Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Sovereignty's Dirty Propaganda War

Two weeks ago Quebecers were treated to another rather obvious propaganda attack by French language militants, a completely dishonest and manipulative poll, published in l'Actualite magazine, an effort conceived in dishonesty and dedicated to the principle that Quebecers are dumb enough to believe anything, as long as it is wrapped up, packaged and presented as the real McCoy.

The manipulation was so blatant that the author more or less admitted as such in an article in the Montreal Gazette, but made no apology for the underhanded motives.

The questions in the poll were so designed to elicit certain responses, thus adding 'scientific proof' supporting the authors perverted and dishonest position that anglos are aloof and arrogant.

Unfortunately, this is no isolated case in the ongoing fraud to slander Anglophones and misrepresent the facts.
It has become the game plan of sovereigntists to use a relentless and deceitful propaganda campaign to convince brainwash Quebecers into believing that culturally and linguistically, they are in dire straights.

Long ago sovereigntists gave up the economic argument as a means to promote sovereignty. After the Quiet Revolution of the sixties, Quebecers recaptured the instruments and tools of their economy and became masters of their own economic fate, for better or worse. (Insert comment here)
There's nary a separatist today who would seriously promote a sovereignty campaign based on the idea that Quebec would be better off economically outside Canada, especially with the annual 8 billion equalization payment hanging over the province's head like the proverbial Sword of Damocles.

And so a new narrative was invented, one where Quebec is desperate to achieve sovereignty as the only remedy to save the French language and culture, doomed to extinction because of the relentless and inevitable creep of Anglicization.

But Quebec francophones are a hardy bunch, not overly prone to blindly agree with what they are told by politicians or by so-called intellectuals, at any rate much more so than anglo Canadians.

Consider that after forty years of relentless propaganda by sovereigntists, a media full of sympathizers hammering home the separatist case on a daily basis, there remains enough francophone federalists non-separatists to doom any chance that a sovereignty referendum will succeed.

And so in an effort to ramp up the pressure on these recalcitrants, sovereigntist strategists have descended into using deception and outright lies in order to get them on board, it's all that's left to them after forty years of failure.

Front and center in propaganda campaign are Pierre Curzi and Jean-François Lisée, who pump out alarmist drivel, misinformation and outright leaps of fantasy on an ongoing basis, with the charm, poise and confidence of a con artist like Earl Jones.

Mr. Lisée uses his blog to propagate a steady stream of nonsense, describing Quebec as rich, solvent, well-run and fairly taxed, where citizens are well-rewarded for their taxes and where the deficit is but a trifle.
His fantasies are so badly contrived that its hard to believe that a fair-minded and honest editor would allow such drivel to go to Press, but when the editor is a separatist too...well.

He has even written a book consisting of fifteen arguments which as he immodestly proclaims, 'puts a 'KO' on the right.'
His cherry-picked statistics and theories don't stand up to the most rudimentary of critiques and his laughable attempt to blatantly mislead would be sad, were it not so widely distributed.

The very able blogger DAVID has over the last few weeks,  demolished every one of Mr. Lisée's flights of fancy.
In the latest round, DAVID puts paid to the ridiculous notion advanced by Mr. Lisée in his treatise that redefines the notion of debt.
There, Mr. Lisée proposes that since Quebec owns Hydro-Quebec and other money making state corporations, the value of those assets should reduce the provinces 'net' debt.
In other words, if Hydro Quebec is worth 100 billion and the Quebec government owes 225 billion, than the 'net' debt' is $125 billion.
According to DAVID, this is like buying a half a million dollar home and declaring the transaction neutral because the value of the asset is equal to the debt.
Well and good says DAVID, but you've still got to pay off a mortgage that you can't afford!! Read more blog pieces demolishing Lisee's 15 arguments{Fr}.

Such is the nature of sovereigntist purveyors of snake oil, shucking and jiving around the facts with the sole purpose of confusing the public, by muddying the waters.

As for Mr. Curzi, no brainiac to begin with, his modus operendi is to build sovereigntist arguments based on, as the lawyers say,  'facts not in evidence.'

I've written about Mr. Curzi and his reliance on studies created by other fantasists in a blog piece entitled- English Cegep Study - A Case of Weird Science

In that piece I expose the separatist propaganda organ known as the "Institut de recherche sur le français en Amérique (IRFA) as a group less worthy of its moniker than 'Institute of Hair Replacement''
Let's just say that with no fixed address or employees, it is a sham created  by a tiny group of separatist volunteers, closely aligned to the OQLF and radical French language positions, to pump out sovereigntist propaganda under the pseudo-legitimacy of a real think tank.

Only Mr.Curzi and the separatist Le Devoir newspaper dare to maintain the fiction that the 'Institute' is in any way something more than a separatist propaganda front.

Now before I go on to expose the newest fraud perpetrated in the propaganda war, I'd like to share something that I became aware of since writing the aforementioned blog piece.
It illustrates perfectly the depths of dishonest deception that these separatist propagandists will go to in order to manufacture dissent.

In an article in Le Devoir, written by the IRFA's president, Patrick Sabourin, the author  does a magnificent job trying to discredit a very well prepared and researched study by the very reputable Institut de la statistique du Québec, (Quebec's version of Statistics Canada) exposing the lamentable graduation rate of francophones from Quebec universities.

Mr. Sabourin presents readers with a smorgasbord of statistical nonsense meant to create an alternate universe, one where any fact or figure can be interpreted to Quebec's advantage.
In that article, in which he tried to prove that Ontario francophones don't have a higher university graduation rate than francophones in Quebec, he admits to the fact that when it comes to being highly educated, Quebec francophones lag Quebec anglophones by 7.9%.

"......à celui des francophones au Québec, dont la proportion d'individus fortement scolarisés demeure 7,9 points de pourcentage inférieure à celle des anglophones du Québec." 

He doesn't back up that figure or describe how he came to this number, probably because it is by any stretch of the imagination, a complete misrepresentation.
The real number is almost five times as high!


Now I've reprinted this table from the report I mentioned earlier, which shows that in the 25 to 44 years old category, 31.3% of Anglos are highly educated, while francophones have a rate of 22.4.%

Perhaps if all demographic age groups were taken into consideration the difference would narrow down to where Mr. Sabourin could make the outrageous claim that the difference between English and French is 7.9%

But is the difference between say, 30% and say 22.1%, just 7.9%?
Any statistician, would laugh at the contention.

Let us consider a company which has a million dollar payroll and pays one of its employees, John Smith, $100,000 a year or 10% of it's entire payroll.
Pierre Paquette, another employee is paid $25,000 a year or 2.5% of the entire payroll.

According to voodoo statistics, one can say and perhaps Mr Sabourin would agree, that Paquette makes 7.5% less than John based on the math (10% minus 2.5% equals 7.5%)
But the reality is that John makes four time as much as Pierre or 400%!

At any rate, if you made 25K a year and your co-worker made a 100k a year, would you have the audacity to contend that he made just 7.5% more than you?

Now look at the graph above to see how one can come to the conclusion that Anglos are only 8.9% more highly educated than Francophones. (31.3% minus 22.4% = 8.9%)

The reality is that when proper math is used, Anglophones are more highly educated to the tune of 40%.

By the way, Mr. Sabourin claims in the article that francophones aren't really undereducated, it's just that anglophones are over educated.
Maybe.
Perhaps that may be why he conveniently forgets to include statistics on those pesky ethnics who out perform even the Anglos.  Comparing the graduation rate of ethnics to francophones would be utterly humiliating!

And so we go round and round the merry-go-round of statistical manipulation and misinterpretation, until we are too dizzy to realize that we are being utterly conned.

Now as I promised, let me introduce you to the latest player in the sovereigntist propaganda war.

A while back I was reading an article in the Globe and Mail about the incredible opportunities and the untold riches to be mined in Quebec's north and the benefits of Premier Charest's Plan Nord, an ambitious 30 year program conceived to upgrade the infrastructure in order to allow the exploitation of the mineral wealth;
"Think of the Quebec economy, and the traditional drivers are energy, forestry and manufacturing. But there’s a new engine in Quebec – mining – and it’s reshaping the economy of both the province, and the country.
Investment in the province’s mining industry is expected to reach $4.4-billion this year, up 62 per cent from 2011. That’s nearly equal to the capital that will be poured into manufacturing ($5-billion), a remarkable 27 per cent of all business investment in the province and represents half of all mining investment in the country, according to a National Bank of Canada analysis of recent Statistics Canada figures.
“That’s never happened before,” National Bank of Canada chief economist Stéfane Marion said in an interview. “It’s a huge growth driver for the province this year, and in the future.”
It’s not the only first. Quebec will lead the country in mining investment this year, outpacing Ontario, Mr. Marion said.
Mining investment is expected to hit $3.7-billion in Ontario, $2.8-billion in B.C. and $500-million in Alberta.
For Quebec, the money pouring into dozens of iron ore, gold, copper and other mining projects could add a full percentage to GDP this year and cause an unexpected boost in royalty revenue for the cash-strapped government. It will also have spinoff benefits for Montreal-area manufacturers, who will help supply mining-related equipment. Globe and Mail
This on the heels of a government report by SECOR describing the Plan Nord in some very glowing terms:
"The primary authors of the study, Jean-Pierre Lessard and Guillaume Caudron, both managers at SECOR, estimate that these projects will generate $148B in economic benefits over 25 years.

Wealth creation stemming from the Plan Nord will reach about $5.9B per year, or 1.8% of Quebec's GDP. The projects could sustain 37,000 jobs per year, at an average annual salary of $65,000. Each job created in the North should result in another being created in the South." Link
Now I'm a cynic by nature and don't have much faith in the contentions above, conceived by so-called experts, the same people who told us that the Metro extension to Laval would cost 190 million, only to find out a few short years later that the true cost was over 800 million. Link.
It seems that Quebec uses the same planners and experts as those who built the Titanic.

Predicting what will be in 25 years is an exercise in wishful thinking. The exercise a laughable attempt at political manipulation.
Let's just say that it's a crapshoot, but one which I support and you should too, because if it pans out, it will be a Godsend for the Quebec economy, which is deeply in trouble.
Let's face it, we are in desperate need of a 'Jed Clampett' type of windfall.

Of course this automatically means that the PQ and other separatists are deeply opposed to the project.
A meaningful and perhaps highly successful project led by Jean Charest and the Liberals could prove disastrous at the polls and so the propaganda machine is wound up, disparaging the project with warnings of the dire consequences of selling out Quebec's resources to big bad business.
Rinse, Repeat, Rinse.

Leading the attack on the Plan Nord, is a relatively new player, an organization that's been around for a while, but which is making waves of late.

It too is another phoney-baloney "Institute,' another group of sovereignty/socialist propagandist volunteers, this time with the very weighty name of 'Institut de Recherche et d’Informations Socio-économiques'

The group put out it's own report describing the Plan Nord as a disaster. Of course it's anti government message got a big play in Le Devoir.

“In our most optimistic scenario, the shortfall between revenues and expenditures by the government is 2.3 billion over 25 years, calculated Bertrand Schepper, author of this analysis and a degree in business administration at HEC Montreal. Link


Bernard Schepper...err..."No Comment"
There's an easy explanation for the discrepancy between the glowing reports above and the "Institute's" gloom and doom report.
How the press could give credence and publish a report prepared by a lowly graduate student from UQAM, Quebec's very own version of Greendale Community College, is beyond belief, especially considering that the author, Bertrand Schepper, is a radical Quebec solidaire militant and close associate of Amir Khadir.

Publishing the report without challenging Mr. Schepper's bone fides over his limited credentials and failing to mention his close and active connection to the Quebec Solidaire political party is an act of journalistic fraud laxity.

