Thursday, April 7, 2011

About Yesterday's Post-April Fool!!

Read the original story {FR}
 Of late, there's been a lot of negative submissions in the comments section, made by those who wish to find fault with this blog on every level and for any reason.
I'm not talking about legitimate debate and difference of opinion, it's really just a bunch of nasty stuff meant to cast a pall. 

Attacks over my anonymity and condemnations of this blog for what it is, rather than what it says, has become rather routine, an effort to drown out a single voice of opposition.

Yesterday I set out to prove that these commenters are complaining as a matter of form, in a sad effort to discredit this blog based only on the perceived notion that it is an affront to Francophone Quebeckers. Free speech it seems, is only fair if Anglos and Canada are being attacked.

The campaign to demonize this blog is not ineffective.

Believe it or not, NoDogsOrAnglophones is blocked on many company internal networks, including if you can believe it,  the Bell Centre in Montreal, home of the Habs. No such prohibition for
For those who call me paranoid for safeguarding my identity....well.

Yup, there's a bunch of you out there that are so offended by the existence of a blog promoting Anglo rights, a blog that harshly exposes the truly vindictive and petty nature of some in the militant French language and sovereignty movement, that you've got to do your little part to mitigate the hurt.
No matter what I say or write, you'll continue to insult and denigrate.
It's okay, I can take it (unlike most of your preferred bloggers) and so can our readers who recognize these attacks for what are.

Yesterday was typical, with an assortment of nasty ad hominem attacks and at least one threat.

.....but I have a confession to make.

Yesterdays blog piece wasn't written by me.

It was a translation of a story written in La Presse by Claude Picher on Tuesday. It was a pretty straight forward bit of reporting and was presented in of all places, the business section!

I added and subtracted nothing. Just a translation.

But that didn't stop the regular band of merry men from attacking that article as a dangerous piece of fiction congered up in the deluded mind of an anglo radical.

You've been pwned!

Anonymous @9:31AM
But you don't care for that, you're just happy you got your biased headline.

Sorry, even the headline is taken straight from his piece. If you want to complain, write a letter to La Presse, but somehow, I don't think you will.

Do you think Mr. Picher received as many nasty comments as we did? Especially considering that his article must have been read by thousands more people than my humble translation?  I heard no particular outrage.

And so reproduced here on my blog, as if it were me writing, the piece became another outrageous affront to Quebeckers and the French language, a cruel and unfair attack, according to my ever present detractors.

Anonymous @12:47PM
More Quebec basssshing!!   you are again in our face!
Dog killer from West said...
Vous et votre site------ fatiguant.

Effectivement.Nous devrions commencer a regarder comment se débarasser de tous ces anglos (bedbugs).Un autre petit "clean up" s'impose.Ils croient que nous ne comprenons pas leur tactique d'idiot,a savoir,monter nos immigrants contre nous.
Ce sont nos importés et nous allons les éduquer comme bon nous semble.

Don't worry, I'll continue to print these attacks, they remind me why I write this blog. Go ahead, rant on.

But be advised that here on this blog, readers are more intelligent than you're used to, not so easy to fool.You can't pass off your illogical and fallacious arguments without being called out.

An example;  Again, I refer to Anoymous @9:31AM
Nevertheless, a 3% difference overall isn't that significant, especially (sic) when EVERY PROVINCE HAS AN IMMIGRANT POPULATION FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
You must have graduated from the Mario Beaulieu school of variable statistics. He once stated that the difference between 20% and 28% is 8%, when in fact the difference is about 40%! YouTube

The unemployment rate among immigrants in Quebec 13.7%, while in Canada it is 10.0%. That's not a 3.7% difference (3% as you say,) it is almost a 40% difference. 

I don't know if you are mathematically challenged or just trying to pull a fast one over on us. That type of smoke and mirrors works only at the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Please take a statistics course and take Mario along with you! Then come back and give us lessons.


  1. Well played Editor. Exposing hypocritical Separatist douche-bags for what they really are (xenophobic ignoramuses) is always good for a laugh. They claim otherwise but they do exhibit a lot of similarities with the David Dukes of this world. Now, does translating unflattering articles about Quebec into English constitute "Quebec bashing"?

  2. Mr. Editor, that was extremely well played. And by the way, you were kinda late for April Fools LOL. Keep up the good work dude, keep exposing seppies for who they really are. You should actually be honored that your site is blocked from internal networks, it means you're actually hitting a nerve. This blog needs to get more viral on the net!!

