Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Bill 115- Judicial Guerrilla Warfare?

It's hard to look at the language furor over the passage Bill 115 without shaking one's head in utter disbelief at the drama and hysteria generated in Quebec society by French language militants over an issue that is so inconsequential.

Like the public outcry for a law against the wearing of a veil in public, one that would affect all of two dozen Muslim women, the disproportionate and frenzied response to the language law is hard to fathom.

Lost in the clamour by language militants over of Bill 115, is the fact that the law is illegal and another example of the callousness of the Quebec government, which makes it a practice to regularly enact legislation that cannot withstand judicial challenge.

If Bill 104 was illegal and rejected by the courts, there's little doubt that its replacement, Bill 115, which is even more restrictive, will pass judicial muster, but to the Quebec government, it is of no consequence.

Brett Tyler, the lawyer who successfully fought Bill 104 to the Supreme Court, told all who would listen that should someone wish to test the validity of Bill 115, the case would likely drag on for approximately seven years.
As in the case of the family that won the case against Bill 104, those who would fight Bill 115 in court, would never benefit from any victory, as their child would have already been forced into a French school during the intervening years. It is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

The reality of this judicial nightmare is, that by hook or crook, the government of Quebec will have its way.

And so this government continues the fine tradition of waging 'judicial guerrilla warfare,' whereby the weakness of the legal system is exploited to assert a political agenda that is either unconstitutional or violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now to those language militants who patrol this blog, please don't accuse me of being a hothead in coining the term of 'judicial guerrilla warfare,' the concept comes from that stalwart of the independence movement, Joseé Legault, who advised the government in a column, to pass a string of illegal laws and take advantage of the long delay before the laws are overturned.
"What should we do? Let's apply Bill 101 to non-subsidized English schools. Of course, an Anglo lawyer will appeal it to the Supreme Court.  Again.  And he'll win.  AgainAnd then we'll start the process all over.  AgainLet's call it guerrilla legal warfare.
"Que faire? Appliquer la loi 101 aux écoles anglaises non subventionnées. Bien sûr, un avocat anglo amènera le tout jusqu'en Cour suprême. Encore. Et il gagnera. Encore. Et on recommencera. Encore. Appelons-ça de la guérilla juridique." Josée Legault
French is the language of law and justice.
 It's a dirty device, first developed by Camille Laurin back in 1977 when the separatist government passed Bill 101, the infamous Charte de la langue française.

While whole sections of the law were illegal, Article 7, in Chapter 3, was so egregiously unconstitutional, that a high school student could see that its precept clearly violated the BNA Act.
Charte de la langue français.
Article 7; (Official language) - French is the language of the legislature and the courts in Quebec."
"133. Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec"
It took the  Supreme Court two years to rule unanimously that the clause was illegal and without force. When the decision was handed down Premier René Lévesque hypocritically called the ruling "colonial, cruel and archaic." He had privately warned Camille Laurin that he was going too far.

In the succeeding years, Bill 101 has been systematically stripped by the courts of its most abusive and illegal provisions, much to the chagrin of militants, who claim that any a law dutifully declared by the Quebec National Assembly should not 'butchered'(charcuté) by Canadian courts or in fact be subject to Canadian law at all.
Of course this opinion would be valid if Quebec were a sovereign state, something it is not, as far as I know.

The referendum law of 1995 is another example of the Quebec government knowingly passing an illegal law, when it disallowed spending by any person or organization, other than the two official YES and NON committees during the referendum campaign.

Essentially, the law had the effect to bar the federal government from spending money to promote its position for a united Canada.

In passing the law the separatists knew full well, that even if the law were to be ruled unconstitutional years later, the benefit to the NO side would inure during the referendum campaign.

Now before I get an avalanche of comments reminding me that Ottawa did surreptitiously funnel money to the 'YES' side, by way of a shady front organization known as Option Canada, let me say this.

Separatists, to this day, claim that the 'illegal' funds, as well as the massive Unity Rally (organized and paid for by federalists, outside the bounds of the referendum law) held in downtown Montreal, made the difference in the slim outcome of the vote.

After the referendum, 20 criminal charges were laid against Option Canada by the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, who opened an inquiry into the alleged breach of the referendum law. Those proceedings were quickly halted when once again, the Supreme Court ruled that part of the referendum law was illegal.

So while separatists to this day claim they were robbed, it was in fact the Canadian government who was prevented from putting its full weight behind the NO option. Theoretically Ottawa could have and should have, entered the referendum debate in full measure.

