Thursday, March 31, 2011

NDP Running Separatist Candidate in Montreal

Marching with 'Uncle' Thom Muclair & radio bore Anne Lagacé Dowson
As I said a couple of posts back, I'll be writing about local candidates running in the federal election and I hope to bring to your attention a perspective you'll never see in the mainstream press.

A recent article in Le Devoir. discussing a Quebec Solidaire weekend convention, caught my eye because of a paragraph buried at the tail-end of the story.
"A Québec solidaire militant, Alexandre Boulerice, also a spokesperson for CUPE, is the NDP candidate in the constituency Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie. In an email exchange, Mr. Boulerice  underlined that he was still a member of the Québec solidaire and a separatist. "Anyone who supports the NDP program can be a member. We can place in the forefront, social and environmental issues before the national question." Le Devoir
I'll gently remind readers that the Quebec Solidaire, is a much more radical and sovereignist political party than the Parti Quebecois. It's the party of Amir Khadir and the happy home of Quebec's Communist Party, which is an officially recognized wing of the party. At a weekend convention last week, the party called for raising the minimum wage to $16 an hour and the party's leader, Françoise David, called for deliberately slowing down our economic growth because it's bad for the health of citizens. LINK{FR}

That the NDP would run a communist socialist is perhaps understandable, but a separatist is a little much to expect, even from the NDP. It should be noted it's the second time around for the sovereignist who also ran under the NDP banner back in 2008, where he finished third with 8,500 votes.
His official NDP NPD website

Here from his blog is part of an incredible letter written in rebuttal to a collegue in Quebec Solidaire who is arguing that members of the party should vote for Gilles Duceppe's Bloc Quebecois
Reply to Francois Cyr, Quebec Solidaire activist who encourages people to vote strategicly for the Bloc
Dear Francis, 
I have a series of questions for you:
What is the the story behind  this text on pressegauche.org over the need to vote for the Bloc? Since when does an activist in Quebec Solidaire promote the concept of "strategic voting?" Is it a question of  promoting the "best of the worst?" Is this the new strategy for the Quebec election?  Is that what you'll tell people in the face of the dangers of a majority Charest government? And so we should all vote for the PQ, in order to stop the evil Liberals (or ADQ)?
Don't you realize that the Bloc is the little brother of the Parti Quebecois that you battle? Comprised essentially of the same activists, the same people who finance and make the decisions? Don't you see that the Bloc may appear more progressive because it will never be able  to exercise power, unlike its PQ sponsor in Quebec?
What is this mania to peddle the same old Bloc cliches that say that  the NDP is centralist? You've read the Sherbrooke Declaration adopted at the 2006 convention? What do you think of the possibility for Quebec to withdraw from a federal program with compensation? Is it centralizing?
Do you remember that Jack Layton, as a young student in Montreal, militated in favour of McGill University becoming French? Have you considered that Mulcair worked for the Council of the French language in the first term of Levesque? No, you push this under the carpet. Do you counter the Bloc arguments by pointing out that the NDP caucus supported - last spring - a motion that Bill 101 applies to federally regulated companies in Quebec .     No. A strange silence suddenly prevails  ... LINK TO THE NDP CANDIDATE'S OFFICIAL BLOG
Layton +separatist = NDP NPD
What is completely stunning about all this is that Alexandre Boulerice writes to his confrere, another Bloc solidaire militant, Francois Cyr, on an official NDP website.

For Layton and the NDP, their new-found strength in Quebec hasn't led to an avalanche of people lining up to run for office.
With so many elections so closely bunched over the last few years, NDP candidates have been essentially cannon fodder and few want to re-live the experience of taking a month and a half off of their life, working the shopping centres and street corners, just to get their ass kicked in the election.

In The Lac-St-Jean region, the NDP has found just one person to represent them so far, a retired unionist. Link{FR}

The party is hard put to find enough poteaus to fill the ranks.
In case you didn't know, a 'Poteau' is a disparaging insider political term that refers to a candidate who has zero chance to win and runs only to show the party colours. The candidate is usually a young idealist and his or her campaign consists largely of just placing election posters on city light poles, and thus the term 'poteau' (pole.)

Here's a classic example of a POTEAU;

Nicholas Thibodeau, is running in Mont-
Royal, a riding that consists in part with one of Quebec's wealthier  Anglo/Jewish communities of Hampstead/Cote Saint Luc, coupled with an across the railroad tracks working ethnic community in Snowdon.
The Liberal party has had a stranglehold on the riding all the way back to Pierre-Elliot Trudeau and it is presently held by Irwin Cotler the ex-justice  Minister, who is running once again,  this time challenged by another high-profile Jew, Saulie Zajdel.

Mr. Thibodeau is an environmentalist who dreams of spending 2 billion dollars to cover the Decarie Expressway, a big issue in a riding that probably has more BMWs and Mercedes than anywhere else in Quebec. He has run unsuccessfully before, winning an amazing 7.7% of the vote. GOOD LUCK!!!

By the way, Mr Thibodeau's campaign poster omits the English version of the riding's name, 'Mount Royal' and actually has different messages in English and in French, which is, I guess, a neat metaphor for NDP policy.

