Monday, April 30, 2012

Sovereigntists Failed Strategy

Whenever I scan the pages of vigile.net, Parti Quebecois or other sovereigntist websites, all chock full of posts prescribing the various strategies that will ostensibly lead to sovereignty, I breathe a little sigh of relief at the utter misguided nonsense of it all.

Sovereigntists just don't get.
Like a general preparing for the next war by reliving the last war, sovereigntist leaders believe that if they just tug hard enough on the emotional heart strings of Quebec francophones, as in the 1995 referendum, they will ultimately win enough votes to put them over the top next time.
And just as Dr. Phil asks the losers on his talk show sarcastically, "How's that working for you?," the answer for sovereigntists, is not so well.

For the last seventeen years, leaders of the independence movement have been begging, pleading, threatening and frightening Quebec francophones, in the vain belief that they can recapture the spark of that almost victorious referendum.

The latest variation in this campaign of emotional manipulation is meant to frighten and guilt enough of those very stubborn francophones who are likely to vote NON in a referendum, into changing their minds with exaggerated and alarmist horror stories of language and cultural decline.

The gambit is of course doomed to failure, those who are frightened of English or who harbor disdain for Canada are already on board.
Those who need convincing, aren't afraid of Anglophones or bilingualism and are pretty much immune to these scare tactics.

And so, despite Herculean efforts, the sovereignty movement continues to stagnate and nobody but nobody in the movement can offer a viable plan to get the numbers up.
Frustratingly for sovereigntists, support numbers remain high, but not high enough and if there is anything that the1995 referendum taught us, is that a miss is as good as a mile. 

As long as the sovereigntist movement continues to use language and culture as their keystone issue, they are doomed to failure.
Like giving mouth to mouth resuscitation to a corpse, no matter how hard they blow, they aren't going to get any results, yet the movement continues to press on with the same tired theme which reminds me of Albert Einstein's definition of insanity as "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Until sovereigntists address the elephant in the room, the one issue that keeps many, many Quebecers from voting 'OUI,' they will continue to remain in no-man's land.

That issue, the one which hangs over the independence movement like a dark shadow, is of course, the economic and financial dependence of Quebec on Canada.
To put it quite simply, many voters will never vote YES because they believe (quite rightly) that a better financial deal lies in remaining within a united Canada.

These are the voters who are the pragmatists and the realists.
They are people who under the right circumstances might vote for independence, but realize that right now, they cannot afford it economically.
They are no different from the woman looking at $1,500 shoes in the window of an expensive store or the man dreaming of himself behind the wheel of a Ferrari, only to have their good sense bring them back down to Earth as they realize that they just don't have the wherewithal to pay for it.

It is not dissimilar to the teenager who wants to move out of her parents house, but is unable to do so because she doesn't have the money, nor the prospects to support herself independently.

In the end, sovereignty will turn on the economic realities of independence, not the emotion of language.

If by chance, during the years since the last referendum, Quebec enjoyed an economic boom similar to that of Alberta, is there is any doubt that a referendum held today would be successful? 

Can any reasonable observer contemplate a situation where a wealthy Quebec would remain a willing partner in a Canada where each year, the province would be required to over-contribute billions and billions of dollars of its hard earned cash to the federal coffers, in order to help out the 'poorer' Anglo provinces?
Let's be realistic, "c'est la vrai nature de Bernadette" or as we say in English "the nature of the beast' that precludes this scenario.

"It's the economy, stupid" was a slogan first used during the successful presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, running against George Bush in 1992.  I cannot think of a more appropriate phrase to describe the key element in the sovereignty campaign's prospects of success or failure.

So why don't the leaders of the sovereignty movement understand that economic prosperity, not language is the key to independence?

Firstly, the leadership is made up of politicians, unionists, teachers, journalists and artists, people who never have and never will make the connection with wealth creation and success.

Secondly, it is a tough road to hoe and harder to sell.
Making wealth creation a priority means an about face in the entrenched political philosophy of the sacrosanct nanny state.
It means that people will have to work harder and accept less and more importantly it means accepting, that similar to Alberta, natural resources need to be exploited despite the environmental and social objections.

Every time I see Pauline Marois and her cohorts cry out for free university tuition or other entitlements, I realize that the sovereignty option is fading fast as a viable option.
Each time the separatists march against the Plan Nord or the exploitation of shale gas, it represents another nail in the sovereignty coffin.

The poorer Quebec gets, the more firmly attached it becomes to Canada and as long as sovereigntists concentrate on Bill 101 instead of Economics 101, they are writing their swan song.

186 comments:

  1. This isn't the first time money has been the detractor of the sovereignty movement. As Reed Scowen said in his Time to Say Goodbye, the French side of the Non movement didn't "sell" the benefits of being Canadian other than the economic costs of separation. Canada, therefore, is not a wonderful, special country to them, but only good as a source of equalization payments over and above what they contribute to the federal coffers.

    BTW, had the Wild Rose Party won in Alberta, they probably would have taken the attitude they could do better on their own as opposed to supporting every other province carrying debt.

    I was listening to a syndicated radio program from LA on the way home from somewhere a few nights ago. It's a show about money and its value, and America is heading down the tubes.

    Interestingly, the show had a guest, an economist who talked about the fact money is money only because the government says so, but does it have value when the money supply grows with issuing debt? Wealth is created by productivity, not printing money. The day may come that money won't be the means of trade, it may be gold, silver or other commodities.

    Perhaps there is great wealth in the ground in Quebec that is untapped. This can be their ticket to prosperity through productivity, and THAT is real wealth! If the Péquistes continue the way they do, the will be going exactly in the wrong direction, and that doesn't bother me a bit!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true Mr. Sauga and it leads us to the big lie about an independent Quebec. As this fantasy construct was to use the Canadian Dollar, it would never have been independent.

      Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws - Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild international Banking Dynasty, 1790

      Delete
    2. DD: They can use the Canadian dollar if they so wish, but what is the point of becoming a sovereign country only to have your monetary policy decided by a foreign country, esp. the one you just separated from?

      Interestingly, when The Czech Republic and Slovakia very amicably separated into separate states back in the early to mid 1990s, they agreed on a common currency. Unfortunately, it was too complicated and finally Slovakia had to create its own currency after just 39 days!

      Delete
    3. "The Czech Republic and Slovakia very amicably separated into separate states"

      Funny thing. The so-called "Velvet Divorce" was done without a referendum in spite of the wishes majority of both halves of Czechoslovakia to keep the country together. The elected politicians just agreed on a deal after the election of a nationalist Slovak party.

      Imagine if René Lesvesque had done the same!

      Delete
    4. If Rene Levesque had done the same, Quebec would currently be a failed, Third World country.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps. But it's annoying to see people use the example of the "Velvet Divorce" and apply it to Quebec. They usually don't understand the circumstances.

      Personally I think Trudeau would have refused to negotiate a separation of Quebec, referendum or no referendum. He would have fought it every step of the way. But that's just me.

      I guess to have an amicable separation, you need to have two amicable sides. Nothing I've ever seen has ever shown me that the ROC will ever approach the idea of Quebec separation amicably. It's all glee over how much Quebec will fail, jubilation over the end of the equalization payments, outrage at the "traitors", horror at "destroying the country", etc... There isn't ever someone who says, "Well if that's what they want we'll agree to a fair deal, shake hands, and depart as friends".

      Delete
    6. There would have been a problem with Trudeau negotiating separation with Quebec because he was from QC himself.

      There has been a great deal of hostility directed towards the rest of Canada by QC separatists for many years, so this may explain the growing animosity from the ROC. The oppressive language laws in Quebec don't help either.

      Delete
    7. Comparisons to Czechoslovakia often fail to mention that the Czech Republic (Bohemia) and Slovakia only had 75 years of convergent history and 1000 years of history with little to nothing in common. Preceding the multinational union of Austria-Hungary, the Czechs were closer to Austria and the Slovaks were closer to Hungary, so that it took only 3 years after the Velvet Revolution for the dissolution of Czechoslovakia (which was opposed by Václav Havel and who chose to resign rather preside over the dissolution). Transfer payments from the richer Czech Republic to Slovakia ended and today tourists flock to Prague but Bratislava, not so much.

      Delete
    8. Entirely correct, The Cat, as always.

      Delete
  2. Editor,

    Firstly, the leadership is made up of politicians, unionists, teachers, journalists and artists, people who never have and never will make the connection with wealth creation and success.

    True dat! o/\o

    Professionals, business people, industrialists and financiers are severely underrepresented among the leaders of separatist movements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right-wing nationalists and Left-wing socialists-communists.
      Interesting bedfellows. In any jurisdiction.

      Delete
  3. Each time the separatists march against the Plan Nord or the exploitation of shale gas, it represents another nail in the sovereignty coffin.

