Monday, March 26, 2012

L'Actualité Poll on Anglophones Says More about Francophone Perceptions

The French language news magazine L'Acualite ran a pretty big spread on Anglophones, highlighted by a poll purportedly gauging Anglophone attitudes towards the French language and living in Quebec.
As soon as I saw the cover and the name of Jean-François Lisée, Quebec's most notorious fact-spinner,  I knew that Anglos were in for another hatchet job.
Any story that presents Mr. Lisée as some sort of authority has condemned itself to mockery, akin to having a Catholic Clergyman write an unbiased piece about abortion or a Rabbi writing a piece critiquing the wisdom of Kosher foods.

Mr. Lisée is notorious for painting Quebec in the most favorable light, using cherry-picked facts and figures to convey an utterly distorted view of reality, an alternate world where Quebec is rich, successful, hardly indebted and under-taxed.

He recently wrote a  book entitled  "Comment mettre la droite K.-O. en 15 arguments" (How to knock-out the Right in 15 arguments.)
Of course the book paints a hilariously skewered view of reality, reproducing all sorts of facts and figures, that support his unlikely conclusions.

Thank goodness the blogosphere has the likes of DAVID over at antagoniste.net, a writer who has taken the time to deconstruct each and every argument made by Mr. Lisée, utterly destroying his conclusions.
If you read French, the following is a must read, it will convince you, once and for all, that Mr. Lisée is a dangerous fraud.

And so, any work associated with Mr. Lisée is automatically suspect and likely to make use of the same type of misleading and deceitful practices that are the hallmark of his work.

I was not disappointed.

Now a lot of Anglo journos were rightfully insulted by the survey, you can read some reaction here;
" L’actualité magazine has a special edition out on anglophones that suggests many of us don’t know Radio-Canada from Canada Goose."Read the rest of the story; Josh Freed: L’actualité of living in Montreal not reflected in magazine
"Quebec anglophones beware: your relationship with the province's francophones is being tested, and clearly not with a view to strengthening linguistic harmony." Read the rest here --A survey that sets up Quebec anglos to fail the integration test
But what the above writers all miss is the fact that the survey and article is actually more  telling of francophone attitudes then those of the English.
The questions asked were so politically skewed and biased that they laid bare the astonishing preconceptions of the authors.

First let me give you the overall conclusions of the poll, based on a bunch of survey questions asked to Anglophones only;

Do you speak enough French to carry on a substantive conversation?..... 81% YES
Do you believe that's it's possible to live one's whole life in Quebec without having a substantive conversation in French.....59% YES

I'm at piece with the idea that Montreal will become a city where English predominates while the rest of the province maintains its Francophone Charm.....59% YES

Given Globalization and the power of English it's just a question of time before the essential element of work will be in English in Montreal......65% (18-34 year-olds) 42%(55 years old+)

The predominant position of French is a key componant in Montreal's originality. Without it the city loses its soul.....YES 33% (18-34 year-olds) 43%(55 years old+)

Should large companies be allowed to hire unilingual English managers even if it means francophone employees would have to work in French?......YES 63% 
 The survey and the supporting articles comes to the conclusion that Anglophones, notwithstanding the fact that they speak French, don't want to become part of the greater Francophone culture of the majority, not by a long shot.

Others who read the article may dispute that this is the essential element, but it is really the only conclusion that can accurately explain the biased question and concluding spin.

Let me illustrate the political angle of the interlocutors, by way of the biased questions put to an Anglo defender, Jack Jedwab.

  •  "Don't you take it as a sign of rejection, the fact that anglophones shun  French culture? 
  • The survey reveals that few Anglos feel a responsibility to protect the French in Quebec. Shouldn't they demonstrate more solidarity? 
  • Isn't it disappointing that the majority of anglophones don't know who Regis Labeaume, Janette Bertrand or Marie-Mai are ? 
Every question above can be neatly turned around to reflect Quebec Francophones perceived lack of engagement with the majority language of this country.
  •  "Don't you take it as a sign of rejection, the fact that Francophones prefer their own French culture to that of  English the majority culture of Canada? 
  • The survey reveals that few Francophones feel a responsibility to protect  English in Canada. Shouldn't they demonstrate more solidarity? 
  • Isn't it disappointing that the majority of Francophones don't know who Llyod Robertson, Rick Mercer or Rob Ford are?
"Jean-François Lisée, who wrote an op-ed piece in the issue, said he's surprised by the lack of empathy among English Montrealers for protection of the French language." Link

IS HE  KIDDING?

Does Mr. Lisée actually believe anglos should actively support measures that limit their rights?

(I would make a burlesque comparison between Jews helping Nazis but I don't want the wrath of a certain touchy anonymous reader  to come down on me!!!!)

Boo Hoo! You live in a country that is 77% English!
Should anglos join the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Mouvement Quebec Francais or Imperatif Francais?
Should they be denouncing clerks that talk only English or signs that offend the majority because a word of English appears.
Should anglophones really defend the French language when its defense consists of limiting Anglophone rights?

If Lisée and friends believe we should be sympathetic to Francophones who suffer from having to speak English occasionally or attend a meeting in English occasionally, they must live in Fantasyland.

 And so.......
A. Francophone Quebecers can live happily in Canada in their own French world, largely apart from the English majority.

B. Anglophone Quebecers can live happily in Quebec, in their own English world, largely apart from the French majority

It isn't more simple than that.

If you can agree with "A" then "B" is a logical extension.

But then again logic is sometimes hard to find in Quebec,

207 comments:

  1. An excellent examination of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I, having lived on both sides of the divide, believe that two thing should be done simultaneously.

    1) Expose as much as possible throughout north America, the fact that the separatists are NOT French, but the Taliban English haters of the continent.
    2) Separate the Separatists from our French Canadian Brothers who fought side by side with English and other Canadians in all the conflicts and wars in the defense of the sovereignty and freedom of OurCountry.

    The Quebecois French education system, is designed to deny our children the right to coexist successfully on this continent and, if looked at carefully, runs the risk of being charged under the hate crime laws!

    Sometimes, I am stunned at how blessed I was that my parents found a way to rescue me from that social engineering, lobster trap, propaganda machine the Separatists call school.

    The reason the Mr. Lisées are able to get away with such divisive deception is because the education system has crippled people into bereaving that it’s normal to isolate and vilify a group of our fellow citizens. If North America continues to turn a blind eye to that, there will come tragic times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, I pretty much answered your remarks down below under JP on March 26th @ 6:13AM. Who are you waiting for to implement your two alternatives? What's wrong with you? Why don't YOU start a movement?

      I tried to defend that little boy whose mother was from Delaware. I contacted every radio station in Delaware and every TV station in Philadelphia because Delaware from what I can see gets all its TV feeds from Philadelphia. Sadly, not a bite. 60 Minutes last did a story on Quebec in 1998 with the late Mordechai Richler, and that was only the 2nd time 60 Minutes did a piece on the Quebec situation. It worked. Former Quebec politician Jean Cournoyer used to have a call-in show and the callers were so livid, Cournoyer had to interrupt his show to calm down the listeners and callers. The vitriol they were spewing was so toxic and anti-Semitic innuendoes it was ridiculous, but showed what too much of the Quebec population is made of.

      So Mr. Anonymous, maybe YOU should get off your f**king ass and set those bastards straight! Nobody else seems up to the task. Let the imbecile bastards continue to lead Quebec by the gonads and continue to antagonize the ROC until the ROC finally reaches the end of its collective rope, or stop the bastards and perhaps relations will get better.

      The German population sat around and let the Nazis do what they did until finally what they did was the greatest abomination the world has ever lived through...those who lived. Over 37½ million people died in that bloodiest of all wars...this is, until now.

      No, I'm not stating Quebec will start WWIII, but if left unchecked, what's to say hostilities of a physical nature won't manifest on a smaller but still very bloody scale?

      Delete
  3. It is truly astounding to me that Francophones in Quebec don't get that people who are not French-Canadian don't generally want to pretend that they're French-Canadian. It's just not the way things work. People choose entertainments that reflect their realities. I don't imagine many Korean immigrants in New York are watching shows like "Friends" and New Yorkers probably don't feel that they're being disrespected or that their culture is in danger. Here's a shocking tidbit: I've been in the homes of Italian and Greek Quebec families and, guess what? They often watch television produced in Italy and Greece. The horror of it all!

    This place is a basket-case that seems to thrive on despair. I really admire those of you who can shake your heads and chuckle about it because for me, increasingly, I wonder why anyone would choose to live in a society where they are harangued and belittled on an almost daily basis. This, I suppose, is the real point anyway: make anyone who doesn't want to magically transform themselves into a weird copy of someone who grew up in Lac St. Jean so uncomfortable that they move away.

    Wow. Seriously, wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're not all a bunch of psychotic yokels; some of us actually believe in living and letting live.

      Don't confuse a vocal bunch of about a few dozen rabble rousers manufacturing media consent so that it looks like we all believe what they do. Their ideological ancestors in the early 60's knew very well how to strategically place their own operatives within a crowd to make it look like more people supported their views than really did.

      Delete
    2. "Don't confuse a vocal bunch of about a few dozen rabble rousers..."

      Dont nous connaissons les noms et qui n'ont aucune crainte de s'afficher en public,contrairement à ceux du camps opposé qui s'apparentent plutôt aux ovnis(UFO).

      Delete
    3. Anon: "I've been in the homes of Italian and Greek Quebec families and, guess what? They often watch television produced in Italy and Greece. The horror of it all!"

      A friend of mine is of Italian descent, born and bred in Montreal, speaks French on top of English and Italian. Considering that he prefers soccer to hockey, Serie A to the NHL, Juventus to the Habs, considering that he goes to http://www.gazzetta.it/ and not to http://www.cyberpresse.ca for news, that he is more likely turn to Rai Uno and not Tele Journal, that he may be familiar with more Italian tv personalities than Quebec ones, would probably mark him as someone "unwilling to integrate" in the eyes of JF Lisee. Despite the fact that the guy knows French and has lived here all his life.

      JF Lisee is a funny guy. Unyielding and undeterred spinster and fiercely loyal to the party line. A commissar of the PQ.

      If we were to suggest to Mr.Lisee that francophones living in AB or BC should also give up their heritage and blend in with he faceless majority, Mr.Lisee would object. And he would be able to rationalize this hypocrisy. He would say that the rules are different there, because French is "in danger" and English isn't. Despite the fact that francophones make up 80% of this province and hold 100% of political power, they are constantly "in danger". That could be true, or it could be an excuse.

      If we then follow the logic of "danger" and suggest privileged treatment to other languages existing in QC, especially those which are in real danger of disappearance (Cree, Algonquin), Mr.Lisee would object. And he would be able to rationalize this hypocrisy as easily as the first one. He'd say that those languages are simply too low in numbers to warrant inclusion. So here, he would argue things from the practical perspective. He would also add that in "every other place in the world", it is a "normality" that the minority "adapts" to the majority.

      So when looking at French outside Quebec - apply the rule of "linguistic diversity".
      For anything non-French in QC, apply the rule of practicality and the rule of "normality".

      It's a mystery to me if he really believes in his own shit (i.e. is he deluded?) or does he dabble in this kind of spin for more tangible (i.e. financial) benefits (is he a cynical opportunist?). Both of these are possible, and one isn't at all better from the other.

      Delete
    4. @Apparatchik: you're right and I apologize for the inadvertent grouping. What's depressing though is that this kind of thing hardly ever gets countered in public discourse. Whatever few vocal extremists there are, it's amazing how quickly they get even Federalist governments to jump when they say to do so.

      It's inconceivable to me that a mainstream news-weekly in any other place: MacLean's, say, or Time or Newsweek would ask such plainly leading and biased questions and have it accepted by their readership.

      And, for what it's worth, adski, I agree with our esteemed editor, an excellent comment indeed.

      Delete
    5. Anon: "What's depressing though is that this kind of thing hardly ever gets countered in public discourse"

      This is actually why many people feel that this is not just a few rabble rousers. When a mob shows up in front of a Verdun dep, it's a man in a suit, working in one of top radio stations, that baits them, with noone saying a word to counter him. When there is nothing close to a denunciation, save for a few timid remarks in the "federalist" La Presse that serve to dilute the problem rather than condemn it, then some conclusions may be drawn.

