Thursday, July 5, 2012

French versus English Volume 57

La Francophoney-baloney....blah... blah...blah

"The French Language World Forum, going on until Friday in historic Quebec City, is expected to draw more than 1,000 artists, speakers, business people, youth and representatives from civil society.
Events and discussions will focus on four major themes: the economy, the cultural industry, the place of French in the digital world and the coexistence of languages." Read the story

Abdou Diouf, secretary general of the International Organization of La Francophonie told the audience that by 2050, French language speakers will rise from the 220 million speakers today, to over 700 million.
He then told the audience that French was nonetheless in mortal danger....Hmmmm?

I think he'd make a perfect Quebec politician, who are consummate experts at sucking and blowing at the same time!

Let me summarize the content of those meetings, for those of you not inclined to read the story.

Speaker #1-  French is wonderful but threatened.
Speaker #2-  English threatens the linguistic diversity of the world
Speaker #3-  French is wonderful and English is evil
Speaker #4-  Legislation is needed to promote French artists and culture and restrict English
Speaker #5-  French usage is growing but needs defending.
Speaker #6-  See speaker #1
Speaker #7-  See speaker #2
Speaker #8-  See speaker #3
Speaker #9-  See speaker #4
Speaker #10-See speaker #5
Speaker 11-99......Rinse, repeat...

All together now !!!!!

English = DARTH VADER.......French = LUKE SKYWALKER!!!!!

H U R R A Y ! !  O U P P I ! !

All weekend long....yawn, snore...!

Thomas Mulcair treads lightly at separatist parade

It seems that Thomas Mulcair is showing a little bit more reserve and is avoiding being photographed hobnobbing around with separatists, now that he's become leader of the official opposition. 

Two years ago I re-published a picture of him marching alongside a gaggle of separatist big shots in the line of honour bringing up the rear of the parade. The picture was picked up by many blogs and there was plenty of internal fallout within the party for Mulcair and Layton at the time.

The next year (last year) Mulcair judiciously skipped the parade altogether, but made a return appearance this year, but avoided the "Blue Line of Honour" populated by ultra-separatists.

This year's 'Blue Line of Honour" included the usual suspects with the added presence of radical student leaders.
Line of 'Honour' 2012


Marching ahead of the 'Line of Honour' was Thomas Mulcair, insulated from the separatists by his personal posse of Amazon girls, à la Khaddafi!

But still, Mulcair couldn't resist building alliances and was candidly caught sharing a comradely laugh with none other than his very good friend, ex-Parti-Quebecois Premier, Bernard Landry.

C'mon Uncle Thom, give him a big hug. You know you want to!


If you want to know why federal politicians stay away from the parade, it's because of its separatist political bent. For Mulcair and the Ndp, pandering to separatists is part of a strategy to whore themselves out for votes.


Thanks for your support "Uncle Thom!"

Journal de Quebec complains about an 'anglophone' billboard

The Journal de Quebec is hot and bothered over a billboard that recently popped up in Quebec City. A European watch company erected the billboard complete with its international catchphrase, "Big in Oversized Watches"
The headline of the article about the billboard was a bit strange;
 "100 % anglophone à Québec,"

I doubt that an inanimate object such as a billboard can actually be classified as anglophone!



When asked to translate the catchphrase into French, the company declined, telling a reporter that;

"TW Steel doesn't have this problem anywhere else. The same advertising slogan is used elsewhere in the world. It should be Canada that adapts."

It seems that the reporter squealed to the OQLF, which refused to offer an opinion, saying that it needs to study the file, something that typically takes up to six months.
Since the billboard is scheduled to be up for just two months, hardliners are plum out of luck.
Hmm.....
I wonder what French language militants think of Volkswagen's catchphrase "DAS AUTO"?


Perhaps the OQLF will rule that it too is verboten!

Vigile.net's financial woes

 It seems that a certain Vincent Chiara is causing much grief over at vigile.net, suing them for defamation over a story presented on vigile.net, which intimated if not directly, but indirectly, that the powerful Mr. Chiara was a mafiosi.

The article in question was removed from the website, but that wasn't enough for Mr. Chiara who seems out to punish Bernard Frappier, the owner and editor of the website as well as the author of the article in question, Richard Le Hir.

Although the article was removed from vigile.net, it lives on, proving again that when one publishes something on the internet, it's almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Read the original article here. Les-Tentacules-de-la-mafia-2

Defending itself from the $500,000 lawsuit has proved painful, costing the website $15,000 to date and the fun hasn't really even started.
An anonymous donation of $20,000 has eased the pain, but the case could cost north of a $100,000 to defend, something that could cripple the website.

DO I FEEL bad for vigile.net?
Not one bit.
I'm all for free speech, including defending Mr. Frappier's right to advocate for the murderous Syrian regime and his right to attack Israel more often than the United Nations.
But it is his outright antisemitism, visceral hatred of Anglophones and as of late, articles denigrating Protestants, that has me cheering for Mr. Chiarra.

In the past I've written about the horribly antisemitic articles published on his website and today he continues to give a forum to hate.

His latest screed is so disgustingly racist that it disappeared from the website just a few days after being published, but I've tracked it down for you.
I told you, that when it comes to the internet,  you can't erase your footprint.

In this article, the author tells readers that France, under newly elected president  Francois Hollande, has fallen under the diabolical control of Protestant/Jewish interests.

Read:
The Jewish-Masonic* (*read-Protestant) power that be have taken over power in France
(Le pouvoir judéo-maçonnique a définitivement mis la main sur la France.)

"...Bacteriological weapons were found during the Libyan war and the instructions for their use were in Hebrew, proving that Gaddafi had made a pact with Israel, this tiny precarious state, as if the Rothschilds, Soros, Golman Sach, JP Morgan, Koch brothers, Bernanke, Greenspan, Murdoch, Speilberg, etc.. would have no influence in the world.(*spelling errors are original-ed.)

Ah, then there's Mr. Assad of Syria, who is also in bed with Israel.

For such a small country, it has a lot of influence.Link{Fr}

What incredible drivel!

Israel supplying Libya with chemical weapons and in bed with Assad?

Is Bernard Frappier really so ignorant that he believes the above can possibly be true, or is he knowingly publishing falsehoods in order to falsely tarnish the reputation of Israel and the Jewish people?

This is an ongoing campaign, with countless other articles slagging not only Israel, but Jews in general, still populating the website.
Read this, another odious article posted on vigile.net, that depicts Jews as rats. LINK
For Mr. Frapper, I couldn't be happier that he's getting a taste of humble pie. I hope this lawsuit drains the life force out of vigile.net and if not, at least delivers Mr. Frappier a certain dose of pain.

Mr. Racist, have a nice day...

Language hysteria dogs Habs

In all the years I've watched hockey, I don't think I've ever seen a sports commentator take this type of liberty with a player to his face.
If I was the agent Montreal Canadiens first round draft pick, Alex Galchenyuk, I would straighten out this reporter pronto, telling him to keep his militant politics to himself, or face a future of no interviews.

video


By the way, completely off topic, but somewhat related is this interview with overall first draft pick Nail Yakupov who absolutely butchers the English language in this interview.
I suppose I shouldn't make fun, he's really trying, but is this what the above reporter wants from Galchenyuk? Watch the YouTube video.


Quebec finances re-opening of Asbestos mine

You'd have to forgive Albertans for shaking their heads in utter disbelief at the hypocrisy of the Quebec government, in slagging Alberta's oil sands as an environmental disaster, while loaning money to reopen an asbestos mine in Quebec.

"The news that the Jeffrey Mine will reopen may warm some hearts in the Eastern Townships. Nevertheless, the Quebec government’s decision to provide a $58-million loan to Canada’s last asbestos mine is a shameful thing." Read the rest of the story

Poll indicates that RoC indifferent to Quebec separation

“...Has there ever been a time when Canadians outside Quebec have ever been more ambivalent about the possibility of the province separating? Unlikely, according to a new Ipsos Reid poll released Thursday, which suggests almost half (49%) of Canadians living outside Quebec agree they “don’t really care if Quebec separates.”
“The edge has come off it,” said Darrell Bricker, chief executive of Ipsos Reid. “It’s not seen as a 21st century debate.”

The same poll indicates that despite all the talk of support for sovereignty growing in the face of the perceived anti-Quebec attitude by Stephen Harper, hard support remains at 31% of Quebecers.
When the undecided are factored in, support for independence stands at about 38%, not an encouraging number for separatists who have seen the numbers decline ever since the 1995 referendum.

Read the other interesting aspects to this poll HERE

Ontario court rules against Galgonov and friends in forced bilingual sign case

"Verdict just in from Ontario Court of Appeal concerning Galganov/Brisson vs Russell township's bilingual sign bylaw. The court ruled UNANIMOUSLY in favour of RUSSELL TOWNSHIP. 1. That the township had the right to pass this law, although language is supposed to be provincial, not municipal. 2. That even though the law INFRINGED ON THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE, there was reason to pass the law to promote/protect the French language. Howard Galganov and Jean-Serge Brisson have been fighting the 2008 Russell Township bylaw that enforces both French and English signage on businesses in the four small towns of the municipality." Read the rest of the story

Tales of the RED SQUARE

Three girls walk into a Quebec city bar and are told they cannot enter unless they remove  the red square they are wearing in support of the student strike against tuition hikes.
"No way!" they say, "We have the right to go in as is, and you cannot stop us!"
"Sorry, you're not crossing this line!" said the bouncer and with that, barred their entrance.
"Then we will complain to the Human rights commission, you've got no right to impede our movement!"

Anybody see the irony in this true story? Link{Fr}

 ******************
In other student leader news, just in case Léo Bureau-Blouin, president of the somewhat less radical student association, the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec (FECQ), expresses an interest in running for the PQ in the next provincial election in Trois-Rivières, he needn't bother apply.
The local riding association has announced that he wouldn't be a 'good fit' Link{fr}

  ******************
Newly-elected student leader of the radical CL(ASSÉ) student association, Camille Robert,  found out pretty early in her tenure as president, that politics is a rough sport and that amateurs can get eaten up rather quickly.

Responding to a charge by noted Quebec journalist Éric Duhaime that she's an ex-communist and extremely radical, she offered the following Twitter response;

"Contrary to what Éric Duhaime says, I never was a communist, Don't believe what you read in hateful and dishonest blogs"


Unfortunately for her, the evidence to the contrary was gathered rather quickly, the internet being what it is, and she was outed as a liar.
In her own statement promoting her candidacy for president, she proudly admitted to working for the Union Communiste Libertaire.

To read the complete story{Fr} and to see the documents that prove the opposite of what she says, go over HERE


******************
Political expediency wins out again as Pauline Marois, sensing that she'll be supporting a losing position in the next provincial election by supporting the students, did a quick about face, dumping the little red square.

 "A decision by Pauline Marois to quit wearing the red square symbol of the student protest movement was met with a shrug at the nightly anti-tuition increase demonstration in Montreal Wednesday night.
Some marchers who sported the small felt square on their clothes felt that the Parti Quebecois leader had embraced the symbol out of political expediency and was shelving it for the same reasons.
"It doesn't surprise me that Pauline Marois decided to stop wearing the red square because it wasn't real support for the students," said Francis Piche, a junior college student. "The only reason she was opposing the tuition fee increase was because the Liberals were doing it but a Pequiste government wanted to do it too."  Link

******************

By the way, with the folding of 'Le Voir," Josée Legault, the separatist journalist, is out of a job with no prospects, so far.
Does she still write for the Montreal Gazette?

I remain an adament defender of free speech and don't take any particular pleasure in her departure.

She was a fine example of separatist opinion...vapid and unrealistic. 
A faux intellectual, like her confrére Jean-François Lisée who in a recent interview proposes that citizens who can't speak French, shouldn't be allowed to vote in Quebec.... 
Watch the whole tedious interview or skip to 13:25 of the  video, to watch his intemperate remark.

By the way, Mr. Lisée is returning to politics and will present himself in the next provincial election, in the shoe-in seat of Rosemont.
Louise Beaudoin, the previous holder of the seat  has judiciously decided to retire after her failed putsch against Marois.
It's like changing four quarters for a Loonie....


******************
 
As we head into one of the rare glorious Canadian summer weekends, let me finish on a humorous note.

Question...What is it in our human nature that makes us laugh when someone trips?

Watch THIS VIDEO and then come back and tell me you didn't laugh, or at least chuckle.