    If one can't protect its property from large scale destruction and contamination, then what will it protect? Quebec could be a leader (in north america anyway) on this front and would probably help and not hinder the sovereignty movement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 248 Billion in debt....Highest gdp/debt ratio in Canada (and one of the the worst in the world) And still the students demonstrate about tuition increases which are the lowest in Canada not to mention other gold plated social programs enjoyed by Quebecers at the expense of others.

    In reality separation is the only card left to play but unfortunately for Quebec that card has been played too many times and the ROC no longer takes the threat seriously. They are also, becoming recognizant of the fact that Canada without Quebec would not be a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction, that's $248 billion of boomer debt. Are they willing to cut back on boomer social entitlements? Doubtful.

      Delete
    2. Anon above, your point is moot...debt is debt. Yes, the current generation can be called Generation Screwed, but they're screwed and separation will turn the screws that much tighter. Don't worry, a strong intergenerational war in politics is coming! Right now, there are too many Boomers to do anything about it.

      Delete
  5. I wondered about the PQ supporting the student movement. Surely if Quebec seceded, university fees would have to go way up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people that lead the PQ have no brains. They are simply tagging onto the Student protests in order to show their support for anything but Charest. They couldn't care less what the students are complaining about. Nor what this will do to Quebec.

      As for the students. The great next generation of Quebec leaders is nothing more than spoiled brats who have no idea what they are asking for and what this will do to Quebec. Economics, and Wealth creation doesn't seem to be part of their courses.

      As a side note...according to a Wikipedia entry, the word Taliban seems to mean Students in one of the local languages in Afghanistan.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

      Something to think about when one looks at the behaviour of some of these students groups that are causing so much trouble over a $325 tuition fee hike per year.

      Delete
  6. I will never understand why Alberta puts up with us.

    Just imagine what it would be like if the tables were turned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's true. If Alberta was drowning, Quebec would throw them a rock.

      Delete
    2. More like concrete shoes to ensure the rescue would be failed. It is clearly obvious that Quebec really has no interest for anything or anyone outside the borders of Quebec. The door only swings one way. You can bet that if Quebec were to become financially successful that they would opt out of Canada hastily, to avoid paying any equalization to other provinces. As a matter of fact, hydro is for the most part exempted from the Provincial revenue of Quebec. Should it be reported as real income, the amount of equalization would be reduced significantly. (oh the horror) The sense of entitlement and selfishness has no limits for a great many of the Quebecois (note I did not say all).

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

      Delete
    4. To: Smallwood Joey
      The content of your post was fine, but it is against the rules of this blog to post using someone's else real name, even if he is dead.

      Please resubmit the post using a suitable screen name.
      Thank yo for your cooperation.

      Delete
    5. (Repost) Recall the stink the PQ caused when the Feds offered a loan guarantee to Newfoundland to help finance the cost of a high voltage deep water power line from Labrador to the Maritimes? After how Quebec has shafted Newfoundland over the Curchill Falls deal for decades, it made me ashamed to be called a Quebecer. Quebec is a bad neighbour and a selfish one at that too!

      Delete
    6. "...high voltage deep water power line from Labrador to the Maritimes..."

      Projet qui ne se réalisera jamais : Trop coûteux pour trop peu d'énergie,sans compter les effets négatifs sur l'environnement.Imaginez la quantité de poissons et de newfies électrocutés.

      Delete
    7. The Newfoundlanders have learned that it is better to avoid dealing with the Quebecois. The deep water power line from Labrador to the Maritimes will succeed.

      Delete
    8. Les newfies sont pourtant situés à l'endroit idéale géographiquement pour l'énergie éolienne.
      Qu'est-ce qu'ils ne comprennent pas?

      Delete
    9. Just to play devil’s advocate here... Are Albertans really paying for Quebec’s social programs?

      On this other link to the same article, there is this comment (sic): “One thing Canadians forget is back in the 40's, 50's and sixties the Quebec and Ontario were the two provinces that funded Alberta's existence, before they had all the oil money they have today! Funny nobody talks about that......why?”

      Delete
    10. Not to mention current subsidies to the oil industry of Alberta. Of course those don't show as equalization payments, so they tend to be ignored...

      Delete
    11. How about agricultuary subsidies where Quebec is guaranteed 50% of Canadian agricultural subsidies. Anything else?

      Delete
    12. Quebec dairy farmers are guaranteed access to 50% of the Canadian market.

      Construction workers from Quebec can also work anywhere in the country, but construction workers from other provinces have restricted access to jobs in Quebec.

      Delete
    13. Please provide more information. Is this a deal to Quebec alone, or is it a Canada-wide program, or what? Sources would be appreciated.

      Delete
  7. Editor said: "If by chance, during the years since the last referendum, Quebec enjoyed an economic boom similar to that of Alberta, is there is any doubt that a referendum held today would be successful?"

    So, what your saying is that the seppies are the ones with integrity, and that a good chunk of the rest of the population is composed of pragmatic whores.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Integrity is a word that is, shall we say "difficult", to ascribe to the nationalist movement in Quebec but it is possible under certain conditions:

      If integrity means blinding yourself to particular aspects of reality and misleading others with the same illusions so that you can continue to argue for a certain political end, then yes, the nationalists have more integrity than the rest of us.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, "integrity" was a poor choice of words. How about "adherence to their convictions, however misguided"?

      Delete
    3. There is a kind of integrity to it, in the sense that they are committed to their ideals rather than pragmatic. Kind of like the protestant martyrs who chose to burn at the stake than denounce their heresy. One wonders whether to call it courage, or insanity.

      Delete
    4. The word is: dogmatic.

      Or if you want to use two words: blindly faithful.

      Delete
  8. I will never understand why...Le Québec est toujours dans le canada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't like it? Move to France (Congo or Haiti work too) and destroy your CANADIAN passport. If you don't want to build a better Country we can easily replace you with someone who does.

      Delete
    2. I will never understand why... English-Canadians don't accept to become Americans.

      Delete
    3. C'est déjà le cas,non?

      Delete
    4. "English-Canadians don't accept to become Americans."

      Je crois que se sont les américains qui ne veulent pas.Je me demande bien pourquoi...

      Delete
    5. "I will never understand why...Le Québec est toujours dans le canada."

      "I will never understand why... English-Canadians don't accept to become Americans."

      Trust me, if these are honestly your questions, there is A LOT that you don't understand. I'd suggest reading all of the posts on this blog along with the comments and then preparing a report base don this research answering these two fundamental questions. Once you've got that done, email the editor and ask him to post your report so that everyone can become more enlightened.

      Or maybe you just shouldn't waste everyone's time with ridiculous rhetorical questions.

      Your choice. :)

      Delete
    6. Oui et non, Anonymus 1:24 PM. Les blancs anglo-saxons protestants attachés à la couronne britannique sont réticents à s'accepter comme Américains. Par contre ceux d'immigration plus ou moins récente l'acceptent beaucoup plus facilement.

      En effet, ces derniers n'ont pas peur de s'ouvrir aux autres. Contrairement aux anglos blancs protestants qui préfèrent rester replier sur eux-mêmes.

      Le débat sur le libre-échange avec les États-Unis l'a d'ailleurs bien démontré dans les années 1980. Car c'est grâce à Brian Mulroney et au peuple québécois que l'intégration économique est plus grande entre les deux pays. Un libre-échange qui a d'ailleurs grandement enrichi tous les Canadiens.

      La nation canadienne-anglaise devrait nous remercier de l'avoir forcé à surmonter sa peur des autres pour plutôt s'ouvrir à une belle et grande nation qu'est la nation américaine.

      Delete
    7. @ John-Guy

      "I will never understand why... English-Canadians don't accept to become Americans."

      Ironically, there is a web site run by a Quebecker advocating the peaceful annexation of Canada by the United States.

      http://www.annexation.ca/

      Delete
    8. "Car c'est grâce à Brian Mulroney et au peuple québécois que l'intégration économique est plus grande entre les deux pays."

      Intéressant.Merci pour l'info,je n'étais pas au courant de ce fait.

      Delete
    9. I will never understand why... Anglo-Saxons are not able to make the difference between a name to give to a person and a name to give to a dog. Take for exemple the name Rex.

      Is it seeing the face of their child that his parents decided to give him a dog name (Rex Murphy) or is it seeing his face that dog owners decided to name them Rex?

      Delete
    10. Are you fucking high?

      Rex isn't even an "Anglo-Saxon" (I really hope English isn't your native language) name.

      Delete
    11. Bizarre et drôle à la fois car mon chien se nomme Murphy :D

      Delete
    12. Thanks again for another false story, Anonymous May 1, 2012 06:58 AM

      Delete
    13. I don't understand why Quebec is any longer a part of Canada either. I think Quebec should be partitioned with Montreal and the Veaudreuil-Soulange peninsula staying with Canada and the rest goes to Quebec.

