Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Pauline Marois Making Lemonade from Lemons

Pauline Marois, Quebec's most dangerous Premier.
It's a political reality that elected officials need to project an aura of calm control, even in the face of bad news.
Depending on the situation, politicians uphold that truism by sometimes telling the truth, sometimes spinning or colouring the truth and more rarely, ignoring the truth and outright lying.

It's part of the game based on three incontrovertible political truths, the first that voters are generally not too bright, secondly, that partisan supporters of any particular political party will accept just about any nonsense spouted by their leader and thirdly, that the press is uncomfortable in calling out politicians as liars, as it may lead, more often than not, to the reporter losing access, something that will affect his or her ability to make a living.

Let me offer a couple of examples that illustrate the above.

Telling the truth.
This is the easiest concept to understand and when the truth lines up with what a politician's and political party's agenda, than truth it is. Unfortunately, it's rare.

Preaching to the converted
When Pauline Marois and the Parti Quebecois tell the faithful that they are working towards sovereignty, despite the fact that support for the option is practically at its nadir, they are providing a false and cynical view that only the faithful buy.  But buy it the faithful do, and keeping the party base satisfied is rule number one in politics.
So Pauline has now decided to spend waste $15 million on a new government department whose task is to promote an option that is a strictly no-go.

Lying
When an elected official is positively sure that a lie cannot be discovered and that the lie is more convenient than the truth, then lie it is.

My favourite possible examples are these two. I say possible, because nobody can disprove the stories, regardless of how implausible and unrealistic, therein lies the beauty.

Back before the last provincial election, Pierre Duchesne told the press that he never had a conversation about becoming a PQ candidate while working as a reporter for Radio-Canada.
According to him, he quit his job as the network's chief correspondent at the legislature in Quebec after 25 years without any prospects.
Both he and Pauline swore up and down that there were no conversations about a PQ offer to run, yet another potential PQ candidate, who asked for a chance to run in the riding that Duschene now represents, told reporters that she was told months before the announcement that it was reserved for a star candidate from Radio-CanadaHmmmm....

And then there is poor Olivia Chow, I cannot help but remember her impassioned defence of her husband, Jack Layton, when she sucked it up and said this;
"Sixteen years ago, my husband went for a massage at a massage clinic that is registered with the City of Toronto," Chow wrote. "He exercises regularly; he was and remains in great shape; and he needed a massage."
Of course, the massage therapist wasn't exactly licensed, she was a young Chinese immigrant who police said they observed throwing a wet Kleenex in the trash bin while a naked Layton was confronted by police in the washy-washy. Yuch! Read the hilarious story and denial

Years later, after the death of her husband, in an interview with Peter Mansbridge, Chow insisted that Layton didn't want to reveal the type of cancer he had  in order to give others, similarly afflicted, hope. LINK
Really? Did Chow expect us to believe that drivel?
A more likely suggestion was that Layton lied by omission about the extent of cancer before and during his last federal election and Chow was protecting his legacy.
But in Chow's defence, we all know that dead men tell no tales.

The 'Perfect Storm' that combines every element of political dishonesty.
When Thomas Mulcair proposed that the high Canadian dollar caused by the Alberta oil boom is hurting the economy by attriting manufacturing jobs, he hit on a perfect issue.
Too bad it wasn't true.
This so-called 'Dutch Disease' played well to the faithful, especially in Quebec where the concept of job disappearance caused by Alberta's boom economy was music to the ears of separatists and leftists.
"Yet another study has found that a Canadian dollar boosted by high oil prices isn't a big factor in manufacturing declines, but NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair isn't buying it." Link
The fact that the theory is outdated and discredited doesn't faze Mulcair at all, who continues to defend the concept, because well, those who support the NDP, so want it to be true.
Thomas Mulcair is the consummate political operator, where spinning the truth, deluding the deluded and defending the undefendable is not only possible but probable, when voters are cynically told what they want to hear, irrespective of the truth.

At any rate, all of the above negative political traits apply to Pauline Marois to a degree that I have never in my life witnessed in any Canadian politician.
When it comes to Quebec's Premier, obfuscation, misdirection and outright prevarication are practices that she has raised to an art form and in this respect she is a cut above any politician I have ever followed, even Mulcair.

Now before I am accused of launching a partisan screed against separatists, the above description does not apply to any of the previous PQ leaders, even Bernard Landry, who while a dedicated and committed separatist was never any guiltier than the average Canadian politician when it comes to political honesty. As for the rest of the PQ leaders, none can compare to Pauline, who is the darkest, most dishonest and treacherous Quebecois political leader in my memory.

I remember being told, by a highly placed source in the real estate industry, that after shaking the hand of Pauline's husband, Claude Blanchet, one would be advised to count your fingers. 
How Marois dared complain about Charest's 'secret' salary (which was altogether legal) in light of the dubious circumstances by which she and her husband managed to get the agricultural land on which they were to build their famous chateau, re-zoned, is a story that reeks of sliminess.
The PQ government of the day, of which she was then a member, approved the unlikely re-zoning making the couple instant millionaires.
Let us not forget the circumstances by which Blanchet was named the head of a government investment agency.
"In 1997, in contrast to 20 rules, the PQ cabinet, instead of the elected Board of Directorsappointed the husband of Pauline Marois (then Finance Minister) as Chairman of Société Générale de Financement, a bizarre resemblance to Elvis Gratton. It's was Marois herself that established his contract and his salary,  contrary to the rule that specifies that this must be done by the elected Board of Directors.  Link{fr}
Blanchet, by the way, led this agency, the SGF, to over $500 million in losses. When he was pushed out of the job, Pauline got him a lifetime pension of $90K. Link{fr}
After all this, with a straight face, she gallingly dares call the Liberal Party corrupt!

Aside from her dubious personal ethics, in all the years I've watched politicians, none have so cynically mislead the public and in fact her own political party as does Pauline Marois on a daily basis.

In the face of a deteriorating economy, crumbling infrastructure, rampant corruption, a failing health system and deficit spending that will soon have the province facing a crisis, Pauline chooses to offer an alternate view of reality, one where every failing is a golden opportunity and like Eric Idle, in Monty Python's The Life of Brian, Pauline has her minions looking on the bright side of life, singing an unrealistic song of fantasy and self-deception.



For Pauline making lemonade out of lemons has become an exercise in spin, misdirection, deception and outright prevarication, elevated to the nth degree.
While attending the economic summit in Davos, Switzerland, she unloaded this beauty concerning Quebec's growing electricity surplus, a statement that nobody, but nobody in the mainstream press, called her out on.
"We have surpluses at the moment," Marois said. "I don't  see that as being negatives. These surpluses are available to attract investment to Quebec. And I think that's a comparative advantage we have to use." Link
 "Whaaat???"
That's like saying having cancer is a good thing because it allows you to try out all the new treatments and remedies available!
Electricity, like airline seats is a perishable item. If an Air Canada jet flies with empty seats on Monday, those seats can't be sold Tuesday.
Could you imagine an airline executive explaining to shareholders that having lots of empty seats is an opportunity to attract more customers in the future, because they can be sold cheaply? Such utter nonsense would have shareholders out for his scalp!

There was a story in the Montreal Gazette about public figures lying and our ability to observe body language that indicates dishonesty. Link
Notwithstanding, it's my opinion based on a lifetime of observation that con artists and experienced public officials who lie, are impervious to this method of detection.
They are so used to lying that is natural and so they feel no guilt or tension at all.

And so when Pauline unloaded this whopper in an interview aired on the BBC, she didn't flinch one bit.
 "If you have a poll, you can see that the approval of the sovereignty is at maybe 42, 44%."
Yikes!!!!
By the way, nobody but nobody in the mainstream press has called her out on her obviously misstatement of the truth.

She's a dangerous character, able and willing to advance her own agenda by any means, which is not sovereignty, but rather maintaining her position as Premier, a job like her predecessor, that she relishes.

She will say and do anything, damn the consequences. She is an operator extraordinaire.

She is perhaps the most evil and destructive Premier this province has ever seen, having no qualms about destroying Quebec in order to advance her personal agenda of mindless and reckless power.

200 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. oh come come, only your stomach? LOL

      Delete
  2. Shes out there all right........interesting piece as usual

    ReplyDelete
  3. She probably knows that a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat… nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not being an economist I have no idea if Dutch Disease is in fact a situation that is occurring in Canada, though to be fair to Mulcair he isn't the only one floating the idea.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/13/thomas-mulcairs-dutch-disease-warning-supported-by-oecd-report/

    As to the link you posted on the subject I'd be dubious of any report coming out of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute:

    http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/21/CrimeFloggers/

    especially using such explosive wording as "those who mistakenly continue to view our industrial heartland as a bombed-out ruin".

    Can't agree more with the notion that journalists just won't hold politicians feet to the fire. If I wanted to see soft ball questions being thrown around on inane subjects I'd watch Leno. I have to give props in some respects to the Quebec news networks. They tend to be more blunt and ask hard questions to their guests and call them on hypocrisy, though these guests are rarely high ranking politicians, which is a shame.

    I can't say I've ever seen eye to eye with the PQ on many things, but I've recognized the merits of some of their leaders particularly Bouchard. However beginning with Laudry it seems that as the party, became less populist and primarily composed of the more extreme separatist element it has also become more radical in what it'll do and say to achieve it's goals.

    They have changed their tune from separation is in the best interest for Quebec to proceed for prosperity (the carrot)to, the only way for the Quebecois culture and the French language to survive is separation (the stick). Of course this tonal shift is a problem because it doesn't reflect the current Quebec reality. Language and culture are what are safe, while the economy is in the toilet, both of which nullifies the idea of the need to separate either for prosperity or survival, hence why lying has become so important to the PQ.

    My only question is whether or not Marois is fanatical in her beliefs as she professes, or is she simply playing the political game to stay in power. It was apparent from before the election that there was trouble in the PQ party paradise, rumblings that the PQ hard-liners were going to push her out if she didn't start playing up separation. This seems to be what she did, with the never ending outbursts of extremist policy ideas coming from the party (Quebec citizenship; no religious symbols other than the cross) that they would eventually back track on. Marois could point to it and say to the hard separatist, "See? I tried!" and then point to the majority and say "See, I listened to you and did what you wanted, I'm reasonable".

    Though it is quite possible that she is fanatical enough to believe the nonsense she spouts. It is hard to believe that anyone upon hearing that the percentage of people speaking French as one of 2 languages has gone through the roof but, the percentage of people only speaking French has declined slightly, would proclaim with a straight face, that French is in grave danger, rather than more people are learning French and becoming bilingual, without that person being fanatical is a hard pill to swallow.

    Though in the end neither being driven by fanaticism nor power is a commendable reason to try and lead a government. Perhaps we would only know what Marois' true ambitions are if she had a majority and was not bound by the other parties and the opinions of the public, this however is an outcome I'd never wish for to simply resolve my curiosity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG, one gets the feeling that... they're (the French media) all shocked...this happened. I think I may have mentioned, on a previous post, that if I were visiting Japan, as the Premier of a Canadian Province, I would have the good sense to take along an interpreter, since I do not speak Japanese. LOL.

