Friday, July 27, 2012

French versus English Volume 59


Separatist Fever (LA FIÈVRE SOUVERAINISTE...)

by Daniel Castonguay
Translated by The Cat

Attention readers, this article was first published in French.
If you read French, the original webpage is here; AgoraQuebec 
This disease has been spreading around Quebec for 50 years. Although it is less active now, it still affects a considerable number of Quebecers.

Transmission mechanism
Nowadays, its transmission mechanisms are better understood. One of the mechanisms that is still quite prevalent is the contact made between teenagers and their highly-unionized teachers. It is believed that contamination occurs by spoken means, however written means have also been identified (Manual for sovereignty in school). Close contact with people who have been strongly affected may also result in transmission.

Symptoms
The first symptom is usually historical hallucination. The patient comes to feel victimized by constantly revisiting 250-year-old facts while neglecting more contemporary historical reality. Distortion gradually creeps in between historical reality and the beliefs of the patient. Here are some case histories: ''The Night of Long Knives'', ''Pierre Curzi vs. McCartney'' , ''Bourgeois/Falardeau vs. the Plains of Abraham''.
The second symptom that is most readily apparent is ethnic hostility, which results in a disproportionate distrust that is principally directed towards anglophones. It is believed that this second symptom results from the first one. The patient generally believes that English Canadians are hostile to us and that he is their victim. From time to time, the patient comes to think that anglophones need only to leave Quebec, as if their having been here for several generations did not grant them equal citizenship.
The third symptom is the obsession with language. The patient is possessed by an inordinate fear of seeing his language disappear even if objective indications indicate no danger whatsoever. It must be understood that the first symptom prevents the patient from having access to this reality. The combination of these first three symptoms may occasionally result in episodes of francobsession .
The last symptom is the quest for sovereignty, which he sees as the only solution to his symptoms. His other symptoms prevent him from seeing the adverse effects of this quest and its negative consequences.
This clinical portrait results in a patient who is unable to see the global rapprochement of countries and the gradual abolition of borders. He cannot conceive of close collaboration with English-Canadians, who, apart from language, share their concerns. His attachment to French occasionally deprives him of the openness needed to understand the world (see the following case history: Marois/English).

Prognosis
Most patients affected by the disease will eventually heal without requiring any treatment. Some patients may retain one or two symptoms but, unless encouraged by some external stress, may be regarded as cured. Some will unfortunately be affected their entire lifetimes. Certain well-known people unfortunately suffer from the chronic form of this condition. One can think of Bernard Landry, Gilles Vigneault, Gérald Larose, amongst others...

Treatment
Certain clinical approaches are worthwhile. For the first symptom, readings that confront the hallucinations may be useful. For the second symptom, travel in English Canada may bring about a reduction in hostility, as long as the patient's symptoms are not too intense. A patient who is overly affected by the disease should not use this approach since his own hostility could inconvenience English Canadians and help to inflame his own symptoms. As for the third symptom, a good knowledge of the English language lowers the level of anxiety in the patient and makes him realize that he will not disappear but rather will evolve. As for the fourth symptom, it quickly disappears once the other three diminish.

Epidemiology
Separatist Fever made a slow incursion into Quebec beginning in the early sixties and finally attained 40% of citizens by 1980. A large outbreak hit Quebec in 1995, where 49% of citizens were affected. Since then, the disease has consistently regressed. Experts agree that only 30% of those affected continue to suffer from the chronic form of the disease now.
Posted by Agora_Quebec at 18:14 - Daniel Castonguay -

A flag flap in a small Quebec village

Tim, a valued participant of this blog, sent me this email;
"Luc Lamond, the mayor of of Lac-des-Seize-Iles, Qc the small Laurentian community between Morin Heights and Weir, has taken it upon himself to fly the Quebec flag above the Canadian flag despite many complaints from the lake`s cottage dwelling residents. Even though a
solution has been suggested to him, he refuses to even listen to the voters. Members of the council have tried to sway him, but because they are in the minority, nothing gets done. The community has a
single flag pole which flew the Canadian flag above the provincial for many years until recently. The solution of purchasing another flag pole, so that each flag would have one of its own, has been continuously voted down. It seems as if the mayor has no respect for its residents, and continues to show his separatist agenda.

In a further email Tim wrote that after checking, apparently there is no protocol at all for the flying of flags on the same pole. Hmmm.

I certainly don't like what I see, it is disrespectful to both flags, really how cheap can a town be?
I don't think I'd be happy if the Canadian flag was placed above the Quebec flag, on the same pole.

Students lose court fight

"Court rejects bid to throw out parts of anti-protest law, Bill 78
MONTREAL – An attempt to quash certain articles of the provincial Liberal government’s anti-protest legislation was quickly rejected Monday by the Quebec Court of Appeal – even before the case can be heard in Quebec Superior Court – meaning Bill 78 will be in effect as university and CEGEP students head back to school next month. "
Read the rest of the story

Amir Khadir's sister is a plagiarist


"The sister of Amir Khadir has put L'actualité and  L'actualité médicale magazines in trouble by signing a column that was largely copied from a blog which had already appeared on the website of the Metro newspaper.

Contributor to the magazine
L'actualité médicale, Dr. Saideh Khadir  published a text, a few weeks ago, which drew a parallel between the claims of those medical specialists and students. However, half of the 10 paragraphs of her column were actually plagiarized from a text written by Akos Verboczy, blogger for Metro since January 2011.
 Hilariously, when the kind doctor phoned the blogger to apologize, she told him that she didn't understand the journalistic rules about copying and would have 're-formulated' his work had she known it was wrong! Ha!Ha!
Read the rest of the story in french

Language Tests coming?

Many of you are way too young to remember the farcical situation back in 1976, when toddlers were given language tests to see if they were really English speaking and thus qualified for English schooling, back in the days of Bill-22. Read an old article about it
I wrote about this story last week, but here is expanded coverage;
"Quebecers will face a French comprehension test before being served in English at the provincial health insurance board, which recently switched its communication policy from bilingual to “en français” at its customer service centre.
The move by the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) to revise its communications to comply with Bill 101, the province’s French-first language policy, worries minority-rights advocates." Read the rest of the story

Student activist leader running for the PQ

"Leo Bureau-Blouin’s debut news conference as a Parti Quebecois candidate on Wednesday was dominated by what he wasn’t wearing: the red square that has come to define student defiance in the province.
The former student leader — who was omnipresent on TV during the tuition protests earlier this year — had to fend off questions about the absence of the red square, which symbolizes opposition to the government’s commitment to hiking the cost of education. " Read the rest of the story

For your information, he is running in a Liberal held riding and his candidacy is meant to send a message to students, to get out and vote.
Over two-thirds of Quebecers oppose the 'red square' and so there's not much hope of him winning.
There's a disparaging political word in French that describes his candidacy--"POTEAU" or pole, somebody who is nothing more than a campaign poster on a hydro pole, meant to show the flag in a hopeless riding.

Are you going to watch the Olympics?

57 out of the 250 or 23% athletes representing Canada in London at the Olympics were born, reside or train in Montreal. That's quite an accomplishment! Link{Fr}

That being said, I don't seem to have much enthusiasm for the Olympic games in London.

Perhaps it's the summer heat or the fact that the Vancouver games are never going to be topped for Canadian pride, accomplishment and chauvinism.

Perhaps it's also the fact that this Aussie lass didn't make the cut to represent her country.
Too bad.....



Ah, c'mom, you watched the whole thing!!!

I'm off on a very small vacation and may or may not post Monday, but will definitely be back by Wednesday.

Have a great weekend!
Bonne fin de semaine a vous tous!!!

213 comments:

  1. In a further email Tim wrote that after checking, apparently there is no protocol at all for the flying of flags on the same pole. Hmmm.

    Of course there is a very definite protocol regarding rules for flying the flag of Canada and this a*hole is deliberately flouting them! To wit:

    • The National Flag of Canada should be displayed only in a manner befitting this important national symbol; it should not be subjected to indignity or displayed in a position inferior to any other flag or ensign. The National Flag always takes precedence over all other national flags when flown in Canada.

    • The National Flag of Canada should always be flown on its own mast - flag protocol dictating that it is improper to fly two or more flags on the same mast (eg. one beneath the other).

    Disrespecting the flag because one is a separatist simply serves to highlight one’s own ignorance and lack of grace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In addition, the ignoramus is flouting the Quebec government’s own rules regarding flag protocol, which state:

      The rules of protocol dictate that we never place more than one flag on a single flagpole or staff, since that could be seen as an indication of surrender or supremacy. When a number of flags are displayed, use the generally accepted rules of precedence, which involves a relative arrangement that differs according to the number and type of flags (sovereign state, organization on this or that “level”, etc.). For example:
      • precedence expresses only by the relative position of the flags: flagpoles and staffs should be identical, and flags should be of approximately the same size;
      • flags of Canadian provinces and territories are placed in the chronological order of their entry into Confederation;
      • the flag of a sovereign state takes precedence over that of a province or a federated state, which in turn takes precedence over the flag of a city; however the Act stipulates that the flag of Québec shall take precedence in official ceremonies of the Government of Québec;
      • for flags of States, precedence is normally assigned in the alphabetical order of the usual name (rather than that of the complete official name). Note that precedence does not define an order of importance, since sovereign states are considered to be equals.

      Delete
    2. Merci de ce commentaire éclairé, le Cat. Je connais maintenant le protocole approprié pour les drapeaux en milieu public.

      Dis-moi, est-ce vrai qu'il y a plusieurs endroits publics au Québec où ils s'abstiennent entièrement de faire flotter le dreapeau Canadien?

      Delete
    3. Demande à Sheila Copps et sa propagande de "canadian flags" il y a quelques années :P

      Delete
    4. Un lien qui te mettra sur la piste :

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/03/18/flag040318.html

      Delete
    5. Merci, Doug Nutt, pour ce commentaire inutile.

      Delete
    6. De rien Yan mais pourquoi inutile ?Les Québécois ne veulent pas du drapeau canadien même si on nous en parachute des caisses.Gaspillage inutile de fonds publiques qui aboutit dans les poubelles...Ou ailleurs.

      Delete
    7. Tes généralisations, ça va faire.
      J'en suis un Québécois, moi, et je veux mes deux drapeaux.

      Il y a quarante pourcent de séparatistes, plus ou moins, au Québec. Faut pas voir l'unanimité là où il n'y en a décidément pas, seppie.

      Delete
    8. Vous êtes un Canadien-Français Apparatchik,pas un Québécois.

      Delete
    9. Faut-il être séparatiste pour être Québecois? Les 40% de Québecois francophones qui ont voté non en 1995 pourraient trouver ça intolérant...

      Delete
    10. Luc Lamond,to treat your Fever: Prepare yourself a "Big English" breaky. Watch 2 episodes of "This Hour Has 22 minutes" Study a travel brochure for your next holiday to Victoria.

      Luc your English lessons start small, REPEAT AFTER ME,

      "Hello, my name is Luc!"

      "I am a role model in my province as a Mayor, I respect the laws of democracy in Canada".

      "What is your name?"

      "Can you tell me where the men's room is please?"

      "What bus do I take to see the Haida totem poles? Can I walk?"

      "Thank-you for your help!"

      Delete
    11. Vous êtes un Canadien-Français Apparatchik,pas un Québécois.

      Et vous, Doug Nutt, êtes un xénophobe.
      Candien-Français et Québécois ne sont pas mutuellement exclusifs. Ils sont plutôt complémentaires, n'en déplaise à votre récit opportuniste et intéressé de deux peuples, l'un Canadien-Français, l'autre Canadien-Anglais, à couteaux tirés.

      J'en veux pas de xénophobes insécurs comme vous chez moi, que ce soit dans ma ville, ma province, ou mon pays.

      Delete
    12. Yannick,

      The separatists are a cult. Because of that their attitudes, conditioned by their schooling and the media in Quebec is understandable. However, if 40 percent of francophones voted no in 1995 they still support the fascist language legislation in Quebec so don't expect anyone to be grateful for their actions.

      Delete
    13. @Yannick : Pour répondre à ta question, c’est un très grand oui. Pour en être franc, je suis étonné que tu te poses même la question. On subit la « guerre des drapeaux » quotidiennement ici.

      Tu dois sûrement avoir déjà constaté la haine viscérale ainsi que l’intolérance absolue que l’on peut retrouver dans cette province (et qui consomme la vie de Louis Préfontaine et de ses semblables) envers tout ce qui a le moindre rapport avec le Canada ou avec l’anglais.

      Contrairement à la Fête du Canada, si tu oses te présenter à la Fête de la St-Jean avec les deux drapeaux, tu risque fortement de te faire étriper par les fêtards très peu ouverts d’esprit.

      Presque tout ce qui relève du gouvernement provincial (ex : la SAQ) doit faire flotter le fleurdelisé, ce qui est normal. Je crois que toutes les autres provinces en font de sorte avec leurs propres drapeaux (à part les magasins d’alcool en Alberta, j’imagine, depuis qu’ils ont été privatisés). Quant aux écoles, je ne saurais te dire si on y enseigne à nos étudiants de mépriser l’unifolié ou pas.

      À Montréal, le nec plus ultra en ce qui concerne la guerre des drapeaux se situe sans doute sur l’ancien boul. Dorchester (aujourd’hui nommé boul. René-Lévesque). Ici on peut constater une vue d’ensemble des bureaux fédéraux à gauche et à droite avec l’unifolié seulement ainsi que les bureaux d’Hydro-Québec et de Caisse Populaire Desjardins (symboles du nationalisme québécois) avec le fleurdelisé seulement. Ici, devant le Complexe Desjardins (construit en 1975 avec 3 mâts), ils choisissent de hisser les drapeaux provinciaux et municipaux avec leur drapeau corporatif, car ils veulent éviter à tout prix d’exhiber le drapeau du Canada.

      Heureusement, on ne retrouve pas de telle mesquinerie au bureau du premier ministre à Québec.

      Delete
    14. Merci, the Cat, pour la réponse éclairée, détaillée, et dénuée de condescendence.

      Comme tu le sais je n'habite pas au Québec; il m'est alors difficile de comprendre ce qui est éxagération, ce qui est allégorie, et ce qui est littéral. Ce n'est pas le genre de chose qui se recherche sur google, il faut des témoignages et des exemples concrets, ce que tu m'as donné. Je te prie donc de m'excuser si je pose des questions niaiseuses.

      Tu as bien raison, il n'y a pas d'autre mot que "mesquin" pour décrire la situation.

      Delete
    15. « ...si tu oses te présenter à la Fête de la St-Jean avec les deux drapeaux ... »

      Quelqu'un qui se présente à la Saint-Jean-Baptiste avec un drapeau du Canada ne sera possiblement pas très bien reçu. On peut y voir un manque d'ouverture d'esprits. Mais, honnêtement, est-ce qu'on ne pourrait pas penser que quelqu'un qui se présenterait à la Saint-Jean avec un drapeau du Canada ne le ferait pas pour délibérément provoquer? On peut jouer les vierges offensées et on peut innocemment argumenter que le Québec fait partie du Canada, qu'on peut être québécois et canadien, etc, mais il reste que j'imagine mal autre chose qu'une intention de provoquer. Les canadiens en général ne se promènent pas avec leur drapeau à tout bout de champs alors le sortir là, tout d'un coup, à la Saint-Jean, n'est pas innocent.

      Delete
    16. « Quant aux écoles, je ne saurais te dire si on y enseigne à nos étudiants de mépriser l’unifolié ou pas. »

      Non. Le drapeau y est simplement absent. Pour mes filles (elles sont au primaire), il n'est pas clair qu'elles vivent au Canada. Je compare avec des amis de Colombie Britannique dont les enfants mémorisaient à l'école le nom des dix provinces et de leur capitale, la différence est énorme. Le cadre de référence ici est le Québec. Étrangement, la question nationale à l'école (au primaire du moins) est plutôt taboue, cette question divise les gens, le professeur pourrait difficilement aborder la question sans se faire reprocher par un parti ou l'autre de vouloir manipuler les enfants.

      Delete
    17. C'est vrai que le drapeau du Canada est peu présent au Québec. Pour les indépendantistes (qui sont, c'est vrai, Apparatchik, minoritaires) mais aussi pour les nationalistes (qui sont majoritaires), il y a un malaise en rapport au drapeau canadien. Doug Nutt vous a énervé avec ça, mais il y a du vrai dans ce qu'il dit, pour afficher le drapeau canadien au Québec, les libéraux fédéraux ont eu recours à ce qui peut être difficilement décrit autrement que comme un programme de propagande ce qui a eu un effet repoussoir sur une grande majorité de québécois (le scandale des commandites a presqu'anéanti le PLC...)

      Il y a une citation de Trudeau qui donne un éclairage particulier à cette question :
      « Un des moyens de contrebalancer l’attrait du séparatisme, c’est d’employer un temps, une énergie et des sommes énormes au service du nationalisme fédéral. Il s’agit de créer de la réalité nationale une image si attrayante qu’elle rende celle du groupe séparatiste peu intéressante par comparaison. Il faut affecter une part des ressources à des choses comme le drapeau, l’hymne national, l’éducation, les conseils des arts, les sociétés de diffusion radiophonique et de télévision, les offices du film. » (Trudeau 1967)

      Pourquoi employer temps et énergie à des choses comme le drapeau? Pour contrebalancer l'attrait du séparatisme. Le nationalisme canadien aurait donc été intrumentalisé (si ce n'est pas carrément construit de toutes pièces) pour combattre le nationalisme québécois. Les québécois qui sentent confusément qu'il y a dans le drapeau canadien une part de négation de ce que nous sommes et/ou de ce à quoi nous aspirons, ne sont peut-être pas complètement paranoïaques. Ceci explique peut-être le malaise face au drapeau et explique peut-être pourquoi il n'a pas l'effet rassembleur qu'il a ailleurs au pays.

      Delete
    18. Quelqu'un qui se présente à la Saint-Jean-Baptiste avec un drapeau du Canada ne sera possiblement pas très bien reçu. On peut y voir un manque d'ouverture d'esprits. Mais, honnêtement, est-ce qu'on ne pourrait pas penser que quelqu'un qui se présenterait à la Saint-Jean avec un drapeau du Canada ne le ferait pas pour délibérément provoquer?

      Avec respect, Michel, je crois que là est le problème. Et oui, les agiteux du fleurdelisé et non pas l'unifolié sont à blâmer.

      Pendant des décennies, les porte-étendard du nationalisme québécois, ont tant fait (zèle à l'appui) pour cultiver la notion que le drapeau (et nationalisme) québécois se devaient d'être quelque chose "à part" qu'aujourd'hui tout échauffourée qui en découlerait procéderait nécessairement d'une phobie programmée, issue de près de cinquante ans de conditionnement UNiste, péquiste, et oui, même libérale-mollassonne.