  3. Editor, you've highlighted, in no ambiguous terms, my raison d'être for having left Quebec going on 27 years ago, and plotting my escape while still in high school over ten years before leaving.

    I got my cheap university education and free CEGEP education courtesy of the high taxes my parents and imprisoned Francophone suckers paid (because they can't or won't speak English thus have no place to go), milked Quebec for as much as I could, and left the day after my convocation at Concordia U. I haven't looked back one day wondering if I did the right thing. I KNOW I did the right thing.

    If I could ever find any other ways to milk Quebec for what it's worth, I'll do so without thinking it over. Why not? This is what Quebec has been doing to the Real Canada at every opportunity and at every turn.

    Your little joke further fortifies the reason for a federal party that caters to "the rest of us" (ie, the portion of Canada excluding Quebec}. I think Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest has become of the common herd in Quebec the way he handled the Bill 104 fiasco (fiasco should really read "infamy" for he acted exactly like a mouse of the common herd).

    What happened to that family that had to split with one of their children having to go to Delaware for his English language education leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth and no doubt in my mind what Quebec has become--a truly fascist state--nothing more, nothing less. Even its own fascist law provides for children who are severely challenged the day it was legislated going on 34 years ago, but why should that get in the way of the collectivity's paranoia of opening the door a cat's whisker to someone who genuinely needed to be protected.

    Like the German people of the 1930s and 40s, they let the hatred flow and didn't give a tinker's damn who got exterminated. Fine, nobody got gassed, but the analogy is there ripe for the picking. Besides, hatred starts with words before it turns into actions, but starts to feed ever increasingly on its targeted victims if left unchecked.

    Seeing a conspicuously dressed Jewish child on the TV news being unprovokedly attacked a few years ago is one example. Arson and sabotage to Jewish cottages without consequences in Val David is another (especially when a local Fraocophone interviewed on the news pointed out they're antisocial, almost condoning the actions). All this stuff with the Sikh kirpans, the anti-Muslim Hérouxville "code of conduct" and the vitriol spewed day after day after day at the Bouchard-Taylor Commission hearings are just ongoing chapters proving over and over and over again what Quebec has become. Rave on, Quebec, because eventually it will go too far and there will be a reaction that Quebec won't like.

    If Harper gets his majority, and Quebec doesn't participate, I think a chapter on revenge will manifest. We'll find out in less than a month. Even if Harper wins by another minority without backing from Quebec, it won't bode well, and I'm not going to insist Harper do otherwise.

  4. A tous mes amis,allez voir ces vidéos sur youtube et vous aurez une bonne idée de qui se cache derrière ce site.Hallucinant de les écouter se plaindre!

  5. Bravo, well played, and ndaa is also blocked I. Alexis Nihon. I will check Wichita firms proxy has you blocked.

  6. Perfect, Wonder what the zealots will have to say about this. Always the same way...anything critical of Quebec or the French no matter how truthful or factual is viewed as Quebec bashing. But , of course, Quebec can say anything about the ROC with impunity. (Remember Charest in Copenhagen and what we said about Alberta---meanwhile exporting asbestos to the third world)

    The recent issue over the lower Churchill hydro that NFLD wants to build is another example...If its good for Quebec its great but if its good for another province in Canada its not ok.

    You should have French immersion and French school boards across Canada towards a bilingual Canada...But, of course, not in Quebec.

    Anyways,well done.

  7. 'Hallucinant de les écouter se plaindre!' Then just about everything this site is about must be the same - our documentation of this Human Rights struggle against QCs extremists' and collaborating faction within the Provincial government.
    You're crazy to simply think that you can just silence us with your Bill 101 - the 'privilege' law for the majority. No way, l'homme dominent l'homme à son propre détriment. We are not slaves, our rights shall be honoured or we allos-anglos will simply stop paying taxes to a belligerent government. If the PQ gets in, for example.

  8. Indeed, very good post, nice way to stick to the high road.

  9. "...our documentation of this Human Rights struggle against QCs extremists..."

    Hey gogo,vous n'avez pas que des droits ici,vous avez aussi des devoirs et une de ceux-ci est d'apprendre notre langue.Bang!

  10. Outstanding job! That seems to have silenced the more intelligent of the seppies, which also explains why Dog Humper of the West and Pressgang continue to obliviously spew on.

