stripped varying degrees of RIGHTS from English speakers.


I was asked to be on the panel, only because I was the most vocal, best known, most active, bad-ass Canadian street fighter in defense of EQUAL Rights. And it was not as if I was the only person willing to get into a back-alley and duke-it-out. But it was that I was the best known and the MOST reviled by the other side. AND THAT MEANT AUDIENCE.

I organized and led demonstrations and boycotts with thousands of people against French government racism. I financed lawsuits against the Quebec government, and bought ads including billboards, newspapers and television throughout Canada and the United States, blasting Quebec’s Racist and Separatist government.

And as much as I could be – I was in their face 24/7, to the point where Anne and I lived with armed bodyguards for months on end over a period of a couple of years.

So, because of who I was, and what I did, and how I did it, I was invited to the debate of the appeasing LEFTISTS, which very few people would have otherwise watched if I wasn’t there.

I won’t go into the whole story of the debate, other than to tell you that the focus was on making me look like a RIGHT WING Neanderthal who couldn’t in a million years see the other side of any argument.

I was always characterized by the mainstream media as being a “HARD-LINER” and an “EXTREMIST”, who was on the opposite side of the SAME coin of the Separatists who wanted to eradicate all RIGHTS of ENGLISH linguistic EQUALITY.

So, here was their chance as a group, to paint me with the brush of “EQUIVALENCE” to the anti-Anglo Separatists.

To these Anglo apologists – I was as wrong to fight for the UNCONDITIONAL Freedom to be English speaking, as were the French who pushed for the suppression of all vestiges of English in the Province of Quebec.

So, during the debate, which was in a very small studio, where the only audience were our personal acquaintances and studio staffers, Brenda O’Farrell, who at that time was the Editor In Chief of the English language (Montreal West-Island) News and Chronicle Newspaper, looked at me and said:

(This is a very close paraphrase) – “The problem with you Howard, is that you see everything in black and white, and are not prepared to give the other side an inch, or see any part of their argument. And opposite to what you think – EVERYTHING in life is NOT black and white . . . and is open to debate, discussions, negotiations and common ground.”

I sort of knew Brenda because she had interviewed me several times over the year. And even though Brenda was far too LEFT for my liking, and that she played the “EQUIVALENCE” game, I truly believed then as I do now, that Brenda’s a good person who just wanted to see everyone get along in a LEFTIST kind of way.


“Brenda, I’ve known you now for about one year. And I want to say that I always felt somewhat attracted to you, and that I’d like nothing more than to get you down on the ground and have my way with you. And whether you like it or not, or want to or not, why don’t we negotiate where, when and how?”

Brenda was aghast and said (to paraphrase): “See what I mean – To you, everything is extreme. It’s just one way or the other.”

MY RESPONSE . . . “You’re right Brenda, that’s really extreme, and I don’t have the right to negotiate to what extent I can rape you, just like the government of Quebec has no right to expect me to negotiate to what extent they can take away my EQUAL Rights.”

There was no “EQUIVALENCE” between me wanting to be as FREE as everyone else, to others who wanted to limit my FREEDOM. Just like there’s no “EQUIVALENCE” between the LEFT who wish to impose their own philosophy upon the MAKERS, to the Conservatives who demand that the TAKERS have no right to take what is not theirs.

One of the MANY problems with the LEFT – Is that they’ve forgotten that in life, there really are issues that are black and white once you get past the fog of gray. And that no one has the right to impose themselves upon the RIGHTS of others.

And if you’re wondering how I REALLY did in that debate when it was all over: Brenda O’Farrell declared me on the Front Page of the year end edition of the News and Chronicle to be Canada’s Newsmaker of the year in 1996. Perhaps I made my point.

As always . . . THANK YOU to the people, who with their financial help support this Web Site for all that we try to do.

There is no audio editorial associated with this commentary.

Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov

Recommended Non-Restrictive
Free Speech Social Media:
Share This Editorial

One Comment

  1. Yes, we won, well the election anyway but how many that won are statesmen and not politicians?

Comments are closed.