CLICK TO WATCH VIDEO

What makes English so hard to learn?



Have a great weekend!!


MONDAY- Should English Canada subsidize Separatist Radio Canada?

214 comments:

  1. If there is a more DISGUSTING politician in Canada then Uncle Tom I would like to know. This muni sinks to the lowest possible level. He makes me sick!

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the next Federal election, all the Tories or the Grits need to do is post that photo of Mulcair marching alongside the Separatist brain trust in the St Jean Baptise parade from a couple years back. That will instantly extinguish ANY sympathy from voters in the ROC.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Les Québécois aiment Tom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Read this, another odious article posted on vigile.net, that depicts Jews as rats." Rats plotting the assassination of Barak Obama, no less.

    Mr. Frappier's been supporting the murderous Syrian regime?

    I wonder what else an anonymous donation of $20,000.00 will get us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is Anonymous donor? Is it our Anonymous?

      Delete
  5. Tom Mulcair is a separatist mole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why he fought on the side of the No in 1995 right?

      Delete
    2. Do you understand the meaning of the term mole?

      Delete
    3. Yannick, have you ever sen a federalist march in a separatist parade?

      Delete
    4. @Rupert : I understand the meaning of the term mole. I think it's ridiculous. So Mulcair was pretending to be a federalist when he fought for the no in 1995? If he was a separatist, shouldn't he have done his best to have the Yes win in 1995? Even if he could have convinced 0.6% of the population, it would have changed history. It came to the wire. It's just ridiculous.

      @Nigel : It's a self-fulfilling prophecy : people say that the SJB is separatist, so no federalists go, so it really is separatist.

      Delete
    5. If you think that the SSJB is an open, welcoming organization you live in a fantasy world.

      Delete
    6. Yannick, I am waiting for the day when Mulcair, as a leader of a federal party, carries a Canadian flag in a parade in Quebec. Do you think we will live to see the day?

      Delete
    7. @Nigel: SJB = Parade, booze, and a big show on the Plaines. SSJB = Organisation openly in favor of seperation. Difference.

      @Rupert: Nope. So what do federalist parties (re: all of them save the Bloc, which is largely seen as irrelevant in a majority government) do then? Write off ~30% of Quebec's voters forever? Now THAT would be silly.

      Delete
    8. The photograph of Mulcair laughing it up with Bernard Landry makes me wonder if Landry was recounting how Landry verbally abused a hotel clerk who was of ethnic background, ranting that immigrants were allowed into this country only to turn around and vote NO the night the referendum was lost in 1995. Je me souviens.

      Delete
  6. "I doubt that an inanimate object such as a billboard can actually be classified as anglophone!"

    Avez-vous déjà fréquenté une ontarienne?

    ReplyDelete
  7. How is Stephane Giroux being millitant by asking a player for the Canadiens if he might be interested in learning French-- especially when the player is already multi lingual and has a knack for languages. The editor has a very strange and wooly definition of language extremism if he counts that as such. It was a cordially asked question and relevant to a prior conversation Giroux had with the player. Sometimes the editor seems to go out of his way to be offended-- perhaps that is just a Quebec trait across the two solitudes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a BC resident, I can see myself asking the hockey player the same question. I watched the video thinking I might see something obnoxious....but I think there was a bit of a bias applied on the part of the editor, I hate to say. I usually agree with most things written here, but not on this particular item. LA

      Delete
    2. Is that Stéphane Giroux?!

      Delete
  8. "Das Auto" serait mal vu par les Québécois si nous étions entourés par 350 000 000 d'Allemands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 11:26,

      So it is right what is being suspected by many visitors to this blog, including me. It is really not about preserving French, but more about oppressing English, is it not?

      Delete
    2. Vous trouvez que notre langue est oppressante ? Que fumez-vous exactement ?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 16:40,

      The French language (if it can be called "your" language) is not oppressive. It can not be. The laws in Quebec and the attitude and the behavior of some French-Quebecers definitely are.

      Delete
    4. "The laws in Quebec and the attitude and the behavior of some French-Quebecers definitely are."

      Et celà,sans aucune raison je suppose?

      Delete
    5. So you agree that the language laws are oppressive? Where do you draw the line with oppressive laws?

      Delete
    6. Oppressive ou protectionniste ?

      Delete
    7. Protectionism has gone the way of the dodo bird in international trade and has no place in the modern world. But you ignore the question. Oppression exists when you take away someone's rights. You can call it whatever you like, but answer the question. Where do you draw the line?

      Delete
    8. I suspect, Rupert, that you are also against the CRTC mandating a minimum of Canadian content in our shows and radio?

      Delete
    9. "Where do you draw the line?"

      Quand je suis obligé d'exiger qu'on me serve en français dans un commerce de Montréal.

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

      Delete
    11. Quand je suis obligé d'exiger qu'on me serve en français dans un commerce de Montréal.

      Imagine, then, as a thought exercise, taking your customs to a shop that WILL serve you in French, rather than expecting the law to force someone, who might not want to do business with you, to do so... See, more money for the French-loving shopkeeper, less for the one that won't serve you in your language, and not a single instance of the law being involved and someone's rights being stamped on.

      It's easier than you think: I hate Rupert Murdoch and I haven't spent a penny on anything owned or produced (in the media sense) by him in my entire life. And yet his TV's and newspapers are everywhere. Of course, if you want to shop at a place called "Taste of Aulde Englande - depanneur", you might have to compromise on either language or shop.

      Delete
    12. Why would anyone who believes in free speech ever support the existence of the CRTC? We do not need anyone telling us what to watch or listen to. If Canadian media cannot survive by offering services that appeal to their viewers or listeners they should not be propped up artificially.
      As an aside' the CRTC has done nothing to protect Canadians against the unfair business practices of Rogers and the Competition Bureau has done nothing about the media oligopolies. Canadians deserve to be free to choose which companies they do business with. If a foreign service provider was permitted to do business in Canada Rogers would be out of business within 12 months.

      Delete
    13. I agree with you Anton. When it comes to content regulation and other protectionistic practices, I too shake my head in disgust.

      Can't compete? Too fuckin' bad. That's how it works in the real world.

      Now to apply the same logic to CEOs whose ridiculous paychecks/bonuses/stock options should be cut to be less than one order of magnitude than the managers they oversee.

      Delete
  9. Any English speaking politician who regards Bill 101 as a good law and defends it then takes the time to walk hand in hand with hardline seperatists needs to be considered for the medal of honor - NOT !!! He should be slammed by every single proud Canadian politician yet due to our ever lasting good Canadian apathy, he goes unpunished.

    As for the reporter requesting if the player will learn French - just the fact that he thinks a player 'should' learn French and hoping to get a 'No' in order to get headline news shows the arrogance. He didn't ask in order to make the player look good, he asked in the hopes of making him looking bad or by forcing him to state he will so that everyone can use it against him in the future if he doesn't learn it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Thomas Mulcair is not "officially" an English speaking person. Looking at his Parliamentary Profile, his preferred language is French.

      Delete
    2. His preferred language is French fbecause it benefits him to say so.

      Delete
    3. Or perhaps because he feels it better represents his constituents?

      Delete
    4. "Or perhaps because he feels it better represents his constituents?"

      The seat he is representing has a very high degree of allophones and anglophones. It covers the areas of Cote-des-Neiges, Outremont, Mille-End. He in no way represents them. He sells them the No Harper line to get their votes, and then sells the rest of the provinces francophones on his pro Bill 101, rights of Quebec ideas in order to expand the NDP's reach into the rest of the province.

      This seat was always a solid Liberal seat. But, the Liberals screwed it up because of their over confidence. They thought they could parachute anybody into that seat.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous, spot on. Noticeably, no reply from the apologists.

      Delete
    6. Agreed. It's opportunism through and through. It'd be interesting to better understand why HE claims to prefer it though.

      In any event, everybody knows he speaks both languages just fine but that he has a slight English accent when speaking French.

      I'm not a fan of this idea that you need to self-censor your true orientations just to appeal to a handful of people.

      Delete
  10. "seems to go out of his way to be offended-- perhaps that is just a Quebec trait across the two solitudes."

    Pas du tout, c'est en fait un trait tout a fait canadien a travers les "deux solitudes"

    Hahahaha

    Tous les canadiens agissent en la meme façon

    Je vien d'un babillard pour les voyageurs, un américain (qui s'intéresse en français, d'ailleurs, d'un niveau moyen) qui a dit a la ville qu'il aimerait a rencontrer des gens pour fêter "Canada Day, whatever that is", pour blaguer, s'exprimer en s'amusant ironiquement. Il jouait le role d'un touriste américain.

    Chaque réponse était grincheux ou facheux, ou voulait le moquer pour son ignorance.

    Et il voulait seulement explorer le fête du Canada avec eux.

    Je l'ai envoyé un courriel, sur-le-champ, pour dire que je ne fête pas l'occasion mais que je connais la ville bien, que je serait heureux a lui rencontrer pour une promenade ou un verre.

    Il m'as remercié gentillement, mais il en avait marre et il est déja parti pour les Etats-Unis.

    Tous les canadiens sont la meme... les québécois préferent se vouloir 'quebecois' mais c'est juste leur mot joual pour Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thomas Mulcair is hellbent on the destruction of Canada. Has anyone stopped to wonder why this slime holds French Citizenship? And dont compare the situation to that of Stephane Dion, author of the Clarity Act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's married to a French lady. What's so crazy about that?

      Delete
    2. No one with dual citizenship should be eligible to be Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition of the country. It is a blatant conflict of interest. Who knows where the emotional attachments and political loyalties of such a person may actually lay?

      Delete
    3. Hahaha Yannick, moé itou... quelle est la probleme? Je suppose que Turner avait une passeporte britannique, n'est-ce pas?

      (D'ailleurs, pourquoi pas avoir des liens plus proches a la France, un gouvernment tres fort en l'U.-E.

      Mais je soupçonne que James John voulait se moquer pas sincerement de Mulcair, mais ironiquement de ceux qui se moque de Mulcair. (Je me demande souvent si la pluparte des commentaires extremes qu'on peut trouver sur ce siteweb sont tous faux. Difficile a dire qqf haha)

      Delete
    4. It is a blatant conflict of interest.

      Probablement, mais je voudrais que tous les "équipes" travail ensemble, pas toujours en conflit, en soupçonnant l'une l'autre.

      Les rois et les reines des autres époques aimaient que leurs princes et leurs princesses se marient, qu'on fasseais des liens entres les royaumes. (C'est un digression et bien sûr, pas identique a nos démocracies actuels)

      Il ne me dérange trop. Mais il faut dire que je comprenne ton avis. Est-ce que je me garderait le même avis si Mulcair avait une passeporte Syrienne ou Chinoise? (J'aurai besoin de m'informer de ses avis sur le regime actuel, sur la dictature, etc avant que je deciderait.

      Et je crois que Mulcair s'intéresse plus en le Canada qu'en la France, qu'il n'est pas un espion ni une taupe, etc.

      Delete
    5. C'est déjà dommage qu'on ait forcé Stéphane Dion d'abandonner sa citoyenneté française, c'est bien que Mulcair garde la sienne.

      Je ne crois pas que c'est un conflit d'intérêt : Mulcair n'a même jamais vécu en France. Il a sa citoyenneté juste pour quand il voyage c'est tout.

      Delete
    6. What if there were some form of conflict between Canada and France? For example, a trade dispute or the interference of France in Canada's internal affairs - this happened in the past. I definitely would not want Mulcair to be our Prime Minister.

      Delete
    7. Would you trust him more if he dropped the citizenship? His feelings for France are unlikely to change based on what piece of paper he owns at home.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous of yesterday, 18:25,

      No one with dual citizenship should be eligible to be Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition of the country. It is a blatant conflict of interest. Who knows where the emotional attachments and political loyalties of such a person may actually lay?

      Your argument does not hold water. Let me give you a bigger example. The Queen of Canada is also the Queen of United Kingdom, of Australia, of New Zealand, of Barbados and other 11 realms. What if for some reason Canada declares war on Australia? On whose side should the Queen stand?

      Delete
    9. The difference in this arguement is that France is not part of the Commonwealth. If their was a problem between two Commonwealth members, you can sure as hell bet that the Head of the Commonwealth would have a talk with each member to settle their problems.

      France is a foreign entity. It closest association with Canada is NATO.