"Who still believes in the American dream? Who still believes that all citizens are born equal and have the same opportunities in life? Surely not Bertrand Schepper." Link{Fr}

Mr Schepper was a senior member of Khadir's Mercier re-election committee and once actually defended a robo-call campaign on Khadir's behalf, one that broke CRTC rules. Link{Fr}

In fact the whole" Institut de Recherche et d’Informations Socio-économiques' is but a Quebec Solidaire adjunct, where almost all the researchers are active members of the radical socialist/sovereigntist Quebec solidaire, a party that promotes all manner of pie-in-the-sky socialist fantasies.
For a good laugh, read about Quebec Solidaire's fantasical political positions HERE.

While nobody denies Quebec Solidaire the right to create it's own reports and studies, when its studies are quoted, it should be treated as the product of ultra partisan left-wing/separtists.

Many questions arise over the Institut de Recherche et d’Informations Socio-économiques' and  exactly who it represents and who is behind its financing. 
Unfortunately, it falls to bloggers to expose the truth and ask the hard questions.
Read this excellent blog piece entitled  Plan Nord: quand l’IRIS ne voit pas clair{Fr}

The saddest aspect in all this, is the creeping acceptance of the above-mentioned 'Institutes' as legitimate sources of research.
The latest pearl from IRIS is a paper warning that Quebec is heading towards a debt bubble because of increased student loans, which will trigger a financial meltdown as seen in the United States over the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
I first thought it was an April Fool's joke, but apparently not. Have you ever heard such drivel?

The real problem is that mainstream newspapers EVEN THE MONTREAL GAZETTE are giving credence to these nonsensical ideas.
In an article written by Karen Seidman and Kevin Dougherty in the Gazette, they repeat the monumentally cretinous idea of a student loan debt bubble that threatens the financial stability of the province, without describing the true nature of IRIS, the radical unofficial propaganda arm of Quebec solidaire. 

It's like writing a newspaper article quoting a report which finds no link between cigarettes and lung cancer, without mentioning that the story was commissioned by a think tank owned by a tobacco company!

 If ever sovereignty is achieved, Quebec's new propagandists will serve the new country of Quebec well, where they will quickly be hired by the new Department of Information and where they can put their consummate skills at twisting the facts to good use.

When Quebecers find themselves being flushed down the toilet, it will be described by the spinners as a delightful 'bain toubillion.'

Good night and Bonne Chance!

142 comments:

  1. The PQ / separatist / language extremist groups are actually becoming a great source of entertainment. After the humiliating defeat of the Bloc in the last federal elections, they know the end is coming very soon, and now they're just clutching at straws.

    From a single dépanneur owner who can't speak french, to "Les Magasins Canadian Tire", it's just getting more and more ridiculous as the weeks go by.

    Here's an article about some self-appointed language inspectors who are handing over 800 complaints to the OQLF. It sure sounds like these people have a full and productive life, without much free time on their hands (can you say B.S.?)...
    http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/economie/archives/2012/04/20120417-191335.html

    The best part is that TVA puts an article about pestering job-creating businesses in their "Economy (Argent)" section.. I guess the strategy there is to piss businesses off enough until they shut down, and then print an article about all the poor workers losing their jobs.
    Or maybe they're just trying to keep track of how much money we waste on ridiculous issues in this province (how much does an OQLF inspector make btw? Pension fund? Expense account?)

    I was also very happy to see two PQ contributors arrested today along with M. Accurso.
    How embarrassing for the separatist movement, who just a few months ago, was crying non stop about corruption within the Liberal party.
    You probably shouldn't speak out against others when you've also got your hand in the pot...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "After the humiliating defeat of the Bloc in the last federal elections, they know the end is coming very soon, and now they're just clutching at straws."

      Ça doit être pour ça que même une firme de sondage de Toronto (pouvez pas l'accuser d'être pro-souveraineté) prédit une majorité de sièges au PQ de Pauline Marois. Savez pas à quel point le parti libéral est impopulaire chez la majorité francophone et que la CAQ est passée de première l'an passé à troisième parti dans les sondages?

      C'est plutôt le règne libéral-fédéraliste de Jean Charest qui sent la fin de régime.

      Delete
    2. C'est incroyable comment les gens du ROC pensent que parce que les souvrainistes ont voté NDP, qu'ils ne sont plus souvrainistes.

      Delete
    3. Ouais, c'était plutôt une tentative de donner le pouvoir au NPD pour bloquer Harper mais évidemment le reste du pays n'a pas suivi, prouvant l'importance de l'indépendance parce qu'on a pas les mêmes opinions politiques.

      Avant l'existence du Bloc, les souverainistes votaient au fédéral quand même, du moins une partie. C'est pas à Ottawa que l'indépendance se fera mais à Québec.

      Delete
    4. Malheureusement, le reste du pays a suivi à moitié. Par exemple, mon député libéral a été vaincu parce que le vote du NDP a triplé sans que les votes du PC changent.

      Meilleure chance dans la prochaine élection! Selon les sondages, le NDP est maintenant en 1ère place en C-B, Atlantique, Québec, en 2ème partout ailleurs, les libéraux sont en 3ème place dans toutes les provinces.

      Moi je suis partisant libéral, donc ça me peine, mais je préfère de loin le NPD à Harper.

      Delete
    5. Ça doit être pour ça que même une firme de sondage de Toronto (pouvez pas l'accuser d'être pro-souveraineté) prédit une majorité de sièges au PQ de Pauline Marois. Savez pas à quel point le parti libéral est impopulaire chez la majorité francophone et que la CAQ est passée de première l'an passé à troisième parti dans les sondages?

      You may be right, only time will tell.

      C'est incroyable comment les gens du ROC pensent que parce que les souvrainistes ont voté NDP, qu'ils ne sont plus souvrainistes.

      Rest of Canada? I'm from Quebec, and yes I believe that the logical people have realized that there's no advantages to separation right now, and so we should focus on other things. We aren't in the 60s and 70s anymore.
      Maybe you can tell me some reasons why you think separation would be good for the province, aside from getting rid of "Les maudits anglais".. But I doubt you can, I've asked that question many times on this blog, and not one of you could give me a straight answer.. I'll be expecting some smart-ass comment or excuse in reply.

      Ouais, c'était plutôt une tentative de donner le pouvoir au NPD pour bloquer Harper mais évidemment le reste du pays n'a pas suivi, prouvant l'importance de l'indépendance parce qu'on a pas les mêmes opinions politiques.

      Do you really believe that it's us (quebec) vs. the rest of the country? Do you really think that all provinces, or even areas within different provinces, have the same political views? Do you think that the maritime provinces think the same way as the western provinces?
      Yes, we're all different and we all have different views and ideologies, the idea is to bring them all together as a whole, that's what makes this country such a great place. That means give and take though, being able to compromise.. and that's something this province can't seem to accept, it has to always be our way. That's not how the world works, that seems more like spoiled children.

      C'est pas à Ottawa que l'indépendance se fera mais à Québec.

      Then what was the point of the Bloc Québécois exactly?...


      Anyways, I may be entirely wrong, only time will tell... I'm definitely looking forward to the next provincial elections...

      Delete
    6. Pourquoi je devrais justifier la position des séparatistes? C'est à eux de le faire, non? En tout cas, je crois qu'il n'y a besoin que d'une seule raison pour se séparer : le désir de se séparer. Si on croit à l'auto-détermination des peuples, ça devrait suffir.

      En passant, c'est intéressant de savoir que si le Québec et le Canada avaient fait comme la Czechoslovakie, le Québec serait déjà indépendant sans référendum.

      Delete
    7. "Then what was the point of the Bloc Québécois exactly?"

      Empêcher des fédéralistes d'occuper les sièges du Québec (la majorité, en tout cas) en attendant l'indépendance.

      Ou comme Gilles Duceppe disait: défendre les intérêts du Québec à Ottawa.

      Delete
    8. En tout cas, je crois qu'il n'y a besoin que d'une seule raison pour se séparer : le désir de se séparer. Si on croit à l'auto-détermination des peuples, ça devrait suffir.

      You know what, that has got to be the best and most sincere answer I've received to that question. Thank you.

      I actually agree, but going back to the editors article, I think it should be based on a real desire, with rational arguments to support that desire, instead of being based on fear and propaganda, which seems to be the case. The editor described it well in his article.
      We find Americans pathetic for being led into a war based on lies, and for living in a state of constant fear, but the same thing is going on here. The states have their Dick Cheneys, we have our Jacques Parizeaus and Pauline Marois.

      René Lévesque had the right idea, it's too bad that extremists adopted his cause as their own, in order to advance their own selfish agendas, while using fear (les anglais nous envahissent!, le gouvernment Harper fait tout contre le Québec, etc etc..) to convince all the little sheep...

      Delete
    9. It’s my understanding that there are between 3000-5000 nations in the world today (depending on how one chooses to define the term) whereas there are only about 200 nation-states, sovereign states or countries in the world. Notwithstanding the right to self-determination, just imagine the chaos that would ensue if every nation in the world were to become a state!

      Delete
    10. @The Cat : I agree.

      But are you going to tell a people "No, you don't get to be a nation-state - there are already too many. Sorry."

      Self-determination is still the only real legitimacy behind who gets to be a country and who doesn't.

      Delete
    11. @Tree Stump : I don't disagree with you.

      On the other hand, do you not find it obscene that the best reasons federalists can put up against seperation are "there's more in it for your wallet" and "you get to keep your Canadian passport/pension"?

      Delete
    12. Il y en a peut-être des milliers mais la nation québécoise est plus nombreuse que la majorité de ces nations, elle est même plus nombreuse que la moitié des pays indépendants aujourd'hui.

      Quel est le pays le plus jeune des Amériques? Saint-Christophe-et-Niévès/Saint Kitts and Nevis, qui déclara son indépendance en 1983. De petites îles avec quelques dizaines de milliers d'habitants qui parlent anglais comme la plupart des îles de la région et pourtant on y retrouve plusieurs pays minuscules qui pourraient très bien être groupés en une seule fédération puisqu'ils ont une langue commune. Pendant ce temps, le Québec avec son territoire énorme en comparaison et avec ses 6,2 millions de francophones devrait continuer de demeurer dans un pays de 25 millions d'anglophones parce qu'il y a déjà beaucoup de pays dans le monde? Continuer les deux solitudes et le bilinguisme alors que plusieurs pays hispanophones sont voisins et ne sont pas fusionnés? Pourquoi pas fusionner le Canada anglais avec les États-Unis, question de simplifier les choses?

      Vous parlez de chaos, monsieur le Chat, mais c'est précisement parce que certaines nations doivent partager un même pays qu'il y a des guerres dans le monde.

      Évidemment qu'ici il n'y a pas de guerre mais ce n'est pas parce qu'il n'y a pas de guerre que ça fonctionne bien.

      Au lieu de poser la question pourquoi le Québec devrait quitter le Canada, il faut poser la question: pourquoi le Québec fait-il parti du Canada?
      Il n'a jamais voté pour et cette union est issue d'une domination d'un peuple sur l'autre.

      Delete
    13. Précision: il n'a jamais voté pour historiquement, de 1759 à 1980. En 1980, si l'on considère le référendum organisé par le PQ comme un vote pour ou contre le Canada, les Québécois francophones (la nation reconnue aujourd'hui par Stephen Harper*) voulait l'indépendance et encore plus en 1995 mais des membres de la nation canadienne-anglaise et de d'autres nations vivant au Québec combinés au vote, minoritaires, des Québécois francophones fédéralistes ont permi la victoire du Non. Le fait demeure que lorsque questionnée, la nation québécoise a dit oui nous voulons sortir du Canada. Donc, le Québec a voté contre l'indépendance mais la nation québécoise et le Québec ce n'est pas exactement la même chose.

      *Harper a dit en anglais que "the Québécois" forment une nation et non Quebecers donc ça sous-entend que, dans un contexte anglais, ça veut dire seulement les francophones

      Delete
    14. Harper said that Quebeckers/Quebecois formed a nation WITHIN Canada and it was a cynical statement done only out of political expediency.