      Whether or not to ascribe collective responsibility to the general population for the actions of the government or of political groups is a tricky one. Can we blame all Americans for Bush's and Obama's warmongering for example? Yes and no, I guess.

      Things have to be evaluated on case by case basis. In this case I think that there must be a degree of collective permissiveness and tolerance (in other words, acceptance) in order for people like Dutrizac to rule the waves, and for Mario Beaulieu and his bunch to wreak occasional havoc. When the majority passively looks on and the minority cheers, that is still a green light. Even if 1 out of 100 cheers, the other 99 do bear some responsibility. Just how much is up to us to decide subjectively.

      I do believe that governments do not really represent the people, but I still blame the people when they let themselves be manipulated by their governments. I do hold people to a certain standard of skepticism and critical thought. Most Quebecois do not pass this test. (Surprisingly many Quebec Anglos don't either. Most Allos I know do). The Quebecois for the most part have been manipulated by their elites to put law above ethics when evaluating social situations. And I do hold that, if only that, against them.

      Delete
    6. >This is actually why many people feel that this is not just a few rabble rousers.

      What are you talking about adski? Haven't you noticed that it's always the same groups who keep amassing hordes of professionally offended protesters?

      Watch the news and tell me the vast majority of the vigilante contributions to the hatred are not from the likes of:
      - the Société Saint Jean Baptiste (and spinoffs "Mouvement Français")
      - the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois
      - the Jeunes Patriotes du Québec
      - Impératif Français
      - bottom-feeding shock-jocks
      - politicized "artistes"
      - politicized elements in various trade unions

      ... and their coreligionists (of varying degrees) who blog, chronicle, speak (or a combination thereof) from somewhat more mainstream-seeming perches, under the guise of somewhat more "intellectual" articles or "opinion pieces" (although no less virulent either in their appeal for hell-raising, be it direct or suggestive).

      I've said it once and I'll say it again. There's a huge difference between the majority of francophones wanting to (very legitimately, in my view) genuinely protect French and the minority rabble rousers whose expert fits of howling, jealousy, and pettiness has always gotten the disproportionate attention on this issue.

      If anything ought to be rightly denounced by ALL Quebecers, it's this cancer which causes our communal disunity.

      Delete
    7. There is a difference between the two groups, I agree. The small group is yelling, bullying, threatening, blackmailing, intimidating, wreaking havoc, etc...The big group is... not participating in it. Maybe not supporting it too, although that's hard to say for every non-participant (I don't take part in anti-cancer walks for example, which might lead some to wrongly conclude that I don't support the cause).

      Am I wrong to demand more than just not showing up at the SSJB rallies? Do I expect too much of people? Maybe. Maybe not.

      Delete
    8. Also, is it totally off the wall to hold suspicions that some, or more than just a few non-participants might tacitly support the protests, or at least partly agree with the protesters and their methods? How many is "some"? It's hard to tell.

      Reed Scowen, for example, thinks that the only reason the kind of system stands is because most people tacitly support it. At the very best, they have no major issues with it. Is Reed Scowen wrong? Maybe. Could it be that he is onto something? Maybe.

      We decide many things through personal experiences. One of mine is as follows: I happened to be in Complex Desjardins on December 1 2011. I went there around lunch time for an x ray at Radiologie Varad. The SSJB happened to hold an event there on that day in front of Revenu Quebec. Scurrying to get out after my appointment, I walked side by side with two 20-somethings, a girl and a guy. It looked like they were employees of some office on their way to lunch. The girl said something like "c'est quoi ca?", the guy said it was the protest "contre l'anglicisation du govt", the talked briefly with the conclusion being "On est au Quebec, donc c'est correct", and afterwards they changed to another topic. So that was a combination of "indifference but no major disagreement". Essentially, "I wouldn't join these fanatics but I won't lift a finger against them either".

      Is "indifference but no major disagreement" the view held by the majority in this province? Je ne sais pas. Would it be good enough if it were? To me it wouldn't. But I think this system and culture are rotten to the core and nothing short of a total overhaul would help, so maybe that's why.

      Also, if some study reveled that people are not as decent as we might hope for them to be, could we blame the government or the elites? After all, they pull all the strings. Here as well I would say no. I would still hold the people responsible for their ignorance.

      Delete
    9. "So that was a combination of "indifference but no major disagreement"."

      Pouvez-vous me nommer un seul imbécile (à part vos amis) en faveur de l'anglicisation de notre province?
      Allons plutôt manifester pour l'élimination du français dans la sphère publique!...Moron.

      Delete
    10. "Allons plutôt manifester pour l'élimination du français dans la sphère publique!"

      Say I really cared about blue socks and I wanted everybody to wear them. The root of my obsession with blue socks is irrelevant here, although it would probably be a result of a combination of upbringing and/or political calculation, same as with your obsession with the French language.

      Seeing people not wearing blue socks would hurt me immensely. I would take it personally and I'd be offended. The sight of less and less people in my city wearing blue socks would tear me up inside. I would strongly believe that blue socks should be obligatory, because the first (or should I say the second, wink, wink) inhabitants of this environment wore blue socks. Also, I would staunchly believe that it is a "normalité mondiale" for people wear the same colored socks in a given area. Also, assume a pro-blue socks lobby wielded power, so I would have the law on my side. The law would go as far as "encourage" people to wear blue socks, it would recommend blue socks, it would occasionally resort to petty tactics to "help" people in their decision to don blue socks, but it would stop short of forcing them.

      Say you are a person who doesn't care about blue socks, and wears different socks on different days, including blue socks on occasion. Then I'd come in the picture with my "demands". What would your reaction be to someone like me?

      Delete
    11. You're calling adski's friends imbeciles?
      Ending your post with Moron?

      You're retarded.

      And if this post get deleted, so should the one on Mar 27, 2012 06:17AM

      Delete
    12. You're calling adski's friends imbeciles?

      Oui.Faites-vous partie de son cercle de francophobes?

      Ending your post with Moron?

      Oui.De quoi j'me mêle?

      Delete
    13. "Say I really cared about blue socks and I wanted everybody to wear them."

      Ha bon!Ça vous regarde mais je ne vois aucun rapport avec la question linguistique.Je ne vois pas comment nous pouvons associer ces deux éléments,à moins que vous ne soyez un pied,bien entendu.

      Delete
    14. @ adksi

      In your scenario, I would answer your "demands" with "Who the F do you thing you are? I will shove those socks up your ***. Telling me what to do! Mind you own damned business. You sound like those stupid Seppies! Why don't you get a job and get off welfare!"

      Delete
    15. Du calme Roger le lapin.Que faites-vous Roger dans la vie?Une mascotte?Avec des chaussettes rouge?

      Delete
    16. Good guess! (chaussettes noirs) lol

      Delete
    17. "Je ne vois pas comment nous pouvons associer ces deux éléments"

      The two elements come together when they become the focal point of an obsession. And the admirers of blue socks would take offense to your deprecation of blue socks, and elevation of language, as if language was somehow a more worthy cause than socks (they would say).


      "I would answer your "demands" with "Who the F do you thing you are? I will shove those socks up your ***"

      Either that, or you'd try your best to ignore me.

      Delete
    18. Either that, or you'd try your best to ignore me.

      Je ne sais pas pour Roger mais pour moi c'est impossible de vous ignorer.J'aime tellement détester ce que vous représentez et de plus vous incarnez une source d'inspiration pour tous les supporteurs de la loi 101 et du coup nous rappelez la raison de notre existance et les raisons pour lesquels nous devons appliquer cette loi dans son intégralité.

      Delete
    19. ahahaha anonymous. hiding behind anonymous. you incarnate ethnocentrism at it's best. You are losing the war. Young people in Quebec City want English movies and English films. HEC offers English programs of study. There are more and more immigrants that are coming to Quebec and they will not support separation at the rate of "les pure laines". So get ahead. Be a hater. It's in your blood.

      Delete
    20. "Young people in Quebec City want English movies and English films."
      (des movies et même des films! voulez dire musique et films?)

      Et? Vous croyez que ça va les transformer en anglos? Est-ce que l'arrivée d'Elvis sur les ondes radio dans les années 1950 anglicisa le Québec? Même les anglos à Québec s'assimilent au français, le recensement sur la langue maternelle et celle parlée à la maison peut le confirmer. Parlant de ça, même à Montréal le nombre de gens parlant français à la maison est supérieur au nombre l'ayant comme langue maternelle. Certains allophones s'assimilent à l'anglais mais combien de francophones le font? Alors imaginez en région. Un francophone qui apprend l'anglais ne devient pas anglophone pour autant, il me semble que c'est simple à comprendre.

      Le Québec ne sera jamais à majorité anglais parce que jamais des millions d'anglos vont y déménager, vous ne la gagnez pas cette guerre-là, vous l'avez même perdue considérant tous les anglos qui sont parti des régions dans le passé ou ont été assimilés plus le fait que le peu d'immigrants qui s'installe en région ne s'anglicise pas parce que c'est un environnement français et la majorité sait même le français.

      Alors s'il-vous plaît, monsieur Roger, tenez-vous en à ce que vous connaissez (Montréal) et laissez la majorité du Québec, de ses régions en dehors de vos fantasmes d'anglicisation et d'immigration anglophile massive.

      - un séparatiste qui regarde des films américains en anglais et qui entend parler à plein français dans les salles de cinéma de la rive-sud qui présentent des films en version originale anglaise (voyez bien que ça n'a aucun effet)

      Delete
    21. @Anon 12:50 PM

      Finally you understand our point of view! You are right on!!! English is no threat to your language so F-Off! We are not trying to get en English majority in Montreal, we learn French, speak French, and we just want to be left alone. As your point of view stated, we are no threat to you so what exactly is all the fuss about?

      Delete
    22. Seppie a.k.a Anonymous: "Et? Vous croyez que ça va les transformer en anglos? Est-ce que l'arrivée d'Elvis sur les ondes radio dans les années 1950 anglicisa le Québec?"

      Oh no, you didn't. Did you just open yourself up to an attack on account of your inconsistency? Yes, you did.

      You're saying that movies in English (or in American, rather) won't turn these good people into Anglos. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU FOREVER.

      An English sign will not turn these people into Anglos either. So stop sending complains to the OQLF when you see 'happy hour' on a sign, or when you think Future Shop should become La Boutique du Futur.

      ----

      Seppie a.k.a Anonymous: "Le Québec ne sera jamais à majorité anglais parce que jamais des millions d'anglos vont y déménager, vous ne la gagnez pas cette guerre-là, vous l'avez même perdue considérant tous les anglos qui sont parti des régions dans le passé ou ont été assimilés plus le fait que le peu d'immigrants qui s'installe en région ne s'anglicise pas parce que c'est un environnement français et la majorité sait même le français."

      So what's the problem?

      Delete
    23. "THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU FOREVER."

      Calm down, adski.
      You don't have to tell us. We know.
      Just recently Pierre Curzi was saying Canadian Tire should be renamed to Les Magasins Généraux Canadian Tire.
      You think we think we will start speaking English at home if Canadian Tire's name stays as it is?
      No, that's not the objective.
      Rhéal Mathieu understood this.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Cup#.22Second_Cup.22_Incident

      Of course nowadays legal techniques are used instead of terrorism, it doesn't have the same psychological effects on anglos but it still has some effect.

      « Tant qu’on est une province, on peut pas faire plus : on peut pas, par exemple, interdire le droit de vote aux gens, parce que ça, c’est un droit qu’on ne contrôle pas, parce qu’on est toujours une province à l’intérieur d’une fédération. Évidemment, le jour où le pays sera là, on contrôlera une citoyenneté qui aura peut-être plus de dents, si j’ose dire...”

      Pierre Curzi - 98,5 FM – 19 octobre 2007, 12h10
      http://lefinrenard.com/2010/07/01/vachon-une-erreur-strategique-du-pq/

      He said too much that day and I am saying too much right now. Good thing I'm posting anonymously.

