Friday, January 7, 2011

PAJU Continues Boycott of Shoe Store!

As I mentioned in a recent post the last thing Amir Khadir needs is the boycott of LE MARCHEUR to continue.
I also predicted that the masochists at PAJU would continue the boycott despite the fact that it has blown up in their face and actually increased sales in the store.

The PAJU boycott continues tomorrow at 1:00PM

Boycott Israeli apartheid!!

We are drawing a line in the sand : NO MORE ASSOCIATION WITH ISRAELI APARTHEID!!!
Invite the owner of the boutique Le Marcheur to take the moral decision to remove the shoes made in Apartheid Israel !
Saturday, January 8th 2011
Between 1PM and 3PM, corner Duluth and St-Denis
If you wish to confront them or buy shoes tomorrow is a good opportunity.

If you are a St. Denis merchant and would like PAJU to boycott your store as well, you can make this request tomorrow.
Remember stores lucky enough to be targeted will see sales swell to unprecedented levels!

32 comments:

  1. It’s ridiculous what lengths humans will go to in the name of even legitimate existential conflicts/threats. It's sad how we confuse mindless solidarity with hard-won transformative change.

    Boycotting many Israeli products and businesses can sometimes have devastating effects (often the opposite of what was intended) even on Palestinians. Yet another case where a cursory Internet search could enlighten the masses, who, as the song goes, prefer to be “singing songs and carrying signs, mostly saying hooray for our side”. This opinion coming to you from a fed up liberal humanoid whose overall opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can best be summarized as anti-terrorism, anti-Zionist, pro-peace, pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, multicultural, anti-Jewish-and/or-Arab-supremacy, pro-one-and/or-two-state, pro massively bilateral concessions on everything, anti-lobby, pro-compassion, pro-results, anti-BS, pro-brutal self-criticism, pro-integration, anti-Lieberman, and *impatiently* anti-spin.

    Maybe I'm just an ordinary Jewzlim schmuck who's annoyed at the lack of tangible progress on this front and the irresponsible people responsible for it. But this isn't the right forum for that.

    Functionally now, how is it possible for anyone to ensure that this boycott is actively targeting anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist business interests alone? If the boycott is ineffective, will it be called a partial victory if only Kadima-supporting Israelis are affected but not Likud supporters? If the boycott has an effect opposite the one intended, will it mean that participants faltered in their belief or resolve?

    I think I’m going to stage a boycott on stupid boycotts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mississauga Guy said...

    Editor, Quebec people have once again shown the democratic world that democracy does have its downfalls. Based on this news, it's another chapter on how democracy allows people to freely make total jackasses of themselves.

    At least Da Bloc does it in style. It's an elite of anti-Canada people who make their sweet living with a makework project using Canadian taxpayers and resources to boot. It enables the Bloc Head to go to the US, Europe and other places on our dime to spew incidious lies about the plight of the poor P'tit Québécois who were endlessly and relentlessly persecuted by the moodzie heenglish who were simply smarter and more industrious than they were...and still are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Missisauga Guy, I understand where you are coming from, but from personal experience working within several QC govt organisations (Hydro-QC, Recycl-QC, Palais de Justice, Caisse de Depot) I can tell you that it is the bully losership that are holding the rest of the province back.
    The last department I worked in at the LaCaisse.com was loaded with talented people, but it only took 3 of these office goons out of about 30 to ruin the advance of the majority.
    There must be a way to explain to to the majority that we need to strictly follow codes of ethics and the rule of law, but the corruption is so entrenched, it will take the effort from the ensemble of QC to rebuild the province. And to do that we need to remove the barriers of restrictive segregation laws such as B101.
    A close friend stated this in the FB group, Quebec Office of the English Language (our counter to the OLF):
    'The anglos do have rights too. They are in their homeland too. What makes this province different from the others is the French culture which in my opinion a great one. This character has to be preserve. I know that many anglos do want to keep this as this is what makes us unique in North America. What I dislike is the fact that the PQ, BQ and their extremists stole these rights and lied to all of us and keep on doing so. They keep interpreting to their convenience in a unique path. What's great about this? Anglophones have the right and the tools to be fluent bilinguals. We, as anglos, must help the francos who now understand the necessity of the apprenticeship of the second language. That's where we all should take the time to understand and help each-other. Of course these "goons" as you call them will continue as no one is putting their foot down to stop them. Except that lady (Remy at the Blackwatch) that was able to speak loud in that guy's face during a manif.'