22 comments:

  1. So much for voting NDP as I was "planning" so far. If voting Green wasn't throwing my vote away, I would. Speaking of voting green, I heard on CHOM this morning that for the official televised leader's debate, the Green party got officially excluded by the Networks. Unconfirmed, tho.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ Frank, not sure if this is a good or bad thing but...


    Confirmed;
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/30/cv-election-debates-consortium.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is their requirement for exclusion truly democratic?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I find it so funny when anglos pull out the scary "he is a seperatist" card, like if it was the plague.

    2/3 of french-Quebecers voted Yes in 1995. Would you exclude all of them as potential NDP candidates? Please stop being so divisive and start talking to one another (that would aply to many separatists too).

    For Federalists, it's the only way to convince Sovereinists that they are wrong to think this country is not good for them. If not, you will only gain more divisions that will encourage people like me to vote Yes again...

    ReplyDelete
  5. “For Federalists, it's the only way to convince Sovereinists that they are wrong to think this country is not good for them”

    No, mate. It’s not our job to convince you of anything. It’s up to you do decide if you want to stay in the confederation and reap the economic benefits, or leave and become recognized as a country and start facing your problems on your own. That you have been choosing the first option and not the second has nothing to do with us. The world doesn’t revolve around Quebeckers, contrary to what you may think. And life is too short to waste it on figuring out ways to placate the un-appeasable Quebecois. I think most Canadians came to this conclusion by now.

    I’ll admit one thing – the situation of French Quebeckers is not all that enviable. 6 million French speakers living on the continent of 350 million English speakers, everywhere you look someone speaks English. If you reorient your economy from east-west towards the
    south, you still face English speakers, and 10 times more of them at that. In wanting a country and at the same time being conscious of the fact that it might not be feasible given geographic and demographic reality, you’re stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Except that it has nothing to do with us. It’s not our job to make you feel comfortable. You have to do it yourselves and live with the consequences of your decisions. That your decisions are limited by demography and geography is not our concern nor our fault.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No surprise here. They are all the same in Quebec. They all support anti-English language laws like bill 101. They, all parties are all bigots and racists. This is what Kebec has become over the last 5 decades, truly sad, truly pathetic.

    But no fear folks... They are all the same outside Quebec. Not one party will talk about the racism, bigotry, intolerant province that Kebec has become. Not one party outside Quebec will talk about the racist language laws passed in Quebec over the last 5 decades, a la bills 22, 178, 101…NOT ONE party will speak for the English speaking minority in Quebec and they will not discuss equal rights for all Quebecers period. They are all the same, scum of the earth.

    Solution? Well there is only one. A new party and a new leader. People from the private sector with no relationship to any of the mainstream parties. One that details before an election what they stand for. We need a party with specific, fiscally conservative policies. One that defines essential and non-essential (expensive waste) services in a platform before elections. One that will cut waste, reduce taxes, eliminate departments, downsize government...repeal bad laws (the charter, bilingualism, multiculturalism...Bill 101...),One that will tell unions to rot in hell. No more lies, propaganda, and spin, what we now get on a daily basis. Canada needs a party that stands for integrity, honesty, transparency and common sense. One that is proud of our real BNA history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "That you have been choosing the first option and not the second has nothing to do with us..."

    Moyen trou du cul.Que croyez-vous adskouille?Que les fédérastes ne mettent pas leur gros nez dans nos affaires lorsqu'il est question d'élections au Québec.Sur quelle planète habitez-vous exactement?
    Le référendum de 1995 était dans la poche et les gros fédérastes ont chié dans leur froc!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The new NDP candidate in Mont-Royal is actually Jeff Itcush, who is both an anglophone (from Regina) and Jewish.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...It’s not our job to make you feel comfortable. You have to do it yourselves and live with the consequences of your decisions..."

    La situation d'un anglo (uni) au Québec est encore moins enviable adski.En tous cas,a vous lire,vous ne semblez pas tout a fait confortable chez-nous et moi je suis confortable...Anywhere i go.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ 3:25 pm anonymous

    Bill 101 is not racist etc. Save that stuff for the radio talk shows I hear you and your clones on, too often, when I'm trying to get a traffic report.

    I believe 101 has had a positive impact on Quebec. And as the cliche goes, it removed perhaps the most significant "grape of wrath" from the nationalists' list of grievances, in one fell swoop. And don't hold your breath waiting for a new party, unless you want to start one. But honestly, you might be smarter to just move to the Falkland Islands. They are quite libertarian down there. You'll fit right in and be happier - and I will get a traffic report more quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To Anon March 31
    The new NDP candidate in Mont-Royal is actually Jeff Itcush

    Thanks for the heads-up. Perhaps you should advise the NDP Mont Royal riding association to make a change on their website which still lists Nicolas Thibodeau as the candidate.
    As for Mr.Itcush, the only confirming reference as to him presenting himself is on Rabble.ca., not the most popular website in Hampstead or CSL.