      Delete
    24. Nah I'm just kidding, this is the kind of evil conspirationist stuff you've wanted to hear your whole life and go like "I knew it! I knew it all along!" but if you must know, although I am not an anglo, I remembered that time Curzi said something about people who can't speak French (so it's not all anglos) not being able to vote and I thought that didn't feel right and I was new to the PQ back then.

      What he really wants is that clerks that only speak English become unemployed or even move to Ontario, it's not about signs but it's politically incorrect to speak of ethnic cleansing so he speaks of Les Magasins Généraux Canadian Tire and ends up looking quite ridiculous.
      He probably thinks a name change would be enough to convince anglos to move.

      He also would pass a law forcing francophones to move back to the island of Montreal if he could. Well he never said anything about a law but he spoke of "encouraging" people to move. It starts with "encouraging" (whatever that means) and then the next thing you know, it's mandatory.

      Delete
    25. Ben oui c'est ça c'est pas Pierre Curzi c'est Pierre Mussolini. Comme si il allait forcer le monde à déménager. Parano?

      Delete
  4. Quebec is full of ignorant people with a superiority complex. It's a bad combination. And no M Lisee, I will not actively participate in the Ethnic Cleansing experiment going on against English speakers in Quebec since 1977. I don't give a rat's ass about Québécois entertainers and I feel ZERO obligation towards protecting and promoting the Québécois language & culture. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you never thought that those who you defended,would turn their back on you????

      Delete
    2. "Quebec is full of ignorant people with a superiority complex."

      canada is full of ignorant people with a inferiority complex.

      Hmmmm...Lequel choisir?

      Delete
    3. Ni l'un, ni l'autre.

      Moi je préfère bâtir une société où tout le monde s'entraide et promeut une politique linguistique égalitaire et respectueuse des deux langues officielles.

      Commençons par Montréal, puis envahissons ensuite le reste du pays.

      Delete
    4. Apparatchik,

      Beautifully said. I would also insist that the Natives are also given a prominent place in society, if not from a linguistic point of view then from a values and worldview point of view.

      Delete
    5. No complaints from me.

      Delete
  5. For a more extreme interpretation of the poll, read what Louis Prefontaine has to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. Our very own Rush Limbaugh.

      Delete
    2. This is getting dangerous. When will a prominent Francophone from Quebec speak out against such hateful and divisive discourse?

      Delete
    3. Stéphane Gendron, Maxime Bernier, and just about any other high-profile francophone who dares speak the truth in public gets lampooned and ridiculed by an obedient and servile francophone media.

      It's pretty sad when we can't even trust our state broadcaster not to jump onto the bandwagon.

      Delete
    4. "Stéphane Gendron, Maxime Bernier"

      Vraiment?Un conseil,misez sur des personnages un peu plus charismatiques.Franchement,Jos-Louis Bernier et Stephen Gendron...Pardon,Stéphane.

      Delete
    5. Désolé.. ya pas plus de charisme chez Mario Beaulieu, Louis Préfontaine, ou Patrick Bourgeois. Une grosse gueule n'égale ni charisme, ni sagesse, ni leadership.

      Delete
    6. "Mario Beaulieu, Louis Préfontaine, ou Patrick Bourgeois."

      Ce n'est pas leur tronche qui les rend si sympathique,c'est leur combat.

      Delete
    7. Their fight against the English? Against ethnics? Wow, what a fight.
      I much prefer to be part of the group of people who tries to get along.

      Delete
    8. >Ce n'est pas leur tronche qui les rend si sympathique,c'est leur combat.

      Permettez-moi donc d'exprimer mon opposition non seulement à leur combat, mais aussi à la façon dont ils le mènent.

      Delete
  6. Je crois bien que plusieurs Québécois vont voter pour Pauline...Quelle femme!

    http://tinyurl.com/89baqwa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PM along with a minority government....

      Delete
    2. ça en dit long sur la stratégie du PQ quand il faut se réduire à faire des campagnes de peur et d'haine anglo/allo pour se faire élire.

      Vraiment n'importe quoi.

      Delete
  7. Great article and conclusion. M. Lisee seems to want to divide the francophone and anglophone communities rather than seek to build on greater understanding and interaction. His questions and comments are designed to create an impression that most anglophones don't care about French language, or are unsympathetic towards its continuence as a working language in Quebec, which is absolutely not the case, either in Montreal or across Canada. At least many if not most reader responses did not seem to share M. Lisee's position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > [...] At least many if not most reader responses did not seem to share M. Lisee's position.

      Far too many posters repeat the same old angst-ridden rhetoric that, frankly, has become tiring and unfortunate to hear. Especially to those of us who successfully thrive in a bilingual environment without petty hangups like those.

      Delete
    2. Actually, we me anyway, it has come to the point that I don't care what happens one way or the other. What makes me feel that way is the fact that yes, the PQ when first eledted in 1976, declared war on minorities, right away with Bill 1-turned-Bill 101. It was open season on minorities, especially Anglophones and everything English, and nothing has changed.

      The fact "nothing has changed" is what is most disturbing because whether it's a federalist vs separatist government means absolutely NOTHING. The Editor of this blog has previously pointed out that an increasing number of politicians in Quebec don't know English, whether péquistes or so-called federalists. The lies, the deceit and the vindictiveness has not changed no matter what political stripe one associates with it's war on those who are not of their ilk.

      According to the Quebec debt clock, Quebec's debt is nearly ¼ BILLION dollars! That's over 50% the size of the federal debt, so that has two problematic implications: (1) Quebec's debt is over DOUBLE the federal debt on a per capita basis; and (2) Quebec can't print its own money to try and use inflation to dilute its debt. Not that inflation is a viable alternative to lessening the blow of the debt, but it postpones the inevitable consequences. Without its own currency, Quebec will experience what Greece is experiencing right now sooner rather than later.

      To me the best thing that could happen is the PQ gets elected again so Polly Mahwad could, if she follows through her promises, roll back tuition fees and eliminate the health care premiums that have been imposed and will increase in years to come. She'll probably also promise a chicken in every pot while she's at it. How soon they forget the 20% public service wage rollbacks in 1983! Gee, what will happen to RREGOP? That monster is eating up an ever increasing amount of money BIG-TIME, not to mention the losses at the Caisse de Depôt.

      Oh....I can picture the general strikes and howls of protest now....GO POLLY GO!

      Delete
    3. Eeeh.. you realize that Ontario's debt is also a quarter of a billion dollars? I understand that makes it better off than Quebec on a per capita basis, but then you do such a good job explaining why this is ridiculous on an absolute basis...

      Delete
    4. You do realise that 1/4 Billion dollars is peanuts? Maybe you mean 1/4 Trillion?

      Delete
    5. Yes, in both cases it's ~250 billion dollars (252 for Ontario, 248 for Quebec). Thanks for pointing that out.

      Delete
    6. Yes Partition, ¼ TRILLION. If it was a measly ¼ billion, Quebec would be smelling like a rose. Anon @ 10:48AM: You're not wrong. This government in just two years ran up deficits of $40 billion cumulatively, and by Wednesday PM, we'll learn how it's going to be paid for. The Minister of Finance is promising a tough budget. Stay tuned. Quebec can learn a lesson, if the Quebec Minister of Finance has the gonads. Actually, he did bring down some tough stuff last year, and if Polly Mahwad thinks renegging on all that has been done, well...

      Delete
  8. More interesting, in my view, is the survey done last week by Leger Marketing on behalf of Jack Jedwab's Association for Canadian Studies and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation:

    http://www.acs-aec.ca/pdf/polls/Racism%20and%20Prejudice%20Sources%20Trust%20and%20Blame.pdf

    It polls English Canadians, French Canadians and Allophones on their trust in Muslims and Jews.

    The difference in attitudes is dramatic.

    To the question, "The following can be trusted a lot, somewhat trusted, trusted a little or not trusted at all":

    57% of English Canadians said they trusted Muslims. Only 30% of French Canadians trusted Muslims.
    In other words, 7 out of 10 French Canadians said they had little or no trust in Muslims.

    81% of English Canadians said they trusted Jews (incidentally more than Protestants, 77%, and more than Catholics, 74%). Only 44% of French Canadians said they trusted Jews.

    In other words, while just shy of 2 out of 10 English Canadians said they had little or no trust in Jews, a majority of French Canadians said they felt this way.

    (The Touchy One)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A steady and much-needed erosion of ethnic homogeneity and resulting plurality of origins in outlying regions of Quebec should fix that distrust in a few years (or decades). I bet if a similar poll had been taken in Toronto a century ago, the answers would have closely matched those of French-Canadians.

      I'll bet if you took that same poll exclusively in urban Montreal, the answers would be much more similar than country-wide.

      Delete
    2. "I bet if a similar poll had been taken in Toronto a century ago, the answers would have closely matched those of French-Canadians."

      Vous croyez vraiment que toronto représente le modèle de ville que les Québécois souhaitent?
      En passant,dans quel siècle vivez-vous pour nous traiter de "French-canadian" ?

      Delete
    3. J'utilise l'exemple torontois car Toronto est depuis quelque temps la ville canadienne ayant la population la plus diversifiée du point de vue origine/culturel. Notons que je fais également référence au Montréal multiculturel, intégré, et diversifié, ce qui semble être effectivement aux antipodes de votre idéal, lequel cherche à étiqueter, à suivre, à limiter, à intimider, ou à légiférer contre tout ce que vous n'aimez pas.

      En ce qui a trait du terme Canadien-Français, j'en suis un (du moins en partie) moi-même. Je vis bien en 2012, et je n'y vois rien d'insultant. Je suis Canadien de souche et d'origine française, et j'imagine que vous l'êtes vous aussi. Rien d'insultant là-dedans.

      Rappelons qu'un Québécois, c'est aussi le maghrebin qui a débarqué ici il y a une décennie ou encore l'anglophone juif à Dollard-des-Ormeaux dont les grands-parents ont fui les pogroms en Russie il y a plus d'un siècle. Une seule ethnie n'a pas le monopole sur ce que veut dire être "Québécois".

      Voilà tout.

      Delete
    4. "Rappelons qu'un Québécois, c'est aussi le maghrebin qui a débarqué ici il y a une décennie ou encore l'anglophone juif à Dollard-des-Ormeaux dont les grands-parents ont fui les pogroms en Russie il y a plus d'un siècle."

      Une raison de plus pour utiliser cette appellation.

      Delete
    5. Et les francophones hors-Québecs? On est une case à part, c'est ça?

      Delete
    6. Non,pas du tout,c'est vous qui représentez les véritables "French-canadians".

      Delete
    7. Donc, on est une catégorie a pars de vous les Québecois, car vous n'êtes pas de véritables "French Canadians".

      Delete
    8. Il n'y a rien d'honteux à affirmer fièrement son identité Canadienne-française. Je le fais d'ailleurs fièrement et je ne comprends vraiment pas pourquoi le vocable "canadien-" doive être perçu comme étant tellement toxique à ma propre francitude. Être francophone dans ce pays, c'est une fierté, pas un boulet. Je trouve d'autant plus décevant que ce sont bon nombre de Canadiens-français qui dénigrent leur propre identité historique et se laissant sombrer dans une abnégation collective des plus pathétiques.

      Mon identité Canadienne-française est une des trois identités (de concert avec mes identités Canadienne-anglaise et allophone) qui m'appartiennent en tant que Montréalais, Québécois, et Canadien. Gare à ceux qui voudrait que ce soit autrement.

      Delete
    9. Votre identité me semble fort complexe.Comment faites-vous pour vous y retrouver?À vrai dire vous m'avez perdu au deuxième paragraphe de votre énumération.

      Delete
    10. Ne vous cassez pas trop la tête. J'ai des grands-parents francophones de souche, anglophones de souche, et allophones.

      Je ne passe pas ma semaine à contempler de façon insécure la proportion ou encore le pourcentage de chacune de ces "identités" que je ressens d'un jour à l'autre. Je vis -- fort harmonieusement d'ailleurs -- dans les deux langues officielles. Sans complexe, sans hargne, sans dédain, sans jalousie. Et à vrai le dire, sans confusion et dans le plus grand bonheur.