      And don't forget, The Commonwealth has taken actions in the past when one of it's members has taken positions that the rest of the members do not agree with. Example South Africa.

      Canada and France are both members of the Francophonie. But that group is a joke. No teeth. When their members start to commit Human Rights violations, they do nothing. They seem more intent on adding members into their group. Even members who are not even french speaking countries. Simply to stroke their own egos in order to show that they are relavent as an organisation.

      Delete
    10. The francophonie is mostly a cultural organisation, not a political one.

      Delete
    11. I most vehemently disagree. When I look at how certain things came to be, I'm not particularly convinced that this "cultural" organization is as benevolent and idealistic as I'm told to believe it is. The fact that our student leaders sat down with the mayor of Paris only reinforces my cynicism. Curiosity? Normal? It's all good (sarcasm).

      Just as The Commonwealth whitewashes over a lot of its ineffectiveness to bring about true and beneficial transformative change to developing nations, so does the Francophonie. It's all well and good to work toward the development, realization, and improvement of one's fellow man, but these groups are about as effective in that regard as a high school student council, albeit with grown-up expense accounts. Call me cynical, but I tend to view both organizations as the neo-post-imperial imposters that they are. Not that continuing post-imperial pretensions is necessarily a bad thing, necessarily. Just don't couch it in cotton-candy international development talk. At least not when you're talking to me ;-).

      Note that for much of their existence, the various Saint-Jean-Baptiste societies defined themselves as mostly "cultural" organizations and yet ours behave more like a network of militant political separatist pressure groups that spawn regional chapters and special interest groups which often successfully influence the National Assembly -- not to mention the francophone media -- on topics dealing with cultural/linguistic/political matters.

      The pattern eerily resembles that of Zionist pressure lobbies that dictate foreign policy in the U.S. with regard to Israel.

      I note with sad irony that both the SSJB and AIPAC, whose façades are nominally "peace-loving", have a vested interest in continuing the respective conflicts that they have made an industry out of engaging in.

      Delete
    12. HAHAHA "mostly cultural" my Mutt-Canadian ass!


      [...]« Il faut être sur la défensive par rapport à cet environnement anglophone, dit-elle. Ne me parlez pas d’une Francophonie molle ! » Des participants ont aussi exigé que l’OIF sanctionne les pays qui ne font rien pour la promotion du français. Pour la première fois, à Kinshasa, un rapport permettra de rendre compte de ce que font, ou ne font pas, en la matière les 56 pays membres de l’OIF.[...]

      Delete
    13. C'est du nouveau pour moi, je dois avouer. Quand on a eu le sommet de la francophonie à Moncton, ça semblait être plutôt une commonwealth sans aucunes dents.

      Delete
    14. Si c'est le genre de "dents" que tu privilégies véritablement, je me poserais plusieurs questions à l'endroit du soutien que tu manifesterais cette Organisation.

      Promouvoir le français, en Afrique, par exemple, c'est bien beau. Mais aller jusqu'à punir des pays -- surtout ceux du tiers-monde qui n'ont même pas une proportion/communauté de locuteurs ayant comme langue maternelle le français -- pour leur "laxisme"?!?! Voyons.

      Ça sent un peu beaucoup l'approche revancharde de nos propres séparatistes. Tsé, ces mêmes soi-disant "francophiles" gauchistes québécois qui prêchent la "diversité culturelle" tout en prônant une politique "il faut sévir et sévir fort" à chaque constatation non pas d'absence de français, mais d'insuffisance anglophobe. Faut quand même le faire...

      Parler de sanctionner des régimes africains (français langue seconde sinon moins, et renommés pour leurs moyennes au bâton pour tout ce qui est droit de la personne!) qui ne font pas assez pour se franciser tout en décriant l'attitude impérialiste, monopolisante et maléfique du concurrent anglophone qui "envahit" la planète.

      Ça prend des couilles grosses en hostie.

      Delete
    15. Canada and France are both members of the Francophonie. But that group is a joke. No teeth. When their members start to commit Human Rights violations, they do nothing. They seem more intent on adding members into their group. Even members who are not even french speaking countries. Simply to stroke their own egos in order to show that they are relavent as an organisation.

      I agree, but I wouldn't limit it to the francos. The anglos do it just as effectively/ineffectively, depending on where you happen to stand.

      Do some reading up on the scam that currently is "international development" and tell me both groups aren't the ideological bastard children of the Special Olympics and neo-imperialism.

      Delete
    16. Je voulais dire, bien sûr, que je croyais que la francophonie existait a des fins purement coopératives, sans aucun coercition. Le commonwealth, lui, a déjà exercé pression sur ses membres africains (Rhodésie, Afrique du Sud) quand ils enfreignaient les droits humains. Bien sûr c'était dans les années 60-80 dans des temps meilleurs.

      En tout cas, je voulais préciser que je ne suis pas en accord avec aucunes des positions que tu m'attribue en raison de mon malheureux commentaire. Je trouves ça honteux, tout comme toi, et je l'apprends aujourd'hui.

      Delete
    17. ... or, if you prefer, neocolonialism.

      And yes, for those of you wondering, I believe the people who bring you the Francophonie are not fundamentally different from those who brought us Françafrique, multinational corporate capitalism, the IMF and the World Bank.

      It's dog eat dog. The rich exploit the poor. The haves giving crumbs to the have-nots and charging the latter rent for it. I don't care what face you put on it.

      If we would only open our eyes and see the forest for the trees, we would realize that "corruption" and "collusion" were by no means limited to the much-caricatured Quebec Liberal Party and that it is ludicrous to carry on with the pretense that sum of all evils resides in the luciferous Jean Charest.

      Delete
    18. Ma perception que la Francophonie est une organisation politique.

      Au cours des quelques échanges que j'ai suivis, un jeune africain reprochait la complaisance de l'OIF dans son rôle d'observateur du processus électoral dans plusieurs pays d'Afrique. Une jeune africaine a soulevé, en discutant avec la présidente de TV5, la question des problèmes occasionnels de censure (certains gouvernements coupent le signal quand TV5 critique leur régime). Il y avait beaucoup de questions très politiques et très terre à terre.

      Delete
    19. De bonnes interventions de la part de ces Africains, certes, mais parions que la situation ne se réglera pas de sitôt... et surtout pas parce qu'on en fait la demande.

      Delete
    20. "[...] mais parions que la situation ne se réglera pas de sitôt... [...]"

      Évidemment, pas plus que L'ONU empêchera les guerres ou que le FMI empêchera les crises économiques.

      Je disais simplement que l'OIF est une organisation plus politique que strictement culturelle.

      Delete
    21. "I believe the people who bring you the Francophonie are not fundamentally different from those who brought us Françafrique [...]"

      Étrangement, les français semblent ambivalents face à la Francophonie, quelque chose à voir avec leur passé colonial. Et donc, les réseaux qui se forment aujourd'hui au sein de la francophonie court-circuitent souvent la France et ces réseaux sont souvent sud-sud et non nord-sud comme on l'imagine toujours.

      (L'histoire du français est pleine de paradoxes, en premier lieu, le fait que le français ait continué à prospérer en Afrique après la décolonisation.)

      Delete
    22. Ce n'est pas faux, mais j'ai de la difficulté à voir cette organisation comme étant autre chose qu'un véhicule post-colonial remaquillé au gout du jour...

      Tout comme le Commonwealth d'ailleurs.

      Tant qu'à faire, je préfère vivre sous un vrai empire qui ne se gêne pas de s'identifier comme tel.

      Delete
    23. Tu es peut-être un peu cynique, Apparatchik. ;)

      Delete
    24. C'est que je préfère appeler les choses par leur vrai nom, aussi répugnantes soient-elles.

      Delete
    25. Je suis désolé de ne pas y voir le même complôt que toi. Je ne crois pas que parce que la France ait déjà eu un empire, que n'importe quelle initiative culturelle n'est qu'impérialisme caché.

      Mais je suis peut-être un peu plus idéaliste que toi.

      Delete
  12. Tommy est un bon canadien comme on les aimes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dixit le Canadien-Français de service...?

      Delete
  13. Quebec knows it is surrounded by English (300 million to be exact).

    I have seen huge advertisements in Ontario begging the Ontarians to come to Quebec for tourism.

    But Quebec, being Quebec, puts all its road signs, including the construction (and there is alot of construction) signs, in French of course.

    You would think they would have some sense to at least put them in Bilingual so all the tourist English people they want money from can actually read the signs, know where they are going, and avoid any car accidents by not being able to read the warnings.

    What doorknobs!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I have seen huge advertisements in Ontario begging the Ontarians to come to Quebec for tourism"

    Nos touristes viennent de partout dans le monde,seuls les ontariens posent problème.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Les Ontariens forment une vraie race de crétins. Ils sont justes bons pour faire ce que les autres leur disent de faire (Ford, Toyota, Bombardier, etc). Quand ils essaient de faire quelque chose d'original, c'est l'échec (Research In Motion, Nortel, etc).

      Delete
    2. Totalement en accord :)

      Delete
    3. That comment about Ontario demonstrates how utterly ignorant you are about the high tech world. There are numerous high tech companies in Ontario that are highly successful, some of which have been sold to U.S. companies, and others of which are at the cutting edge of high tech. You would not know about any of that because you prefer to refer to people as cretins. That is a lot easier to do than to think.

      Delete
    4. Ontario has been considerably more successful than Quebec and has poured tens of billions of dollars into the bottomless pit of Quebec in the form of transfer payments. The Quebecois are deadbeat, welfare dependent, socialist losers.

      Nortel started as a company in Montreal but had the wisdom to move most of its operations out of Quebec (like so many other companies). It was once the most valuable corporation in Canada but was destroyed by the nefarious, fraudulent actions of a few high-level executives.

      Delete
    5. "I have seen huge advertisements in Ontario begging the Ontarians to come to Quebec for tourism"

      "Nos touristes viennent de partout dans le monde,seuls les ontariens posent problème."

      I have met tourists from other provinces and from the United States who experienced difficulties and were not impressed by the lack of bilingual signs.

      The Quebecois demand French signs in places they visit (like Florida), but don't have the decency to provide the same service to others travelling to Quebec.

      Delete
    6. When you drive on the 401 and enter Quebec from Ontario there is a sign saying Bienvenue in large letters and below it the equivalent of an eye chart saying welcome in several languages, one of which is English which is somewhere down the list and which you can hardly make out as you drive by.

      By contrast, when you drive into Ontario there are bilingual same size road signs on the 401.

      When in Montreal my favourite unilingual road sign is allumez vos phares. Good luck to the tourists and those driving in their direction.

      Delete
    7. (Research In Motion, Nortel, etc)

      De vrais losers

      Delete
    8. "The Quebecois demand French signs in places they visit (like Florida), but don't have the decency to provide the same service to others travelling to Quebec."

      Les Quebecois sont les varis losers.

      Oh Kebec, what hypocrisy you weave.

      It's like in Iran where the muslims persecute the christians and jews at home and then go abroad to claim they have freedom of religion when people oppose the construction of mega mosques because the areas aren't zoned for the amount of traffic is generates.

      Delete
    9. Most the anti-English, anti-Ontario comments shed no insight into things and are rather just racist diatribes. I suspect these people didn't benefit from the educational reforms instituted by the quiet revolution.

      Delete
  15. "...and others of which are at the cutting edge of high tech"


    Des exemples ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Virtek Vision International Inc. is a leading provider of precision laser-based templating and inspection solutions for industrial material processing.

      Weever Apps provides a cutting-edge platform for building mobile web apps and also serves large clients for custom app development.

      OpenText is the leader in Enterprise Information Management (EIM). EIM enables organizations to grow the business, lower costs of operations, and reduce information governance and security related risks.

      Maplesoft is the leading provider of high-performance software tools for engineering, science, and mathematics. Maplesoft’s core technologies include the world’s most advanced symbolic computation engine and revolutionary physical modeling techniques. Combined together, these technologies enable the creation of cutting-edge tools for design, modeling, and high-performance simulation.

      ALT Software provides embedded graphics software products and development services to semiconductor, operating system, and computing device manufacturers worldwide.

      I could go on and on. Satisfied now?

      Delete
    2. I have to admit, Maple is one cool piece of software. Most others require you to do numerical integrations, but you can do analytical integrations in Maple. It definitely has come in handy.