    For more go to this group:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7194355403

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mississauga Guy to Hugo S...

    1 of 2:

    I don't know how old you are. If you're a bit over 50 like I am, you are quite the pragmatist. I entered this world in Montreal at the time of the Quiet Revolution kickoff. If you're not yet 50, you still have some maturing to do, but I like to think you don't believe in Santa or fairies anymore.

    I've heard all the arguments, I've read and heard ad nauseum both sides of the story, and I've seen enough governments to make my call. My late mother, MSRIP, quoted me something from the scriptures a few years before she passed on: "May God give me the strength to change what I can change, the courage to accept what I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference."

    I've reached the age where I cannot change the «Québécois de veuille souche» mindset, so I have to seek what I DO have the strength to change, before I get too old: Create a federal political party that puts MY people first, especially outside Quebec, but also to give Anglophones in Quebec some leverage. I would not intend to run candidates in most of Eastern Montreal and most of the rest of Quebec, except where the population warrants representaiton within Quebec. That would be the entire West Island, Chomedey in Laval and the St-Lambert/Greenfield Park area on the South Shore. Forget Quebec City and area, especially forget the Lac St-Jean and Saguenay regions and even the old Loyalist regions of the Eastern Townships are too diluted to bother.

    Too many people off the top of their heads would simplify this type of political party as an antithesis of da Bloc-heads. Well, not exactly; on the other hand, when polls are taken across Canada, Quebecers tend to treat the same subjects very differently, so this party would first take into account what the "real" Canada sees as priorities as opposed to what Quebec priorities are, unless there happens to be consensus between the two.

    I would not seeks Quebec's consensus on national issues unless they are compatible with the issues in the rest of Canada. Anglophones in Quebec tend to share the sentiments of the rest of Canada, not French Quebec's. What I would do is what good governments are supposed to do: pay attention to the most vulnerable members of the nation's society, and Anglo Quebecers have been ignored by ALL federal parties, especially the NDP that has jumped into bed with the Quebec language fanatics.

    I would highly expect Quebec to start effectively pulling its weight instead of threatening to separate if bribery doesn't cross their outreached palms. I would expect Quebec to bring its hydro rates to domestic customers to the market rate, cut way back on the $7-a-day daycare program except for the working poor and raise tuition fees to the going rate nationwide. There can still be subsidies to the neediest memebers of their society, but why should I in Ontario, still the largest net contributor to equalization, have to pay for their oversubsidization of all these things and a whole lot more?

    Right now Ontario is needier than Quebec. Quebec's unemployment rate is currently lower than Ontario's yet Ontario isn't benefitting like Quebec.

    -Continued-

    -

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mississauga Guy to Hugo S...

    2 of 2:

    -Continued-


    No Hugo, Quebec has chosen to endlessly demand from Canada, endlessly threaten to separate, treat its minorities with harshness and cruelty at times and nothing, BUT NOTHING, has changed in the last 40 years. In fact, Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest has chosen a path as brutal, merciless and cruel as the late Robert "Bou Bou" Bourassa and his language testing of the mid 1970s. He's handing the power to lowly bureaucrats who get to play God.

    Bill 101 recognized this when it succeeded Bou Bou's Bill 22, and Bill 101 takes into account children with learning challenges and other humanitarian circumstances, but the so-called "federalist" Goldilocks and his PLQ have chosen to ignore these provisions.

    Has Goldilocks done this to appease the minority of fanatical language zealots, the Francophone majority, or is is strictly self-interest? I choose appeasement of the majority, and so my conclusion is Quebec is thumbing its nose at the English-speaking majority.

    With THAT in mind, coupled with the fact Quebec, by the admission of its own Department of Finance figures, is the 6th highest indebted jurisdiction in the world on a per capita basis, leads me to the conclusion Quebec has become an expense and a nuisance.

    Based on those two factors, it is no longer skin off my nose if Quebec separates. On the other hand, Quebec has been a part of us for about two centuries, I'm still willing to provide them the right to communicate in French and should be given those provisions at the federal and provincial levels. They pay federal taxes (for now) and therefore should be entitled to a reasonable share of federal revenues, BUT NOT AT THE CURRENT LEVELS!