      Quebec is a loser. Quebec hates anything not French like the hockey coach, and constantly has a hand out for a handout. What do we need lazy asses, these unproductive and corrupt idiots for? Let Quebec go all French and see what happens when most of North America won't deal with the poor, stupid French-speaking loser society. Go! Aloha! Sionara and Salut Bien!

      Delete
  9. Editor, this is not a racist post, ok?

    "I will never understand why...Le Québec est toujours dans le canada"

    People like you, Curzi,Marois, Beaulieu and & should be stripped of the Canadian Citizenship and Passport and deported to an unknown destination. Especially those immigrants (Kadir, Mourani...) who were received by Canada and joined the PQ to break up OUR country instead of being honored to be a part of it: they should be sent back to Iran (Kadir) and Lebanon (Mourani).

    WA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget Maka Kotto! Another treasonous immigrant to Canada.

      Delete
    2. "Editor, this is not a racist post, ok?"

      Juste le fait que tu te sentes obligé de le préciser devrait te faire réaliser que c'est, en fait, raciste. Déporter des gens pour leurs convictions politiques! Sérieusement! On est dans un pays libre, ou dans une dictature?

      Delete
    3. "On est dans un pays libre, ou dans une dictature?"

      Le canada est devenu une prison et le Québec n'aura pas droit à la visite royale.Je suis triste :(

      Delete
    4. Dear Yannick...Unlike you, I have respect for people, that's why I wanted to make it clear that my post is not racist...even tough for francophones it's ok to berate immigrants and anglophones.
      Get a reality check. And, most important of all, stop twisting people's words.

      WA

      Delete
    5. "On est dans un pays libre, ou dans une dictature?"

      If any state has the characteristics of a dictatorship, it is Quebec, with its discriminatory and repressive language laws.

      "Le canada est devenu une prison et le Québec n'aura pas droit à la visite royale.Je suis triste."

      Quebec had two chances (referendums) to opt out of this so-called prison, and the majority of the population voted against it.

      Delete
    6. Les gens sont un peu comme la météo,ils changent constamment d'opinion,sinon pourquoi faire des élections aux 4 ou 5 ans?Bonne question n'est-ce pas? :)

      Delete
    7. Je ne "twiste" rien, WA. Ce vont vos mots : ceux qui ont certaines convictions politiques "devraient être déportés sans passports".

      Mais pas un traitement égal : PARTICULIÈREMENT les immigrants. De quel droit les immigrants n'ont-ils pas les mêmes convictions politiques que "nous"? On les déporte, toute la gang de crottés séparatiste! Mais ce n'est pas raciste : la preuve, vous avez dit que ce n'est pas raciste. QED.

      Dans les années 50, auriez-vous dit la même chose à propos d'immigrants communistes?

      Delete
    8. I am an immigrant myself (Western Europe) and I did not come to Canada to break it up. I came here to make it bigger and to grow within it. That's the huge difference between me and those shameless traitors like Kadir and Mourani. No mercy for those traitors, at all!

      WA

      Delete
    9. On est dans un pays libre, ou dans une dictature?

      ROFL, that's an easy one. Police-sanctioned Franco-terrorism, no freedom of expression for those who don't speak French, and absolutely no choice regarding the language of my children's education.
      Free country, my ass!

      I'm a francophone, and I'm ashamed of Quebec. Being proud of your language is one thing, but it should never be done by hindering equality and freedom of expression.

      Delete
    10. @Nicolas Gratton-Pelletier

      Pffff...

      Delete
    11. Nicolas, peut-être ignores-tu que dans le ROC, les anglophones n'ont pas le droit d'envoyer leurs enfants à l'école française. Le fait que tout le monde croit avoir le choix de la langue d'instruction devrait te dire combien de gens s'essaient. À ma connaissance, la seule fois où des gens ont essayé est quand le gouvernement du N-B a tenté d'abolir le programme d'immersion en première année.

      En fait, dans presque tout le monde l'éducation publique n'est offerte que dans la langue Nationale. Au Canada on en a deux - donc les francophones ont droit aux écoles françaises hors-Québec et les anglophones aux écoles anglaises au Québec. Ça n'est pas différent de partout ailleurs.

      En fait la seule différence entre la loi 101 et la Charte des Droits et Libertés en ce qui concerne l'éducation, c'est qu'au ROC les gens qui ont le français comme langue maternelle ont droit à l'école française même s'ils sont immigrants alors que le contraire n'est pas vrai au Québec. Je suis d'accord que ce n'est pas bien juste. Mais quand même, dis-moi, combien d'immigrants dont la langue maternelle est l'anglais s'installent au Québec?

      Delete
    12. By Yannick's reasoning, we are in a dictatorship.

      Delete
    13. Mon raisonnement est simplement qu'on ne devrait pas menacer de déporter ceux qui ont des convictions politiques différentes des nôtres. Même si ces convictions sont absurdes. C'est de l'intolérance plus proche du Macathisrme que d'autre chose.

      Tu peux pas me dire que c'est comparable à ne pas pouvoir s'afficher unilinguement en anglais! Je suis bien d'accord que ce ne soit pas juste, mais de là à une dictature, il y a quand même un pas.

      Delete
    14. Toute une pente glissante.

      Mais dans le fond pas tellement différent de propos provenant du camp séparatiste qui eux aimeraient créer une "citoyenneté québécoise" afin de priver des non-francophones de bon nombre de droits dont ils jouissent en ce moment.

      Delete
    15. "...déporter ceux qui ont des convictions politiques différentes des nôtres."

      Vieux réflexe anglo.

      Delete
    16. Yannick writes:

      Mon raisonnement est simplement qu'on ne devrait pas menacer de déporter ceux qui ont des convictions politiques différentes des nôtres. Même si ces convictions sont absurdes. C'est de l'intolérance plus proche du Macathisrme que d'autre chose.

      I agree completely.

      However, a more apt comparison is to those who continually tell anglophones if they do not like Bill 101 that it's "101 or 401"

      Delete
    17. Yes, it is Tony. I am no friend of those who say that. But at least they suggest to people to leave on their own if they are unhappy with the status quo, I have yet to see a seperatist suggest trucks where they'll round up all the allos and drive them to mississagua.

      Delete
  10. Yes...and my friend is also suggesting Vivian Barbot, another traitor. Unbearable, by the way.

    WA

    ReplyDelete
  11. Voyez les choses en face,nous ne ferons jamais un pays avec deux nations.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Soyons deux pays amis au lieu de deux nations ennemis.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Le pays du Québec réserverais une place de choix pour ses amis anglophones.Fini les luttes linguistiques,vous pourriez vous épanouir dans votre culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fantastic. Can I get a government job in la pays du Quebec when the time comes? Please please please! Can I?

      Delete
    2. Or the contrary: Canada will choose if to give you a place...Be careful: Mr. Harper und an ocean of anglophones don't really like your 'pays invisible'.

      WA

      Delete
    3. "Can I get a government job in la pays du Quebec when the time comes?"

      Parfaitement,nous pourrions parler anglais,français,chinois,arabe,vietnamien...Etc.Je vous le dit,plus aucune barrière.

      Delete
    4. "Mr. Harper"

      Malheureusement,il va bientôt goûter au psunami orange...Harpon est en baisse constante de popularité. (voir derniers sondages).

      Delete
    5. CROP POLL April 18th-23rd

      51% NDP
      18% Bloq-Quebecois (hahaha! they can't even get all separatists in Quebec to vote for them)
      15% Liberal
      13% Conservatives

      Delete
    6. Sorry, but no interest in yuour culture which believes in collective rights rather than the rights of the individual.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous writes:

      Le pays du Québec réserverais une place de choix pour ses amis anglophones

      This reminds me of PQ policy over the years that always states that Anglophones in an independent Quebec will enjoy all the rights they currently enjoy as Canadians.

      What the PQ doesn't realize is that to follow through on this policy once Quebec becomes independent means that an independent Quebec will become officially bilingual. Why? Because once all of the section 91 powers of the BNA Act are patriated to Quebec City, all of these powers will retain their current officially bilingual status. That means that the National Assembly will conduct all its business in both official languages -- as does the federal government today -- as well as all those departments that will be offering those services to Quebec society.

      Delete
    8. Une autre petite puff de calumet?

      Delete
  14. Don't like it? Move to France (Congo or Haiti work too) and destroy your CANADIAN passport. If you don't want to build a better Country we can easily replace you with someone who does.

    Everyday across the internet Anglos are invited to get the heck out of Quebec if they don't want to submit to Bill 101.
    Is that racist and have you complained about those posts?
    An immigrant who comes to this country and then tries to destroy it, can be fairly criticized as an ingrate.
    What is good for the goose.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Éditeur, je crois qu'il existe une grande différence entre les deux.