      Delete
  16. I love how yannick comes on here and acts like he isnt separatist or racist yet he bends himself into a pretzel defending them. Just like everyone who defends 50%+1. What complete and utter bullshit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair is fair, I'd defend Nazis if people were saying untrue things about them. I may not agree with seperatism, but arguments against it should be based on sound logic, not half-truths and emotionnal appeal.

      Delete
    2. It's irrelevant what the arguments are if we're dealing with an "issue" which is not only unresolvable, but is meant to be unresolvable (and perpetual). The point of culture wars is not to resolve anything. It's to bicker endlessly because it is in the interest of some to keep it endless (by being ambiguous, escalating demands, etc...).

      Delete
    3. "The point about disputes on such topics as the value of sexual abstinence, the role of religious charities in state-funded activities, the question of gay marriage, and the like***, is that they are not framed to be resolved. The political function is to divide citizenry while obscuring class differences and diverting the voters' attention from the social and economic concerns of the general populace. Cultural wars might seem an indication of strong political involvements. Actually they are a substitute. The notoriety they receive from the media and from politicians eager to take firm stands on non-substantive issues serves to distract attention and contribute to a cant politics of the inconsequential."

      Prof. Sheldon S. Wolin - "Democracy Incorporated - Managed Democracy and the specter of Inverted Totalitarianism"

      ---------

      ***In the Canadian context, like the Fr language issue

      Delete
    4. Be that as it may, adski, I will continue to correct what I see as faulty logic. Even if for you the issue is so inconsequential as to exist solely to continue to divide the population, it is not so for me. I will not ever, ever believe that it is useless to talk about something, or that saying untruths or appeal to emotion is no big deal.

      Thank you for the quotation, however - it is very interesting.

      Delete
    5. @Yannick

      I paste here what James John replied to your Nazi post in case it becomes too separated from it. I do this because I believe people like you and Michel Patrice are more dangerous than the racist separatists:


      James JohnSaturday, July 7, 2012 10:07:00 AM EDT

      Amazing you talk about half truths and emotional appeal when the entire separatist movement is based on that and much worse. I am not surprised you would defend nazis as you have already gone down the slippery slope of defending racists. I actually respect the racists on this blog more than people like you, at least they don‘t try to hide or sugar coat what they are.

      Delete
    6. Yes, thank you. I had already read it and replied to it. I have to admit, no one's ever told me I was "dangerous" before.

      Delete
    7. Keep on expressing your desire to defend Nazis and you will be even more surprised what people are going to say about and to you.

      Delete
    8. I feel like I'm back in grade school, where kids out to make fun of you would construe your words into the most ridiculous of possible interpretations, rather than take them at face value. I have not and have never expressed the "desire to defend Nazis". You really need to brush up on your English if that's what you've construed out of my words.

      The prefered way to debate amongst dull intelligences (such as yours) is to resort to Ad Hominem and Strawmen arguments, both of which you have/are using at the moment. These arguments are not convincing. They do not become more convincing if the target "deserves it". They remain just as unconvincing. I would never let unpopularity or consensus stand in the way of my intellectual integrity when I recognize logical fallacies.

      I don't think I have ever knowingly "defended a racist" (or a Nazi, for that matter). I certainly wouldn't let the fact that other people are calling someone a racist (or a Nazi) deter me from pointing out their shitty logic. I have no idea how you could possible argue the contrary.

      Delete
    9. Yannick, here is exactly what you said:

      "...I'd defend Nazis if people were saying untrue things about them."

      I do not think that we need to "brush up on [our] English".

      If you wish to apologize to those whom you have offended and explain what you actually intended to say, this is your opportunity to do so. If not, well...

      Delete
    10. An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

      Do I have to spell it out for you? Someone's beliefs, negative characteristics, what kind of cereal they eat in the morning have nothing to do with logic, arguments, or whether they are right or wrong. I stand by what I said, I'd point out your shitty logic even if you were attacking Nazis.

      It is, therefore, entirely useless to call me, Michel or anyone else isn't simply an echo of your own thoughts, as a racist. Unless you can point out actual racist statements, calling them racist is simply an Ad Hominem. It only works because it appeals to the emotions of others.

      If you're offended by what is the only permissible stance for someone with intellectual integrity, I can't help you.

      Delete
    11. I'd like to go further and say that to call me racist simply because I refuse to demonize everyone who voted Oui in 1995 is a perfect exemple of guilt by association.

      Delete
  17. Amazing you talk about half truths and emotional appeal when the entire separatist movement is based on that and much worse. I am not surprised you would defend nazis as you have already gone down the slippery slope of defending racists. I actually respect the racists on this blog more than people like you, at least they don‘t try to hide or sugar coat what they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's a velvet glove apologist, not necessarily for any one political outcome but for a political ideology in general. He might never vote with separatists or side with them, but it is in his interest to keep the issue going. So he'd say things like: "I'm not a separatist, but I try to debate/negotiate/talk with them using this and not that type of argument". The point is for us to keep talking and not let the issue be "backbenched".

      Delete
    2. Well said. He probably thinks hes very complex by keeping this nuanced view

      Delete
    3. James John - Like i posted on another thread, the problem with fighting fire with fire is that one is in an awkward position when one has to moralize against fire afterwards. You'd be better served to fight fire with water.

      If the seperatist movement is full of half truths and emotional appeal, it should be easy enough to attack it without reverting to bad argumentation, no?

      Adski - What exactly is a velvet glove apologist?

      Delete
    4. "He probably thinks hes very complex by keeping this nuanced view"

      Don't confuse nuance with engineered ambiguity. Life is complex and nuanced, but over-complication is an issue in itself and a useful political tool in the arsenal of QC Inc.

      A real nuanced view for QC, one that would take into account all the complexities of life in this province and would include non-francos (20% block that is treated as invisible and non-existent) in the debate, would NOT be reduced to the politics of language. The QC "nuance" is limited to the relationship of one language to another, a non-issue for most people in this country and the city of Montreal (save for east end), country and city in which at least 20 (not 2) different languages are regularly used in day to day interactions.

      Delete
    5. The reason it has survived so long is because of bill 101 and the fact that the separatists control a great deal of the media and schools. In fact, to give credit where credit is due, it is wonderful to see that even with all this power the racist party cannot poll above 35% against a tired, old, corrupt government and have not won a popular vote since 1994. That is why velvet gloved apologists like you Yannick are so repugnant.

      Delete
    6. "What exactly is a velvet glove apologist?"

      JF Lisee like. Sophisticated. Soft spoken. Evasive, ambiguous, harder to pin down. Much more intelligent than vulgar mouthpieces of the movement like Curzi or Beaudoin and more dangerous and annoying than them.

      Delete
    7. JF Lisee like. Sophisticated.[...]
      Putting lipstick on a (separatist) pig doesn't unmake it a pig.

      Double-meaning fully intended.

      Delete
    8. "Double-meaning fully intended"

      Devrais-je me sentir visé?

      Delete
    9. Seulement si tu t'appelles JF Lisée.

      Delete
  18. Yannick, you have shamed yourself by saying that you would defend Nazis. Just get off this blog. You are incapable of rational thought. What you said is despicable.

    ReplyDelete
  19. La Francophoney-baloney....blah... blah...blah
    The only question I have is why Diouf left so early. Anybody here have an answer?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thomas Mulcair treads lightly at separatist parade
    I said it once and I'll say it again: opportunism. Mulcair's playing that violin like the virtuoso that he is.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Journal de Quebec complains about an 'anglophone' billboard
    We need more English in Quebec and more French in the RoC. I challenge the separatists to come up with that line, but I know they have no balls so it's rather moot...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Vigile.net's financial woes
    Sweet! Ramrod Frappier and his gang of little separatist fuckers into insovency once and for all. It'd be so sweet to watch immigrant mobsters do what "native" white people won't!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Language hysteria dogs Habs
    Hysteria no, lack of chutzpah, maybe. Get up, stand up, I say.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Quebec finances re-opening of Asbestos mine
    Pretty soon it'll be legal to club a woman on the head and drag her back to your cave where you get to have your dirty way with her. Score one for progress!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Poll indicates that RoC indifferent to Quebec separation
    I'm indifferent to French Canadian supremacists with an inferiority complex (how's that for irony?!) when they whine about their comparative lack of control over "decision-making" capabilities too and tell me I need to vote OUI so that they feel they're a bunch of somebodies.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I had to chuckle at Andrew Coyne's piece about this because unlike what his commenters say, I think he's spot on. Indeed, the culture war is all about a zero-sum, self-sustaining conflict that never really goes away, and the separatists have played this handily over the last half century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time to pull their plug, call their bluff, and crush their movement (and their egos) for good.

      Delete
    2. Good article by A.Coyne. Even the mainstream press and its corporate pawns (who like to call themselves "reporters") can surprise sometimes with an interesting analysis.

      Coyne ends it perfectly:

      "But the PQ will never ask such a [clear, to-the-point] question, if no other reason than because Ottawa insists it must. We are far more likely, then, to see some sort of preposterous charade along the lines of “do you agree that Quebec should assume such and such powers” — no more illegitimate than previous questions, but without the sanction of precedent. In which event the proper response of federal leaders is to ignore it. It always was."

      "Preposterous charade" is a perfect term for the politics of endless culture war that Quebec elite (backed by the QC populace whipped into millennial frenzy by skillful exploitation of fears and appeals to human vanity) succeeded in imposing on the people of this country.

      Coyne's advise for the RoC and the feds is also spot on: ignore it. Ignore it. Ignore it. Ignore it.

      Delete
    3. Every now and again, he gets it right.

      Delete
    4. Coyne's argument that seperation is impossible is not very convincing : it boils down to the fact that there would be no one who could represent the ROC with whom the seperatists could negociate. In the past that's never stopped anyone or anything. When we repatriated the constitution, "Canada" was represented by it's 10 premiers and the prime minister.

      I don't see how, in the case of a people legitimately wanting to assert their self-determination, anyone could support throwing up our arms in the air and saying "it can't be done!" Other countries have seceded, it's not impossible.

      Coyne is just comforting himself and others that it will never come to that.

      Delete
    5. The first step would be voting yes to a clear and unequivocal question that would acknowledge that Quebec would be partitioned and would have to use the Canadian dollar as its currency without Quebec having any say on Canadian monetary policy and that an independent partitioned Quebec would not be a party to NAFTA among other things, so no it's impossible.

      Delete
    6. It can't be done not because the RoC doesn't want it done, it's because Qc doesn't want it done.

      You want negotiations and scold those who shun them. But you forget that the object of negotiations is not always resolution. For some factions, negotiation for the sake of negotiation is the objective, and it's the responsibility of those on the other side to recognize it in order not to waste time and energy.

      You're talking about self-assertion, but how can you assert yourself on ambiguity? Assertion and ambiguity are antithetical to each other, as is the nationalist-federalist (I assume yours) stance, a very common political stance in the QC population. How can you be a nationalist and pay fealty to the symbolism of QC, yet be ok with living under the symbols of a country you don't identify with, only because living under these symbols is economically beneficial? It's political schizophrenia to me, the fusion of nationalism which normally priorities nation over economics, and monetary greed which normally prioritizes border-free and nation-free world for the sake of capital and human flow.

      As schizophrenic is the readiness to be part of this country "as long as it negotiates with QC", knowing that negotiations actually weaken the country and mire it in the politics of the inconsequential, politics which are time wasting, energy wasting, and immaterial.

      Also, how can you say that people are voting for "self-determination", if they're voting on a vague question? Only a clear question about self-determination can be construed as a measure of people's desire for self-determination. You can't talk of "self-determination" until the PQ poses to the population a clear concise question with the word "independence" in it, and no mention of Canada.

      So for now, as in the past 50 years, it can't be done. Because of QC.

      Delete
    7. Fair enough, Adski. I respect your point of view. It is well thought out and you yourself are a very logical individual.

      However, your point of view is different than Coyne's. He argues that even in the case of a clear question with a clear majority, it still can't be done. That is what I was arguing against, not your point of view.

      Is that clearer?

      Delete
    8. Yannick is that type of nationalist. Ardently defending his racist separatist buddies and screaming about the troubled position of french in North America yet unwilling to move to his beloved Quebec because he would have to take a financial hit. He would probably be the type to seek out cheaper real estate in the 450 and scream about ethnics and anglos taking over Montreal.
      In order for Quebec to become independent it would take a revolution. It will never happen because Canada is not a dictatorship and Quebec is far from being oppressed. I mean seriously, read above, these people just aren‘t willing to take the hit.

