 |
| "Difficult to be served in French in Montreal" |
Since all the strikers had to vote on the offer, it was a forgone conclusion that the offer would be rejected.
But once again, the union may have overplayed its hand. Péladeau put $20 million on the table or about 150,000K in severance per fired employee.
The reality is, that the only alternative the union has, is to stay on strike forever and get zippo!
Even Quebec's anti-scab law hasn't slowed the newspaper from publishing, as free-lancers who don't technically cross picket lines(they send in their stories via email) have replaced the journos.
Well-played PK!!!!
To make matters worse for the union, circulation has actually increased by over 10% during the strike, despite the union's call for a boycott. So much for public solidarity!
While I have some sympathy for the clearly over-matched union clods, I can't help but appreciate that since the strike, the newspaper has dropped its relentless Anglo-bashing.
It now concentrates on stories about government over-spending, lazy and incompetent union members or government employees and overpaid civil-servants. No shortage of material there!
Representative of this new type of reporting is a story that appeared in yesterday's edition. It detailed the case of Quebec's 'Chief Forrester' whose mandate isn't being renewed. The Minister in charge denied that it had anything to do with excessive expense claims made by Pierre Levac, who charged over $70,000 in mileage during his mandate. It seems that he lives in suburban Montreal, while his government job is based in Roberval, over 600 kilometres away. He was given permission to charge the ten hour round trip commute as a normal business expense!
Asked to respond, Madame Normandeau's aide didn't seem too upset. "You know, as long as the work gets done..... " By the way the new Chief Forrester will be required to live in the area......Link
Keep up the good work!
Surprise! Politicians lie
A lot of us had high hopes that the Bastarache Commission would come up with a definitive answer as to whether Liberal organizers used undue influence in the selection of judges, but alas, it was not to be.
Perhaps we are spoiled by television legal dramas that feature fearful defendants, who crack in the witness box under the relentless questioning of skillful attorneys. Failing that, there is always irrefutable forensic evidence or the inevitable reveal of the 'smoking gun.'
The only irrefutable fact to come out of the hearings, is that certain politicians and political hacks, have no compunction about lying under oath.
In sworn testimony, Marc Bellemarre claimed that he confronted the Premier on September 2, 2003 to air out his complaints about political interference by Liberal party fundraisers in the selection of candidates for appointments to the bench.
On the other hand, Premier Charest, in sworn testimony said that the meeting never occurred!
Somebody's lying!!!
In fact during the closing arguments by both Charest and Bellemare's lawyers, they combined to accuse practically every witness of lying!
In making up one's mind about where the truth really lies, it comes down to who's side you were on going into the hearings.
Who's the winner and loser in all this!
Loser = Jean Charest, Marc Bellemare and the public
Winner = The lawyers =$$$$
'Terrorist' not in Quebecois lingo
A lot has been written in the press recently in relation to the fortieth anniversary of the October Crisis, when two separate FLQ (Front de libération du Québec) terrorist cells kidnapped a Quebec cabinet Minister and British trade consul.
It seems that there's a concerted effort to re-write history and romanticize the kidnappers, describing them as misguided young dreamers who never intended to kill Pierre Laporte and whose death was nothing more than an unfortunate accident.
Read an excellent account of this phenomenon by DON MACPHERSON, writing in the Montreal Gazette entitled "Extremist makeover -the FLQ edition"
But this makeover seems to cross all political and journalistic lines. In article after article, in television or radio, among francophone journalists, the word 'terrorist ' seems not to exist in describing the FLQ.
I've scanned over one hundred articles recently and incredibly, the FLQ is called a lot of things, but not terrorists.
"felquistes" - "ravisseurs" - "révolutionnaires" - "jeunes felquistes"
"groupe armé" - " individus" - " kidnappeurs"
Here's just a sampling of the articles I reviewed;"groupe armé" - " individus" - " kidnappeurs"
LaPresseAffaires -- Révélations sur la mort de Pierre Laporte -- Le FLQ à Sainte-Anne-de-Larochelle
Le fil des événements-Journal de Montreal -- La Crise d'octobre: 40 ans après Une mort fortuite, pas un assassinat --
In
fact the only article that I could find referring to 'terrorism' in
relation to Quebec is this one.
Le fil des événements-Journal de Montreal -- La Crise d'octobre: 40 ans après Une mort fortuite, pas un assassinat --
De Londres à Ottawa, le terrorisme d’État dans l’histoire du Québec.
Interestingly it refers to 'state terrorism,' not the FLQ. hmm....
And so in Quebec, it is clearly verboten or perhaps politically incorrect to refer to members of the FLQ as terrorists. Why?
Is it a case of “one man’s terrorist being another’s freedom fighter.”
What if 33 miners were stuck underground in a Quebec mine?
Thanks to Geneviève, who sent me an email giving me a heads up to a hilarious article that presents a spoof of what it would be like if miners would be trapped in a Quebec mine and subject to Quebec bureaucracy. Hilarious!
Sorry, the article is in French and there's no English translation.