      But seriously, HELLO...we ALL knew this would happen, some of us were just hoping that the inevitable embarrassment would be contained as much as possible, but there was no mistaking, or escaping it, IT WOULD BE EMBARASSING! It was a GIVEN, her trip would be a monumental Flop! There is no spinning this one. LOL

      Somebodyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy please send her a copy of Rosetta Stone, English version. ASAP, before she humiliates herself and THIS PROVINCE further.

      But I have to ask, are people really this dumb?

      http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/patrick-lagace/201302/04/01-4618094-pauline-marois-in-english.php

      Delete
  5. Loving the Monty Python references today. Good work, ED.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m sure the Four Yorkshiremen would outdo her in describing the bad old days when you could actually see English in Quebec. Then again, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition … know wot I mean, know wot I mean?

      For those who didn’t get his reference, R.S was talking about the annoying buffoon in the famous MP skit, “Candid Photography”, who makes himself appear to be very knowledgeable but in fact turns out to be completely clueless.

      Delete
  6. W Norman 'Is Quebec Nationalism Just ' suggests Quebec Nationalism is the transformation/disintegration of individual identity into collective Narcissism.

    Here is the criteria for NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) according to DSM-IV. You decide.

    1. feels grandiose, self important, exaggerates to point of lying, demands recognition as superior without commensurate achievements
    2. obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, power, omnipotence, brilliance
    3. convinced of uniqueness, special, distinct, and should be treated accordingly
    4. requires excessive admiration, attention, affirmation..failing that wishes to be feared
    5. feels entitled..demands full autocratic compliance with unreasonable expectations for favorable priority treatment
    6. is interpersonally exploitative..ie.uses others to achieve ends
    7. devoid of empathy..unable, unwilling to identify with acknowledge or accept feelings, needs,preferences, priorities and choices of others
    8. envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy objects of frustration. suffers from persecutory paranoid delusions that everyone else feels the same about them and are acting similarily against them.
    9. Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent,omniscient,invincible,immune,above the law and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated contradicted or confronted by unworthy inferiors.

    Diagnosis of NPD requires a display of only 5 of the above traits plus a diagnosed history of original trauma.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FROM ED
      LENOIR, that sounds like my ex-wife, rest her sole.(sic) Ed

      Delete
    2. (slow clap) Masterful wordplay there.

      Delete
  7. And you want to make a country out of THIS?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Editor, I don't think you can call Layton and Chow a liar. Now, I am not a NDP supporter. Although, I was disgusted by the political spin on the massage story. The police didn't think Layton did anything illegal. Why bring it up? Also, you bring out the cancer story, well that is a gratuitously low shot. I think party leaders and MP don't have to tell voters if they have a medical issue. Jack tried to fight the cancer but he didn't succeed. Let's leave it at that. For the record, Minister Flaherty didn't release a disclosure of his disease, does that make him a liar, No.

    Now, Marois and Duchesne are liars, that I agree with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Now, Marois and Duchesne are liars, that I agree with."

      which one of their "lies" are you most offended about liam?

      Delete
  9. FROM ED
    To a certain extent, We are all liars. I am very much a liar. When I am in pain and people ask how I feel, I say, "I'm fine, Thank you." When the nurse asks if I took my pills every day, I don't tell her about the days I forgot. When the attractive waitress asks if there's anything I'd like, I look at her buxom body and say "I'd like a sandwich and coffee please." Also, when the girl that cleans for me asks if I have eaten this morning, I say, "I was going to make coffee but I'm a little shaky today." (she makes the greatest coffee.) While I'm eating the great sandwich she makes me with the coffee, I mention that I can't find my back scratcher. She does a great back massage.
    Conversely, when my separatist next door neighbour asks
    how I think the government is doing, I say, "About as well as can be expected.." The only time I don't lie keeps peace in the neighbourhood. Ed

    ReplyDelete
  10. Liam - enjoyed the NPD symptoms but so many of our politicians are like that, that it's hard to discern who displays the greatest amount. I guess it takes a certain personality to run for public office and many of them do have an inflated ego. Unfortunately, some of our most honest politicians like Robert Standfield e.g. don't have the fire in their gut to get people worked up over anything. That takes a certain amount of charisma, be it an honest man or not, to stir us up enough to get us to act in our own best interests. Most people find politics boring to start with and without that spark in our leaders, turnout at the polls would be worse than it is already, which is really sad, but most of us no longer trust the politicians at all and with good reason. When you get people like Marois, who has absolutely no charisma, leading a party that has nothing to offer people but trouble and strife and she can still win a minority government, it just shows how low our faith in the system has taken us. Hopefully better things to come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have the NDP symptom, first of all. Second of all, I prefer to attack people on policy not on personal attacks. Jack Layton might have been sick or went to get a massage, I don't care. I respect Jack Layton, as leader of the NDP ,that's all. I just don't agree with his plan to raise corporate or personal income. Keep their personal lives out of it. You mistake my defence of Layton as a sign of admiration, it is not. For the records, I did not vote NDP.

      I agree with you on Marois, she has nothing to offer. She lies about Quebec economy, sovereignty has nothing to offer except higher tax, weaker economy and fewer development.

      Delete
    2. @liam

      "She lies about Quebec economy, sovereignty has nothing to offer except higher tax, weaker economy and fewer development."

      i think you forgot about freedom.

      Delete
    3. @Student: i think you forgot about freedom.

      Ah yes, it's time to shrug off the yoke of slavery. Centuries of being forced to work on Anglos plantations must end. If you think that on a relative basis Quebec is not "free", you really need to open your eyes. The only freedom Quebecois are lacking by being in Canada is the freedom to fully self-destruct.

      Delete
    4. @diogenes

      "If you think that on a relative basis Quebec is not "free", you really need to open your eyes."

      quebec is not free, mate. it's just a province of canada.

      and what is "on a relative basis" supposed to mean? that it's worse elsewhere? fuc&%$&in' bad argument if there is one.

      "The only freedom Quebecois are lacking by being in Canada is the freedom to fully self-destruct."

      ...and, obviously, its corollary, the freedom to fully self-construct.

      Delete
    5. @Student:

      "quebec is not free, mate. it's just a province of canada"

      Bingo! Finally a seppie who acknowledges that Quebec is just a province in Canada. You're right of course. It's not free. Despite being a province of Canada, even that is not enough to rein in the Orwellian language cops (an institution that would be perfectly at home in North Korea or the old Soviet Union) and their totalitarian interpretation of Bill 101 which has to be the biggest attack on freedom in this country.

      "...and, obviously, its corollary, the freedom to fully self-construct".

      I suspect you guys would "self-construct" in much the same way you make bridges and roads.

      "and what is "on a relative basis" supposed to mean? that it's worse elsewhere? fuc&%$&in' bad argument if there is one."

      Really? Perhaps, but it's still infinitely better than the "fuc&%$&in'" absent rebuttal of yours. Ok "Student", harness up the vast brain power of your two neurons and explain to us all how you are oppressed. Give examples and explain your thinking. Demonstrate how mistreated you all are by the ROC. FYI, giving you billions in transfer payments doesn't count as mistreatment.

      I find it interesting that, while you're obviously a nationalist, you keep sounding like a Brit/Aussie wannabe by refering to everyone as "mate". Shouldn't you drop the hipster facade and go with "mon ami"? Unless, of course, Bernie Landry is your role model.

      Delete
    6. @diogenes

      "You're right of course. It (quebec)s not free."

      thank you.

      "I suspect you guys would "self-construct" in much the same way you make bridges and roads."

      or maybe they could self-construct in much the same way they make circuses and airplanes.

      about your bad argument you acknowledge it's sh&%$t this way: "Really? Perhaps,..."

      thank you.

      "...explain to us all how you are oppressed."

      why would i? i never pretended it was the case. i just wrote that you forgot freedom as one of the things sovereignty has to offer.

      "you keep sounding like a Brit/Aussie wannabe by refering to everyone as "mate"

      sorry, mate, can't help it. you should focus on relevant stuff, though.



      Delete
    7. My apologies student...I think you must be a lot younger than I thought. I shouldn't have expected an adult-level response from you. Good luck at school. What do you want to be when you grow up?

      Delete
    8. It's odd for a separatist to think that separation would yield more freedom for Quebec. Sure the politicians would gain more powers if Quebec was it's own country, but don't mistake that for more freedom.

      Look at what Quebec politicians have done to freedoms using the powers they already have. The restrictions of freedoms on how to conduct your business and where to send your kids to school, none of these exist elsewhere in Canada. To say the people of Quebec would have more freedoms if separation ever did happen is extremely naive.

      Delete
    9. @diogenes

      "I think you must be a lot younger than I thought... bla bla bla..."

      you're drifting away, mate... so long!

      Delete
    10. @jmic75

      "To say the people of Quebec would have more freedoms if separation ever did happen is extremely naive."

      all right that's your "opinion", mate.

      i still think being entitled to sign international treaties, collect taxes and write laws is a step towards more freedom.

      Delete
    11. "i still think being entitled to sign international treaties, collect taxes and write laws is a step towards more freedom."

      Blimey mate! Do you think about what you write? When you start to work and you have to file a Quebec tax return, you'll realize that the province already collects taxes and Bill 101 is a pretty good example of the type of laws they can pass already. As far as international treaties go, that's just an ego trip that a lot of parochial seppie bumpkins want to go on.

      Delete
    12. FREEDOM IS TO RIGHT TO MAKE A CHOICE - your government takes away your choice - when are you idiots going to smarten up. Do you need the government to make your rightful choices for you? What kind of stupid person needs the government in it's business to tell them how to run their business or where you can send your children to school? Do you know that french families have gone to court to fight these stupid laws because they want a choice where to send their kids to school? These are their children - not yours, not the government's - THEIRS. Who do you bigots think you are telling your neighbours where they may send their children to school? What the fucking business is it of yours? Mind your own business you seppies - your a total waste of skin and space, every one of you!

      Delete
    13. @Cactus003

      Finalement,avez-vous jeté un coup d'oeil sur le marché immobilier du côté de l'ontario? :)

      Delete
    14. As a student I'll forgive you for not knowing that Quebec can write its own laws and collect its own taxes already, though you should really pay more attention in class. Canada being a fairly decentralized federation, provinces have jurisdiction over all but a few powers.

      Again the right to sign international treaties would give more power to politicians, but in what way would that increase freedom? What realistic treaties do you invision that would increase freedom?

      Freedom starts at home with the rights and freedoms that are given to a countries citizens by those in power. Should Quebec ever become a country it's citizen would see their freedoms restricted as it's power grows. You may say that this is simply "opinion" but this just shows your ignorance of history. Quebec politicians have on numerous occasions tried to pass right restricting legislation but have been hampered by that Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, with the supreme court striking them down.