      Delete
    15. @YannickApr 19, 2012 03:31 PM

      Personally, I would never say such a thing. However, no matter where the bar is placed along the spectrum, whoever is first on the "wrong" side of the list of current self-determination movements will always be the one to complain the loudest.

      Delete
    16. "it was a cynical statement done only out of political expediency."

      On n'a pas besoin d'être décrits comme une nation ou pas par Harper. Nous étions une nation avant même qu'il y ait des Canadiens-anglais. Nation dans le sens de peuple ayant des origines, une histoire, une culture et une langue commune et non dans le sens de pays comme c'est souvent utilisé en anglais. Même les Britanniques il y a deux siècles et demi parlaient de nation canadienne dans leurs documents. Évidemment le nom Canadien fût approprié (devenu Canadian) plus tard alors nous sommes devenus Canadiens-français puis lorsque nous avons réalisé que les Canadiens-français hors Québec étaient condamnés à l'assimilation (c'est débatable dirait Yannick l'Acadien) nous sommes devenus Québécois mais le terme Québécois permet aussi à quiconque n'ayant pas d'origine Canadienne-française de se joindre à cette nation. Certains sont d'accord avec cette définition, d'autres non parce qu'ils utilisent Québécois comme raccourci pour dire Québécois d'origine Canadienne-française d'où la confusion au sujet de qui est Québécois et qui ne l'est pas.

      Harper et the Gazette ont utilisé le terme français Québécois dans un contexte anglais voulant dire Québécois d'origine Canadienne-française, ou du moins ayant le français comme langue maternelle.

      À propos de la déclaration de Harper sur la nation québécoise: il a dit que la réponse (à l'indépendance) sera non et toujours non ou un truc du genre. Trouvez pas ça fasciste? Donc même dans le cas où une majorité claire dirait oui, il refuserait? N'est-ce pas de l'oppression? Il a donc admis en disant ça que le Québec est une colonie du Canada-anglais et que nous ne sommes pas des citoyens égaux libres de quitter cette fédération si nous le voulons.

      Delete
    17. Harper n'avait-il pas dit du vote sur le marriage gai que le résultat était illégitime puisque le oui l'a seulement emporté grâce au support du Bloc? Comme si les députés bloquistes n'étaient pas légalement élus pour représenter le Québec. Ils veulent l'indépendance mais en attendant ils sont des citoyens canadiens comme les autres, égaux devant la loi. Leur vote compte aussi.

      Mais pas égaux aux yeux de Harper.

      Delete
    18. Je tiens à préciser que de se reconnaître collectivement comme nation et être séparatiste n'est pas la même chose. La majorité des Québécois francophones fédéralistes sont d'accord avec la notion de nation dans les sondages.

      Le gouvernement canadien parle des Premières Nations et pourtant il n'encourage pas leur indépendance politique. Un pays peut contenir plusieurs nations. Il y a aussi la nation acadienne.

      Delete
  2. Speaking about propaganda, for shits and giggles, Louis Prefontaine's New York Times best seller Apartheid universitaire is available for pre-order at Amazon.ca. The book practically flies off the shelf. It is ranked at number 98 092 among best sellers at Amazon.

    Tree Stump, can you please give us the address of TVA's article?

    ReplyDelete
  3. For Quebec, the money pouring into dozens of iron ore, gold, copper and other mining projects could add a full percentage to GDP this year and cause an unexpected boost in royalty revenue for the cash-strapped government.

    Sooo, the big plan is we're going to let someone else dig up this provinces' finite real wealth (gold) and we'll get a pittance in rapidly depreciating (because its printed at will) paper.
    Every dollar you earned in Jan 2010, had only 27% of the purchasing power of a dollar you earned in Jan 2001. Paid by silver, by gold or by fiat - a historical comparison

    There is a smart way to use this provinces resources, but that isn't it.

    DD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To DD
      When commenting, why don't you slide down to the "Reply as:" button, just under the comment box and choose from the drop down menu; "Name/URL" and write in;
      "DD"
      That way you will appear in the comments as "DD instead of
      "Anonymous"
      ...just a suggestion.

      Delete
    2. I was reading in Maclean the other day that our wealth production has shifted from 55% manufacturing, 25% prime ressources to 63% prime ressources, 20% manufacturing in the past decade (Especially since Harper came in and started subsidizing the oil industry in the tar sands).

      It's happening all over the place, and it's scary.

      Delete
    3. has shifted from 55% manufacturing, 25% prime ressources to 63% prime ressources, 20% manufacturing in the past decade

      Ideally, we should never export raw materials, only finished products. Alas, multinationals will setup manufacturing wherever they can find cheap labor and a "pliable" government (with preferably no regulations).

      It's interesting that corporations used to reserve this economic pillaging for "third world" nations, now the western world is getting a taste of its own medicine.

      Don't get me started on subsidies:

      Bankster translater - subsidize - We take the tax dollars of many hard working Canadians and give it to some billionaire so he doesn't pay tax.

      But hey, we've boatloads of cash - right. It's not like our idiot government stopped borrowing (interest free) money from the Bank of Canada in 1974 and started borrowing from private banks. We've paid over a trillion in interest so far!

      Wonder why they did (and continue to do) something that stupid?

      Delete
    4. DD: Hell Yeah, they will!

      Delete
  4. Lisee is known for labeling himself as a left winger, but I don't see him as such. He's a bit like the US Trade Union Association in the 1920's which fought to protect the rights of labor, BUT excluded the blacks, the women, the Catholics, the Jews, etc...Mr. Lisee is the same way. Masquerading as a defender of the people, he rejects a huge segment of the population, maybe with an exception of those who he finds pay enough fealty to his ethnic cohort. The same can be said about the entire self-proclaimed left in Quebec. It is in fact an exclusive sort of left, tainted in ethnic ideology. What makes it even more absurd is the fact that the self-proclaimed left wingers in Quebec live like kings. Madame Marois, the "socialist" leader of the "socialist" PQ, lives in a mansion the size of Buckingham Palace.

    Another funny thing about Lisee is how he pretends to be your average guy, a people's person. But I remember him in 1995, passing a document from Parizeau to Bouchard to Dumont when they were signing their agreement. Like a good servant, he went from one to the next of the most powerful men in QC. Being this close to power centers (I believe that he still is), he must be joking about representing the interests of an average Joe (or Jacques rather). Rather, he serves the interests of a much narrower group of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. It's not the first time you criticize partisan think thanks, Editor.

    First it was the IRFA, then IRIS. I guess your next piece will about the Institut Économique de Montréal ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Perhaps that may be why he conveniently forgets to include statistics on those pesky ethnics who out perform even the Anglos. Comparing the graduation rate of ethnics to francophones would be utterly humiliating!"

    En effet, les Haïtiens, les Algériens et les Colombiens (groupes importants parmi les ethniques d'aujourd'hui) sont extrêmement studieux et pas du genre à quitter l'école pour rejoindre un gang de rue.

    Je ne comprends toujours pas par contre pourquoi la majorité des pires écoles en matière de décrochage, que l'on peut voir dans les listes publiées chaque année, sont à Montréal alors que la majorité des écoles du Québec ne sont pas à Montréal. Pourtant, avec tous ces ethniques super performants, elles ne devraient pas avoir de problème de décrochage, non?

    Non mais sérieusement, les ethniques ne sont pas tous des Chinois.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, even the educational performance of ethnics break down along linguistic lines.
      I shall say no more.....

      Delete
    2. Il y a à Montréal des écoles dites francophones qui ont en fait une majorité d'élèves qui n'ont pas le français comme langue maternelle alors dans des cas comme ça, ça prend en effet des statistiques par langue maternelle au lieu de considérer tous ceux qui vont à l'école dans le réseau francophone comme des francophones.

      Parlant d'ethniques, est-ce les ethniques qui font que le Québec est meilleur en mathématiques que le Canada anglais et même parmi les meilleurs au monde?
      http://www.pisa.gc.ca/fra/faitssaillants.shtml
      Je ne crois pas.
      Qui est aussi bon en mathématiques? Les Asiatiques de l'est surtout, qui sont pourtant plus nombreux au Canada anglais.

      Delete
    3. Mais oui éditeur vous êtes capable d'en dire davantage. Par contre une chose m'intrigue à propos des données que vous fournissez relativement au taux de réussite universitaire des anglos.

      Est-ce qu'elles concernent tous les anglos ? C'est-à-dire les de souche et les étrangers du RoC et d'ailleurs.

      S'il s'agit uniquement des anglos appartenant à la minorité historique, est-ce que les formations universitaires ont été ajustées à leur niveau ? Puisque les derniers tests PISA ont clairement démontrer que les anglos de souche sont moins intelligents que les Québécois en lecture, en mathématiques et en sciences.

      Par ailleurs, je m'interroge sur la valeur de certains diplômes octroyés par les universités anglaises. Par exemple, y a-t-il une seule personne qui ait eu une carrière réussie avec un diplôme de Bishop ?

      Delete
    4. At first I thought this comment a joke.
      "Par exemple, y a-t-il une seule personne qui ait eu une carrière réussie avec un diplôme de Bishop ?" (Is there one Bishops graduate that has made a successful career?)

      How about Joe Ghiz- a Premier of PEI

      Tiny Bishops has more famous graduates than UQAM which is THIRTY times its size!

      Are you actually saying a degree is easier to obtain at McGill than UQAM.

      I hate to be insulting but your comment is the dumbest one I've read since starting this blog

      Delete
    5. "Tiny Bishops has more famous graduates than UQAM which is THIRTY times its size!"

      Ça dépend célèbres où. Joe Ghiz n'est pas une vedette mondiale.
      Ce qui compte pour nous c'est que dans l'univers québécois il y a plus de gens connus issus de l'UQAM que de Bishop's alors vos joueurs de football de la CFL* ne m'impressionnent pas.

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop%27s_University#Notable_former_students_and_alumni

      Bishop's, une autre université anglaise sur-financée.
      Louis Préfontaine décrit bien ce phénomène dans son livre.
      Pas mal pour une minorité soi-disant opprimée et un gouvernement québécois qui n'aide pas les anglophones.

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

      Delete
    7. Joe qui? Même en tant que Néo-Brunswickois, jamais entendu parlé... être premier ministre d'une plantation de patates, ce n'est pas très glorifiant.

      Delete
    8. "un important bassin de ces typiques anglos de descendance irlandaise"

      T'es nouveau ici, Barnabé? Parce que moi j'y suis depuis longtemps et voici les origines ethniques de ceux qui se disent anglos et écrivent ici: juif (plusieurs), polonais, italien, grec, asiatique, minorité visible non-spécifiée (peut-être noir?), portugais, roumain... J'en oublie?

      La minorité historique anglaise (j'imagine que ça inclut les irlandais) se fait plutôt discrète. Peut-être parce qu'elle n'est pas si nombreuse que ça et que derrière se cachent plusieurs qui demandent des droits de minorité linguistique alors que pour plusieurs d'entre eux l'anglais n'est même pas leur langue maternelle.

      Louis Préfontaine l'a dit:
      "Or, cette minorité jouit d’un réseau anglais de cégeps et d’universités publics engouffrant respectivement 19% et 27% du financement total et d’un méga-hôpital engloutissant 45,4% (1,5 milliards de dollars contre 1,8 milliards pour l’hôpital francophone) des ressources consacrées aux méga-hôpitaux. Tout ça, oui, pour 5,4% de la population. Le colonialisme continue."
      http://ledernierquebecois.com/2010/08/12/minorite-historique-anglaise-sur-financement

      Delete
    9. L'éditeur dénonce la supposée propagande souverainiste mais d'habitude ceux qui font de la propagande sont aussi pour la censure et là je viens de voir que j'ai écrit un commentaire en réponse à celui de Barnabé qui vient d'être censuré.

      J'ai déjà vu des commentaires haineux ne pas être censurés sur ce site alors que sur la même page, d'autres commentaires même pas haineux l'étaient. J'imagine que ça dépend qui écrit sa haine envers qui.