      Quand certains viennent pour dire combien le Québec est un endroit misérable, discriminatoire, raciste, etc... etc... on peut venir à se demander ce que les gens font là si c'est si désagréable d'y vivre.

      Mais dire à des gens, certains d'entre eux descendants des colons originaux, de partir à cause de leurs convictions politiques? C'est un peu différent, je crois.

      Quand je vois des gens qui sont contents de l'exode des anglophones dans les années 80, je trouves ça intolérant, oui. J'en ai fait part à quelques reprises. La plupart du temps je les ignores. Ce sont pour la plupart des trolls qui ne sont pas pris au sérieux, de toute façon.

      Delete
    2. "Colons originaux"? You're talking about the Iroquois and Mohawk nations right? Not the lumberjacks and prostitutes the King of France sent over.

      Delete
    3. "You're talking about the Iroquois and Mohawk nations right?"

      Je crois qu'il fait allusion à la première civilisation.

      Delete
    4. "You're talking about the Iroquois and Mohawk nations right? Not the lumberjacks and prostitutes the King of France sent over."

      MDR. FAIL.

      Les Mohawks et les Iroquois ont été importés au Canada par des missionaires français pendant le 17ème siècle. Les habitants originaux de ce qu'on appèle maintenant la Province de Québec étaient les Hurons,les Montagnards, les Cris, et les Algonquins.

      Mais remarquez que j'ai utilisé la formulation colons originaux au lieu de premiers habitants. Un colon est un individu prenant part à une tentative de colonization entreprise par un pays, souvent au détriment des indigènes. Veuillez apprendre vos termes, merci.

      Delete
    5. So French colonialist = good, English colonialist = bad.

      Delete
    6. "So French colonialist = good, English colonialist = bad."

      Tu penses ça? Pourquoi donc?

      Delete
    7. Logique implacable séparatiste. On nous sert ça au quotidien.

      Delete
    8. France and England were both trying to establish colonies. Both French and English colonists had African and Aboriginal slaves and traded them as property until the early 19th century. It’s only because France ceded Canada to the British 252 years ago that some francophones continue to bleat about being colonized to this day (you don’t hear that from Newfies, who actually were colonized until 1949).

      Nevertheless, it astounds me to meet people at parties or what-have-you who have given up on improving (and in fact, have abandoned) their (often) crappy countries, including those from the Maghreb as well as the aforementioned places, for a better life here in the one that we have created and then immediately set about trying to destroy all that we have created prior to their arrival. Of course, immigrants are entitled to political views the same as everyone else but I think it might avoid some bitterness if they at least tried to settle in first (and perhaps even take a history course or two) before spouting off about things of which they usually have only a superficial knowledge, often based on the choice of company they happen to make after arrival.

      Delete
    9. The French were the most arrogant of all colonists. They went around the world under the banner of La Mission Civilisatrice, convinced that their culture was superior to all others and needed to be transplanted into every part of the world.

      The mentality is still present amongst the elites of France and Quebec.

      Delete
    10. "Logique implacable séparatiste. On nous sert ça au quotidien."

      N'essayez pas de changer le cuisinier,changez plutôt de resto.

      Delete
    11. The Cat : I agree with your first point, and I can respect your second one. It's the "deport the crottés" of the original poster that I can't respect.

      Adski: What a load of crock. Your opinions and prejudices are not facts.

      Delete
    12. La Mission Civilisatrice is not a fact?

      Delete
    13. The idea that France had a monopoly on White Man's Burden is not a fact. In fact every western power, from France to England to Spain and Germany, to Russia and Portugal, every single one of those ascribed to it.

      I'll name just one example : The residential schools. Home-brewed arrogant colonialism, the last one of them who closed only in 1992. Why shop abroad when you can buy Canadian?

      Delete
    14. "The idea that France had a monopoly on White Man's Burden is not a fact. "

      Where did I say that White Man's Burden is not a fact or that France had a monopoly on cultural arrogance?

      Note that I used a qualifier "worst" which does not mean "the only".

      Delete
    15. And I don't know where you find that France was "the worst", other than pulling it out of thin air.

      Delete
    16. My understanding of the difference between British and French colonialism is that generally the British sought to raise the standard of their colonies so that eventually one day they could become independent whereas the French attitude towards colonialism was to raise the standard of their colonies so that eventually one day they could become French themselves (i.e. the apex of civilization).

      Delete
    17. On peut savoir votre raisonnement? Je veux dire, on ne peut pas dire que les britanniques ont oeuvré corps et âme pour rendre l'Inde indépendante...

      Delete
    18. The British certainly did not plan for an independence of their colonies. The point of having the colonies was to exploit the resources, both natural and human, with no foreseeable end. Independence of colonies like India arose not as a plan of the colonizer, but as a result of Indian struggle for independence. Also, the fact that places like Australia or Canada are thriving economically does not speak to the benevolence of British colonialist. In these places, the colonialist simply took over. However, poverty-ridden countries like India or Nigeria attest to the fact that where the Brits went and didn't settle, they left misery and destruction.

      The French went after the same things as the Brits, but whereas the conversion of the heathen was a latent excuse for plunder for the Brits and the Spaniards, for the French the Civilizing Mission was a goal as prominent as plunder. Also, the French insisted that eventually the "lesser races" should become French, but the game was rigged. Of course the heathens could never achieve Frenchness, they were only supposed to aspire to be French. That of course served one purpose - to have other people defer to the French, emulate them, try to be like them, and make them feel good about themselves. The same trick is played today on the immigrants to Quebec and France. Officially, everybody is encouraged to integrate (assimilate), but always reminded who the maitres are. So unofficially, we're not supposed to integrate, we're supposed to pursue integration with no end in sight, so that the Quebecois can feel good about themselves.

      Today, places like Canada or Australia are a little more immigrant friendly than Quebec and France. One thing that distinguishes English and French speakers is that the French have an obsession with their language, whereas the English now gave their language away to the world and have let the world bastardize it and dumb it down (not that Americans aren't doing a good job dumbing it down themselves). The English language doesn't belong to the British or Americans anymore. And there is no (and there couldn't possibly be) a British counterpart to L'Academie Francaise, and there are no equivalents to Toubon Law or Bill 101 in the English speaking sphere.

      Delete
  15. Is there really a point to this thread? Quebecers will never support independence (I.e. a partitioned Quebec leaving Canada) because francophones lack the courage to go it alone and Anglophones and the increasing number of Allophones will never vote for independence. Let's be realistic: Quebec is an economic basket case and the combination of do anything for a vote Quebec politicians, socialistic unions, left wing artists, journalists and students will assure that Quebec,s financial situation will deteriorate even more. BTW no need to point out Ontario rating cut as Ontario can correct its situation and Quebec cannot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting that Quebecois in general do not talk about the financial status of the province. It is as if the issue does not exist. No one talks about it and rarely does it even get mentioned in the blog site. I was actually excited the first time François Legault started talking about fixing Quebecs finances however he slowly moved away from the issue and is now looking more and more like the other 2 parties (minus corruption ... for now)

      Delete
  16. "If any state has the characteristics of a dictatorship, it is Quebec, with its discriminatory and repressive language laws"

    Croyez-vous que nous sommes heureux de vous contrôler de la sorte?Non monsieur!Nous n'avons pas choix,vous êtes trop nombreux.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really??? Your talking about human beings with rights!!! Not fucking cockroaches

      Delete
    2. Je trouve ca hilarant que presque 6 millions de francophones ''se sentent menacés'' par presque 600 milles anglophones.

      Ah oui, c'est vrai ! Seulement les extremistes-nationalistes se sentent comme ca. La plupart du Québec est beaucoup plus content avec le ''live and let live'', ce qui explique la manque enorme de support envers le souverainisme.

      Seulement des vieux politiciens reliques (qui restent malheureusement au pouvoir), des jeunes ignorants noyés dans leur propre dogme, et des imbéciles supportent le souverainisme aujourd'hui. La plupart des gens soit s'en calissent du nationalisme, ou ont, comme dit l'auteur, une tête sur leurs épaules en avouant que l'indépendance economique du Québec est impossible en tant que tel.

      Il y en a qui croient que il y en existe du support pour ce mouvement. Après tout, tout le monde vote pour des partis qui appuient la loi 101 et l'anglophobie, n'est-ce-pas ? Ah, tiens: c'est parce que tous les partis ont cette manière de penser, il est impossible de élire un parti sans ''la preservations de la langue française au Québec'' comme but principal. Je n'en voit pas qui sont prêt a lutter contre la corruption rampant.

      Pêut-être avant d'être ''maître chez nous'' on devrait reparer notre maison...

      Delete
    3. "...par presque 600 milles anglophones."