      Had Quebec had been a country those freedom restricting laws would still be in force, and it wouldn't take a huge leap in logic to conclude that once separate the politicians of the "Quebec Libre" would reintroduce these freedom restricting measures. If you have any proposed legislation from the PQ that you think would increase freedom I'd love to hear it, because the only proposed legislation I've heard is:
      1. Language tests to restrict who can run for office or raise funds for political parties.
      2. Restrict adults from being able to choose which CEGEP to go to.
      3. Restrict the wearing of religious symbols for those in the public office, other than the cross.
      4. Restrict what daycares children can be sent to.

      If these things would increase freedom in your eyes you may need to look up the definition of freedom.

      Delete
    15. @diogenes

      "...you'll realize that the province already collects taxes..."

      exactly. half the taxes, mate. therefore half the freedom. wow isn't this straightforward, mate?

      "...Bill 101 is a pretty good example of the type of laws they can pass already."

      i know quebec can pass some laws. my point is that being entitled to pass any law means more freedom. i don't think you should argue this point, mate.

      "As far as international treaties go, that's just an ego trip..."

      ah. well... how can i put it... well, i totally disagree.

      Delete
    16. diogenes - again the seppies want everything and want to contribute to nothing. All the rest of us are to pay for their socialist policies, mail, roads, airports, national defence, etc which they want to use and contribute sweet piss all. Internationally they are a joke - they signed an agreement with the Indians the other day and wanted it broadcast all over the news and I think the big amount was 1.5M of so - mere pittance. All of these things done under CANADIAN LAW BY THE WAY and they treated it like it was quebec only. Stupid people. "my point is the being entitled to pass any law means more freedom" - for whom twit? Certainly not for the minorities in this hellhole. And I will argue this point! You are not entitled to sign international treaties - you are a province in a country called Canada and have no right interfering in any international matters - thank God because you're all an embarrassment to everyone that lives here! And the last thing you're getting is all my taxes - you manage to screw up everything you bums touch so I'll gladly pay the feds long before I pay you people. That's something else we should all consider doing - withholding all our provincial taxes in escrow as is being proposed by one group.

      Delete
    17. "exactly. half the taxes, mate. therefore half the freedom. wow isn't this straightforward, mate?"

      Provincial tax being one of two taxes doesn't mean Quebec received half of the taxes. In terms of sales tax the federal rate is 5% while the Quebec provincial rate is 9.975%, which makes it double the federal rate or 2/3 of the total. Though of course the half argument is a null point because Quebec can request as much provincial sales tax as it wants and the federal sales tax does not impact how much they receive. As it is Quebec receives 100% more provincial sales tax than Alberta, does this make Quebec 100% freer than Alberta?

      All that aside Quebec is a have not province and as much receives huge subsidies and transfer payments accounting to 1.5 times of the taxes it sends to Ottawa. Meaning it does not only receive half of the taxes it receives 1.5 times the taxes for income tax and 2 times the taxes for sales tax, if anything Quebec is freer now within Canada if tax revenue is how you define "freedom".

      It's like a person complaining about a machine they found that when one inserts a dollar, 1.5 dollars come out, because he had to put a dollar into the machine to get it to work, kind of ridiculous.

      "i know quebec can pass some laws. my point is that being entitled to pass any law means more freedom. i don't think you should argue this point, mate."

      Again you are confusing Power with Freedom. China and North Korea's governments are all powerful and can pass any laws and collect as much taxes as they want but their people are some of the most repressed, with the fewest freedoms in the world.

      Delete
    18. @jmic75

      "I'll forgive you for not knowing that Quebec can write its own laws and collect its own taxes already,..."

      quebec can't write them all. more legislative freedom is more freedom. are you gonna find a way to argue this?!?!?

      quebec doesn't get all taxes collected in quebec. more money means more freedom. don't waste time arguing this one either, mate.

      "the right to sign international treaties would give more power to politicians, but in what way would that increase freedom?"

      well. the answer is in your question, mate. having the right to influence, sign or not sign an international treaty is freedom. quebec does not have this freedom today. a sovereign state does have this freedom. sovereignty means more freedom. i'm sorry i can't make it simpler and clearer i'm afraid.

      "What realistic treaties do you invision that would increase freedom?"

      the possibility to talk head to head with mexico or uganda, sign or not kyoto, nato, alena, you name it represents an increase in freedom.

      can't believe you guys are trying to prove sovereignty doesn't mean more freedom for quebec government and the people it represents.

      "Should Quebec ever become a country it's citizen would see their freedoms restricted as it's power grows. You may say that this is simply "opinion"..."

      that is simply an opinion.

      "If you have any proposed legislation from the PQ that you think would increase freedom I'd love to hear it..."

      i don't think any legislation increases freedom, so your question is absurd. laws are nonetheless needed for society to work.

      right now quebec is restricted in its legislative freedom. if it were sovereign it would be less restricted, hence more free. is this stuff basic or what? still want to argue jmic75?

      "If these things would increase freedom in your eyes you may need to look up the definition of freedom."

      i repeat all laws restrict freedom. but this is far away from my point: the possibility to legislate in all spheres is a freedom that quebec doesn't have, and one that it would gain if it became sovereign.

      facts, mate.

      Delete
    19. 1. You repeatedly speak of freedom and mean power. You want Quebec to have more power, not more freedom. Giving Quebec more power does not necessarily lead to more freedom for it's people. You've bought into the politicians line that more power for them means more freedom for you. This was a mistake made by many communist countries.
      2. You say legislation cannot ever increase freedom, which is automatically contradicted by any law that limits discrimination or coercion.
      3. Quebec representatives already have the power to go to foreign countries (did you not read the story? Marois went to France and Scotland)and meet with foreign governments. Quebec has the power to enforce Kyoto if they wanted to as they have power over environmental legislation within the province, not sure why Quebec would consider leaving NATO especially if it was a sovereign nation with an even smaller military than Canada does, as to NAFTA how would pulling out of that increase freedom? That would only increase protectionism policies within Quebec limiting peoples' choice of where to buy and sell products to and from.


      Delete
    20. @jmic75

      "You repeatedly speak of freedom and mean power."

      no, i mean freedom. here's the definition that better applies to what i mean:

      freedom: the lack of constraints in general.

      "You say legislation cannot ever increase freedom, which is automatically contradicted by any law that limits discrimination or coercion."

      mate, a law that "limits" is constraining. all laws are.

      "Quebec representatives already have the power to go to foreign countries..."

      ah sorry, i didn't mean touristic traveling. i meant signing international treaties. which part of international treaties don't you understand?

      "not sure why Quebec would consider leaving NATO..."

      pointless. having the choice, compared to not having the choice, is an increase in freedom.

      "as to NAFTA how would pulling out of that increase freedom?"

      pulling out maybe wouldn't increase freedom, i don't know, but having the choice would be a nice freedom boost.

      do you get it now?

      Delete
    21. Ultimately your position confuses me. You say that legislation reduces freedom, yet you want to give Quebec, that has some of the most restrictive legislation in the western world aimed at social engineering, more power to create more legislation. You seem to be advocating more power for powers sake without considering the implications.

      I'm assuming that you assume should Quebec ever separate that the government that will run the new country will be in line with your political leanings. Let me put this hypothetical question to you. If you were aware that if Quebec separated that the new party that will be elected to run the new country and would stay in power for lets say 10 years, would be a right leaning party like the Liberals, would you still support separation?

      Delete
    22. @jmic75

      "you want to give Quebec (...) more power to create more legislation."

      i never wrote anything like that. i keep repeating that according to me, having the possibility to legislate in every sphere of its society would be a freedom boost for the quebec government. as it represents quebec people better than the canadian government, it would be a freedom boost as well for the people of quebec. that's all.

      "You seem to be advocating more power for powers sake without considering the implications."

      strange when i never used the word power.

      "I'm assuming that you assume should Quebec ever separate that the government that will run the new country will be in line with your political leanings."

      you assume too much.

      "If you were aware that if Quebec separated that the new party that will be elected to run the new country and would stay in power for lets say 10 years, would be a right leaning party like the Liberals, would you still support separation?"

      of course! the parti québécois will most likely be the one leading quebec towards independance, i mean the referendum and constitution etc. if it ever happens, obviously, but i'm just going along your hypothesis here. right after i'm pretty sure it will implode. it's got right and left people in it, united by the conviction that quebec would be better off on its own. once this is done, it will disappear, and the political scene will reorganize along the left-right axis like in any normal democratic country.

      Delete
    23. "mate, a law that "limits" is constraining. all laws are."

      A law that limits restrictions is not constraining (double negatives and all), nor are laws that allow things. Making such a sweeping statement would mean that you believe a law allowing free speech is constraining.

      As to the international affairs thing, power for powers sake is not a reason to request more power. If the Quebec government put forward a compelling reason for why they want control over international affairs sure, I'd consider it, but to say the reason for the extra powers is "because" just isn't compelling. I mean you can say Quebec has a distinct culture from Canada all you want (even though fundementally we aren't that different we all sit down with ffriends and beers and watch the hockey game just the same etc)but what realistically is Quebec going to do differently on the international stage from Canada? We're in the same geographical location and have the same economic interests.

      Now Don't get me wrong I think the Cons are doing a terrible job representing Canada on the international stage, but that's what elections are for so we can vote them out, we don't need to separate to get more power because our political party didn't win the election.

      You seem to care more about the powers or as you say freedoms, of Quebec, rather than the powers and freedoms of the people of Quebec. That is what I'm concerned about, because a nation is just a concept it's how the people within one are treated that are important.

      Delete
    24. So we will have two wars - federalist vs separatist and right vs left - can hardly wait! What a great future!

      Delete
    25. "i never wrote anything like that. i keep repeating that according to me, having the possibility to legislate in every sphere of its society would be a freedom boost for the quebec government. as it represents quebec people better than the canadian government, it would be a freedom boost as well for the people of quebec. that's all."

      You keep saying that, but there's no way to know increased powers for Quebec will lead to more freedoms. Nor can you say the Quebec government better represents the people of Quebec, the people of Quebec aren't united on what they want the last election was almost a 30%-30%-30% split.

      "strange when i never used the word power."
      You might not say it but that's what you want, Quebec to have more power so that it has the freedom to make more choices, but ultimately its power you want, it just sounds better to say you want freedom.

      "right after i'm pretty sure it will implode. it's got right and left people in it, united by the conviction that quebec would be better off on its own. once this is done, it will disappear, and the political scene will reorganize along the left-right axis like in any normal democratic country."

      The country or the party would implode? The separatist parties are all clearly along the left hand of the spectrum so there wouldn't be much of a shuffling of parties in Quebec there would still be the same old fights over right and left, and there's no guarantee who would win, if they would better govern the people of Quebec or that they would give more and not less freedom, with thier new powers.

      Delete
    26. jmic75,
      Your responses to student are a textbook example of casting pearls before swine, but I wanted to let you know that I enjoyed them. I hope you continue to contribute.

      Delete
  11. Hors sujet, mais quand même pertinent:

    http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/a-votre-tour/201302/01/01-4617521-la-litteraturepour-le-plaisir-du-francais.php

    C’est dommage d’apprendre que le français ne plait pas aux jeunes.