      J'imagine que de dénoncer ce deux poids, deux mesures va me valoir d'être censuré moi aussi.

      Delete
    10. L'éditeur est beaucoup plus apte à voir les commentaires haineux anti-anglos que les commentaires haineux anti-francos. C'est de l'histoire ancienne.

      Ou encore les trolls qui pensent que n'importe quels 2 francos qui sont d'accord sont "the same loser who spends all his time on the computer drinking beer and eating poutine because he is on BS sponsored by 8 billion equalization payments from Ontario/Alberta" et tu connais le reste de la chanson...

      Delete
    11. I have been following this blog for over two years. There was indeed one Francophone troll who posted comments under many different names. Errors in his punctuation made his comments easily recognizable. It was almost like looking at fingerprints. His posts were extremely hateful and they often triggered angry responses from Anglophones. I have no doubt that his intention was to damage and diminish this blog.

      Delete
  7. A lot of the reason I left Quebec more than half my life ago, of course in addition to the language nuttiness, is because the Quebec collectivity lives lies. It's not as if we all don't know INDIVIDUALS whose lives are lies (i.e., how they fantasize their lives are more than they actually are), but it's a lot scarier when government doggedly promotes the lies (and it's not as if ANY government is 100% clean and honest).

    The simple fact of the matter is, Quebec, by its own admission, has one of the highest per-capita debt rates in the world (6th, according to the figures of their own Ministère des Finances), a very high drop-out rate in comparison to most of Canada, a high obesity rate, bad teeth second only to the Scottish for worst, and a think-tank that years ago wrote about low productivity, low professional skill rates, too much union nonsense, lack of second language skills (quel surprise!) and a whole lot of other inadequacies. Lucien Bouchard and other proclaimed separatists were part of that think-tank.

    Quebec is the biggest drawer of equalization payments, some $8 billion per year, not to mention other programs they are note beneficiaries thereof, and endlessly bashing the feds in spite of it all.

    In short, Quebec is a loser. Ontario came up with a budget that curbs its debt mostly without punishing the taxpayers, ever the rich ones (though the provincial NDP wants concessions re the super rich). This is not to state Ontario is the land of milk and honey these days, but an independent economist was hired to evaluate the outlook and provide recommendations. The current government is intent on implementing most, but not all the recommendations. Ontario, for sometime to come, will not enjoy the growth it did in the past, and will have to look at means of economic renewal, but at least they're working on it while Quebec students, with the support of idiots, are striking over tuition increases that in the end will still render tuition fees 25% lower than anywhere else.

    How are these students going to win? Many will lose their year and will therefore have to pay for their lost year. IDIOTS! That costs more that the tuition fee increases! IDIOTS! The alternative is forfeiting completion of their diploma/degree programs. BIGGER IDIOTS! RETARDS! I believe that's called cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. BIGGEST IDIOTS, RETARDS AND MORONS!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, a typo or two: The two-line paragraph above should read NET beneficiaries, not note beneficiaries. The next paragraph should read EVEN the rich ones, not ever.

      Delete
    2. "a high obesity rate"
      That's not even true. English Canadians and Americans are more obese. Look at this, from the Canadian government while you have no source at all to back up what you're saying:
      http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hp-ps/hl-mvs/oic-oac/assets/gfx/fig-4-l-eng.jpg
      All of Canada is more obese than Quebec except for British Columbia, the same British Columbia that has by far the highest percentage of Chinese Canadians, who are not known to be obese so this could explain it.

      "bad teeth"
      Where do you get bad teeth statistics?

      "lack of second language skills (quel surprise!)"
      There is a higher percentage of francophone Quebecers who can speak a second language than anglophone Canadians or Americans who are mostly unilingual.
      It's quelle surprise, not quel surprise, by the way.

      Delete
    3. "too much union nonsense"
      That's because after so much time being exploited by English-speaking bosses, there was a need for unions, a bigger need than elsewhere in North America and then they just grew bigger and stronger.

      Delete
    4. And before you say it's just separatist propaganda, consider the following from an article written by an English Canadian in 1955:

      "When I first came to Montreal to live, I thought the French Canadians were absurd when they said with emotion, "We are a conquered people." Then I heard an English Canadian business man who employed a hundred French workmen say, "Oh sure, they're all right if you know how to handle 'em. And we do-after all, we conquered 'em, didn't we?"

      So, slowly, slowly, with rude and angry words from French Canadians who thought that because I speak English I must be intriguing to take advantage of them in some way, with contemptuous words from English Canadians and Americans who said disdainfully that they "didn't like" French Canadians and weren't interested in their politics or their outlook, I began to realize that les Anglais are strangers in the land, strangers who own the industry, who hold the best jobs, who control the government, who think they are being democratic if they bestow an occasional pat on a French artist, or take a wealthy French Canadian on some committee or board of directors."
      http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/docs/views/chapin13.htm

      So of course when you start with an advantage from birth (having English as your mother tongue) and speak the same language as the vast majority of this continent, it's easy to dominate economically and even if you do become fluent in English, they could still discriminate and hire native English-speakers instead like the documented case of CN president Donald Gordon who in the 1960s didn't want to hire a French-Canadian as vice-president.

      Maurice Leclair became president of the Canadian National Railway Company from 1982 to 1986 and then Paul Tellier from 1992 to 2002.

      This is why bill 101 is considered a good thing on the French side and a bad thing on the English side. You say it hurt Montreal economically but the fact remains that it didn't hurt French-speakers economically: they have a much higher income today than they did before bill 101.

      Delete
    5. In http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/docs/views/chapin13.htm
      we can also read this:
      A woman can live her whole life there and never speak a word of French, come in contact with no French Canadian except janitor, tram conductor, store clerk. She can say, as I overheard one, "Poor Sally, she can't find an apartment. She heard of one down in St. Louis Square, but of course only French people live there." So might a Princess Radziwill have spoken of the ghetto. She can dine at the Ritz, at the height of the conscription crisis, and as the French waiter's steady hand sets her soup before her, say as I heard one woman in 1944, "They ought to come down here from Ontario and just clean out the French, the lot of them. They're all yellow."

      So much for the evil separatist ethnic cleansers (even though nobody was forced to move) and all the anti-anglo racism. Saying "of course only French people live there" sounds quite racist to me.

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous : Mais ceux qui pensaient comme ça sont partis par la 401, non? Ça sert à quoi de se rapeller des vieilles rancunes?

      @Sauga : You say that the students have no self-interest in failing their classes. Perhaps they are doing so not out of self-interest, but out of altruism? For the future classes to come after them as well? Is it still stupid then?

      Delete
    7. @ Anonymous at 10:29 AM:

      "bad teeth"
      "Where do you get bad teeth statistics?"

      Just visit any small Quebecois town and you will see a considerable number of people with terrible teeth. The Quebecois eat too many sugary foods and they don't visit the dentist enough.

      Statistics can be twisted around to suit anyone's particular perception of reality.

      Delete
    8. @ Anonymous at 11:25 AM:

      "So much for the evil separatist ethnic cleansers (even though nobody was forced to move) and all the anti-anglo racism."

      Hundreds of thousands of Anglophones were forced out by fascist language laws that made life intolerable for them in Quebec, and there is anti-anglo racism plastered all over the French media - on TV, on the radio and in the newspapers.

      "Saying "of course only French people live there" sounds quite racist to me."

      So an Anglophone made an anti-French comment in the 1940's...oh the horror! You're really grasping at straws when you have to use examples from 60 to 70 years ago. The racism against Anglos in Quebec is happening NOW and it is backed by both the government, and a number of different Francophone groups, i.e. the Societe-Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Jeunes Patriotes du Quebec, Reseau de Resistance du Quebec, Imperatif Francais, Mouvement-Montreal-Francais, etc.

      Delete
    9. "Just visit any small Quebecois town"
      I was born in one, lived in other towns and am now living in a suburb on the south shore of Montreal. I also lived three years in Oshawa, Ontario while growing up and even though I was very young, I noticed that people were fatter there than here (just like each time I went to New Brunswick on vacation) but that's not very scientific. Now I see that the Canadian government can confirm this with statistics.

      Where have YOU lived and how do you know about what people eat and how often they go to the dentist?
      Funny how I only became aware of this "terrible teeth" phenomenon once I discovered this blog. You'd think I would have noticed after all those years living among my fellow Québécois.

      If I were presented with statistics about dentist visits or sugar consumption, then I would say you have a point but until then I say whatever, believe what you want to believe.

      Delete
    10. "Hundreds of thousands of Anglophones were forced out by fascist language laws that made life intolerable for them in Quebec"

      Yet hundreds of thousands stayed and seem to be doing just fine. There are even anglos from other provinces moving in. In fact, Statistics Canada has shown that while anglos were leaving, others were still entering, just not as many as those leaving but for a while it was about 1 anglo moving in for 2 anglos moving out. I could try to find the stats again but I must leave for now, all I can say is that surely it couldn't have been that bad if thousands moved in each year after bill 101.

      Delete
    11. "You say it hurt Montreal economically but the fact remains that it didn't hurt French-speakers economically: they have a much higher income today than they did before bill 101."

      This is the economic reason for 101, and in my opinion the only real one. It's hard for Quebeckers to admit it, but that's true. 101 changed the economic paradigm in favor of the francophones, and that's why they defend it tooth and nail. After all, Quebec is a consumerist society, so economy and wealth override everything else. Forget the nonsense about culture, all that counts in this society is $$$.

      Protection of culture and language is just a smokescreen, it's something that adds mystique and an haughty raison-d'etre to what is, in essence, a discriminatory law whose major role is to safeguard the economic interests of one ethnic cohort at the expense of others. This is what 101 is when demystified, stripped of all the lofty cliches.

      Delete
    12. Les pauvres anglos du Québec... forcé d'offrir le service en français dans leurs commerces, à s'afficher dans les deux langues, et à traduire leur noms de commerce... c'est vraiment l'une des pires crimes de l'histoire. L'holocauste à côté de ça, c'est rien.

      Sans sarcasme, s'il fallait une loi pour forcer les anglos à faire ce qui ailleurs ne serait que pure courtoisie, vous devriez avoir honte plutôt que de crier au meurtre.

      Delete
    13. "Protection of culture and language is just a smokescreen"

      Pas vraiment. La loi peut avoir deux effets en même temps: l'effet économique que vous avez décrit et vraiment protéger le français. Quand on voit que les anglophones gagnent plus d'argent, ça donne plus envie d'aller à l'école anglaise (et avant la loi 101 c'était permis à tous), de travailler en anglais et dans un tel environnement anglophone on risque de se mettre en couple avec un ou une anglophone mais comme l'anglais semble plus important, ne pas transmettre le français à ses enfants en ne parlant qu'anglais à la maison et les envoyer à l'école anglaise. L'assimilation, quoi.

      Delete
    14. Here it is: Interprovincial migration of persons whose mother tongue is English between Quebec and the other provinces
      http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/lo-ol/pubs/npc/c-g/c-g63-eng.cfm

      "Hundreds of thousands of Anglophones were forced out by fascist language laws that made life intolerable for them in Quebec"

      Yet those laws are still in effect and the way things are going, there might eventually be more English-speakers moving in than moving out. Are all those that move in unaware of bill 101? And the perpetual separation threat, which is why I think so many moved out after 1976 when the PQ first took power.

      Delete
    15. Oh and notice how many moved out before 1976. No PQ in power back then, no bill 101.

      Delete
    16. ...unless of course almost 100,000 moved out (mostly) in 1976 once the PQ won the election but that's unlikely.

      Delete
    17. No, wait, forget about the above post, the year 1976 doesn't seem to be included so yeah how can the outmigration of 1975 and the years before that be explained?

      Delete
    18. Have you forgotten about the precursors that led up to Bill 101, Bill 22 (1974) and Bill 63 (1969)?