      Delete
    9. "He argues that even in the case of a clear question with a clear majority, it still can't be done"

      I disagree with him on that.

      A clear question and a clear majority is a way to go. It would be welcome by many in the RoC. It would not be welcome for many QC "separatists", just like the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 spread panic in neoconservative circles in Washington (they feared they lost a raison d'etre, and had to come up with a new one - that of global terrorism).

      Delete
    10. That is part of Coyne‘s argument, the PQunt would never have the guts to ask a direct question.

      Delete
    11. Actually James John, as I posted two threads back, I have applied for a position in Montreal :) You will have to try again. If I get hired, I also plan to live on the island; suburbian living isn't for me, had too much of that already in Calgary. But like, continue to try and (mis)profile me. It's kind of amusing.

      Adski - We are in complete agreement on this. It's nice. :)

      Delete
    12. I don't think that's what makes the strength of his piece.

      The part he argues and that I agree with has to do with the idea that a nice neat UDI following a negotiations impass is a pipe dream:
      [...] So the more likely scenario is a speedy breakdown in negotiations, followed by a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), much as Jacques Parizeau has told us he had planned in 1995. [...]

      The thing with the famous Reference is that both sides took away from it what they wanted to hear, all while conveniently pretending they could ignore the parts that didn't suit them.

      One thing's for sure, the notion of effectivity doesn't fly, no matter how badly a separatist Quebec provincial government might want it to.

      And then there's the part I find most organically logical:

      [...] No country would recognize such a regime — not with Canada contesting its legitimacy, along with half of Quebec. Nor is there any evidence that Quebecers are prepared to embark upon such adventures. Quebec is a modern, bourgeois, law-abiding, mortgage-holding society. It is not the cradle of revolutions.[...]

      Delete
    13. Of course if your ethnocentric, racist friends in the PQ win power it will be much easier to buy something on the island. Your velvet glove apologist opinions will also be very much in style as well. Perfect reason for you to keep this argument going and going. Wouldn‘t want it to disappear before your grand arrival.

      Delete
    14. Dude, I'm a federalist ROCer who happens to have French as a first language. I don't have any ethnocentric, racist friends in the PQ. Well, maybe my uncle is seperatist - but we don't really talk about that. If anything I'd vote Legault or Charest.

      You're just not very good at this. You even have to use adski's words to belittle me.

      Delete
    15. Its an apt description of you. I don‘t give a fuck where you‘re from or who you say you would vote for if you actually lived here. You defend racists and have admitted that you would take the time to defend Nazis. You are the type of person who would try to revive this argument even as it were dying. And what does having french as a first language have to do with anything? You obviously have a strong grasp of english which makes your whole stance shameful. Its not the same as some scared unilingual from Jonquiere.

      Delete
    16. Apparatchik : Selon toi, un gouvernement péquiste ayant reçu un mandat univoque de sa population désirant l'auto-détermination se heurtant à un refus total de négocier de la pars du Canada, que devraient-ils faire? Je précise, un refus total en défi de la "Clarity Act" de Jean Chrétien. Faire appel aux Nations Unies?

      Delete
    17. Imaginons que le Québec vote pour l'indépendance à 55% et qu'il soit forcé malgré tout de demeurer dans la fédération canadienne. Cette question empoisonnerait tout débat politique pour les siècles à venir. Pas un politicien fédéral ne pourrait prendre une décision sans se faire dire par le Québec que nous ne avions voté pour l'indépendance et que son gouvernement est illégitime. Le parlement canadien deviendrait, je crois, ingouvernable. Vous trouvez déjà qu'on chiâle sans arrêt, ce serait mille fois pire.

      Je ne crois pas qu'il y aurait un appel aux Nations Unies. Mon impression est que le premier appel que recevrait le premier ministre du Canada serait fort probablement un appel de monsieur Marché Financier qui voudra savoir comment la question de la dette sera réglée.

      Delete
    18. Je ne comprends pas. La loi sur la clarté engage le gouvernement fédéral tout en lui conférant certaines obligations très précises et pertinentes tant au préalable qu'à la suite d'un tel vote.

      La raison pour laquelle cette loi a suscité autant de colère chez les souverainistes, c'est qu'elle leur a enlèvé les munitions qu'ils croyaient avoir pour recourir à une déclaration unilatérale d'indépendance. De plus, ils n'auront pas et n'ont jamais eu les couilles de demander LA question qu'ils devraient poser: on coupe vraiment TOUS les liens avec le Canada: acceptez-vous, OUI/NON?. Je suis en très bonne compagnie pour affirmer qu'une telle question n'obtiendrait jamais une majorité "claire", voire même une "simple majorité" 50%+1. Voilà un très grand point d'achoppement dans ta situation très hypothétique: un gouvernement péquiste ne recevrait jamais des Québécoise un mandat non-équivoque à une question claire formulée ainsi. C'est pour ça qu'ils esquivent la question... de la question. Leur mouvement en dépend.

      Vraisemblablement, à mon avis, ce seraient les "indignés" d'un gouvernement péquiste qui iraient de l'avant avec un référendum "non-conforme" au sens de la loi sur la clarté et feraient fi des objections formulées par Ottawa (fausse bravade "d'auto-détermination du peuple" et le besoin de sauver face l'exigeraient). Ces mêmes indignés feront alors tout ce qu'ils pourront par la suite pour entraver aux négociations de bonne foi avec Ottawa.

      Ta question deviendrait alors très pertinente, mais je précise qu'il faudrait la re-poser à l'envers: que ferait-on dans l'éventualité où le résultat était majoritaire pour le OUI mais que les négociations achopperaient sur un ou plusieurs détails entre Québec et Ottawa, formulés soit avant ou après la tenue du vote?

      Voilà où commencerait le dénouement tragique.

      La situation ayant dégénéré en une impasse politique très tendue, il serait alors question de plusieurs rondes de négociations futiles où chaque partie tenterait de faire valoir son point de vue et sa légitimité. Pendant ce temps-là dégénérerait le climat social (pensez carrés rouges fois un milliard) et plusieurs démêlés pourraient avoir lieu entre simples citoyens et même entre groupes militants. Pendant que ragerait ce climat social tendu où revanchisme et récriminations mutuelles (politiques autant que citoyennes) atteignaient leur paroxysme, la légitimité même des intervenants politiques (et de leurs organes respectifs responsable du maintien de la loi et de l'ordre) serait fort probablement mise en question. Tout comme la reconnaissance et la légitimité du free-for-all qui s'ensuivrait.

      Et alors?

      L'indépendance d'un pays ne passe pas autant par son auto-proclamation que par sa reconnaissance par d'autres états. Plus influent l'état qui reconnait, plus légitime et reconnue la déclaration d'indépendance. La France, cette mère inapte, toxicomane, insouciante, et absente, laquelle nous a abandonnés alors que nous étions nouveau-nés, affamée par de la canne à sucre haïtienne, serait fort probablement la première à nous reconnaitre maintenant en tant qu'"adultes", tout comme le ferait un ramassis de pays africains et certaines nations latinoaméricaines qui assimileraient de façon simpliste notre "combat" à leurs parcours (post-)colonialistes. Reste à voir de quelle façon agiraient Ottawa, et tous les pays influents du monde, par ordre décroissant de puissance militaire et/ou économique. Washington, Pékin, Londres, Moscou, l'Europe de l'ouest; ça ne promet pas d'être beau beau, ni même unanime.

      Delete
    19. Pour sauver face, il faudrait alors recourir soit à une dernière ronde de négociations "ultimes" qui décideraient du sort du Québec/Canada, lesquelles résulteraient en un "règlement définitif", lequel influerait une partition du territoire, de notre part de la dette Canadienne, et de bon nombre d'autres revendications, afin que la situation ne se reproduise pas quelques années plus tard. Adviendrait ensuite un Canada ou les provinces maritimes seraient disloquées du reste du continent mais fortifié d'une bande de terre longeant l'Outaouais et au moins une partie du Saint-Laurent.

      Ou bien, le résultat du OUI sera mort-né en raison de détails techniques qui emboîteraient le pas à toutes ces débandades...

      Delete
    20. "Pour sauver face..." ?

      Delete
    21. oups... passez-moi l'anglicisme.
      J'aurais dû dire pour sauver LA face

      Delete
    22. I actually disagree with Coyne here: "Even if the PQ [...] were to ask a clear question and to win a clear majority, the next stop would be nowhere."

      If the question were clear and a clear majority would vote Yes, then the legitimacy for an independent QC would be there.

      But then I agree with him when he says: "But the PQ will never ask such a question, if no other reason than because Ottawa insists it must. We are far more likely, then, to see some sort of preposterous charade along the lines of “do you agree that Quebec should assume such and such powers” — no more illegitimate than previous questions, but without the sanction of precedent."

      If a majority were obtained on an ambiguous question, then noone would recognize QC's right to secede.

      And nobody can claim that Quebeckers expressed their will for "self-determination" until Quebeckers are asked directly if that's what they want. If they're asked indirectly, in an ambiguous way, then it's just an interpretation of what they want, and no more than that.

      Just the fact that a clear question has never been asked, and the visceral rejection of a clear question requirement imposed by the feds in 1997 with Clarity Act, is indicative that Quebeckers don't want a total "self-determination". Otherwise, it would have been settled long ago. And it's astounding that a movement dedicated to Quebec secessions hasn't, in 60 years, posed a clear question to the population. To me, it all has the hallmarks of an elite project for the elite, and has less to do with popular will.

      Delete
    23. Imaginons que le Québec vote pour l'indépendance à 55% et qu'il soit forcé malgré tout de demeurer dans la fédération canadienne. Cette question empoisonnerait tout débat politique pour les siècles à venir. Pas un politicien fédéral ne pourrait prendre une décision sans se faire dire par le Québec que nous ne avions voté pour l'indépendance et que son gouvernement est illégitime.

      Peut être, peut-être pas.

      Le Canada peut toujours nous jeter au visage le fait qu'un seul OUI, aussi faiblement majoritaire qu'il soit, ne serait que le fruit d'une poussée temporaire polarisée et émotive. Il pourrait tout aussi facilement arguer qu'un tel résultat eût coïncidé avec une période de ferveur créée, et de courte durée -- le temps d'un vote -- et qui par la suite retomberait sous la barre des 50%.

      À l'appui: nombreux sondages et référendums des 50 dernières années. Rares étaient les fois où le OUI était en tête, et très souvent fut-ce pendant une période fortement politisée. Une majorité -- aussi chancelante soit-elle -- serait le talon d'Achille qui nuira plus à un Québec indépendant qu'elle ne l'aiderait.

      Un OUI aussi faible aurait non seulement une assise fort peu reluisante (nombreux référendums sur l'indépendance passent souvent par d'écrasantes majorités), le gouvernement Québécois manifesterait ses propres velléités de pouvoir alors même qu'un peu moins de la moitié de la population qu'il gouverne ne serait réellement chaude à l'idée de sa propre existence. En plus, cette majorité faible risque de retomber sous la barre des 50% peu de temps après, ce qui pourrait tout aussi facilement nuire à la crédibilité du gouvernement Québécois.

      D'une façon comme d'une autre, quel joyeux bordel.

      Delete
    24. I actually disagree with Coyne here: "Even if the PQ [...] were to ask a clear question and to win a clear majority, the next stop would be nowhere."

      If the question were clear and a clear majority would vote Yes, then the legitimacy for an independent QC would be there.


      I don't think he's completely wrong in that we'd all be at a serious impasse. At no point has anybody willingly discussed the effect of a large fifth column within this newly-created country that doesn't wish to flee. As he says, we have mortgages and we like our caviar. The legitimacy/illegitimacy would be strongly tied to the question asked and the outcome, and any subsequent negotiation would certainly have to cover our share of the debt and whether Quebec's territorial integrity (assuming a razor-thin YES majority) can be maintained. Canada is a country of roughly 35 million and its stability and territorial integrity is currently threatened with 2.5 million Quebec separatists in its midst. It's hard to take seriously any claims according to which Quebec's integrity and stability could or even ought to be maintained when roughly half its population is against it. Both sides know this, and both sides know it's political suicide to talk about this beforehand. It's got nothing to do with regular folks like me and you, and it never did.