For the last eight years, certain Quebeckers have been deprived of their right to attend English school because of an illegal law. Unfortunately, given the hollowness of the victory over Bill 104, only a fool would challenge Bill 115, notwithstanding its legality.

And so, in analyzing Ms. Legault advice, it's hard not to conclude that there's a method in her madness. Passing illegal laws and having them remain in effect for years and years, seems to be a successful strategy.

I think I would have much preferred if the Liberal government had implemented the draconian "Notwithstanding Clause' to close this so-called educational loophole.

It would have cleared the air and belied any pretence that the government was acting in a balanced and fair manner.


  1. And so this government continues the fine tradition of waging 'judicial guerrilla warfare,' ...

    This is a most convoluted read ND. Mme Legault is not claiming that Bill 115 is "judicial guerilla warfare" You are, unless perhaps we're channeling her through you (?).

    She is not advocating for Bill 115, but rather denouncing it as « radicalement honteux ».

    And the judicial "guerilla warfare" she proposes is to either re-adopt Bill 104 in its original 2002 incarnation or to extend Bill 101 to unsubsidized private schools, understanding that these routes will likely face constitutional challenge.

    Mounting challenges to laws and judicial constructs one considers unjust is not entirely unheard of in the history of democracies ND. Perhaps you've heard of people who did it in the Jim Crow-era American South, Ireland, South Africa, and other places.

    What military metaphor should we use to capture how Canada's current constitution became the law of the land? It was "repatriated" and "adopted" over the strident objections of its 2nd most populous province containing its second-most populous national group, the Québécois, and over the equally strident objections of native leaders who went all the way to Westminster to petition British legislators from cooperating with the feds and the English Canadian premiers. The Natives pointed out there was no recognition forthcoming of their right to self-determination and self-government. And they don't have it to this day.

    So what metaphor works best? What about the "Shock and Awe" doctrine?

    The constitutionality of laws is determined by courts with competence to rule on them. This has not happened with Bill 115 and so your claim it's "illegal" is just that, a claim, not a statement of fact. Moreover, Mme Saint-Pierre explained at some length on tv (TLMEP) only days ago that her government instructed jurists working with them to hone carefully to the constitution and Supreme Court ruling in "reworking" Bill 104.

  2. The « loi sur les consultations populaires » was not promulgated in 1995 ND. It was promulgated in 1978 in anticipation of the 1st referendum. Your suggestion that it was self-evidently "illegal" is a major massaging of history. In fact its constitutionality was *upheld* by both Québec Superior Court *and* the Québec Court of Appeal (federally appointed judges, remember?). It *then* went to the Supreme Court (almost 2 decades after its adoption) who invalidated some of its dispositions but upheld the great majority, and the Supremes even pointed out that the egalitarian principle behind the law made it a "model" for democratic procedure. They also, en passant, regarded the objective sought by Bill 104 as constitutionally legitimate as well, and highlighted this in their written opinion.

    So the "illegal" nature of the referendum law was much less "obvious" to the judges asked to rule on it than it is to your rapier legal mind.

    The claim that the referendum law had for effect to "bar" the feds from promoting their option is simply risible. In the period from the PQ's return to power in 1994 til the referendum the following year the Council of Canadian Unity *alone* spent 3x as much $ promoting the unity option in Québec as the Québec government spent promoting the sovereignty one. And the law provided equal funding limits for each camp, which the No side violated brazenly with the Love In Rally.

    (btw, have you ever noticed that English Canadians never organize "love-ins" in front of French language schools or hospitals threatened with closure in their own provinces? Perhaps if they were flown and bussed in for free and put up in nice hotels?...)

    I can't imagine why Québec francophone lawmakers wouldn't genuflect to that hallowed document that was the British North America Act. After all, it provided explicit protection to the English language and institutions in Québec while providing none whatsoever to the French language and francophone institutions outside Québec. (French was banned in the Manitoba legislature for nearly a century, and banished from public schools for decades). I believe there's a quite ancient legal concept embedded here, though I forget the precise Latin term. I think it translates tho as something like "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose".

  3. @Jacques
    I don't usually reply to comments but I'm not going to let this pass.

    Ms. Legault said what she said, try as you might you cannot un-ring that bell. The quote is in her blog and if you don't believe me you can follow the link.