      Delete
    19. "forcé d'offrir le service en français dans leurs commerces, à s'afficher dans les deux langues, et à traduire leur noms de commerce"

      You sneer, but that is asking too much.

      It should be: you don't like someone's business, you don't spend your money there, it's the way it is everywhere else. . Not: you don't like someone's business, you demand the change of practices and get the government to put its weight behind you.

      A situation where you can demand to be served your way with a government-run institution behind you is an anomaly. It essentially reverses the roles, it makes you the owner of the business. It gives you the right, for example, to demand that the owner changes the name of the business, which is a little bit like asking him to change his own name.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. adski,

      "This is the economic reason for 101, and in my opinion the only real one. It's hard for Quebeckers to admit it, but that's true."

      If not the only, economic motivations are indeed the most important. You seem to have discovered something that no one figured out. But, to me, it has always been obvious that is about economy.

      Option Nationale Jean-Martin Aussant's arguments are almost exclusively about economy. Jacques Parizeau in his book La Souveraineté du Québec talks about economy, international relations, leading of a state (conduite d'un état), almost nothing about culture or language.

      When we tell about french canadians being second last in terms revenues in the 1950s and 1960s (next to italians if my memory is right), we are not talking about culture and poem writing, we are talking about economy.

      Pierre Bourgault tells it plainly in Discours sur la Langue. You can just start the video at 3:09. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW5bN8Da5s4

      Delete
    22. "You seem to have discovered something that no one figured out. But, to me, it has always been obvious that is about economy."

      Did I say nobody ever figured it out? What's your point here? Because I said it's hard for the francos to admit it, that it's easier to mystify one's behavior in pretentious claims about culture and language instead of admitting the cold earthly reason behind it?

      I said that economy is the only real reason why so many francos rally behind 101. The thing about culture and language is a smokescreen.

      And it's funny how when something is "discovered", all of a sudden everybody knew about it. Yet practically every appeal to non-francophones to back 101 revolves around language and culture. Which makes sense. You can't go up to an ethnic or an anglo and say: back this because it secures my economic interests. So instead we're approached in a more conniving way and asked to back it for all kinds of altruistic reasons, like saving a culture for disappearance, while the true motives remain unmentioned.

      Delete
    23. And my question to M.Patrice:

      Now that we are all on the same page about THE motive behind 101, you will surely admit that non-francophones (and that includes the newly arrived) have absolutely no interest in supporting 101. In fact, they have an interest in overturning it, because it promotes the economic interests of another group at the expense of their own.

      Therefore the government, Quebec NGOs (e.g. SSJB), and individual francophones should refrain from proselytizing on behalf of 101 to non-believers, since the non-belief is rooted in reason.

      Delete
    24. And if the motive behind 101 is so, as you said, "obvious", why are anglophones and allophones so often scolded for plotting to undermine 101 and for plotting constantly ever since the law was passed 35 years ago? Surely, plotting against such a law would make sense from their perspective, wouldn't it?

      Delete
    25. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    26. adski,

      "Did I say nobody ever figured it out? What's your point here?"

      In writen conversation, one doesn't hear the tone of voice. Sorry, I misunderstood you. My point is that it is not hard for the francos to admit economic motivations since it is part of our public discourse.

      " [...] you will surely admit that non-francophones (and that includes the newly arrived) have absolutely no interest in supporting 101. In fact, they have an interest in overturning it, because it promotes the economic interests of another group at the expense of their own."

      We assume (perhaps naively) that immigrants learn french, or that at least their children will learn it in school (integration is a long process). Since Bill 101 being about (among other things) the right to work in french, immigrants integrating the english community have no interest in supporting Bill 101, immigrants integrating the french community have interest in supporting Bill 101.

      Regardless of language, when separatists say that we have no interest in financing automobile industry, for instance, and that we should better invest in aeronautics and forestery, it is positive for francos, allos and anglos.

      Immigrants's drama is that they have to learn both language : a unlingual english speaker immigrant is condemned to work in a depanneur unless he has highly looked for skills (des compétences très en demande?). And english is always a plus for a unilingual french speaking immigrant. The problem is the presence of two competing systems on the same territory.

      "why are anglophones and allophones so often scolded for plotting to undermine 101 and for plotting constantly ever since the law was passed 35 years ago?"

      I understand that anglos are pissed of with Bill 101 and that they see it as being against their interest. The best possible situation for them would be if nothing had changed. Being in their shoes, I would probably fight it too (probably not for 35 years though). Am I in favor of giving up Bill 101 and go back to the situation of 1950s because anglos are unpleased with it? Of course not.

      Do I want to get rid of anglos? Of course not. On the language issue, we are political adversaries. It is pointless to try to destroy the adversary. On doit seulement mettre l'adversaire devant un fait accompli et l'empêcher de nuire, sans oublier que l'adversaire d'aujourd'hui pourrait être l'allié de demain (note 1). (I am quoting a former canadian army officer...) (And I wrote this part in french because I am sometimes hesitant in my choice of words for sensitive parts.)

      P.S. I will not be back for a while. Maybe later tonight.

      Note 1 : I can see you laughing out loud on this one. But didn't the Editor once said about the partition issue : "By the way, all those threats above......hogwash. It cuts both ways.
      It would be in everyone's interest to cooperate."

      Delete
    27. @ adski
      "non-francophones (and that includes the newly arrived) have absolutely no interest in supporting 101"

      Vraiment? Même les immigrants algériens, français et marocains, qui sont les trois groupes les plus nombreux parmi les immigrants au Québec? Plusieurs se plaignent de découvrir qu'une fois arrivés ici, ils doivent apprendre l'anglais pour travailler alors une loi 101 plus forte serait dans leur intérêt.

      Regardez, cette immigrante algérienne pro-français:
      http://blogues.journaldemontreal.com/benhabib/actualites/welcome-to-quebec/

      De nos jours, il y a aussi beaucoup d'immigrants dont la langue maternelle est l'espagnol et ils semblent s'intégrer plus au français qu'à l'anglais, probablement parce que c'est une langue de la même famille, ce qui expliquerait pourquoi le pourcentage de Latino-Américains qui immigrent au Canada qui s'installent au Québec est plus élevé que la proportion du Québec dans le Canada alors que les Indiens, les Pakistanais, les Philippins et autres groupes provenant de pays où l'anglais est plus connu sont sous-représentés au Québec. Selon le recensement, les Latino-Américains ont aussi plus tendance à s'installer en région que d'autres allophones. La majorité va à Montréal, évidemment, mais les immigrants qui vont en dehors de Montréal ne sont sûrement pas pour l'assimilation à l'anglais parce qu'ils choisissent un milieu clairement francophone.

      Delete
    28. adski, I have to disagree with you on this:

      "a unlingual english speaker immigrant is condemned to work in a depanneur unless he has highly looked for skills (des compétences très en demande?)."

      I believe this issue was raised before when we were wondering if Einstein, as a unilingual anglophone, would be accepted to work in Quebec, in a top position. I believe, as I said before, ethnicity and language trumps competency... So no, I think that immigrant would work in a convenience store (provided Dutrizac leaves him alone).

      Delete
    29. @ Yannick,

      "You say that the students have no self-interest in failing their classes. Perhaps they are doing so not out of self-interest, but out of altruism? For the future classes to come after them as well? Is it still stupid then?"

      Quebec has the lowest university tuition in Canada and it will still be the lowest after the price increases take place.
      What about having some consideration for the people who are paying taxes to subsidize their university education?

      Delete
    30. M.Patrice: "I understand that anglos are pissed of with Bill 101 and that they see it as being against their interest. The best possible situation for them would be if nothing had changed."

      First, you say you understand their position, yet very influential personalities in Quebec tend to scold anglos (and allos) for undermining and "disrespecting" 101. Who should we listen to then, you who "understands" or those who don't? Looking at how frequently the views on this are expressed in public, the ones who do not understand outnumber those who do.

      Second, some anglos rue 101 for the fact that they lost privileges, exactly as you imply. I'm not one of them since I was not one of those anglos who lost influence on the account of 101. I rue 101 for the reasons that most people do these days do (most of us are not and never were Westmount Rhodesians), because I find it unfair and discriminatory. And at the same time, contrary what you are implying, I would not like a return to the situation from before the 1960's, because that situation was unfair. So the best situation would NOT be if nothing had changed, because something had to change. I just rue the fact that the change went in the direction it went.

      I'm for finding some middle ground between before and after the 1960's. Btoh before and after are unacceptable to me.

      Delete
    31. Tanya, you are disagreeing with someone else. I didn't write what you've quoted.

      Delete
    32. adski,

      "Who should we listen to then, you who "understands" or those who don't? Looking at how frequently the views on this are expressed in public, the ones who do not understand outnumber those who do."

      I think that those who do not understand outnumber by a wide margin those who do since francos tend to have little interest for anglos's point of view, which, I think, should be no surprise.

      Nevertheless, my point was that language is in large part about economy (and independence is about more than language) and that it is no secret.

      "I'm for finding some middle ground between before and after the 1960's. Both before and after are unacceptable to me."

      I understand your point. Finding this middle ground is no easy task.

      Delete
  8. Non, Yannick, ils ne sont pas tous partis, je l'ai vu de mes propres yeux vus. C'est toujours d'actualité, c'est juste que desfois c'est dit par des immigrants anglophiles. Ils viennent ici et ensuite disent que nous devrions être déportés vers un pays que nos ancêtres ont quitté il y a des siècles (et certains ancêtres venaient de d'autres pays), c'est vraiment une situation révoltante que seule l'indépendance du Québec pourrait corriger parce que les mêmes crottés ne viendraient sûrement pas ici si ça ne faisait pas partie du Canada où l'anglais est la langue première.

    C'est comme la fameuse histoire de la grosse madame chez Eaton. C'est vraiment pas de l'histoire ancienne, en fait, parce qu'il n'y a pas vraiment de différence entre se faire servir en anglais par une étudiante de McGill venue de l'Ontario qui travaille à temps partiel et une grosse anglo née ici, à la base c'est la même situation. "Sorry, I don't speak French" et encore, pas sûr qu'elles s'excusent tout le temps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. C'est si grave, "sorry, I don't speak French"?

      Mais je suis d'accord avec le reste, se faire dire par des gens fraîchement arrivés qu'on devrait partir, c'est vraiment le summum. Ça m'est arrivé aussi.

      Delete
  9. Jean-François Lisée = anglophile, de par son propre aveu.
    Vous, anglophones, devriez l'aimer.

    « Quand le Parti Québécois prend le pouvoir en 1994, son programme prévoit le retour à l’unilinguisme français dans l’affichage et l’extension des dispositions de la loi 101 aux cégeps, mais la décision est différée après la tenue du référendum de 1995. Lorsque Lucien Bouchard remplace Jacques Parizeau, il s’empresse de rassurer la communauté anglophone, lors de son célèbre discours au Centaur – dont Jean-François Lisée se vante d’être le rédacteur – en s’engageant à ne pas donner suite à ces deux promesses. »
    source : http://lautjournal.info/default.aspx?page=3&NewsId=2755

    Jean-François Lisée a toujours voulu garder une communauté anglophone à Montréal, avec ses universités, etc.

    Il aime les anglophones et il était très déçu des résultats de son sondage, déçu d'apprendre que les anglophones ne tiennent pas autant au français qu'il espérait.
    Malgré ça, il demeure un allié pour vous alors c'est vraiment ironique qu'il soit si critiqué sur ce site.

    Plusieurs termes me viennent à l'idée quand je pense à ce Lisée : syndrome de Stockholm, xénophilie, idiot utile (utile pour l'anglicisateur).
    Il y a quelque chose d'anormal à ne pas aimer l'idée d'une ville clairement francophone alors qu'on est soi-même francophone.