      But then I agree with him when he says: "But the PQ will never ask such a question, if no other reason than because Ottawa insists it must. We are far more likely, then, to see some sort of preposterous charade along the lines of “do you agree that Quebec should assume such and such powers” — no more illegitimate than previous questions, but without the sanction of precedent."
      I don't know adski, there's plenty of old obscure chains Ottawa can pull if they wanted to. A lot of those chains have fallen into disuse, but (unwritten but followed) constitutional convention isn't any more of a fickle bitch than old unused laws that are actually on the books.

      If a majority were obtained on an ambiguous question, then noone would recognize QC's right to secede.
      True. The Liberals should make political capital out of this, and if ever they lost, they should goad the PQ into having "the courage of their convictions" to ask that clear question once and for all... and make daily chicken sounds in the National Assembly at the PQ otherwise. But of course, the Liberals have no balls and would desperately want to recycle themselves into the new country's (credible) opposition, so they wouldn't seriously ever do that at all.

      And nobody can claim that Quebeckers expressed their will for "self-determination" until Quebeckers are asked directly if that's what they want. If they're asked indirectly, in an ambiguous way, then it's just an interpretation of what they want, and no more than that.
      All of this is speculation, and it always has been. I know so-called "separatists" who are barely familiar with the actual contents of the French Language Charter -- a particular irritant of mine in its current form -- and are surprised when I actually read various provisions and regulations to them, yet we often hear from self-appointed media heads and politicos on both sides that it's a "fundamental will-of-the-people" piece of legislation.

      Delete
    25. Just the fact that a clear question has never been asked, and the visceral rejection of a clear question requirement imposed by the feds in 1997 with Clarity Act, is indicative that Quebeckers don't want a total "self-determination". Otherwise, it would have been settled long ago.
      Of course it isn't about "self-determination". It's brilliantly exploited complex of the colonized with various doses of anglophobia peppered in on the whims of Parti Québécois strategists, some of whom even infiltrate our media and manipulate collective consciousness on the taxpayer's dime. In reality, we're scared shitless of the benefits we'd lose and both sides know it. Coyne is bang on about our bourgeois propensities. If we desperately needed a country, we'd have been protesting in the streets -- student style -- every day for the last 60 YEARS. The fact that we haven't done so is an indication of that project's true necessity.

      And it's astounding that a movement dedicated to Quebec secessions hasn't, in 60 years, posed a clear question to the population. To me, it all has the hallmarks of an elite project for the elite, and has less to do with popular will.
      See above. I rest my case.

      Delete
    26. Fair enough Apparatchik.

      A point about the fifth column - I could point out that there has been a fifth column of seperatist Quebecers in Canada for around 30 years now, of around ~30% of the Quebecer population. It hasn't come to blows quite yet.

      Delete
    27. Maybe not just yet, but I'm not convinced the current model is sustainable.

      Do you believe Canada can continue to function under a political climate that allows Quebec to act as both a country and a province while continuously threatening both its own -- and Canada's -- political stability, territorial integrity, and economic certainty by maintaining an active secession movement that by all accounts takes itself seriously and which squandered much of our political weight in Ottawa over the past 20 years?

      There something I'm increasingly fed up of, Yannick... and all in all, and perhaps it's the allophone in me saying this far more than the federalist French- or English-Canadian that I also am... You know, that allophone whose languages benefit from absolutely NO legal "protection" here whatsoever...

      Despite having dumped our fanatical practice of Catholicism, we still are guided by that 30% Quebec contingent that brainwashes us into believing that speaking/working/communing with the English language the people who speak it is unthinkable. And our provincial government still -- in its oppressively paternalistic self-righteousness -- attempts to prevent what the Church tried to forbid with the terror of excommunication. We still act as though espousing the English language allowing it to coexist alongside French is tantamount to marrying a Protestant -- and along with it all the melodramatic theatrics of risking the loss of our culture and of our Catholic souls... to eternal damnation.

      And yet we're intellectual and consumerist whores for everything else, just like the crass people surrounding us.

      Yannick, I just think we can do better and that it's high-time we stop wanting to "stick it" to the "other" group. It's time to move on and work hard to build the country we already have rather than dwell over some esoteric and dogmatic Shangri-La project whose creation we can't even agree on, let alone what it is, where it is, how it should be run, and by whom.

      Delete
    28. We must remember that separation is, and always has been illegal, especially a separation based on jealousy, revenge and racism. What is legal is, the almost as easy as gerrymandering of Our Eleventh Province..

      Delete
    29. Do you believe...

      No I don't. I don't know how it can be resolved. Perhaps it will take another lost referendum, but since the PQ knows better than to start one without the "winning conditions", we might have to wait a long time. Perhaps seperatism will just have to die a slow death, like communism in the Western democracies. Perhaps a new deal needs to be negociated, along the lines of the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Seperatists like René Lesvesque were not against the idea of Quebec entering the constitution "with honor". It could still be done, but it would require a will on both sides, a will that has been allowed to lapse because we have essentially stopped talking ever since 1995. The longer time goes, the harder it will be to re-open that can of worms.

      What I don't think, is that refusing to talk about it will bring us anywhere. Lack of understanding ultimately leads to radicalisation on both sides, and we don't need more of that either here or abroad. Call me a "velvet-gloved apologist" if you must, but that's what I believe.

      There are good signs, though - for the first time since the 90's, the Bloc has not been sent to Ottawa. The Quebecers have elected a federalist party, the NDP. Sad to see on this blog (it's in fact a large piece of this post) that despite this people hold it against the NDP to try and meet their seperatist constituents half-way.

      On the subject of the bloc, it's essentially a no-win scenario. If Seperatists vote for the Bloc, the ROC will spit on them for refusing to partake in Canadian federalism. If Seperatists vote for the NDP (and of course, the seperatists are only a part of the NDP's support) then the ROC will spit on the NDP for appealing to seperatists. Who are the seperatists "supposed" to vote for then? Either a federalist party meets them half-way or either they vote for parlimentary spoilers, but I don't think we should condemn them for both.

      we can do better

      I believe we can do much better too. I believe Quebecers can promote French in their province without necessarily banning or demeaning English. Believe me, the people who complain about the presence of english here or there get on my nerves too.

      Then again I have to question the judgement of watch company dropping a unilingual english sign in the middle of a city where only a third of the inhabitants can speak English. It's this kind of calleous disregard for the locals that can get quite infuriating (for me) at times. It also makes me think that in the total absense of legislation this would be commonplace, as big companies apparently cannot be bothered to beg Quebecers for their money in their own language, they'd rather re-use the same signs they use for the rest of North America. I don't think that a law requiring, for instance, French-at-least on the signs is the terrible affront to human rights that some on this blog would argue it is.

      I'd like to point out that you're right, the world won't end if French disapears from North America. Life will go on. But I think it's something worth fighting for, personally.

      Delete
    30. And again @Yannick

      I paste here what James John replied to you because I believe people like you, Michel Patrice, and Uncle Thom are more dangerous than the racist separatists:


      James JohnSaturday, July 7, 2012 4:42:00 PM EDT

      Its an apt description of you. I don‘t give a fuck where you‘re from or who you say you would vote for if you actually lived here. You defend racists and have admitted that you would take the time to defend Nazis. You are the type of person who would try to revive this argument even as it were dying. And what does having french as a first language have to do with anything? You obviously have a strong grasp of english which makes your whole stance shameful. Its not the same as some scared unilingual from Jonquiere.

      Delete
    31. Yannick says:

      "Then again I have to question the judgement of watch company dropping a unilingual english sign in the middle of a city where only a third of the inhabitants can speak English."

      Their judgement is based on the fact that all their other ads in the rest of the world is well received! lol. Only in Quebec do they whine about such things.

      "I don't think that a law requiring, for instance, French-at-least on the signs is the terrible affront to human rights that some on this blog would argue it is."

      The affront is when it denies English Quebecers with the ability to make a living and avoid life threaten situations when unable to understand roadway signs. Also, it is fairly obvious that English rights are being constantly eroded. For instance, having French only signs may not seem that bad, but then in combination with other suppression measures, it can be argued as being terrible.

      "I'd like to point out that you're right, the world won't end if French disapears from North America. Life will go on. But I think it's something worth fighting for, personally."

      French will not disappear. There are numerous examples around Canada where French is still carried on by those who want to speak it.

      Personally, the French language militants have to learn to work with English, and not set out to eliminate it. That would go a long way.

      Delete
    32. "The affront is when it denies English Quebecers with the ability to make a living and avoid life threaten situations when unable to understand roadway signs."

      I was trying to phrase it deliberately ; I didn't mean French-only signs, I meant signs where there is at least French. In that the object is to guarantee that the locals can understand it, and people can put whatever else languages on there without that font size mumbo jumbo.

      "French will not disappear. There are numerous examples around Canada where French is still carried on by those who want to speak it."

      You may be right. On the other hand, French can disapear very quickly once certain conditions are met. In Louisiana, I'm told there were about 1.5 millions of Francophones in 1970. In 1980 that number had dropped to 0.8 millions. Today, it's closer to 0.25 millions. I might see the end of French in Louisiana during my lifetime. I won't see French disapear from New Brunswick or Quebec within my lifetime; but in many other provinces the last few bonna fide French communities may soon not exist anymore, as the old die off and the young move to find jobs. I'm thinking of PEI and Nova Scotia in particular.

      "Personally, the French language militants have to learn to work with English, and not set out to eliminate it. That would go a long way."
      I agree entirely.

      Delete

    33. "Personally, the French language militants have to learn to work with English, and not set out to eliminate it. That would go a long way."
      I agree entirely.



      Yannick, what do you think of the idea of obligating French-owned businesses in areas in Quebec with, say, more than 10% English-speakers present, to have AT LEAST English present on signage? If you agree, do you think they would comply and why?

      Delete
    34. You're probably going to find my answer evasive, but there's no helping it. I believe that in areas with local minorities, it is up to the local towns to impose any kind of signeage laws. Kind of like in the Russel township. So I'm for, so long as the initiative comes from the locals. It's a bit of a different case than a 101 analog, since the latter is applicable to the province and therefore effected by the province as a whole.

      As to whether or not they would comply, I have no idea. I'd like to think they would abide by their own bylaws, but I do not have a sufficient insight in the psyche of Quebecers with regards to this question.

      Delete
    35. adski,

      Just the fact that a clear question has never been asked, and the visceral rejection of a clear question requirement imposed by the feds in 1997 with Clarity Act, is indicative that Quebeckers don't want a total "self-determination".

      Agree 100%. Just like I pointed to M. Patrice some time ago, in the history of Quebec there has been exactly ZERO referendum on independence.

      Delete
  27. Ontario court rules against Galgonov and friends in forced bilingual sign case
    I miss Howard. If only he hadn't gone off the deep end...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That court ruling is crazy. What they seem to be saying is that it's okay to violate our rights. This is what we need from our Justice system? No Justice!

      The public needs to take note of what is happening to their rights.

      Delete
    2. I miss William Johnson, easily the clearest thinking and most level headed of the bunch. Galganov was like blowing off steam.

      Delete
  28. Hey by the way Editor, on a general note, what's with all this talk about a fall provincial election? Why does everyone keep saying September 17 th?! wtf?!

    Whatever happened to next year, as you'd been predicting?!?

    ReplyDelete
  29. [...] with the folding of 'Le Voir," Josée Legault, the separatist journalist, is out of a job with no prospects
    Don't fret, she'll be recruited as a PQ candidate in a safe riding, just like JF Lisée and Pierre Duchesne.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pauline Marois [...] did a quick about face, dumping the little red square.
    Like Mulcair, Pauline is just as opportunistic. I would relish the thought (and eventual occurrence) of a crushing PQ defeat at the next provincial election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparatchik, serait-ce possible dans le futur de consolider tous ces posts dans un seul plutôt que 12 posts style twitter?

      Delete
    2. Défragmenter serait le terme approprié.

      Delete
    3. Tant qu'à s'enliser dans un débat surréaliste de synonymes, Yannick aurait pu aussi choisir parmi: concentrer, apparier, enchaîner, rabouter, centraliser, coaliser, conglutiner, agglomérer, amalgamer, fédérer, incorporer, agréger, conglomérer, masser, intégrer, colliger, joindre, fusionner, combiner, regrouper...

      Mais en autant qu'il se fasse comprendre, je n'en ai rien à cirer. Et je crois l'avoir assez bien compris, merci. Bien malin celui qui prétendrait savoir quelle image il avait à l'esprit lorsqu'il tapait son commentaire.