      Delete
    11. Hé bien tant mieux pour vous.Je suis réellement impressionné car c'est la première fois que j'ai une discussion avec un véritable homme-caméléon.

      Delete
    12. Mais Apparatchik, le truc c'est que la grande majorité des Québécois n'ont que le français comme langue maternelle alors il est où l'intérêt pour nous de rester au Canada?

      Sûrement pas une coïncidence que Trudeau et Charest sont des gens naturellement bilingues et qu'ils se sont retrouvés en position de pouvoir et s'opposent à l'indépendence du Québec. La minorité à double identité qui empêche la majorité de se séparer.

      Delete
    13. J'veux dire, il n'y a pas vraiment d'intérêt culturel ou linguistique de rester au Canada comme il y a chez les gens comme Apparatchik.

      Le Beauceron qui vote non, c'est pas parce qu'il a des affinités avec les anglophones, surtout lorsqu'il ne connaît pas leur langue.
      C'est purement économique* et par crainte du «socialisme» du PQ dans un Québec indépendant.

      *Je refuse de croire que ce serait néfaste pour nous économiquement sinon ça voudrait dire que le Canada paye pour nous garder et il tient fortement à nous garder. Pourquoi? Pour dépenser des milliards sur le Québec? Je pense qu'on nous dit pas tout. Peut-être que le Québec lui rapporte quelque chose.

      D'où l'expression l'argent et le vote ethnique. L'argent pour les francophones fédéralistes. Si c'était pas de la question de l'argent, combien de francophones voteraient non?

      Delete
    14. Et avant de me dire que le Québec est anglophobe et intolérant, considérez les raisons pourquoi la majorité des anglos sont contre l'indépendance.

      Ils ne veulent pas abandonner la minorité anglo au Québec donc ils se foutent de l'opinion de la majorité francophone, les citoyens du Québec ne sont pas tous égaux à leurs yeux.
      Ils auraient l'impression d'avoir été vaincus, d'avoir perdu une bataille donc ils veulent nous dominer et ne nous considèrent pas comme des égaux, ils veulent qu'on se soumette.
      Ils ne veulent pas avoir à traverser un pays étranger pour rejoindre une autre partie de leur pays. Ils se foutent de l'opinion des gens qui habitent le territoire qu'ils doivent traverser, ils ne font que passer.
      Ils ne veulent pas que la carte du Canada aille un gros trou dedans. Encore une fois, ça n'a aucune importance pour eux que les Québécois veulent quitter le Canada, ils doivent rester sinon la carte va être modifiée.
      Ils ont des intérêts économiques sur le territoire québécois.

      Je pourrais continuer longtemps mais ça revient toujours à cette évidence: le Canada anglais veut le Québec mais pas les Québécois, ou bien s'il les veut, c'est seulement comme travailleurs comme dans le bon vieux temps avec les patrons anglos.

      Le Canada est un pays artificiel et il le sera toujours. Tellement utopiste votre vision d'un Canada bilingue et tolérant, Apparatchik. La majorité ne sera jamais élevée dans les deux langues.

      Delete
    15. La majorité des Québécois ont decider de rester au Canada. La seule raison que l'indépendance n'a pas réussis est parce que l'idée ne pas tres fort. On a vivait pendant 145 ans ensemble.

      Imaginez, le radio francophone, la télé francophone, le media francophone, les enseignants a l'école, les groupe radicaux comme les Jeunes Patriotes, et les partis politiques comme le PQ, QS, et BQ ont tout supporter l'indépendance mais la population à dit not. C'était serré le dernier fois mais en tout cas, les personnes qui aiment vivent ensembles au Canada ont gagner. Donc le Canada est un pay réel, ce qui n'est pas le cas pour le Québéc.

      Et si on avais un fort federaliste au Canada? Imaginez!

      Delete
    16. "Donc le Canada est un pay réel"

      Oui,mais fragile.

      Delete
    17. Monsieur Rabbit, vous parlez des médias francophones qui ont supporté l'indépendance et ensuite vous dites que la population a dit non. Ça dépend de quelle population on parle.
      Qui, en général, écoute les médias francophones? Les francophones.
      La population francophone a dit oui à environ 62% en 1995.
      Une idée pas très forte qui pourtant a convaincue la majorité de la majorité? Ça doit quand même vouloir dire qu'il y a un incomfort à faire parti du Canada si on est pas anglophone ou allophone?

      La majorité des comtés ont voté oui. Le Québec en général était prêt à se séparer mais les minorités de Montréal ont dit non. Le fait demeure que la majorité du territoire habité a dit oui. Les votes, minoritaires, pour le non dans la majorité des comtés une fois additionnés à ceux de Montréal se sont soudainement retrouver majoritaires (de peu) mais pourtant, sur le terrain, ce n'est pas ce que les habitants de ces régions voulait.

      L'ironie c'est que la majorité des francophones de l'île de Montréal ont voter oui, plus que certaines régions du Québec qui sont virtuellement totalement francophones. Ce sont pourtant ceux à Montréal qui connaissent en général le plus le vivre ensemble.

      La raison qui ressortait le plus souvent pour voter non? Avoir peur de perdre son chèque de pension.
      Rien à voir avec le vivre ensemble. Deux solitudes pour toujours.

      Donc, vous, monsieur Rabbit, êtes un peu comme Apparatchik: vous avez un attachement au Canada anglais que la majorité de la population du Québec n'a pas.

      Je le répète: la majorité des francophones fédéralistes le sont seulement pour une question d'argent. Si il n'y avait pas cette question d'argent et que 80% du Québec voterait oui, accepteriez-vous le résultat ou bien penseriez-vous que la minorité attachée au Canada doit décider pour la majorité?
      Comme Stéphane Dion et sa loi sur la clarté? 75% nécessaire pour l'indépendance? Donc même 74,99% aurait tort et 25,01% déciderait de l'avenir du Québec?

      Delete
    18. To Anon Mar 26, 1:07PM

      ``donc ils veulent nous dominer``

      I really feel sorry for you if this is what you have to live with. You have been totally brainwashed.

      Delete
    19. >Mais Apparatchik, le truc c'est que la grande majorité des Québécois n'ont que le français comme langue maternelle alors il est où l'intérêt pour nous de rester au Canada?

      Le même intérêt qu'ont les anglo-Québécois de rester dans une province majoritairement francophone. On n'a pas à se rallier autour d'un même drapeau du seul fait d'appartenir au même groupe ethnique ou linguistique (la preuve, c'est qu'il y a eu nombre de pays et d'empires multi-ethniques). En quelque part, chacun d'entre nous fait partie d'une minorité quelconque, ce qui ne nous empêche pas de jouir d'autres bienfaits collectifs.

      À l'inverse, on pourrait tout aussi facilement se questionner à savoir quel est l'attrait de faire du Québec un pays pour une seule minorité religieuse et linguistique (assez têtue merci!) qui a échoué son assimilation suite à une guéguerre coloniale. Et comme j'ai évoqué récemment, je ne suis pas convaincu dans le fond que le Québec soit tellement "distinct". Plutôt que d'y voir réellement un coin français d'Amérique, je vois dans notre belle province plus l'Amérique du Nord en français qu'autre chose. Et à mon avis, ça ne justifie pas de faire de nous un pays indépendant.

      Delete
    20. >Hé bien tant mieux pour vous.Je suis réellement impressionné car c'est la première fois que j'ai une discussion avec un véritable homme-caméléon.

      Est-ce tellement invraisemblable qu'une personne ait quatre grands-parents d'origines différentes?

      Delete
    21. >Si c'était pas de la question de l'argent, combien de francophones voteraient non?

      Si ce n'était pas de la question (surestimée, à mon avis) de la langue, combien de francophones impressionnables voteraient oui?

      Delete
    22. >Le Canada est un pays artificiel et il le sera toujours.
      Et pourtant le voilà.


      Tellement utopiste votre vision d'un Canada bilingue et tolérant, Apparatchik. La majorité ne sera jamais élevée dans les deux langues.

      Et pourtant de plus en plus de jeunes sont élevés dans les deux langues, comme moi, et finissent par avoir des repères culturels tant du côté anglophone que francophone. Soit c'est moi qui n'existe pas ou c'est à vous de vous faire un contrôle honnête de la réalité.

      Pensez-y comme il faut.

      Delete
    23. En passant, Apparatchik, tu fais quoi des intolerants dans le ROC? Pas besoin d'aller trop loin sur ce blogue pour voir ceux qui veulent abolir les deux langues officielles. Comment me sentir dans mon propre pays quand je vois ceux qui ne veulent rien savoir de moi?

      Delete
    24. >La population francophone a dit oui à environ 62% en 1995.
      Et la population entière du Québec, lorsqu'elle a été consultée par voie électorale (et à quelques exceptions près, sondée par des maisons de sondage) depuis des décennies s'est toujours prononcée contre l'idée de faire du Québec un pays.

      Pourquoi une majorité (même faible) répétée du NON devrait-elle compter pour moins qu'une majorité, même faible, mais jusqu'ici inachevée, du OUI? Il me semble que ce sont bien les militants séparatistes qui manifestent un mépris honteux de l'opinion du peuple québécois en n'acceptent pas deux résultats qui vont dans le même sens.

      Et oui, je m'indigne moi aussi du deux poids, deux mesures.

      Delete
    25. > Comme Stéphane Dion et sa loi sur la clarté? 75% nécessaire pour l'indépendance? Donc même 74,99% aurait tort et 25,01% déciderait de l'avenir du Québec?

      D'abord la loi sur la clarté ne fixe pas un seuil de 75%.

      Deuxièmement, trouvez-vous juste que 50,0000001% soit suffisant pour décider l'avenir du Québec dans le cas d'un OUI?

      Dans l'affirmative, 50,58% pour le NON devrait suffire pour clore le dossier une fois pour toutes.

      Delete
    26. "Est-ce tellement invraisemblable qu'une personne ait quatre grands-parents d'origines différentes?"

      Pas invraisemblable mais rare,ça oui.

      Delete
    27. Que voulez-vous, on ne choisit pas ses grands-parents ;-)

      Je soupçonne toutefois qu'il s'agit d'une tendance qui deviendra de plus en plus usitée... Et d'après ce que j'ai eu la chance de constater, je ne m'en inquiète aucunement, ni pour la langue française, ni pour l'unité nationale.

      Un double succès malgré nous? En tout cas, je le souhaite.

      Delete
    28. Anonymous at 14:46,

      Are you going to give us the tired argument that only francophone votes matter? Like it or not, anglophones and allophones are 'citizens' of Quebec too. Politically, you are no better or worse than us.

      La majorité des comtés ont voté oui. Le Québec en général était prêt à se séparer mais les minorités de Montréal ont dit non. Le fait demeure que la majorité du territoire habité a dit oui. Les votes, minoritaires, pour le non dans la majorité des comtés une fois additionnés à ceux de Montréal se sont soudainement retrouver majoritaires (de peu) mais pourtant, sur le terrain, ce n'est pas ce que les habitants de ces régions voulait.

      And this is the flaw in your logic. In general, who? Referenda have been conducted, majority of voters said no. C'est tout. There is no general, there is only majority.

      Je le répète: la majorité des francophones fédéralistes le sont seulement pour une question d'argent. Si il n'y avait pas cette question d'argent et que 80% du Québec voterait oui, accepteriez-vous le résultat ou bien penseriez-vous que la minorité attachée au Canada doit décider pour la majorité?
      Comme Stéphane Dion et sa loi sur la clarté? 75% nécessaire pour l'indépendance? Donc même 74,99% aurait tort et 25,01% déciderait de l'avenir du Québec?


      Why are you keep on talking hypothetically? Referenda had been conducted, majority of Quebecers said no (and they are real, not fantasy votes), why can you not accept the result? Why can you not be democratic when the results are not in your favor?

      Delete
    29. "There is no general, there is only majority."