      Le 1er juillet on fête tout le Canada et pourtant le fleurdelisé y est bienvenu. J'y vois un deux poids, deux mesures là où je crois qu'il ne devrait pas y en avoir. Et oui, j'en suis indigné.

      Delete
    19. On peut jouer les vierges offensées et on peut innocemment argumenter que le Québec fait partie du Canada, qu'on peut être québécois et canadien, etc, mais il reste que j'imagine mal autre chose qu'une intention de provoquer.
      Tu vois!?! Toi aussi ils t'ont programmé à penser comme ça!!

      Les canadiens en général ne se promènent pas avec leur drapeau à tout bout de champs alors le sortir là, tout d'un coup, à la Saint-Jean, n'est pas innocent.
      C'est vrai que les fédéralistes ne sont pas vraiment agiteux de l'unifolié autant que les séparatistes le sont avec le fleurdelisé. Mais il y a effectivement une asymétrie que je considère devrait être redressée. Et comme je ne prône pas de soustraire le fleurdelisé de la place publique, je crois qu'une présence accrue de l'unifolié au Québec est de mise. Si ça provoque les Patrick Bourgeois et les Louis Préfontaine, ça m'indiffère complètement: ces petits chieux-là ne méritent quant à moi rien d'autre qu'une descendance complètement anglicisée pour tout le bordel antagoniste qu'ils foutent au Québec.

      Pour mes filles (elles sont au primaire), il n'est pas clair qu'elles vivent au Canada. Je compare avec des amis de Colombie Britannique dont les enfants mémorisaient à l'école le nom des dix provinces et de leur capitale, la différence est énorme. Le cadre de référence ici est le Québec.
      J'y vois un lavage de cerveau et programmation en cours par le complexe médiatico-académico-administratif Québécois. Il n'y a rien de mal à savoir et comprendre qu'on est au Québec et de bien se connaître; c'est une nécessité, quoi. Mais de là à carrément ignorer expressément pays auquel on fait partie? Intolérable. C'est exactement comme le très stéréotypé Rhodésien de Westmount qui ne connait que son petit cercle rapproché et rien au delà. Nos écoles (surtout francophones) ne font que perpétuer la campagne de salissage anti-canadienne par omission. Ils occultent délibérément toute discussion portant sur nos institutions fédérales pour ensuite faciliter le recrutement de nos jeunes mal informés dans leur rangs. Ça me fait chier et ça me fait haïr un tantinet de plus toute cette classe de manipulateurs qui "aspirent à notre auto-détermination".

      Delete
    20. Étrangement, la question nationale à l'école (au primaire du moins) est plutôt taboue, cette question divise les gens, le professeur pourrait difficilement aborder la question sans se faire reprocher par un parti ou l'autre de vouloir manipuler les enfants.
      Taboue? pas tant que ça. Une discussion égalitaire, qui brille de par son absence, ça sent assez manipulateur merci.

      C'est vrai que le drapeau du Canada est peu présent au Québec. Pour les indépendantistes (qui sont, c'est vrai, Apparatchik, minoritaires) mais aussi pour les nationalistes (qui sont majoritaires), il y a un malaise en rapport au drapeau canadien.
      J'm'en câlisse, franchement.

      Ce n'est pas parce que certains nationalistes Québécois ressentent un certain malaise que d'autres générations précédentes de péquistes leur ont inculqués que le drapeau de notre pays devrait être moins présent. Le problème, Michel, c'est qu'une partie vit depuis 50 ans les effets d'un discours qui nous vend l'idée que le Québec est déjà un pays à part et qu'il ne reste qu'un référendum pour officialiser le tout. Il nous faut un reality-check collectif. Montréal, Québec, Canada -- n'en déplaise à ceux qui voudraient un Montréal hors-Québec ou encore un Québec hors-Canada.

      [...]pour afficher le drapeau canadien au Québec, les libéraux fédéraux ont eu recours à ce qui peut être difficilement décrit autrement que comme un programme de propagande ce qui a eu un effet repoussoir sur une grande majorité de québécois (le scandale des commandites a presqu'anéanti le PLC...)
      Et pour faire la promotion de la souveraineté, les péquistes ont transformé le visage du Québec en enlevant la liberté d'expression et le libre choix dans la langue d'instruction à tous les Québécois. Ensuite ils ont supprimé le mot "province" et l'ont remplacé par le mot "nation". Ensuite de ça ils perpétuent la fiction en jouant sur des ambiguités "nation"/"pays". Et j'en passe. Manigances par ci, manigances par là.

      La Clique a tellement raison. On nous prend vraiment pour des clowns.

      Doug Nutt vous a énervé avec ça, mais il y a du vrai dans ce qu'il dit
      Doug Nutt m'énerve parce qu'il ne développe pas des idées comme un être intelligent, pas parce que c'est un séparatiste frustré. Par exemple, je suis en parfait désaccord avec la grande majorité de ce que tu prônes politiquement, et je qualifie même bon nombre de tes opinions de très hypocrites, mais au moins toi, Michel, tu sais aligner trois phrases pour exprimer une idée. Je préfère m'attaquer davantage aux idées qu'aux messagers, mais quand le messager est incompétent dans l'une et l'autre langue, ben là je pense que j'ai le droit de peter une coche contre le messager.

      Delete
    21. Apparatchik,

      Je n'ai que quelques minutes, alors juste trois affaires rapidement. (Je vais revenir possiblement pas mal plus tard ce soir.)

      #1 "Et pour faire la promotion de la souveraineté, les péquistes ont transformé le visage du Québec en enlevant la liberté d'expression et le libre choix dans la langue d'instruction à tous les Québécois. Ensuite ils ont supprimé le mot "province" et l'ont remplacé par le mot "nation". Ensuite de ça ils perpétuent la fiction en jouant sur des ambiguités "nation"/"pays". Et j'en passe."

      ...ce qui a eu un effet repoussoir sur plusieurs, dont toi, par exemple. Je dis juste que le même effet repoussoir existe dans l'autre sens (effet repoussoir de la "propagande" fédérale), il ne s'agit pas seulement ni simplement des effets d'un lavage de cerveaux par les péquistes et compagnie.

      #2 "... je qualifie même bon nombre de tes opinions de très hypocrites..."

      On m'a reproché bien des affaires, mais l'hypocrisie, ça m'intrigue. Il me semble que je dis assez clairement ce que je pense...

      #3 Que comprends-tu de la citation de Trudeau et que penses-tu de la (supposée) instrumentalisation du nationalisme canadien pour contrer le nationalisme québécois?

      Ce n'est pas une question que je te retourne pour te boucher, c'est une question.

      Delete
    22. To Michel Patrice,

      "Mais, honnêtement, est-ce qu'on ne pourrait pas penser que quelqu'un qui se présenterait à la Saint-Jean avec un drapeau du Canada ne le ferait pas pour délibérément provoquer?"

      "Les canadiens en général ne se promènent pas avec leur drapeau à tout bout de champs alors le sortir là, tout d'un coup, à la Saint-Jean, n'est pas innocent."

      Some years ago, one of my Anglophone cousins was on Mount Royal on Saint-Jean-Bapiste Day. He was only 8 years old at the time and was unaware of the delicate sensibilities of Quebec Nationalists. He made the almost fatal error of wearing a T-Shirt with a Canadian flag on it. A group of adults grabbed him, literally tore the shirt off his back, and made him leave. My cousin was innocent and had no intention to provoke anyone.

      Delete
    23. Michel Patrice, tu ne vois rien de mal à ce que tes filles ne connaissent pas les dix provinces du Canada? Moi perso je trouves ça ignorant quand je rencontre quelqu'un qui ne sais pas où est le Nouveau-Brunswick (il y en a 10, batême! C'est pas si dûr!) et je suis sûr que je ne suis pas le seul.

      Delete
    24. ...ce qui a eu un effet repoussoir sur plusieurs, dont toi, par exemple. Je dis juste que le même effet repoussoir existe dans l'autre sens (effet repoussoir de la "propagande" fédérale), il ne s'agit pas seulement ni simplement des effets d'un lavage de cerveaux par les péquistes et compagnie.

      Ma réponse serait qu'on devrait soit en finir avec la propagande canadienne-québécoise ou bien en voir en d'aussi grandes quantités l'une et l'autre.

      Nonobstant, les séparatistes ont déjà le beurre et l'argent de beurre et pourtant ils ont l'audace de continuer de prêcher leur anglophobie et leur RoCophobie (et de promouvoir activement et passivement un agenda malicieux d'omission Canadienne) et de multiplier leurs attaques haineuses tout en maintenant un climat de haine très tendu avec notre pays comme si celui-ci était un ennemi. C'est clair que depuis les 50 dernières années les séparatistes cherchent à dépeindre le Canada comme étant l'ennemi numéro un de notre province (plutôt que l'adversaire plutôt gentleman des forces séparatistes), ce qui est une fiction lorsqu'on constate objectivement les événements et agissements des deux paliers gouvernementaux pendant cette période et surtout l'agressivité des gouvernements provinciaux successifs. Bien sûr, il y aura des chicanes entre les deux paliers gouvernementaux dans une fédération, mais de là à virer l'une des composantes de cette fédération contre la fédération au complet en sortant toutes sortes de conneries intéressées et des demi-vérités servant à insécuriser davantage les Québécois de souche, je trouve que c'est un coup assez bas merci.

      Malgré ça, ce n'est pas le drapeau québécois qui a un effet repoussoir sur moi et sur la majorité des fédéralistes; au contraire, j'y vois MON drapeau non seulement pour le symbole qu'il arbore mais aussi car je paie beaucoup plus d'impôts à Québec qu'à Ottawa et donc je suis partie prenante à tout ce qu'il représente. Je n'ai pas assisté à un défilé de la fête du Canada où le drapeau Québécois était mis à l'index, et il en va de notre civilité de continuer dans cette lancée. Étant donné cela, je ne crois pas qu'il soit tellement exagéré d'exiger le même respect des séparatistes lorsqu'il est question du drapeau Canadien lors de fêtes dites "Québécoises". Dans le fond, Michel, ce que je dis, c'est que le Québec n'est pas la "propriété exclusive" des séparatistes et je suis souverainement tanné de les voir agir comme si c'était le cas. Des débats aussi surréalistes qu'idiots sur Vigile et au Devoir portant à savoir si on devrait imposer aux artistes un moratoire minimum entre une représentation à la Saint Jean et une autre à la Fête du Canada? J'en ai lus, Michel. Si dans un Québec indépendant on s'obstinerait sur des tout et sur des riens comme ça, j'ai peur pour notre avenir et je crois avoir raison de voter NON.

      On m'a reproché bien des affaires, mais l'hypocrisie, ça m'intrigue. Il me semble que je dis assez clairement ce que je pense...
      Hypocrite dans le sens où tu sembles adopter une approche conciliante mais derrière celle-ci se cache la même suprématie pure laine et restrictive pour laquelle militent les Mario Beaulieu de ce monde.


      #3 Que comprends-tu de la citation de Trudeau et que penses-tu de la (supposée) instrumentalisation du nationalisme canadien pour contrer le nationalisme québécois?

      Ce n'est pas une question que je te retourne pour te boucher, c'est une question.


      J'en comprends que Trudeau savait qu'il fallait combattre le feu par le feu. De façon plus générale, je pense aussi qu'il faut en finir avec les nationalismes et faire pour que l'accommodement simple entre citoyens (autant du côté francophone qu'anglophone re)vienne à la mode.

      Delete
    25. Je n'ai pas dit que je trouvais ça bien ou mal. Je constate qu'elles n'apprennent pas les mêmes choses, je constate que le cadre de référence ici est le Québec et que là, le cadre de référence est le Canada.

      En fait, je trouve ça ordinaire qu'elles ne connaissent pas les dix provinces comme je trouve ordinaire qu'elles ne sachent pas où et ce que sont l'Afrique, l'Europe, les États-Unis ou l'océan Pacifique. C'est pourquoi nous jouons au globe terrestre : je nomme un pays, une ville ou quelque chose et c'est le premier qui le trouve. Je trouve en général qu'à l'école, les enfants n'apprennent pas autant qu'ils le devraient mais je suis probablement un peu sévère à ce sujet et j'oublie que je n'étais pas mieux à leur âge.

      "Moi perso je trouves ça ignorant quand je rencontre quelqu'un qui ne sais pas où est le Nouveau-Brunswick..."

      Tu as sans doute un adulte en tête quand tu dis ça, pas une fillette de 8 ans. Mes filles vont bien évidemment savoir où est le Nouveau-Brunswick quand elles seront adultes.

      (Remarque que les enfants de mes amis qui apprennent les dix provinces sont tout aussi ignorants, ils savent peut-être que la capitale du Nouveau-Brunswick est Fredericton, mais ils ne savent pas vraiment ce que sont le Nouveau-Brunswick et Fredericton, ce ne sont que deux mots qui vont ensemble, c'est un exercice de mémorisation.)

      Delete
    26. @Yannick : J’ai oublié de te mentionner quelque chose dans ma réplique d'hier pour t’assurer qu’il ne s’agit pas simplement de mon imagination quant aux drapeaux. De l’autre côté du Complexe Desjardins, le long de la rue Ste-Catherine, on retrouve la même situation avec l’absence de l’unifolié parmi les trois drapeaux placés devant l’entrée qui est face à la Place des Arts. Mais à peine à quelques pas de là, au coin de la rue où se situe la devanture de l’hôtel qui fait aussi partie du complexe (anciennement Le Méridien, aujourd’hui le Hyatt Regency), ils ont trouvé moyen d’avoir 4 mâts pour les drapeaux, avec l’unifolié à la place d’honneur et y compris le drapeau des États-Unis (je suppose à la fois en raison du grand nombre de touristes et de conférenciers américains qui visitent ainsi que du fait que le siège social de la chaîne Hyatt se trouve à Chicago). Donc, ce n’est pas mon imagination à moi; au Québec, on réussi à se servir des drapeaux pour politiciser même les centres d’achats et les tours à bureaux.

      En passant, un petit détail pour les Montréalais : directement à l’est du Complexe (qui lui-même a été bâti là pour remplacer un vieux quartier de taudis insalubres) est l’emplacement de l’ancien Gayety Theatre (l’actuel Théâtre du Nouveau Monde), le lieu où la très célèbre stripteaseuse américaine Lili St. Cyr, grande vedette du burlesque des années 40 et 50 aussi connue comme « The Anatomic Bomb », présentait ses shows (tel que « The Flying G-String »).

      Delete
    27. Anonymous2:10,

      The adults who mistreated your cousin should be ashamed of themselves and there is no excuse for what they did.

      How did your cousin's parents react when they saw their child being mistreated? (Because a 8 year old child was not alone in a adult crowd, right?) How did the surrounding crowd react? Did the crowd cheered in agreement with those morons, or was the surrounding crowd offended too by the scene?

      Delete
    28. Michel Patrice : Je veux bien qu'on ne juge pas un enfant selon les critères réservés aux adultes. Toutefois, si tes filles n'apprennent jamais les dix provinces du Canada à l'école et qu'elles doivent l'apprendre par elles-même, je vais trouver ça très limité comme enseignement.

      Le Canada n'est pas l'Afrique, quand même.

      Je veux bien aussi que l'éducation soit adaptée à son environement. Par exemple, ma blonde me conte que ses leçons d'histoire étaient bien différentes des miennes. Au Nouveau-Brunswick, on a apprit l'histoire en quatre grandes périodes : Les amérindiens, la colonie Française, la colonie Britannique, et la Confédération, en passant par le traité d'Utrecht, l'acte de Québec, la révolution américaine, les loyalistes, la révolte des patriotes, le rapport Durham, la confédération, la crise des écoles catholiques du Nouveau-Brunswick et du Manitoba. La construction du chemin de fer trans-Canadien, l'adhésion dans la confédération de l'Île-du-Prince Édouard et de la Colombie-Britannique. On a vu du contenu qui ne nous conçernait guère, comme Louis Riel et la ruée vers l'or dans le Yukon. Je crois que c'est un grand survol qui couvre beaucoup de l'histoire non seulement de notre région, mais du Canada et de l'amérique du Nord en général.

      Pour ma blonde, Albertaine, l'histoire commençait avec la compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson, la traite des fourrures, et la colonisation de l'Ouest. Assez surprenament, elle a apprit à l'école que Louis Riel était un héro. Comme plusieurs autres en Alberta, elle n'était pas au courrant que la France avait colonisé le Nouveau-Brunswick et la Nouvelle-Écosse, et que les habitants s'y appelaient les acadiens; c'est en fréquentant des Acadiens établis à Edmonton qu'elle à apprit leur existance. Je trouve cette éducation beaucoup moins générale comparée à ce que nous avons appris, mais bien sûr dans le contexte albertain le Canada pré-confédération, c'est de l'histoire ancienne qui ne les concerne pas.

      Je trouverais dommage que les enfants au Québec apprennent de façon limitée leur histoire comme ma blonde.

      Delete
    29. "...tu sembles adopter une approche conciliante mais derrière celle-ci se cache la même suprématie pure laine et restrictive pour laquelle militent les Mario Beaulieu de ce monde."

      Tu me prêtes des intentions et je ne peux que dire que tu te trompes et c'est un argument inutile car c'est ta parole contre la mienne.

      ***

      Ton portrait d'une population épaisse manipulée depuis cinquante ans par une clique de péquistes haineux est caricatural et un peu simpliste. D'abord, l'histoire avec le Québec comme référence ne date pas de cinquante ans, L'Histoire du Canada de François Xavier Garneau, contemporain des Patriotes, était déjà l'histoire des canadiens français en rapport avec l'histoire de l'Autre.

      Il faudrait, tu dis, en finir avec la propagande et le nationalisme, la division et tout. La réconciliation est possible quand il y a reconnaissance mutuelle des torts et des griefs. Cependant, ton appel n'est pas un appel à la réconciliation mais un appel à la reddition, à baisser les armes, à l'abandon. Tant qu'on dira que les griefs des séparatistes ne sont que des chimères, il n'y aura pas de réconciliation.

      Tu me diras bien évidemment, que je ne suis pas mieux. Je ne dis pas le contraire. Je vois difficilement comment réconcilier le Québec et le Canada, c'est entre autres pourquoi je pense qu'on devrait diriger chacun nos affaires et vivre en voisins plutôt que de continuer à essayer de réconcilier l'irréconciliable.

      Une dernière chose. Le nationalisme n'est pas mauvais.

      Delete
    30. Yannick,

      Ne t'inquiètes pas, mes filles vont apprendre les dix provinces à l'école en géographie et en histoire et elles vont savoir que Saint-Jean est la capitale du Nouveau-Brunswick. (C'est une joke, je sais que c'est Fredericton.)

      "Je trouverais dommage que les enfants au Québec apprennent de façon limitée leur histoire comme ma blonde."