      ... à moins que tu puisses taper alors même que tu aies la tête entre les fesses, ce qui ne me surprendrait point.

      Delete
  31. Apparatchik, serait-ce possible dans le futur de consolider tous ces posts dans un seul plutôt que 12 posts style twitter?

    Décidément, ça ne serait pas impossible mais je les ai départagés dans le but exprès de mieux orienter toute discussion subséquente sous un fil qui serait propre au sujet. J'espère que tu ne m'en veuilles pas trop...

    Je trouve qu'en tant que participants nous avons (y compris moi même!) beaucoup tendance à divaguer des sujets d'origine abordés par le Rédacteur, ce qui fait rapidement dégénérer la discussion (dans tous les sens du terme!), laquelle tombe souvent hors-sujet. Trop souvent, on ne reconnaît même pas la moitié des rubriques/éléments différent(e)s qu'il aborde, et j'ai cru bon d'amener une légère modification à ma façon habituelle d'intervenir.

    Encore mieux, à mon humble avis: commencer toute séance de commentaires pour chaque billet avec une en-tête pour chaque sujet abordé et créer d'autres sections, si besoin est, pour toute discussion ne se rapportant pas (de près ou de loin) à l'un des sujets abordés dans le billet en question.

    What do you think, Editor, et al.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Apparatchik
      I'm fine with the multiple comments...

      Delete
    2. Finalement ce n'est peut-être pas si bête...

      Delete
  32. Abdou Diouf, secretary general of the International Organization of La Francophonie told the audience that by 2050, French language speakers will rise from the 220 million speakers today, to over 700 million.

    OK, where does this figure come from? Population growth in French-speaking countries or non-Francophones learning French? If it's the latter, I think the Francophonie may be making a mistake that many Anglophones make---assuming that everyone who goes to school and takes foreign language classes actually becomes fluent in that language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know, but if I had to guess it would be improvements in the education system of the various African members of the francophonie.

      Delete
    2. The 700 million number is actually one that's been getting thrown around for at least the last two years.

      If your French is good enough, check out this this 2010 interview starring Clément Duhaime, Chief Administrator of the Organisation internationale de la francophonie (OIF). The video gets choppy now and again, but still worth it.

      The basis for these numbers can be summarized in one word: Africa. That continent, according to the Francophonie, will be home to 85% of the world's French-speakers by 2050, by which time 90% of 15-29 year old French-speakers will also live in Africa.

      Duhaime claimed in the 2010 TV5 interview that according to a report "based on scientific studies", "we can see that that if schooling/education succeeds in Africa, we'll have 750 million francophones in 2050. We've already progressed by 20 million in the past 3 years. [...] we currently have 220 million people who speak, read, and write French".

      The interviewer then asks "and that number keeps growing"?
      "Constantly, constantly", replies Duhaime, "absolutely and mostly in certain areas of the world. In Asia, in Africa, particularly. Regressing in Europe, unfortunately for reasons you certainly know well. And stagnation, for now, in the Americas."

      The interviewer then asks whether Africa is indeed carrying the world's French-speaking numbers today, and this is where we get a glimpse of what's behind the numbers. Duhaime replies "Absolutely. The Francophonie was born in Africa, and it's great to see that if we can meet this extraordinary challenge regarding schooling, of providing quality education on the entire African continent, then 500 million French speakers are possible by 2050."

      Another interesting element that Duhaime talks about is the role of distance education, which he states is one of the elements that is going to bring about this rise in numbers. Apparently the Agence universitaire de la Francophonie is one of the agencies through which the OIF hopes to provide the means to train French-language instructors, with the hope, of course that the model will be taken up by the international community and fundraisers worldwide so that this development could reach fruition.

      If you're up to reading what amounts to the World French organization's equivalent of its own corporate literature, have a read here. At least they tell you in a few places how hard it was for them to estimate the number of existing French speakers today, given the free-for-all situation they had to work with, particularly with regards to developing countries (including, yes, African ones). When existing census statistics didn't exist or were just plain unreliable, they had to do their best to estimate the number of existing French speakers, in addition to having to weigh the fact that the quality and fluency of said speakers often varies greatly from one country to another.

      Kudos on their apparent fixation on 10- to 15-year-olds as a somewhat decent measure of language vitality, but I'm equally disconcerted by the considerable presence of Quebec academics and high-ranking civil servants who partake in this organization and whose names are disturbingly correlated with the Parti Québécois, Le Devoir, the Office québécois de la langue française, and other separatist-oriented institutes/organizations.

      Clearly the political operatives are as active here as you'd expect their counterparts to be in any linguistic/cultural/political/international "development" organization.

      Delete
    3. I have a question maybe someone can answer:

      Why are the French so adamant about pushing the French language on the world?

      For instance they form these Organisations of International Francopholie which promotes the french language and culture internationally. Seems like an a lot of effort organisation no?

      I am not aware of any English organisation that openly promotes the English language.

      So what reasons do they have? Is it for economic power? Probably, that's what the world is about.

      From their website:

      "IOF organises political activities and actions of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking populations. Its actions respect cultural and linguistic diversity and serve to promote the French language, peace and sustainable development."

      Seems like the English language is under threat from these French forces?

      According to their website, french isn't doing so bad. They rank their language vis-a-vis others. And from the undertones, their objective would seem to outperform these other languages.

      My question is why such an aggressive and active approach to promoting the french language when it seems to be doing just fine?

      Delete
    4. Perhaps you were not aware of the British Council : http://www.britishcouncil.org/about

      "In line with our Royal Charter, we aim to bring high quality English materials to every learner or teacher who wants them around the world. We work with governments to transform whole education systems to increase opportunity and employability through English."

      (Their English Next 2006 report is interesting. Linguist David Graddol worries that global english could be a threat to native english speakers. Interesting. http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research-englishnext.htm)

      Delete
    5. Why are the French so adamant about pushing the French language on the world?
      It's called throwing your weight around and every country/group on this planet with imperialist designs or ambitions -- be they covert or overt -- implements organizations like it.

      So what reasons do they have? Is it for economic power? Probably, that's what the world is about.
      That, or, more broadly, seeking to establish a cultural sphere of influence. Having -- or seeking -- cultural spheres of influence is as old as civilization itself.

      My question is why such an aggressive and active approach to promoting the french language when it seems to be doing just fine?
      Because the nature of empire-building (or in the case of the French, empire re-building) is such that it requires hard efforts, soft efforts, and not resting on their laurels. Most languages associated with European imperialism which are set to decline this century, and the Francophonie is gambling on the idea that fostering/reviving a shared and perhaps distant sense of community based on the French language all while paying lip service to local/indigenous languages will position French on an equal if not comparable footing as other imperial languages like English and Spanish. It's about jealously guarding a language's prestige while openly stating and behaving as though the language were a vehicle toward shared cultural exchanges ("civilization") and cooperation ("globalization").

      Delete
    6. Find all this behavior incongruous with what seems like all the (French!) criticism leveled at parallel Anglo-American efforts?

      It's no accident. The criticism is leveled out of marketing jealousy pure and simple: the Anglo-Americans were able to take English to heights the French have always dreamed of. And it goes beyond French seeking to recoup lost prestige. It goes down poorly with French-language promoters around the world that English is doing to other languages -- and especially to French -- that which French has been unable to do, despite France's centuries-old record of imperial designs, pretensions, and execution.

      If you read between the lines, the OIF is positioning itself to achieve what amounts to a linguistically imperialistic agenda all while making the right (left? ;-)) noises about "respecting local cultures", "tolerance", "diversity", and fostering "worldwide cultural exchanges" among various nations. It achieves this narrative while subliminally telegraphing the horrendous lie that its own agenda lacks the savagery, aggressiveness, relative complacency/indifference of the English/Americans (in all senses of those words), and (now, at least) the physical empire. And when you think about it, this gambit is a hybrid between the British ("yes this is an empire") and American ("the benevolent force/reluctant empire") models and given the French language promoters' aims isn't a bad one at all. Imperialistically, Africa has been on a timeout for the past few decades as various regions there have achieved independence. Africa is on the verge of development and it would augur well for the French language's posterity if it didn't pass up this chance to ensure its own prestige by benevolently using its status to "civilize" these "savages" anew with the prestige of a World Language. Sounds circular? It kind of is. But Africa is ripe for the picking and now is the time to invest.

      Delete
    7. M. Patrice,

      British Council is an international organization?

      Delete
  33. "m not aware of any English organisation that openly promotes the English language."

    La méthode est simplement différente.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "simplement differente"? That's like saying slave labour is a simply different different method.

    ReplyDelete
  35. All the racist apologists are out today. At least Patrice admits he wants to destroy Canada yet Yannick doesn‘t have the balls to. Today he pushes the myth that Rene Levesque actually wanted to sign the constitution, tomorrow he breaks down the 1995 vote to show that Parizeau isn‘t a racist, he was merely giving a statistical analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is very clear to me that Yannick is opposed to Québec's independence and that he doesn't want to destroy Canada. He defends the rights of french canadians across Canada.

      On my part, my objective is Québec's independence. The destruction of Canada would be a side effect, not a goal. This being said, you are afraid that Canada would not survive Québec's independence? Canada would not survive the departure of this little racist runned backward and retarded dying society? Do you have so little faith in Canada?

      I haven't answer your numerous comments, but I am nevertheless interested in your views. According to you, what are separatists's true motivations? Not just the radical tiny minority of them, I mean the 49% of quebeckers who voted for independence. And what are your views on Québec society in general. Perhaps you could elaborate on the "scared unilingual from Jonquiere". And you could elaborate on the parallels you see between separatists and nazis.

      Then you could lecture us on our racism. That would be so deliciously ironic.

      @ Apparatchik and Yannick :

      J'ai besoin d'un peu d'aide : quelle serait la meilleure traduction de "préjugé", "préjugé" comme nom plutôt que comme abjectif, comme dans "tes propres préjugés"?

      Delete
    2. Suffice to say, it's interesting that we all have personal prejudices or biases that color or otherwise temper our views... ;-)

      Delete
    3. @Michel Patrice : Désolé, c'est moi qui ait parlé de Nazis. J'ai dis que je défendrais n'importe qui, même des Nazis, si l'argumentation était boiteuse. Les esprits moyennement éclairés auraient dû comprendre que je le disais dans le sens que les Ad Hominems ne sont pas des arguments convaincants. Malheureusement les cerveaux un peu moins subtils y ont comprit que j'étais un pro-Nazi. C'est comme si j'étais de nouveau à l'école...

      Mais merci bien de ton commentaire!

      Delete
    4. James John,

      You are discusted and sickened by Mulcair walking with separatists. It is beyond your understanding. But in the society that I live in, separatism is a legitimate political option. In 1995, 49% of quebeckers voted yes.

      Mulcair is viciously opposed to Québec's independence yet he acknowledges separatists as legitimiate political actors.

      A democratic debate is possible when both (all) parties recognize the legitimacy of the other(s). Demonizing your political adversaries spares you the burden of responding to their arguments. In that sense, the Mulcair that you despise is a greater democrate than you are.

      Also, Mulcair, by responding to arguments instead of demonizing separatists, is a much harder political adversary. On the other hand, when you demonize separatists by, let's say, depicting them as soulless racists, you are laughable, you have no credibility and reasonnable men simply ignore you, which I should do.

      In the society that I live in, I have been exposed all my life to arguments both in favor and against Québec's independence. I have heard Lévesque and Trudeau, Bourassa and Parizeau. I have read Le Devoir and La Presse and The National Post. There are people close to me and people that I respect that are separatist and federalist and I have heard arguments from both sides and both sides acknowledged that we could disagree.

      I suspect that the environment you evolve in is a little more one sided. And if one of us is brainwashed, perhaps it is not me.

      ***

      I am a poor little racist who lives in a perverted society. Tell me about your greatness and forgive me "de n'avoir pour réponse que les chants rauques de nos ancêtres
      et le chagrin de Nelligan".

      Tell me how lucky we are that your are there to save us from ourselves. Enlight me, tell me how we could be liberated from our prejudices. Tell me about your white man's burden.

      Tell me your mind. Do you think that separatists have a soul?

      Delete
    5. Avec respect, Michel, j'aimerais intervenir brièvement, à défaut d'entendre d'autres discours frustrés et haineux de part et d'autre...