    « Cultural cringe, in cultural studies and social anthropology, is an internalized inferiority complex which causes people in a country to dismiss their own culture as inferior to the cultures of other countries. »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_cringe
    Faudrait bien écrire un article en français un jour. Lisée devrait le faire au lieu de travailler à l'anglicisation de Montréal. Bon, c'est vrai, il a déjà dit que le taux d'anglophones devrait être maintenu à un certain niveau mais ne jamais devenir majoritaire. C'était naïf de croire ça parce qu'on entend plus parler anglais à Montréal aujourd'hui qu'à l'époque de Lucien Bouchard.

    Il veut à la fois l'indépendance et préserver la communauté anglophone qui vote contre l'indépendance et qui déménagerait en grands nombres après l'indépendance et/ou tenterait de maintenir certains territoires au Canada alors il n'habiterait peut-être même plus dans le même pays que plusieurs de ses chers anglophones.

    Bref, il est fou.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Jean-François Lisée = anglophile, de par son propre aveu."

      The fact that it is by "his own admission" makes it suspect. If he really liked anglophones, he wouldn't have to say it. The fact that he is saying it means that people have accused him of not liking anglophones, so he has to correct them. And because people accuse him of harboring an anti-anglo sentiment, he must have done something or said something that exposed him.

      To me, Lisee's conduct indicates something opposite to anglophilia. You don't become a guardian and an apologist for a law like 101 if you like people who are targeted by cynical and petty provisions of that law.

      Delete
    2. Un gardien de la loi 101 alors qu'il était (et est probablement encore) contre le retour à l'unilinguisme français dans l'affichage et l'application de la loi 101 aux cégeps?

      Il n'a pas besoin de se dire ouvertement anglophile. Action speaks louder than words, comme dirait les Zimbabwéens.

      Delete
    3. Does anybody else find it somewhat humourous that M. Lisée himself finds it necessary to use the ultra-French expression "K.-O." in the title of his book? Surely there must be a way to francicize it in order to avoid the evil taint of English?! Even in the crowd-sourced French Wikipédia article, no one in the world seems to find it necessary to use anything else other than the very simple "KO".

      This reminds me of the PQ government's very lengthy deliberations on how to avoid indicating the name on the highway signs to the newly-named Trudeau Airport for as long as possible... should it be "Aéroport Trudeau"? Nah, too simple. "Pierre-Trudeau"? "Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau"? "P.-Trudeau"? Or the ugliest of all, "P.-E.-Trudeau"? Seems it would have taken about 5-10 minutes to sift through the options in a normal society, but not here...

      Delete
    4. Lisée n'a aucun problème avec « knockout » puisqu'il est anglophile.
      Je suis même surpris qu'il n'a pas traduit son livre en anglais. Peut-être pour bientôt ?

      Remarquez le titre de son article : « Bonjour, mon nom est J-F Lisée. Je suis anglophile. »
      http://www2.lactualite.com/jean-francois-lisee/bonjour-mon-nom-est-j-f-lisee-je-suis-anglophile/12217/

      Et ici, il cite en anglais son texte qu'il a écrit pour The Gazette sans se donner la peine de le traduire :
      http://www2.lactualite.com/jean-francois-lisee/les-anglos-et-le-francais-le-debat-continue/12276/

      Pas vraiment un puriste.

      Delete
    5. The last couple comments on Lisée's blog make for interesting enough reading:

      58Robert Rondeau :
      mars 30, 2012 à 11:48
      Vous avez trouvé la façon de soulever la poussière encore une fois, de re-brasser la même vieille m*, jusqu’à plaquer une grenouille sur la couverture, et vous osez jouer à la vierge offensée? La situation demeurera toujours une grossière injustice tant et aussi longtemps qu’une loi (la ’101′) aura besoin d’une clause pour la protéger contre le gros bon sens. J’ai 68 ans; il me reste peut-être une bonne dizaine de belles années à vivre. Puis-je compter sur vous, monsieur Lisée, pour nous laisser vivre en harmonie, côte à côte, anglophones, francophones, sans qu’on se sente utilisés par les politicos, les blagueurs, les blogueurs, et les reste des fomenteurs de troubles? J’en doute, mais je me devais de vous le demander.

      57François 1 :
      mars 30, 2012 à 4:52
      @ Youlle (# 52):

      “Un de mes ancêtres, un québécois, qui à vécu de 1630 à 1699 à traversé l’Atlantique 7 fois. Les Québécois ont toujours su ce qui se passait en dehors du Québec. Ils ont même participé à la libération des américains et peuplé ce pays.” (sic)

      Et tout ça SANS la loi 101!!!

      La loi 101 est donc inutile et surtout, elle donne aux Québécois un sentiment de fausse sécurité qui fait en sorte qu’ils négligent leur langue.

      Il faut l’abolir comme au temps de vos ancêtres.

      Delete
    6. Amazing comments indeed.

      This one is worth reiterating:

      Puis-je compter sur vous, monsieur Lisée, pour nous laisser vivre en harmonie, côte à côte, anglophones, francophones, sans qu’on se sente utilisés par les politicos, les blagueurs, les blogueurs, et les reste des fomenteurs de troubles? J’en doute, mais je me devais de vous le demander.

      Unfortunately, I must disappoint Mr.Rondeau. The reply to his question whether or not Lisee could let us live in harmony is: No, he can't. His bosses pay him too well for fomenting divisions and stirring up storms in a teacup.

      Delete
    7. Monsieur adski, je ne vois pas la logique de discuter en anglais de commentaires écrits en français mais au moins vous semblez les comprendre, ce qui ne serait probablement pas le cas sans notre bonne vieille loi. N'êtes-vous pas un enfant de la loi 101? Et malgré cela vous vous êtes anglicisé alors j'ose même pas imaginer l'immigration sans cette loi.

      La loi a toujours été trop faible. D'abord c'était René Lévesque le mou qui s'opposait aux idées du bon docteur Laurin et dans les années 1990 ce fût Jean-François Lisée qui empêcha un renforcissement de la loi et écrivit un discours pour rassurer les anglophones, discours lu par Lulu Bouchard le traître qui s'est avéré être un fédéraliste toutes ces années plus tard.

      J'espère que le troisième gouvernement péquiste aura des couilles. Le réseau scolaire anglophone devrait être aboli afin de promouvoir l'harmonie sociale et une seule langue commune pour que cesse l'apartheid linguistique. Aussi: interdiction de travailler avec le public sans connaître le français afin d'assurer le service en français à tous.

      Delete
    8. Plus j'y pense, plus ça a du sens: abolir le réseau scolaire anglais. Les anglophones n'ont pas à craindre l'assimilation, ils pourraient encore parler anglais en dehors de l'école. Placer tout le monde dans le même réseau est la meilleure solution d'abolir l'intolérance. Ils s'ouvriraient sur les autres. Promouvoir l'harmonie sociale est une cause noble.
      L'existence d'un réseau anglophone est une preuve de racisme envers la majorité francophone du Québec.

      Delete
    9. *est la meilleure FAÇON d'abolir l'intolérance, j'allais dire solution pour abolir

      Minorité anglophone du Québec dans des écoles francophones -> reste anglophone mais en plus devient parfaitement bilingue et plus ouverte aux francophones
      Minorités francophones au Canada anglais dans des écoles anglophones -> assimilation

      Pas du tout la même chose. Au Canada anglais, bien des jeunes francophones allant à des écoles françaises parlent anglais dans la cour d'école! Absurde mais pourtant je l'ai vu et entendu lorsque je suis allé à l'école en Ontario durant mon enfance. Alors imaginez l'abolition du réseau francophone hors Québec et l'assimilation que ça produirait.

      Au Québec, les anglophones ne sont pas en danger d'assimilation, ils sont minoritaires et malgré cela ils sont capables d'assimiler certains allophones alors ce n'est pas pro-assimilation-des-anglos de les diriger vers le réseau franco.

      Delete
    10. Hey, I have an even better idea: how about teaching both languages equally, at least in the Montreal area? With a few exception, the quality on English taught in the French system is deplorable. How 'bout that?

      Delete
    11. If English school boards and English schools are eliminated in Quebec, then French school boards and French schools in the rest of Canada should also be abolished. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We can play that game too.

      Delete
    12. Yes, let's build social harmony and cohesion by a combination of banning and coercing.

      I'm sure that will work.

      Delete
    13. Anonymus 9:19 AM, c'est l'un des commentaires les plus lucides que j'ai lu sur ce blogue jusqu'à maintenant. Comme tu l'affirmes, il faut que les anglos du Québec s'ouvrent davantage aux autres.

      D'autant plus que les plus récents tests PISA, qui mesurent la performance des jeunes de 15 ans en lecture, en mathématiques et en sciences, ont clairement démontré que les jeunes anglos de la minorité historique sont moins intelligents que les jeunes Québécois.

      Intégrer les jeunes anglos au système scolaire québécois ne pourra que les aider à s'extirper de leur embarrassante situation. Car ce n'est qu'en étant au contact d'élèves plus performants, les élèves Québécois en l'occurrence, qu'ils pourront atteindre leur plein potentiel. Faisons-le pour leur bien.

      Delete
    14. Je suis l'auteur du commentaire auquel Philémon fait référence et je tiens à me distancer de ses propos.
      Personnellement, je n'ai jamais rien dit à propos de l'intelligence moyenne de quelconque groupe linguistique.
      Je ne souhaite que l'harmonie sociale et ce genre de commentaire n'aide pas à atteindre ce but, Philémon.

      (Philémon = Barnabé peut-être? et où est Seppie?)

      Delete
    15. Oh boy, I’m still chortling over this one…

      OK, I had a look at just what Blinkered Barnabé and Philémon were making allusions to (thinking that some clarity was in order) and I was about to post a detailed rebuttal with exact information showing how they’re pulling things out of their ass. However, it’s just too boring so I will summarize it as succinctly as I can.

      The latest results concerning educational performance for 2009 are similar to those for 2006. Some provinces break down results between majority-language and minority-language education systems. Overall, Alberta, Ontario and B.C. all outperformed Quebec in both 2006 and 2009 (but all provinces were above the OECD average).

      In 2006, Quebec (both French and English) had average results in reading and better than average in mathematics. Comparing the French and English systems within Quebec only, both were the same in reading and the French system did better in math than the English system. Overall (including science), Quebec was at about the Canadian average (in fact, slightly below). In 2009, the majority-language school system in Quebec did very slightly better in math (compared to B.C.’s majority-language system, which did much better in math than its minority-language system) and there was no difference in either reading or science compared to the minority-language system in Quebec.

      So basically, their glee results from the fact that French school boards in Quebec did well in math, from which Philémon extrapolates that this “clearly demonstrates that young anglos of the historical minority are less intelligent than young Québécois” (oops, there’s that ethnic nationalism rearing up its head once again, which states that anglos aren’t Quebecers!) and that “integrating young anglos to the French Quebec school system will help extricate them from their embarrassing situation since it is by being in contact with better-performing students […] could they attain their full potential. Let’s do it for their own good.” By this astounding logic, everyone (including Quebecers, err, I mean Québécois) should be rushing to Alberta, “for their own good”.

      Honestly, of all the tosh that has been posted on this blog, this one is so breathtaking in its stupidity that it deserves some sort of award! Or perhaps a place in the newly-created Hall of Shame, Editor?

      Delete
    16. "D'autant plus que les plus récents tests PISA, qui mesurent la performance des jeunes de 15 ans en lecture, en mathématiques et en sciences, ont clairement démontré que les jeunes anglos de la minorité historique sont moins intelligents que les jeunes Québécois."

      What a blatantly bigotted statement. Perhaps you can explain then why young Quebecois have a much higher high school dropout rate and a lower university graduation rate than Quebec Anglos?

      Delete
    17. See now you're using Quebecois to basically mean French-Canadian in Quebec as opposed to Quebec Anglos but you must consider the fact that about half of the students of the French schools in Montreal (at least according to the French-language media when there was a controversy about the languages spoken outside of the classroom) are not only not ethnically French-Canadian but don't even have French as their mother tongue (and usually don't refer to themselves as Quebecois) and it's in Montreal that most of the worst schools (I check the list each year) are located so you don't know the precise dropout rate for young Quebecois. With bill 101, the French schools get the immigrants so French schools are not exclusively French.