      Tu m'as mal compris. On n'apprend pas l'histoire de façon limitée, on l'apprend avec le Québec comme cadre de référence. Quand nous voyons la révolution américaine, nous voyons ses effets sur notre société. Quand nous voyons la révolution industrielle, la deuxième guerre mondiale, etc, nous en voyons l'effet sur le Québec. Quand ma fille ainée a vu les colonies américaines, en classe, ils ont comparé la Virginie et la Nouvelle-France. Ils n'ont pas ignoré la Virginie, ils ont vu la Virginie et ils avaient comme référence la Nouvelle-France.

      Notre histoire débute en 1534*, elle embrasse le continent de l'Acadie aux Rocheuses et jusqu'en la Louisiane. Dans ce sens, elle n'est pas limitée, elle excède le Canada et dans le temps et dans l'espace.

      (* en fait, c'est faux, on voit les améridiens avant ça, et ça inclue les incas, ce qui excède encore le Canada.)

      Delete
    31. @ Michel Patrice,

      "How did your cousin's parents react when they saw their child being mistreated? (Because a 8 year old child was not alone in a adult crowd, right?)"

      My cousin was there with several older children. Nobody intervened to help him out.

      Delete
    32. I'm reminded of the incident where a gang of 'brave' Quebec Nationalists attacked William Johnson when he tried to participate in the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parade, and he had to be rescued by the police...although at least Mr. Johnson was an adult.

      Delete
    33. Sad they would attack one of their own. Sickos.

      Delete
  2. They say that the wounds you endure in childhood, never subside.

    QuébécoisSeparatistFactories that racists call Schools!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Canada would be a much stronger country without the negative influence of a parastitic Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As always I insist that the racists are few!
      There are other ways to correct the damage without giving up CANADIAN Territory that Native, English, French and Allo Canadians fought and died for!!

      VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

      Delete
    2. You can't reverse gangrene. Indeed there were French speakers who fought for Canada and they are forever to be commended for their heroic actions, just like everybody else who fought and served...and died. Too bad most of them ran into the sticks when the draft board came a-knocking.

      Why? Well, it was "Britain's War". Too bad their mother land was occupied by the Nazis (although France did have many a sympathizer), and liberated by others. That's the French and Québécois way: Let others do your dirty work. Oh, yes, Degaulle, the French resistance, etc? Degaulle lost me when he stuck his gigantic nose and opened his pie hole in 1967. Prime Minister Pearson was too generous simply asking Degaulle to leave. He should have thrown Degaulle on the first cargo plane leaving Montreal and shipped right back to where he came from like freight.

      Delete
    3. "As always I insist that the "racists" are few!"

      Faux!Si c'était le cas nous serions un deuxième Nouveaux-Brunswick.

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

      Delete
    5. Français et anglais, ajouterais-je. On réussit quand même à vivre ensemble sans se pitcher des roches.

      Delete
    6. Tant que les francophones accèpteront de demeurer bon deuxième...Sur la banquette arrière du bus.

      Delete
    7. or not aloud to go on the the metro when your an anglophone

      Delete
  4. Yeah I find these ivory tower voices chiming in about kicking out Quebec very nervy. Like Ed Brown said, are we just going to white everything out? Shameful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me about it! They are not only insulting anglo-Quebecers but insulting Canadian Confederation as well by completely ignoring the fact that the majority of Quebecers are quite happy federalists and that separatists have never attained the threshold of 50% in any vote or referendum, ever. Alberta could very well have been described as parasitic in the 40s and 50s too until commercial production of oil started there in 1967, but I don’t believe anyone ever called them that. Same goes for Newfoundland.

      Delete
    2. Hark! Am I being summoned? Since Kitty's comments are often extricated by Editor, I'll just succinctly state I stand by everything I've written on this blog going back to Day One; furthermore, I was born, raised and educated in Quebec.

      I have written many, many times in the past right in this blog about how my ancestors came to Quebec with little more than a suitcase apiece, if they had even that, built businesses to employ themselves and others who would otherwise have starved to death during the Depression and contributed to the greater good of their communities. They weren't beaten down, they weren't kept ignorant and pregnant by a Church that put runaway babymaking as their raison d'être for existing.

      Albertans and Newfies, with few exceptions, work with their fellow Canadians for a better Canada. They don't alienate their minorities and don't have anal fixations about language.

      Delete
    3. It's not surprising that Albertans and Newfoundlanders are not fixated on language : nearly everyone who moves to their province already knows their language and there is never a possibility that this might not be the case. Simply put - things are already exactly as Albertans and Newfoundlanders would want them to be. You might as well congratulate Albertans for having low taxes.

      Delete
    4. "...work with their fellow Canadians for a better Canada."

      Faux: Le mot clé est:Money

      Jetez un coup d'oeil sur le conflit actuel opposant l'Alberta et la C.-B au sujet du pipeline Northern Gateway.

      Delete
    5. Ou l'Ontario et les sables bitumineux, également. Ou la râclée électorale qu'a manqué manger notre honorable Première Ministre Allison Redford suite à ses commentaires visant à renégocier une politique énergétique nationale. Il lui a fallu que ses adversaires fasses des commentaires homophobes et anti-environmentaux pour qu'ils s'empêche d'élire le Wild Rose.

      Delete
    6. Mr. Sauga: First, not once has any of my comments ever been “extricated by Editor” as you put it (I can only assume that you’re confusing situations when people must delete their own posts in order to make corrections) so please don’t spread any lies about me.

      Second, your reply is a non sequitur. Lovely stories about your ancestors and the Depression and baby making are all irrelevant to your advocacy of kicking Quebec out of Confederation.

      Third, you are consistently guilty of tarring all Quebecers with the same brush with your repetitive anti-Quebec sentiment. The fact is that you are conflating the seppie minority with all Quebecers.

      For centuries, Quebecers have made huge contributions toward making Canada a great place and towards great Canadian achievements in many fields. Quebecers were instrumental in repatriating the Canadian Constitution that entrenched the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Four of the 9 Canadians who have been to outer space grew up in Quebec. The list goes on and on. Try taking your blinkers off once in a while.

      Delete
    7. Attention fellow readers and contributors: Doug Nutt (Doughnut) is trolling, so please don't give him a wall for him to bounce his ball!

      Delete
    8. Mr. Sauga calling "Hear (not here) Kitty Kitty Kitty!Friday, July 27, 2012 at 6:38:00 PM EDT

      Re your diatribe at me just over an hour ago:

      I found the following from the July 16th blog:

      The CatTuesday, July 17, 2012 2:59:00 AM EDT:
      This comment has been removed by the author

      In addition, you wrote a composite of one-liners of gibborish in that blog in Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, wing-dings, etc.

      I have a cliché, invented by l'il ol' me: SUBSTANTIATE OR EXCULPATE!

      Now that I've proven you wrong re editorial extrication (and I'm sure there were others, but I'm not wasting anymore of my time on you! I've substantiated, so now I'm exculpated and in your feeble attempt at besmirching MY reputation, you end up besmirching yours.

      Like I've responded to GensDenis, I stand by my opinions. I'm unsure, but I reckon you're «pur laine». Even if you're not, the misfortune and downfall of the majority ilk was due to the ignorant teachings and direction of the Roman Catholic church and political opportunists who rode along on that rail.

      The fact the tête carré maudit anglais are the scapegoats for all Quebec's woes of that dark period is tantamount to Hitler's blaming the brunt of Germany's woes on the Jews and his other undesirables. There are enough diatribes written in primary school literature through high school to wrongfully condition (toxify, really) young Francophone minds that it has become the mantra of Quebec society. There are those, of course, who do know better. Actually, look at this portal link. It is this book written by a French Candian (a «vendu» from Ontario, no less) who taught me about life from HIS point of view:
      http://www.amazon.ca/French-Canadians-Michel-Gratton/dp/1550134388
      His chapters on education and the Church are incredible...and scathing. A good read. A DAMN GOOD read!

      Have a good weekend, Kitty, and don't eat any cold mice on a foggy morning!

      Delete
    9. Mr. Sauga to The Cat (An afterthought)Friday, July 27, 2012 at 6:51:00 PM EDT

      I meant to state above as well that I take the persecution against me as a personal insult due to the good my forebears did for their communities. All the good they did, all the great good the minorities did is what built Quebec and now it's being torn down because the majority can't stand the fact they were subserviant to the minorities who brought the jobs and took the risks. You've got Paul Desmarais, Péladeau (the anti-Semite, Pierre) and a handful of others making the Canadian Establishment, but even in Quebec, the number of minorities (Bronfmans, Saputos et al), on a proportionate level, are the more successful captains of industry. TTFN!

      Delete
    10. Are you thick? When it says: “This comment has been removed by the author”, the “author” is *me*.

      To put it another way that you might understand, *I* am the “author”.

      I have to delete my own comment in order to make a correction. Yeesh! It’s not rocket science.

      Comments that are deleted by the Editor say: “This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.”

      That’s it. You and Nutt Bar are going on the Ignore list. No more replies for either of you.

      Attention fellow readers and contributors: Mr. Sauga is trolling, so please don't give him a wall for him to bounce his ball!

      Delete
    11. Mr. Sauga to all our loyal readersSaturday, July 28, 2012 at 10:02:00 AM EDT

      Since I'm on The Cat's "ignore list" (waaaah! waaaah! waaaaah!) I'm sure you all know better; besides, many of you have stated you agree with me, and I don't put one-line gibberish in other languages and wingdings on this blog - EV-VER!

      Delete
    12. Sauga, are you psychologically incapable of admiting a mistake?

      Delete
    13. "but even in Quebec, the number of minorities (Bronfmans, Saputos et al), on a proportionate level, are the more successful captains of industry."

      Les Bronfman ont commencé comme criminels en faisant le trafic d'alcool aux États-Unis alors en prohibition.

      On voit comment cela s'est terminé : l'idiot de la famille, Edgar Bronfman Jr., a liquidé des placements sûrs comme Seagram et DuPont Chemical pour investir dans Vivendi Universal, qui fut un flop monumental et qui a fait perdre des milliards aux Bronfman.

      Les Saputo ne seraient pas ce qu'ils sont devenus n'eût été l'aide de la mafia au début pour "inciter" les commerçants à offrir leurs fromages. Ce qui leur a assuré une base commerciale sur laquelle ils ont pu bâtir leur entreprise.

      Delete
    14. Les Bronfman ont commencé comme criminels en faisant le trafic d'alcool aux États-Unis alors en prohibition.
      Les Kennedy, eux, avaient les mains propres?


      Le Star système Québécois a-t-il les mains propres?
      La loi 101 n'a-t-elle pas, elle aussi, assuré une base commerciale à des conquis?

      Delete
    15. As an expatriate Anglophone Quebecker myself, I like reading the comments of Mr. Sauga, despite his occasionally repetitive style. At least he has lived in Quebec, unlike the rather ignorant Yannick.

      I moved to Ottawa from Montreal several years ago, and it was the best decision by far that I have ever made. I wish that I had left years earlier. For the first time in my life, I feel unoppressed and free. I can speak the English language without encountering hatred and hostility. Overall, the people here are much nicer than in Quebec.

      The best thing that could happen to Canada would be the removal of Quebec from confederation.

      Delete
    16. Hello, expatriate Anglophone Quebecker. I've always been curious about this, perhaps you could help me since you live there. Could you comment on living in French in Ottawa? How are people treated when adressing local businesses, city transit, etc.. in French? From what I've heard the city was quite hostile to francophones but I'd rather hear the perspective from a local.

      Delete
    17. Yannick, you ask Sauga if he is psychologically incapable of admitting a mistake when you refuse to withdraw your comment that you would defend Nazis? You are a joke. Common sense is not for you.

      Delete
    18. Jean-Denis,

      Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Is an American so he is irrelevant to the point you are attempting to make.

      Many of the great fortunes have been tainted by some element of illegality. That being said, many of those who have been the beneficiaries of those fortunes have made enormous contributions to the community in Quebec for which we should all be grateful.

      You have taken the two names mentioned and alleged criminality in connection with them. What is your point? Is it that non francophones who succeeded in Quebec despite the bigotry that existed there and the unwillingness of the francophone Quebec legislature to do anything about the obvious and well known discrimination are all criminals?

      Delete
    19. Is it that non francophones who succeeded in Quebec despite the bigotry that existed there and the unwillingness of the francophone Quebec legislature to do anything about the obvious and well known discrimination are all criminals?

      Isn't that part obvious? We look down on people who are successful, and when those who are successful aren't exactly "like us", we play the xenophobe card. This incidentally serves the separatists' tale of a thoroughly corrupt federalist establishment in this province. It's just too bad that nobody's started to talk openly about the collusion between labor unions, media, academia, and certain provincial entities in this province.

      But that too shall come.

      Delete
    20. I have to agree, Apparatchik. If we do it, it's because we're awesome. If others do it, they had an unfair advantage. If we couldn't do it, it's because we were held down. Intellectual dishonesty 101.

      Delete
    21. @ Yannick,

      "Could you comment on living in French in Ottawa?"

      Ottawa is officially bilingual and all of the road signs are bilingual, which is much more than can be said for Gatineau across the river in Quebec, despite the latter being a part of the National Capital Region. The public transit system is bilingual - with all stops being displayed and announced in French as well as English. There are French schools and a Francophone hospital called the Montfort Hospital. Francophones are over-represented in the workforce for the city of Ottawa and many employees come from Quebec.

      Significant numbers of Quebecois have moved to Ottawa so they would have the FREEDOM to have their children educated in English.

      Most businesses provide customer service in English, but some serve clients in French too, depending on the demand - the way it should be everywhere. The stores are mostly English, just as the stores in Gatineau are mostly French.

      Delete
    22. I'm well aware of the official status of the city of Ottawa; I was more interested in the non-official status however. Just like Quebec declaring all of Quebec (and by extension Montreal) unilingually French does not make it so, it takes more than proclamations to make Ottawa actually bilingual.

      I'd be interested, for instance, in how services like public transit are offered in practice. Do you ever notice francophones speak french to bus drivers/ticket salesmen, for instance? Or do they automatically default to English like it happens in other "bilingual" cities in the ROC?

      Delete
    23. I've seen Francophones speak French to bus drivers because a lot of the drivers are Francophones themselves, some of whom are coming over from Quebec and taking jobs away from native Ottawans and other Ontarians. I'm not sure, but bilingualism may be a requirement of the job - it is for many other positions within the municipal government of Ottawa.

      One of my favorite stores in Ottawa is the SAIL Outdoors Store, where most of the signs are bilingual and the Francophone clients are served by some bilingual employees. Not all of the employees are bilingual, but enough are. If this store was located in Gatineau, there likely wouldn't be any English signage at all.

      What about the fact that Gatineau is French only, even though it has some Anglophone residents and it is part of the National Capital Region? How do you feel about the uproar in Quebec when the City of Gatineau was going to give bilingual employees a bonus and had to back down?

      Delete
  5. Let comment on the flag thing as it is a rather a pet peeve of mine. In this case, I want to directly compare Canada to the United States.

    The protocol that The Cat posts is just that, a protocol or an etiquette. It is published by the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. Therefore, it has no teeth. The United States has its own Flag Code that is uniformly known and understood by various agencies and governments in the country. The only federal flag law in Canada I think was issued last year. It just basically says that it is illegal to prevent anyone from flying the Canadian flag.

    Also, the protocol is not that clear about the "position of honor". Sometimes it is on the right, sometimes on the middle, sometimes on both ends. The U.S. flag, on the contrary, is always on its own right.

    Because of the ambiguity and lack of legislation regarding the Canadian flag, we see many instances where the Canadian flag is put not at the highest honor, particularly in the province of Quebec. The biggest example of all is at the National Assembly. Unfortunately, what they do in Quebec and in Quebec City in particular is legal. Once again, the protocol is merely a suggestion, not a legal requirement. The government of Quebec even has its own flag etiquette, which in some instances clashes with the federal one.

    CMIIW, the United States Flag Code puts the U.S. flag as the ultimate flag on the land and it supersedes all states regulations. And BTW, putting two flags on one pole is a common practice in the United States. Just go through the border at Highgate Springs, one can see the U.S. flag shares the pole with the black POW/MIA flag. Of course, the U.S. flag is always on the top.

    Regardless of all, I think the Mayor does have a malicious intent. He knows exactly that Canada is a jurisdiction above Quebec, simply by the fact that Quebec is within Canada. If he does not acknowledge Canada as a superior jurisdiction, why fly the flag at all? Logically it makes no sense to put Quebec above Canada since Quebec will never be superior to Canada. Quebec could be equal to Canada, but not superior.

    If the Mayor acknowledges that Canada is superior to Quebec, than he is stupid to put the superior below the inferior. If he does not acknowledge, why flies both together? Why not fly the U.S., British or French flag below Quebec?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Troy, if you scroll further down on that Canadian Heritage page, you will find a very clear explanation regarding the location of the position of honour. Basically, the rule is that it is always on the left (when facing the display) EXCEPT in the case of having 3 flags, then it is the centre position that is the position of honour. This same rule is applied by Quebec, deliberately creating the appearance of a conflict. Note, too, that the position of honour refers to the arrangement, not the precedence, of flags and that people often conflate the two.

      The Quebec government, naturally, is oblique on the matter of precedence and arrangement when it comes to the flag of Canada. The Justice department of the Quebec government has deviously enacted a law on the flag and emblems of Quebec which states that "in all cases, the flag of Quebec has precedence over any other flag or emblem" (meaning it should be placed to the left and NOT above any other flag). Some people would presumably think this would include the flag of Canada; however, federal protocol takes precedence when both are flown and of course, this is never mentioned in the Quebec law. So naturally, Mario Beaulieu of the SSJB has been harassing the Mayor of Montreal to take advantage of this by magically claiming that municipal by-laws trump federal protocol and that Montreal City Hall must place the provincial flag in the position of honour, between the federal and municipal flags.

      In addition, the Ministry of International Relations states that this law applies only in a government public ceremony, as opposed to normal daily routine. And as previously quoted above, it states that “the flag of a sovereign state takes precedence over that of a province or a federated state, which in turn takes precedence over the flag of a city; however the Act stipulates that the flag of Québec shall take precedence in official ceremonies of the Government of Québec” (again, this in official ceremonies rather than in normal daily routine). In other words, the Quebec government is either deliberately trying to sow confusion in the minds of its citizens or it is confused itself.

      What is obvious, at any rate, is that the small-town mayor is a megalomaniac. Even the most hyper-nationalist organizations (here, here, here and here) are all agreed that what he is doing is wrong.

      Delete
    2. The Cat,

      What you are writing is basically what I was writing. Even according to the federal protocol, the position of honor is not fixed. There is an exception where the Canadian flag can be in the middle. It can also be on both ends. Not so with the U.S. flag. It always be on its right, no matter what. Therefore, no confusion.

      But in any way, it is just a protocol. Not a law, again unlike in the United States. But also the federal government does not seem to care much about infractions that happen particularly in this province. Take a look at this. He is the Head of the Government, and he (or his Protocol Office) allows that kind of background?