    « D'où vient ce ressentiment pour leur langue, leur histoire, leur culture, l'effort dans le travail? C'est la question que je me suis posée dès que j'ai commencé à fréquenter ces jeunes que je fuyais comme la peste auparavant. »

    mm…bonne question!
    Il faut se poser une autre question aussi : peut-être il serait moins douloureux et plus agréable s’ils auraient la possibilité d’apprendre en anglais…au lieu? En plus, cela pourrait être la solution au taux élevé de décrochage scolaire dans cette province?? Êtes-vous à l’écoute Mme La ministre de L’éducation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Je détestais les brocolis quand j'étais enfant et maintenant je les adore :)
      Vous devriez essayer,question de varier votre menu "junk" quotidien :)

      Delete
    2. I read the article and have to agree that people in Quebec don't pay much attention to their writing. Most francophones I work with cannot write a simple sentence without getting their verbs mixed up. I often correct them without trying to insult them (especially when an anglo is the one showing them how to write in their own language). I have also noticed that most written communications in my workplace (80%+ Francophone) are now taking place in English. It boggles the mind that two francophones write to each other in English but speak to each other in French. I am realizing that the reason is simply that they cannot write in French, therefore they resort to English because it's easier and the chance of making a mistake is much lower.

      I think the whole language debate in this province should be geared towards showing people how to speak, read, and write properly in French as opposed to restricting the learning of other languages (i.e. English). It would be a hell of a lot more constructive and would be better at preserving the language in the long-run. If people cannot master their own language, it will not last, and that would be a shame.

      Delete
    3. The point is valid and it burns your ass. Now shut the f...up.

      Delete
    4. @ resident troll (and you know who you are)
      "The point is valid and it burns your ass. Now shut the f...up"

      Delete
    5. @ToTo le clown

      Moi aussi je serais très mal dans ma peau si j'étais à votre place...Pauvres petits angryphones.Attachez vos tuques avec de la broche nous ne faisons que commencer à resserer l'étau.

      Delete
    6. FROM ED
      MTL, The reason that french men write in english is because they would be embarrassed making mistakes in their own language. Making mistakes in a language you're not used to is to be expected and would not be looked down upon. Ed

      Delete
    7. @MTL1973

      Vous devriez commencer par corriger vos amis anglos sur ce blogue.Je détecte un paquet d'erreurs sur à peu près tous les commentaires.

      Delete
    8. In Moncton, my fellow students in high school and undergrad were often much better writers and communicators in English than French. Why? They'd read in English, watch TV in English, and only use French orally - and oral language is rife with errors, especially in French. English oral language is less formal than written, but overall the same rules apply ; not so in oral French.

      As to people writing to each other in English when they talk to each other in French, I think part of that is the fact that English is seen as a prestige language that is naturally dominant on the internet. I know lots of my friends talk to each other in English on social media even though they'd speak French in person.

      Delete
    9. "I think part of that is the fact that English is seen as a prestige language that is naturally dominant on the internet"

      You hit the nail on the head, and it is the reason why the supremacy of French was constructed (socially engineered) in Quebec in the 1970s in order to "even the playing field". The problem here however is that supremacy, even if deployed for allegedly benevolent reasons, is still supremacy, so it's bound to turn some stomachs, especially the stomachs of immigrants whose Tabula Rasa hasn't been imprinted yet by the responsible men and women from the education bureaucracy.

      English, on the other hand, has the advantage of having its supremacy established in the past, and the process is therefore hidden from view, unless you dig in deeper and read about the events of the past. Today, all you have is a happy and smiley Hollywood, and laid back Americans. So it all looks natural and neutral, as many people do indeed claim that English is the lingua franca because it's just so swell and convenient to use. In contrast, for any ascendant language the process is bound to be visible, and the ugly aspects of the process open to everyone's view.

      In Quebec specifically, the problem is that the process of preempting of English supremacy has been pushed to conclusion, yet the provincial technocratic apparatus that assures the supremacy of French in QC is maintained to this day (and might even be strengthened in the near future) and is backed by the wider national apparatus (the OLA) that acts, for the most part ineffectively yet rather costly, to expand QC influence to other parts of Canada. So it seems that competitiveness has kicked in at some point and replaced defensiveness. And it's one thing to make your language dominant in your own backyard, it's another to continue to to insist though state policy that in someone else's backyard your language should at least be tried for the sake of "national unity" (The Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser makes this claim point blank in his book, partly to justify the existence of the bloated bureaucracy over which he presides, partly because as every technocrat, he believes in the sense of his "mission").

      So when it comes to Quebec, 2 things need to be considered. One is not to let noble pronouncements to obscure ugly measures (i.e. the reality of the moment takes precedence over the technocratic excuse, so the effects of an OQLF raid on a person for example supersede the subsequent justification). Two is to drown out the official noise and figure out how much of it is about genuine defense, and how much is competition plus justification of the bureaucracy. The second one is very hard to determine, partly because if it is competitiveness and rationalization of a beneficial order, it will rarely be admitted in public (although mutterings about Reconquest do come out occasionally from QC nationalist federalist circles dreaming of Greater Quebec: http://www.amazon.ca/Reconquering-Canada-Quebec-Federalists-Change/dp/1553654137). The "defense" view however, will continue to be flaunted and promoted in public.



      Delete
    10. I don't disagree with you Adski, but I for one sure don't feel like the OLA's job is to expand Quebec's influence over Canada. Rather it is to guarantee the education of French minorities coast-to-coast in their preferred language, and to provide federal services in both of the main languages spoken in Canada.

      Delete
    11. Everywhere except quebec Yannick and THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL!

      Delete
  12. Apparently, most people thoroughly agree with the Editor’s assessment and don’t have too much more to add to it.

    Props again to jmic75 for the best post of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Surprenant de constater qu'une adolescente anglophone a plus de jugement que la plupart des angryphones sur ce blogue.Je considère cette jeune femme comme totalement Québécoise:

    "Having french as the language of work in a french province is not an attempt to eliminate english!! It's an attempt to have the official language of the province respected!! How can you not see that? Jeeze it took them 250 years to have their collective linguistic rights recognized in Canada and now, you call for a violation of your individual rights? You must be kidding? What's really important to you? The destruction of the french nation of Canada? The destruction of Canada's identity: which is to have both a french and an english nation? Or as this site claims to be: Pro-quebec (pro french nation) and pro bilinguism (pro english Canada having one french province in it)?"

    Kirsten O'Leary sur la page "I hate Pauline Marois"

    N'est-elle pas adorable et rafraîchissante?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Jeeze it took them 250 years to have their collective linguistic rights recognized in Canada and now, you call for a violation of your individual rights?"

      ARE YOU FOR REAL LADY? No one's rights should be trampled on because of linguistic rights of a select group or otherwise, IN THE COUNTRY WE CALL CANADA. We've rocked this cradle wayyyy too long. French is alive and well in Quebec. This is no longer about safeguarding and protecting French. This has become about obliterating ENGLISH in this province. THAT IS THE REALITY WE FACE TODAY... WAKE THE F. UP.

      "N'est-elle pas adorable et rafraîchissante?"
      (GAG)

      Delete
    2. "French is alive and well in Quebec."

      Et comment se porte-t-il dans "notre beau pays",le canada?

      Delete
    3. Le français perd toujours du terrain au Canada

      http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/National/2012/10/24/002-rapport-francais-canada.shtml

      Delete
    4. That's strange... this week's article says you're mistaken (again):

      http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/education/201302/03/01-4617944-le-bilinguisme-gagne-du-terrain-dans-le-roc.php

      Delete
    5. FROM ED
      S.R., I always swore I would not communicate with trolls but I will make an exception here. You have asked a fair question in English so I will answer best I can. When you say it has taken 250 years, you forget that French politicians have formed the government of Quebec since day one. They have always had the power to write laws so you can't blame this on the English.
      In the last two decades the English have taken great strides to learn French and have succeeded proudly. Most of my friends are proud to have learned French and enjoy being able to speak it. I know I do. I think many have resigned themselves to the annoyances of bill 101 and were learning to live with it. One of the problems that English have with separatism is that you are never satisfied. When you keep jacking up the demands with needless junk like bill 17 it turns people off. The homosexual community discovered that the 'in your face attitude' only turns people away. The government needs to look at what it really wants to accomplish and consider how much they can resolve. Bilingualism is almost completely accomplished and I think that would make an acceptable status quo. It's time to put our energy into the economy. I can honestly tell you son, If they don't come to something workable the English people will push back.The English are a very complacent type but when they've had enough they will revolt with vengeance. There is no reason on God's Earth that French and English can"t live together if Premier Marois will stop listening to the hardliners that ask for blood. If they want blood they will get it. Don't be surprised when it's their own. Ed






























      Delete
    6. "That's strange... this week's article says you're mistaken (again):"

      Le bilinguisme pour les Québécois n'est qu'une étape vers l'anglicisation totale..."Period".

      Delete
    7. @Ed

      Ce n'est pas moi qui a écrit ce commentaire.

      C'est Kirsten O'Leary (une très jeune anglo-Québécoise) sur la page "I hate Pauline Marois"

      Delete
    8. Ah the hardliner belief of learning English makes you a traitor and no longer French Canadian has very long roots going so far back as to Lionel Groulx. It's sad that some people just can't move past such long since out dated beliefs from the 1920's, misogyny and anti-Semitism have thankfully not been carried over for the most part, too bad this has.

      Though I do find it puzzling how allophones who learn their native language (lets say mandarin) and French, who are bilingual is the first step to anglicisation. Unless of course you meant bilingualism specifically where in people know English and French. In which case I wouldn't worry about it too much as French hasn't historically dropped off the map nor do people instantly forget French when they learn another language.

      As to the completely unrelated quote S.R. managed to dig up (I'm sure after an extensive internet search)it truly is indicative of how desperate he is to get someone to agree with him, that he'll quote a 13 year old girl who is clearly out of her depth, as the topic is neither on the Jersey Shore nor puppies (not trying to be offensive those are literally her likes).

      The only quote from her I was able to find on the page was "Ok I don't want quebec to separate but let's be honnest, many studies were made on the subject and everyone agreed that quebec could make it financially... So let's try to get together and find real reasons to make all quebekers want to stay into Canada..."

      Clearly I wouldn't go to her if I wanted logical nor fact driven arguments, but then again I shouldn't because she is 13, S.R., you are mighty desperate.