      Et incapable de vous faire représenter par un parti politique?...Hmmmm
      Ce n'est pas les 600k la menace,c'est les 350 000 000.

      Delete
    4. "Seulement les extremistes-nationalistes se sentent comme ca"

      Je ne savais pas qu'un si petit groupuscule pouvait avoir autant de puvoir.

      Delete
    5. ''live and let live''

      Dans le contexte de la loi 101 appuyée par 90% des Québécois?

      Delete
    6. "...Is there really a point to this thread? Quebecers will never support independence (I.e. a partitioned Quebec leaving Canada) because (SOME) francophones lack the courage to go it alone..."

      Delete
  17. "BTW no need to point out Ontario rating cut as Ontario can correct its situation and Quebec cannot"

    Comment?Les américains ne sont pas près de réinvestir en ontayo.Il vont commencer par se sortir de la merde eux-même en premier...Après,peut-être les hillbillies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait a minute!
      What is all this crowing about Ontario's credit rating being downgraded?
      It has been downgraded to a level where Quebec has been for years!!!

      Delete
  18. Quebecers, especially overeducated and under skilled francophones sociology types, are too busy in esoteric right/left political debates about multiculturalism/interculturalism to get down to the hard work of building a country. They are rapidly running out of time. Immigration and the forces of globalization are rapidly changing Quebec, the ROC, USA and the west in general, morphing us all into roughly the same people who will basically all watch the same television programs and consume the same products. Not a reality I look forward to but it is happening regardless. A good example is the current student movement in Quebec, it is nothing more than a cheap copy of the Arab Spring movement, the students even refer to their movement as the "printemps erable". If Tahir Square would have never happened neither would the Quebec student agitations -how's that for an example of globalization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. current student movement in Quebec, it is nothing more than a cheap copy of the Arab Spring movement, the students even refer to their movement as the "printemps erable". If Tahir Square would have never happened neither would the Quebec student agitations

      Tahir Square was (supposedly) about restoring the government of Egypt to Egyptians (not likely to happen) not cheap education.
      The real cause of the uprising in Egypt and now Europe is actually inflation. Egypt imports wheat. The price increased by 137% in one year. Suddenly most Egyptians couldn't feed their families.

      Slightly OT: Remember a certain PM saying "“It is true, we have the only banks in the western world that are not looking at bailouts or anything like that...and we haven’t got any TARP money.”?

      Quantifying The Big Five Canadian Banks' $114 Billion Bailout

      Delete
  19. If Québec was a net contributor to equalization, federalists such as Editor would claim that Québec owes its prosperity to Canada, and shouldn't leave. Since Québec benefits from equalization payments, they say we're too poor to move out. Bottom line message: quebecers are an inept bunch, and need the care of nanny Canada.

    The whole economic debate over independance is just bogus, IMO. Staying in Canada for economic reasons is just a bad idea. Why ? Owing your ass to someone else is always a bad idea, period. Liberation is about not owing your ass to anyone. Thus, the complete economic liberation of Québec can only come through independance. No equalization payments, and no bad neighbor claiming your success is undeserved.

    The other reasons why the economic argument is a trap (and I bet Editor and federalists of his [I]engeance[/I] know this very well) is because it is not intemporal. The economy is contigent, it fluctuates, and realistically, Canada won't protect us from it going down the crapper. Whether the foundations of Quebec's economy are good or suck doesn't depend on the RoC. It depends on us, period. The reason there is a resurgence of the cultural and linguistic part of the debate comes from the fact that these ARE intemporal considerations. They're about who we are: they define us. They're definitly deeper, more fundamental questions. For example, if we loose french, a part of us as a people ceases to exist. On the contrary, economy would have to go really effing bad for us to disappear. And despite what people on this blog like to believe, the foundations of Québec's economy are not *that* bad. In fact they're not bad at all. We have a lot going for ourselves. We're doing much better, in fact, than the vast majority of the nations that earned their independance over the course of history.

    I'd like to ask federalists that argue Québec should stay within Canada for economic reasons what they think about the independance of Mali, or Haiti. Do you think they'd be better off under French colonial rule ? What about Zimbabwe, should it return under British domination because its economy is an utter and complete basket case ? Without going so deep into misery, we can find other examples. Like the greeks. That economy ain't doing great these days. Should they surrender their sovereignty to their former turkish bosses ? Or perhaps should they hand over their asses to the Germans ?

    BAD IDEA ! People you hand your ass over to will always serve their own interests first. English Canadians are not monsters, they're just humans. In a country where they're the majority, their interests will always be served first. Being your own and complete master, your own boss, is the best path, regardless of the economic conjuncture. The risk of failure, of course, comes with freedom, but that's part of being an ADULT. When the people of Québec becomes ADULT, i.e. mature enough to stop being afraid of flying, it'll embrace independance and kiss Canada goodbye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damien,

      I personally do not have a problem with a nation seeking independence. In fact, the country I am from struggled through violent war of independence.

      The problems that I have regarding Quebec independence are two things:

      1. Quebec is seeking its independence through a shameful, cowardice way. If Quebec wants to be free, be free today. Cut and sever all relationships with Canada. Give ultimatum to its population to choose Canada or Quebec. If Canada refuses, go with revolution. Go with peaceful yet uncooperative movement like Gandhi in India, guerrilla and underground resistance like Xanada Gusmao in East Timor or all-out armed conflict like Washington in the United States.

      What happens in Quebec is that Quebec wants to be able to be recognized as a sovereign country, but on the other hand still wants all the benefits of the association with Canada. Just look at the idiots of the Bloc who are still sitting pretty in the Parliament. If they do have the conviction of Quebec as a sovereign nation, what are they doing serving in the government of a foreign nation? Have a bit of dignity. Look at Sinn Fein who refuses to sit at the Westminster.

      The same goes to their provincial counterpart. The theme is similar, demand more from the federal government. Again, if PQ / QS do have conviction, they should refuse to cooperate with the Federal government. And definitely the Premier Quebec should refuse to sit on the Council of the Federation (even though the only one ever does is Jean Charest, a federalist). That goes to those outside of the government structure. The late Pierre Falardeau, for example, was famous for having his creation funded by Telefilm Canada.

      2. The second problem I have is that the independence of Quebec is based on something that does not encompass its whole population. Like it or not, anglo- and allophones communities have been around and have been contributing to the communities for centuries. To discount them and their aspirations completely is morally wrong. Look at South Africa. Post Apartheid South Africa does not create domestic climate unbearable for the Whites, does it?

      The argument also has another side. The independence movement calls for the independence of French Canadians. However, its action is contained only within Quebec borders. In other words the movement betrays its own raison d'etre by not caring about non-Quebecer French-Canadians.

      Delete
    2. Interesting that you bring up South Africa, Troy. In South Africa, English is the native language of only 17% of the population, yet people are still having trouble getting schooling for their kids in the relevant african language of their choice. It's like Canada's linguistic tensions, multiplied by 10.

      You may see many similar and dissimilar things. For instance the african elites are gleefully signing up their kids in english schools and not bemoaning the loss of their culture. I find it fascinating.

      Delete
    3. Yannick,

      For instance the african elites are gleefully signing up their kids in english schools and not bemoaning the loss of their culture.

      Maybe the African elites (I assume that you mean black African) realize that after the country's reputation went down the toilet - thanks to the apartheid regime - the best way to regain it and to build the country in general is to be proficient in the language most commonly used in the world?

      Delete
    4. Yes, sorry, black African. And you may be correct. I was not trying to say that what they were doing was good or bad. I am simply interested in how different yet similar our situations are.

      Delete
    5. Troy,

      "The independence movement calls for the independence of French Canadians. However, its action is contained only within Quebec borders."

      Your premise is wrong. The independence movement does not call for the independence of french canadians. It calls for the independence of Québec. That's why it is called Québec independence movement and not french canadian independendence movement.

      "the independence of Quebec is based on something that does not encompass its whole population. Like it or not, anglo- and allophones communities have been around and have been contributing to the communities for centuries. To discount them and their aspirations completely is morally wrong."

      In 1995, 60% of francos voted yes but a majority of anglos and allos voted no for a result of 49,4%. So independence was rejected. The decision was not based on francos's will only, it was based on everybody's will, which included francos, anglos and allos. Anglos and allos were not discounted.

      "Quebec is seeking its independence through a shameful, cowardice way."

      Québec seeks its independence by democratic means, which is something that I am not ashamed of.

      "If Quebec wants to be free, be free today."

      We haven't yet gotten a yes majority vote and we are seeking our independence by democratic means.

      Delete
    6. M. Patrice,

      When was there a vote for Quebec independence?

      Delete
    7. Troy,

      In 1980 and 1995. There was also a vote in 1992 (Charlestown accord), we then voted against reintegrating the canadian constitution (I am of course simplifying things...)