      What the federal government should do is to issue a flag law that is valid on Canadian soil from coast to coast to coast and overseas, and that law should take precedence over all provincial, regional or municipal laws, rules, ordinances or bylaws.

      Delete
    3. It would be simpler if Canada and United States had the same flag. Two flags is a pure waste of money.

      Delete
    4. Small town is right. The town has 163 inhabitants. Why waste so much space on a small town separatist bigot?

      Khadir's sister looks like someone who would strap a bomb on herself

      Delete
    5. Hit the road (401) Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more...

      Mr.Sauga is a good anglo.

      Delete
    6. Troy, your last point re the flag protocol has merit. Like when Roger Doucet unilaterally changed the English portion of O Canada when he sang it, this caused Parliament to finally come up with the official words circa 1981. This was not an act of maliciousness on Doucet's part. He pointed out that "We stand on guard" too much. I think Doucet should be thanked for finally giving us the motiviation to put official words into law.

      I too think perhaps it's time we incorporate flag etiquette into law. Of course, there will be a big flap about it in Quebec, but...so what?

      On the same note, I'm wondering when Quebec is going to come up with its "State" anthem? JJC put it out there 2-3 years ago and nothing has happened. I guess Gens de Pays is it! Not even every state in the Union has an anthem; in fact, four of those United States are called commonwealths: Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_(U.S._state)

      With the election of the PQ in 1976, the word "province" was taken out of the vocabulary. It's LE QUÉBEC now, not La Belle Province (except for pretty good fries and poutine) or le province de Québec. The license plates in Quebec stopped in 1977 with La belle province, replacing it with Je me souviens. As the late Mordechai Richler pointed on on 60 Minutes back in 1998, nobody is sure what it is they're supposed to remember! Ambiguities: The separatist's best friend.

      Meow!

      Delete
    7. I too think perhaps it's time we incorporate flag etiquette into law. Of course, there will be a big flap about it in Quebec, but...so what?
      I find it laughably quaint how countries/states/provinces' marketing/brand guidelines need to be enshrined into "law". Oh, Nationalism, thou fickle, jealous whore.

      But I suppose there being a law or not on flags and anthems is comparatively moot in 2012 since we're still very much in the age in which "Nationalisms" are incestuously the source and result of a common set of half-truths and half-myths we propagate, many of us unwittingly. Law or no law, it won't be hard to find an idiot in the Laurentians who will fly the provincial flag above the federal one, just as I'm sure some moron in the RoC would take a dump on the Quebec flag and put it up on YouTube.

      I'm wondering when Quebec is going to come up with its "State" anthem?
      As if we need more useless regalia?!

      With the election of the PQ in 1976, the word "province" was taken out of the vocabulary.
      True. But repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. Unlike you, there are those of us here who love both Quebec in Canada -- some of us even "soft Quebec nationalists" -- and have no delusions about this being one of the ten provinces.

      Mordechai Richler pointed on on 60 Minutes back in 1998, nobody is sure what it is they're supposed to remember! Ambiguities: The separatist's best friend.
      It's actually a catch-all. The good, the bad, the Natives, the French, the English, how the "English" fucked "us", and how "we" fucked "them" right back. It's the separatists in our colleges and in the media who like to fixate on that second to last item. Instead of thinking up how to kick us out of Canada, maybe you should spend your thoughts on how to send our leftist seppies packing from such key institutions, Sauga.

      Delete
    8. Sauga : As a genie, I will fulfill your wish. There has been a "national anthem" for Québec ever since last year. It's terrible, pompous, and pretentious.

      It does not have official recognition by the Province, but what if the PQ gets elected?

      Delete
    9. Apparatchik, you're so right stating that repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, it has a tendency to resonate and those who want to believe the lie, do. Hey, the French schools in Quebec teach such lies to young minds, hammering the crap into their craniums. While many realize when they're old enough to understand what crap a lot of that is, others are more naïve (the separatist's best friend) accepting what they read and are told ipso facto and others choose to believe it because they want to.

      You write: "It's the separatists in our colleges and in the media who like to fixate..." So does that mean all or most of the French media in Quebec are fascist separatists? Who do you think then reads that drivel? I'm sure the industrious Quebec Establishment read these papers as well as the lazy-assed government workers. One class reads La Presse and Le Devoir while others read Le Journal de Montréal, the rag that tabloid is. The Gazette is practically part of that family for it has become a trashy rag.

      One fellow a couple of us had a conversation with (he's Anglophone with a French name) hypothesized this whole separation thing is a conspiracy in order to drag more money out of the federal system than they otherwise would, and there is really no genuine appetite for separation. Basically this fellow is an idiot with a grade seven education, but I must state he presented his case very eloquently and cogently. I can't say he's wrong, at least the part about the money, but the persecution against the minorities is where he and I disagreed.

      Finally, as I've stated before, so here I am again repeating myself, I'm lumping all of Quebec society together because history is repeating itself à la 1975 with picking on small businesses over the most minute of English usage, now RAMQ language testing and other language nonsense. Premier JJC is just going with the anti-minority flow, and the minorities themselves are taking all this too complacently for my taste. This complacency is giving the minorities the Quebec society they deserve. It goes against mainstream Canada's values of plurality and acceptance.

      In that aforementioned 60 Minutes segment back in 98, near the end of the piece, Louise Beaudoin stated she believes in diversity. How stupid she came off sounding when what she meant was her definition of "diversity" is everything in French within an English North America. Sorry, pal, that's NOT diversity!

      Delete
    10. Yannick,

      Si tu parles de l'hymne composé par Raoul Dugauy, je ne peux pas imaginer que ça devienne l'hymne officiel. Je n'ai pas pu l'écouter au complet la première fois, c'est plus que laid, ça fait mal à écouter.

      Il y a pas mal unamité autour de Gens du Pays que je trouve personnellement un peu gna gnan. Je préfèrerais Les Gens de mon Pays.

      Delete
    11. J'étais jusqu'à ce jour ignorant de "Gens de mon Pays". Avoue qu'il n'est pas très inventif dans ses mots, Gilles Vigneault...

      Mais je trouves ça beaucoup plus joli, comme "Hymne National". Le nôtre, c'est Avé Maris Stella, un hymne autant laid qu'incompréhensible puisque chanté en Latin... Mais il a été choisi dans le dix-neufième siècle où l'on était encore suceux de balus, comme dirait mon père.

      Delete
  6. No mention of the new federal ridings? The Gazette has a cool before & after map. It doesn't look good for the tories in Montreal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting. Although what's with our fetish with naming ridings after people?!

      Methinks that by doing show we're showing just how much we're overcompensating for something...

      Delete
    2. C'est vrai, Apparatchik. En dehors du Québec il n'y a pas des circonscription, ponts, boulevards, etc... nommé pour chaque maudit premier ministre (fédéral ou provincial) qui a eu la bonté de diriger la province. Au plus deux ou trois premiers ministres sont utilisés à ces fins, et jamais dans des circonscriptions.

      Delete
  7. Léo is not a "candidat poteau".

    A candidat poteau is someone that has no chance of winning. Ruth Ellen Brosseau and all those randoms NDP MPs were supposed to be candidat poteau.

    The CAQ will have a bunch of these. A guy like Kamal G. Lutfi, who doesn't know what multiculturalism is and who can't make a tweet a french without making at least 5 spelling/grammar mistakes, is a prime example. You can also check Denis Louftakis on youtube/google. Although this guy doesn't know how the Quebec flag looks like and were the Middle East is, he'll still try to get elected under the CAQ banner.

    Like it or not, Léo Bureau-Blouin is actually a "candidat vedette". A candidat poteau wouldn't attract that much media attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. will your canididat vedette wear the red square on his campaign ? Ruth Ellen is loved by the people in her riding and doing well...since when dose a blue berry like you know what multiculturalism is ..Guillaume return your pots and pans to your Mom and go back to school

      Delete
  8. I just pointed out the difference between a Candidat (or canidiat like you would say) Poteau and a Candidat Vedette. Why does it get you so mad?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not mad at your comparison Guillaume...it's the butt hole comment about Kamal and Denis ..your tone states that their ignorant emigrants..I am quite sure that these two are in a business environment and have influence in their community.. maybe not now since Legault fired his ass for revealing what every body already knows that seppies and your self run emigrants and anglo/allos down ..we will see if the liberals get in those riding's because of Legualt actions.

    Boulin has a chance to make the hair line difference for the PQ ..to sway the vote he wont wear the square and with PQ coaching he will tell the pot banger's to go back to school,,, maybe even offer free education and say the rich corporations will pay, not the tax payers..but it's the tax payers that pay in the end through the down loading of price increase

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concerning Denis Leftakis (sorry if I misspelled his name previously), I'm not inventing stuff, it's coming from a series of videos by comedian Guy Nantel called "Québécois pure-laine and basic knowledge". Nantel was interviewing white, francophone folks on the street and asking them easy question. He got some really stupid answers (not only from Leftakis)

      Here is the video someone made once he found out that a CAQ candidate was part of these idiots : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GWuAqFolyc

      Leftakis' problem isn't that he doesn't speak french or that the comedian made fun of him because he didn't understood the question; he is just an ignorant, plain and simple.

      By the way, I'm aware that Leftakis is not your typical french name. However, it's possible to have been raised as a french quebecer, even if you have a "foreign name". Nevertheless, if you want this idiot to be part of your group of anglos and allophones, (I hate this mentality of us vs them, by the way) you can have him.

      As for Lutfi, well this twitter chain reaction came after he commented a video that included a speech by MP Bernard Drainville. Drainville was saying that interculturalism is a better option than multiculturalism when it comes to the integration of immigrants. However, Lutfi thought that abolishing multiculturalism meant abolishing immigration or building a Quebec without people of various backgrounds; which is false. Lufti then spent the whole week doing some interviews on different medias and looked like a fool, since he didn't even checked his facts.

      Lutfi also said that he suffered from racism while he was working for Desjardins. It's probably true...can't deny that racism exists in Quebec (and everywhere else in the world). However, Mister Lutfi was the bully in this story. In his tweets, he showed contempt and even hatred toward french Quebecers. It was just a logical decision by Legault to fire him after those comments. How is he going to win his riding after alienating a large part of his voters? Maybe a few anglophones and allophones will agree with him, but that is not enough support to win you an election in Laval.

      To conclude, I wouldn't have called them idiots or ignorants without having facts to back it up. My attacks have nothing to do with their ethnicity or their mother tongue.

      Delete
    2. The video appears to have been heavily edited to make Denis Leftakis look worse. For instance the 10s of him shaking his head is more like a continuous loop of the 1s he was shaking his head.

      Otherwise, though, it's pretty damning. It's the same concept as when Rick Mercer was doing the same to americans and asking what they thought of our Prime Minister "Jean Poutine".

      Delete
    3. Guillaume do you mean like the way Pauline was presented in that video in capable of clanging the pot lids? You can view it in many ways ..like for one she docent know left from right or she couldn't cook a can of beans cause she never used a lid before and she wants to care of the house of Quebec? you what this?

      yes racism is around and in some places even death..so it's ok cause they do it every else?I still get arse hole comments ,,but it was worse in the 80's face to face insults even blows to defend your self when attacked ..today it's looks and comments like your still here from my age group and some of the young are just rude or not help you in the stores,, even when I speak street french

      so you made some spelling mistakes ..it's not a language test here

      Delete
    4. Lutfi also said that he suffered from racism while he was working for Desjardins. It's probably true...can't deny that racism exists in Quebec (and everywhere else in the world). However, Mister Lutfi was the bully in this story. In his tweets, he showed contempt and even hatred toward french Quebecers.

      I dunno Guillaume, but as I read the tweets in this article, Lutfi isn't showing contempt so much for Quebecers of French-Canadian stock as much as he is lampooning -- directing sharp commmentary and virulent satire -- to the very artificial, whitewashed fantasy image that the separatist media mob seeks to have of itself.

      I happen to disagree with the very premise of Quebec separatism because I too have seen up close that its inner bowels is more about Pure Laine penis envy of the massive Anglo-American culture that we're surrounded by than it is about the lofty or saccharine ideals that people try to peddle.

      Quebec -- and even separatist nationalism -- cannot and will not continue to exist under our current set up. Immigrants have too long been made to feel like the enemy -- better yet the Trojan horse -- to be welcomed and hated at the same time in this society. They've fucking had it and don't wish to be "tolerated" by paternalistic Parti Québécois-inspired doublespeak (face it, "interculturalism" is really a péquiste euphemism for assimilating into péquiste culture).

      Many immigrants come to this country -- Canada -- and even more to this province because they (want to) speak and live in French. But most don't get off the plane to with an aim to be recruited into French-Canadians' historical insecurities or the emotional historical grievances and issues that the PQ hauls around like a chip on its shoulder. And as far as I'm concerned, immigrants shouldn't be. And fortunately, they often aren't. They usually assimilate quite well either way, and often don't adopt (they don't really need to!) the rancor of the old-stock citizens. And that's a good thing.

      Lutfi was right to say what he originally said.

      Too bad he didn't have the balls to stand by his statements. He really could have made a difference by starting (or at least attempting to start) a broad conversation on the topic.

      Delete
    5. pressnine401 and Apparatchik, you may be interested in Guillaume's comments about Lufti at The Gazette (as well as a reply about how francophones would have been better off with a Bloc Canadien rather than a Bloc Québécois). It’s difficult to follow the flow of the conversation there though as it seems the Gazoo has its hands full moderating comments as well.

      Delete
    6. Not all that interesting, actually.

      I agree entirely with the commenter that stated that Quebec Nationalism is selfish in that we seem not to care about French-Canadians elsewhere in the country. But what do you want? This "projet" has always been more about making kings and queens of populist Québécois political scumbags than about targeting and setting aright key elements of Canada that are out of whack.

      For that selfishness alone, I increasingly feel it just that Quebec never accede to the sort of independence being peddled since the 60's. We could have caught more bees with honey than vinegar. That's why I genuinely hope that the separatist fearmongering about their movement being effectively dead in 5 years if the PQ isn't elected truly pans out.

      I'm fucking fed up and I know I'm not the one with the issues. They, on the other hand, need the couch, the shrink, the regular sessions, and to loosen up.

      Delete
    7. Apparatchik, you have hit the nail on the head. Making kings and queens out of québécois political scum bags is the correct way to look at it. The two bit politicians, most of whom could not earn a living outside of politics, have made and are making fools out of the francophones who fall for their hypocritical fear mongering and destroy their futures by Denying them the right to learn English in school and deterring job creating foreign investment with fascistic language policies.

      Delete
    8. "I agree entirely with the commenter that stated that Quebec Nationalism is selfish in that we seem not to care about French-Canadians elsewhere in the country."

      Exactly. It's why Quebec nationalism has even worse rep amongst ROC francophones than ROC anglophones.

      Delete
    9. Well that's why I find it more than a little disingenuous for separatists to tell us we need to vote OUI so that we don't become "dead men walking" like you... when what we'd effectively be doing is leaving French-Canadians outside Quebec whose rights we love to highlight as perpetually trampled by the evil anglos to fend even more for themselves.

      Blowing hot and cold indeed... But tell me Yannick, where are the rest of you in the RoC? Why aren't you guys screaming loudly and proudly that you don't need Quebec separatists to make both political hay and scapegoats out of you? The message isn't heard here in Quebec at all.

      Delete
    10. Most outside Quebec have no idea (or any interest, frankly) of the inner politics of Quebec. I doubt a ROC francophone out of two could name the Premier of Quebec, for instance. How can we rise up against something of which we are ignorant?

      You have to remember that ROC francophones are, well, francophones of the ROC and not an extension of Quebec. They care about their own local services and their own local politics, not those of Quebec. Only when there is a referendum or some national news involving Quebec do francophones take note of what's going on over there. Not unlike most ROC anglos, actually.

      Delete
  10. No one in the ROC cares about the Quebec elections and for that matter for Quebec as a whole. Quebec politicians are crooks..Well evidenced. The spoiled brat of the country still amazes me with the entrenched attitude of entitlement. Can you imagine how ridiculous you look. Students going on strike..people marching in the streets banging pots. The whole Quebecois state of mind is ridiculous. I think the best way to starve Quebec would be to weld their mail boxes shut so they would not receive any more brown envelopes from the ROC courtesay of a gutless bunch of idiots in Ottawa. Time for this expensive debacle to end. Why don't you all just f'k off. That includes all of you gutless anglos in Quebec such as the editor, the brilliant Appartchik, Cat and the balance of the pseudo intelluctuals who frequent this site. Canada would be a much stronger nation without the negative influence of Quebec. History....expensive referendums....FLQ and associated issues...Bill 101 (stomping out a minority)...crumbling infrastructure due to mafia induced problems.... And the list goes on. You make us sick to our stomachs that we have to share such a great country with you lot of Losers. Just leave. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you all just f'k off. That includes all of you gutless anglos in Quebec such as the editor, the brilliant Appartchik, Cat and the balance of the pseudo intelluctuals who frequent this site.

      First of all, I actually learned English after French, and I live what I think is a very well-integrated bi-(multi-)lingual and bicultural life, so to consider me an "anglo" or even "French-Canadian" in the historical, exclusive, and insular sense of the terms is ludicrously inaccurate and, dare I say it, marginally offensive.

      With regards to the entire province just fucking off and calling us federalists gutless, I would have to say that the pendulum swings both ways. And I agree that many of the behaviors and actions you see accompanying what you call the "Quebecois state of mind" is so ridiculous as to practically imitate if not rival those typical of developing Arab or Hispanic countries, I must also ask why you in the RoC have never brought out the heavy artillery -- be it diplomatic or otherwise -- yourselves.

      I mean, rather than perpetually bitch about us, why not just repeal our language laws through an obscure but still possible mechanism involving the Federal parliament? How about after that transplanting a few million anglophones from your "great" part of the country to our "loser" part? Put some kind of Emergency/Martial Law in effect in all of Quebec, and deploy the military to all separatist gathering points? Come on man, while the separatists were running rabid in the 60s and 70s, English Canada didn't even have a fucking clue.

      Yes I'm sick of the FLQ's ideological descendents -- both mild and extreme -- everywhere in Quebec society. I'm sick and tired of separatists deliberately not understanding the nature of our two-level constitutional structure and misleading us into a lobster pot that lacks those same checks and balances. Yes I hate bill 101 with a passion and I'm sick of our inability to take a good look at our nationalism and see it for the French-language supremacist and collective delusion that it truly represents. And yes, I'm fed up of referendums.

      So to throw the blame at us alone is kind of disingenuous. And to indiscriminately criticize all of us when you should instead be convincing the indifferent majority of Quebecers that they've been (yet again!) brainwashed by their own elites, combined with your inability to see the benefit of working closely with those of us who love being part of both Quebec and Canada shows just how unobservant and foolish you really are.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Apparatchik! Racism has many faces!