    "Que faire? Appliquer la loi 101 aux écoles anglaises non subventionnées. Bien sûr, un avocat anglo amènera le tout jusqu'en Cour suprême. Encore. Et il gagnera. Encore. Et on recommencera. Encore. Appelons-ça de la guérilla juridique." Josée Legault"

    You're claim that she meant anything else but what she said, is patently absurd.

    As for spending by Federalists and Separatists, you shift the argument to say that Ottawa outspent Quebec leading up to the referendum.
    BUT THE LAW APPLIED DURING THE REFERENDUM and it was then that the Feds were officially limited.

    As for not obeying the BNA act,your assertion that Quebec should not abide by law of the land is exactly what this post is about.

    When Quebec separates, the new country can do what it wants, til then, it's TOUGH NOOGIES!.....

  4. Jacques,

    You want to protect your language and culture using restrictive laws (i.e. forcing things on people and removing the alternatives) and you want Canadian courts out of your way? Nothing simpler. Canada doesn't forbid secession, it actually allows it through the Clarity Act. All you need to do is to:

    1. Ask a CLEAR question
    2. Obtain a majority (no vote rigging this time, please).

    And then you're home free.

    But...yes...the transfer payments...standard of living...economic viability...possible exodus of the private sector...tough choice...and tough s**t

    But for as long as you are part of the federation, and you reap the economic benefits of being in it, you will accept that occasionally the feds will interfere on some Quebec matters.

    And remember, Canada has and will always have 2 official languages.

    Also, see my reply to your post 2 threads back.

  5. Mississauga Guy said...

    No, Editor, it's tough noogies for the rest of us in the Real Canada. Unfortunately we have gonadless federal parties that still pander for Quebec votes and get table scraps (10 or 11 seats in Quebec for the Conservatives who bend over backwards to Quebec's every desire--PUH-leeze).

    I don't see Ignatieff doing any better as he's considered part of the Toronto Establishment and/or an American just visiting for a plum job with a great pension after a few years and then go back to Harvard. I live in the riding right next door to Ignatieff and I wouldn't trust him as far as I can spit into a Texas tornado! IGNATIEFF DIDN'T EARN THE PARTY LEADERSHIP LEGALLY--there was NO convention for the "delegates" to elect him to the mantle.

    Jack Layton proved his merit backing the language legislation every step of the way. That two-faced S.O.B. stabbs the minorities, especially, Anglophones, in the back. Et tu, Thomas Mulcair? Another dynamic duo I wouldn't trust spitting into a very strong wind!

    Josée Legault has become tantamount to a pro wrestling heel--the one the fans love to hate! It just kills me though that the Gazette (a.k.a. the Gazoo, so named by an ex-Montrealer now living in Virginia) and CJAD court her and pay her for her antics. Interestingly, though, when she got a exec-type job with the PQ, she abandoned those gigs faster than Superman!

    Same old s--t, different day, bigger shovel. By now we need an excavator to move all that s--t (and I'm not describing Frank's Red Hot sauce)! As long as we have a Supreme Court overrepresented by Quebec and too yielding to fascist legislation, it looks as if Josée Legault's strategy is good (and yes, Editor, your interpretation far outweighs Jacques')! Legault said what she said and I'm convinced she meant every word of what she said.

    Unless and until we throw Quebec out of Canada through a Canadian referendum asking Quebec to leave, it is quite clear the Real Canada will suffer. Only a federal political party daring Quebec to leave will get the separatists to think twice!

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. @ Jacques,

    "Mounting challenges to laws and judicial constructs one considers unjust is not entirely unheard of in the history of democracies ND. Perhaps you've heard of people who did it in the Jim Crow-era American South, Ireland, South Africa, and other places."

    Interesting to see a Quebec nationalist refer to Jim Crow laws. Here is a video link for you Jacques:

  8. @NoDogs

    [sigh...] You still don't seem to have understood anything which either I or Mme Legault said. To repeat:

    1) She did *not* advocate Bill 115, nor did she call it "illegal", and nor has any court with the competence to do so. It's very clear however that she does not support Bill 115.

    2)*you* called Bill 115 "judicial guerilla warfare" and "illegal". Mme Legault did not, and that is quite obvious from the blog posts of hers which both you and I have referenced. What she *does* advocate *instead of Bill 115* is either a) re-passing the original Bill 104 since it had teeth and was working or b) extending the French Language Charter to unsubsidized private schools. It is the routes a) and b), and not Bill 115, which she characterized as « de la guérilla juridique ».