      Delete
    9. SR is always desperate to find anything (any quote, rag, Vigile, IF, SSJB) doesn't matter. He will not admit that they are out to cleanse quebec of anything but white, Catholic, pure laine francophones which is what Canada could have done (but we are too nice) to the french language back when all this trouble started and the FLQ started it's murderous rampage. Looking back, we should have put a stop to all this nonsense by making Canada officially English only and left the troops here until the government in quebec started to put out english only documentation and people were sent to english only schools. Look what's happened - they never stop demanding everyone do everything their way and to hell if we agree with it or not. Bilingual status for the towns and cities that want it is not allowed and we have these outrageous language bigots running rough shod over the Canadian Constitution on anything to do with language and religion and no one is putting a stop to this including our supposedly liberal provincial representatives. That's why next election we must vote for the Equality Party and rid ourselves of this hateful bunch of racists once and for all. If we don't get rid of them and make it so that at least some of them can be arrested for hate crimes against humanity, we have to be ready to partition this place and let those areas leave Canada and we will be a lot better off without them dragging us down with them continuously. Other than that this province is going to be morally and financially bankrupt within a year or so.

      Delete
    10. "(but we are too nice)"

      Ça saute aux yeux,vous dégagez tellement de douceur et de tendresse,les candidats doivent se bousculer pour le souper de la St-Valentin.

      Delete
  14. Introducing...Charmin Ultra Soft Nationalist - Charter of the French Language Toilet Paper

    EMBRACE YOUR SOFT NATIONALIST SIDE

    It’s OK to be a bit of a softie Quebec nationalist. Especially when Charmin Ultra Soft Nationalist toilet tissue is in the house. Quebec’s softest Charter tissue is so cushiony soft and you can use 4X less than the leading value charter. Using less feels good, doesn’t it? Go on, Enjoy the Go. Now enjoy our CHARTER OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE toilet paper. Each sheet comes inscribed with the wondrous words the charter of charters, Bill 101. Enjoy wiping your behind on it, cover it in human excrement and plop it in the toilet bowl with glee. Then, while singing Jean de Payes, give it a flush. Watch it swirl round and around in the bowl, just like Quebec's economy and future. Be proud you have done your part as an soft nationalist, and paid proper tribute to Bill 101.

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

      Delete
    2. haha! "human excrement" jokes are the best! way to go, mate!

      Delete
  15. @s.r. get your head out of quebec's ass and watch some world history on youtube, i beg you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "s.r. get your head out of quebec's ass..."

      I'm afraid it's so far up there that ...THAT would require surgery or the Jaws of Life ! LOL

      Delete
  16. Here we go again: Marois wants to create a duplicate CIDA department in quebec and keep the 800M that quebec supposedly contributes for distribution to other countries that need our help. What she fails to mention is how much money it would take to create ANOTHER duplicate federal/provincial department doing exactly the same thing. Supposedly the federal CIDA doesn't represent "quebec values" in distributing this money. What a pile of BS - NO MORE POWER OR MONEY FOR ANYTHING TO QUEBEC.
    Another interesting editorial in the Ottawa Citizen by Andrew Coyne - "What the NDP overlooks in its bid to replace the Clarity Act" in case anyone is interested in reading it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cutie me fait penser à un homard dans une marmite dans laquelle nous augmentons la température de l'eau un peu plus chaque jour...Hahahaha!

      Delete
    2. @cutie

      "...create ANOTHER duplicate federal/provincial department doing exactly the same thing."

      harper is turning acdi in a hub for funding religious groups. from the west. i think it's quite normal that quebec prefers to distribute its money following different guidelines. don't you agree cutie003?

      Delete
    3. Cutie, as you can see, the PQ feels it needs to step up their amorphous “values” arguments while they can because they won’t have Harper around forever to be their bogeyman.

      Delete
    4. Cutie, as you can see, the PQ needs to step up their amorphous “values” arguments while the going is good because they won’t have Harper around forever to be their bogeyman.

      Delete
    5. Unfortunately RS the federal government, no matter who is in power, is always the bogeyman to the stupid seppies. They honestly don't understand that even if there were no Canadian federal government, their socialist seppie governments would just create another level of government to blood suck off of them except they would never be able to leave their utopia because they wouldn't be contributing to anything other than their own country. What about their QPP, EI payments, disability payments, imports, exports, roads, bridges, postal services - idiots. The PQ tell them they would pay less in tax but that's BS again. God, if they had a brain between them, they would catch on but I'm afraid they don't have enough grey matter to light a match.

      Delete
    6. @r.s

      focus on the point being made, mate: harper is changing the criteria used to attribute aid money. quebec doesn't agree with the new criteria. quebec wants to distribute the money along the previous criteria, or new ones that will fit better quebec population's will. now where is the wrong in that?!?

      Delete
  17. FROM ED
    Cutie, Quebec would not have to form another department to distribute CIDA funds. They would simply send a cheque to Haiti to convince poverty stricken french speakers to invest their wealth in Quebec. Ed

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ed - she is proposing to keep back the money that is normally handled by the feds - the article is entitled "Quebec seeks own global aid agency" and is in the Ottawa Citizen this morning - another power grab from the feds. Mr. Harper says this is federal jurisdiction and that he will not pass this over to quebec. Good on him! And of course it would create another duplicate organization in quebec which we don't need to pay for!

    ReplyDelete
  19. A shattered ‘love affair’ as Ste-Agathe ordered to end bilingualism

    Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/a-shattered-love-affair-as-ste-agathe-ordered-to-end-bilingualism-1.1119104#ixzz2KFAqRTAQ

    5% d'anglo et communications bilingues ?!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Is this what is going to save my language?” asked [a resident], who said he didn’t understand the ruling.

      Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/a-shattered-love-affair-as-ste-agathe-ordered-to-end-bilingualism-1.1119104#ixzz2KFDWeYyr

      Delete
    2. Peut-être pas dans à court thème mais c'est un bon début...anonymous?

      Delete
    3. So far, only the mayor of Huntingdon has publicly refused to [stop bilingual publications]. Last year his home and his wife's car were vandalized after he spoke out.

      Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/a-shattered-love-affair-as-ste-agathe-ordered-to-end-bilingualism-1.1119104#ixzz2KFEFdQSC

      Delete
    4. "5% d'anglo et communications bilingues ?!?"

      Not on my watch. That is an abomination on a global scale. Let's dispatch cultural engineers. This anomaly must be rectified with technocratic precision and rationality.

      Delete
    5. Who was it that said “To my fellow anglophone Quebeckers, I say don’t worry. Your rights will be fully protected. We share the same history and I want us to shape together our common future” ? What happened to that?

      Delete
    6. Nommez moi un seul endroit au canada où des francophones formants 5% d'une communauté ont droits à des services...In French.

      Delete
    7. No one is demanding that a new service be provided. The cities are being told they CANNOT provide a service, even though they WANT TO.

      The equivalent would be: Name any place outside Quebec where a city is told it CANNOT communicate with their residents in a given language.

      Delete
    8. Exactly! The city is in the best position to determine how to serve its local population, not the gouvernemaman and it thinks having one single page in its 8-page newsletter is warranted.

      From the Wikipedia article:

      Ste. Agathe’s English community

      The English Protestant community grew from the time the train first arrived in 1892. […]

      Next to Mont Tremblant, Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts has the largest population of English-speaking summer cottage residents in the Laurentians (with a smaller but still sizable winter cottage population as well, particularly on the weekends). Generations of cottagers from English Montreal, Ontario, New York, and New Jersey vacation amidst the lakes and mountains surrounding the town. In addition to an open and tolerant French population, many of whom are bilingual and have connections to cosmopolitan Montreal, there is a large historic summer Jewish community which fosters a diversity and acceptance that further attracts a variety of urban Anglophone and Allophone cottagers to the town.

      Name me one town outside Quebec with a similar history that is forbidden from providing any communication in French against its wishes.

      Delete
    9. Exactly - all part and parcel of their plan to drive out more anglos and allos. Protect the french language my ass - more "yes" votes are all that matter to these bigots and they don't care if they bankrupt this whole damn place. They'll walk away with their pockets full and leave you suckers to face the consequences - smarten up seppies and read the damn writing on the wall. They are making all of you look like the fools you are. The rest of the world laughs while you live in a dreamland.

      Delete
    10. The whole situation makes me want to cry for that town and I want to spit in the face of those Nazis that run this province at the present time.

      Delete
    11. Dommage pour eux mais ils devront se conformer...Les temps changent,c'est la vie :)

      Delete
    12. "all part and parcel of their plan to drive out more anglos and allos"

      Si difficile pour un anglo/allo d'apprendre les bases du français?

      Delete
    13. But you didn't answer the question: Name any place outside Quebec where a city is told it CANNOT communicate with their residents in a given language.

      Oops, that's right. Only here do we have that kind of fascism and call it democracy.

      Delete
    14. "But you didn't answer the question:"

      Vous avez répondu à ma question avec une autre question...Un liberal typique.

      Delete
    15. SVP choisissez un pseudo,je ne sais plus à quel anonyme je m'adresse,merci!

      Delete
    16. You skipped my question first, but here's your answer:
      It has nothing to do with with being learning French. Choosing to communicate in multiple languages shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. As Charlemagne said, "To have another language is to possess a second soul."

      Please stop with the petty insults. It's not dignified.

      Delete
    17. "CANNOT communicate with their residents in a given language."

      Essayez donc le mandarin dans un Subway de winnipeg?

      Delete
    18. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

      Or are you saying that some government agency stopped the city of Winnipeg from communicating with its residents in Chinese?

      Delete
    19. La ville de winnipeg communique avec la communauté chinoise en chinois?Mandarin ou cantonais?

      Delete
    20. I have no clue. You're the one that brought them up.

      We were discussing a city in Quebec that WAS communicating with its residents, and a group came along and stopped it. I asked where else such a thing could happen, and you went off on a strange tangent.

      So we're back to needing you to point out another similar circumstance outside Quebec.

      Delete
    21. I feel like I'm playing keep away with a 3-year-old.

      If you feel I've made an incorrect assessment, please make a positive contribution to the discussion by clarifying your intent your last few posts.

      Delete
    22. Ma question était celle-ci :

      Nommez-moi une communauté au canada dont ses services publiques (ville) s'adresse en français à sa population francophone représentant +/- 5% de sa population totale.Excluons le N-B.

      Une réponse claire...si possible.

      Delete
    23. Anonymous, the Editor allows his foolish remarks to remain because he constantly makes a mockery of sovereignists with his lack of rational argument.

      You will never, ever get a genuine reply from him to any of your comments. Take it from those who know, there’s no point in even trying to engage him. He’s been wasting his life posting on this board for years and all you get from him are non sequiturs, deflections and other assorted nonsense. The best response is no response.

      By the way, as per “How to Comment on this Blog” posted at the top of every page, you really should not be posting as Anonymous.

      Delete
    24. My reply was given at http://nodogsoranglophones.blogspot.ca/2013/02/pauline-marois-making-lemonade-out-of.html?showComment=1360271184221#c3413910260903730963

      To be more clear: I know of no such cases.

      The situation you asked about has no similarity to that of Ste-Agathe. I proposed a more similar situation. Can you describe behaviour similar to that of the Quebec government happening anywhere else?

      Delete
    25. Évidemment,pas de réponse.

      Vous voulez dire des passe-droits similaires?Non.

      Ste-Agathe devra se conformer.Point à la ligne.