  11. Author,

    You sly dog you, brilliant trap you set. Your deftly played maneuver nicely exposes the nature of the many Anglo (bed bugs) haters who comment on this blog. It doesn’t matter what Anglos say, the nationalist racists will always find a way to attack and dismiss. Their tactics and objectives are blatantly obvious; restrict Anglos rights, dismiss and silence all Anglos dissent, and publicly denounce and abuse Anglos at will. C'est normal en Quebec. Keep up the good work, anonymous one. We don’t need to know your name to appreciate your heart and valor, and to feel the solidarity.

  12. To Press 9,

    ‘Hey gogo,vous n'avez pas que des droits ici,vous avez aussi des devoirs et une de ceux-ci est d'apprendre notre langue.Bang!’

    What a pathetic response. How will the world ever take people like you seriously when you demonstrate such angry, hostile impotence, much like an ankle biting French poodle? You are nothing more than a sad clown in the Cirque des Seppies. Bang! Bang!

  13. Wow. You got me. I thought the article was a little off but I was fooled none the less. The silence from the extremist camp is deafening.

    If only you could work some of that magic over vigile.racists.....

  14. Editor 10

    Seppies and zealots 0

    bang bang bang.

  15. @En flammes

    Regardez un peu ce que le cirque des seppies fera cette année!

    1 000 000 000 u.s/année !
    Le tout sans émission de gaz a effets de serres.

  16. Squeeze 9...Nous étudions le français de France, pas ton dialect effrayant (=le joual, soutenu par l'Orifice du Joal au Québec)


  17. I am honored to have been quoted in you post, editor! Good job on using another person's work and passing it off as your own, if only for 24 hours.

    1. Despite your pretensions, you did NOT use the same headline. The original one, as illustrated above, is Immigrants et emploi, le Québec à la Queue. You, of course wanting to remain consistant, used a much more inflammatory one.

    2. Claude Picher is a respectable, professional journalist with whom I may or many not agree depending on his opinion. You, on the other hand, are a one-note blogger writing (or copying, in this case), one anti-Québec article per day. You are also fond of distorting facts and comparing your enemies to nazis. I am still amazed at that crucifix article from this week. How could anybody ignore the fact that secularization has been ongoing since well before there was a muslim presence in Québec.

    3. My quote said "a 3% difference OVERALL". Overall, means for all immigrants. For 100 in Quebec and Ontation, 3 more will be employed in Québec. It's not rocket science, editor.

    4. How revealing that you chose to those very mild quotes in your piece, while ignoring much more radical ones, like:

    "Quebec is an equal opportunity racist, bigoted society when it comes to jobs"

    "My vote for the next provincial election is for the van doos to take over the assembly"

    "Gone are the days of first generation immigrants who were intimidated and cowed by your racist policies and the 101 brownshirts. Piss on 101 and everyone involved."

    "Your re-education camps are called the "classe d'acceuil"

    "Quebecois are Monsters who like to kill animals"
    (this comment was approved and mysteriously dissapeared for some reason ;-)

    If I were to delve in the cesspools on the other articles, there is much much worse. Much of the stuff here would nover be published by respectable media outlets.

    5. You'll note I never disputed the facts of the article, only the headline, yet you persist in portraying yourself as the victim, as usual.

    6. If you consider yourself a fair and principled journalist, like Mr Picher, then why stay hidden and refuse to take credit for your site and your hundreds of articles?

  18. To add to my previous post:

    The Québécois are monsters quote is from the previous day's article, and is still three... my mistake. Can we expect you to put it on the front page as an example of your supporters? ;-)

  19. Stephen Harpon,

    Cirque-du-Soleil = Very cool and innovative, much to be proud of.

    Cirque-des-Seppie = Very uncool and backward, much to be ashamed of.

    Bang! Bang!

  20. "Squeeze 9...Nous étudions le français de France, pas ton dialect effrayant (=le joual, soutenu par l'Orifice du Joal au Québec..."

    Peu importe lequel,ce sera beaucoup plus facile pour vous de vous intégrer,autant au niveau de votre vie sociale de façon générale qu'au travail.De plus,lors de soirées mondaines,vos amis anglophones unilingues mourront d'envie de vous voir conquérir le coeur des femmes grâce a votre érudition et votre ouverture sur le monde.

    Maintenant il ne reste plus qu'a le pratiquer.


    P.s : On écrit "dialecte" pas "dialect".

  21. To Ano @ April 7, 2011 3:52 PM

    ‘I am honored to have been quoted in you post…etc.’

    Give it up, you’ve been had. Your resistance is futile, the editor already exposed the glaring anti-Anglos biased you and your nationalist seppie comrades routinely display. At this point, your verbosity is desperate and pointless.