    Me semble que c'est clair, non?

    As for the general "if you don't like it you can secede" stuff from you and adski, well ta ever so much for that cutting edge news update. I don't buy that we should somehow be cocking to the "Clarity Bill" (and nor does any Québec govt including the present one) since I don't think we have any lessons to take from the federal parliament in matters of clarity and transparency.

    Federal deputies couldn't even agree *among themselves* what the motion recognizing the Québécois as a "nation" in a united Canada meant. Harper cabinet members couldn't even agree publicly among themselves. They can't even agree on the interpretation of things they pass themselves, and they're going to pronounce on the "clarity" of a Québec referendum question? No thanks.

  9. @ Jacques
    You can post all day long and pretend that Ms. Legault did not advocate passing illegal law after illegal law, readers will judge.

    As long as Quebec remains a part of Canada it is subject to the laws of the country, whether separatists like it or not.

    As for your rejection of the Clarity Bill,just like Quebec Anglos who are stuck with Bill 101,115, the choice is not yours to make.

  10. @Jacques

    The "if you don't like it you can secede" stuff is by no means new, but it is nonetheless very applicable, and at this point it is the only solution. I am not a proponent of the “take it or leave it” approach at the time when an issue arises (in such cases I find it to be undemocratic and intolerant), but after 50 years of bickering and when it becomes clear that the dialog has turned into a string of blackmailing episodes and unrealistic demands, the “take it or leave it” becomes the ONLY solution. In legal parlance, I believe it's called "irreconcilable differences". So that’s it. Case closed. Nothing more will happen. So… take it or leave it, frère.

    Re: Clarity Bill, I remember Parizeau saying that Quebec will “ignore” it. It’s equivalent of me saying that I will go to the nearest bank, stick a gun to the tellers head, rob the bank, and walk out. To the argument: “but the police will be there to arrest you or shoot you”, I will reply: “no problem, I will just ignore them”. Yes, I might ignore them, but they sure as hell won’t ignore me. In the case of the Clarity Act, what’s at stake is doing it the wrong way or the right way according to the law of the land, which is important for the securing of international recognition and for the federal willingness to cede federal property and federal personnel to the Quebec province.

    And why are you so afraid of the Clarity Bill, Jacques? Are you so insecure about asking a clear question? After all, the Act only asks for a clear question, and it does it not out of the blue, but in response to a very specific event when king Parizeau tried to f**k us all with a fudged question that did not reflect his true intentions (it by no means mentioned a unilateral separation on midnight of the decision day).

    Re: the feds not agreeing on what the “Quebecois nation” motion meant... who cares.


    I don’t want to sidetrack from this interesting debate with Jacquestrap or from your excellent piece, but I have to say that I’m intrigued by the second paragraph of your piece. The veil ruling would affect a “dozen” Muslim women? C’mon Editor. You’re spinning. I’m not Muslim and I’m not even religious, but what they wear in public in NONE of our concern.

    By being (rightly) critical of Quebec language legislature and sarcastic about the veil legislature of France (which makes me think you have no problem with it), you’re being... well... inconsistent (to put is as mildly as I can).

  11. @ Adski.

    I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I'm sorry you got that impression. I meant that the furor over Bill 115 is as stupid as the furor over the veil. I wrote strongly in support of Muslims right to wear veils in public.
    See."Today I am a Muslim"

  12. NoDogs,

    Perhaps we simply need to show the whole class what ma chère Josée did and didn't say so that the record will leave no ambiguity on this point?

    She states:

    Ce qui allait mener à l'adoption de la loi 104 en 2002, laquelle cherchait au moins à stopper le subterfuge. Mais de manière prévisible, 14 ans plus tard, la Cour suprême vient d'invalider le tout. Alors, surprise, la ministre? Je ne crois pas.

    Que faire? Appliquer la loi 101 aux écoles anglaises non subventionnées. Bien sûr, un avocat anglo amènera le tout jusqu'en Cour suprême. Encore. Et il gagnera. Encore. Et on recommencera. Encore. Appelons-ça de la guérilla juridique.

    then more recently, she argues:

    Pendant que les élus «débattent» à l'Assemblée nationale du bâillon qui s'abattra d'ici peu sur le projet de loi sur les écoles passerelles, maintenant nommé «115», l'heure est venue de rappeler les deux réponses possibles à la question qui tue: que faire? ...