      I must add for this (Why don't you all just f'k off) fake Canadian that unless he's from Ontario, there more non recist loyal Canadians in Quebec than there are people in his entire province!!

      As I've been saying the QuébécoisRacists are few, but Anon 2:22 insists on helping them!

      Delete
    3. +1, Apparatchik! Great reply to the churlish, gutless anglo from outside Quebec.

      Signed,
      One of the "not brilliant" objects of his bile

      Delete
    4. That's a really wonderful answer, Apparatchik.

      Delete
    5. So you want an answer as do your little Bum Boys, The Pussy, and Yannie.

      Here you go.

      "First of all, I actually learned English after French,"

      Who cares. You seem to think your somewhat superior to all of us poor anglos who speak the majority language of Canada but are forced with their taxpayer dollars to donate to your cause of French (read OLA and other failed French intiative programs)


      "I must also ask why you in the RoC have never brought out the heavy artillery -- be it diplomatic or otherwise -- yourselves."

      Firstly, it would be a waste of time and effort with the Quebecois attitude of entitlement (similar to your attitude BTW). Secondly, the politicians in Ottawa are gutless as I said before. Oh, my word, we don't dare insult the Quebecois or they might leave. Historically the Liberal (uggh ) stronghold on power was Ontario/Quebec against the ROC. If Quebec were to as they say "prendrez la porte", this neat little power balance would be disrupted and power would shift away from Ottawa. Simple as that. Things, have now changed a bit and hopefully the idiots (yes they are idiots) will realize this is no longer a threat (Conservatives winning majority without Quebec) and they will say "au revoir" a Quebec.

      "How about after that transplanting a few million anglophones from your "great" part of the country to our "loser" part?"

      Simple answer...None of them want anything to do with Quebec. You already receive, what is it, 8.5 billion in equalization to subsidize your social programs and tuitions and yet no one really wants to go there. Check the stats. Going further, Quebec actually receives 15.4 Billion in transfers, has a GDP/Debt ratio of over 94% and has one of the lowest GDP/capitas in North America. Unions, big crooked government, mafia. Such a nice place!!! Not to mention language laws which discriminate against the anglo minority. What a joke.

      "Yes I'm sick of the FLQ's ideological descendents -- both mild and extreme -- everywhere in Quebec society."

      If you so sick of everything, then why the hell do you stay there? Are you a masochist?

      "So to throw the blame at us alone is kind of disingenuous."

      I blame Quebec and the attitude of entitlement and total disregard for their responsiblities (both fiscal and social) inside the country whose insignia is on their passports.. (Remeber Charest in Copenhagen with regards to the terrible Tar Sands, which by the way, feeds you most of your equalization payments allowing the indulgence of gold plated social programs) Are you not a citizen of Quebec? If so then you and the others are part of the overall problem.

      "combined with your inability to see the benefit of working closely with those of us who love being part of both Quebec and Canada shows just how unobservant and foolish you really are."

      What f'kin benefit are you talking about. Could you please enlighten me as to the benefits of continued association with Quebec.

      Delete
    6. "Going further, Quebec actually receives 15.4 Billion in transfers, has a GDP/Debt ratio of over 94% and has one of the lowest GDP/capitas in North America."
      I'm going to examine your numbers and put them in perspective.

      Quebec received 17.3 billions this year in transfers - but you have to understand that these transfers are based on both population and tax base. Quebec's tax base is proportionally lower than about half of the other provinces, so they receive proportionally more. Note that Ontario still receives absolutely more, as they received 19.5 billions this year. There are many poorer provinces than Quebec, however, like New-Brunswick, Manitoba, PEI, Nova Scotia, all of which received more transfers per capita than Quebec. As did Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, before they noticed that they were sitting on top of oil. As might Ontario in the future, if the current trend holds.

      As for GDP per capita, Quebec's is slightly higher than the maritime provinces but lower than anyone else ; one should know the scale, however. Quebec stands at 40K, the maritimes at 38-39K, Manitoba and BC at 44K, Ontario at 46K, and the provinces who happen to live on top of oil (Sask, NL, Alberta) stand at 55-70K. The main difference seems to be whether or not you happen to live on top of oil, as the difference between the oil "haves" and the oil "have nots" is much larger than the internal differences between the oil "have nots."

      If compared to the states, Quebec and the Maritimes would stand at rank 40/50, slightly higher than Florida. Manitoba/BC would sit at 30/50, above Vermont. Ontario at 24/50. Only the oil haves would be standing within the top 10 US states, with Alberta having a higher GDP/capita than all of the US states. The comparison is interesting - Quebec and the maritimes are definitely on the poorer side, but aren't complete economic hellholes either.

      Now for GDP to debt ratio - I have to admit that how people define debt and gdp and debt to gdp ratio is beyond me. For instance, Quebec's GDP is 320 billions while its debt is 250 billions, so I'm unsure how one could obtain a 95% ratio out of those two unless the federal debt was also factored in - but then to be fair the same would have to be done for all the other provinces.

      You are, of course, not advocating kicking out all of the poorer provinces out of the country (which are, after all, guilty mostly of not living on top of oil) - this should show you that the poorness argument is a non-sequitor, a rethoric device.

      Delete
    7. "Who cares. You seem to think your somewhat superior to all of us poor anglos who speak the majority language of Canada but are forced with their taxpayer dollars to donate to your cause of French (read OLA and other failed French intiative programs)"

      So much wrong here - first, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that Apparatchik said that would indicate that he believes he is superior to ROC anglophones as a whole.

      Second, the OLA is not the "cause of French" - it is service equality, pure and simple. It is the providing of services not only to people who are on the top, but also to people who are on the bottom. Because francophones pay their taxes too, and it's ridiculous to imply that these taxes should all go to fund anglophone services only. Because just because there are more anglophones, doesn't mean that francophones don't deserve services. To argue otherwise is chauvinism, pure and simple. Chauvinism, might I add, which is no different than the one displayed by the Province in Quebec when it is attempting to systematically reduce the availability of English services.

      You argue against the one in Quebec, but for the other in Canada as a whole. That makes you, sir, a hypocrite. The only joke here is your arguments. As I've mentioned before, those who fight fire with fire are in no position to argue against the use of fire.

      Delete
    8. You seem to think your somewhat superior to all of us poor anglos who speak the majority language of Canada but are forced with their taxpayer dollars to donate to your cause of French (read OLA and other failed French initiative programs)
      Not at all; while I think it'd be great if English Canada made a concerted effort to learn conversational French and all of Quebec reciprocated by doing the same with English, deep down I couldn't care less. I speak both languages and a few more to spare and frankly don't really care if my grandchildren end up living in a language I don't speak within our borders. I just think that if we all just rolled up our sleeves, did our fair share, and bit our tongue one out of every two times we'd like to complain (kind of like at a huge family function) that this could be a comparatively better place.


      Oh, my word, we don't dare insult the Quebecois or they might leave. [...] Things, have now changed a bit and hopefully the idiots (yes they are idiots) will realize this is no longer a threat (Conservatives winning majority without Quebec) and they will say "au revoir" a Quebec.
      Well hopefully either that or Harper crushes us like the little parasites I'm sure you think we are. Frankly, I'd be pleasantly shocked if a ballsy anglo Canadian Prime Minister called the separatists' bluff and put all of Quebec in our place. Permanently. Trudeau couldn't do it because the rhetoric reached a fever pitch in his time. Maybe Harper can.

      Unions, big crooked government, mafia. Such a nice place!!! Not to mention language laws which discriminate against the anglo minority. What a joke.
      Losing demographic ground is like Auschwitz to the separatists. A few million pigheaded anglos like you might certainly make life unpleasant for all of us for a while, but I'm sure a modus vivendi will be struck eventually.

      If you so sick of everything, then why the hell do you stay there? Are you a masochist?
      Because I fundamentally love this place and I think this crap about using separatism and language and "culture" to divide us is ludicrous. We get along just fine when nobody's telling us to fight. And I'm a federalist because I think it is through the inclusive federalist ideology that we can all best prosper together. We have no need for a moribund ideology built on a founder population's insecurity and it is my wish that the latter ideology will slowly wither and die and from its ashes its members will merge with federalists once and for all.

      Are you not a citizen of Quebec? If so then you and the others are part of the overall problem.
      How's THAT for a non sequitur batched in with a ridiculous conflating of federalists and separatists.
      Seriously though, I appreciate that Alberta is driving Canada's economy and I'm not one of those holier-than-thou environmentalists trashing Alberta but happily taking equalization payments. Yes, I'd like Canada as a whole to work out environmental standards that make us both rich and healthy, but I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive either...

      What f'kin benefit are you talking about. Could you please enlighten me as to the benefits of continued association with Quebec.
      This'll be a long one and I'm out of time, but in point form:
      - finally connecting with the other solitude
      - territorial contiguity
      - no economic/political/cultural/population transfer disturbance owing to secession
      - continued economic integration

      Delete
  11. And off come the gloves:

    "Doug NuttSaturday, July 28, 2012 8:03:00 AM EDT

    Vous êtes un Canadien-Français Apparatchik,pas un Québécois."

    --I was going to address this in French, but honestly, this level of ignorance deserves no respect.

    Doug Nutt, I'm sorry your parents are trailer-trash cross-burners and eternally blame everyone but themselves for living their entire lives on welfare...

    ...but one day, you will have to grow up and think for yourself.

    Same goes for S.R. and the others who litter this site with the same K-Mart mentality their fathers, grand-fathers and (not so)great grandfathers had before them.

    Hell, just today, I saw the disastrous effects of SOMEONE I LOVE not being able to think for themselves.

    My cousin was raised her entire life here in Quebec and never traveled, while I was raised in both Quebec AND Ontario and traveled to dozens of countries.

    Difference?

    I enjoy the company of all races and cultures, whereas she believes that Quebec is going to be clobbered out of existence.

    So what's the solution to all this?

    Read Apparatchik's post above. Took the words out of my mouth.

    People such as Doug Nutt, S.R., Pauline Marois, Mathieu Bock-Côté et al have said enough.

    All these assholes continue to do is spew the same tired rhetoric and undermining not just themselves, but everyone involved in Quebec`s continued growth.

    One thing that Apparatchik said was something I`ve also thought about: "How about after that transplanting a few million anglophones from your "great" part of the country to our "loser" part?"

    Seriously...if the Feds truly wanted to crush the sovereignist movement once and for all, without spilling blood, why not create massive incentives to push as many Anglo-Canadians to move there and start taking over?

    Why not start by giving Anglo-Canadian university students incentives to launch their businesses in La Belle Province?

    Why not create "industry towns" that are specifically geared to bringing in more Anglos?

    Why not offer to create low-cost retirement communities for Canadians to choose Quebec for the golden years?

    No more concessions.

    No more playing games.

    Time for sovereignists (pseudo-socialists) to understand that everything comes with a price, that you have to pay to play and that their lack of responsibility has gone on for too long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harvey, much of what I said is tongue-in-cheek.

      The Federal government has LET Quebec develop this way. Hostile demographic takeovers following repealing another level of government's legislation? They've barely managed to contain the separatist threat in 40 years; what makes you think they could seriously pull off a massive population transfer?

      Quebec isn't crushed, and hasn't been oppressed by our "evil anglo Canadian overlords" and most of us, I think, are aware of this deep down.

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

      Delete
    3. Coudonc, 'sti. C'est pas drôle quand on se fait appeler des mangeurs de poutine.
      Des mangeurs de timbits doivent pas aimer la généralisation non plus.

      Encore avec tes kristie de généralisations. Dégage, hostie.

      Delete
    4. Du calme Tchiko,ils ne comprennent pas un seul mot de ce que j'écris.

      Delete
    5. Moi oui, par contre. Et franchement j'en ai crissement marre de tes idioties.

      Fais valoir tes points de vue de façon claire, détaillée, et convaincante, sinon reste couché. Si t'as vraiment de quoi à dire qui a de l'allure, vas-y donc, on est assez sur ce blogue qui pourrions débattre comme il faut, et je suis certain que ça pourrait aboutir en un très bon débat ou du moins en un échange d'idées cohérent. Je ne partage pas particulièrement bon nombre de points de vue que soulève Michel Patrice par exemple, mais au moins il sait exprimer une idée complète et terminer un paragraphe. Qui plus est, il le fait le plus souvent en anglais tout en demeurant un séparatiste convaincu!

      Ça fait depuis le temps que tes one-liners sont d'une imbécillité capitale.

      Delete
    6. Si tu crois que tu vas pouvoir changer quoi que se soit sur ce blogue,bonne chance!Quand le très poli et très modéré Michel Patrice et Yannick l'ultra fédéraliste se font traiter de nazis,y'a matière à ridiculiser ce blogue.

      Delete
    7. Il y a des fous errants comme il y a des commentateurs ayant de l'envergure, ici comme ailleurs.

      Pourquoi niveler tes interventions vers le bas en te rangeant du côté des ridicules alors que tu pourrais formuler tes interventions de façon à attirer au moins le respect des plus lucides?

      Je me rends sur les commentaires de Radio-Canada ou encore Le Devoir et je vois très souvent des interventions autant absurdes qu'idiotes. Preuve comme quoi des gnochons qui disent n'importe quoi, il y en a partout.

      Ce n'est pas juste Michel et Yannick qui mangent parfois des volées. Moi aussi -- ultra fédéraliste que je suis -- il y en a ici qui me traitent de lâche et d'"anglophone" mollasson ou encore d'"hypocrite nationaliste"... ce que je ne suis décidément pas. Ces mêmes RoCeux me disent aussi qu'être un fédéraliste à la Trudeau est une tare car être Trudeauiste, c'est supposément faire l'apologie du séparatisme québécois -- vraiment n'importe quoi! Et puis? Je vis avec, parfois je ris, et je continue.

      Si tu crois véritablement à ta cause, ton comportement ici devrait le refléter et être au moins à la hauteur de ce que tu crois réellement être et représenter.

      Delete
    8. Je suis touché de ta sympathie, Doug Noug, mais je crois que Apparatchik à raison. Lâcher un commentaire bête à une ligne, c'est entièrement inutile pour tout le monde. Michel Patrice mange peut-être des volées, mais ça devrait t'indiquer que ça indique que ses commentaires dérangent certains, j'imagine un peu comme les commentaires d'Apparatchik dérangeaient Louis Préfontaine sur son blogue.

      Quand les commentaires dérangent de cette façon, ça indique que quelqu'un habitué à n'entendre que ses propres opinions est confronté à quelque chose de nouveau et ça ne peut que faire du bien. Malheureusement, la colère est souvent le sentiment que ça génère. Ça en vaut quand même le coup, parce qu'on ne peut arriver qu'à de meilleures opinions qu'en s'exposant à des idées contraires. J'imagine que c'est en partie pourquoi tu es toi-même sur ce blogue. Pourquoi ne pas rendre la pareille à tes voisins anglophones au lieu de parler de donuts?

      Delete
  12. It's so crazy to read this stuff, from the outside (I'm in the US) this makes Quebec look absolutely insane. I remember visiting Montreal as a kid with my parents, it was really fun and ignited an interest in the city and Quebec, I wrote a paper on the 95 referendum for civics and government class haha. I have looked in to taking a trip up there again. But, after reading some of this stuff, I don't know, and I'm not sure how the English speaking Quebeccers can stand it, it seems like the Francophones are waging war on you, and there is no respite. Ohh man, you guys have my deepest sympathy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cooper, let me try to disabuse you of whatever deterrent is keeping you from visiting. Yes this place is crazy, and yes, it's a culture war that dares not speak its name in public.

      This conflict cuts deeper than simply language and has to do with genuine concerns combined with the politicization of ethnolinguistic pride and the exacerbation of populist fear which our politicos have done as expertly as (if not better than) your own evangelicals who square off against married gay biracial feminists. Our conflict very much echoes the main themes of America's culture war: divisive, hypocritical, unwinnable, polarizing, opportunity-killing, holier-than-thou, waste of time. Yet I happen to love your country because despite all that, it still has a lot of good going for it. Your not being able to transcend our insanity would be a lot like those (especially Canadian) chauvinists who brush America off as a complete cesspool of ineptitude and failure without so much as a second thought. But you seem different; if you've come this far, it'd be a real shame to give up your interest at the drop of a hat. You -- and we -- lose that way. We don't ask for nor need your "sympathy"; if anything, you'd be doing both you and us a bigger favor by furthering your own knowledge and interest.

      Either way, I don't know whether you're a "lurker" having started reading this blog only recently or if you've been following it for quite some time. But either way, I feel it would be a shame to let your interest in our city, province, and country, combined with your own previous study of it go to waste.

      Delete
    2. Well maybe sympathy was a poor choice of words. Don't get me wrong I loved Montreal, but basically I'm illiterate in French, so it would be kind of scary. You'd think for having a dad who moved here from France I'd be better but I can kind of understand the spoken language or actually that should be the angry yelling father version haha. As for writing and reading, I'm lost within the first few sentences, my dad spoke mostly English to my mom and me because we lived in Ohio, my grandma would come visit during the year and she'd always sing to me in French, but I don't think that would help me even order a beer in Quebec.

      I've been checking out this blog for a month or two, I've been interested in Quebec and Montreal for a long time, so I'd Google stuff from time to time, and somehow turned up here, it gives an incredible insight in to the situation that just isn't covered by anyone else, and I enjoy the banter here in the comments.

      Delete
    3. Drop by (again)!

      You probably know just as well as we do that you can squeak by in English -- in and around Montreal at least -- but the mere knowledge of the fact that you're missing out on the other half of, well, existence here, should be enough to encourage you to improve your French.

      It's interesting to me that the word you'd choose to globally describe the situation here is "crazy". But to each his own, I suppose. In your shoes, I always thought I might have gone with "unfortunate" or "disappointing", since to do a bit of right, I believe we're also doing quite a bit of wrong. But that's just my two cents as the disaffected spawn of French-, English-, and immigrant-Canadian upbringing. Other visitors might just as easily say "fabulous".

      I'm sure Editor would welcome your comments/questions/observations, and I know many of us would be interested in the perspective you might have to offer up during our daily (tri-weekly?) conversations.

      Tire-toi une bûche!

      Delete
    4. Cooper, I hope you will keep in mind that, the internet being what it is, extremism abounds. Day-to-day life is not like this. In fact, people generally get along quite famously, just the same as anyplace else.