      Majority of the francophone majority voted yes.
      Majority of electoral districts voted yes.
      Majority of regions voted yes.
      Majority of towns and cities voted yes.
      Quebec really wanted independence in 1995.
      The only majorities against independence were the majority of anglophones and the majority of allophones. By themselves, they couldn't win but when adding them to the minority of francophone federalist votes, they barely won.
      If west island towns would have boycotted the referendum and declared themselves independent from Quebec, the Yes side would have won.
      So basically a minority decided for the future of all of Quebec, a place that is quite foreign to them because most of it is not like the west island at all. Why should people in various Quebec regions that wanted independence forget about it just so that a minority that has little interaction with them gets to stay in Canada?
      Everything indicates there would be no serious attempts of partition among francophones and the majority of those who are federalists would have accepted a Yes victory.
      Now, I am not saying minorities shouldn't have the right to vote. I just think there is something that doesn't make sense in such a situation.

      Imagine if the total number of Yes votes would have been higher than the number of No votes. It would mean the majority of the total population says Yes but in reality, not really since the majority of minorities would still have voted no. Majority of minorities who are concentrated only in a minority of ridings. They would say why do people we have little interaction with get to decide that we must leave Canada? Would they really accept the result? Or would they try to break away from Quebec?

      If I were Jacques Parizeau, there would have been a second vote, this time saying: any riding (or perhaps on a municipal basis) where the Yes wins will be a part of an independent Quebec.
      I suppose many places that voted No but have a francophone majority would have gotten a majority of Yes votes because I don't think most federalists want to end up a minority like Franco-Ontarians.
      What would be left? Places like the west island.
      It's not a perfect situation and it would suck for the francophone minority in the west island, at least those who would prefer an independent Quebec, but at least the francophone majority would have their own country, which is what they wanted but it was denied to them

      It doesn't make sense. Not a single square inch of an independent Quebec despite all those regions saying yes to independence. It's gotta mean something but it's as if their opinion/vote doesn't matter. As if only No votes matter even where they are the minority of the votes.
      It's just not fair. The west island would probably prefer being a part of Ontario, wouldn't they? So it's not fair to them either.
      My vision is much more democratic. Not a single place where people want independence would be denied independence and any place that wants to remain in Canada would be able to.
      It's absurd to group all of Quebec together with just one big vote. There are regional differences.

      Delete
    30. Then again is there really democracy in Quebec? Charest got a majority government yet only 42.05% voted for his party.
      Sometimes this first-past-the-post electoral system inherited from Britain is very undemocratic.
      Consider the 1989 election:
      Liberals -> 49.95% of the vote -> 92 seats out of 125 (73.6% of all seats!)
      With a proportional system, there would hardly ever be majority governments but at least it would be fair.

      Delete
    31. "Are you going to give us the tired argument that only francophone votes matter? Like it or not, anglophones and allophones are 'citizens' of Quebec too."

      I never thought such a thing but I also always thought that anyone's vote shouldn't matter where they don't reside.

      With the current flawed system, all anglophone and allophone votes matter even in virtually totally francophone ridings. With an improved system, it would be fair for everybody, including anglophones and allophones. Of course as long as the No side wins, they don't mind, but in the even of a Yes victory, they would think the winner-takes-it-all system is quite flawed and unfair.

      What's the alternative to partition for separatists? Keep hoping for a Yes victory and even if it did happen, there could very well be partition anyway so might as well accept it right away and start enjoying an independent country instead of spending any more time in Canada.
      By insisting on keeping areas that are definitely against independence, separatists end up with no country at all whereas they could have one if they really wanted to.

      Delete
    32. *in the event, not in the even

      Delete
    33. Anonymous at 01:55 and 02:27,

      I will just assume that you are one person.

      Here again, you are claiming that majority wants Quebec independence. Then you clarify that it is the majority of French majority. Will it not then make them minority? Why must there be qualifier of 'French majority'? By doing that, you are implying that the 'French majority' is be default separatists, which is wrong.

      Let us see your logic and turn it around. What about Bill 101? Why is it applicable to all territorial jurisdiction of Quebec? Why can municipals not opt-out of Bill 101? Given the opportunity, I am certain that Westmount, Montreal West, Kirkland or even Huntingdon would vote to be exempted from Bill 101?

      And also, your idea means that independent Quebec consists only on 'ridings' that voted yes. That is certainly not what the separatist groups want. And you know what, it will not happen. Even separatists know that the area of Montreal island west of St. Laurent Blvd. in economic terms proportionally contributes far more than its share of population, not to mention area.

      Therefore, there are two flaws in your arguments. First flaw is that whole-province independence will not happen. Vast majority of minority will say no and part of majority will say no. Enough for aggregate minority. Second flaw is that partial independence (partition) will not happen. Those who push for independence (the separatists) will never let Quebec be carved, letting economically-important Montreal and resources-rich North to separate.

      Delete
    34. >Majority of the francophone majority voted yes.
      Majority of electoral districts voted yes.
      Majority of regions voted yes.
      Majority of towns and cities voted yes.


      The majority of the population voted no. That's the only population that matters. It's called democracy.

      >Quebec really wanted independence in 1995.
      Projecting much? Hahaha
      Quebec voted No. The majority did, at least.

      >If west island towns would have boycotted the referendum and declared themselves independent from Quebec, the Yes side would have won.

      If this and if that and if, if, if. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. As the Barenaked Ladies say "If I had a million dollars, I'd be rich."

      >Now, I am not saying minorities shouldn't have the right to vote. I just think there is something that doesn't make sense in such a situation.

      Oh, how kind of you. You would allow minorities to vote. What doesn't make sense is your inacceptance of democracy. You lost the referendum.Get over it.

      >Imagine if the total number of Yes votes would have been higher than the number of No votes.

      Yes, let's fantasize some more.

      >If I were Jacques Parizeau, there would have been a second vote, this time saying:

      More fantasy? So yes, if you were a separatist drunk, what would you do? Yes, yes, interesting...
      Okay, I have to cut replying to your post. It's just becoming ridiculous.

      Most of your post is imagine this or imagine that or if this and if that. What are we doing? Playing make belief. Are you so disconnected from reality? So unwilling to accept the referendum results? This is called cognitive dissonance when you make things up to square them in your head. Look it up.

      Your whole post doesn't make any logical sense. Of course, independance is all based on EMOTION and ETHNOCENTRISM, the us vs them mentality, as your post shows. Hatred toward others, intolerance, fear, what looks on the outside like a superiority complex to mask when one feels inferior (ie analagous to acting as a bully when you are damaged goods) and the need for suppressive language laws are all part of this mentality.

      Please read Animal Farm and if you have already, please read it again. It is obvious you didn't understand it.

      And if you reply, bone up on your arguments because they come across as those of a high-school dropout, high on something not yet legal, living in fantasy land.

      Delete
    35. "Please read Animal Farm..."

      Avant que je lise ce livre,pouvez-vous me dire si il s'agit d'une ferme halal...Juste au cas.

      Delete
    36. "What doesn't make sense is your inacceptance of democracy. You lost the referendum.Get over it."
      "Are you so disconnected from reality? So unwilling to accept the referendum results?"

      No, I'm not and the reality is that the results showed a victory in most ridings which is why I proposed some sort of system that would allow places that want independence to get it. How is that undemocratic? If anything, it seems more democratic to me.

      If you're against that, then I hope that you're at least consistent and would accept a Yes victory and wouldn't call for partition and claim that the riding or town you're living in voted No and therefore shouldn't have to join an independent Quebec.

      So Quebec is undivisible as long as the No side wins but should the Yes side win, federalist ridings wouldn't have to accept the Yes victory and would refuse to join this new Quebec? Shouldn't it work both ways? Separatists accepted a federalist victory and federalists should accept a separatist victory.

      "Projecting much?"
      I don't know, you're the one who wrote a whole paragraph about me being filled with hatred and what not. I just think it's unfair for people of an area to be denied what they want when they voted for it because people in another area said no and I also said it would allow any place that wants to stay in Canada to stay in Canada. So much for hatred.

      "The majority of the population voted no. That's the only population that matters. It's called democracy."

      If that kind logic were applied to provincial elections and the winning party had over 50% of the vote, they would get to be the only party in the National Assembly and would have the seats of all other parties as if the whole territory voted for them. No respect for regional differences and different opinions.
      Because that what it's like with the current referendum system. 50.5% can decide for 100%, even when most regions want to join an independent country. Who are you to say they can't do it if they want to? What does it matter in your life especially considering you don't even live there? It doesn't make sense. What I'm proposing is respectful for both separatists and federalists, it listens to both's opinions. With your system, there is only one side whose opinion has any value. You call this democracy?

      Again, how come it would be unacceptable in provincial politics (if the liberals won over 50% of the total vote, all 125 ridings would turn liberal even if plenty of ridings voted something else, the winner takes it all and imposes on everyone) yet it's acceptable for a referendum? Give me one good reason why any riding (even a town, that's even more precise and democratic because sometimes not all towns in a riding vote the same) shouldn't be allowed to leave if they want to. Because people outside of their area say otherwise? Because those people are the majority? But they aren't the majority within the area, that's what doesn't make sense to me. Do you believe in freedom or not?

      Delete
    37. By the way, look at the results by region:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQINqt7xpg
      Then look at this list:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Quebec

      Estrie 302,161
      Montréal 1,873,971
      Outaouais 347,214
      Laval 376,845
      For a total of 2,900,191 people in a province of 7,651,531 in 2006.

      This is your Quebec that voted no. Not even 38% of Quebec's population living in a federalist Quebec.
      So I still stand by what I said: Quebec really wanted independence because, although Quebec is all of its regions, there were more regions that wanted it than regions that didn't, so saying that Quebec didn't want it when it's really only a few regions that didn't doesn't sound like reality. A minority of regions which account for a minority of the Quebec population.

      The results for Nord-du-Québec don't seem to be in the video but even with that region (which only accounts for a bit over half a percent of the province) and even when considering the fact that in 1995 regional populations weren't exactly the same, it's obvious it still was only a minority of the Quebec population living in federalist regions.

      Of course there are separatits in federalist regions and federalists in separatist regions but there are clearly more people living in separatist regions. Federalists living there would have to accept the Yes victory just like separatists living in federalist regions would have to accept No victory within their regions.

      Delete
    38. Canada isn't a democratic country anyway.
      Let's say I forget about my regional vision (which implies partition, something that federalists are totally in favor of if they lose but won't allow the losing side to make use of it) and accept the whole only-the-total-percentage-of-yes-votes-can-make-an-independent-Quebec-possible system.
      Well if I did that, it still wouldn't be enough. The Clarity Act says we need a clear majority. 50% + 1 vote isn't enough for them. Who knows what they mean by clear majority. Perhaps even 60 or 70% wouldn't be "clear" enough for them. How is that democratic?

      Stephen Harper gets a majority government without even 40% of the total vote.
      Separatists couldn't even get a country with, say, 55% of the total vote.
      Such is Canadian democracy.

      Delete
    39. @ Apparatchik

      « Dans l'affirmative, 50,58% pour le NON devrait suffire pour clore le dossier une fois pour toutes. »

      Mais pourtant, c'est pas une majorité claire pour le non ça, mon cher ;)

      Pourquoi tenez-vous tant à clore le dossier?
      Si, lorsque le PQ est au pouvoir, il choisit de déclencher un autre référendum, il n'aurait pas le droit? Il serait au pouvoir alors il aurait le pouvoir de le faire et si le peuple n'en veut pas, il n'ont qu'à voter non mais si l'opinion a changé depuis la dernière fois, pourquoi faudrait-il que le dossier soit clos? Si, disons en 2015, une majorité de Québécois voulaient faire l'indépendance, pourquoi faudrait-il qu'un vote de 1995 les empêche d'avoir un pays? Pas le droit de changer d'idée? Faudrait ne pas évoluer et rester figés dans le passé politiquement?

      Charest a gagné les trois dernières élections, dont la première et la troisième majoritaire, ça devrait clore le dossier du parti au pouvoir une fois pour toutes. Charest pour toujours, plus besoin d'élections, même si la grande majorité de la population est insatisfaite selon les sondages et ce, depuis un bon bout de temps.
      Voyez-vous que ça n'a aucun sens?