    Depuis des mois, la ministre responsable, Christine St-Pierre, répète ses «lignes» de manière quasi robotique, sans réfléchir, semble-t-il, au sens réel et troublant des mots que ses conseillers et le bureau du PM lui soufflent.

    Mais la plus inquiétante de toutes ses «lignes» est sûrement celle où la ministre martèle que de tenir tête à ce jugement de la Cour suprême serait une solution «radicale»...

    C'est pourtant bel et bien le projet de loi de ce gouvernement qui est radicalement honteux. ...

    Alors, pourquoi ne pas simplement la réadopter et continuer à tenir tête lors des prochaines contestations juridiques? Quitte, si cela s'avérait nécessaire, à la protéger du bouclier parfaitement légal, légitime et constitutionnel de la clause dérogatoire? (Mais le fait est qu'il n'est PAS du tout évident que ce recours serait vraiment nécessaire dans un pareil cas.)

    Tout comme il serait également possible, comme le proposait d'ailleurs le pas-radical-pour-un-sous Conseil supérieur de la langue française, d'étendre la Loi 101 aux écoles anglaises privées non subventionnées et d'appliquer dans un tel cas, toujours si nécessaire, la clause dérogatoire.

    So she proposes either extending Bill 101 to the
    non-subsidized schools or re-passing Bill 104. This is the "guerilla warfare" in question which she advocates. And she hates Bill 115, deeming it "shameful" and the "judicial guerilla warfare" is what she proposes *in its place.*

    This corresponds *exactly* to my summary of what she said supra:

    This is a most convoluted read ND. Mme Legault is not claiming that Bill 115 is "judicial guerilla warfare" You are, unless perhaps we're channeling her through you (?).

    She is not advocating for Bill 115, but rather denouncing it as « radicalement honteux ».

    And the judicial "guerilla warfare" she proposes is to either re-adopt Bill 104 in its original 2002 incarnation or to extend Bill 101 to unsubsidized private schools, understanding that these routes will likely face constitutional challenge.

    [1st comment on thread].

    So the question here is how you and apparently Mississauga Guy managed to conflate your affirmations about Bill 115 (=it's illegal and "judicial guerilla warfare" with Josée Legault, who has never made either affirmation about Bill 115.

    Broadly, I see 2 possibilities: either you're both completely dishonest, or you both need to break out your Berlitz and Larousse reference volumes and read what she said a few more times until it sinks in.

    In any event, perhaps you need Clarity Bill for your blog.

  13. @ Jacques.
    We've both said enough, let the readers decide.
    I will take issue being called dishonest and your demeaning of this blog.

    I haven't insulted you and have given you free rein to post your opinion.

    I ask you honestly. Do you think you'd be able to get this type of opposing comment posted on separatist/nationalist blog.
    Many of our readers have indicated otherwise.

    The points you make is of interest and merits publication, but I'd ask you not to insult me or this blog in the future.
    There is a place for reasoned discussion without the crap.

  14. Like I have said before regarding these language laws. They do not apply to me or my family regarding education, these laws are in place to make sure Francophones do not become bilingual thus forcing them to remain in Quebec.

    The governments in Quebec feel that Francophones cannot be trusted when it comes to language and education so they put these laws in place.

    I will always have one more right than Francophones do and I have a choice when it comes to language and education. I can be trusted while Francophones cannot. That, in my opinion is why these laws are in place.

  15. A few more points to take up with Jacques...

    “I don't think we have any lessons to take from the federal parliament in matters of clarity and transparency. “

    Oh yes, you do. From the federal parliament or not. Based on the crap you tried to pull, you do need a lesson in clarity, from whomever it may be.

    “So the question here is how you and apparently Mississauga Guy managed to conflate your affirmations about Bill 115 (=it's illegal and "judicial guerilla warfare" with Josée Legault, who has never made either affirmation about Bill 115.”

    Take it up with Mississauga Guy then. It’s allowed on this blog. Ask him why he said what he said and maybe you’ll get an answer. But don’t make general statements based on one comment of one poster. It’s very manipulative, I know, but it won’t fly. Sorry, frère.

    “In any event, perhaps you need Clarity Bill for your blog. “

    Which is ok. As long as there is no Bill 101 or any of its offshoots on this blog, we’ll be fine.

    “So she proposes either extending Bill 101 to the non-subsidized schools or re-passing Bill 104.”