    If Quebec can live with a reasonable share of funding (ie, about what the put into the federal system) and be less gung-ho on forcing French down the throats of the minorities (and I doubt they'll accept that), they're free to stay. If not, I'm not going to stand in the way if they choose to separate, take their share of the federal debt and go their own way.

    If parts of Quebec, given that scenario, go for partition, I would consider those parts staying in Canada, but under the conditions set by the people of Canada, so goodbye unilingual French and Bill 101 and its minions of legislation and people supporting it.

    Simple as that. Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @H.S

    Je vous suggère de porter des casques protecteurs lors de votre manif.par les temps qui courent,on ne sait jamais ce qui peut tomber du ciel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Mississauga Guy

    Well spoken and said, I really must applaud you! You and the editor seem to be the only ones who really understand the situation that goes on perpetually in Quebec (particularly the injustices and discrimination). It's maddening when you complain about things going on here, so blatantly in plain sight, only to get told such thinking is absurd and imaginary. Not only from Quebecois separatists, but even other Anglophones I talk to (which I can only surmise are under the belief...If-I-appease-or-ignore-the-wrong-doings-of-my-tormentors-they'll-spare-me-in-the-long-run. Perhaps-even-accept-and-welcome-me).

    I'm only in my late 30's but I've finally given up on Quebec after living here all my life (hoping, somehow, things might change, but it just gets worse). I'm now making plans to leave. Still, while leaving the province will better my life, it still doesn't feel right to let Quebec go on doing what it's doing to the rest of the country (or its minorities here). And for that reason I think it's utterly fantastic you'd be willing to start up a party. Someone needs to do something, things in this province are now far out of control. Reading some of the stories in the news this past week, dangerous even (see the story on the armed militia ready to "defend" Quebec).

    Keep up the posts, I look forward to reading them as much as the blog itself. And thumbs up from another former Chomedey, Laval resident (who also went to Western Laval and Chomedey High). :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why are you discussing other foreign business in Quebec, of course English is a foreign language in Quebec !

    Ha ! ha !

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mississauga Guy to Apple IIGS:

    Have I got a read treat for you!

    You need not be a certain age to make your suppositions, but younger people tend to fantasize more than older people that things will improve but with no evidence to back that up.

    My stepdaughter in her pre-pubescent years used to wake up very early on Sunday mornings looking forward to her estranged father's Sunday visitations at 9am. He'd call at 8:50 time after time after time with some alibi as to why he couldn't come.

    Once she reached her early adolescence, she still looked forward hoping he'd show up, and as usual, he SOMETIMES did, but more often than not didn't. She would finally state her father blew her off again, and now at the end of her adolescence, she barely cares if he's dead or alive. You can bend a young person's resolve and deceive them only so long before their resolve breaks, just like a piece of sheet metal back and forth before it breaks, getting weaker in the fold each time.

    Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest chose the identical path Bou-Bou Bourassa did over three decades earlier, passing the buck to lowly separatist bureaucrats vested the power of God. History repeats itself. They even ignored their own proud legislation, the Biblical Charter of the French Language, The Great Charter of Charters, Bill 101, that provides for those with learning challenges and a humanitarian provision.

    Instead of pointing out these provisions, Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest has chosen to complely ignore then, and this is as close as federalism comes to Quebec. Charest was a federal MP, a cabinet minister yet who led the rally for federalism days before the 1995 Referendum. Why did he pull this Benedict Arnold of betrayal against the minorities?

    By the time his current mandate is up, he'll be able to collect the maximum pension accorded a Quebec premier for he will have served enough time in office. Of course, he may lose his $75,000 annual stipend from the PLQ, a stipend that was not promulgated until more than a decade after he took office. Then again, that stipend will be well replaced with the gold-plated MP's pension he already gets once he chose to switch teams in 1998. Too, he was only one of two PC MPs to survive the total collapse of the PC party in the 1993 federal election. After 14 years as a Federal MP, much of that time in cabinet coupled with going on 13 years as a Quebec MNA and much of that as the leader and premier, he'll be set for life once he quits office or is defeated. He'll make more sitting on his fat ass than working.