  22. RE: Hey gogo,vous n'avez pas que des droits ici,vous avez aussi des devoirs et une de ceux-ci est d'apprendre notre langue.Bang!
    -- I guess this guy cannot even read when I write in FR either, with a French First Name even. 'L’homme dominent l'homme à son propre détriment.' Est-ce que c'est en français ? I guess with your blind anglophobia, you think your insult will stick on a bilingual? I guess everyone who is as insecure as you should run for not writing in FR on an English-language Blog?

    The integrate or leave is just more BS rhetoric from the fascist Clannista faction, speaks volumes to 'their' vision of a an independent QC 'et son ouverture sur le monde.'

  23. Ah Squeeze 9...your French is so bad...

    1) grâce a --> grâce À = préposition, pas verbe

    2) qu'a --> qu'À = préposition, pas verbe

    Porquoi assumez-vous que les anglophones sont unilingues ?


  24. "Porquoi assumez-vous que les anglophones sont unilingues ?"

    Parcequ'ils semblent très malheureux au sein de notre nation Francophone.Voila "porquoi".

    p.s : Je n'ai pas trouvé l'accent grave pour le "A" sur mon clavier,désolé.

  25. "Porquoi assumez-vous que les anglophones sont unilingues ?"

    J'imagine que vous vouliez exprimez ceci:

    "Pourquoi présumez-vous que les anglophones sont unilingues ?

  26. "...with a French First Name even..."

    Oui peut-être,mais une sacré bouille de British!

  27. Why leave? Why not just stay and eventually take our rights back? Anglos and allos have time on their side. Bill 101 won't melt away it will be forced to be withdrawn rapidly like the when Berlin wall was torn down.

  28. Anon @ 6:02PM last evening: I left over 26 years ago because I KNEW the Anglophone community would be too much talk and too little action. My late mother, MSRIP, talked a good fight, but when I tried to rally that generation, forget it! They bitched like crazy, but no action.

    My hypothesis is they simply didn't figure Quebec will separate, at least within their lifetimes. They were right! My parents are long gone, my 90-year-old aunt passed away less than a year ago (she would have been 91 today), and my uncle chugs along at 93. I don't see separation happening if he lives another ten years!

    I did approach my mother while she was still alive and in good health, and she admitted she was a sitting duck! My parents were "too old" to uproot and start over, and in a real sense they were. My father turned 60 the year the Great Charter of Charters. He unlikely would have found work had he uprooted, and my mother had tenure at the hospital where she was a nurse. They were planted, as were my aunts and uncles, the parents of my neighbours and their peers as well.

    Surprisingly, several of my paternal cousins born in Montreal have stayed. There are seven of us, and three have stayed, with a fourth one moving back to retire after living away for over 20 years, most of those years in the U.S. One cousin and his wife moved to Toronto for less than three years and decided to return. 3 of 7 moved away and did not return, but only 2 of 7 never left at all. They had escape plans in the event of separation, but of course that never became a necessity.

    As for my big brother, who never left, he decided to integrate and his French was pretty good. He's now retired, not yet 60, and living the good RREGOP life, RREGOP being that very lucrative public and parapublic service pension afforded those lucky enough to have gotten Quebec government jobs. My brother now winters in Florida, and makes damn sure he doesn't live in neighbourhoods where joual is spoken. Avoids it like the PLAGUE! Goes to show.

    There you have it, Anon @ 6:02PM: Big talk, no action. Too bad really, because the Anglophone community gets what it deserves for not fighting hard as an active collectivity. Too many of us, like myself, are now gone, and too few who remain fight. Had the community chosen to fight hard, and heaven knows we did have the likes of Howard Galganov and Brent Tyler, but THAT is the problem. The few activists that there are and were can be counted on the fingers of your hands.

    Now it's too little, too late.

  29. @ Mississauga Guy

    So, in otherwise you are here, railing a province you have left 26 years ago, while all your friends and relatives who stayed enjoyed peacefull, profitable and long lives. Meanwhile radical activists like Tyler and Galganov have been abject failures. Perhaps the reason for that can be found in the first part of your post....

    I can see why you're so bitter.

  30. Anon @ 10:37AM: Am I wrong? Is my bitterness unjustified?

  31. [enjoyed peacefull, profitable and long lives]

    lol lol lol what a load of crap, have you seen the financial numbers? when he left quebec and montreal was still the 2nd best in the country, and now we rank barely 4th, woohooo profitable, what flavour is your kool aid? is the sky blue in your world?
    Why do you have difficulty grasping simple economic concept, and respecting individual rights?