      I suppose that, as an example, I could make a similar observation about the United States. When I was a kid, we used to go back and forth across the border as often as we wanted. It was always a treat for us to go for a visit to Vermont or upstate New York. In the Adirondacks, we often went to Lake George, Ausable Chasm and especially Frontiertown, a great cowboys-and-Indians attraction for kids. Since 9/11, things have changed a lot. Now we are regarded as suspicious aliens more than as friendly neighbours. I don’t suppose you’ve ever been subjected to intimidating tactics by Marine-like American border guards and their sniffer dogs lining up travellers like convicts but it’s not very pleasant and as a result, I think I’ve been to the U.S. maybe once or twice in the past decade. Not to mention the much more polarized politics, the way evangelical Christians seem to be waging war against you, the gun-toting, the lack of affordable health care, the never-ending racial strife and the associated general shrillness that abounds these days…

      Do you think all of that makes the U.S. look insane? Or that you deserve our deepest sympathy? I would hope not. I have American friends and I know that people and politics are two very different things. Besides, I’m sure there are plenty of websites that would help you brush up on your French so that you could order a beer on your next visit! ;-)

      Delete
    5. Cooper Descartes is correct. Quebec is absolutely insane. I visit the United States frequently and when I describe the situation in Quebec to Americans, they usually react in disbelief.

      Delete
    6. I didn't mean to offend, I'd definitely call the US insane, our politics and domestic issues are crazy, it's enough to sometimes just make you shake your head. I apologize if I offended, while the US is lambasted, Canada is lauded around the World, so to see what's going on is a little bit of a shock, because it's just not reported anywhere. We're always told to look up to Canada as a leader in so many areas like healthcare, and multiculturalism, tolerance, and liberal ideals, so the intolerance invokes some cognitive dissonance.

      But you guys have settled it, I will definitely visit again (-:

      Delete
  13. I want Montreal to win back its english-speaking majority!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep dreaming.

      Maybe that'll come true once the French-speakers choose commit linguistic hara-kiri by massively switching to English once they realize in a few decades that we'll be something like 8 million francophones surrounded by over a billion Spanish- and English-speakers.

      Frankly though, that's not what we need. Montreal can and should be comfortable being officially recognized as the bilingual and welcoming place it naturally is. I suspect what we need is an allophone-origin premier or a pure-lainer willing to disabuse us of the collective bullshit we've had stuffed in our head.

      Until then, it's closed-minded RRQ, Le Devoir, and SSJB fearmongering.

      Delete
    2. Apparatchik, you are a pie in the sky dreamer if you believe that anything will change in Quebec. How many years does it take for you to accept that Quebec will never change but will only regress further? This nonsense has been going on for more than 50 years and there are no signs of any possibility of change.

      As for Patrice, have you ever read his blog where he gloats over collective rights prevailing over minority rights and where you can sense the sheer joy he derives from the ability of a majority to repeal the existing rights of a minority?

      In the case of both Yannick and Patrice, no one has said that they are Nazis , so knock off that stuff.

      Delete
    3. We can only go so low. As pur laine Quebecers slowly but generally grow out of the bucolic firewall that the separatists have virtually built around Quebec, they will realize that our own looking inward has and will continue to hold us back. Did you see what we did to the Church once we realized it was key to keeping us barefoot, illiterate and pregnant? It's gonna happen again once we collectively realize the devastating effects its had on us. The separatists have been looking to quash this realization from ever taking place of course, but this "coming to" will happen sooner or later. If anything, my fear is that it will trigger a reactionary wholesale abandonment of French, much as we did with Catholicism. I am a vocal advocate of more-than-functional bilingualism for all Quebecers not as a way to hasten our assimilation, but as a way to fend it off. If we can inculcate positive feelings toward both our "local" Frenchness and "shared" North American/global "Englishness", perhaps all of Quebec will eventually be able to strike a balance the way many of us culturally-mixed Montrealers have.

      I don't much care for Michel Patrice's theory about French collective rights trumping English minority rights, but it's because people like him exist and ideas like his currently hold sway over much of Quebec that I realize we're headed toward a second "Quiet Revolution" in the next few decades, one of whose major fruits will trigger the not-so-gradual abandonment of French by French Canadians in Quebec themselves. This makes me less sad today than it would have in the past though; historical anglophone arrogance is at least partially to blame for bill 101, so either way, I say, we reap what we sow.

      Besides, we've got bigger fish to fry. It would be unwise not to pay attention to our changing relationships with our neighbors as well as with emerging economies around the world. The Chinese and Indians are coming and might soon be our overlords, so we'd better (at least be practicing how to) look busy.

      I don't recall wading into the rather surreal "Nazi discussion" myself, so you must have me confused with someone else. The silliness surrounding that particular sideshow these past few days has almost led me to deliberately incendiary statements (à la Doug Nutt) for purely dada/satirical purposes. But out of courtesy to Holocaust victims, survivors, and Germans alike, I think such silliness is best kept right where it originates -- in my noggin.

      Delete
    4. "In the case of both Yannick and Patrice, no one has said that they are Nazis , so knock off that stuff."

      Well there was that wonderful comment in which me and Patrice were said to be like Hans Landa, the creepy, polite, intelligent, forked-tounged Nazi antagonist in Inglorious Basterds. That was not particularly respectful.

      Delete
    5. Mr Krug,

      About me gloating about over collective rights prevailing over minority rights. I have told you in the past :

      " ...it is an interesting issue of a conflict between individual and collective rights. It is also easy to invoke the concept of individual rights. In fact, it is not a question of collective and/or individual rights ; as grown ups, perhaps we can face the fact that it is a matter of two socio-economical groups struggling for preponderance."

      and

      "As I believe I said earlier, this not a matter of individal and collective rights, it is a matter of two peoples struggling for domination."

      Delete
    6. It is a bit of an unfair struggle when one group forms 80 percent of the population and the other group has virtually no political representation at the provincial level.

      Delete
    7. Apparatchik,

      Do you, as a francophone in Quebec, see the signs of the Second Quiet Revolution as you described above?

      Delete
    8. I would say the general public‘s rejection of the separatist media attempting to spoon feed them the student strike story. Also, if the PQunt gets in and gets too overbearing, (like extending bill 101) to cegep you will see the backlash.

      Delete
    9. In regard to "two peoples struggling for domination", is it really the case that anglophones are trying to dominate Quebec? This may be the perception of some or many or most francophones, but In my experience I have never met any anglophones in my 30 years of living in Canada who believe that English should dominate in Quebec; all generally sympathise with francophones desire to protect the French language - but not with all of the ways in which this is done - particularly those methods that engender antipathy towards English speaking people and Canada, and which remove or erode the rights of English speaking people to live, work and prosper in Quebec.

      Delete
    10. I've met a chauvinist anglophone or two who don't understand why we don't just all learn to speak English and get it over with - in effect to make English so predominant that French simply isn't an issue anymore.

      The arguments offered in favour oscillate between trying to establish that English ought to dominate, or that English already dominates. I don't think they understand that the effect this has on a francophone who wants to protect the French language is the opposite of what they're trying to achieve.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous3:04,

      Each groups has its weaknesses and its strenghts. Demographics definetely played in our favor.

      Delete
    12. Do you, as a francophone in Quebec, see the signs of the Second Quiet Revolution as you described above?

      I see conscious and concerted signs aiming at suppressing a Second Quiet Revolution by the separatist establishment all around me. From the bogeyman claims of "Montréal s'anglicise" to the pettiness and fearmongering being ratcheted up by the extremists for obvious electoral gain, it's obvious they feel a sea-change. The 2007 provincial and 2011 federal elections were foreshocks that signal the inevitable changes ahead. While the majority is comparatively indifferent, Landry and Duceppe's fearmongering about what'll happen if the separatists don't win back power and separate us within the next few years ('or-else-we're-toast') is really a commentary about the separatist movement more than it is about French-Canadian vitality in Quebec. It's always darkest before dawn, and with many separatists calling for an even more excessive bill 101, it's pretty clear there's an operation afoot to scare us into an existential fear that they hope will translate directly into PQ votes. There wouldn't be such frenetic and palpable fear by the big talking heads if the powers that be didn't know that their collective brainwash of Quebec Francophones weren't on the brink of being organically discovered, outed, and busted by the general public in this province that it was meant to keep under heel.

      I put the supremacists' overall behavior regarding legislating "morality" on the subject of language on par with Duplessis-era actions aimed at legislating morality using religion. I'm floored at how the parallels that seem so blatantly obvious to me never occurred to many (including a few noted Quebec academics I've talked to about this), as well as how many nationalists are in complete denial about it.

      Many academics and supposed Quebec intellectuals is that Duplessis' reign was the "Grande Noirceur" -- the darkest-before-dawn period that preceded modern Quebec (born of the Quiet Revolution, of course). Duplessis' era was the period in our recent history in which Government collaborated arguably the most with the Church not only to provide social services to the population but also to keep us in line with imposed "Catholic values". This wasn't just the time where English industrialists perhaps most iconically pushed their anglo-supremacist attitudes on expendable French-Canadian cheap labor, but also the days of stiflingly puritanical and paternalistic Catholic social pressure imposed by and onto French-Canadians themselves. Fear of the Lord (and fear of more tangible excommunication) were ever-present, and more than a few people even went into bankruptcy as a result of their obligation to tithe! Converting to Protestantism was akin to forfeiting your soul -- literally the end of you. The Duplessis "orphans" weren't all orphans (some were just born to unwed mothers). And let's not forget how Duplessis dealt with ideas, not to mention people he didn't exactly like ;-).

      Delete
    13. While many -- especially separatists -- like to compare Charest's cronyism with that of Duplessis (a comparison that is somewhat apt but also très exaggerated in my judgment), I don't think it's much of stretch at all for a more astute (detached?) observer to see how our current climate regarding nationalism (which revolves around the notion that language defines Quebecers as a people) is actually a calque of Duplessis-era philosophy that posited that it was our religion that defined us as a people (with our language a comparative accessory or byproduct). Duplessis-era censorship finds its modern-day equivalent in all the legal measures aimed at putting up a virtual linguistic veil around our province (now aimed chiefly at francophones). The Church's near-monopoly on new souls has become Bill 101's near-monopoly on new Quebecers and those born to most old-stock French-Canadians. Irrational fears of excommunication live on as fears of (now linguistic) assimilation -- when they aren't slippery-slope bogeyman fears of "assimilation" by simply attaining functional bilingualism. Questioning the faith was considered "sinful" -- today we call it being "mentally colonized".

      It's the same inferiority complex born of the same jealous, populist, calculating, insecure, capricious, paternalistic, and often heavy-handed nature of the doctrine imposed by our supposed elites and inherited most recently from Duplessis and even his predecessors. Sure, French-speaking Quebecers are doing astronomically better socioeconomically speaking than they were 50 years ago, but the vector required to get them up the ladder and in the driver's seat in this province -- language conquest -- is less and less relevant as a political tool and will therefore fade away. French is here to stay, I'm glad, but only until the very francophones whose ancestors bill 101 supposedly helped decide that our current language outlook and configuration is less of an asset and more of a liability.

      And once we collectively realize how much our rabid linguistic nationalism has harmed us, we will necessarily turn on it the way we did with the rabid Duplessis-era ethnoreligious nationalism that preceded it. It might be gradual (similar to the Orange Order's gradually lessening grip in Ontario over the last century), like it might be a comparative blitzkrieg (like the first Quiet Revolution). My hunch is somewhere in between, with perhaps the whole shift toward a comfortable attitude about bilingualism happening within about a generation.

      Delete
  14. “Many of you are way too young to remember the farcical situation back in 1976, when toddlers were given language tests to see if they were really English speaking and thus qualified for English schooling, back in the days of Bill-22.”

    I was one of those who had to write that test back in 1976 thanks to Bill 22, surely one of the silliest things I’ve ever been called upon to do in my life. I’d be curious to know if anybody else here remembers having had to write it too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Non-Bill 101 child here.

      Surprised?

      Delete
    2. Keep dreaming.

      No appartchik, it will happen...only not yet!

      Delete
    3. Apparatchik: Actually, I’m not quite sure what you mean. I’m a non-Bill 101 child here too. The reason I had to write that test is because we went to French grade school and our parents wanted us to go to English high school so my passing that test gave my younger brothers and me the right to do so. As you have identified yourself as an allo/franco/anglo “mutt”, I guess I had presumed that meant you or your parents had immigrated here. So when you say that you’re a non-Bill 101 child, do you mean to say you were born here and that your schooling predates 1977? (Feel free to answer on here or not, as you wish.)

      Delete
    4. By virtue of my English-Canadian ancestry (i.e. ancestors who've lived here for many generations and received English-language education), I would qualify for public English-language education in Quebec.

      Having received both an English- and French-language education by my own parents' ideological bent, this is rather moot, however.

      Delete
  15. First, I have to give props to Apparatchik for that point of view relating Québec's rejection of the Catholic church to a possible massive rejection of French-only culture from sheer separatist-stance overload.

    You know, I never thought about it that way before, but thinking back to an episode of Tout Le Monde En Parle where they had the guests do a test to see which one had the best grasp of written French, I can envision such a scenario.

    It's one thing to hear about the prevalence of French enough in politics and the news, but to also be subjected to it as a supposed means of entertainment? I think viewers of the show would rather hear about Patrick Huard's latest film or his relation to Anik Jean than find out what his proficiency in written grammar happens to be.

    _________

    "It's just too bad that nobody's started to talk openly about the collusion between labor unions, media, academia, and certain provincial entities in this province."

    This is where the rubber will meet the road. I mean, sure Maclean's magazine was accused of " Québec bashing" when it published its piece on this province being the most corrupt in Canada...but let's face it, it's true.

    Now while other provinces aren't mired in the same identity crisis that this province appears completely incapable of breaking out of, they can better suited to deal with corruption and exact more control over it.

    Here in La Belle Province, the politicians, the mafia, the unions and the media have divided the francophone population and successfully conquered them. Separatists are so consumed with taking out the "evil anglos" that they can't even see what's going on right in front of them.

    That's why I laugh whenever a separatist tells me he read 1984.

    _________

    As for the sovereignist movement collapsing beneath its own weight (like an Montreal bridge) in 5 years...totally see it happening.

    If Marois fails to get elected, and I believe she will, the old guard will have lost their final chance. Think of it...

    The oldest members of the "Purs & Durs," Parizeau, Landry, Lapointe are all getting past the golden age and will never see a sovereign Québec before their final day and there won't be anyone to truly replace them.

    I mean, some might suggest Jean-Martin Aussant has a chance at making headway, but he's charismatically-challenged and certainly can't offer up anything close to Lévesque-quality idealism.

    ...but even if he could, today's youth has the Internet.

    They'd rather watch skateboarders land on their balls on Youtube or trying to score some action on Facebook to be bothered with sovereignty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a great collection of essays (in English and French) on the subject of subjugation of religion (and other "competing" views) at the altar of nationalist politics in Quebec:

      http://tinyurl.com/ccx9lwr

      Delete
    2. "They'd rather watch skateboarders land on their balls on Youtube or trying to score some action on Facebook to be bothered with sovereignty."

      Nous ne fréquentons évidemment pas la même jeunesse.Ceux que je fréquente ont des convictions politiques et savent aussi s'amuser de façon intelligente.

      Delete
  16. This is off-topic, but I wonder if any of the Francophones or bilingual Anglophones could help me translating a phrase from English into French. Notice my avatar to the left, that was taken when I visited Montreal the first week of May 2011. (Rained every single day.) That picture was taken from the observatory deck of Olympic Stadium's tower. One of the people who worked there noticed my outfit and asked in halting English about the Nats. At that point in the season, the Nats weren't doing too badly, but I was expecting them to start losing ground soon and I used the expression that I was "waiting for the other shoe to drop." The guy had no idea what I was talking about. Is there a similar idiom in French about having a feeling that bad news will be coming very soon? Thank you very much et merci beaucoup!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This site suggests similar idioms such as:

      • S’attendre au pire
      • Le pire est à venir
      • On peut s’attendre à un (autre) couac
      • Jamais deux sans trois
      • Dans l’attente du coup de grâce
      • Attendre la deuxième onde de choc/contre-choc/réplique

      It’s hard to translate idioms well and this one is especially American. Most Brits would not understand what it means. Hope this helps!

      Delete
    2. in addition to Cat's suggestions, might I also add:

      - être en suspens
      - attendre que la situation s'empire
      ...

      Delete
    3. Thank you again. "Jamais deux sans trois" would have done the trick, I think.

      Delete
    4. Thanks to the both of you! I think "Jamais deux sans trois" probably sums up best what I was trying to say. Ironically, this year the Nats have been playing so well that if Nats fans spoke French, one of our complaints would be "Jamais trois mais deux" which means (I believe) "Never three but two" which refers to several instances where we have won a three game series against an opponent but missed an opportunity to win the third game and sweep.

      Delete
  17. "Quebec's tax base is proportionally lower than about half of the other provinces"

    Thats because their GDP is dismal... Quebec personal taxes are amongst the highest in Canada and yet you say the tax base is lower. Obviously, the net per capita economic output is very low. Must be all the welfare!!!

    "If compared to the states, Quebec and the Maritimes would stand at rank 40/50"

    Quebec according to a study by the Fraser Institute is ranked 55th out of 60th provinces and states in North America. This was actually given as a stat by your own Pauline Marois during the last election in Quebec (for whatever reason).

    "You argue against the one in Quebec, but for the other in Canada as a whole. That makes you, sir, a hypocrite. The only joke here is your arguments."

    Absolutely not...Quebec should ban English entirely and then the gutless anglos in Quebec might finally see the handwriting on the wall and boldt for more hositable surroudings. When that happens the ROC could abandon the stupid, money wasting and failed OLA and get on with life. The only joke here is in reality your silly assertion and false belief that Canada is a bilingual country. Oh and BTW, which province spends the least on minority services per capita. Guess one and you will be right. So, who is the hypocrite?

    "Well hopefully either that or Harper crushes us like the little parasites I'm sure you think we are."

    You brought up the fact of being parasites! I can only agree by the statistics. On Harper..not likely as he is just another dickhead policitian who will try and obtain votes in Quebec with Western Dollars ( say it ain't so).

    "And I'm a federalist because I think it is through the inclusive federalist ideology that we can all best prosper together."

    "How's THAT for a non sequitur batched in with a ridiculous conflating of federalists and separatists"

    Don't insult our intelligence with this BS rhetoric. You live there, are a resident of Quebec and have before illustrated your inclusiveness with the Quebec state and Quebecois in general. You are part of the problem!!!

    As for the rest.

    Connecting with the other solitude.

    Oh, please. What for? So we can understand the strange language on the other side of our cereal boxes that we pay dearly for.

    Territorial continuity....well, I am sure that can be worked out. We will allow you to fly over our territory provided we have a highway through Quebec with limited access ... And forget us paying for you damned bridge thats falling down. We'll build our own without Quebec help and maybe it might last a couple of decades :)

    No economic/population transfer...I doubt that with separation there would be a plethora of business or people wanting to relocate to Quebec. Me thinks the transfer would be out of Quebec.

    Economic integration....you must mean more transfer payments to fund your gold plated social programs you can't afford on your own

    As I said, Canada would be much better off if Quebec would go it on their own and leave the rest of us in peace. We will be fine without poutine.