      Delete
    8. M. Patrice,

      The two referenda were about something else but certainly NOT for independence.

      1980 referendum: The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?

      1995 referendum: Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

      Or maybe for you to read, in French:

      1980: Le Gouvernement du Québec a fait connaître sa proposition d’en arriver, avec le reste du Canada, à une nouvelle entente fondée sur le principe de l’égalité des peuples ; cette entente permettrait au Québec d'acquérir le pouvoir exclusif de faire ses lois, de percevoir ses impôts et d’établir ses relations extérieures, ce qui est la souveraineté, et, en même temps, de maintenir avec le Canada une association économique comportant l’utilisation de la même monnaie ; aucun changement de statut politique résultant de ces négociations ne sera réalisé sans l’accord de la population lors d’un autre référendum ; en conséquence, accordez-vous au Gouvernement du Québec le mandat de négocier l’entente proposée entre le Québec et le Canada?

      1995: Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?

      In both referenda, there was not a single mention of independence, independency or independent. Or to be in official language, what is independence in French? Ah, yes. Indépendance. Not a single mention of it. Instead the questions danced around hypothetical conditions and even to a condition not mentioned within the questions. Compare that with the referendum for the independence of East Timor 1999: Do you accept the proposed special autonomy for East Timor within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia? or Do you reject the proposed special autonomy for East Timor, leading to East Timor's separation from Indonesia?

      Those referenda are prime examples of the cowardice of the separatist government. Instead of asking the question direct, they duped the population with confusing questions that yet, still implied that there would be no total separation with Canada. For me, it is shameful. It makes no different with telemarketers who tried to push a product and force customers to buy without disclosing completely what they are up to.

      Further, the separatist movement is really shameful since they simply can not, does not, and will not respect democracy. If the referenda are meant for Quebec independence or sovereignty, then why do they not respect the fact that majority of Quebecers DO NOT want the idea, whatever it is? So who is not democratic?

      Delete
    9. What's wrong in having independence but negotiating a special relationship with the ROC? I never understood that.

      Delete
    10. Yannick,

      It is like divorcing your wife but expecting to bang her every night or whenever you like.

      Delete
    11. @ Troy

      It depends how hot she is :)

      Delete
    12. Before we go on nitpicking about the two questions, did you get the part where I said that the independence movement does not call for the independence of french canadians but for the independence of Québec?

      And did you get the part where I said that the opinion of both anglos and allos were taken into account in the vote of both referenda?

      About the questions :

      "In both referenda, there was not a single mention of independence, independency or independent."

      There is no mention of independence because the term then most often used was "sovereignty", and both questions do refer to sovereingty. And the first question, altough in my eyes uselessly wordy, goes as far as defining sovereignty ("this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty —". I personaly don't like the first question because it is about souveraineté-association instead of sovereignty.

      "...then why do they not respect the fact that majority of Quebecers DO NOT want the idea, whatever it is?"

      An overwhelming majority of 50,6% did not want independence and it was respected, Québec did not go for independence. Fifteen years later, the population changed, the world changed, the canadian dynamics changed, so people's opinion could have changed, so I don't see what is undemocratic in asking the question again. And people could still vote yes or no.

      We both agree that asking the questio again one year later would not be legitimate. You would probably agree that asking the question one hundred years later would be legitimate. We simply disagree on the required lenght of time.

      Before going on about the questions, don't forget my first two points.

      (I am leaving for now. I will read comments later tonight or tomorrow.)

      Delete
    13. Excellent points, Troy.

      Delete
    14. "It is like divorcing your wife but expecting to bang her every night or whenever you like"

      Comme dans tout bon divorce,il faut négocier la garde des enfants,du chien,du frigo,etc.

      Delete
    15. @Damien: Be honest, even the PQ don't want to give up their Canadian passports in the event of separation, they are on record as stating that Quebecers/Quebecois have a legal right to have dual Canadian/Quebec citizenship, Canadian money, pensions, unemployment insurance, etc, ie to keep all the benefits of being in Canada whilst not contributing. Incredibly some even believe that an independent Quebec can have MPs in Ottawa, that they will have representatives on the Supreme Court of Canada and the Bank of Canada! The PQ also added that all federal civil servants in Quebec (mostly in Gatineau) will simply become Quebec civil servants. The PQ are very honest about their desire for independence, but are very dishonest about what this would really entail, and the majorit of Quebecers/Quebecois can see through this dishonesty.

      When Southern Ireland split off from the UK, it went through several decades of poverty till it joined the EEC in 1973 and benefitted enormously through the Common Agricultural Policy and other regional development funds, which are now being cut back. If Quebec were to become independent, it is likely to suffer economically to some degree, is there an equivalant of the EEC seeking to provide Quebec with freely given funds to assist its economy, France perhaps? I'm not so sure Canada or the US would be interested to do this. The likely end result would be mass emmigration of people,particularly the young, from Quebec to Canada, the US or Europe, the level of which has not been seen since the late 19thC when many went to New England or out west, not so disimmilar to Ireland or Greece.

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

      Delete
    17. Michel Patrice writes:

      In 1995, 60% of francos voted yes but a majority of anglos and allos voted no for a result of 49,4%.

      "A maority of anglos and allos voted no". That's putting it mildly.

      According to demographer Pierre Drouilly, no less than 99% of anglophones voted "no". About 95% of allos voted "no", I think the figure was.

      Delete
    18. "That's putting it mildly."

      I tend to put everything mildly. I am a soft spoken moderate kind of guy. : )

      Delete
    19. Patrice, I always bring up this statistic because I find it utterly fascinating.

      African-Americans in the U.S. are well known as a block-voting community, consistently voting around 90% for the Democratic Party over the past 50 years (well before Obama). Yet compared with them, Quebec anglos -- at least when it comes to the two sovereignty referendums -- have an almost unanimous voting pattern for the "no" (not sure of the stats for the '92 Charlottetown Accord but I think it was close to that on the "yes" side...I voted "no" by the way).

      This is unprecedented in democracies and underscores the concept of the Two Solitudes. The only place you see such unanimous results are in dictatorships where they hold sham elections for the effect of trying to demonstrate to the outside world that they are holding free elections...and people vote for the leader under fear of reprisal or death. But for Quebec anglos these are the actual results!

      Delete
    20. "I tend to put everything mildly. I am a soft spoken moderate kind of guy"

      I don't think so. I find you like to twist things on your blog and use out of date information to convince people of your arguments. I know Jean-Francois Lisee is your hero and I don't think I need to say more. I would suggest that you do your blog in French because you will not be successful in brainwashing anglophones or long-establised allophones.

      Delete
  20. "Ce n'est pas les 600k la menace,c'est les 350 000 000."

    That's a bogus argument. The Editor touched on this in the past, but what do people in places such as British Columbia, California or Florida have to do with Quebec? It's not as if there are hundreds of millions of people living right on Quebec's borders who are ready to flood into the province.

    The Quebecois are not endangered. There are 6 million of them, they comprise 80% of the population, and they hold 100% of the political power in QC.

    If the Quebec government is all about preserving and promoting so-called threatened languages and cultures, why hasn't it taken any measures at all to protect the aboriginal people (Cree, Algonquin, etc.)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That argument is further bogus considering that there are 30M hispanophones in Canada and the United States, almost as many as there are Canadians.

      Delete
    2. I thought that Quebec offered education in the aboriginal languages for the Cree and Algonquin, etc...? True, it was part of a deal for the James Bay hydro back in the 90's, but it's already more than many provinces offer.

      Delete
  21. "When the people of Québec becomes ADULT, i.e. mature enough to stop being afraid of flying, it'll embrace independance and kiss Canada goodbye."

    I hope your right:) and that the people mature sooner than later. I think the ROC would be far better off and likely Quebec as well for a number of reasons. (eg: no more need for spending money on failed bilingualism in Canada and no more federal meddling into language laws in Quebec aside from economic issues)

    Time to face up to the realities of the situation. The French and English don't particularily (for the most part) understand or have any respect for one other.

    The only thing that I would insist upon would be that if a particular area or region of Quebec would wish to remain in Canada, that, they would have the democratic right to excercise this option....I realize that partition may not be in your vocabulary but if Canada is divisible (which it clearly is) then Quebec is divisable along linguistic and political lines (read French/English)

    Bonne chance avec votre reve.

    Westerner in favor of Quebec Separation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous writes:

      ...and no more federal meddling into language laws in Quebec aside from economic issues.

      Could you please clarify what you mean? From my perspective, the Feds do absolutely no meddling into Quebec's language laws. Indeed, I would very much like to see them do meddling...of the disallowing kind.