      Alors moi je dit, si, sous un gouvernement péquiste, les sondages viennent à indiquer qu'une victoire du Oui est possible, pourquoi pas s'essayer? C'est pas de vivre dans le passé de 1995, ça, je vous parle d'un futur sondage qui serait dans le présent. Dans une telle situation, ce serait les fédéralistes qui vivraient dans le passé en évoquant le fameux vote de 1995.

      Delete
  9. Lisée-Lizard and his downtrodden, hopeless fellows belong to a tiny uneducated minority who will have been living in the past for the next twenty years or more. These are called "mummies living backward", people unable to move on with dignity, unable to accept changes, feeding on hatred and resentment. Like Bill 101: just an emotional reaction of an isolated, soon dying-off generation, stuck and buried in the past. There is nothing rational: just rough reactions of a tiny minority.
    The poll is a joke. PQ is a joke. They don't belong to the present because they are not in the present. You cannot talk with dead: so, let them rest.

    Affectionate reader, WA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The PQ is alive and kicking, they are not only in the present but will also be in the future: they are the most popular party among the Francophone majority. Liberals are very unpopular except among minorities, therefore they will only win a minority of seats, mostly in Montreal. But the majority of ridings are outside of the big city. Experts predict a PQ majority.

      Delete
    2. Je seconde.Les "liberals" vont prendre la débarque du siècle.

      Delete
    3. Pire que la décimation du Bloc à Ottawa l'an dernier?

      Delete
    4. À peu près la même plonge,effectivement.

      Delete
  10. J'adore l'idée de rétablir la vraie Loi 101 à Montréal.Je crois que nous assisterions à une nouvelle exode des canadiens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linguistic cleaning? It is very troubling that you believe in this. Most immigrants that come here are multilingual or become multilingual. If I may suggest it, you should try more to emulate them. It is the future.

      Delete
  11. Correction : Un nouvel exode (J'adore l'expression)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Un exode? Est ce que vous parlez aussi des francophones qui part à cause des faibles prospectes économique au Québec? Quand les gens comme vous avec rien a contribuer à la société, harçele les personne à cause de leur langue, culture, et religion, je me demande qu'est qui a arrivé dans votre vie que vous etes comme ca. Vraiment, triste.

      Delete
    2. Now, now Roger, are you suggesting we get this pensé unique guy to change his mind? He's proud of his ignorance and willingness to incite ethnic cleansing by language! Losership is the only way for our friend there :)

      Delete
  12. J'adore l'idée de rétablir la vraie langue du Canada, celle anglaise, à Montréal. Je crois que nous assisterons à un nouvel (et on espère final) exode des québécois(es).

    Affectionate reader, WA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's sad on so many levels...

      Delete
  13. "J'adore l'idée de rétablir la vraie langue du Canada"

    Comment allez-vous procéder?Je crois que la volonté générale parmi les Québécois (les vrais) va plutôt dans le sens inverse.Non?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nous somme tous des vrai Québécois qui vit ici dans cette province.

      Delete
    2. Alors pourquoi tant d'anglophones et d'allophones ne se disent pas Québécois?

      Si je suis face à quelqu'un qui insulte les Québécois et qui en parle comme un groupe dont il ne fait pas parti, dois-je insister et lui dire que pourtant il est un Québécois comme moi?

      Ou devrais-je émigrer vers son pays d'origine et me mettre à insulter les gens là-bas?
      Ça serait pas correct, non?
      Et pourtant, nous le vivons tous les jours à Montréal.
      C'est pas comme ça que ça se passe dans un pays normal.
      Est-ce trop demander, la normalité?

      Alors, non, pas tous des Québécois au Québec et ceux qui ne veulent pas l'être pourquoi s'obstinent-ils à rester ici? Même pas besoin de changer de pays, juste de changer de province.

      Delete
    3. "Nous somme tous des vrai Québécois qui vit ici dans cette province."

      Achetez une copie de "l'Actualité" et vous veerez que le sondage affirme que non.Vous vivez parmi nous,voilà tout.

      Delete
    4. What's nornal is not constantly fretting about your identity. Anglos don't grow up in a perpetual identity crisis, they don't worry about whether they are Québécois, Canadien, Montréalais, etc. They are all of those things. They don't even think about it until some freaked out French person tries to impose their beliefs on them and critizes them for being who they are. Why can't you just live and let live instead of worrying about how many franco artists we know. Really, who cares?

      I live here, grew up here, have both French and English family. I am bilingual, my kids are bilingual. I will not apologize if that is not good enough for you. What I do and how I live my life is frankly nobody's business.

      I believe I am speaking for the majority of anglos, please correct me if I am wrong.

      Delete
    5. You also speak for a fair number of francos and allos (present company included), if my own rather mixed circle of equally disinterested acquaintances is of any representativity whatsoever.

      Delete
  14. "Comment allez-vous procéder?Je crois que la volonté générale parmi les Québécois (les vrais) va plutôt dans le sens inverse.Non?"

    C'est l'histoire et le progrès qui procèdent à faire ça. Rappellez-vous : le Québec est encerclé par un ocean anglophone. Rappellez-vous-en lorsque vous avez l'idée de nous chasser ! Votre thèse est nul au 100%.

    WA

    ReplyDelete
  15. My daughter was born two weeks ago at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal and her paediatrician is at the Jewish General, so I've had a lot of time these past weeks to observe linguistic behaviour at these "Anglophone" institutions. What I saw was that at both these hospitals was that:

    a) All signage is bilingual
    b) All staff is bilingual

    I would even go as far to say that the primary operating language of these hospitals is French as most of the staff, despite being perfectly capable of speaking English, is mush more comfortable in French. This didn't bother me one bit as both my wife and I are bilingual Anglos/Allos respectively. We carried on most conversation with the nurses, for example, in French, as this just seemed easier.

    And yet, we are not integrated? I have not been to a French hospital in some time but would be curious to know if the signs in these institutions are bilingual and if the staff can carry on easily both official languages. I would suspect not but would appreciate it if someone could inject some insight on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry that I can't really answer your questions regarding this matter but I just wanted to congratulate you and your wife on the birth of your daughter.

      Delete
    2. Congratulatons for the new baby.

      Delete
    3. In New Brunswick, the opposite is true. English hospitals tend to be english-mostly, and french hospitals tend to be bilingual. It has to do with the available manpower as well, right?

      Delete
    4. Mazel Tov. So, a boy or a girl? How many pounds? How's mom doing?

      (The Touchy One)

      Delete
    5. Precisely my experience at Lakeshore General Hospital, in the heart of English West Island, back in 2005.

      Delete
  16. As I mentioned in my last comment, my wife is a trilingual allophone. Her brothers and sisters are as well. In discussing the events of the past week with her sister who works at Bell, she told me a funny story:

    A Francophone customer called in to discuss an issue she was having with her bill and/or service with Bell. My sister-in-law, who speaks French fluently helped this lady out and was about to end the call when the woman told her how nice it was to be served by a Quebecois and not one of the filthy "IMPORTEURS" (a disparaging word in French for immigrant) who had spoken with her in the past. My sister-in-law, god bless her, was simply amused and told the woman that she herself was in fact an importeur. Well, the woman began back-pedalling, telling her that she spoke French so well and that she must be the exception to the rule, blah blah blah.

    So there you have it. In Quebec, there are people who believe that you must not only speak French, you must be French, in order to be accepted by the Francophones as Quebecois.

    This is a racist and exclusionary ideology that must be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree 100%. Whenever I have to go to a federal or provincial office, for example to renew my driver's license or for tax information, I usually speak French, but I see the way they look at people who speak English and sometimes they make little comments after the person leaves.

      The problem is that this kind of attitude is encouraged by the government and worse of all by federalists. Charest, for example, is the one who has beefed up the OQLF and whose ministers give in to pressure about answering journalists in English. People have to sometimes split up their families because no exceptions are given regarding English education, without intense media coverage to someone whose child has a handicap and has trouble going to French school.

      Sometimes, I wonder about these politicians. Does Charest think that he would be any more unpopular if he had encouraged language peace or not try to give in to nationalists on language?

      I think not. And he would have actually done something good for the population and economy of this place.

      Delete
    2. What about all the English Canadians who believe you must speak English (and natively, without an accent) to be accepted as a real Canadian?

      I lived in Ontario as a kid and many do look at people who speak French and sometimes make little comments after the person leaves. I mean private conversations, like a mother speaking to her child. I was very young and I would notice such things.
      You can actually get away with speaking English to clerks here whereas in Ontario of course you have to speak English to them but you also need to have the right accent.

      Delete
    3. I can agree with the above. I lived in Ontario for two years, and of all provinces in Canada that's where I met with the most vehement anti-immigrant views.

      My Ontarian friends, who had been in canada for 2-3 generations only, had a very much "more-Canadian-than-thou" view. They would get exasperated hearing people speak non-english in buses, or hearing about muslims opening up a muslim studies centre, etc... They were some of the most close-minded people I've ever met, even though they thought of themselves as arch-progressives.

      And they had nothing good to think about the french. Our friendship started dying the evening that I refered to the Acadians as "my people". According to them, it meant that I was claiming a tribal status in an attempt to get special treatment. According to them, I was not allowed to think of myself as Acadian; I was Canadian only. When I told them I could have a regional affiliation as much as a national one, I was told that I could not.

      The guy even went as far as posting on my facebook that we might as well have an imaginary country called Lilliput for all the little people, if I was going to continue pretending to have an Acadian identity.

      Delete
    4. Triste réalité canayenne,nous ne construirons jamais une nation avec deux nations.Quittons ce faux pays le plus vite possible.

      Delete
    5. @anon 12:25

      Choisir entre un Québec indépendant et un Canada unilingue anglais, ça sera chosir entre la peste et le choléra. J'espère ne jamais avoir à faire ce choix.

      Delete
    6. Dommage que vous vous sentiez ainsi, mais bon, à défaut de vous persuader...

      Si vous partez de Montréal, prenez la 40, la 20, la 15, ou la 13.
      Continuez tout droit jusqu'à ce que vous vous rendiez soit (1) à un poste frontalier ou (2) à un corps d'eau.

      Dans le premier cas, expliquez à l'agent à quel point vous étiez maltraités dans votre province et pays d'origine et exigez un droit de passage au plus sacrant.

      Dans le second cas, sautez dedans et nagez jusqu'à ce que vous trouviez un endroit qui vous permettra de vous épanouir mieux que celui duquel vous venez.

      Delete
  17. Uh, I will admit that I was not familiar with some of the Quebec artists that were mentioned and that could potentially enrich all of our lives with the depth of their expression, the originality of their art and the unique Quebecois point-of-view.

    So, for the benefit of my fellow Anglos, I thought I'd help you enlighten yourselves. Here is Marie Mai:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciuzE9XehhM

    No further comment because that would just cheapen it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all respect to Marie-Mai, I will repeat my comment in this blog some time ago.

      Simple Plan released two versions of its single Jet Lag. English version featuring Natasha Beddingfield and bilingual version featuring Marie-Mai. Listing to the music and watching the video clips, I say that Marie-Mai is multiple times better than Beddingfield, vocally and visually. However, Marie-Mai only gets a fraction of recognition Natasha Beddingfield gets, globally.

      The sad truth is, until she starts singing in English, Marie-Mai will never gets to reach her full potential and stardom she rightfully deserves. Having said that, if that is the life that she desires, who am I, who are we to say otherwise?

      Delete
    2. She's not supposed to be an example of a deep artist or something, she's just some sort of Avril Lavigne and is popular with teenagers. I don't think she's a critic's darling.

      She is planning to release an album in English and some predict she could very well become as known as Celine. I don't like Celine (formerly known as Céline) but a couple of decades ago, you could have made the same derogatory remark about her and now few anglos don't know who she is, whether they like her or not. So if Quebec had no taste for liking Celine, then I guess the whole world has no taste now. Of course, not everyone likes her, far from it, and it was like this back when she was only known here.