    Your a federalist because you like the gravy on your poutine courtesay of others, just as all the Quebecois. Thats all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Thats because their GDP is dismal... Quebec personal taxes are amongst the highest in Canada and yet you say the tax base is lower. Obviously, the net per capita economic output is very low. Must be all the welfare!!!"

      A quick look at the GDPs of provinces and states should disabuse you of the notion that Quebec has the GDP of a third-world country. No one's arguing that Quebec is proportionally poorer than most of Canada's provinces - although they are much richer than the maritimes sans Newfoundland (they used to be richer than Newfoundland, as well, but then the newfies realised that they were living on top of oil). Granted, no one would dispute with you that Quebec's relative poorness is caused by their high taxes, labor laws and language policies which discourage investment.

      I like how you basically ignore most of what I say, however. Perspective does tend to ruin one's rehashed narrative. Face it - it's not that Quebec is poor and that's a problem with you (it's far from being the poorest of Canada's provinces), your problem is with Quebec first and then you tried to find reasons to justify that.

      "Quebec according to a study by the Fraser Institute is ranked 55th out of 60th provinces and states in North America. This was actually given as a stat by your own Pauline Marois during the last election in Quebec (for whatever reason)."

      The Fraser institute is hardly neutral in this debate and their methodology is very questionable. Regardless, according to the official statistics, Quebec has a higher GDP/capita than 3 Canadian provinces and 12 American states, which would put it at 44/60. Either Fraser's wrong or you mis-remember the number. It's not a stellar number, but it's not an economic hellhole either. At 40,334$/capita, it would stand at rank 14 in the world according to the IMF, higher than Sweden, Germany, UK, or France; countries which are generally thought of as "rich" while Quebec is supposed to be "poor".

      See, your problem is that you are looking for cheap digs against Quebec because you've already made up your mind that you hate it. Were you to look at it objectively (or at least accept to think about the facts which I'm providing you), you would understand that as despicable as the seppies' actions may seem to you, Quebec is not objectively the worse place on earth.

      As for Pauline Marois, how is she "my own"? Is she my own because I'm a separatist, or because I'm a Quebecer? Because I'm neither. Another lazy assumption from you.

      Delete
    2. "The only joke here is in reality your silly assertion and false belief that Canada is a bilingual country. Oh and BTW, which province spends the least on minority services per capita. Guess one and you will be right. So, who is the hypocrite?"

      Canada is, in fact, legally a bilingual country where French services are provided from coast to coast (according to the numbers, of course). It is also, in practice, a country in which a quarter of the population is francophone and roughly a fifth is personally bilingual. What's silly about that? It rather seems to me that you're trying to brush us all away with bad rhethoric.

      As for Quebec being the province that spends the least on minority services - that again is from the Fraser institute, and they do not explain their methodology very well (when they don't admit to pulling numbers out of thin air when they can't find them!). I certainly am not convinced by their report, which I read in detail.

      Especially since the Fraser report does not comment on the providing of services per se- it looks mostly at the differences in costs for education between provinces, and there there is a huge demographic difference between Quebec anglos and ROC francos. Namely, in the ROC francos tend to live in rural areas or tend to be relatively recently moved to large cities. Consequently, they do not benefit from the same economy of scales as the rest of the province; transit costs are either higher or the schools are smaller, which increases marginal cost of providing education. The opposite is true in Quebec where most of the anglo population is concentrated in Montreal where the economies of scale work in their favour compared to the rural population which is almost exclusively franco nowadays.

      If there was an intelligent discussion on who spends more on services (or even an intelligent discussion on how to find that out, I'd be all ears. :)

      Delete
    3. An addendum - in the discussion above I was using the world list of GDP adjusted for purchasing power equity. Since I don't have the Quebec adjusted GDP, I was comparing apples with oranges.

      A comparison with nominal GDPs paints a less rosy picture; Quebec now sits at rank 20 between the UK and Iceland, above Italy but below Sweden, France, Germany (which, frankly, makes more sense). The gist of my point, that Quebec is not an economic hellhole, still stands however.

      Even this tends to underestimate Quebec's ranking a bit, because the GDP was determined by statistics Canada for 2010 while the comparisons are for 2011; all of Canada's provinces GDP would have increased in the meantime if they were following the trend (Canada's nominal GDP is estimated to be 3000$/capita higher than the stat Canada 2010 number, for instance). A correct comparison would likely require the talents of someone who actually knows how to compute these things, an accountant I am not.

      Delete
    4. I find the whole discussion of whether QC would become an economic hellhole, and how much its GDP will be affected, a little bit of a distraction. I don't think that's the point. QC would not become a hellhole, and its GDP would still be counted amongst the "developed" western countries, which doesn't say much given how the economies of some EU countries are doing.

      The question here is: what will QC be like out of Canada, vs. in it. Even it QC wouldn't become a hellhole, does it stand to lose or gain from pulling out. The reason why separatists can't convince enough of their own people to vote Yes means that there is something in the separatist offer that Quebeckers aren't buying. And there are a few things, small and larger, some related to the economy, some not. The main one is that despite the fact that QC will not turn into another Haiti, the standard of living is bound to go down, especially in the initial phases (Marois's own admission). Are Quebeckers ready for this dip, even if it doesn't spell out an apocalypse? Some may be, but many are not.

      Delete
    5. These numbers on GDP and the like don’t mean shit to me. I consider country to be more than transfer payments!
      If you and others in the RoC want numbers, try these on for size:

      80% of people in this province are French.
      Of this 80%, about 40% of them are bilingual.
      Of those bilingual people nearly 98% consider themselves Canadian!
      Of the 60% who are unilingual, 35% of them do not want separation.
      The remaining 20% of people in this province are Anglo and Aloe and nearly all consider themselves Canadian.

      Studies and straw polls that have been done on the possible Thirteenth Province Of Montreal have had more than 85% of Montréal agreeing and about 70% of the Montreal surrounding areas agreeing too. This means that a new Montreal Province would likely be the second most populated Canadian Province followed by British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec.

      An additional interesting discovery suggests that the remaining Province Of Quebec would still not vote for separation even if Canada was stupid enough to allow a vote, and even if that vote ignored the ClarityAct to employ UncleThom’s NDPQ 50%+1 formula!

      Conclusion: The racists are few!

      To the intellectually lazy Canadians who say they love Our Country but are willing to lose more than 15% of its territory to the racists, we say Stop whining and lend a hand by separating the Separatists from the rest of us.
      We’d rather see Canada’s map as it stands today, but gerrymandering it is a real and doable possibility!

      Delete
    6. "Canada is, in fact, legally a bilingual country where French services are provided from coast to coast (according to the numbers, of course)."

      Calling Canada a bilingual country is an outright lie to the rest of the world.

      French Spoken in the Household (a true measure)

      BC 0.4%
      AB 0.7%
      SK 0.4%
      MB 1.2%
      ON 2.5%
      QC 81%
      NB 29%
      PEI 2.1%

      NS 2.0%
      NL 0.1%

      Obviously outside of Quebec and to some extent NB Canada is NOT a bilingual country. You can put lipstick on a pig but it doesnt change the fact that it is still a pig.

      "See, your problem is that you are looking for cheap digs against Quebec because you've already made up your mind that you hate it."

      Well, I am just listing the facts of the situation as an argument for why Canada would be a better country without Quebec. And in fact, in the converse that Quebec might be a better country without being part of Canada. Thats all. But, your right, I view Quebec with very jaded glasses for a number of reasons. Quebec has been a perenniel pain in the ass to the ROC for many decades. Due to Quebec we have the French language forced down our throats in areas where this is absolutely no need (see the figures I quoted above). We are forced to spend tax dollars on programs such as the OLA which is rumored to have cost us well over 300 Billion dollars since its inception in 1969. Why, to appease Quebec....Trudeau's great legacy. Quebec, in short, is a very expensive date. Quebec is guaranteed 3 supreme court justices when in fact the population is about 22% of Canada...clear overrepresentation.

      Quebec is guaranteed a minimum number of seats in parliament. Another case of special entilements.

      The crook Mulroney (another Quebecer) tried to give Quebec a special veto power with the Meech Lake Accord. Thanks Christ for Clyde Wells and Elijah Harper who put an end to this deal which was bad for all of Canada.

      Then, look at farm subsidie where Quebec is guaranteed over 50%.

      Then, look at Hydro where Quebec Hydro sells its domestic consumption at well below market prices in order to ensure the continued flow of free money via equalization. Neat little trick that Manitoba has picked up on !!

      In short, Canada has been blackmailed by Quebec (politicians using the seppie threat card) for many years.

      You wonder why people in the ROC have a problem with Quebec.!!!!!

      "Because I'm neither. Another lazy assumption from you."

      I really dont give a rats ass who or what you are. I do, however, seem to remember that you are from NB and not QC.

      Delete
    7. Anon 12:02

      We've all eaten plenty of blackmail crap for so long that we've forgotten what Canada really means. Look at the numbers I posted above and tell me you agree to give those racists a landmass greater than France, Germany and Spain combined. Remember that if you do, partitioning a foreign country is very messy!!

      Delete
    8. It may be for the better. For more information on this....Reed Scowen, Time to Say Goodbye, Building a Stronger Canada without Quebec. Highly informative. I would rather have a harmonious country where there is cooperation between the various reasons rather than a country with one of the elements blackmailing and/or taking a free ride from the other elements. I would think any partitions would be done prior to a final separation..This would be part of the bargaining process. I am sure the First Nations would have something to say about the Cree Lands in Quebec. Recall during the last referendum in 1995 that the First Nations pretty much told good old Parizeau to "take a hike". I am also doubtful that Labrador would be ceded back to Quebec as NL would have something to say about that. The 15% you speak of would wither down considerably. I think it is possible that Montreal or at least West Island and the Outaouis would chose to stay in Canada.

      You see, I am not looking at giving anything up. Sometimes you give something up for the better and I firmly believe that Canada would be a much stronger country and more harmonious without the negative influence of Quebec.

      Sorry, just the way I see it.

      Delete
    9. On the subject of Parizeau. Je me souviens... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAlzJnaETg0

      I mean when you listen to what Uncle Jacques has to say about "those people" and S.R. applauding the RAMQ for its French-only stance, you can clearly see why the separatist movement can't gather more steam.

      The sovereignist movement cannot go calling itself a collective of "disenfranchised, oppressed" people with this kind of deplorable contempt for others.

      Delete
    10. "Calling Canada a bilingual country is an outright lie to the rest of the world"

      Canada is officially bilingual, which pertains to the availability of services, not high rate of personal bilingualism. For instance, Switzerland has four official languages: German, French, Italian and Romanche roughly in that order of importance. All the languages are equal so far as the federal government is concerned (except perhaps for Romanche). Of course, languages are rigidely defined in Switzerland : schooling in a certain language is only available within cantons of that particular language, and the populations are very segregated with only a very few truly bilingual cities. German minorities in French areas (and all other possibile permutations) vary between 5-10%, only slightly higher than in Canada for a country half the size of New-Brunswick. (source.) Unfortunately the swiss don't seem to ask their citizens the simple question "which languages are you fluent in", so I have no numbers for personal bilingualism/multilingualism.

      What I'm trying to say, is that Canada is as "bilingual" as countries with multiple official languages are. Your definition of what it means for a country to be "bilingual" is so restrictive as to be completely irrelevant as a descriptor. "Bilingual" countries are countries with Canada who provide services in more than one language, as opposed to countries like France, Germany or America who mainly provide unilingual services.

      "Quebec is guaranteed a minimum number of seats in parliament. Another case of special entilements."

      Many provinces are guaranteed a minimum number of seats in parliament - the most offending of them being PEI with a staggering 4 seats when their population only requires one or two.

      You see, there are many rules about the number of seats that were made up back in the day when small provinces had to decide whether or not to join Canada, and give up their sovereignty. To reassure them, a number of rules were introduced over the years - for instance, PEI is stuck at 4 because a province can't have fewer seats than it has senators. The rules are all clearly laid out in this wonderful page. As you'll see, there is no "buyout Quebec" rule.

      The closest you'll find is that Quebec used to be the basis on which seat totals were calculated, in that provinces received a number of seats in proportion to Quebec's population. Then, later, there was a "no one can lose seats" rule introduced in the 70's, then later on a "provinces can lose seats, but can have no fewer than they had when the no one can lose seats rule was introduced." No rules special for Quebec though.

      "I really dont give a rats ass who or what you are."

      I'm not accusing you of caring. I'm accusing you of being wrong. Just stop saying things that are objectively untrue, and I won't point them out.

      Delete
    11. Woops- the electoral seat formula reference is here.

      Delete
    12. Calling Canada a bilingual country is an outright lie to the rest of the world
      Canada is structurally a bilingual country

      Not a bilingual population

      doubtful that Labrador would be ceded back to Quebec
      Highly doubtful !
      A separated Quebec would be smaller than the current province

      Delete
    13. "First Nations would have something to say about the Cree Lands in Quebec"

      Ils sont encore en train de se faire escroquer mais cette fois-ci,par nul autre que John James Charest.Tout le monde les a exploiter,pourquoi pas les Péquistes ?

      Delete
    14. On Harper..not likely as he is just another dickhead policitian who will try and obtain votes in Quebec with Western Dollars ( say it ain't so).
      That'd be silly. He's as much as demonstrated he doesn't need Quebec to win. Sure it'd be nice, but the demographic power dynamic is more in his favor than it is in, say, the separatists'.

      You live there, are a resident of Quebec and have before illustrated your inclusiveness with the Quebec state and Quebecois in general. You are part of the problem!!!
      By the way, I'm not a fan of our nationalist Quebec government, but it's the only provincial government I've got and the brainwashed nationalists are going to continue living here whether I agree with them or not. More broadly, is it wrong to wish to be an integral part of the society I live in? I think I do a pretty good job integrating Montreal as both a part of Quebec and Canada. What would be hypocritical is if I didn't believe it necessary remind the separatists that they owe it to themselves to remember that they too live in Canada. I'm actually quite consistent in my doctrine. You, on the other hand, seem to think inclusiveness is a bad thing...


      Connecting with the other solitude.
      Oh, please. What for? So we can understand the strange language on the other side of our cereal boxes that we pay dearly for.

      The cereal box might well be where the understanding begins but clearly not where I think it should end.

      Territorial continuity....well, I am sure that can be worked out. We will allow you to fly over our territory provided we have a highway through Quebec with limited access ... And forget us paying for you damned bridge thats falling down. We'll build our own without Quebec help and maybe it might last a couple of decades
      Are you sounding like a boorish moron in an attempt to entertain yourself or to entertain me? If it's the latter, you've failed miserably. If it's the former, you need to realize that unilateral impositions don't work well unless you crush ALL resistance. And since English Canadians have clearly demonstrated they are either unwilling or unable to crush all French Canadians until we say "oncle", negotiations and reciprocality are the way to go.

      Delete
    15. No economic/population transfer...I doubt that with separation there would be a plethora of business or people wanting to relocate to Quebec. Me thinks the transfer would be out of Quebec.
      That's exactly my point. Do you think Canada can absorb, handle, and integrate up to four million federalist refugees following a YES vote? How about even a quarter of that?

      Economic integration....you must mean more transfer payments to fund your gold plated social programs you can't afford on your own
      I was actually thinking about how Pierre-Karl Péladeau, son of perhaps one of the most iconic separatists of the last half-century, sits at the top of an organization chart that includes Videotron, Quebecor, AND Sun News. Or conversely how Ted Rogers' company has penetrated the Quebec market in the last two and decades or so.

      As I said, Canada would be much better off if Quebec would go it on their own and leave the rest of us in peace. We will be fine without poutine.
      I've had what passes for poutine in English Canada. Fortunately, I don't have it often. If I did, perhaps it'd infuriate me to the point of turning me into a separatist.

      Your a federalist because you like the gravy on your poutine courtesay of others, just as all the Quebecois. Thats all.
      I'm a federalist because I don't have the identity insecurities, fears, and hangups that most Quebec nationalists are inculcated from childhood onward. I'm a federalist because I believe "from sea to sea" shouldn't just be an inane motto on our coat of arms, but a state of mind we ALL live in as Canadians, with all the benefits and responsibilities it entails. Lastly, I'm a federlist because I believe that if we put aside our respective pettinesses that this could actually be a great country.

      I don't want or need you to pay for my gravy or even for the entire poutine, and for the record, I'm sick of paying more taxes to Quebec City than I do to Ottawa, so don't act like you're doing me a favor specifically. I already said I'm grateful to Alberta's share of our transfer payments, but I don't personally feel we need the generous social programs we implement with other peoples' money when those same other people WITH money know they can't afford them themselves.

      Delete
  18. For service in English, please take this language test

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/service+English+please+take+this+language+test/6977148/story.html

    Enfin!Les autres ministères devraient suivre l'exemple...À suivre

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. S.R., si en Ontario ils te faisaient passer un test d'anglais avant de t'offrir les services en Français, t'en penserais quoi?

      J'oublie : jamais tu ne quitterais ta patrie pour ce pays étranger qu'est le Canada. Mea culpa. Nous autres francophones hors-Québec, on peut aller valser.

      Delete
    2. S.R,

      BANG! Et... re-BANG!!

      Now how do you like it? :-D

      Delete
    3. I sincerely hope that one day S.R. finds himself in a situation where his HEALTH is on the line and no one wants to help him because he doesn't speak the language they feel like speaking.

      To all separatist readers: You reap what you sow and you always get what you deserve in the end.

      You want to treat a segment of your population like farm animals? You might want to read this book before continuing on with that kind of behavior: http://amzn.to/MVQvfP

      Delete
    4. I only removed my last comment not because of anything offensive, but because I figured out how to post the smaller Amazon link that Harvey posted.

      Harvey, I think this is the book you want S.P. to read:

      http://amzn.to/MPjh3D

      Delete
    5. "S.R., si en Ontario ils te faisaient passer un test d'anglais avant de t'offrir les services en Français, t'en penserais quoi?"

      Quand je visite le canada ,je passe à l'anglais automatiquement.

      Delete
    6. Dommage; à ta place je ne le ferais que lorsqu'il est clair que mon interlocuteur n'arrive pas à communiquer avec moi. Et oui, il y en a des francophones dans le RoC.

      Delete
  19. C'est toujours difficile, frustrant, voire pénible, avoir un rêve qu'on sache est bien pour le monde, pour la société en général, mais un rêve que tout le monde ne partagent pas.

    Je ne déteste pas les séparatistes qui ont peur de l'assimilation; en tant que minoritaire, je comprends la peur de n'être plus. Je ne partage pas leur rêve, mais j'aime leur façon de s'acharner pour ce qu'ils songent.

    Moi, je partage ce rêve de Apparatchik, d'un Canada ou les anglais s'intéressent apprendre le français et vice versa. Probablement il ne sera jamais, parce que les anglos ont eu trop des francos et les francos en ont marre des anglos, etc, même si c'est de l'histoire passé.