    Just read this and try to comprehend, if you justify your majority in numbers to trample people's right, hope your not shocked when a majority over you tramples your right. The correct answer is bellow read and learn:

    "A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

    Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

    The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

    Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."

    --Ayn Rand

  32. @Qq chose de pourri dans la tête

    Que faites-vous du DROIT COLLECTIF ainsi que notre DEVOIR (a tous) de protéger notre minorité ?

  33. @ Qq chose de pourri

    And can you list the ways bill 101 restrict your rights as an anglophone to live your own right.

    - Can you speak english at home: Yes
    - Can you educate your children in english: Yes
    - Can your children pursue higher education in English: Yes
    - Can you obtain government services in english: Yes
    - Can you get english speaking healthcare: Yes
    - Can you set up a small english buisiness: Yes
    - Can you advertise your business in english: Yes
    - Can you have access to english-speaking media: Yes
    - Can you vote for the candidate of your choice in english: Yes
    - Can you excercise your right to free speach in english: *looks at the above comments* Yes

    Yeah, your rights sure are being trampled...

  34. “Que faites-vous du DROIT COLLECTIF ainsi que notre DEVOIR (a tous) de protéger notre minorité ?”

    The minute “collective rights” interfere with individual rights, individual rights should take precedence. This is why the American founding fathers drafted the Bill of Rights – so as to prevent the arbitrary majorities of the future, acting on a whim, an impulse, or on their selfish interest, from taking away the rights of the minorities. This is why the Christian Right, in a majority Christian nation, cannot impose itself on the country. It can claim numerical majority in certain regions, but it gets overruled by courts in accordance with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    In Canada, we unfortunately value the so called “unity” over rights. By placing unity first, we let one province get away with violating both the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Freedoms. We’re essentially letting that province get away with making a mockery of this country.

    “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson

  35. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on who is for dinner. -Benjamin Franklin

    [Que faites-vous du DROIT COLLECTIF ainsi que notre DEVOIR (a tous) de protéger notre minorité ?]

    Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
    -Ayn Rand

    Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.

    Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members.
    -Ayn Rand

    Ca devrais te repondre a ta niaiserie sur les devoirs et le droits collectif.

  36. [And can you list the ways bill 101 restrict your rights as an anglophone to live your own right.]

    As a citizen of this province i cannot:

    Send my kids to english or any other school without any restriction: no
    Publish litterature to the public in English and French: no
    Do business in English and french: no
    Put a bilingual sign: No
    Receive information from municipal, or provincial gov in english: not outroight with difficulty.

    It is a restriction on freedom, decided so by the supreme court.

    Any rights taken is a slippery slope, trampled or not.

  37. Au nationaliste qui mentionne le droit collectif, tu dois être en plein accord avec ce texte, ca fait de toi un super nationaliste de

    « Il est nécessaire que l’individu réalise que son propre ego n’a pas d’importance par rapport à l’existence de sa Nation; que son ego doit être encadré par les besoins de sa Nation dans son ensemble. D’autant plus que l’esprit de la Nation vaut beaucoup plus que les simples libertés et volontés d’un seul individu. Cet esprit national, qui subordonne les intérêts de l’ego individuel aux besoins de la communauté, est le premier principe de toute culture humaine. Nous devons accepter que l’individu doive faire des sacrifices pour sa communauté et pour son prochain. »

  38. "This is why the American founding fathers drafted the Bill of Rights."

    Si vous aimez tant les amerlocs et qu'ils représentent tant un modèle pour vous...

    WTF are you doing here?Allez rejoindre vos fères (harperistes)a toronto ASAP!

  39. "Si vous aimez tant les amerlocs et qu'ils représentent tant un modèle pour vous"

    Life in the US has some serious drawbacks too. While here I’m required to contribute (with my tax) to the “preservation of the French language”, there I’d have to contribute to the “defense of Israel”. So nonsense follows you around anywhere you go.

    I agree with a line I once heard on Real Time with Bill Maher: “Australia’s got the convicts, Canada’s got the French, we’ve got the Evangelicals”

    Although I must admit, I'd take the convicts over the French and Evangelicals any time. So maybe Australia is where I should go.

    “Allez rejoindre vos fères (harperistes)a toronto ASAP!”

    I don’t like Toronto that much. But why do you want me to move? Are you sick of me or something?