    Which are both restrictive (one of them despotic), and at this time unconstitutional. So Editor’s point stands that the tactic seems to be to pass unconstitutional laws and keep them in existence for as long as the legal challenge is being mounted. JL seems to be for it. And at this point it becomes irrelevant what she thinks about Bill 115, if she advocates the other two measures.

    In an independent Quebec, Legault’s proposals might be (and possibly would be) constitutional, but it would no longer matter and nobody would care, because every sane person would be packing up and looking for ways to leave, and noone would be coming in, except maybe for desperate refugees from African Francophone countries (but even they would be eying Canada with one eye).

    In general, getting into nitty gritty details of what Legault said or didn’t say is really a waste of time. She and her pal JF Lisee are the most cynical political commentators in Canada (on par with some neo-conservative commentators on American TV). These two hypocrites will lie with a straight face and defend Quebec no matter what it does. Should Quebec push the envelope and start interning people in camps over language, you can bet your ass that Legault and Lisee would be on hand to defend such a move. I guarantee it.


    I think the problem stems from putting Bill 115 with the veil ban in one sentence. These two don’t belong together. Bill 115 is a small thing blown out of proportion, while the ban of veil in public space is, in my opinion, a far bigger issue.

    The veil ban can be compared with Bill 101 (especially in its nascent years). Banning the veil from public space is equivalent of banning a language from public space (Quebec 1977-1993).

    Of course, the veil has to come off when identification is necessary (airports, driver’s license, police mug shots - no exceptions there!!!), just like it’s ok for Quebec to have its “official” language and make it only French in its institutions (petty but defensible). But messing with the “public space” is too much, whether it’s language or face covering.

  16. "...except maybe for desperate refugees from African Francophone countries..."

    Ou comme les polonais qui sont en train d'envahir le France.Les Français doivent mettre des quotas d'immigration pour les réfugiés d'Europe de l'Est.
    Qu'en pensez-vous adski?

  17. This is a good example of the danger and dysfunctionality of Trudeau grafting a U.S style supreme court via his unvoted upon constitution to a parliamentary system of government which has no such tradition.

    The author is also wrong in effectively saying the Burkha is no big deal because "only a few dozen" wear it. By that reasoning Quebec doesn't need any laws restricting homicides either. The Toronto guy.

  18. Trudeau did not create the supreme court, it became the last recourse once we rapatriated the constitution, it allways existed since the BNA, the chamber used to be the last resort, the supreme was second to last.

  19. "Les Français doivent mettre des quotas d'immigration pour les réfugiés d'Europe de l'Est."

    They should. Or they shouldn't. I don't give a s**t. And what does it have to do with anything we've been discussing here? Nothing.

    "By that reasoning Quebec doesn't need any laws restricting homicides either."


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be conflating a universal issue like murder (banned all over the world) with a non-universal issue like religious head gear (to my knowledge banned only in France at this point). Banning homicides is not the same thing as banning the veil. It's not the same league, not even the same ball game.

    The Burkha in public space is NOT a big enough deal to legislate it. I don't like the thing myself, but I'd be against any law that tried to curb it.

    And Editor is obviously wrong by saying that only a "dozen" wear it. Because thousands do.

  20. "And what does it have to do with anything we've been discussing here?"

    Et ça c'est quoi?

    "...except maybe for desperate refugees from African Francophone countries..."

    C'était seulement un petit rappel a savoir qu'il n'y a pas que les Africains originaires de pays Francophones qui peuvent être désespérés.Vos frères et vous-même pouvez l'être aussi.On vous accueil au même titre que ces Africains.Vos propos sont imprègnés de mépris adski,en êtes-vous seulement conscient?

  21. Mississauga Guy here yet again....*sigh*....

    This Jacques guy is nothing but a separatist ruse splitting hairs. Semantics, semantics! The big picture here is that a supposed PRO-FEDERALIST Quebec government is conjuring up these amendments that are even more mean spirited than Bill 104 was, and that WAS a mean-spirited piece of legislation as was Bill 101, at least in the way it is being enforced to the n th degree against small businesses that bat an eyelash "wrong". The so-called federalists are more brutal than the separatists. What a paradox!

    I can only conclude that Premier Goldilocks is doing all this to flex his nationalist muscle and to hell with not throwing the Real Canada and Quebec minorities under the bus in the process. Is he doing this just to appease a small elite of ardent separatists or because the majority of the population WANTS it this way?

    I don't hear Francophones en masse demanding the governments don't enforce this type of tyrannous legislation. I therefore conclude this is what the majority of the population in Quebec wants. THEY WANT IT THIS WAY!