      Delete
  22. The separatists like to argue that Quebec cannot be partitioned without the consent of the Quebec government - in accordance with the Canadian constitution. But the constitution also states that Quebec secession can only take place legally with the agreement of the two houses of the federal Parliament and the other provinces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Separatists also like to invoke the ruling of the 1992 UN commission on territorial integrity of Quebec. The commission ruled that according to the international law Quebec cannot be partitioned. However, it also ruled that Canada cannot be divided either, because only territories considered as colonies have the right to secede. The commission stated that Quebec is not a colony and that it can pursue its interests democratically within the country it finds itself in. Lawyer and former BQ's MP Daniel Turp tried to challenge the second part of the ruling, arguing that Quebec is a colony, but the commission rejected his claim and reiterated that Quebec was not a colony.

      The overall ruling was not very favorable to QC separatists at all, yet they bring it up frequently, each time quoting the verdict partially and selectively, and failing to mention the second part of it.

      Delete
    2. adski:

      You refer to "the 1992 UN commission". Are you sure? I know of a National Assembly commission on a related question but not a UN one.

      Delete
    3. The 1992 commission on territorial integrity of Quebec. Presided by Thomas Franck, Rosalyn Higgins, Alain Pellet, Malcolm Shaw, Christian Tomuschat.

      I quoted the exact wording of the "conveniently omitted parts" of that ruling 5-10 threads back.

      Delete
    4. adski: I think you are referring to a report commissioned by a committee of the Quebec National Assembly, of which some co-writers were employees of the UN. But it was not a commission, UN or otherwise.

      See: report

      Delete
    5. "L'integrite territoriale du Quebec dans l'hypothese de l'accession a la souverainete" by Franck, Higgins, Pellet, Shaw, Tomuschat
      pp. 377-452

      "The right of peoples to self-determination is a very general principle, which has as a consequence always and everywhere the right for the community involved to participate in it's future, but this does not suffice to provide a basis for the right of a people to accede to independence, to the detriment of the state to which it is attached, EXCEPT IN COLONIAL SITUATIONS."

      In response to Turp's motion, the SAME panel stated:

      "...one cannot reasonably maintain that it (the Québécois) is a colonial people, nor that it is deprived of the right to its own existence within the Canadian whole, nor to participate in democratic life."

      Delete
    6. I completely agree with the findings that you reproduce, adski.

      I just wanted to clarify that it was not a UN Commission that came out with the findings. Mistakenly giving the report the imprimatur of the U.N. lessens its credibility.

      Delete
  23. Le canada est une fédération dont le Québec fait parti à titre de province.Selon les règles,nous pouvons en sortir comme bon nous semble,d'un coup sec ou en "rapatriant" graduellement des pouvoirs du gouvernement central,comme c'est le cas en ce moment.C'est la vie...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't care about what rules and reasoning you think should apply to this. I don't care if Quebec stays or goes either. All I'm saying is what the 1992 ruling was, how the UN refused to classify Quebec as a colony and rejected Turp's appeal specifically asking for it, and how selectively the ruling is quoted by separatists today.

      When you look up "Quebec partition" on google, you get a link to a Wikipedia article which lists 6 or 7 reasons that Quebec separatists invoke against partition. Most of them are ridiculous (like: Canada is not a nation but QC is), but the first one is the 1992 ruling. But that ruling was more comprehensive than that. So you can either use it in its entirety, or not at all. The ruling is either in (RoC and QC cannot be divided), or out (RoC and QC can be divided). If you contest the part about the indivisibility of Canada, you're contesting the whole thing, including the non-divisibility of QC.

      Delete
    2. "I don't care about what rules and reasoning..."

      C'est l'évidence même...

      Delete
    3. "Selon les règles [...]"

      Quelles règles, au juste?!

      Delete
    4. Quelles règles, au juste?!

      Le canada serait-il une prison?Ottawa peut-il retenir une province malgré la volonté de la population de celle-ci?

      Delete
    5. ""I don't care about what rules and reasoning..."

      C'est l'évidence même..."

      Seppie, just as the 1992 ruling is not to be quoted selectively, neither should my posts.

      I said: I don't care about what rules and reasoning you think should apply. It doesn't mean I don't care about the rules, I just don't care about your interpretation of the rules.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous writes:

      Le canada est une fédération dont le Québec fait parti à titre de province.Selon les règles,nous pouvons en sortir comme bon nous semble,d'un coup sec...

      I think that this scenario has a very good chance of becoming a reality if Thomas Mulcair and his NDP become the government in Ottawaa. See: What would a Prime Minister Mulcair do?

      Delete
    7. @ Tony

      Is that what your chrystal ball is telling you from all the way in Vancouver?

      It is great for me, as someone who lives in Quebec, to hear about your insights about Quebec from over 3500km away.

      It's like those people who keep predicting the end of the world. Maybe at the same time, Quebec will be separate.

      Delete
    8. ...then, Mr. Rabbit, why not sit back and do nothing?

      Don't bother your pretty little head about any of this and just go on assuming that everything is hunky-dory.

      But, of course, you are doing nothing (and if you were doing something you'd probably have the balls to actually use your real name instead of Jessica's boyfriend).

      Delete
    9. No, no, Tony, by all means go ahead and pontificate about your fantasy of making an 11th province. Usually people of your generation were unilingual English. I'm not saying that was a bad thing. It's just the way things were. When Quebec changed with Bill 78 and Bill 101, many anglophones left. Do not assume because you can't make it in the Quebec of today, which has French as the official language, that other anglophones can't.

      I've seen your little website and if I can quote the 'about the book' opening: "This book will single-handedly revive the Quebec independence movement,” predicts author and former Montrealer Tony Kondaks, currently a resident of Mesa, Arizona" LOL That's pretty presumptious of you. How long has your book been out there again? It still seems like it hasn't had the desired effect, after all these years.

      As for me using a pseudonym, most people on this blog are. I am not looking to attract attention from unbalanced people like Hugo gets. BTW, is "The Editor" using his name? No, I don't see that he is. So, I don't see why the fact that I do has any relevance.

      If I was 3500km away, I would use my real name as well, though.

      Delete
    10. Rabbit,

      You obviously haven't read my book if you think it promotes an 11th province.

      Far from it...the opposite in fact.

      When you know what you're talking about, I'll be happy to discourse with you.

      Delete
    11. Look Tony, I wasted my time reading your online pamphlet (to call it a book would be an insult to other books), and some of what your write is true. However, your anti-Liberal streak comes through. You sound like a conservative hack.

      I just think that you are living in fantasy la-la land. So you are a separatist who believes that a "Quebec West" province could be created in an independent Quebec and you propose all kinds of machinations for this to happen.

      You think that your pamphlet will singlehandedly revive the Quebec independence movement? I think it will have as much success as your Canada! party, lol. What did you get? 1% of the vote? Or maybe you wish you got that much support.

      Stop smoking the good stuff.

      P.S. I'm offended at ex-Quebecker's like you who try to tell us what to do. Let's be clear: you couldn't make it in Quebec. Time for you to move on.

      Delete
    12. Rabbit,

      Get your stories straight.

      First you claim that you read my book (or pamphlet, if you prefer) and claim that I wanted an "11th province". I actually called for the complete opposite.

      When I called you on it, you backtracked.

      Please make up your mind.

      Delete
    13. Tony,

      There's no big difference in all these partitionist dreams. An 11th Canadian Province or A Canada West Province in an Independent Quebec. It's a bunch of poppycock, either way.

      Delete
    14. Could be that you are right, Roger Rabbit, but either way, you can remain happily ensconced in Verdun and not have to worry.

      Delete
    15. You can dream of Quebec from Vancouver and we Canadians will try to make things work, Tony.

      Delete
  24. Adski,une fois le Québec indépendant,il sera encore plus difficile de le diviser,croyez-moi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Adski,une fois le Québec indépendant,il sera encore plus difficile de le diviser,croyez-moi.

      Your hypothesis is too deep into probability. The chance of Quebec independence - at least until 2100 - is slim to none. How can we discuss partition before that?

      Delete
    2. I wonder what the response would be if the proposition was put forward by the ROC - all provinces will agree to immediate independence, only if agreed that any areas who vote to remain in Canada will be partitioned accordingly. Would Quebec agree to this?

      Delete
    3. "Adski,une fois le Québec indépendant,il sera encore plus difficile de le diviser,croyez-moi."

      Actually, they (separation and partition )would likely have to happen simultaneously with Quebec separating at the same time that some regions would separate from Quebec to remain
      as part of Canada. And therein lies the problem. How could the Government of Canada abandon regions of Quebec which wish to stay loyal and part of the country? Not likely to happen and partition would be part of the negotition with any separation. Unless of course there would be a majority in all regions who wished to separate which is again verrrry unlikely.

      Delete
    4. Would the partition vote be a different one than the independence vote? Because some might want to remain in Canada, but prefer to secede with Quebec rather than remain in a Quebec-less Canada.