    Good luck on your campaign!
    A personal word of advice; Make the party pay for your expenses as you are doing them a BIG FAVOUR. Don't spend a dime personally!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Concerning comments posted about Bill 101. No, it certainly not racist. Since Race has nothing to do with it. It is actually a law based on ethnic fascist ideas designed to punish other groups, and individuals. No different than what happens in other corrupt countries when one group seems to think it has a greater right than others. And goes about punishing them if they don't. Lucky for Quebec, it hides behind the clean cut image of Canada on the world stage. And so, such laws are ignored. Canada allowing ethno-fascist laws to operate on it's territory. Oh yes!

    As for the NDP. Anybody that votes for them needs to examine what they are really doing. Simply not agreeing with The Conservative or the Liberals and even with the Bloc goes not mean the NDP is a proper choice. Look carefully at what the NDP is doing. You may not like it.

    The fight in the Outremont riding is certainly between the NDP and the Liberals. The Conservative and Bloc candidates don't have a chance. I hope people will look beyond the actual Mr. Nobody Liberal leader, and support the Liberal candidate in that riding.

    I read today the open letter from the SQ co-leader Francis David in the Montreal Gazette. Something about the Conservatives not representing Quebecers values. She failed to identify who these Quebecers are. She seems to think that all Quebecers think like her. Lucky for Quebec, we all don't.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “Que les fédérastes ne mettent pas leur gros nez dans nos affaires lorsqu'il est question d'élections au Québec.”

    You can rationalize it the way you want. I won’t stop you.

    “Le référendum de 1995 était dans la poche et les gros fédérastes ont chié dans leur froc!”

    Nonsense.

    “La situation d'un anglo (uni) au Québec est encore moins enviable adski.”

    Maybe. And if so, it's only because of politics.

    “En tous cas,a vous lire,vous ne semblez pas tout a fait confortable chez-nous et moi je suis confortable”

    But also entertained. So it's a symbiotic relationship. We give meaning to your lives (which is to fight imagined enemies), and you give us plenty of entertainment. We both benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So it's a symbiotic relationship..."

    Je dirais plutôt...Parasitaire.Qu'en pensez-vous?
    Pourriez-vous élaborer sur une ou deux lignes votre affirmation "nonsense" en rapport aux craintes des fédéralistes une semaine avant le référendum de 95?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Maybe. And if so, it's only because of politics..."

    Trop facile adski.Si vous aimeriez notre nation vous vous y seriez intégré depuis longtemps et auriez saisi la pertinence de la loi 101.
    Dites-moi si je fais erreur et pourquoi?

    ReplyDelete
  16. “Pourriez-vous élaborer sur une ou deux lignes votre affirmation "nonsense"”

    You’re right, it’s not nonsense. You convinced me. It was the ethnics, the money, the Anglos, the “federalist propaganda” and the unity rally that dashed your hopes and curbed your dreams. That the majority voted Non twice on questions that read like an essay (113 words in 1980) had nothing to do with it.

    "Si vous aimeriez notre nation vous vous y seriez intégré depuis longtemps et auriez saisi la pertinence de la loi 101"

    I did integrate functionally with both the Francos and Anglos. That you define "integration" by political opinion and emotional attachment is not my problem, but a problem of your definition.

    Per se, I neither like nor dislike your “nation”, just like I neither like nor dislike the Anglo community. Same with my own community – it has people that I like and people that I put an X on a long time ago. I only dislike your (and other) communities when they ask for privileges at the expense of others. On the same principle, I don’t like feminists and unions whose role today is to demand more and more entitlement and preferential treatment, not rights.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "...Per se, I neither like nor dislike your “nation”, just like I neither like nor dislike the Anglo community.

    Si nous voulons résumer : Vous êtes donc un espèce d'apatride inversé ou la communauté (voir regroupement)n'a aucune importance et que
    les droits,la politique et les cultures seraient tout aussi insignifiant selon vos valeurs.
    Auriez-vous la partie droite du cerveau atrophiée par hasard?

    ReplyDelete
  18. “la communauté (voir regroupement)n'a aucune importance et que les droits,la politique et les cultures seraient tout aussi insignifiant selon vos valeurs”

    Cultures are very important, but they cannot overtake one’s life and become an object of obsession. Cultures should also not be subject to administrative regulation. Legalistic and governmental regulation is antithetic to the very idea of culture, which is something spontaneous, natural, and unprompted.

    What you have built in Quebec is not a culture. Rather, it’s an artificial political construct where the concept of culture is used as a tool. Your political class used a combination of your attachment to your culture and your human vanity (the thirst for prestige, recognition, wealth, privilege, etc…) to create a political issue and draw you in. Now, they’re sitting in their Outremont mansions smoking Cuban cigars, and laughing at you as you run like an idiot from one “manif” to another doing their dirty work for them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "...it’s an artificial political construct where the concept of culture is used as a tool."

    Tiens!Tiens!Ça me rappelle quelqu'un...Pas vous?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oups... so finally the candidat is not a socialist french canadian, but a zionist jewish anglo... I'm sure the author must find him a much better person. Is he still a "poteau" then? Where's the criticism now Isn't he still waisting his time?

    Good job on another well researched article No Dogs!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Haha t'as plus rien à dire, Press 9. Cassé.
    Pitoyable...

    ReplyDelete