      I'm not saying it's better or worse: I don't know. I'm not the person you were quoting. I just wanted to point out the usage of the word Quebecois. Unless, of course, you meant Quebecois can be anybody in Quebec but then you spoke of Anglophones as something else, as not Quebecois, then Allophones aren't either. I guess.

      Delete
    18. Il est vrai qu'à première vue il peut sembler audacieux d'affirmer que les Anglos de 15 ans issus de la minorité historique sont moins intelligents que les Québécois du même âge.

      En effet, comment de jeunes anglos fréquentant un système d'éducation ancien et éprouvé, ayant longtemps été au centre de la tête de pont de l'Empire britannique en Amérique, puissent moins bien réussir dans les choses de l'esprit que des Québécois fréquentant un système d'éducation de peuple conquis et colonisé, qui n'existait pratiquement pas il y cinquante ans.

      Pourtant, la science moderne prouve le contraire de ce qui y paraît à première vue.

      En effet, la plus récente étude internationale PISA de l'OCDE révèle les chiffres suivants :

      Lecture - échelle globale : Québécois (522) ; minorité anglaise (520)
      Mathématiques : Québécois (544) ; minorité anglaise (533)
      Sciences : Québécois (525) ; minorité anglaise (521)

      À mon avis, l'explication des piètres résultats de la minorité anglaise historique réside dans le fait qu'entre 1966 et 1986 plus de 220 000 Anglos ont quitté le Québec. Comme chacun sait, ils furent parmi les plus hauts salariés et les plus instruits. Une hémorragie qui s'est d'ailleurs poursuivie à plus petite échelle année après année.

      Cela est triste à dire, mais lorsqu'une communauté connait une telle saignée parmi ces meilleures familles, cela ne peut qu'avoir un impact sur son patrimoine génétique.

      Autrement dit, on n’accouche pas d'un génie avec une lignée de gueux. D'où les résultats de la minorité anglaise historique aux tests PISA.

      Référence :
      http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=81-590-X&lang=fra

      Delete
    19. @ Philémon

      Il n'y a pas juste des gens issus de la minorité historique anglaise dans les écoles anglaises. Vous en parlez comme si elles étaient ethniquement homogènes.
      Il y a même des francophones* et je ne parle pas juste de francophones qui sont aussi des anglophones, issus de couples mixtes.
      À Saint-Léonard et les environs, il y a des écoles anglaises où les noms anglais sont rares et les noms italiens dominent. Pas vraiment une minorité historique, ils sont arrivés pas tellement longtemps avant les lois linguistiques.
      On peut aussi trouver des minorités visibles dans les écoles anglaises.

      *certaines écoles anglaises comme à Québec et ailleurs en région ont une majorité d'élèves francophones, ce qui aide ces écoles à se maintenir ouvertes. Bien souvent, c'est parce qu'ils ont un parent (ou grand-parent) qui est allé à l'école anglaise avant la loi 101 ou bien sont allés à l'école privée puis publique, etc. Il est possible qu'on y entende plus parler français qu'anglais et j'y ai même vu des affiches indiquant qu'il est interdit de parler français pendant les cours (c'est pas méchant, c'est juste qu'ils doivent rappeler aux élèves d'un milieu extrêmement francophone qu'ils sont dans un cours qui se donne en anglais) et ensuite on se fait traiter d'intolérants de demander aux allophones de Montréal de parler français à l'intérieur d'écoles françaises ;)

      Delete
    20. Là où ça devient problématique c'est dans la cour de récré.

      Moi à l'école on nous interdisait d'y parler anglais. Interdisent-ils le français dans la cour de récré dans tes écoles? Mais note que je peux les comprendre, l'anglais n'était pas la langue première de quiconque, on la parlait parce que c'était "cool".

      Delete
    21. Ça ne fait que montrer à quel point ça varie d'une région à l'autre.

      Une école anglophone où le français domine dans la cour de récré VS une école francophone où l'anglais domine dans la cour de récré.

      Tout dépend de la majorité locale. Pour ce qui est du Nouveau-Brunswick, je ne suis pas sûr que l'anglais est autant parlé dans les cours d'écoles françaises du Madawaska que celles de Moncton.

      Le chiac est né dans le sud, pas dans le nord.

      Delete
  10. "Any statistician, would laugh at the contention.
    Let us consider a company which has a million dollar payroll and pays one of its employees, John Smith, $100,000 a year or 10% of it's entire payroll.
    Pierre Paquette, another employee is paid $25,000 a year or 2.5% of the entire payroll.
    According to voodoo statistics, one can say and perhaps Mr Sabourin would agree, that Paquette makes 7.5% less than John based on the math (10% minus 2.5% equals 7.5%)
    But the reality is that John makes four time as much as Pierre or 400%!
    At any rate, if you made 25K a year and your co-worker made a 100k a year, would you have the audacity to contend that he made just 7.5% more than you?
    Now look at the graph above to see how one can come to the conclusion that Anglos are only 8.9% more highly educated than Francophones. (31.3% minus 22.4% = 8.9%)
    The reality is that when proper math is used, Anglophones are more highly educated to the tune of 40%.".......

    Actually, your math is flawed. If there would be an equal amount of Anglophones as there are Francophones in the province, it would work the way you described. For your example to work pierre paquette would have to work for another company where he earns 250,000 of a ten million dollar payroll. In reality, there are more Francophone grads than Anglophone grads in the province...

    Otherwise you're right, if all the population was included, there would probably be a really scary ratio somewhere in 95% or so because older generations of anglos went to university but not francophone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For the benefit of out-of-towners who may not be up to speed with articles in the local press recently…

    Last weekend, Don Macpherson wrote an interesting piece in The Gazette summarizing what he calls the “new angryphone” movement of recent months. There was even a new Twitter hashtag (#BadAnglo) that came out of the kerfuffle last month, which eventually led some to name-calling by Benoît Dutrizac, who hates Macpherson… and if Dutrizac hates him, you know he must be good!

    Macpherson says it all started around the time of his article about Julie Snyder’s anglophobic remarks on prime-time television at the end of January. This was followed by the Huntingdon municipal council’s decision to stand up to language zealots at the OQLF and to outsmart the language law. Then, as the Editor reminds us above, it gained much traction following L’Actualité’s dishonest hatchet job by Jean-François Lisée, in which they used leading questions and a small sample size to come up with alarmist exaggerations, reminding you who (as opposed to what) is responsible for the current situation and all the while purporting to want to launch a meaningful dialogue with anglophones that “could possibly avoid the linguistic crisis that is brewing”.

    That poll set up Quebec anglos to fail the integration test, according to Jack Jedwab and led to a subsequent Léger Marketing poll that was intended to be more nuanced and balanced than L’Actualité’s (it even asked francophones for their opinions!).

    Then we got a proposal for a “new Bill 101” by Pierre Curzi that would use your medicare card as a language-identification card, as well as an interesting reply to all of this by Robert Libman today. He says that L’Actualité editor Carole Beaulieu’s explanation to defend her magazine’s actions was “a naked lie, in black and white”. If this were really the case, he says, they would never have put a picture of a frog on the front cover holding a sign that reads “Ici, on parle English”. He ends by saying “Respect is a two-way street… all we get for our efforts to adapt, to learn to speak French and immerse our kids in the language is another kick in the teeth”.

    Well now, none of that is very cheery, is it…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyway, the gist of Macpherson’s article was that anglos are tired of playing “angloball” - that anglos learning French is not good enough for the nationalists because they then proceed to move the goalposts and want us to support Bill 101 in order to diminish our institutions, then read French books in the privacy of our homes, and watch family DVDs of our kids singing in French in immersion class, and so on. He says that by refusing to “integrate” – that is, to assimilate – we apparently set a bad example for immigrants. Essentially, it doesn’t matter what we do, it’s never going to be good enough. He ends by saying “We new angryphones have got the message. We realize there’s only one thing they want from us. By emigration if not by assimilation, they want us gone.

      Now personally, I found that sounded a tad bit shrill, since this is certainly not my own everyday experience of living here. But lo and behold, I come onto this anonymous blog and what do I find? Practically verbatim comments are made here by people who are falling over themselves in applauding the departure of anglos.

      As a direct result of such commentary, I’m finding myself less inclined to speak French and more inclined to try and remember to use English in public, as much as possible, wherever possible, in stores, ordering restaurants, while blogging, whatever, just to show that we’re here and we’re not going anyplace. Great, eh?

      Delete
    2. Spot on summary of what's been going down here this past month. I'd like to add one thing. All this language tripe is a direct consequence of the beat- down the Bloc suffered in the last election. Like clockwork, when the Separatist movement suffers a setback, they poke the language beehive hoping to fear Francos. The reality is outside Montreal, you'd be hard pressed to find any Anglophones left. Quebec is as pure Lilly White and French as ever. This myth that French is under assault is manufactured and plays well into their narrative that the only way to survive is to separate from the shackles of Canadian federalism. I'm 36 and have lived through a few of these language flair-ups. It's getting to be par for the course. Also, it looks like our Culture Minister, Christine St-Pierre is pushing this malarkey now. Asked about the 800 violations to Bill 101 (found in the West End) the Mouvement Quebec Francais handed in to the OQLF yesterday, she applauded them and repeated the, "we're 2% of North America" line which is a false argument.

      Delete
    3. Stirring up language issues to distract from real problems is so predictable that it would be humourous were it not so sad. Such flare-ups, as you say, have been used regularly. It’s clear that dredging up complaints at this time has nothing to do with safeguarding French and everything to do with pure and simple bigotry. (I do like the quote attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., on that page: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.")

      In his article above, Libman wrote: “With a provincial election likely in the next year, it would be nice to be able to vote with some self-respect. Unfortunately our so-called elected “representatives” in the Liberal Party of Quebec hide under the covers when the anglo community is being whiplashed. It would be interesting to hear their take on this most recent nonsense.” Based on St-Pierre’s obvious pandering, it seems safe to say that voting with a modicum of self-respect has gone out the window… again.

      Meanwhile, one should keep in mind that Quebec is not exactly wall-to-wall franco. If you look at this map (click to expand), you will see which parts of Quebec are either majority anglo or have substantial anglo minorities. Note that these areas are far from being all in Montreal (which makes up about half of Quebec’s population). These areas stretch from the Pontiac and Gatineau through Lachute and Hudson and all along the border with New York, Vermont and New Hampshire, the Eastern Townships, the south coast of Gaspésie along the Baie des Chaleurs, the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and even on the Magdalen Islands. Even Quebec City has 1.5% anglos! (down from over 40% at its peak)

      Delete
    4. "either majority anglo or have substantial anglo minorities"
      There's a huge difference between a majority and a substantial minority. All the places you've listed have a French majority except Pontiac and Hudson. Listing a bunch of places without specifying the numbers and showing a map that doesn't indicate the population of each community with an anglophone majority colored red or orange doesn't help getting an accurate picture of the situation so if anyone cares, I've bothered looking them up on http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E

      Pontiac = 56.7% English (or 8,190 people out of 14,435, it's a small county and the only county with an English majority)
      Gatineau = 10.5% English
      Lachute = 10.5% English (only 1,215 people out of 11,525)
      Hudson = 66.1% English (a small town: 3,365 out of 5,085)
      Région de l'Estrie (known in English as the Eastern Townships, with major cities such as Sherbrooke and Magog having a French majority, only some very small towns have an English majority) = 7% English
      south coast of Gaspésie along the Baie des Chaleurs = I'm not going to look up all the small towns there but Région de la Gaspésie = 9.1% English or 8,560 anglos
      the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence = it's only small remote villages on the *lower* north shore near the Labrador border, most people on the north shore (major towns are Sept-Îles and Baie-Comeau, towns with almost no anglos) live west of that. Région de la Côte-Nord = 4.9% English or 4,680 anglos. Quite a small community.
      the Magdalen Islands (Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine) = 830 anglos out of a total population of 12,975. A tiny community mostly concentrated on one isolated island (Grosse-Île) of the archipelago.