      My point is there is good music and bad music in all cultures and languages. Imagine the Chinese knowing only Barbara Streisand when it comes to American music and then rejecting it all based on one singer.

      Delete
    3. Yeah this is usually the conversation when I bring up french music.

      "There is good french music too. Much of my favorite music is french."
      "ROFL like Celine Dion? No there isn't."
      "... -_-"

      Delete
    4. Celine is just like poutine, basically.

      First you make fun of us for eating poutine.
      Then you open poutine restaurants all across English Canada and it is now becoming a typical Canadian dish.

      Delete
    5. Hahahahahahaha!!!!! = MDR

      Delete
    6. Maire-Mai can never make it in English......
      After all her name would be pronounced 'Marry Me' ..........yikes!

      Delete
    7. Moi je l'épouse n'importe quand Éditeur...Quel corps magnifique!

      Delete
    8. You're kidding, right? Mai is prounouced like May (from Middle English, from Old English, from Old French mai, from Latin māius) not Me.

      Avril Lavigne has a totally French name (she can't really speak the language, though) and her name never stopped her from becoming popular yet English-speakers have a hard time saying Lavigne.

      Perhaps she will change it to Mary May but Marie-Mai makes it more exotic or something.

      OMG Avril and Mai are both months of the year. It must be a sign.

      Delete
    9. Oh wait, I forgot Me can be pronounced like May. Never mind. I don't speak English or hear English often and I forgot about its various accents.

      Delete
    10. Y'a aussi Marie-ève Janvier...

      Delete
    11. Un anglo qui dit mé au lieu de mi ça fait-tu de lui un genre de joualophone anglophone?
      Comme moé en joual au lieu de moi.
      Va-t-on lui reprocher de ne pas vraiment parler anglais?

      Delete
    12. Anonymous at 12:16,

      I do not think Marie-Mai is an Adele class of singer, however as you say she has the potential of becoming Avril Lavigne. Shallow, easy to listen and to look at, and popular with teenager. However, while she is somewhat like that, her hunting ground is and only is Quebec. Should she not perform at the Olympics, I am not sure that she would be known by those other than French-Canadians. Sort like Ima.

      Thus my statement that Marie-Mai has the potential to be big (like Avril Lavigne perhaps), but only if she sings in English.

      =====

      There must be a blizzard in hell because I agree with Abrasif 404.

      Looking at Marie-Mai, like they say in English, "I'd hit it." ;-)

      =====

      Anonymous at 13:18,

      I believe that the Editor is being facetious.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    14. Hein?Pourquoi avoir enlever mon commentaire Éditeur?Je ne faisais qu'approuver ce qu'a dit Troy à popos de Marie-Mai.Pour une fois que Troy et moi sommes daccord.

      Delete
  18. http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/345938/langue-francaise-le-pq-presse-le-gouvernement-d-agir

    Did anybody see this? What a bunch of BS. I don't know ONE person anglo or franco, that want's Montreal to become an English city. Someone needs to straighten these alarmists out! Thanks Editor for helping to do just that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...that want's Montreal to become an English city"

      Encore deux ou trois ans et ce sera le cas...Malheureusement.

      Delete
    2. Really, two or three years?

      Delete
  19. That's fine. Pop music is fun, but this seems incredibly disposable do me and, more to the point, to have an appreciation of derivative pop music held up as any kind of standard for anything seems beyond ridiculous to me. "The French Language is in danger because non-Francophones have no appreciation for some Lady Gaga rip off who won a TV singing contest" is what I get from what's being printed in the Francophone press. Maybe just me.

    Actually, now that I think about it, it's not that I'm not familiar at all with any Quebec artists. I think Pierre Lapointe's work is inventive, interesting and engaging. I've seen him in concert several times -- even driven to Terrebonne to see him. ;-) I apologize for going off-topic, but this, to me, reflects the best of what Quebec offers the world:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnO85JRqawU

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I'm quite fond of Mes Aieux and Les Cowboys Fringants, but I understand that neo-folk might not be for everyone.

      Delete
    2. Indeed. Degeneration by Mes Aieux speaks to me as an Anglo just as much as anyone else. It's also a kick ass song to sing along to. I guess how you interpret something says at least as much about the interpreter as it does about the speaker.

      Delete
    3. L'album "les chemins de verre" de Karkwa est pas mal non plus.

      Delete
    4. -mdblog

      I've always held that art is like a mirror; one sees itself in its reflection, rather than what the artist intends. That's why I don't like discussing the artist's intent unless it is self-evident; I find it irrelevant. It's about what the spectator sees in it.

      Delete
  20. ATTENTION---TROLLL ---James van Amburg---ATTENTION---TROLL---James van Amburg---ATTENTION---TROLL

    ReplyDelete
  21. Vive la Province Canadienne de Montréal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vive la constitution canadienne qui empêche Montréal de devenir une province sans le consentement de la majorité des députés de l'assemblée nationale!

      Delete
    2. Je me sens sale d'avoir écrit vive la constitution canadienne.

      Mais puisque le Québec ne l'a pas signée, est-ce que ça veut dire qu'elle ne s'applique pas au Québec?

      Delete
    3. "Je me sens sale d'avoir écrit vive la constitution canadienne"

      Moi,c'est depuis la sortie de "mon pays"(c'est vrai que ça fait bizarre) de Kyoto que la honte m'envahie vraiment.

      Delete
    4. z'auriez du voter liberal pour Paul Martin, on aurait pas eu Vitam Eternam d'opression albertaine comme ca.

      Maintenant le NDP... ouf! Ce n'est pas autant inutile que le BQ, mais je peine a croire qu'ils formeront un gouvernement.

      Delete
    5. >Mais puisque le Québec ne l'a pas signée, est-ce que ça veut dire qu'elle ne s'applique pas au Québec?

      Si oui, seriez-vous prêt à vous départir de la relative intégrité territoriale provinciale qu'elle garantit (à son article 43) et ainsi ouvrir grande la porte au partitionnisme?

      Delete
  22. In general, I think your post is pretty interesting, but a bit biased.

    For example, asking anglophones in Quebec if they know Régis Labeaume, Janette Bertrand or Marie-Mai (all from Quebec) isn't the same as asking French-speaking Quebecois if they know Llyod [sic] Robertson, Rick Mercer or Rob Ford (none of them are from Quebec). They wouldn't know who Herménégilde Chiasson is either (he's a Francophone, but not from Quebec).

    But, why bother with anything Lisée writes. Il est tellement déconnecté!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But, why bother with anything Lisée writes. Il est tellement déconnecté!"

      Why bother with him? Because he's all over the airwaves and all over the print. He's one of the most prominent and instantly recognizable personalities on the scene. Not bad for a disconnected guy.

      An interesting question is why disconnected people like this are given so much publicity. It's in someone's interest to promote a his set of ideas I guess.

      Or maybe he's not so disconnected after all. It'd be interesting to measure support for his ideas in the general population.

      Delete
    2. "An interesting question is why disconnected people like this are given so much publicity. It's in someone's interest to promote a his set of ideas I guess"

      À votre place je commencerais à me poser les vraies questions adski ;)

      Delete
  23. Out of topic.

    I read an interesting article in Maclean's.

    The closing paragraph is particularly interesting.

    Because that’s not what this debate is really about. Nicolas Sarkozy’s heart doesn’t bleed for cattle. The PQ doesn’t care about meat-packing procedures. And Marine Le Pen is not Temple Grandin. These French leaders are in the grip of subtle but ugly identity politics—one that mistakes xenophobia for cultural values. The greatest indignation in both France and Quebec has not been directed toward the animals’ treatment after all, but toward the possibility that the meat from ritually slaughtered animals might be inadvertently eaten not by Muslims, but by more truly French, ancestrally French, people. So a final word to any politician who has recently jumped on the slaughterhouse bandwagon: expose your preoccupation with religious dietary laws for what it really is—a lingering appetite for racism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except, you know, for people who do actually care about the animals. But that's ok, you can wave it away with one magic word : Racism.

      Delete
    2. Have you ever seen videos of what they do at chicken coops or to cattle? Why haven't Marine Le Pen or Pauline Marois spoken about this? Oh yes, no votes in that. Let's attack Muslims. That should be popular.

      Delete
    3. Halal methods of killing animals are much slower and painful to the animal than industrial methods where the deed is done quickly to save time.

      I was as grossed out hearing about how halal meat is killed as I was learning how my grandfather's family would bleed the pig alive because apparently the blood sausage was tastier that way. I'm not going to go out and tell people they're not allowed to eat it, but certainly I'd prefer my meat killed a tad more humanely.

      I also prefer my meat free-range if I can get it, but I can't always afford it. Unfortunately, one does not always have the means to live up to his ideals.

      Delete
    4. If this is your personal opinion, I respect it. However, I have a hard time believing that Marine Le Pen or Pauline Marois have any other intentions except those that are electoral in nature. If they really cared about animals, there would be other announcements, not just ones about halal meat.

      I don't think that animals are treated humanely in our factory farming industry, where animals barely move during their whole life, are fattenned up quickly, and killed inhumanely.

      However, in nature, when an animal kills another animal, it is not done humanely either.

      When politicians start speaking of our whole food system and not just halal meat, I will believe that they have good intentions.

      Delete
    5. Concerns about the treatment of animals hardly began with halal food. Well perhaps for Le Pen or Pauline Marois, but not for others. I've been aware of it for quite some time myself.

      The argument that we're already treating our animals shitty, so hanging them by the feet and letting them bleed to death is no big is kind of spurious though. The current FDA-approved bolt-gun to the head (I assume the same is used in Canada) is much faster, all else being equal.

      Delete
    6. "I don't think that animals are treated humanely in our factory farming industry, where animals barely move during their whole life, are fattenned up quickly, and killed inhumanely.

      However, in nature, when an animal kills another animal, it is not done humanely either."

      The "animals kill each other in the wild" rationalization for the industrial slaughter of animals is a lame ass excuse. The lamest one of all in fact. Animals kill each other acting on instinct and often out of necessity. We kill them to indulge our senses. And we do it for no other reason. And we don't do it instinctively, we do it consciously and systematically.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous at 09:18,

      I was as grossed out hearing about how halal meat is killed as I was learning how my grandfather's family would bleed the pig alive because apparently the blood sausage was tastier that way. I'm not going to go out and tell people they're not allowed to eat it, but certainly I'd prefer my meat killed a tad more humanely.

      Do you see the silliness in your argument? The emphasis is mine, for your first clue.

      Delete
    8. @ Anonymous 10:07AM

      I just find it curious that there is alot of Muslim bashing in North America, equivalent to the anglo bashing that goes on in Quebec. So, there's a problem with Muslim's praying or being accomadated by having a prayer room, there's a problem with a woman wearing a burka, and now there's a problem with halal meat. It seems Muslim's can do no right.

      As for treating animals right, I believe that a minority of people are concerned about how animals are slaughtered: maybe some vegans, some vegetarian's, and some people who are better informed on the issue. Most people just go to the grocery store, pick up their nicely pre-packaged meat and not give any more thought to it.

      As for myself, I care more about the way the animals live. They have absolutely no freedom of movement, constantly being given growth hormone, hardly a life whatsoever.
      If they can be humanely killed, all the better, but honestly I won't lose too much sleep over it. What animals are being humanely killed right now? This issue only came up as a cheap way to score political points.

      Note how you say that "I assume the same is used in Canada" in regard to the bolt-gun process to kill cattle. Well, you don't know, do you? Alot of people don't know, don't care, and still eat beef. Maybe you eat beef. And you don't know if the cattle is killed humanely.

      @ adski

      You say that animals kill on instinct. That may be true but the truth is the animal is still killed in the end, right? Instinct or no instinct. You say that we kill them to indulge our senses. I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

      We have people kill animals as a source of food. I don't know if it matters if we do it consciously and systematically, unless maybe you are saying that we do it for mass market consumption, ie the factory farming I was talking about before. We have such a huge worldwide population that I think we have to do it this way, although as I was saying before, they should have freedom of movement.

      So, I agree with free range and I agree with humane killing but I disagree with the way in which this issue came up and I don't think most people care about how animals live. They were just force-fed this anti-halal movement and don't think otherwise about what they eat and how it comes to their plate.