      Delete
    26. R.S: Sometimes posters that some call trolls are just misunderstood trolls. I have tried to see if that might be the case with S.R today. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that I've been trying to engage in a dialectic with an unwilling participant.
      I hadn't visited the page "How to Comment..." Thanks for pointing it out.

      Editor: Mea máxima culpa for posting anonymously in this thread.

      Delete
    27. If only the fascists would just leben und leben lassen, live and let live.

      I'm reminded of a scene in Independence Day (1996):

      President: I know there is much we can learn from each other, if we can negotiate a truce. We can find a way to co-exist. Can there be a peace between us?

      Alien: Peace? NO PEACE!

      President: What is it you want us to do?

      Alien: Die... Die.

      Delete
    28. @R.S

      Pas de meilleure réponse que votre compatriote?

      Pourtant ma question était si simple.

      J.J Charessst patinait beaucoup mieux que vous :)

      Delete
    29. Engage in a dialectic with him? Oh dear Lord, that’s simply not possible. Thanks for the daily chuckle, however.

      He’s the only person who posts on here more often than the Editor and his only purpose is to see whether he can provoke a response. Unfortunately, too many people satisfy his desire.

      As for your last comment, that is undoubtedly of true of bigots like him. Fortunately, the majority of franco-Quebecers are not like him, which is why he leads such an unhappy life.

      Delete
    30. R.S: Please don't take those comments as meaning that I think that a significant fraction of the population here falls in that category. On the contrary, the people here are what make it a wonderful place to live.

      If we could just all get along, we could realize Marois' promise to "shape together our common future" without it enduring Borg-like assimilation.

      As for S.R, feeding time is over. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned: During our short chat I've suffered two gratuitous personal insults, in violation of point 4 on the Netiquette page.

      Delete
    31. Oh my Confused, when you first join this blog it is tempting to think that some of these trolls are approachable and reasonable and perhaps interested in resolving problems but so far we have only one (that I can think of) that will honestly try to act decent and that is Michel Patrice (hasn't been here in a couple of days) but SR, student, and YR (think I got them all correct - if not, please someone correct me) are useless, irritating pieces of dirt that offer nothing but exasperation, so save your good and reasonable comments for the other contributors on site. There are a lot of knowledgeable, nice, professional people on here so you will find that you learn as well as contribute as you go along and people are usually pretty nice.

      Delete
    32. "...in violation of point 4 on the Netiquette page."

      Est-ce que les termes :
      Nazi,fasciste,ignorant,bigot,raciste,retard,xénophobe,inbreed,intolérant,etc sont aussi interdits sur ce blogue?

      "two gratuitous personal insults"

      Lesquelles s.v.p ?

      Delete
    33. For the attacks, see http://nodogsoranglophones.blogspot.com/2013/02/pauline-marois-making-lemonade-out-of.html?showComment=1360273438920#c6481878128186194559
      and http://nodogsoranglophones.blogspot.com/2013/02/pauline-marois-making-lemonade-out-of.html?showComment=1360278873073#c1058269007332593590


      The only term I have used from your list is fascist, which is defined on Wikipedia as "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism," which well describes the behaviour of the PQ and OLF.

      Delete
    34. Rien vu,votre lien ne fonctionne pas,j'attend toujours les expressions qui vous ont agressé.
      Pas de len inutile s.v.p,écrivez-les simplement.Vous ne serez pas censuré.

      Delete
    35. The two links work correctly, pointing to your messages at 4:43:00 PM EST and 6:14:00 PM EST.

      This time it's for real: Feeding time is over. Have a good life.

      Delete
    36. "The equivalent would be: Name any place outside Quebec where a city is told it CANNOT communicate with their residents in a given language."

      Aucune loi n'existe parce que la problématique n'existe pas.Voyez-vous beaucoup de feux de circulation dans le désert?

      Delete
    37. "Have a good life"

      Vous de même mais un conseil si vous voulez jouer au hockey : Apprenez à patiner ;)

      Delete
    38. I just got back from a delightful soirée “bien arrosée” in HoMa (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve), a wonderful bilingual Montreal experience that makes us all appreciate living here so much, only to see that our Ontario import troll has been at his computer spreading his miserable worldview yet again. It’s beyond my comprehension but it's sad to think that he has already inculcated his own children to seethe with hatred against anglos the same as he does in order to perpetuate his unhappiness for at least another generation. Oh well, we all make our choices in life!

      Anyhoo, welcome CIQ and oh, by the way, I totally understood your comments to mean exactly what you meant them to mean. Also, I do hope that you will genuinely stick to your last comment, as tempting as it may be to feed the troll.

      Delete
    39. S.R.:"Dommage pour eux mais ils devront se conformer...Les temps changent,c'est la vie :)"

      I just want everyone to reread that, and take a second to reflect on what he just said.




      Ok good, S.R. just said that the minority should conform to the majority language because times change and it's life. Now I want to see if he picks up on the total hypocrisy of his statement. I'll give him a hint, substitute ste agathe for Quebec and Quebec for Canada. This guy is hilarious.

      Delete
    40. +10, jmic75... brilliant, as usual.

      As I can tell by your slow clap above, you already know that we are not dealing with an intellectual genius here.

      Delete
    41. "Now I want to see if he picks up on the total hypocrisy of his statement"

      There is a general fallacy in the theory that "a minority must conform to the majority", that it is a "normalite mondiale", that it is a standard. Because when dealing with francophones in ON for example (e.g. Russel Townships, or the OLA stuff), the reference is made to the fact that French is the official language in Canada, but English has no official status in QC. Which is correct, but then the phrase "a minority must conform to the majority" must therefore be modified to "a minority must conform to the majority unless government constructs a policy or fosters a culture where the minority does not always have to conform to the majority". So there is no standard for treatment of minorities. Rather, the treatment is politically framed and socially/culturally constructed. Thus, members of the minority do have a point in refusing to be dismissed with a vulgar retort that "a minority must adapt to the majority, case closed", or with a "When in Rome do as the Romans" variety. Because if official status does change things for a minority, the a minority does not always have to conform to the majority. (also, the concept of "minority", or even "race" -even some whites can be considered non white or less white in some social contexts-, is itself a social construction for the sake of rationalizing social hierarchies, but that's a topic for another discussion)

      Of course once you point out the fallacy above, they change direction and switch to digressions, like: C'mon, Anglos are not mistreated in QC. Maybe so, but when is it that 2 seconds ago you were arguing that official status accounts for the differences, or hammering away that "a minority must adapt to the majority", etc...

      Or they bring up that the francophones don't have it so good in the RoC, which to me happens to be more an argument to improve the situation of francophones in the RoC and not to deteriorate the situation of anglophones/allophones in QC.

      Delete
    42. adski... I think I agree with you but I’m not quite sure. I believe you’re saying that minorities need not conform to majorities unless there is government interference. Is that correct?

      Delete
    43. I'm saying is that the rules in minority-majority relations are political, social and cultural constructions, and not something carved in stone. And there is no blueprint or template for these relations, no natural law, no normalite mondiale, and even if there is a normalite mondiale, it is also politically constructed, thus something open to modification and criticism.

      So what is there? There is a will (or lack of it) of the majority to be flexible, respectful, open rather than fearful, egalitarian rather than dominant, etc...

      Delete
  20. What's wrong with Pauline and the PQ? I mean, the separatists don't even want her anyway. Look here, http://www.ameriquebec.net/actualites/2013/02/07/the-pq-not-vouloir-alliance-why-non-9678.qc , they don't even see the difference between Equality Party and PQ, so why do you bother with Marois? In fact, the PQ did a lot for us in January, we have to give her that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. FROM ED
    CUTIE, She's grasping at straws. She knows she has screwed up the economy and she's searching for a way out that isn't there.
    There are things the Libs could do with oil Hydro and gas but the PQ is not capable of organizing such industry. This is why she has turned on the students who supported her from the beginning. The
    educatiojn minister has told the students there will be raises. They have no choice, the money isn't there. Ed

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rich - what did she do in January that impressed you? I don't see anything that impressed me.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What the hell does serving someone in Winnipeg in Chinese have to do with the fact that CANADA HAS TWO OFFICIAL LANGUAGES - ENGLISH AND FRENCH = NOT CHINESE! THIS PROVINCE IS PART OF CANADA AND WILL REMAIN SO. I'm so fed up with these damn separatists = I used to have some sympathy for their cause but NO MORE = ignorant, racist, selfish bigots can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Flush yourselves the faster the better. Partition this place and kick them all the hell out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...I used to have some sympathy for their cause..."

      which aspect of their cause gave you positive feelings cutie003?

      Delete
    2. Stop shouting peggy you are too emotional,not good for your blood pressure :)

      Delete
    3. What happened to being patriotic to your country through thick and thin? Seems like these days whenever something goes a little wrong everyone wants to redraw their borders and split themselves up. No country is ever going to be unanimously content with an administration, but the beauty of democracy is that we get the opportunity to control our government ourselves through voting, and if we're not happy we can always vote for someone different in the next election. United we stand, divided we fall. No country is perfect, but it's a lot more perfect than a separated fraction of itself would be.

      Delete
    4. The Quebec separatists just need to open their eyes and see the great country they live in already. Quebec wouldn't be Quebec without Canada, and if you're proud to be from Quebec you should be proud to be Canadian.

      Delete
    5. For sure EDM and that's the whole point - Canada built quebec and that's why it belongs to ALL of Canada not just to those that wish to claim it. That's what they don't get - Trillions and trillions of CANADIAN DOLLARS have been spent on quebec and came from all of Canada, not just the ones who think they have the right to steal the land from the ROC. The sooner they accept the fact that partition is the only way out and perhaps they end up with maybe a 1/3 of the land, then and only then will they have their own country and even that depends on the land claims by the Indians that have made it very clear they are remaining Canadian.

      Delete
    6. FROM ED
      Cutie and R.S.,
      Think about this. For the first time ever I spoke to the troll SR. He asked a logical question in English and so I answered honestly with respect and clarity, showing understanding for his position. He replied with insulting stupidity.
      This brought me to think about the Equality Party. Mr. Bergero, leader of the new E.P. suggested just that. We should approach them with open arms and respect. If he thinks it will work he should stick to business. Forget politics. The only ones that wil listen to them are the English that we need to vote Liberal and get rid of the degradation of Quebec.
      Electing the Liberals will get rid of the PQ. Getting rid of the PQ will stop the downward spiral of our homeland. Stopping the down spin will bring an economical upgrade. It's so obvious. Ed

      Delete
    7. Ed,

      If you'll go back and double-check, you'll see that you were not responding to a logical question posed in English by the troll but rather to a random quote from some teenager that he found someplace else and copied here.

      Sorry but he sucked you in once again. Please don't keep trying, as tempting as it may be; you're simply doing exactly what he wants you to do and that's how he gets his jollies. Remember: it's all water off the duck's back.

      "Serenity now!"