    He'll be sure to get offers to sit as a director on corporate boards for nothing more than his high profile and probably get a job offer from a law firm like Heenan Blakie, a firm that prides itself on hiring ex politicians with the title "Honourable" or "Right Honourable" like Don Johnston and Pierre E. Trudeau. If he left politics today, Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest would be and is set for life. Even if he chooses to sit on his ass until his dying day (very unlikely to do so), he'll make more doing so than 90% of the full-time working population. By the way, he's only 52 years old!

    How's THAT for a read, Apple?

    ReplyDelete
  10. > of course English is a foreign language in Quebec !

    Bulls#!t! An international language that's been both with and around us for 250 years can't be considered "foreign" just because it supports your wishful views on easy "separatism".

    English is no more foreign to Quebec as French is to all of Canada. The concentration or relative absence of demographics alone doesn't imply "foreignness". The two cultures have frequented each other here since 1760. No amount of revisionism can reverse that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. you are a dreamboy! I know all those people. Some are dead, others are too old to make a difference, lots of them were too complacents.
    I know it all and better than you know.... the dream you are making is all on paper. On the streets there are the people like you: the wrotten apple.
    And we have to deal with you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am not stopping you to throw your hat in the ring ! chicken shit. Are you telling me you are too young!
    Lazy Mr. Anglo.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The applauds on the site are only for the people who are underground and the poor of mind.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You are not making sense, none of the above shaped a country, on the contrary.... they served capitalism in a protestant context, which is an oxymoron for a French Nation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't see anything wrong with this protest, man, let 'em protest. Besides, protesting the way Israel es acting these days is far from irrational, they've got their reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ MG

    Great post as usual, hitting it right on the nail. I only disagree with you on the idea that Goldilocks wanted to please the majority of Francophones in splitting the family to Delaware, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, stats show that the majority of Quebecers believe in freedom of choice when it comes to education and secondly, I highly doubt it would have mattered to an everyday Francophone, with no political affiliation, if that child had been given access to English education. The only ones complaining would have been the language zealots. Like in most industrialized societies, regular Francophones are too busy with their own lives to care if one child gets access to English schooling.

    If your preposition was true, I really don't know what that says about Quebec Francophones....

    Anglo Montrealer

    ReplyDelete
  17. Also on another note, Editor, is there a specific reason for letting all these useless comments through?

    Anglo Montrealer

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mississauga Guy to Anglo Montrealer...

    Interesting hypothesis. The indifference of the average Francophone puts me in mind of the Germans in the 1930s and 40s who were too busy with their own lives to care if six million Jews were being incinerated, shot, gassed and other assorted inhumane things being done to fellow human beings.

    Never mind ONE child's plight. What about what has been going on for the last third of a century under their Great Charter of Charters?

    Reed Scowen in his book Time to say Goodbye put it best: It's because the majority wants it this way. Having been all over Quebec in his governmental duties as an MNA, I find his response quite credible. The rest is the indifference on the part of the majority of Francophones. THEY DON'T CARE! ...or they're to vindictive to care.

    ReplyDelete
  20. > It's because the majority wants it this way. [...] The rest is the indifference on the part of the majority of Francophones. THEY DON'T CARE! ...or they're to vindictive to care.

    It's not hard to manufacture consent with fear and manipulated information.

    There were millions of Germans in the 1930s (who by the way never gave the Nazis any formal majority support) stood by as the propaganda machine and ovens did their work, just as there were millions of Americans who stood by as the Bush II propaganda and war machines led them into two unwinnable conflicts ("mission accomplished my @$$").


    > THEY DON'T CARE! ...or they're to vindictive to care.

    Accordingly, I wonder how many Iraqis and Afghans are thinking that very same thing right now.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ''Aucune nation ne peut ni ne doit tenter d’en dominer une autre (No balance of power among nations will hold)'' Québec libre !