    Thus, ergo and therefore, I'm for the formation of a federal political party serving the Real Canada (i.e., all of Canada, except Quebec) first, and Quebec second. The collectivity making up the Real Canada should once and for all prevail. This in effect goes in lockstep with the philosophy of the late Claude Ryan's manifesto written in 2004 entitled Liberal Values in Contemporary Quebec.

    A few days ago, I entered a comment using a freelance article written by a Mr. Bergman, a Montreal lawyer, who wrote about the dangers of the tyranny of the majority. Ryan endorsed the doctrine of the tyranny of the majority stating that the collectivity comes before the individual. Mr. Bergman's article in the Gazette at the beginning of the month fortified the dangers and possible consequences of this doctrine.

    Generally, I don't advocate putting the collective over the individual, but it has gotten to the point I have crossed the international fed-up line and figure it's time to fight fire with fire. I'd rather do it benevolently, but if Quebec wants to do things ruthlessly and brutally, I'm one true Canadian prepared and willing to equal the challenge in kind. I'm sure I'm not alone.

  22. Read my post again and this time try to understand it.

    I meant no disrespect to African refugees. I meant to say that even people in such dire situation as French-speaking African refugees will be using Quebec as a stepping stone, a jumping board to the RoC or the US. As my Congolese friend did recently (first language - French). He said f**k it and then moved to ON.

    Consider the present statistics. Quebec, still a part of Canada, receives only 18% of all immigrants to the country (others end up in BC, AB, and ON). Of those that end up here, a lot hit the 401 in the first 5 years. That's now. Imagine an independent Quebec, with all its debt, f**ked up economy, and even MORE aggressive encroachment into the sphere of personal (linguistic) liberties. Who in the right mind will want to live here? Not even refugees from Africa, I suppose.

    So this is not a dis to the Africans, but to a completely different demographic group. Guess which one.

  23. that a mighty inter'stin' video thang y'all posted anony about Jim Crow 'n all.

    Just one thang I can't git:

    I thought the purpose of Jim Crow was to keep them black folks on the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid and white folks on the top?

    Well, 200 yrs after being massacred and pillaged and then admitted to this inclusive and tolerant empire of yers, you know who was at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid in Queebeck? French people, that's who!! The only people poorer and less educated were native people. French Canadians had a lower educational level than African-Americans, had some of the highest infant mortality in the industrial world, the worst public health facilities. And it was them English people who ran all the companies and made all the money while French people swept the floors for them and went deaf in their textile mills before the age of 30 snd died in their mines, and they made 'em talk to them bosses in English.

    Then we started nationalizin thangs and makin' laws that made it okay to use our language at work and figure what?

    Then *we* started gettin' some of them good jobs. All kindsa jobs. Doctorin' jobs, lawyerin' jobs. All kindsa jobs!!

    Funny thang is, you git these English folk like that gal that edits the Gazette, and that there lawyerin fella Mr. Grey, who thank it's just swell that the French folk got some nice jobs fer a change, even though they still don't make as much money as English folk, and who even think it's ok fer French to have "primacy" here (whatever that there means). Only thang I always found kinda peculiar, ist that they really *hated* the tarnation outta all them laws and progams which made it possible, the same laws y'all like to slag here all the time! And they spent a whole lotta taxpayer money fightin' em in the courts too!

    But other than turnin histry right upside down, the - whatyamacallit? - ANALOGEE y'all make in that there video is just smack on.

    Y'all got yer own Glenn Becks there, huh?

  24. Glenn Becks we sure got in QC. As paranoid, as crazed, as manipulative, and as fascist. In this case though, they're all Francophone and all nationalist.

  25. A few thoughts....

    1 - I believe a editorial in The Gazette mentioned something about a option that can be called upon that will allow the Supreme Court of Canada to respond to Bill 115 rather quickly. The editorial appeared a day or two after Bill 115 was passed. So, we can get this thing out of the way ASAP.

    2 - Bill 115 can be viewed as a law that official allows child abuse. Let me explain.

    Let's take a middle class working family. Not rich. Works for a living. Mortgage, Car etc payments. This family decides to invest in their child's education by sending the child to a "approved" english private school with the intend to get a english language certificate. So, they have three years of private school bills to cover. The hope is that by year four, those bills stop. The child completes the three years. The parents barely make it covering the costs for three years. Year four comes along, and hope appears as the parents aim to get a certificate for english public school. Now the government and the bureaucrats say no. Sorry, not enough qualifying points. Now what! Does the family try and raise the funds for another year. What if they can't. So, the child gets thrown into a French public school. So that child now starts to get screwed. Falling behind, each and every semester and year until the child finally says "I quit!" I'm dropping out. Is this not child abuse?