      If I'm missing something here, just let me know.

      Delete
    9. Perhaps I should have said, "as far as I know bolt-guns are used to kill beef in Canada".

      I agree with you on most other points. I am not anti-muslim. I'm not thrilled about halal slaughtering, but it's not a huge deal to me. I've eaten Halal food when I lived in Ontario because face it, it's practically impossible to get a non-halal shwarma. That doesn't make it a muslim-centric issue; I'm just not thrilled about halal slaughtering and that's it.

      (By the way, almost every Albertan I've met is unaware of what a Shwarma is. Philistines.)

      Delete
    10. 1. The animal is killed in the end. Whether instinctively, or systematically makes no difference to you. To me it does. It's just like you can kill someone and go away for life charged with homicide, or go away for a couple of years charged with manslaughter. Our legal system makes these distinctions because motives do matter.

      2. I do see a difference between killing on instinct, out of necessity, in self defense, or for survival, and killing in a systematic, industrial, organized, coordinated, conscious, planned, continuous, daily, assembly-line way. Especially when profits are involved.

      3. You say you don't understand what I mean when I say we kill animals to indulge our senses. I say that I don't know how to explain something this obvious. So I'm moving on.

      4. You say that we have such huge population that animal slaughter has to be organized and systematic. You're not taking into consideration, however, that we do not have to eat meat. I stopped eating meat two years ago, at no detriment to myself.

      5. People do not care how we treat animals, but they should. And they would if they knew better. I have seen a few videos that could turn the worst bad ass into a vegetarian, or at least make him lay off the veal (which used to be my favorite, now I wouldn't touch it). The reason why we don't see these videos is because 1. they are not readily available, 2. those that get through are immediately sanitized by meat industry's public relations and explained as "accidents", 3. when having a video at our disposal, most of us turn away and suppress the very thought.

      6. Muslim killing of animals is disgusting. But our way isn't that "humane" either. You've been told it is, but it isn't. And I know you want to believe it is to feel better about yourself. Who wouldn't?

      7. Even if we devised a humane way of killing live stock, I would still think that we can do without eating meat. All it takes is a little self-discipline.

      Delete
    11. Fair Enough. I don't know how I get to talking about food so much on this blog. First fortune cookies, baklava, and profiteroles with Apparatchik and now Schawarma (delicious!) with you, lol.

      Maybe I'm eating too healthy and missing these things.

      (I'm not sure but those Albertan Philistines may have another name for it. I think on the East Coast, they're called Donairs)

      Delete
    12. http://www.themeatrix.com/

      Delete
    13. @Roger Rabbit : Aaah, but donairs are different! They have a different sauce (no Tahini or garlic sauce), and is more "greek" while the shwarma is more "middle eastern". Personally I prefer the Shwarma, I'm a sucker for Tahini.

      Some of my friends in Ontario bristled when I called it "middle eastern food". They didn't seem to want to associate anything positive with muslims. I didn't get it; their food is mighty tasty.

      @Adski : Perhaps you're right, I'm just deluding myself because I want to enjoy my fajitas without thinking that I'm a war criminal. I'll have to ponder on it. I'll probably keep on enjoying my fajitas, though.

      Delete
    14. @adski

      I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, adski.

      But just to go through some of your points,

      1. I don't equate killing another human being with killing an animal for food.

      2. I think that killing in an assembly-line way is what is needed with our global population. I haven't checked the stats recently but from memory, we are over 6 billion people on this planet. We need to massively produce food. As for profits, it doesn't make something good or bad. If I hear a company makes profit, I don't equate that with a morally bad company.

      3. I still don't know what you mean when you say that we kill animals to indulge our senses. I don't personally go out and kill animals with my bare hands. Other people kill animals, either with a tool or with machinery, as a job, and it gets processed, and I go to the grocery store to pick it up, mostly pre-packaged.

      4. It is true what you say that we don't HAVE TO eat meat. However, I don't see a reason not to. Now, I'm not a big meat eater (unlike when I was younger), I mostly stay away from red meat to be healthier, but I have no moral reason to abstain.

      5. I agree with you that most people don't care about how we kill animals.

      6. I appreciate where you're coming from as someone who doesn't eat meat, when it comes to your position on halal. You have more of a point of this than others do, because people against halal meat, who eat any other type of meat don't care if "our" way of killing animals is humane, whereas you do care about that.

      >7. Even if we devised a humane way of killing live stock, I would still think that we can do without eating meat. All it takes is a little self-discipline
      Well, it's at the moral point that we really diverge on opinion. I don't think it's wrong to eat meat but you think it is. I probably could be vegetarian (my sister is vegan) but I see no need to.

      So, for now I suppose, we agree to disagree.

      Delete
    15. Anon 1:33PM: "I'm just deluding myself because I want to enjoy my fajitas without thinking that I'm a war criminal."

      You're not deluding yourself that you're a war criminal, don't be daft. But you are deluding yourself that the food that ends up on your plate gets there in a humane way. You're rationalizing that fact away, you're turning the other way, you're choosing not to think about it. The minute something brings your attention to it, you immediately think of something else. I know, I've been there. And I did love meat, especially pork chops. That with potatoes and salad and a glass of beer was a bliss. So was my ignorance.

      Delete
    16. Where I come from, when we were young we were taught how to slaughter and dress animals properly. Therefore, almost all adult males know how to do so. In that way, we do not eat meat for granted, like adski wrote. While I enjoy steak so much (The Keg is my favorite), I know how the meat gets to my table and I know which part of the cow it is.

      Delete
  24. Approuvez-vous la charia Troy?Ou ce ne sont que les racistes qui s'y oppose?Moi je trouve tout à fait normal de noyer ses filles parce qu'elles ont de mauvaises fréquentations.Et vous?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ne faudrait-il pas y aller de façon plus recherchée?

      La charia, comme tout système de droit, est sujette à interprétation par des jurisconsultes. La preuve, c'est qu'il y a plusieurs écoles de jurisprudence à l'intérieur même de la charia, chacune avec des attitudes et approches différentes.

      Approfondissez vos recherches un peu puis dites-moi que la modération, que ce soit du côté législatif, linguistique, culturel, ou religieux, n'a pas bien meilleur goût.

      Delete
    2. I believe in equal protection under the law, and I believe in the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

      Delete
    3. "Approfondissez vos recherches un peu puis dites-moi que la modération, que ce soit du côté législatif, linguistique, culturel, ou religieux, n'a pas bien meilleur goût."

      Ce n'est pas moi qui a besoin de leçons sur la modération.Je ne suis pas enclin à la barbarie de façon naturelle et même pas eu besoin de mon curé pour me l'enseigner.Pendant que nous étudions la charia d'autres la pratique à leur façon et c'est malheureusement les femmes qui écopent.

      Delete
    4. We should also study Christianity. Guy Turcotte killed his 5 yr old son and 3 yr old daughter. Now his ex-wife, Isabelle Gaston has to deal with it. Malhereusement, c'est les femmes qui ecopent. You know. He was upset about the breakup, so he killed his children. You know, like Christianity says, "an eye for an eye." But he was crazy at the time and he forgot what happenned, so let him go free, right? We should examine Christianity and their barbaric practices.

      Delete
    5. "We should also study Christianity."

      La religion et la justice ne sont pas liées au Québec.En tout cas pas autant que dans certains pays.

      Delete
    6. We should also study Christianity.

      Pas encore vu de catholiques entrer dans un métro (Londres) bondé avec des charges explosives à la ceinture ni aucun catho entrer dans les tours WTC avec des avions de ligne.Et vous?

      Delete
    7. I get it. I get it. You hate Muslims. And Anglos. And Ethnics. Also Federalist Quebeckers.

      Was the Unabomber Christian? How about William Pickton? The members of the terrorist FLQ who bombed Montreal and killed a member of the government?

      You don't seem to get my point. So, let me spell it out for you: I can take any nationality or any religion and point out bad things that people did. So, I don't think any religion is bad. If a crazy person twists a religion to make it seem like his religion condones killing, it's because he is a crazy person or is thoroughly indoctrinated by a crazy person, that he does something wrong.

      So, there is nothing inherently wrong with Muslims or Catholics, Jewish people, Hindus, Buddhists, or any religion per se.

      Just with the people who hate them.

      Delete
    8. "The members of the terrorist FLQ who bombed Montreal and killed a member of the government?"

      Tout ça en criant Dieu est grand!

      Ça va pas la tête mon p'tit lapin? MDR!!!

      Delete
    9. Moi j'ai apperçu un Bouddhiste l'autre jour tirer sur un caricaturiste avec un AK47 parce qu'il avait osé dessiner Buddha.

      Delete
    10. Well, they believed in an eye for an eye, so they must be christian. And crazy too.

      Delete
    11. "I get it. I get it. You hate Muslims. And Anglos. And Ethnics. Also Federalist Quebeckers."

      Oui j'hais tout le monde mais les pires,ce sont vraiment Québécois fédéralistes,vous n'avez aucune idée.

      Delete
    12. >Je ne suis pas enclin à la barbarie de façon naturelle et même pas eu besoin de mon curé pour me l'enseigner.Pendant que nous étudions la charia d'autres la pratique à leur façon et c'est malheureusement les femmes qui écopent.

      Vous suggérez un peu trop facilement une équivalence entre Islam et barbarie, mon cher. C'est vrai que toute idéologie a ses extrémistes, mais il y a beaucoup plus à savoir sur la charia que le sensationnalisme que nous servent de temps à autre nos médias (qui carburent aux cotes d'écoute...)

      > You know, like Christianity says, "an eye for an eye."
      Actually, that's Hammurabi's code. As I recall, Christ said something about turning the other cheek. Which conveniently brings us to your following comment:

      >We should examine Christianity and their barbaric practices.
      Something about Gandhi saying he liked our Christ but not our Christians...

      >La religion et la justice ne sont pas liées au Québec.En tout cas pas autant que dans certains pays.
      Et pourtant nous avons des gens qui pratiquent un nationalisme intégriste, qui préconisent un rôle de plus en plus grand de ce nationalisme dans le comportement et le fonctionnement de l'État, et qui traitent de traitres tous ceux qui refusent de soutenir leur idéologie. Ça ressemble assez drôlement à de l'excommunication ou même l'exécution des apostats...


      >Pas encore vu de catholiques entrer dans un métro (Londres) bondé avec des charges explosives à la ceinture ni aucun catho entrer dans les tours WTC avec des avions de ligne.Et vous?
      Tellement vrai. Les cathos, eux, faisaient des croisades et quand ça n'a pas marché aussi bien qu'ils auraient voulu, ils ont volé des continents entiers (massacres, asservissement, génocides) aux indigènes. Pas la même chose pa'n toute...

      >"The members of the terrorist FLQ who bombed Montreal and killed a member of the government?"
      Tout ça en criant Dieu est grand!

      Tout ça en criant "le Québec aux Québécois"... comme si leurs adversaires anglo-Québécois n'étaient pas eux aussi.. Québécois.

      >Moi j'ai aperçu un Bouddhiste l'autre jour tirer sur un caricaturiste avec un AK47 parce qu'il avait osé dessiner Buddha.
      Et moi j'ai entendu une francophone harceler publiquement un propriétaire de dépanneur Nigérien parce qu'il avait osé ne pas maîtriser assez bien le français.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  25. "I believe in equal protection under the law, and I believe in the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."

    Vous avez pris cette phrase dans le "Reader digest" en allant aux chiottes ce matin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  26. Anonymous at 07:50,

    Do you not have anything intelligent for reply or are you not intelligent enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commencez par donner l'exemple et nous verrons par la suite :)

      Delete
  27. @ANON 9:30

    Actually the Irish Republican army which at times was very pro Catholic did put bombs in the LONDON Subway.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Actually the Irish Republican army..."

    La cause de l'IRA ne reposait pas sur une question religieuse mais bien sur une question politique dont le but était de mettre fin à l'autorité britannique en Irlande.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Don't be stupid. Religion has had a great deal to do with the problems in Northern Ireland.

    ReplyDelete