      Delete
    8. FROM ED
      R.S.
      I know very well it was Kristen that asked the question but S.R. repeated it in English and I decided to answer for a very good reason. I wanted to see if he was answered with kindness would he repond the same since he has been trying to get me to answer him for the last six months. I wanted to test the theory that mr. bergeron the leader of the Equality Party put forward that speaking gently we could get them to listen. You don't seem to have noticed that I mentioned that. I also mentioned that it was the first time I spoke to a troll. Read the post before you criticize it.
      Anyway, what's this shit about "he sucked you in once again" This is the only time I have ever communicated with a troll in the six months I've been on this blog. I have been preaching to everyone for months "Don't answer, they'll go away." I don't need you to tell me about trolls, especially where you've been talking to them yourself. Practice what you preach. It's
      bloody hard to be serene when you're being accused of something you haven't done. Ed

      Delete
    9. OK, OK! I apologize. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

      Delete
    10. FROM ED
      Fuck you .R.S.nd you're superior attitude. Ed

      Delete
    11. @ed

      come on ed. pull yourself together. you're dragging everybody down with such vulgarity.

      Delete
    12. Ed - RS did apologize if he hurt your feelings.

      Delete
    13. Some people have no respect for the netiquette.

      Delete
    14. Mr. Bergeron of the Equality Party wants to court soft nationalists not SRs and Student because they are too stupid to vote anyway. There should be a test for mental deficiencies before these people are allowed to cast ballots in anything. It would be surprising to see the number that would not be allowed near the polls let alone vote on anything other than where to buy their poutine.

      Delete
    15. Hopefully the Equality party will make sure that my rights as a Canadian are being respected and that I can get served in French anywhere in this great bilingual country!

      Delete
    16. At least you wouldn't get attacked for speaking french and everyone would be more than willing to try to assist you - that's the difference between ignorance and respect for others
      hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    17. @cutie003

      "At least you wouldn't get attacked for speaking french..."

      what? somebody was attacked for speaking english? who?

      Delete
    18. Where I live it happens on a monthly basis.

      Delete
    19. The province of Quebec

      Delete
    20. @john johnson

      i have a friend who lives there and he says french canadians never attack anglos for the sole reason that they speak english. do our arguments cancel each other?

      Delete
  24. The Editor writes:

    "When Pauline Marois and the Parti Quebecois tell the faithful that they are working towards sovereignty, despite the fact that support for the option is practically at its nadir..."

    Support for sovereignty is at an incredibly high level, Editor. It is the opposite of what you claim.

    Support for sovereignty, as measured by public opinion polls, comes and goes in waves. Sovereignty support is low when the overall economy is faring badly and other key factors are not at play. The most important of these other key factors is the Humiliation Factor which is almost non-existent at the moment. An example of the Humiliation Factor would be the failure of Meech Lake.

    Yet despite both the economy and the humiliation factors being at very low points -- which would indicate the bottom of the trough of one of the waves -- support for sovereignty is still about 33% of the Quebec population. This is incredibly high when you consider that support registered about 15% when Pierre Trudeau left office, the bottom of a previous trough. Yet a few short years after this and one trumped-up humiliation (Meech Lake) later and support was over 50%, culminating in the '95 referendum (and I don't have to tell you what happened then).

    So the 33% support polls register now is an incredibly high level, considering we are at the bottom of the current trough. It is an incredibly strong base upon which a "perfect storm" of factors could easily bring it up well over the 50% mark...even on a "hard question", pursuant to the Clarity Act. One more perceived "humiliation" (and those are quite easy to trump up, as you know) and -- boom! -- support will shoot up.

    Back when Trudeau left office in the mid 80s, everyone and their brother-in-law was saying that separation was dead. Claim this again and become complacent at your own peril.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...support for sovereignty is still about 33% of the Quebec population."

      latest leger poll, from november 2012, says 39% and latest crop, from december 2012 says 38%.

      where does your number come from?

      Delete
    2. No one in their right mind pays attention to any poll that is published by separatist Leger. They have always been separatist supporters and word their questions so as to tilt favourtism to the seppies. PLEASE provide numbers that we can check from different sources.

      Delete
    3. @cutie003

      "...and word their questions so as to tilt favourtism to the seppies."

      fair enough. now here is the question: "Si un référendum sur la souveraineté du Québec avait lieu aujourd'hui, voteriez-vous POUR ou CONTRE la souveraineté du Québec?"

      and another one from me: how is this question tilted cutie003?

      "PLEASE provide numbers that we can check from different sources."

      ok, crop gives support for independance at 38%.

      tony kondaks seems to have another poll on hand. why don't you ask him to share his source cutie003?

      Delete
  25. You're right Tony and that's why I would like a federally run partition option right now and let those areas go that vote to leave. There would be some problems for sure but no more than we will face based on a 50+1 win by the seppies. That's when the REAL problems will begin and Canada will face it's worst crisis ever. If the rules are not well laid out in advance i.e. set up the percentage required to win via the Clarity Act and make it clear that the areas that decide to remain Canadian will have every right to do so. Yes, before you all jump all over me, that's still safer for all than the whole province being subject to becoming part of a new country with no problem, even though the seppies know that that will never be acceptable to 49% of the population. And damn Mulcair and his Sherbrooke Declaration bullshit that no armed forces would be brought into play should this happen. There will be big trouble and everyone damn well knows it including Ms Piggy. We can't afford to be complacent, ever, in this stinking province and that is the reason the damn economy is going down the toilet. Everyone knows it and no one is willing to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cutie003, I'm not going to jump all over you because I largely agree with you.

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

      Delete
    3. @cutie003

      "...his Sherbrooke Declaration bullshit that no armed forces would be brought into play should this happen."

      let me understand... you would send your sons to kill separatists to make sure the majority's will is not respected? is that right?

      Delete
    4. As we are the majority, and you are not respecting our will, perhaps armed troops would convince you that the majority's will is to be respected and you will speak the language of the majority whether you like it or not.

      Delete
    5. Separatists living in ghettos does not give them the right to call themselves "the majority".

      Delete
    6. @diogenes

      dude! earlier in this thread you wanted an example of how french canadians are oppressed by canada!

      cutie003 is giving you a glimpse here.

      Delete
    7. @diogenes and you can see from my comments that the anglophone minorities are oppressed by quebec - same difference "student".

      Delete
    8. How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot you seppie troll. The above is what could have happened had Canada not been the great democratic country that it is but given that you people are never satisfied, the above is exactly what SHOULD have happened to put a stop to your stupidity. You obviously cannot see it yourself, so I'm pointing out the failure of the logic you idiots use when dealing with the anglophone and allophone minorities that live in this stinking province. Put an end to your destructive methods of division and leave the thinking to those with brains. None of you seppies have the mental capacity to make any kind of decision for anyone let alone a whole province in our wonderful country - twit!

      Delete
  26. Replies
    1. There is no Peggy, it's just his bizarre reference to Cutie. Please don't keep getting sucked in by any more of his nonsense.

      Delete
    2. R.S

      Vous trouvez que "cutie" lui va bien?

      Delete
  27. SHE SEEMS TO BE QUITE (MEGA) DISTANCED FROM THE NOTION OF RIGHTFUL COMPROMISE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we're talking about popo, there is no such thing as compromise. She wants power, she wants to take this province out of Canada, the end. To hell with everything and everyone else. I suppose getting to power means you can unfold your own hidden agenda, any way you see fit. I suppose in that respect she is no different than anyone else, except she doesn't have the class, the finesse...the smarts ...to pull it off. No one in her party does.

      Delete
    2. "Hidden Agenda" in the sense that she's wanted Power for the sake of Power. I have never bought that it was about "serving" the people she governs, or doing something good for the jurisdiction she governs. She's always struck me as insincere, but then, just look at the company she keeps, (cough...double-dealing husband of hers), if that isn't a reflection of who she is, not sure what is.

      Delete
    3. "I have never bought that it was about "serving" the people she governs, or doing something good for the jurisdiction she governs. "

      Do you buy the thing about serving the people from any politicos? I must be a devil's advocate here and say that QC is by no means different from any other place on this aspect. We might have a more visceral reaction to the guys here because we live here, but the same principle applies everywhere. Ironically, it's the dictators that can be more honest because they wield a bludgeon over people's heads, while their propaganda, if any, can be crude and unsophisticated, in contrast to the Western propaganda of liberal democracies where politicians do not have the bludgeon and are left with the PR and lies. That's why propaganda was invented and perfected in 2 most open and liberal societies in the world at the time: the US and Britain of the early 20th century.

      Delete
    4. "That's why propaganda was invented and perfected in 2 most open and liberal societies in the world at the time: the US and Britain of the early 20th century."

      That's rather an oversimplification, if not outright incorrect. Flesh it out a little:

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

      Delete
    5. The article proves my point on modern propaganda. It starts with the Brits in India, is carried on by them into the 20th century, is then picked up by Germans in a cruder form ("British propaganda during World War I - called “an impressive exercise in improvisation” - was hastily expanded at the beginning of the war. Under the guidance of Charles Masterman it was set up in Wellington House. Soon, the British effort, eventually vested in an office called M17, far surpassed the German in quality and ability to sway the public mood.[27]"). But not until the US picks it up in 1917 does it become truly perfected by the Creel Commission.

      The two people considered to be fathers of modern propaganda are Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays, both working for the US government's Creel Commission during WW1. Bernays happened to be a nephew of Sigmund Freud, and he applied some of his uncle's findings about human mind to the formation of modern propaganda. After leaving the government, Bernays went into the private sector to work on Madison Avenue, where he applied the propaganda techniques in the nascent advertizing industry.

      Delete
  28. Replies
    1. Indeed, if Canada can be split up, so can Quebec, except that when you use this arguement with the seppies, they'll tell you no f....way! But Montreal is like no other place, it deserves to be a Republic..I think it would get its Life back, it would get its soul back, if it could just distance itself from the BS that surrounds it, and just be allowed to BREATH!

      @Cutie, just think about it, you could move here lol!

      Delete
    2. @anectote

      "But Montreal is like no other place, it deserves to be a Republic. I think it would get its Life back"

      you're right! montreal would thrive! so much that the new republic could swallow up the whole province. hey! maybe even the separatists could find some value in your idea, mate.

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

      Delete
    4. AnceTOTE: Gatineau and the Pontiac would be ghost towns without the federal government employment and buildings so they too would vote to remain within Canada and this way there would be a lot less areas involved in violence. The federal government owns most of the buildings in the NCR and would be loathe to give up this property so we too would want to become a province in Canada along with Montreal and provide a corridor through a hostile quebec. Manned borders perhaps but borders nonetheless.

      Delete
  29. Yes i was talking about popo. I think she has to be the politician with the most nicknames of ALL TIME. I don't know to laugh or to cry.