    Je ne comprend pas pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral n'aide pas les anglos qui veulent apprendre le français. Investissons en nous, c'est mon avis.

    Je ne suis même pas parfaitement bilingue, mais je sais bien comment ma vie s'est amélioré depuis que je me suis mis aux études. Je regretterai toujours que je ne suis pas né dans un environnement bilingue, que je ne serai jamais aussi talentueux que Apparatchik ou Yannick ou le Chat ou Harvey Dent, etc, en ce que je considere comme mes deux propres langues.

    A propos de Trudeau et le nationalisme, je suis d'accord (quelle surprise) avec Apparatchik. A la guerre comme a la guerre. Trudeau n'était pas un "nationaliste canadien", je ne le crois pas. C'était plutôt un anti-nationaliste qui voudrais sauver le Québec du nationalisme.

    Le "nationalisme canadien" n'est pas un nationalisme. C'était Laurier qui a dit, "Le nationalité des canadiens est la liberté". On n'a pas un nationalité, seulement un citoyenneté.

    Moi, j'aime ça, je préfere ça.

    Les nationalismes, ce sont pour le Vieux Monde, en l'Europe et l'Asie.

    C'est vrai que je suis contre le nationalisme au Québec…. mais seulement autant que je me mets en différend avec le nationalisme au Canada. Tous ces unifolies ou fleurs-de-lis sur les chemise, les balcons, etc… Ça nous donne quoi, exactement?

    Les drapeaux sont faux, les "pays" sont faux, et il y a seulement une nation, la nation humaine.

    J'ai aimé Montréal mais enfin je prefere habiter a Toronto parce que c'est la qu'on peut trouver quelquechose plus proche a l'idée d'une "nation humaine", avec tous les gens et toutes les langues des quatres coins de notre petit monde.

    Je voudrais que le Toronto actuel soit a Montréal, mais c'est pas le cas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tu as une très belle plume, JBG. N'hésite pas à me contacter si tu as besoin d'aide avec ton anglais - it'll be my pleasure to help you.

      Delete
    2. "Je ne comprend pas pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral n'aide pas les anglos qui veulent apprendre le français. Investissons en nous, c'est mon avis."

      They do...Its called the Official Language Act. French Immersion programs available in every province and city in the ROC. Federal Government workers sent to French Immersion traiing at full pay (and that of replacement workers) They spend about 2.5 Billion per year on bilingualism. Most of this (90%) going to French programs. Check out the Office of the Language Commissioner.

      I could have responded in French but it is not good and Appartchik takes offence to my repeated grammar mistakes.

      Delete
    3. Tu vois, JBG, tu es tellement bon en Français que Harvey Dent a cru que tu avais des problèmes en anglais. :)

      J'admire ton ouverture d'esprit sur le monde, JBG. Si seulement il y en avait plus comme toi!

      Delete
  20. "Chiffre surprenant : selon le sondage Repère, 49 % des Québécois voterait «Oui» lors d’un référendum sur la souveraineté assortie d’une offre de partenariat économique et politique avec le reste du Canada."

    http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2012/07/26/le-pq-aurait-pris-la-tete-des-intentions-de-vote

    And I have to ask. What would the support for the Oui be if there were no "partnership" agreement on the table with the rest of Canada? Was that question asked to the sample with results unreported, or was the question not even asked?

    How am I supposed to take this thing seriously if every attempt at QC separation is accompanied with an insinuation of some "partnership" with the very country the separatists can't stand and are trying to leave?

    The question I have to ask is this: do the separatists want to separate or not? I really have a hard time deciding what it is that they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adski - it seems obvious to me that their answer whether or not to leave depends heavily on what kind of deal they think they can negotiate with Canada. If Canada tells them "we'll screw you so bad", then they'll say no. If Canada deals them a fair hand, then more say yes.

      Note that the federalists are guilty of the same thing when they say that counties who vote no should remain in Canada in the case of a successful referendum - they want an outcome that would not be the result of the question being asked. If you ask separatists whether or not they want Quebec to separate from Canada, even if it means losing huge chunks of the province in the process, I have no doubt that you'll find many who will vote "no". But of course this is how democracy works - when there was a referendum on Conscription or the Lake Meech Accord, it was not only the parts of the country that voted yes that implemented it.

      I believe this is the reason why Lésvesque went to the Referendum with the question "Do you give the government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate with Canada" and promised a second referendum to be had once the details were ironed out rather than a "Do you want Quebec to be independent" - a detail for which he has been endlessly lambasted. It's true that many thought that the "mandate to negociate" was a sham, that he would just follow with a unilateral declaration of independence. It just makes much more sense to me to do it that way, though - you ask the people "do you trust me to negociate with Ottawa", then you ask them again "Here's the deal that was negociated - are you for it" than simply straight-out voting on independence.

      Delete
    2. "it seems obvious to me that their answer whether or not to leave depends heavily on what kind of deal they think they can negotiate with Canada"

      My point is that it isn't obvious. You want to secede, but you also count on fair (or maybe even preferential) treatment from a neighboring country, that on top of it all, you just pissed off.

      In international relations, and QC separatists should know this, there are no friendships, there are only interests. You get favors as a province, not so much as a distinct country.

      The absurdity of this is the following: QC will only secede if Canada agrees to favorable (or any) relations, but it won't secede if Canada doesn't agree to any terms. That way, you're only making the decision dependent on Canada, but it should be your decision.

      What is at stake for Canada to make any offers? The threat that you secede? But your threat is contingent on the offer...See the utter absurdity in this?

      I'm not sure why you're bringing up the 1980 referendum, since that was a perfect example of this absurdity. Levesque's second question was to be posed after "details have been ironed out". What if Canada refused to iron out anything? You would then separate? But wait, your separation depends on those details...

      Delete
    3. What is at stake for Canada to make any offers? Nothing, really, just the amicable separation of two countries and continued good relations. If the Czechs and Slovaks could do it, I really don't see why the Canadians are incapable of it.

      Delete
    4. What do you mean a separation of 2 countries? You said that this separation depends on the offer made by Canada, and that "obviously" Quebeckers would like an offer before voting Yes. But we're talking about a scenario where no offer is forthcoming, in which case QC separatists would have to ask a question without mentioning any offers, which they don't want to do.

      Are you saying that when no offer is put on the table by Canada, QC is going to go with a unilateral declaration, or with a referendum question that says: "Do you want Quebec to become independent, keeping in mind that Canada did not commit to anything towards us"?

      It can only be these two solutions, but my understanding is that QC separatists don't like any of the two.

      Is it one of the two? How else would you proceed with this "amicable" separation? You can be honest. There is nothing wrong with either one of the two, except of the fact that it will be hard to get international recognition with the first option, and a Yes with the second option.

      Delete
    5. Who knows? I don't think the seperatists have it figured out, let alone me who's trying to understand them from the outside. I'm sure many of the most frustrated are completely indifferent to any Canadian "offers", but I know they'll never convince the ones on the fence to seperate unless they're confident that their economy won't topple over or that Montreal and half the Province won't be yoinked from under their feet. One has to wonder what we think we're proving by keeping Quebec in Canada through economic blackmail, however.

      Which pretty much means that it won't ever happen. Who knows, maybe some future Alberta PM will unilaterally offer Quebec a deal out of the country to save himself the equalization payments?

      Delete
    6. I'm not sure again why you bring up the 1995 breakup of Czechoslovakia into 2 states (you seem to like to muddy the waters). In that case, the 2 governments didn't mind separating, so they sat down and talked it over. In this case, the federal government does mind (I wish it didn't). I guess it has to do with territorial integrity or with a possible secession of other provinces, which the Ottawa establishment obviously doesn't want as it goes directly against their personal interests (they would have to work for the Americans maybe).

      So you're dealing with a (federal) govt that is hostile to your attempts, unlike the govt in Prague in 1995. The federal govt, in the 1997 act, outlined a road map - a province gets a yes, and THEN we sit down. You want to reverse it - first we sit down, then we get a Yes. So you forget that the other side wants it in a reverse order to yours.

      Your only 2 options seem to be: a unilateral declaration, or 2. a question not propped up with any mentions of Canada.

      Waiting for an offer is a recipe for a never ending process. But maybe that's the point.

      Delete
    7. I bring up the 1995 breakup of Czechoslovakia as an example that countries don't necessarily need to have a "negotiation advantage" to negotiate a secession. They could just sit down and decide on it, in accordance with the right of self-determination of nations following a clear majority deciding to pursue independence.

      There's also third option - you ask two questions : a question in order to sit down, then the negotiations (as per clarity act), then a second question to seal the deal.

      Or you could, as per 1995, decide what you want from Canada, ask your question based on that, and only separate if Canada's willing to give it to you. Of course then, the problem is like you said : Ottawa ha no particular inclination, desire, incentive, reason to give what the separatists want. All it'd have to do is refuse, forcing the seppies into either a unilateral declaration without it being the will of the populace, or go through a second referendum.

      I guess they could always ask both questions at once to save time.

      Delete
    8. If Canada deals them a fair hand, then more say yes.
      Canada's dealt them a fair hand many times already

      the amicable separation
      Won't happen.
      A century after separation, maybe things would grow amicable.
      There's no winning option for Quebeckers vis-a-vis Canada in a separation scenario.
      Why would Canada play nice with people who have launched it into a full-blown economic and political crisis?

      Delete
    9. Yannick,

      I have brought this point over and over again in this blog and up to today nobody - who claims to be pro-separation - answers me. The last time I discussed this with Michel Patrice but he just gave me a runaround without actually answering.

      This is the text of Quebec referendum 1980:

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

      This is the text of Quebec referendum 1995:

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

      This is the text of East Timor referendum 1999 for its independence from Indonesia:

      1. Do you accept the proposed special autonomy for East Timor within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia?
      2. Do you reject the proposed special autonomy for East Timor, leading to East Timor's separation from Indonesia?


      This is the text of South Sudan referendum 2011 for its independence from Sudan:
      Separation
      Unity


      Now, what is the purpose of Quebec referenda actually? Independence? No. Not in the question. Separation? Also no. Not in the question. Sovereignty? Maybe, but after a series of proposal and negotiation, and even then it is a "should", not a "will".

      So, are the referenda for independence or not? If yes, why do they not just ask for it? Just ask if the population wants to be independent, to separate from Canada, to be a sovereign entity, or not. Why not? Why gave the population convoluted questions without resolve?

      Delete
    10. "There's also third option - you ask two questions : a question in order to sit down, then the negotiations (as per clarity act), then a second question to seal the deal."

      That would contradict the federal policy of 1997 - first a referendum, then negotiations.

      You seem to think that if majority of Quebeckers voted Yes on a question like: "Should Canada sit and negotiate with us", that would be binding for the govt of Canada. Except that it wouldn't.

      Suppose NFLD voted Yes on a question: "Should the govt of QC sit down and negotiate with us on letting us cut in on their hydro power deal". Would QC be obliged to sit down, if it came down to a Yes? Of course it wouldn't.

      Some Quebeckers have this preposterous idea that whatever they decide is somehow binding to others. But it isn't. not everything a group of people decides has to be binding for another group of people.

      Delete
    11. But you would have your referendum. I'm confused.

      Delete
    12. Troy,

      Could find and post the link to our last discussion about the questions?

      And if you want to, you could tell what is it that you wanted to know and that I did not asnwer to.

      (I will not be back until later tonight (or tomorrow morning)).

      Delete
    13. Michel Patrice,

      With the search function this blog has, I am not going to wade through my posts to look for it. If that means my statement was wrong, then I apologize, let us start new.

      The question is in the last paragraph.

      Your habit of telling people that you will not be back until whenever is getting tiresome and appears to be self centered. Reply if you want to reply, do not reply if you do not want to. Nobody needs to know - and frankly nobody cares - about your personal schedule.

      Delete
    14. If your child was a very good gymnast, would you let her walk along the edge of a high-rise?

      Continuing to discuss separation referendums just legitimizes a process designed to be a black mail ploy. To begin with we’ve never had a separation referendum. As explained eloquently by Adski, Troy and Yannick, both REFERendums did not REFER to separation. It has been nothing but trickery of the most disgusting kind!
      I don’t know why Canada plays Racist Roulette with our wellbeing, but I can say that it’s a dangerous game.

      A while ago Adski asked me what was the agreement signed on June 12, 1995 mentioned in the 1995 referendum question and I answered thusly.


      Adski,

      You asked if the agreement of June 12, 1995 was a document that you could inspect. This is more than the unsuspecting French Canadians who were almost ripped from their country did

      This does demonstrate how our politicians played Russian Roulette with our lives. When I say that it’s disgusting to think there would not have been a civil war over such deception had they stole just a few more votes, I think you can see how that could have happened.
      After the vote, the separatist leaning Marketing company Leger and Leger carefully framed a survey question to yes voters and still discovered that of those who voted yes, 32+% of them believed that there would not have been a separation if the yes won.

      Can you imagine what French Canadians would have done if they found out how we were wronged? It’s no wonder the office of Lucien Bouchard sent personalized letters to soldiers of French descent to defect from Canada and join the new Quebec “army”.

      Despite the many terrible insults shared by all of us on this site, I believe few of us on either side could accept, “winning” in such a deceptive way.

      You may wonder why some people on this site seam more wounded by the separatist’s racism than others. Well it is because we understand the damage of that racism more. We are not bothered by the competition of two languages in a bilingual country or by immigrants coming here to find a better life and to help make our lives better. BUT, to be trumped by our leaders who played a game where a peaceful society would end up in such a disgusting way? And to add to it that it was the ethnic vote and even repeat it by singling out The Greeks The Italians and The Jews?
      What kind of violence inciting leaders are these?

      Quebec separation must never happen because the basis for the movement still remains jealousy, racism and revenge by a hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long!


      I think you can see by my zeal, that I have never been more disgusted, offended. Or disheartened over anything as I have been over this crime.

      The agreement signed on June 12, 1995 was signed by three separatists, Jacques Parizeau, Mario Dumont and Lucien Bouchard and it is unconstitutional!! 
They dared include it in the divisive referendum question as though it was an agreement between Ottawa and Quebec City.

      Disgusting to think there would not have been a civil war over such deception had they stole just a few more votes.

      Remember?

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




      Keep playing RacistRoulette and our head will get blown off!

      Delete
    15. PS

      Yannick, somewhere in this post you said:

      [Well there was that wonderful comment in which me and Patrice were said to be like Hans Landa, the creepy, polite, intelligent, forked-tounged Nazi antagonist in Inglorious Basterds. That was not particularly respectful.]

      First, Yannick, I don’t recall calling you Hans Landa although I took great offence to your barrage of suspicious questions on my DISGUSTING experience in the Québécois Separatist Factory “schools”. If you remember we were to pick up the conversation at a later date.

      Second, as far as Patrice is concerned, I couldn’t give a crap how “not particularly respectful” you or he thinks I was or am. If there was a more effective way to have people see how revolting his treasonous stance toward Our Country is. I’d use it,
      Hans Landa fits and the Lieutenant Aldo Raines warns us of that kind of evil. Go on his sight and tell us he’s not a creepy, polite, intelligent, forked-tongue racist!!

      Third, try not to put yourself in the same camp as Patrice or you’ll find yourself defending that other creepy, polite, intelligent, forked-tongued neoTerroeist, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois who has his twitter followers go to videos staging the assassination of Premier Chares.

      Delete
    16. @Troy : I think it's rather obvious that the separatists did not pose a direct, "Do you want Quebec to be an independent country" question because they didn't think such a question would win.

      I think it's a bit understandable, though; if I was a separatist, I might get cold feet too after hearing all that talk of partition, or losing my pension, or whatever.

      @GensDenis : I still want to hear of your experience in the separatist schools with great interest. I wasn't trying to be suspicious then, I wanted you to talk about it in more detail. I like details. :)

      Personally I think Michel Patrice is a cool guy, despite our differences in opinions. I think it's important to be able to look past people's differences and respect them as people. I also don't believe in guilt by association. It's not like he advocates putting everyone but the pur-laines in camps or whatever, his real views are not the same as those given to him by people who are angry about separatism.

      Delete
    17. Je ne comprend toujours pas que les anglos aient si peur de vivre dans le pays du Québec car il est clair que nous leur réservons une place de choix.Des conditions nettement améliorées les attendent dans leur nouveau pays.

      Delete
    18. Bien sûr, S.R., vous les faites se sentir tellement la bienvenue...

      Delete
    19. Wtf kind of independence movement waters itself down like that because they are “scared to lose their pensions“? Its like they are saying “lets get a divorce but I can come over and fuck you anytime I please but only I will get to enjoy it.“

      Delete
    20. @ S.R,
      I am not an Anglo, but the fact that you identify them in your NewQuebec is proof enough that your movement is xenophobic!

      @ Yannick, I want you to go on the Patrice site, and tell us if you see any Canadian welcoming ideology. Once you see his true self, you may well say that Lieutenant Aldo Raines is "correcto"...

      Delete
  21. Correct, "officially bilingual" but far from that in any practical sense as the figures clearly indicate. Why not drop this expensive Charade that has cost us 100's of billions of dollars. It clearly only benefits largely one province and perhaps one more. For the rest, its a complete non issue and wast of time and effort. In fact, the hiring policies of the federal governmet favor one particular region in Canada and we both know what one that is. For the rest, who by geography, have not been exposed to two languages the bilingual quotas are nothing more than discrimination against the majority of the Country, as a whole. Of course , you could give a shit less for something that makes sense economically so long as your French language is protected, at the expense of the non French majority. Isn't that the case Yannie.

    Policticans and bureacrats are busy in self protection mode by adding more seats to both the ROC and Quebec. What they should be doing is re-assigning seats to reflect the demographics of a province or region. Adding seats simply runs up the tax bill.

    Q & A

    Does Quebec receive the largest equalization payments of any province at nearly 60% of the pot for 22% of the population. Y or N

    Does Quebec artificially sell energy at reduced rates to residents (subsidy) to keep income levels low to keep equalization monies flowing? Y or N

    Has Quebec every contributed to the country through providing money for have not provinces since the progam was introduced. ? Y or N

    Do you agree that the Macleans article by Martin P. regarding corruption in Quebec was correct and the allegations well grounded? Y or N

    Is there any other region or province in Canada that has language laws restricting signage or education. Y or N (well actually they are now demanding bilingual signage in Dieppe, NS and Russel Embrum, ON)

    Does the Quebecois have a deep distrust and dislike for the anglo population in the ROC..Y or N

    Does Quebec enjoy better social programs (eg tuition rates post secondary, subsidized day care) than the have province who are contributing the 8.5 Billion to the same Quebec revenue (13% of Quebec budget is equalization payments and other subsidies)? Y or N

    Answer the above please.

    Merci et avoir une jour plus agreable. ( I get the gender right on jour..likely not but I really dont give a fuck)

    ReplyDelete