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chénier dit:'' Plus que jamais, aujourd’hui au Québec nous nous devons d’affirmer cette nation distincte, originale, francophone et ouverte sur le monde en Amérique du Nord. Nous avons tous les éléments nécessaire pour former un état qui fonctionnera au sein de l’Amérique du Nord:

    * Un peuple avec une langue différente
    * Un gouvernement quasi-complet qui n’attend qu’à être amélioré pour structurer un nouvel état
    * Un contexte de mondialisation où le libre-échange permettra à l’économie du Québec de prospérer
    * Des domaines d’expertise où le Québec fait partie des chefs de fil: hydro-électricité, sciences, technologie, biologie, etc.
    * Nous…
    ''

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Chénier :
    Ce n’est pas parce que je possède une carabine et des balles que je devrais tuer quelqu’un.

    Parallèlement, ce n’est pas parce qu’on est capable d’être une nation à part qu’il est forcément nécessaire ou même souhaitable qu’on en devienne une. « Se devoir » de faire des affirmations et des déclarations sans tenir compte du cadre légal et constitutionnel dans lequel on existe relève d’une approche fantaisiste discréditée qui n’amène aucun vrai résultat. On perd du temps qui à toutes fins pratiques serait mieux dépensé pour bâtir une société meilleure.

    En plus, on fait rire de nous.

    Comme on n’a pas hésité à y aller de façon législative pour adopter la Charte de la langue française, il me semble qu’on devrait être très à même d’apprécier que la réponse à notre marasme actuel puisse se trouver quelque part dans le droit.

    Me André Joli-Cœur, avocat nommé comme ami de la cour par la Cour Suprême qui arriva plus tard au Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec a été demandé s’il croyait que la notion de droit d’autodétermination des peuples s’applique au Québec.

    Celui-ci était d’avis que l’autodétermination a deux volets en droit; à savoir l’autodétermination interne (à l’intérieur d’un même pays) et externe (à l’extérieur). Il a expliqué que le droit à l’autodétermination externe donne le droit à la sécession, mais il faut qu’une des 3 conditions suivantes soit présentes :
    (1) il faut être un pays colonial (on ne l’est plus);
    (2) il faut une oppression par une puissance étrangère (impossible car notre monde fait partie de l’armée canadienne; on n'est pas exactement au Darfur ou au Kosovo), ou bien
    (3) être victimes de discrimination institutionnalisée à l’intérieur même de son pays (ce qui n’est pas vrai car les québécois jouissent pleinement d'exactement les mêmes droits qu'ont tous les autres citoyens canadiens).

    Selon Joli-Cœur, le Québec n’a pas droit à l’autodétermination externe car il ne rencontre aucun de ces critère.

    Le droit à l’autodétermination interne implique simplement que les québécois ont le droit de s’autodéterminer à l’interne de leur pays, le Canada.


    Pourquoi l’un et pas l’autre?

    À part le principe d’autodétermination, il existe un autre principe en droit international, celui d’intégrité territoriale. Celui-ci vise à protéger l’intégrité territoriale des signataires. La France, par exemple, est indivisible. La déclaration de Vienne qui traite de ce sujet est fort importante à l’échelle internationale. Il faut en apprécier le contexte. Lors de l’époque pas si lointaine de décolonisation massive, on voyait presqu’à chaque mois un pays anciennement colonisé proclamer son indépendance. C’est bien beau des pays indépendants ici et là, mais c’est tout aussi important savoir où et comment tracer la ligne afin d’éviter que bon nombre de pays signataires se scindent en mille morceaux.

    Vous l’aurez deviné, l’idée est de contrer des mouvements indépendantistes dans les états signataires à moins qu’il y ait une très bonne raison pour en arriver aux objectifs finaux de ces mouvements.

    L’amicus était un souverainiste nommé par la Cour pour représenter le gouvernement du Québec car le gouvernement péquiste de l’époque avait refusé de participer. (Je commence à noter d’ailleurs un patron inquiétant chez les séparatistes par lequel ils fuient toute discussion logique et pertinente au débat). Lorsqu’on est pris dans notre propre piège, on prend notre ballon et on rentre chez nous. Pas fort. Pas fort du tout…

    André Joli-Cœur a fini par dire que le Québec, en raison des principes reconnus en droit international, n’avait pas le droit à l’autodétermination.

    Toujours en attente d'une rationalisation qui tient la route...

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Never mind ONE child's plight. What about what has been going on for the last third of a century under their Great Charter of Charters?"