    ReplyDelete
  30. FROM ED
    Tony, the big factor now that is the elephant in the room is the money. They don't have it and they know they can't afford a referendum.
    If you read Andrew Coyne's column in the Gazette today you will see why there will be no separation or partition. Canada cannot allow it to happen. The Federal government does not hold the power to say yes. Quebec sure as hell does not have the say unilaterally even with 99%. The Party Quebecois is here to run the Quebec, they do not own it any more than the people do. All the land is owned by all the people of canada who all have a say in their country of which Quebec is a small part. Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And for the sake of posterity, this is the article that Ed was referring to:

      Andrew Coyne: Why one province can’t dismantle Canada — no matter how ‘clear’ the majority

      The past couple of weeks have offered a vivid demonstration of this country’s penchant, as someone once put it, for pulling ourselves up by the roots every so often to see if we’re still growing. Responding to the demands of precisely no one, the NDP offered up a private member’s bill, C-470, it proposes should replace the Clarity Act, the 1999 legislation setting the conditions under which the federal government would enter negotiations with “a province” — let’s call it Quebec — proposing to secede.

      Where the latter required a “clear majority” on a “clear question” in a referendum on secession, the clarity or otherwise of both to be assessed by Parliament, the NDP bill sets out in black and white what at least one of them would mean: a majority of just 50% plus one. Moreover, it reverses the onus. Where the Clarity Act forbids the government from entering negotiations unless its conditions are met, C-470 obliges Ottawa to negotiate in that event.

      The timeliness of this initiative is, shall we say, open to debate. The Parti Québécois may be in power in Quebec, but as a minority government it is in no position to call a referendum soon, and would not be even if it held a majority. To make matters more hypothetical, the bill’s sponsor, NDP democratic reform critic Craig Scott, holds down the very last spot — 240th out of 240 — in the lottery that determines the order in which private member’s bills are taken up. So there is zero possibility of this bill coming to a vote in the current Parliament.

      Nevertheless, if the PQ were to win a majority, and if the NDP were to win the next federal election, and if the PQ were to hold a referendum, and if it were to win it, this might become an issue worth debating. As it is, it is almost as hard to take seriously the NDP’s critics as it is the party itself.

      Scenarios calling for majorities larger than 50%+1:

      • Constitutional amendment:
      In Canada, a constitutional amendment requires the approval of the House, the Senate and seven provinces representing 50% of Canadians. In the U.S., two-thirds of both congressional houses as well as 38 states must vote “yes.”

      • Tax increase: Some city and state governments require a two-thirds, three-quarters or four-fifths majority to raise taxes. New Hampshire, for its part, on Wednesday voted down a proposal that would have required a supermajority on tax increases or to approve borrowing.

      • Veto override: If the U.S. Congress wants to overturn the president’s veto of a particular bill, for example, two-thirds of both houses must vote “yes.”

      • Corporate merger: A supermajority, typically of two-thirds of shareholders, is oftentimes required to approve a merger or acquisition.

      • Impeachment: Then-president Bill Clinton was impeached by a majority vote in the House of Representatives, but he was acquitted by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds supermajority to convict.

      • Municipal re-zoning: Some cities and counties require a supermajority to pass a zoning amendment. Aldermen on a Mississippi council, for example, blocked a move to rezone a residential area because they did not come up with the majority-plus votes.

      Notwithstanding the near universal scorn the NDP proposal has aroused, at least in the English-speaking media, the striking thing is how much the two sides are agreed. Both share the same bedrock assumption: that a vote of Quebecers, by itself, is sufficient to trigger negotiations on secession. They differ only on the size of the majority, or more particularly, whether to spell it out in advance.

      Delete
    2. The problem with the Clarity Act, the NDP likes to say, is that it is unclear. Well, no: that’s its virtue, as I’ll explain in a minute. In the meantime, be clear on this: Canada is under no moral or democratic obligation to dismantle itself in response to a vote of just one province, no matter how “clear” the majority.

      I would say it was under no legal obligation, either, had not the Supreme Court, in its famous 1998 secession reference, invented a constitutional duty to negotiate, not only in response to a demand for secession but for any constitutional change, provided it had the support of a clear majority of “a province’s” voters — though the court, like the government, preferred to leave the meaning of “clear” unclear.

      Also unclear is how enforceable this vague convention-without-a-precedent would be, or what exactly the rest of Canada would have to negotiate. What is clear, however, is that, notwithstanding the ecumenical language, this obligation would only ever apply with regard to Quebec. Suppose Alberta were to demand, backed by a referendum vote of 90%, that equalization be abolished. Does anyone pretend this would trigger negotiations with the rest of Canada, or that Quebec would show up if it did?

      So people who claim to believe a clear majority of one province is enough to force negotiations do not actually mean it. They can’t. It’s preposterous. Democracy does not mean you get whatever you vote for, no matter how fanciful. It means you get what you’re entitled to. You can’t vote to help yourself to something that isn’t yours: for example, one-sixth of the territory of Canada. And a part of any population cannot decide, by itself, on matters that affect the whole.

      But, you protest, we don’t accept a referendum vote as sufficient in itself to secede: only to force negotiations. That’s true, though it’s a fairly late-breaking development. For decades, the consensus position among federalists, even outside Quebec, was that secession was a matter exclusively for Quebecers to decide. But while it’s progress that conventional wisdom now obliges a seceding province to negotiate the terms of its departure, it does not follow that the rest of Canada is under the same obligation.

      The only way the two sides would have anything to negotiate, after all, is if Quebec’s obligation to negotiate could be enforced — that is, if it could be prevented from seceding unilaterally. And if we could prevent it, why would we negotiate? In fact, the issue in such an unlikely event wouldn’t be whether we could prevent it, but whether a seceding government would be able to make it stick: that is, to evict an unwilling federal authority from its soil. That’s especially difficult to do when nearly half the province is dead set against the idea.

      All right, it’s possible to imagine Quebecers voting by such an overwhelming majority that the rest of Canada would have to respond in some fashion — as a purely practical matter, that is. But quite how large a majority that would be is best left to the judgment of Parliament in the circumstances that presented themselves at the time.

      Perhaps that strikes you as cynical. Fair enough: why should separatists have all the fun? Sovereignty, someone once said, is what you can get away with. Maybe federalism is what you can put a stop to.

      Delete
    3. This is the same post I referred to yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen so many may have read it before. Plus there is another in the Ottawa Citizen this morning by William Johnson entitled "NDP attempts to fulfil Levesque's fondest dream". To hell with Mulcair and his stupid attempt to foil the Clarity Act which is CANADIAN Law that is legal internationally and not stupid "quebec" law that tries to overtake the laws of the country in which the separatist ghettos lie. International and Federal Laws are what this country follow and stupid quebec laws that are forced on the population in this province mean nothing to anyone except the separatists and their crazy Nazi language police. It's more than past time that people start outright rebellion against these fascists.

      Delete
    4. @r.s

      next time just post the link, mate. pasting the whole thing may trick casual readers not familiar with your style into thinking you wrote that thing.

      Delete
    5. @cutie003

      you are more violent than ever. what's up, cutie003?

      you know undecided french canadian voters read your comments, right?

      what effect do you think your comments have on them?

      do they think "oh, that moderate woman is right i'll vote no because canada and english canadians like her are so great whereas this dream of independance is nazi stupid jerk",

      or do they think "oh my god she's out there, angry anglos like her really exist? i don't understand her. how many like her are there?!? hum whatever... i think we should go our own way, she's dangerous for my culture. we're just too different. i'll vote yes..."?

      or do they think something else?

      Delete
    6. Thank you RS - sometimes people can't access these links because you have to have a subscription to the paper to do so, so I'm always glad when people do that. No mind to the trolls.

      Delete
    7. Any rational federalist, be they francophone, anglophone or allophones, would understand the reason you antagonistic a$$h---- who are willing to sacrifice our land and our economy for your own selfishness, get under the skin of the rest of us that reside here. All they have to do is read the stupid comments of yourself and SR to know that you're deliberately baiting us with your own form of ethnic cleansing and they are bright enough to read between the lines. I don't worry about "rational" people - just the ones of your ilk.

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

      Delete
    9. Hopefully they will also see that we've been pushed far enough and now we're fighting back against language zealots, aggressive SOBs that have been getting away with ethnic cleansing of this province for the past 40 years. Robbers of an innocent generation of rights and freedoms from people that deserve to communicate in any language that suits THEM - not that suits the miserable, social deficient society that we have churned out because we were kind and had sympathy for their desire to retain their language and culture. What an example we have set for all the world to see - kindness and empathy is the wrong way to help people! Force is the only thing they understand - and I always thought we were civilized - what a wake up call - others will see the failure in this experience and the world will again be vindicated in always using force rather than reason because at least 40% of the human race cannot be reasoned with - you seppies should all be proud of yourselves.

      Delete
    10. I did post the link right up top in BOLD, pointing out that it was a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, and still people aren't happy. Believe it or not, some people don't bother looking up links and links also tend to break over time so I also post the text of the article for people who come back to read this page at a later date. Too bad if some people don't like it. I don't like their style either.

      Delete
  31. You can't blame politicians for lying, since by their very nature, they are expected to lie.

    But at least we have to start calling Pauline Marois out on her lies. Just the look on her face screams liar.

    The best way to stop her lies are to raise awareness that exposes her lies, like this article.

    Let's keep it up!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely right, Anonymous!

      But please look at the "How to Comment on this Blog" section at the top of every page because you really shouldn't be posting as Anonymous... it just gets too confusing when people do that.

      Delete
  32. FROM ED
    Cutie, I don't know why you want to get into what's between R.S. and myself> "Don't get youir undies in a twist" is NOT an apology. I don't need an apology he would have been better to say nothing but his superiority wouldn't let him. He's been talking to the tolls as much as all of you. Now he tells me and everyone they shouldn't do that. He tells anonymous to use a nickname. Isn't that the EDITOR"S job. We don't need a second editor here. I was fighting the trolls since before the election. Incidentally, instead of mounting the whole long article by Andrew Coyne, he could have just posted the link. Ed

    ReplyDelete
  33. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE CALGARYFriday, February 8, 2013 at 3:54:00 PM EST

    Blogs worth following if you speak/read french and unlike SR, are federalists:
    1. antagoniste.net which is very insightful.
    2. http://blogjacquesbrassard.blogspot.ca/ which is complementary. The author is an ex-PQ separatist that "saw the light"...
    An excerpt from Jacques' latest post:
    http://blogjacquesbrassard.blogspot.ca/2013/02/le-pq-et-la-creation-de-richesse.html

    "le gouvernement du PQ devra mettre au rancart son hostilité congénitale envers l’entreprise privée et adopter une fiscalité d’entreprise et un régime de redevances qui n’effraieraient pas les investisseurs".
    "Chez nous aussi, il y a des gaz de schistes. Mais, c’est le blocus total. Les Québécois sont terrorisés à la perspective de créer de la richesse par l’exploitation de ce gaz maléfique".
    "Le Québec est devenu la risée du monde entier!"

    From antagoniste.net:

    http://www.antagoniste.net/2013/02/07/le-declin-tranquille-xiii-les-travailleurs/

    What can be added? Kinda sums it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and where do you get the left's point of view?

      i mean, you know you have to balance your sources if you want to avoid drifting towards conformity to accepted beliefs also known as intellectual orthodoxy?

      Delete