      In 1995, 49% of quebeckers voted yes.
      Perhaps, but given the conditions of the time, you'd be hard pressed to legitimately argue that all of those 49% appreciated and endorsed all ramifications of full and complete independence. To wit, the campaign started out as being about "sovereignty" and then, as in 1980 and earlier, became about "sovereignty-association", followed by a 40-word question that didn't mention the words "separate" or "fully independent", with Bouchard stepping in partway because most separatists interestingly didn't think Parizeau had the pizzazz to lead us to the promised land... I think you should think many times over before bandying about the "we nearly had an endorsement... almost once!" in an attempt at legitimating something whose details and ramifications were not (and continue not to be) fully understood by all Quebecers, federalists and independentists alike.

      Mulcair is viciously opposed to Québec's independence yet he acknowledges separatists as legitimiate political actors.
      What the hell is so great about Mulcair and Layton?! They haven't reinvented the wheel, for heaven's sake. For all intents and purposes, ALL major parties, political and federal alike, have done so too. The only difference is that the NDP carried out a charm operation that, with the help of some favorable francophone media coverage, paid off beyond their wildest dreams.

      Demonizing your political adversaries spares you the burden of responding to their arguments. In that sense, the Mulcair that you despise is a greater democrate than you are.
      As much as I disagree with some of James John's approach on this argument, he is in many ways the equal and opposite of many hard-core Quebec separatists who routinely demonize if not rabidly vilify federalists, federalist positions, and the recognition of English as having an equal and rightful place in our province's past and future heritage. And when we watch and read the SSJB, JPQ, RRQ, and much of Le Devoir, some (including myself) might even say that separatism is even built on that very notion.

      Also, Mulcair, by responding to arguments instead of demonizing separatists, is a much harder political adversary.
      Frankly, Michel, I don't see how Mulcair has put into place a plan for Canada that allows us to break away from this decades-old impasse and evolve into a strong and united country in the future that all of us will work toward building.

      On the other hand, when you demonize separatists by, let's say, depicting them as soulless racists, you are laughable, you have no credibility and reasonnable men simply ignore you, which I should do
      Perhaps going on a wild rant isn't the way to come to any agreement, but an ethnolinguistic hatred permeates the discourse of radicals on both sides of this debate. Acknowledge it, Michel, and denounce it symmetrically.

      Tell me your mind. Do you think that separatists have a soul?
      I don't know if humans have a soul at all. However, I think our current separatist ideology is deliberately muddied by the abundance of nationalist opinions that, on balance, make it a moving target.

      Delete
    6. I respect Trudeau and his ideological successors on the topic of federalism because I think they are correct in saying that if one group is special, then nobody is special. At least with them, I know what I am getting and am more than okay with it because it doesn't give anybody more or less than I have.

      I think the two-tiered power-sharing arrangement between federal and provincial levels right now works comparatively well and am attached to it -- I am made uneasy by the fact that the planned country of Quebec has not been defined as a two-tiered federation with a similar power-sharing agreement. No instrument to moderate or keep in check the power of one house of Parliament is ever talked about, and this makes me extremely un-trusting of the idea. This is more important, in my view, than language, religion, culture, or anything else. While JF Lisée and his scumbag ilk are busy musing over stripping non-francophones' voting/electability rights away, I'm clamoring for evidence that Quebec won't be a state based on French-Canadian ethnolinguistic supremacy and revanchism all under the guise of "protectionism". So far, I REALLY don't like what I see.

      Deep down, I'm not much moved by much separatist and even most "federalist" nationalist discourse. For starters, I don't really care if French -- and even eventually English! -- go extinct, as long as (a) that extinction is not socially, directly, and/or deliberately engineered by politicians and (b) I am not impeded in adapting to the new language. Federalist politicians have successfully been painted and stereotyped as corrupt business types susceptible to cronyism, and that might indeed be true in several cases. But the unholy and very incestuous alliance between francophone academia, unions, media, "artistic community", social groups, and influential politicians is the other half of the "copinage" equation, and I believe Quebecers also have a right to know and collectively castrate those who ass-rape and brainwash us from the other direction too.

      With respect (and hopefully less ad-hominem crassness than some participants here) I genuinely hope my comments deeply disturb your nationalist aspirations while perturbing your ideals, and that you at least find them ten times as disconcerting as I find the rah-rah-rah stuff I read daily on Vigile.

      Delete
    7. I will keep it shorter than you do.

      "you'd be hard pressed to legitimately argue that all of those 49% appreciated and endorsed all ramifications of full and complete independence[...]"

      Nor did all of those who voted No understood all the ramification of remaining in Canada, but it is not my point. Maybe some of those 49% did not understand exactely what independence meant, but to all of them, separatists were not monsters ; to them, separatism was a legitimate political option. And to many who voted No, separatism was nevertheless a legitimate option. And this gives a better democratic debate than ad-hominem you refer to.

      "Also, Mulcair, by responding to arguments instead of demonizing separatists, is a much harder political adversary."

      Regardless what you think of Mulcair, Mulcair uses arguments that you have to answer to. Responding to those arguments is more difficult than ignoring the personnal attacks of a moron who keeps showing is own enormous prejudices. I am not saying that Mulcair is great, I am saying that he is still a thousand times greater than the mental midget that I was responding to.

      "Acknowledge it, Michel, and denounce it symetrically."

      I know there are morons on both sides but I was responding to a moron from a specific side.

      "Tell me your mind. Do you think that separatists have a soul?"

      A rethoric question refering to white colonists of the past who believed that blacks had no soul. Juste une façon de me foutre de James John qui ne voit pas ses propres préjugés. Même chose pour la citation du poème Speak White ("les chants de nos ancêtres tra la la") et la référence au White man' burden. Je sais que tu aimes argumenter mais je sais aussi que tu avais compris ce que je voulais dire.

      If I did not fear to offend those who blamed me for sometimes telling about my schedule, I would tell you that I will unfortunately not reply tonight if you take time to add some more comments because I have to leave.

      À la prochaine,

      Michel

      Delete
    8. "an ethnolinguistic hatred permeates the discourse of radicals on both sides of this debate. Acknowledge it, Michel, and denounce it symmetrically."

      Tu sais, Apparatchik, en dépit de ta modération louable, de ton élocence exemplaire et de tes connaissances hors-pair, lesquelles me font toujours douter de mes position et qui m'ont souvent fait réaliser mes erreurs, je te vois rarement dénoncer l'extrêmisme de la part des anglophones frustrés à la Sauga ou à la John James. Je constate que dans ces cas tu t'abstients de commenter tout simpliement.

      Delete
  36. Oh and here comes Michel Patrice, ready to be insulted again!
    First off, nowhere in any of my posts have I said anything about Nazis or the plight of French Canadians in the rest of Canada. Just another example of the usual hysterical untruths being pushed by separatists in order to look like the victim. Yannick brought up Nazis on his own.
    The scared unilingual from jonquiere? The person who has been forbidden from learning a second language and has gone through years and years of brainwashing in separatist run schools. Of course if someone is never exposed to an anglo or ethnic they will believe all the untruths spread about them. I don‘t believe hatred truly lies in their hearts like yours Michel. You know better, you‘ve learned english to the point of eloquence yet you want to take away the opportunity from others, how gross is that?
    Now you are bringing up souls. Wtf bullshit is this? I wonder about the condition of people who are comfortable with Bill 593 and the Marois Identity Act or who speak of 20% of the population as a virus that needs to be stamped out.
    And we have never ever voted on independence in Quebec.
    And Yannick, how dare you assume I‘m an anglo. It just shows the type of person you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair's fair, Michel never ever proposed taking away English from anyone. Quite to the contrary, he's always promoted language learning. Same as me. Learning languages is liberating.

      I appologize for calling you an anglo. Je ne savais pas que vous trouviez être un anglo si insultant.

      Delete
    2. "I appologize for calling you an anglo"

      Faut dire qu'il a couru après,non?

      Delete
    3. He‘s said again and again he supports Bill 101 and he says this in perfect english. Apart from Marois this is so typical of the separatist elite who want to ban english schooling while they (and their children) speak perfect english and often travel abroad to the best english schools. He also refuses to denounce the obvious and dominant ethnocentric thought in the separatist movement. Instead he deflects by saying french is in peril or comparing his people to slaves in America. What a joke.
      And anglo isn‘t an insult to me, its just very telling you jumped to that conclusion. Not to mention comparing me with Mr Sauga as I‘ve never advocated cutting off transfer payments or kicking Quebec out of Canada.

      Delete
    4. "very telling you jumped to that conclusion. Not to mention comparing me with Mr Sauga"

      You seem just as angry as Mr. Sauga, though I aknowledge that you don't share his views.

      "so typical of the separatist elite who want to ban english schooling while they (and their children) speak perfect english"

      Pardon my naïveté, have you ever considered that many francophones have learned a perfect English through French schools, and therefore do not think that bill 101 restricts anyone's ability to learn English? Not the elites like Marois, of course. The elites also push for public health care but go to the USA for treatment, nothing new under the sun there.

      But people like myself and, I'd bet on it, Michel, have gone through the francophone school system without having the ability to learn English burnt out of our brains through intensive electroshock therapy. In my francophone school, we read 1984, Brave New World, Animal Farm, Lord of the Flies, Shakespeare, etc... in our high school classes. I've yet to meet a Quebecer who did not learn English because he had to go through French school. Granted, I mostly meet Quebecers who travel to the ROC and presumably are not put off from that travel by their poor English skills.

      The idea of pushing French school on immigrants is rooted in the idea (outdated, imo) that French schools are better at teaching English than English schools are at teaching French. It's an idea rooted in the 70's, nowadays 70% of anglos and 50% of allos know both English and French.

      Note, however, that the idea that minority language schools are reserved for members of that minority and that everyone else has to go to school in the majority/official language of the state is nothing new. It's how it's set up in all of Canada, actually. The only difference with Quebec is that in Quebec having English as a mother language is not enough to get you access to the minority language schools. It's a shame, I'm sure it keeps many Americans out of Quebec, Americans whose children would learn French in English school if the statistics are to be believed.

      Delete
  37. Sorry Apparatchik you are one of the best posters on here but please show me where I said something equivalent to hatred that is spewed by the separatists on a daily basis. Nowhere did I pine for the banning of schooling, signage, or restaurant employees speaking in french in front of english customers. Nowhere did I mention stripping anyone of their voting rights based on their mother tongue. Perhaps I used strong language but I am sick and tired of being treated like a virus and I am sick and tired of my country playing Russian Roulette with a bunch of spiteful, racist weasels.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What kind of trouble?

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

      Delete
    3. AnonymousSunday, July 8, 2012 11:15:00 PM EDT
      @AnonymousSunday, July 8, 2012 10:53:00 PM EDT

      courez après le trouble?

      Do you really think that you are going to threaten and scare this person by saying that?

      Shame on you!!!! you make me ashamed of my French Heritage!

      I am origionally Francophone but thanks to disgusts like you, I deliberately avoid using my French. Besides what is being said here is best exposed in the Language that proved to me that I am NOT of le purple conquis!! I am CANADIAN!!!

      Remember to keep your threats out of the discussion. War harms all sides!!

      Delete
    4. What's with all the copy-paste of posts? Isn't it enough we have to suffer through them the first time?

      Delete
  39. @AnonymousSunday, July 8, 2012 10:53:00 PM EDT

    courez après le trouble?

    Do you really think that you are going to threaten and scare this person by saying that?

    Shame on you!!!! you make me ashamed of my French Heritage!

    I am origionally Francophone but thanks to disgusts like you, I deliberately avoid using my French. Besides what is being said here is best exposed in the Language that proved to me that I am NOT of le purple conquis!! I am CANADIAN!!!

    Remember to keep your threats out of the discussion. War harms all sides!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am CAN****N!!!

      Très bel exemple de colonisé.

      Delete
    2. le mot est CACADA!!
      Le Pays!
      Le bastion de liberté que vous n'aurez jamais dans votre république de bananes!!

      Delete
    3. le mot est CANAAY!!
      Le Pays!
      Le bastion de liberté que vous n'aurez jamais dans votre république de bananes!!

      Delete
  40. "Shame on you!!!! you make me ashamed of my French Heritage!"

    J'ai comme l'impression que vous vous débrouillez très bien sans moi :)

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

      Delete
    2. Vous êtes vraiment intolérant,n'est-ce pas ?

      Delete