    The government sets up a system to trap children by denying them a education. Does this not violate Quebec's own child abuse laws?

    Just something to think about.

  26. Exactly Sir, just as I mentioned here, it is a war of attrition, bureaucratic warfare. This faction within the Qc govt will stop at nothing, violate any law they want, to prevent un maudit anglo from trying to seek legal recourse in the Province:

  27. Let's face facts here. Quebec is as communist as North Korea, China or the former USSR in DENYING FREEDOM OF CHOICE--THE QUEBEC GOVERNMENT SAYS WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO. It is as xenophobia and bigoted as the South in the United States during the 1950's: THERE ARE HATE GROUPS THAT WEAR MASKS, THREATEN VIOLENCE AND HAVE SUCCESSFULLY AND OFFICIALLY CREATED TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS (i.e. The Quebecois = superior. Anglophones = inferior. It's not about color of skin now, it's about language you were born speaking). QUEBEC is as third world in economics, infrastructure, law, health care, education, animal protection and DEMOCRACY as say Zimbabwe!

    I used to be all for ideas and solutions for fixing Quebec. It's taken me years to realize it, but like a doctor diagnosing a patient....I now realize the prognosis is grim and beyond hope. Quebec is like a cancer that has grown out of control, there is NO hope for saving that part of the body it has consumed. The only possible solution to keep it from spreading and killing the entire body (i.e. Canada) is to immediately AMPUTATE IT.

    Yep. That's all that can be done at this point. There is no fixing Quebec....cut it off Canada before it infects and kills the whole country. It's damn time the rest of Canada sees this, and especially politicians outside Quebec. I'm tired of debating the same old crap every day, Quebec is just pure and simply a cancer.

  28. The people from Ontario shouldn't comment at all. They are not French, they are not landlords, they are not from a total French environment. They don't understand what it is to fight to be at home. This is unhealthy narcissism and ignorance. In the XVIIIth century French was the language of Courts in England. All your expressions are in your lovely English dictionaries! Quebeckers are entrepreneurs, artisans, idealists and have an interesting culture. English Canadians, well, it's the American less their sense of humour : THE NO FUN ZONE !

  29. Anonymous, we anglophones are Quebeckers too, we have lived here centuries. We have every right to comment on the tyranny and ethno-centric-terrorism, in every and any form, that has overcome QC since the sixties. We have lived through an unwanted exodus, and a-holes like Landry try to project this upon an new generation, see more here: (almost 4k reads)
    We, the modern British (I hold both passports), would never 'not' celebrate the loss at Hastings in 1066 (u can youtube the re-enactments, almost every year). We know that our Grande Bretagne, created after an invasion of Franco-Normans from Normandy and Bretagne, brought major changes to England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland - AS WELL AS about 13 Thousand FR words to enrich the EN language.
    In Britain, the best of other cultures are usually EMBRACED instead of REJECTED for not being 'pur' enough. Apple NGS, there are many lucides that want to fix the province, and we will, but it will take a generation to throw out les gros bébés lâches qui ont inondé le gouvernement, et qui ne sont pas capables de lâcher leur nombrils depuis la perte sur les plaines.

  30. "English Canadians, well, it's the American less their sense of humour : THE NO FUN ZONE ! "

    What the f*@k are you talking about? English Canada has its own unique style of comedy and has produced many world class comedians.

  31. La loi 115 est odieuse. La solution c'est une contestation jusqu'en Cour Suprême dirigée par Me. Tyler, encore une fois. Comment financer çà? Possible. Avec le même argent qui soutient les écoles musulmanes. Non-subventionnées par le gouvernement elles seraient libres d'enseigner dans la langue de leur choix. Et de préparer ainsi leurs élèves à l'accès à l'école anglaise moyennant un passage obligé de un an, conformément aux exigences de la Cour Suprême, et rien de plus. Puis le précèdent judiciaire de un an, une fois rétabli par la Cour Suprême, pourrait s'appliquer à toute école non-subventionnée, musulmane ou laïque ou autre. Cet argent là, il y en a en abondance. Toute personne de bonne volonté saura où le trouver et bien s'en servir. À vous de jouer.