    The people of Quebec never demanded for such a charter. ALthough Francophones were concerned about the future of their language prior to la loi 101, they never desired restricting people's rights. Only after the Bill was passed, they were convinced by the PQ that everyone else, including non francophones, had an obligation to respect that their rights need be taken away to protect THEIR language. Francophones did not wake up one day and say "you know, fuck those damn heeenglish people and those stupid immigrants". Just like the Nazi Party convinced the population that Jews were the cause of the economic disaster. You kinda missed my point regarding Francophones. I bet you that the majority of Francophones don't even know about the kid and if they were told about it, they would have probably thought "ok the poor kid has a disability, give him a chance". I refuse to believe that the Quebec Francophones are so senile as to believe that NO ONE, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES unless allowed under Bill 101 should attend English school.

    And by the way, the genocide of the Jews was not known on a global level until a couple of years later. Many Germans were also imprisoned for opposing Hitler and so whether they knew of the genocide or not, they were not capable of doing anything to halt it.

    Anglo Montrealer

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mississauga Guy to Anglo Montrealer:

    French Quebec = Les trois singes:

    Hear no evil!
    See on evil!
    Speak no evil!

    Who in the French Quebec community has come to the aid of the English community? WHO?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "...Who in the French Quebec community has come to the aid of the English community?"

    J.J.Charest en permettant aux plus nantis d'acheter un droit constitutionnel (Loi 115) et du coup affaiblissant davantage la loi 101.De plus si vous n'avez aucune aide des deux paliers de gouvernement,c'est parce qu'elle est inutile.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @anon 10:56

    Its no use trying to change laws in Quebec. We will have to force change in Quebec through the federal government. Demographics in canada are changing rapidly since the 2006 census. English speakers in Quebec are 13.4 percent of the population despite 33 years of bill 101. By the next census it will be probably 15-17 percent. 30 extra federal seats in the rest of Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ MG

    None of the politicos in Quebec have come to the aid of the English community, although many have claimed to have done so. However, you mustn't forget that many Francophones would love to have a chance to have an English education. There was a case where a Francophone mother fought the Kangaroo Court of Canada to have her child educated in English, but because the charter of "human rights" was designated to appease the Bill 101 apologists, her child was not eligible to receive education in a minority language. And secondly, there's a reason that Anglophone CEGEPS are full to the core, while the French ones have such low enrollment that they're lowering their admission requirements?

    I totally agree with your 3 singes analogy, in that most people refuse to admit that their society has some major flaws that need to be worked on. However, it is vital that we not let our anger cloud our judgement. When a generation is constantly told that "les autres" are a threat to their existence, they buy it and it eventually becomes the ultimate truth. I go back to my point that people don't just suddenly adopt such radical attitudes. The damage is now done and it may take generations to completely heal.

    @ Anon 10:56

    Les gens ne devraient pas acheter un droit, les droits doivent être donnés aux personnes à la naissance et la langue d'enseignement doit être un choix que le Québec, comme le Canada, a 2 peuples fondateurs - les Anglais et les Français. C'est ainsi que fonctionne une démocratie.

    Anglo Montrealer

    ReplyDelete
  29. Chénier dit: Pardon M. ''Apparatchik said...
    Ce n’est pas parce que je possède une carabine et des balles que je devrais tuer quelqu’un.'' Et vous osez parler de rationalisation... Vos analogies sont scabreuses et dénuées de logique. Vous allez mal lu le renvoi de la Cour Suprême du Canada car elle a reconnue que le Québec avait droit à l'autodétermination selon certains critères ( qui eux sont contestables= voir la Loi sur la clarté) et que le Canada était dans l'obligation de négocier de bonne foi. Retournez à vos lectures, mauvais étudiant...

    ReplyDelete
  30. > le Québec avait droit à l'autodétermination selon certains critères

    Et quels étaient ces critères? Et de quelle façon s'appliquent-ils en l'espèce?

    Les deux parties sont tenues de négocier de bonne foi. Et ya pas grand chose qui n'est pas négociable...

    Relisez à votre tour.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "the masochists at PAJU.."

    I believe it's spelled "Hamasochists"

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks for taking the time to comment back to me Mississauga Guy. I hear you, and have taken a stand with the Colonel. Pass this event onto your friends, we need to send a big message that discrimination based on language has no place anymore in Quebec: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=188473804513203

    ReplyDelete