      The reason why we don't hear much about anglos outside of Montreal is because the vast majority of them live in the Montreal area.

      Delete
    5. "Montreal (which makes up about half of Quebec’s population)"
      This should be used with caution because it depends if one speaks of Montreal the city, the island or the census metropolitan area. It is only the island (the city + the west island suburbs) that is almost half non-francophone (more allophone than anglophone and many allophones have French as their first official language spoken) but the census metropolitan area which is the island of Montreal + Laval + the south shore + the north shore (which when all combined accounts for twice the population of the island of Montreal but less than half of Quebec's population) is over 68% French-speaking, percentage is higher on the south shore and especially on the north shore.

      I'm saying this because I've seen people claim that Montreal was half non-French and then the same people saying Montreal has almost 4 million people. Montreal the island doesn't even have 2 million residents and Quebec as a whole has 1.5 million non-francophones so there is a big difference between half of the island and half of the census metropolitan area.

      Delete
    6. @AnonymousApr 19, 2012 01:13 PM

      Um, you basically repeated exactly the same thing that I wrote...

      @AnonymousApr 19, 2012 01:26 PM

      I agree... I roll my eyes whenever I see any sort of language statistics that refer to the island of Montreal since this is a meaningless division. As soon as you see someone do this, you know the only reason they do it to dramatize the stats by overemphasizing the size of the anglo community by excluding francophone areas like Longueuil and Laval that are as close or closer to downtown than the West Island. By referring to the island rather than the region, they are obviously trying to be disingenous (if not downright deceitful).

      As soon as one sees statistics regarding the island rather than the region, I suggest that one remembers the maxim: " There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

      Delete
  12. In the advent of the Canadian dollar officially becoming a Petro Dollar (thanks Alberta), Quebec's and Ontario's manufacturing sectors are set to be decimated. Our "90 cent" dollar is a thing of the past. An overwhelming 80% of what we manufacture is exported to the States. That is coming to a grinding halt, fast. Companies are shutting down and pulling out of Quebec and Ontario at an alarming rate. Americans have no loyalty to Canada, and now that our goods cost as much to make as theirs, they will favour their own manufactures over ours. Alberta's gain comes at the expense of the loss of our manufacturing sector. As an added note, it looks like Alberta is going to vote in the Wild Rose party next week. They'll make sure that transfer payments to "have-not" provinces will be under the microscope, doesn't bode well for Quebec.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/26/conrad-black-how-the-roc-bought-off-quebec/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pas trop qu'un gouvernement provincial peut dire sur comment le fédéral dépense ses propres taxes...

      Delete
    2. "Pas trop qu'un gouvernement provincial..."

      Should be interesting to see what Daniele Smith has to say about equalization should the wild rose party be elected tomorrow. Polls are indicating it could be a majority. She has been highly critical of equalization payments going to Quebec ( and other provinces) whose governments provide a higher level of social benefits than those in Alberta receive. I suspect Mr. Harper may have his hands full with fiesty Ms. Smith.

      Delete
    3. The wealthy English speaking provinces may have an impact on the level of equalization payments if they put pressure on the federal government. Too much money has already been funnelled into the impoverished provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, home of the Quebecois and the Acadians.

      Delete
    4. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are very English provinces and they have a higher unemployment rate and a lower GDP per capita than Quebec.

      More than half of the equalization money will go to provinces other than Quebec. It will go to English-speakers. A part of it will even go to Ontario: http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp
      Manitoba and the Maritimes (the majority is clearly not Acadian in that region) get more equalization money per capita than Quebec.

      Quebec might become quite wealthy with all the oil recently found on Anticosti island.

      Delete
    5. $4,771,000,000 to the provinces of P.E.I (population on the 2011 census: 140,204), N.S. (921,727), N.B. (751,171) and Manitoba (1,208,268). Total population = 3,021,370.
      2011 census still doesn't show language data but in 2006 232,980 people out of 719,650 declared French as their mother tongue in New Brunswick so it's mostly an English province.

      $7,391,000,000 to Quebec (population: 7,903,001). It's obvious the above (almost totally English-speaking) group gets more per capita.

      Delete
    6. Forgot my source for population data: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm

      Delete
  13. @anon 8:26

    The spike in the Canadian dollar is not permanent. The canadian dollar is a roller coaster of currencies. Even in late 2000s the dollar went under 80 cents. A coming drop in price of oil and real estate collapse would send the Canadian dollar under 75 cents and revive manufacturing to some degree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you're right brother.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, measuring the performance of the Canadian dollar by comparing it to another (infinitely printable fiat) currency caught in a death spiral may be a useful propaganda tool, but the only accurate way to gauge a currencies' purchasing power is by measuring in finite assets.

      Your pay was cut in the last 60 days – worldwide ponzi collapse accelerates

      As you can see, eight currencies, same trajectory.

      Delete
  14. @DD

    Well Gold and Silver value is measured based on the FIAT currency. Its all relative to FIAT currency. GOLD is just another commodity like OIL and has collapsed after every major spike. This time will be no different.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am currently reading a biography about a prisoner of war who was sent to a Siberian labour camp for his “liberal and democratic sentiments”.

    He wrote:

    “Among the propaganda slogans spread all over the camps there are two that I remember well. “If the enemy does not surrender he must be annihilated.” And “If you do not know, we teach you. If you do not want to know, we force you.” Both slogans bear the signature of Stalin’s best friend, Maxim Gorky.”

    Does it not sound exactly like what’s going on in this province with regards to the English language?

    I said WITH REGARDS to the ENGLISH LANGUAGE so please, OQLF soldiers, do not start blubbering that I am comparing our situation to those of labour camp prisoners. I am comparing the slogans to the OQLF soldier attitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laurie

      Of course...once you press Publish....

      It is an autobiography I am reading, not a biography.

      Delete
  16. @AnonymousApr 18, 2012 08:26 PM

    Thanks for the link to the Conrad Black article in the National Post, I had not seen it previously.

    Today's Gazette article by Libman was also spot on. One senses that all the anti-anglophone articles and activities of recent months is a little more orchestrated than it may at first appear, but the reality is that there is no decline in French in Quebec and it is English which is in decline in Quebec in most places except perhaps in west Quebec/Montreal. It is disappointing to read of young francophones whose favourite pastime is to harrass little businesses with some English language signs by people simply trying to get by in life - as if they are a deadly threat to the survival of French in Quebec.

    For many years, and quite righty, francophones used to say that the "French fact" of Quebec needs to be recognized and acknowledged. At some point too, the "English fact" also needs to be recognized and acknowledged too - and not just by mean spirited anti-English language and anti-English community laws etc. It should not be acceptable for militant separatists to go around harassing little store owners or others who speak English well but whose French is not highly fluent - is such behaviour really representative of Quebec's distinct culture?

    ReplyDelete
  17. OK, quick integration test (I mean, quick question) from everyone... how many of you have had some pets de soeur (nuns' farts) so far this year?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This unscientific survey obviously includes francophones... I'll go first and say that I have...

      Delete
    2. Je n'ai jamais mangé de pets de soeur et pourtant je suis né en Beauce.

      J'imagine que je ne suis pas vraiment Québécois.

      Delete
    3. Bof! Je ne penserais pas... j'étais simplement curieux qui avait mangé quoi...

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

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pierre Curzi Jr.
    You cannot post using this screen name

    ReplyDelete
  20. Une nouvelle réalité qui va changer la perception de l'anglicisation pour la majorité: l'arrivée d'immigrants anglophiles en région.

    Servis en anglais au McDonald's à Sept-Îles
    http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2012/04/20120419-162242.html

    Maintenant les Québécois en région vont se sentir concernés et vont voter en conséquence.
    Au revoir parti libéral anglicisateur et sa ministre de l'immigration anglophone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my goodness gracious! You mean to say that some... gasp *immigrants*... dare to be anglophone outside of Montreal? Bbbbbbut... that might mean that the less than 2% of francophones in North America might actually have to deal with non-francophones!!! Our culture is threatened!!! Call the tongue-troopers!!!

      Delete
    2. Justement, ce sont des immigrants. Des immigrants dans une région francophone alors c'est à eux de s'adapter et d'apprendre la langue locale. L'anglais domine peut-être l'Amérique du Nord mais il ne domine pas la Côte-Nord. Pourquoi ce serait à la clientèle francophone de s'adapter à des pseudo-anglophones?
      Le client a toujours raison, non?

      Imaginez des immigrants ne sachant que le français s'installer à Regina en Saskatchewan et servir une clientèle anglophone en français. Ils ne pourraient même pas obtenir l'emploi alors qu'ici nous tolérons ce genre de situation et *nous* sommes les racistes?

      Delete
    3. « Call the tongue-troopers!!! »

      En effet. Je n'aime pas la couleur rouge puisque c'est la couleur du fédéralisme mais je crois que c'est vraiment un cas d'ALERTE ROUGE!!!

      LES PHILIPPINS TENTENT D'ANGLICISER SEPT-ÎLES! JE NE CROYAIS JAMAIS ÉCRIRE UNE TELLE PHRASE ET POURTANT C'EST VRAI!

      Delete
    4. Anglicizing the Seven-Islands! Pass me the smelling salts!

      What a lovely welcome we see you lending to those who dare to install themselves in la terre pure-laine! Bbbbut…. what about Clarke City!?

      Delete
    5. Let's recall what happened after 9/11 in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador (which is a genuinely recently colonized entity). It was a tiny community that demonstrated its tremendous goodwill and class when inundated by an unexpected population. So, how dare we demonstrate any sympathy towards the minuscule minorities in our communities! After all, what was the point of La grande séduction?

      Delete
    6. Imaginez donc... quand mes parents se sont mariés, ni un ni l'autre ne parlait la langue de l’autre... et pourtant, ils ont réussi un mariage qui va bientôt dater d’un demi-siècle. Une horreur, n’est-ce pas?

      Delete
    7. "Imaginez donc... quand mes parents se sont mariés, ni un ni l'autre ne parlait la langue de l’autre... et pourtant, ils ont réussi un mariage qui va bientôt dater d’un demi-siècle. Une horreur, n’est-ce pas?"

      Ah, vous êtes de la même race qu'Apparatchik.
      D'ailleurs, il me semble que ça fait un bout qu'on l'a pas vu Apparatchik.

      Les gens ayant à la fois le français et l'anglais comme langues maternelles ne sont même pas 1% de la population du Québec.
      Et pourtant ils sont surreprésentés en politique. On a qu'à penser à Trudeau et Charest.
      C'est injuste.

      Au lieu d'accepter que la majorité n'a pas le lien avec le Canada anglais qu'ils ont, ils veulent imposer le Canada et l'anglais à la majorité francophone.

      J'ai moi-même des irlandais dans mon arbre mais ce n'est pas récent et je n'ai qu'une seule langue, une seule identité, une seule patrie: le Québec.

      Il n'y a rien de mal à être bilingue de naissance (si on est pas en position de pouvoir comme premier ministre parce que ça empêche la majorité d'être représentée) mais à un moment donné il faut se brancher: vos descendants, ils vont parler quelle langue? Vont-ils contribuer au Québec français ou au Canada anglais?
      À moins qu'ils forment des couples mixtes de génération en génération, d'habitude ça devient unilingue avec le temps.

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

      Delete
  21. If I have to hear about julie snyder and other so called celebreties pushing the separtist agenda makes me nauseated

    ReplyDelete
  22. If I have to hear about julie snyder and other so called celebreties pushing the separtist agenda makes me nauseated

    ReplyDelete
  23. Did you know you can create short urls with Shortest and get money from every visitor to your shortened urls.

    ReplyDelete