      Delete
    5. "Adski,une fois le Québec indépendant,il sera encore plus difficile de le diviser,croyez-moi."

      I don't care if it's going to be easy or hard, or quick or prolonged. I don't particularly feel inclined to trust you on anything either. I'm just saying that the 1992 UN ruling can either be taken as whole, or not at all. There is no picking and choosing the parts you want to keep and the parts you want to remove.

      Delete
    6. "Because some might want to remain in Canada"

      Ils n'auront qu'à prendre la 401 vers l'ontario.

      Delete
    7. Pas question que notre pays se transforme en gruyère après son ascension vers l'autonomie.

      Delete
    8. The partition question is not as easy as the pro-federalists here claim it to be.

      The problem is that the anglos/allos/pro-federalists vote overwhelmingly for the Liberal Party of Quebec which holds that Quebec's territory is intact and cannot be divided or partitioned. This will factor in to any negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa if and when separation occurs.

      I, for one, do not in a million years count on federalist negotiators to stick up for those areas in Quebec that want to partition. They will sell us down the river as they have been doing yea for these past 40 years. Why for heaven's sake do people on this forum still hold on to the notion that Canada will suddenly come to their senses and start sticking up for the anglos of Quebec at a time when the ROC's own interests will be of paramount importance to them? Debt, trade, and defense will be of primary importance and we will be far, FAR down the list.

      Delete
  25. @YannickApr 30, 2012 07:43 PM,

    you mentioned:

    En fait la seule différence entre la loi 101 et la Charte des Droits et Libertés en ce qui concerne l'éducation, c'est qu'au ROC les gens qui ont le français comme langue maternelle ont droit à l'école française même s'ils sont immigrants alors que le contraire n'est pas vrai au Québec. Je suis d'accord que ce n'est pas bien juste. Mais quand même, dis-moi, combien d'immigrants dont la langue maternelle est l'anglais s'installent au Québec?

    The truth is that even if French is a second language of an immigrant, children they will have access to French School in Ontario. If Quebec had the same policy for admission for English public schools as Ontario for French ones, immigrants from countries like India, Pakistan, Philippines etc... would have the right to English school along with those from Australia, NZ, UK and the USA.

    That is why there is a growing enrollment in both Catholic and Public French school boards in the Toronto area.

    Admitting non-Francophone students:

    Read below:

    http://www.guideduparentsolidaire.ca/Media/Content/files/French%20Public%20School/FPS_Ch_01.pdf

    • At the request of a parent, guardian or a non-Francophone student, the board can admit the
    student if the student's admission is approved by the majority of the members of the board's
    admission committee. The committee is made up of the principal of the school to which the
    request is presented, a teacher from the school or the board and a supervisory officer who
    works for the board.

    • Thanks to Section 293, refugee immigrants who arrive in Ontario, who have French as their
    first language or as a second language and where French is an official language in their
    country of origin and who want their children to be educated in French can apply to the school
    board so that their child may be admitted to a Francophone school.
    • For non-Francophone students or Francophone students of ethnic origins, who do not have
    rights of admission to the Francophone education system admission is discretionary.
    • Usually, each board establishes its own diagnostic tests to evaluate the student's knowledge
    of French. These tests will determine which level the student will be enrolled in and whether
    he or she needs special programs.

    • It is up to each school board to establish its own policies. These will determine the criteria for
    admission of non-Francophone students or Francophone students who are not rights holders
    under Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @YannickApr 30, 2012 07:43 PM

      "Mais quand même, dis-moi, combien d'immigrants dont la langue maternelle est l'anglais s'installent au Québec?"

      I am one of these immigrants, and every time I talk to Francophones regarding the differences between French schooling in Ontario and English schooling in Quebec, most honestly think that a 'real' anglophone immigrant can send their children to an English school, and are amazed to discover that is not the case.

      After that most pretty much agree with me that it is unfair, but then fall back on the 'we have to respect the law, even if it is not fair' argument.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Ontario is magnaminous enough to allow some children who do not have the right to french school (and this is the important point - it is not a right to those kids) to attend, at the pleasure of the school board.

      I mean, I applaud their flexibility. One could wish that Quebec did the same. That doesen't make the situation any different : non-francophones do not have the right to french education in the ROC.

      Delete
    3. In Quebec everyone had a right to English school until 1974 when it was taken away from the majority of Francophones, Allophones and many anglophones as well. On the other hand Catholic French schools didn't want non Catholic and non Francophones to attend French Catholic schools. One who was either non francophone or non Catholic had in most instances go to a Protestant English school and/or catholic english sector schools. My own French teacher was a Tunisian Muslim who told us that he could only find a job in the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal in the 1960s when her arrived in Canada.

      That situation only changed because the Francophone birth rates went down in Quebec and French schools were starting close down in the Montreal area. All of a sudden there was a fabricated uproar that immigrants were sending their children to English schools.

      There is now a similar fabricated uproar in the making, with symptoms already appearing, about the fact that the French language school boards on Montreal Island are now non francophone majorities. There is now a need to disallow languages other then french in the hallways and in the school yards during recess.

      Another example is the fabricated uproar about protecting the secular and even catholic character of Quebec (I know it sounds like an oxy moron to most people). While at the same time many North African French speakers were expedited for immigration to Quebec on the basis of French. When they brought some of their religious and/or cultural practices with, communicating in French was not enough.

      One sees a pattern in Quebec...

      Delete
  26. Michel Patrice, it was a cowardly and duplicitous question on each occasion, particularly since there was no mention of partition which would be a certainty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Partition is not only not a "certainty" it is almost certain to not happen if Quebec separates.

      See my comment above.

      Where do you get this notion, Long John Silver, and why do you believe Ottawa will want Quebec partitioned? Certainly, they will use partition as a negotiating tool but it will soon be surrendered in exchange for other concessions far more important to them than your future. All partition will mean to Canadian negotiators when separation occurs is "fodder" to get what they want, not what you and I want.

      I am constantly amazed and amused by federalists' certainty that the very people who abandoned them 40 years ago and continue to do so to this day will all of a sudden have an epiphany at the most crucial of times and start to stick up and care about Quebec anglos.

      As much as the PQ is your enemy? Multiply that by 10 and that is how much Ottawa is your enemy.

      Quebec anglos, you have no friends.

      Delete
    2. "Multiply that by 10 and that is how much Ottawa is your enemy."

      Do you really think that? I think that Ottawa is indifferent, turns its back pretending that nothing is wrong, and thinks that sacrifices have to be made for the sake of "national unity". So they're a bunch of scoundrels, no question about it. But despite all that, they are still better than the PQ.

      Delete
    3. adski:

      Yes, I do really think that.

      When Canada was created in 1867, a solemn promise was made that with the creation of the provinces (they didn't exist as provinces prior to 1867) and, with that, the creation of provincial minorities -- such as the anglophones of Quebec (who were part of the majority prior) -- that if a province ever violated the rights of their minority that the federal government would step in and "veto" such legislation. Since Confederation this has never been done.


      Ottawa abdicated its responsibility in this regard -- to both francophone and anglophone provincial minorities alike -- and are to blame 100% for our woes.

      So, yes, the Liberals and PQ with bills 22, 101, 178 etc. are the ones responsible for the rights violations because they of course introduced and passed the legislation but it was Ottawa that was supposed to not let it happen.

      And, yes, as you say, it was allegedly for the sake of "national unity", but as so many on this forum is so fond of pointing out,language legislation does no one any good, especially the francophones who probably have suffered more from it than anyone.

      The worst was when Chretien, then Justice Minister under Trudeau, put in section 23 in the Charter and really screwed us, especially with 23.1.a. All he had to do was put in that all residents of Canada had the freedom of choice to educate their children in the parents' choice of either English or French -- this one little thing -- and we would not be having virtually all the problems we have today.

      Instead he tailored section 23 after Bill 101. It's on the public record of him actually saying it (references and citations upon request).

      This was more than being "indifferent"; this was both enabling and participating in the decimation of the Quebec anglo community...and it was Ottawa that did it.

      Delete
  27. Didn't M Parizeau also fess up in the late 90s that the PQ had planned to declare UDI within a day or so of winning a referendum by 50% +1 - so much for a negotiation based on sovereignty association.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As usual, separatists are liars. They will say anything to get what they want, no matter how much it destroys Quebec.

      Delete
  28. Hello Everybody,
    My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.

    BORROWERS APPLICATION DETAILS


    1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..
    2. Telephone Numbers:……….
    3. Address and Location:…….
    4. Amount in request………..
    5. Repayment Period:………..
    6. Purpose Of Loan………….
    7. country…………………
    8. phone…………………..
    9. occupation………………
    10.age/sex…………………
    11.Monthly Income…………..
    12.Email……………..

    Regards.
    Managements
    Email Kindly Contact: urgentloan22@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete