Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Quebec's New Ayatollahs

The debate currently raging in Quebec over the the government's role in the regulation of religion, is actually the direct result of Quebec's grand failure to understand or manage its language and immigration policy.

The province and its native francophone population finds itself in the uncomfortable situation of needing  immigrants to fill the void caused by a falling birthrate, yet cannot abide by those immigrants who are welcomed, but who fail to fully adopt the language, mores, values and convention of the host state.
It isn't a problem indigenous to Quebec, all western societies face the very same problem to varying degrees, but in Quebec the problem of assimilation is exacerbated by the choice of two competing cultures,

The spectre of the disastrous European immigration experiment looms large over the debate and Quebecers look with trepidation at the rise of Islam in Europe and the perceived threat of a growing community seen as disloyal, distinct and dangerous.

It's a nasty conundrum, Quebec needs immigrants, but doesn't like the ones who are accepted, specifically Muslims, who are seen as a threat to social cohesion.
I won't get into the immigration question here, except to say that in choosing immigrants based on language, Quebec has boxed itself into a corner. By trying to fix its language problem through selective immigration, where French speakers are selected before more qualified immigrants, Quebec may do itself more harm then good.

It's a Catch-22 where it seems that Quebec cannot solve its language situation without affecting its social situation. As they say, Damned if you do, or damned if you don't.

Since the political decision to continue accepting these French speaking immigrants seems to over-ride social and economic issues, it falls to suppression of faith as the only manner to stem and reverse the perceived tide of the 'Islamization' of Quebec.
While any such effect, if it exists at all, is vastly overblown, the perceived notion or urban myth that Muslims are a threat, is something militants and the PQ are determined to face-off against.

And so Quebec is taking its lead from France, where the Muslim population has reach over 10% of the population and where their large urban pockets amplifies the community's influence in many key cities.
In France (as in many European countries), it isn't a case of turning off the spigot of immigration, the Muslims are already installed in large enough to 'pose a problem'
The problem is not that they are Muslim, but that a significant number of them are religiously observant and whose many core beliefs are at odds with the principles of French society. Where those principles clash, (like the equality of men and women), the orthodox Muslims are (or are perceived) to be unbending and therein lies the rub.

And so France is imposing a solution in which it is attempting to damper the zeal of observant Muslim by edict. By banning traditional garb in public, the government sends a clear and unambiguous message, that observant Muslims are not welcome in France and as these restrictive rules are promulgated, those who are observant are forced to abandon their orthodoxy or go underground. To ordinary Frenchman the first solution is preferable, but the second acceptable.

All these measures are justified by the notion of separation of Church and state, a concept that harks back to the American Bill of Rights of 1791, an act amending the United States Declaration of Independence, which was a keystone in advancing and codifying the concept of the government staying out of the religion business.


 It fell to Thomas Jefferson to expand on the concept in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut, in1802, a part of which is reproduced below.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson
It is important to note that while modern politicians in France and Quebec reference the concept of the separation of Church and State, they fail to understand or deliberately misinterpret exactly what is or should be implicit in that policy, that is, that outside government people are free to choose what and how to believe.
While the state may act neutral in its position on religion, banning individuals from expressing their beliefs in public, is a direct violation of the covenant of the separation of Church and State.

Today the anti-religion Ayatollahs of Quebec seek to pervert the concept of separation of Church and State in order to banish religion from all walks of public life, using the state to bludgeon the faith out of the observant by means of restrictive regulations based on contrived and fitted rules that hold that any contact with the state must be sanitized from religion in the name of separation. 

In a society like Quebec where the State contols our education system from daycare to post-secondary education, our entire health system, our political system and where one-thid of workers are in the direct or indirect employ of  the government, enforcing such limitations is a direct attack of the right to practice one's faith free from state interference.

The new anti-religious Ayatollahs in the PQ and the Francophone Press make no bones about their visceral hatred of religion and openly admit that they want religion out of the lives of Quebecers, largely because they see it as a competing force for the alter-religion that they themselves promote, that of sovereignty.

It was with some amusement tinged with sadness that I watched a television advertisement paid for by the Quebec government promoting tolerance towards gays and lesbians.
It seems that in its wisdom the government believes the general population needs to be more accepting towards gays and lesbians,( a good idea) all the while asking the public to be intolerant towards other minorities, those who are religiously observant.

In one such commercial, two men openly kiss in the arrivals area of the airport while the announcer challenges viewers who feel uncomfortable with the scene.
I wonder if the government would dare run the same advertisement featuring a Hasid family or a man wearing a turban or Hijab clad women, again asking for the public to modify its perception.....Fat chance of that!

In Quebec, led by the PQ and the anti-religious Ayatollahs in the Press, a campaign of  'salisage' is underfoot, meant to discredit and humiliate the religiously observant, based on the idea that these people are social misfits, out of tune and step with society in general and thus a threat to good order (read: the march towards Independence) .

How else could this drivel ever find its way into the main press.
"For an immigrant, a good way to integrate is to respect the customs of the host society. This obviously implies greater discretion in expressing his beliefs in public spaces that come as contrasted with it. This is nothing but a sign of respect to the host society. -Mathieu Bock-Coté Link{fr}{PW}
"Ostentatious religious symbols are not primarily a sign faith. If that were the case, the signs could be discreet. Rather they meant to have a political impact They are a provocative and formalized declaration of a refusal to integrate. It is a showdown by those who wish to break the host society and force it to capitulate. -Mathieu Bock-Coté   link-{fr}{PW}
I'd expect a statement like this from the religious police in Saudi Arabia or Iran, certainly not in any North American context.

In an article by journalist Richard Martineau he calls the turban affair a victory for 'Extremists' a term that is shocking by its connotation. The idea that these Sikhs are a somehow  dangerous and violent fifth column, based solely on religious garb, can only be described as racist.
Pardon my ignorance, but my interpretation of an extremist in the religious context, is someone who resorts to violence or terrorism to further their ends.
I'd hardly characterize our local turban-wearing Sikhs as extremists, nor would I characterize a Quebecer wearing a kippah, or a women wearing a Hijab as such.
It seems that hate and intolerance is alive and well in the PQ and their trusted media dogs.

So I'm not uncomfortable calling these haters, Ayatollahs.

They emulate the very worst traits of the religious bosses in Iran and Saudi Arabia where not conforming to state-mandated standards is a punishable act under the law.
We're not far from that in Quebec, if ever the PQ pass their Quebec values legislation, banning religious regalia in public.
Let's go back to something else the illustrious Thomas Jefferson said in regards to the religious affinity of others;
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
This goes to the essential debate, in other words what is the big deal about a turban on the soccer field, a kippah worn by a doctor, or a scarf worn by a cashier at the license bureau?

There are many things we don't like or agree with in life, be it rock music, punkism, religious orthodoxy, country music, rock music, left or right wing politicians etc. etc.
Is it reasonable to suppress a concept, a lifestyle, a political opinion or a religious persuasion based only on the fact that the majority is against it?

That is exactly what the Ayatollahs of Quebec, Iran and Saudi Arabia are telling us.

Conform or get the Hell out....

113 comments:

  1. So if a Muslim woman wears a scarf, that's not okay, but... what if I want to wear a scarf? That's okay? Is it okay for me to refuse to integrate on a secular level?

    I am worried that the religious hatred in Quebec is so strong that they won't even care about the statist over-reach.

    The problem is not immigrants. Immigrants must be free like anyone else if our society is to remain the way we genuinely want it. The problem is lack of children. If large numbers of people in your neighbourhood don't speak French, assimilation is not gonna happen. It doesn't matter how many language laws you pass. You can't make non-French people into French people if they're forced by the State to speak French, and not by the force of circumstance. I speak French because I lived in a city that was 98% French. But had I lived in a city that was 20% English, I think my French would have greatly suffered-- I simply would have tried as much as possible to deal with English people. It's human nature. The only way to make sure enough people to make immigrants assimilate is make sure the population has enough kids, i.e. demographics to assimilate them. And if you don't, you have to make the choice: either don't bring in all these immigrants, or else accept the linguistic and cultural future they will bring.

    I note that Bock-Côté assumes it's only immigrants who are Muslims. Sometimes native Quebeckers convert to Islam. Would it be okay if they wore scarves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "either don't bring in all these immigrants...".

      And who is going to work to pay the taxes needed to keep all the pure-laine on BS? BS is their ancestral right, that is why importations like me are needed here...

      Delete
    2. Ah the catch 22 - we anglophones are also considered "immigrants" so add our taxes to yours An Importation - can you just see how sad this economy will be when they are restricted to taxing only "pur laine" francophones. Actually, as we have no representation from the government, this should take place immediately. As of today.

      Delete
  2. Perhaps the Ayatollah-in-Chief discussed these matters with Mexican President Nieto during her recent visit as imaginary head of state.

    "La première ministre, qui effectuait son premier déplacement officiel au Mexique, s'est montrée satisfaite du niveau de sa relation avec le chef d'État mexicain, qui a été élu il y a un an.

    «Il y a un nouveau départ au sens où on a repris un contact qui depuis quelques années avait été plus ténu, a-t-elle dit. (...) Il y avait eu des rencontres dans le passé mais jamais d'une façon aussi ordonnée, aussi organisée, avec autant de profondeur, en abordant des sujets qui généralement s'abordent d'État à État indépendant et dans le cas présent évidemment je suis à la tête d'une province, mais nous avons procédé à des discussions comme si j'avais toute latitude à cet égard.»"

    Marois affirme qu'elle a établi des relations d'État indépendant avec le Mexique

    There must be plenty of CEOs in Calgary who'd like to conduct their business as if they had complete latitude by virtue of being from the "real" capital of Canada. Perhaps they should follow her example!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference is that those people have common sense and don't bother "playing country" as the separatists do. Everything the separatists do is to promote the idea that they don't need Canada - business as usual to show their followers that they are capable of running a separate country. I wouldn't even care that they do that because they look foolish with the Canadian Flag always present, but they are again wasting my tax money on their fun and games. Our infrastructure, our hospitals, our schools, our roads, everything in this province is falling apart but they spend money on needless nonsense, pretending, at our expense. The only ones who don't see through this sham are their blind followers.

      Delete
  3. From the Rationalist:

    It is time we put a face on just who French Canadian ethnic nationalists (and their racist sympathizers in English Canada) are telling to "conform or get the hell out":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGhs0KvffNA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see how a lecture from an orthopaedic surgeon relates to this story. Please elaborate.

      Delete
    2. "This goes to the essential debate, in other words what is the big deal about a turban on the soccer field, a kippah worn by a doctor, or a scarf worn by a cashier at the license bureau?"

      And not just any doctor. The Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at Quebec's third largest hospital.

      Delete
  4. Editor: What you wrote above, i.e. "The new anti-religious Ayatollahs in the PQ and the Francophone Press make no bones about their visceral hatred of religion and openly admit that they want religion out of the lives of Quebecers, largely because they see it as a competing force for the alter-religion that they themselves promote, that of sovereignty."

    That's exactly why this whole thing started, although the rabid racism of Lionel Groulx and his dogmatic if not bloodthirsty passion for nationalism in a Catholic society was on now about 80 years ago.

    As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another reason for Canada to disassociate itself from a disenfranchised Quebec. It goes against the pluralism we promote with zeal outside Quebec. It's what makes Canada an enviable place in the world to live.

    Separatists are an evil incarnate, the result of Quebec disenfranchising itself from the strong iron hand of the Roman Catholic church and power seekers like Lionel Groulx and Maurice Duplessis. Those two evil incarnates who unfortunately co-existed are largely responsible for the vacuum their deaths created. The vacuum was filled by rudderless ship of the Quiet Revolution and grabbing hold of superiority through language and the colour of their skin; too, like it or not, the religion they once embraced that is now much less influential.

    As far as I'm concerned, Quebec is still a rudderless ship, and anyone who tries to save it from outside faces rebuke for interfering in their directionless affairs for sovereignty is directionless. Like the former Soviet Union, it caused such displacement for the majority and new opportunity for the few who were shrewd enough to take advantage of the displacement.

    If this keeps up in Quebec, it will find its way, but not before going through a generation of displacement and turmoil. Will it be what the visionaries of separation seek? Probably not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No NHL team for Quebec City... no Vincent Lecavalier for Montreal... it must be so much fun imagining that language is more important than money when you're a daydreaming separatist... LOL! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TM: I'm sure Lecavalier had ZERO intention of ever playing for Montreal, just like most of the better French speaking hockey players. The media in Quebec is a circus. I don't even think Daniel Brière will consider Montreal. He sure overlooked the team when he was a desirable UFA years ago when he left Buffalo for the Flyers. I think Montreal offered him more, but between the taxes, the media circus et al, he decided to overlook his home province. Quel surprise! Now that the Flyers discarded him, think he'll still come to Montreal? Unless it's the only team that will take him on, fat chance!

      Delete
  6. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTWednesday, July 3, 2013 at 6:22:00 AM EDT

    quebec suspected of being worst province for work "under the table"
    http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique-quebecoise/201307/02/01-4666979-maltais-sinquiete-du-travail-au-noir-dans-la-construction.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B13b_politique-quebecoise_559_section_POS1
    quebec construction workers statistically among least hours per week of work. Widely suspected of working 10 hours/week "under the table"...
    http://www.antagoniste.net/2013/06/25/lindustrie-de-la-deconstruction/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Editor, someone has to draw the line somewhere.

    Honor killings of family members are acceptable in their society, do we want to accept that here too?
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/30/shafia-trial-verdict-reaction.html

    I don't understand why people can't realize that religion (ALL OF THEM) brings nothing good.

    Language is one thing, religion is another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it fair to generalise all muslims as murderers and extremists? Terrorism is politically, not religiously, motivated. Honour killings have nothing to do with islam. Religion brings joy to people's lives. It has probably saved lives from suicide. A relationship with God is a wonderful thing that does not deserve to be oppressed.

      Delete
    2. Quebec is not attacking political theocratic Islam or the controversional Islamic practices. It is attacking the mainstream and moderate practices. It is the government of this province that is acting like a totalitarian fanatic in this case.

      It is important to realize that secular governments can be as fanatic as religious extremists in some cases, while in other cases secular goverments can be a good force in stemming religious extremism. So there is a dynamic between the two, with both sides capable of extremism.

      Delete
    3. In Quebec, language is a religion.

      Delete
    4. What a ridiculous thing to say. The Christain bible also says its acceptable to sacrifice ones son if god commands it and one must sacrifice animals and may keep slaves but how many Christians do as such in North America? Hardly any much like hardly any Muslims actually engage in honour killings.

      That aside murder is already illegal in Canada so how would banning head scarves in the public service stop it from happening? You think that by stepping on their religious rights they'll turn around and say thank you Quebec society for not allowing me to be how I am, so now I'll happily integrate and be what you want me to be?

      You shouldn't legislate language and you shouldn't legislate religion, if someone wants to babble on about Xenu in Swahili in their home who cares? So long as it doesn't effect other people, and current Canadian law insures that they won't.

      Delete
    5. I'm definitely not defending christianity, which is probably even worse. All organized religions are terrible and we need to get rid of all of them, in my opinion. They probably served an important role at some point in our history, but today all they do is cause discrimination, pain and suffering.

      If you want to have a relationship with some higher power, you don't need an organization to tell you how to do that. You don't need to be told how to dress, or who you can or can't have a relationship with. You don't need to slaughter animals in the cruelest possible way while they are still conscious just because some ancient text says so.

      Thatguy: You're right. It seems completely unfair for me to be saying "don't legislate language, but do it for religion". Kind of hypocritical of me, and I admit it. There is a difference though: Language/communication is not an option, while religion is.

      Pretending that religion doesn't affect other people is dishonest though. How much discrimination finds its source in religion? How many wars were caused by religion?

      Delete
    6. Religion has always been more of an excuse for war and discrimination than a cause. If we are to suggest that wars are caused by religion, are the ~150 000 000 killings under atheist regimes in the 20th century alone being attributed to atheism as well? There is no evidence that religion has a negative affect on society, especially not in Canada. I don't want this thread to turn into a debate of atheism vs christianity. I have no problem with atheists. They have brought plenty of good points to the table. Not enough to turn me away from my faith, but enough to present a solid argument. I must say, though, that I strongly disagree with the movement to completely eliminate religion from public life. This is discriminatory and goes against the principles of democracy. Let's just end this here. There is a time and place for these kind of debates, and this blog is not it.

      Delete
    7. "Language/communication is not an option, while religion is."

      The reason why you have language legislation in Quebec is precisely because there are options. The legislation is to discourage people from alternatives.

      Delete
    8. *there are options for language of daily communication, that is.

      Delete
  8. Editor,

    Good post, unfortunately full of factual errors. Let me give you the corrected version of some of your lines. Emphasis is mine.

    "Today the anti-religion Ayatollahs of Quebec seek to pervert the concept of separation of Church and State in order to banish religion - except Catholicism - from all walks of public life, using the state to bludgeon the faith out of the observant by means of restrictive regulations based on contrived and fitted rules that hold that any contact with the state must be sanitized from religion other than Catholic in the name of separation.

    In a society like Quebec where the State contols our education system from daycare to post-secondary education, our entire health system, our political system and where one-thid of workers are in the direct or indirect employ of the government, enforcing such limitations is a direct attack of the right to practice one's faith free from state interference.

    The new anti-religious Ayatollahs in the PQ and the Francophone Press make no bones about their visceral hatred of other religions and openly admit that they want religion that is not Catholic out of the lives of Quebecers, largely because they see it as a competing force for the alter-religion that they themselves promote, that of sovereignty."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another 350 jobs lost in Montreal. Vivre le Quebecois Merde!

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Delta+Hotel+close+October+putting+people+work/8611678/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/household-survey/education-labour.html

    Quebec labour mobility is 1. IE Quebec people don;t move anywhere for jobs.

    Shows precisely that Quebecers have few to no employment options if they even bother to try to find work.

    They could move to another province or town like everybody else to find work. However PQ culture is to sit around and complain for govt handouts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Opinion+time+tell+truth+about+Quebec+separatism/8611777/story.html
    read it and weep seppies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, but thanks for asking - I notice she is very busy on the Montreal Gazette all the time. She must live in Montreal. Are you supposed to ask this type of question on these blogs?

      Delete
    2. Saddens me to see you had misplaced your faith in Michel in the past Cutie.

      Now you're seeing the real him. Just another tunnel vision seppie who holds all those who
      aren't like him with disdain.

      I feel bad for that Wendy woman as Michel likely reported her to theJeunes
      Patriotes' Tele-terrorism division.

      Delete
    3. I'm afraid very little surprises me anymore anonymous. I just hope the lady watches her back and has an assumed name. Most people don't use their real names on those comment areas anyway.

      Delete
    4. Cutie pie...thank you so much for that link, article by
      BY BRIAN LEE CROWLEY

      I particularly enjoyed the following:

      ..."Think about what any of those conditions might mean. The rule of law means that secession must be accomplished under the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not contemplate a province leaving, it would have to be amended. Such an amendment would fall under the unanimity rule, meaning that Quebec must negotiate secession with the nine other provinces plus Ottawa; any province, even tiny Prince Edward Island, could legitimately upset the secession applecart all on its own. Nor would any province give its consent unless it got its quid pro quo; Quebec taught us that rule of constitutional negotiation. Federalism doesn’t disappear simply because Quebecers vote to make it go away.

      Respecting minority rights means that Ottawa would almost certainly have to protect the interests of at least two minorities: aboriginals (who have zero interest in leaving Canada) and federalists who voted to remain in Canada. Accordingly, Quebec could not possibly get out of the negotiations with its territory intact. Minorities given short shrift in the negotiations could turn to the Supreme Court for relief.

      Fond fantasies aside, Quebec cannot, by majority vote, wave away its legal obligations. Quebec would crave and need international recognition, but that recognition would only be forthcoming if Quebec were to leave according to the rules. Those are the ones the Supreme Court has laid down. Virtually any imaginable secession deal that could emerge from such negotiations would be repugnant and unacceptable to Quebec nationalists. Result: economic devastation and deadlock, no matter how much Quebecers might wish to leave.

      Breaking up is indeed hard to do; so hard in fact that the chances of it ever occurring are microscopic. We should say so and act accordingly."

      I could just see the seppies coming out in droves and saying..."Lies...it's all Lies"...and just going on with their little lives in their little bubbles and spreading more of THIER falsehoods. LOL


      Delete
    5. What comforts me is knowing that Patrice, S.R, Y.L, Student and all other seppies posting here
      have been profiled and cataloged by CSIS. (Their real identities, I mean).

      Delete
    6. Yes, I'm sure we've all been identified and profiled by our CSIS people but at least they know who's on what side of the debate - lol.

      Delete
    7. We should be investigating CSIS for having a criminal like Arthur Porter on it's oversight board not the other way around.

      Putting a medical doctor from Sierra Lione on the board of CSIS?

      Totally unfucking qualified he is for the position to start with.

      Imagine the back room deals and payoffs required to put him in this position. Nobody will ever answer these questions. Far too embarrassing.

      We are probably monitored by the NSA in the USA and they just tell CSIS the details.

      CSIS probably have a whole division watching "problem anglo's" while the muslim lunatics and PQ are what will ruin the country.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, must admit that Porter appointment does arouse suspicion - not too worried about "problem anglo's" - the PQ are much more likely to have the underground militia than we "problem anglo's" - muslim lunatics (extremists) are a world over problem and I think when a religion is touting that death will be quite lovely while being alive sucks, that we will always have this problem. People that believe that kind of garbage will always be a threat especially if their daily life is really one big hardship.

      Delete
  13. "It isn't a problem indigenous to Quebec, all western societies face the very same problem to varying degrees, but in Quebec the problem of assimilation is exacerbated by the choice of two competing cultures."

    I agree with you. And this is one of the reasons why I am for Québec's independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. M. Patrice,

      So in your idea of independent Quebec, one of the two competing cultures will not be there anymore?

      Delete
    2. ....."And this is one of the reasons why I am for Québec's independence."

      I suppose it is human nature to want what we can have. LOL
      But perhaps quebec independance is attainable after all, just like world peace !! LOLOLOL

      Delete
    3. Troy,

      Of course, both culture will still be there. (But there will bw only one government instead of two.)

      Now, most anglophones and a large part of immigrants vote for the liberal to oppose independence regardless of any other issue. After independence, they will not have to vote against independence no matter what. So anglos and allos might just start to vote according to what they think of left or right policies, of social policies, of what to do with Hydro electricity rate, of what they think of free trade, or whatever other issue. The other culture would still exist, but, then, they would get involved in various public debates that would not be divided along franco-anglo lines.

      Delete
    4. What a load of shit.

      Separatists started the problems mentioned above.

      For example, it was the seps who duplicated services such
      as Revenu Quebec.

      Quebec's the only province with its own provincial-level tax
      body.

      Of course, if you ever bothered to leave your insular cocoon, you
      would know this...but something tells me you do, but you insist on
      bullshitting us.

      Keep one thing in mind, Michael Patrick...it is YOUR movement that
      disallowed the left-center-right voting deficit.

      Dont waste our time telling us separation is the solution to a problem
      you created.

      Delete
    5. M. Patrice,

      After independence, they will not have to vote against independence no matter what.

      Some time ago you wrote that even after two referenda with the same result - the option to stay in Canada wins - more referenda in the future is warranted as people opinion changes over time. However, what if after multiple referenda the option to separate from Canada wins? That is it? There will be no more referendum? People can not change their mind about getting back, no matter what?

      If this is what you mean with your idea, how convenient it is for YOUR side of the question? We shall try over and over again if NO wins but once YES wins, then that it is? No more choice for them who have different opinion?

      The other culture would still exist, but, then, they would get involved in various public debates that would not be divided along franco-anglo lines.

      This means what exactly? That the anglophone camp will not have the chance anymore to debate their position in and about English language?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous Coward,

      Anglo-Franco political division did not begin with separatism.

      Upper Canada was created in part because loyalists would not suffer living under french civil code and living within a french majority. Later, when the english population outgrew the french population, all of a sudden, it was not longer egal number of seats for Upper and Lower Canadas, it was the union and representation by population.

      These political changes were not about left and right and about social and economic policies.

      Delete
    7. Troy,

      "However, what if after multiple referenda the option to separate from Canada wins? That is it? There will be no more referendum? People can not change their mind about getting back, no matter what?"

      People could change their mind about getting back, so, yes, people could keep on advocating getting back in Canada. But as far as I know, no people in history gave up its independence willingly.

      And yes, anglos could still debate the place of english in our society. Anglos would then debate with francos who would then no longer fear marginalisation in Canada and francos who would be less on the defensive. And those anglos would then have realised that the holocaust that they expected would not have had occured*. I believe these things would ease things.

      (* During the aparthied, I believe that many whites believed that if blacks ever gained power, it would be pay back time. It did not happen.)

      Delete
    8. M. Patrice,

      But as far as I know, no people in history gave up its independence willingly.

      Think again: Republic of Texas; East Germany.

      Would you think then that there are precedents for the hypothetical independent Quebec to get a referendum to go back?

      Delete
    9. I'll add Newfoundland. But I find Michel's position to be interesting nonetheless.

      Whenever there is an amicable separation of two countries there is usually a time window in which one can move if one identifies more strongly with one country than the other. I suspect that there might be Quebecers in the ROC moving back to Quebec and vice-versa.

      Presumably those who cannot fathom the idea of living outside Canada would move.

      Delete
    10. @Troy or even closer to home and in very recent history: http://bit.ly/ePXswy

      Delete
    11. Michel Patrice said: "* During the aparthied, I believe that many whites believed that if blacks ever gained power, it would be pay back time. It did not happen."

      You might want to read up on that some more. You can start with these:
      http://www.ibtimes.com/helter-skelter-south-africa-alarmists-spread-fear-whites-will-be-massacred-after-nelson-mandela-dies

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/13/fleeing-from-south-africa.html

      "The primary driver for emigration among all groups, but especially whites, who still retain the majority of South Africa's wealth, is fear of crime. With more than 50 killings a day, South Africa has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world."

      "Another largely unnoticed problem is the growing number of attacks on South Africa's white farmers."

      "Then there's the problem of affirmative action, which many whites feel limits their opportunities for advancement and which keeps many émigrés from returning."

      Delete
    12. Apparently, our friend Michel Patrice likes to form an opinion based on subjects he does not have adequate information about.

      Delete
    13. It's called selective argumentation.

      It's clear that the seppies here have never ventured outside
      of Quebec.

      What they know if the outside world is what they see on Fox or
      read in the National Enquirer.

      That's why their movement died.

      That's why none of the BS language gaffes we've seen from the
      PQ sin e they came to power worries or angers me.

      As far as I'm concerned, I'm watching a rabid animal put up its final
      act of aggression before succumbing to the inevitable.

      RIP - Parti Quebecois
      1969 - 2014

      Delete
    14. "That's why their movement died"

      Malheureusement,vous confondez mourir et dormir :)

      Delete
    15. I don't know much about Texas.

      I don't see East Germany as a people who gave up his independence. I see West and East Germany as a nation that reunited itself after being arbitrarily splitted up by outside forces.

      Newfoundland is a strange case. Newfoundland was not an independent nation, it was a colony, then a dominion. When England decided to let Newfounland go, Newfoundland voted to join Canada. If later, Newfoundland would have decided to go back to being ruled by England, that would have really been an independent nation givig up its independence.

      Also, note that newfoundlanders joined Canada which was as british as they were, which shared the same language, same religion, same british parliamentary system, same common law.

      But I don't get this part from Wikipedia : "the Newfoundland legislature voted itself temporarily out of existence in 1933.[...] For 15 years no elections took place, and no legislature was convened." So weird...

      But let's say that there is a precedent. As I said, regardless that there are precedents or not, someone could advocate to go back with Canada after independence. Let's say then that giving independence would then be something that we don't see very often...

      Delete
    16. Texas is an intriguing case. Anglo-american settlers flocked to Texas, attracted by cheap lands in a time of depression in the USA, and quickly outnumbered the local Mexicans. They voted themselves independence from Mexico, mostly over an attempt by Mexico to outlaw slavery against the wishes of the Texans. The Mexicans sent an army, but the army was beaten and a revolution started in Mexico, giving Texas its independence. A few years later, Texas joined the union; after all nearly all of its citizens had been Americans before they had crossed the border.

      It's very much a special case.

      Delete
    17. M. Patrice,

      I don't see East Germany as a people who gave up his independence. I see West and East Germany as a nation that reunited itself after being arbitrarily splitted up by outside forces.

      If you think that German unification was a collaborative effort between East and West Germany where both sides are equal partners, and not simply an acquisition of East Germany by West Germany, you are insulting your own intelligence.

      But let's say that there is a precedent. As I said, regardless that there are precedents or not, someone could advocate to go back with Canada after independence. Let's say then that giving independence would then be something that we don't see very often...

      Let's say then that your argument is simply wrong.

      Delete
    18. "If you think that German unification was a collaborative effort between East and West Germany where both sides are equal partners, and not simply an acquisition of East Germany by West Germany, you are insulting your own intelligence."

      What? You mean that East Germany, after being ruled by the soviet system that was so unefficient that it collapsed and imploded by itself, was not as thriving as West Germany who benefited from the Marshall Plan?

      Of course. I know that East Germany was in a pitiful state.

      Here is what I was saying :

      There were germanic peoples who lived in Europe for centuries and who became what modern Germany was. Modern Germany was an independent nation-state. After the second world war, a part of that nation, East Germany, has been put under the rule of the Soviet Union. That part of Germany lost its independence.

      The people of East Germany probably did not feel that they belonged in the Soviet Union which might explain why a wall was needed to keep them from going to West Germany.

      When the Soviet Union collapsed, east germans and west germans wanted to reunite the Germany that was before the war.

      East and West Germans were not two different nations, they had been apart for 45 years only and the older ones remembered living in the formerly united Germany. East germans did not give up their independence to west germans. They went back to the country they felt they belonged to and that they had never forgotten. They wanted to restore what was before and what felt right : their independent and united country.

      Delete
    19. Germany’s reunification effort has cost the former West Germany an estimated $2 trillion so far to rescue the former East Germany from that disastrous Soviet experiment… that’s $2,000 billion or $2 million million… YIKES! The limited benefit has coloured Germans’ perception of stimulus for other economic basket cases such as Greece. (link 1) (link 2)

      While it’s true that West and East Germany had been apart for “only” 45 years, they had also been together for “only” 74 years. That is to say, the initial German unification occurred in 1871 (which is post-Canadian confederation, and which also included much of ethnically-different and linguistically-different Prussia (modern-day Poland)), Allied occupation following the fall of the Third Reich in 1945 and then German re-unification in 1990.

      Prior to that, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation had included over 500 independent states. Unification exposed "several glaring religious, linguistic, social, and cultural differences between and among the inhabitants of the new nation." This is hardly uncommon. Ethnically-homogeneous countries are in the minority world-wide.

      Delete
    20. In fact pan-national states of the 19th century usually tried to effect the homogeneity that was more theory than fact during the 19th century. It's how many of the minority languages of Europe, namely in France, Germany and Italy, disapeared, mostly through the use of state-enforced public education in the "national" language.

      Delete
    21. I asked reddit/r/de (Reddit in Germany) about their opinion.

      Here is the most relevant answer : http://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/1ho42k/we_need_help_to_settle_an_argument_about_the/cawc1i5

      Another commenter noted that East Germany, occupied by the Soviet Union, never was an independent nation. Another noted West Germany really got back its own independence only when the Allied Control Council was dismantled in 1990 in the reunification process.

      And also, my question started a fight between two commenters. Oups. I guess we are the only ones to argue senselessly forever.

      Delete
    22. I asked reddit/r/de (Reddit in Germany) about their opinion.

      Here is the most relevant answer : http://www.reddit.com/r/de/comments/1ho42k/we_need_help_to_settle_an_argument_about_the/cawc1i5

      Another commenter noted that East Germany, occupied by the Soviet Union, never was an independent nation. Another noted that West Germany really got back its own full independence only when the Allied Control Council was dismantled in 1990 in the reunification process.

      And also, my question started a fight between two commenters. Oups. I guess we are the only ones to argue senselessly forever.

      Delete
    23. M.Patrice: "After independence, they will not have to vote against independence no matter what."

      This is a strange argument for getting anglos and allos to vote for QC's independence. It's like telling Quebeckers in 2011 to finally vote for Harper so that the prospect of Harper's government would no longer arouse anxiety in Quebec because it would simply become a fact.

      By this logic, allos and anglos are the only ones holding the key to ending this thing by voting the way the separatists want. As if the key was not in the separatists' hands in their recognition that there is not enough support for this idea to hang on to it and waste people's time.

      Delete
    24. By your logic, if that was the only reason for independence, you would be absolutely right.

      Delete
    25. First of all, what "independence"? One where the Bank of Canada controls your currency, because you would not dare create your own? One with the "partnership" with Canada? One where you are sovereign AND associated, as per the oxymoron "sovereignty-association"?

      The idea of independence of QC is a cultural phenomenon and one should ideally be immersed in this culture for a long time to get hooked. But there is also a practical aspect to the system that does not favor the non-Quebecois while showing strong favoritism towards the Quebecois, with Quebec "independence" lying along the trajectory of this trend.

      Immigrants and allophones lack the total immersion in the culture that produces Quebec separatists, and they lack practical incentives to support any political solution that empowers a selfish and uncompromising linguistic group in this increasingly competitive world.

      This "argument": "After independence, they will not have to vote against independence no matter what. So anglos and allos might just start to vote according to what they think of left or right policies, of social policies, of what to do with Hydro electricity rate, of what they think of free trade, or whatever other issue"

      is misleading. It says that we'll get to the practical things after we settle the cultural one. Except that the cultural thing is out of our experiential range, i.e. we can't support something that we don't feel for, and blackmail ("vote for this, then we'll get to electricity rates") is no substitute for sympathy with some cause. Second, we will get to the practical things anyways (electricity rates included), even if time is wasted on the cultural one. Third, what guarantee do we have that settling the cultural issue will not produce a situation where the practical matters are settled in our disfavor? Maybe it is in our interest to have the practical issues made secondary in federated Canada than primary in an "independent" Quebec? It sure looks like it, given the favoritism of successive Quebec governments for one linguistic group.

      Delete
    26. "So anglos and allos might just start to vote according to what they think of left or right policies, of social policies"

      The fact that our judgement on social and economic policies can sometimes be skewed by our antipathy and mistrust for the PQ is no reason to vote for the pet project of the PQ. A better solution is for the PQ to stop antagonizing us so we can get rid of our antipathy and mistrust.

      Delete
    27. Adski so obviously speaks the voice of reason while Michel Patrice is desperately trying to find support for Quebec independence by referring to Germany's totally different situation, it's embarrassing...

      Delete
  14. The Editor writes:

    "All these measures are justified by the notion of separation of Church and state, a concept that harks back to the American Bill of Rights of 1791, an act amending the United States Declaration of Independence, which was a keystone in advancing and codifying the concept of the government staying out of the religion business."

    Partially correct.

    The Editor should have said "federal government", not "government".

    Separation of Church and State, as outlined in the first amendment, was meant to only apply to the federal government, not the governments of the individual states which not only didn't want separation of church and state but actively practiced state religions...something that went on until 1947.

    Here is what Kevin Gutzman, the author of "The politically incorrect guide to the constitution" says on this often misunderstood point:

    "People recognized at the time (of the writing of the first amendment)that the first amendment was intended to be a limitation only on the powers of the federal government. After all, it begins by
    saying 'Congress shall make no law' respecting an establishment of religion. The reason it says 'Congress shall make no law' is that people thought that this proposed new federal constitution was going to make the federal government too powerful. We have this principle, we've just come through the revolution wanting to have all our authority through the local legislatures, so we're going to add this
    bill of rights to ensure that the federal government cannot be in the business of telling us what we can say and think about God. We're not going to require as they do in Denmark, that everybody be a Lutheran, we're not going to require as they do in England that everybody be an Anglican. But, if Connecticut wanted to continue what it had at the time the first amendment was adopted, -- to tax you to support Puritanism, Congregationalism -- it could! It could and did! For decades after that!

    "Why? Well, because it always had and that's what Connecticut had been about and there was nothing in the federal constitution to prevent that. The federal courts at first recognized this principle. In fact in 1833 in a case called Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice Marshall for a unanimous court -- and this is the only time Marshall ever handed down a constitutional decision that was against federal authority, the only time -- Marshall said: Everybody knows the Bill of Rights is a limitation only on the federal government.

    "Everybody knew that till 1947. Everybody knew that. So, there is no principle of separation of church and state in the constitution although there is the principle of separation of church and state in constitutional law, that is, these opinions from federal judges."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice to see you understand our First Ammendment. Hope you also understand that the Fourteenth Ammendment restricts the states governments from infringing on American rights in the same manner that the First Ammendment only did for the federal government.

      Delete
  15. Multiculturalism died, and Harper replaced it with "royalization"

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/reconstructing-the-canadian-identity/article12892670/

    Les deux solitudes sont devenues deux lassitudes...Un divorce s'impose.

    ReplyDelete
  16. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTWednesday, July 3, 2013 at 9:20:00 PM EDT

    @ S.R.
    "Les deux solitudes sont devenues deux lassitudes...Un divorce s'impose."

    Tu ne te separeras jamais. Les quebecois sont des grandes gueules qui sont simplement contents de chialler. La preuve? Que fais-tu ici? Tu devrais te concentrer a te separer. Bien petit quebecois villageois que tu es.
    Bonne nuit il est 3am ici.

    ReplyDelete
  17. LD

    Great posting Editor. You touched on a lot of valid points. Quebec really needs to up its game plan if it hopes to attract the cream of the crop to live here, settle down and pay taxes. As it stands now, skilled immigrants get into Canada via Quebec and hightail it out of here within 5 years for a variety of reasons that you've outlined before. I've written this before, virtually all immigrants, emigrate for economic reasons. Quebec is under the false delusion that immigrants come here to save the Quebecois culture and language. They could care less. In 400 years on North American soil, the diffusion of French to areas outside Quebec's borders is alarmingly pathetic. Drive an hour South or West of Montreal and say "Bonjour" to someone and watch their blank stare. French is a tough sell. That kid from Bangladesh force fed French against his will isn't going to save the Quebecois language. Quebecois people having more kids and passing down their language and culture is what will. Stop scarring away business, start creating wealth and attracting investment. The more 60k dollar jobs created in Quebec the more people will feel secure about their future and actually think about having a family. Language politics, separation debates, relatively high rates of Unionization and high taxes keep companies away and from investing and creating jobs here in Quebec. As for immigrants, PQ identity politics and these embarrassing language flare-ups aren't winning people over either. Immigrants are savvy and have many options. Racist politicians and artificial language barriers keep people away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are bank on LD. Here is an article in the Gazette this morning confirming everything you stated in your comment.

      Allophone exodus grows
      http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/loss+anglos+declines+census/8613695/story.html

      Delete
    2. After reading the chart you can see many people of all stripes are leaving the province. Pretty soon Michel and his ilk will be all alone with about 2.5M living in the backwoods by themselves where they can inbreed to ensure they keep their "line" - and they talk about the royal family! lol.

      Delete
    3. Laurie,

      The interesting part about those figures is the net loss of French-speaking people. There are more francophones leaving the province than arriving there. So what happen with Quebec as a French Shangri-La in North America?

      Delete
    4. Alors,ne venez plus dire sur ce blogue que les Québécois,pour des raisons linguistiques, sont coincés dans leur "ghetto".

      Delete
    5. @ Troy,

      Shangri-La-Dee-Da-Quebec will remain a mythical dream for the Seppies, a fading mythical dream.

      Delete
    6. Et les angryphones fantasment à l'idée d'un Montréal à la Bruxelloise.

      Delete
    7. Don't forget that immigration to Quebec is faster than ROC. Many immigrants use this loophole and move to ROC soon after they land in Quebec.

      Delete
    8. the dread

      'Et les angryphones fantasment à l'idée d'un Montréal à la Bruxelloise`

      and you keep fantasizing to the idea of Montreal to be like Paris,...Montreal is nothing like Paris and never will be!!!

      hell it even has more in common with New York, London and Scotland in term of architecture

      Delete
    9. Well obviously Quebec has greater economic prospects then Rawanda.

      Once with full citizenship tho, Quebec becomes the economic Rawanda of Canada compared to Toronto/Calgary or even Nfld.

      Immigrants are going to use every level of opportunity and moving out of Quebec once they get citizenship is another opportunity.

      All the "mother tongue" and racial purity hangups of Quebec look a little too familiar to tribalism for most people from the third world.

      Quebec thinks it ends up with the best immigrants when in fact the best move to Toronto and Calgary afterwards. Quebec gets left with a lot of welfare deadbeats.

      Hmm.. I never considered it but maybe that's staying for the Quebec culture of "no job".

      Here's a funny animated cartoon of day in the life of the "red square students" after graduation.

      http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/play/753/

      Delete
    10. "...and you keep fantasizing to the idea of Montreal to be like Paris"

      Les anglos ne sont que des invités:

      "Montréal est une ville du Québec dont elle est la métropole, le centre de la culture et des affaires. C'est la plus importante ville francophone d'Amérique"

      "Montréal est couramment considérée comme la deuxième ville francophone dans le monde après Paris"

      Wikipédia

      Delete
    11. Is the any monument like this in Paris? For extra point, who is that man and what did he do?

      Delete
    12. Of course, Nelson’s Column (1809) is the world’s oldest monument dedicated to Lord Horatio Nelson, who defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Trafalgar. It is Montreal’s oldest surviving monument, predating Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square, London, by several decades. “Neither the French Revolution nor Napoleon had been popular among the French in Montreal, and contrary to later belief, the public funds raised for the monument were collected from British and French Montrealers alike.”

      It faces what was originally Neptune Square, with its fountain featuring the god of the sea, and which in 1930 became known as Vauquelin Square, after a French captain involved in the defense of Louisbourg, and presumably meant to be a counterweight to Nelson’s accomplishments.

      Delete
  18. I believe that this is of great interest:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=li_8hNASv3E

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting discussion… of course, it’s based on important factual matters rather than on merely emotional ones, such as French! French! French! French! French!!!!! Hostie!!!!!!

      Delete
  19. Again, the similarities between Scotland and Quebec are just too much:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz6I37z4c68

    Very revealing analysis/

    ReplyDelete
  20. En ce 4 Juillet...Bonne fête aux américains de seconde classe!

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

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

      Delete
  21. We have been discussing about immigrants and their relationship within Quebec society. I now understand that immigrants are just that, immigrants. No matter how hard they, we try, no matter how we live our lives according to what "they" want, we are still not, and can NEVER be, Québécois.

    Here is an article from Réjean Labrie specifies who Québécois are. And simply, I, my child, my child's children could never be one of them, even if we wanted and we strived to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I pointed out above Troy, we "not pur laine francophones" will always be outsiders even though the anglophone history in this province has been here from the beginning. You and I are no different in the eyes of the separatists except they hate "us" much more than they do "you" so you're absolutely right. Don't bother trying to be one of them; you will never be accepted.

      Delete
    2. That article is full of BS.

      Delete
    3. Of course it is full of BS, but that is what he wants to believe, no matter what anyone else has to say about it. It would be very easy to refute the points he makes, but ultimately it is futile since he is not genuinely seeking a discussion but simply making an affirmation of his own point-of-view. A conversation of the deaf, in other words...

      Delete
  22. Hi, I've been following this blog since I returned to Montreal about a year ago after a long stint in the US. First time commenting...

    "It is important to note that while modern politicians in France and Quebec reference the concept of the separation of Church and State, they fail to understand or deliberately misinterpret exactly what is or should be implicit in that policy, that is, that outside government people are free to choose what and how to believe.
    While the state may act neutral in its position on religion, banning individuals from expressing their beliefs in public, is a direct violation of the covenant of the separation of Church and State."

    I wanted to take issue with the ED's reference to the US conception of separation of church and state. It's not clear what role that plays in this debate. Clearly, there are multiple conceptions of what separation of church and state mean, and we are by no means boxed in to the American conception (nevermind that there is no unanimous opinion as to what it even means in the US context). People disagree as to what the separation of church and state means in the US, and outside the USA (as in France), people can harbour a very different concept of a secular society than the US does. I don't see why France or Quebec should be beholden to Jefferson's views as to what the separation entails.

    Whether you agree with Jefferson's view or not (and it seems both I and the Editor do), I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that Quebec and France simply don't understand his view, rather than preferring their own (wholly wrongheaded) picture of separation of church and state.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Canadians seem to have a low opinion of Quebec: La Belle Province was voted the "worst managed" and the "worst place to open a business."
    Four out of ten Canadians also said that Quebec had the "least friendly" people.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canadians-praise-b-c-alberta-critical-quebec-best-215108438.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh no irrefutable facts.

      Time to label it Quebec bashing and avoid discussing the real issues.

      Seriously tho. Quebec can;t even pretend to claim they are properly managed.

      Quebec imports all the bad ideas from statist Europe while rejecting all the good ideas from everywhere else.

      If Quebecers stopped stealing from each other and actually put some of the local criminals in jail instead of on TV perhaps they might get some respect.

      As everybody knows. "respect has to be earned" and Quebec has done nothing to earn respect in dozens of years.

      Every decision is political and ignores reality. (See my post on the 400 million hockey arena with no team).

      Good managers don;t spend 400 million on stadiums(and creating work for Quebec city contruction workers) with no teams to go inside while going bankrupt.

      That's the kind of manager that works in Detroit or Quebec.

      Delete
  24. Quebec construction projects are so interesting. A $400 million stadium for no team. It will easily be a billion by the time the unions, mafia and construction bosses are finished with it.

    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2013/07/03/sp-nhl-hockey-quebec-city-optimisic-about-nhl-team-phoenix-coyotes.html

    The can fill it full of all the non existent Quebec entrepreneurs!

    Lets just skip building it and having it crumble over time before the property gets sold to a Quebec insider before re-development.

    The PQ should just stop construction and let SNC buy it for $1. Then they can turn around "redesign the project" and sell it for $200M.

    Perfect transfer of wealth from the population to Quebec politicians and insiders.

    As Quebecers like to tell themselves. "Happens everywhere" but mostly in Quebec!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true, but what a mess with no end in sight...sad indeed.

      Delete
    2. It would probably be less expensive to dismantle the useless, white elephant Olympic Stadium in Montreal, transport it to Quebec City and then reassemble it. A hockey rink could be installed. The stadium can then sit empty in Quebec City for the NHL hockey team that will never be established, LOL.

      Delete
    3. It's a good idea.

      The problem is the parts would leave Montreal on their way to Quebec city but would "disappear" on the way only to end up as a personal stadium to some mafia boss in Curaco, Italy or Venezuela.

      Delete
  25. ''Quebec's grand failure to understand or manage its language and immigration policy...'' True, Quebec's language and immigration policy coudl be better. Also true that it would probably help tremendously if Quebec only had itself to answer to and not the ROC.

    Intesresting article in Le Devoir today:

    http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/382096/reponse-a-graham-fraser


    J’ai le plus grand respect pour M. Graham Fraser et je suis admiratif du travail qu’il accomplit à titre de commissaire aux langues officielles. Je ne nie pas que plusieurs Canadiens anglais pensent comme lui et manifestent de l’ouverture et même de l’intérêt quant au fait français. Cependant, ayant passé la majeure partie de mon enfance et de mon adolescence à Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, j’ai été très tôt exposé au «Quebec bashing» des journaux The Suburban et The Gazette des années 50 et 60. Or, je ne me souviens pas d’y avoir lu un seul texte d’un compatriote canadien-anglais dénonçant avec vigueur cette pratique du «Quebec bashing».

    Si j’étais Canadien anglais, comme mes oncles et ma tante, et si j’étais commissaire aux langues officielles, j’aurais répliqué non pas à celui qui dénonçait cette pratique, mais bien à celui qui a écrit dans le National Post qu’après vingt ans d’indépendance, le Québec serait forcément devenu «un petit pays profondément endetté, coupé du flux des subventions fédérales, à l’économie faible et dominée par l’État, une société corrompue des pieds à la tête tentant péniblement de survivre au milieu d’économies beaucoup plus importantes et performantes ne prêtant aucune attention à ses inquiétudes culturelles».

    Voici ce que je lui aurais écrit :

    Cher collègue,

    À la lecture de votre récente chronique, je me suis demandé sur quelles bases objectives vous pouviez vous appuyer pour déclarer qu’après vingt ans d’indépendance, le Québec serait forcément un pays pauvre et endetté et une société «corrupt from top to bottom» toujours aux prises avec ses inquiétudes culturelles.

    Je me demande encore quelles inquiétudes culturelles un Québec indépendant depuis vingt ans pourrait conserver. S’il y en avait, elles ne seraient en rien comparables, vous l’avouerez, à celles que le Québec a dans le contexte canadien, si l’on songe que les francophones représentaient 30% de la population canadienne, il y a 70 ans encore, et que leur proportion s’approche maintenant dangereusement des 20% (la prochaine étape étant celle des 10%, étape qui devrait être franchie vers 2070, semble-t-il).

    (see next post for end of article)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fairplay Tom,

      Also true that it would probably help tremendously if Quebec only had itself to answer to and not the ROC.

      But Quebec does administer its own immigration process, and the only one to do so among all provinces.

      Delete
    2. Quebec also administers its own pension plan (QPP).

      Delete
  26. Sur le plan économique, dois-je vous rappeler que les Pays-Bas (appelés alors les Provinces unies) ont acquis officiellement leur indépendance de l’Espagne en 1648 et que, vingt ans plus tard, ils étaient la première puissance commerciale du monde? Vous savez aussi que les pays d’Europe dont les habitants ont le plus haut revenu par tête sont le Luxembourg (indépendant depuis 1867), qui a un demi-million d’habitants, la Norvège (indépendante depuis 1905), qui a cinq millions d’habitants, et la Suisse, dont la population est égale à celle du Québec, et que ces trois pays ont basé leur richesse même sur leur souveraineté (sans souveraineté, pas de système bancaire propre, pas de secret bancaire, pas de fiscalité propre, pas de franc suisse ni de couronne norvégienne, pas de neutralité pour la Suisse, etc.). Vous ne nierez pas que l’indépendance des États-Unis et celle du Canada n’ont pas causé de catastrophes économiques. Pourquoi en serait-il autrement pour le Québec?

    Venons-en à la corruption. L’organisation criminelle la plus puissante au Canada, la ‘Ndrangheta, c’est-à-dire la branche calabraise de la mafia italienne, est basée à Toronto et non à Montréal. On nous dit que Toronto constitue peut-être la base d’opération la plus importante au monde de la ‘Ndrangheta. Il serait bon de s’en souvenir quand on tient pour acquis que le cœur de la corruption au Canada se trouve au Québec. Une Commission Charbonneau ontarienne pourrait changer beaucoup d’idées reçues là-dessus. Il serait tout de même surprenant que la ‘Ndrangheta ontarienne opère sans la moindre corruption…

    Tout cela pour dire que je ne vois aucune base objective à votre affirmation sur la pauvreté, l’endettement, la corruption et la vulnérabilité culturelle d’un éventuel Québec indépendant. Il faudrait donc vous demander s’il n’y aurait pas derrière votre affirmation une certaine forme de racisme ou de mépris profond à l’endroit des Québécois et du Québec, mépris qui vous conduirait à croire que, laissés à eux-mêmes, les Québécois ne peuvent qu’échouer et s’adonner à la plus totale corruption.

    Si tel était le cas, comme commissaire aux langues officielles, je n’aurais d’autre choix que de dénoncer vos écrits afin de garantir à notre minorité francophone une fin de vie dans le respect et dans la dignité. Lorsque cette minorité aura atteint le seuil de 10%, le temps sera venu de faire son éloge «funèbre». D’ici là, la discrétion et la politesse à son endroit sont de mise. Je tiens à vous le rappeler.

    G. F.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the dread

      As always, you keep pulling the victim card with your "Quebec Bashing``... please stop living in the past and move on...

      Delete
  27. Great! A sovereignist/racist serves another blow to Montreal`s reputation.

    The Globe and Mail: New Montreal mayoral hopeful feels Americans are "obese, imbecilic, ignorant"

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-montreal-mayoral-hopeful-feels-americans-are-obese-imbecilic-ignorant/article13002086/

    Here is one of his quotes: “If I say Americans are a bunch of big, obese, imbecilic, ignorant, uncultured dummies, it’s the truth,” he told the newspaper.

    Here`s another brilliant quote : “Intolerance and all the most extremist, racist, segregationist movements – they’re the KKK, White Power, the expression ‘Speak White,’ these are all English things. They come from the United States, Canada, England.”

    A mayor the seppies can be proud of.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enfin quelqu'un qui dit tout haut ce que pense la majorité silencieuse...Il aura mon vote.

      Delete
    2. Laurie from The Globe article..

      ""He has written extensively in the past about English, which he says is not a nice language. For example, he points to the capitalized first-person singular in English – “I” – as a sign of individualism.
      ""

      heheh. I is a sign of individualism? Moron.

      Publisher, writer (these are BIG DEAL SKILLS in 2013 with the internet) and former bar owner.

      He's just looking for a platform to preach his message of intolerance.

      He has a major case of Anglophobia

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Starpol/Anglophobia/temp

      ""Anglophobia as a term refers to the irrational expression of hatred and animosity toward the English. It is distinct from a reasoned criticism of English culture, politics history or identity by the generality of the criticism, or its ingrained and reactionary forms of expression.""

      What makes Quebec distinct, is politicians and civil servants endorsing and acting out on there anglophopbia through the state.

      Delete
  28. Is a shame to compare Quebec to Norway, Swiss and Luxembourg. Population size is not relevant. More relevant is the quality of that population.

    ReplyDelete
  29. J'ai toujours trouvé que les "canadians" avaient une drôle de tête :)

    http://tinyurl.com/l9dxww5

    ReplyDelete
  30. Les anglos ne sont que des invités:

    well the invitees are the one who happen to have build the city

    "Montréal est une ville du Québec dont elle est la métropole, le centre de la culture et des affaires. C'est la plus importante ville francophone d'Amérique"

    "Montréal est couramment considérée comme la deuxième ville francophone dans le monde après Paris"

    Wikipédia

    Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information, so if I were you, mentally unfit moron, I wouldn't get too excited...btw, keep in mind that the city is only french on PAPER, no more, no less!

    on a side note, look at the flag of the metropolis, you filthy flea-bagged primate anus and you will get the idea what I am talking about!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ce drapeau n'est qu'un bout de tissu,ni plus ni moins.Regardez plutôt la réalité en face,Montréal est reconnue à traves le monde comme une ville francophone,comme le reste du Québec dailleurs.La "présence anglophone" lui fait perdre toute son originalité ainsi que son prestige.

      Delete
  31. I just heard that there was an oil train derailment in Quebec. Are any of the regular posters to this blog who actually live in Quebec alright?

    ReplyDelete
  32. The "void in the birth rate" excuse is nonsense, in my view. If there are fewer people, then there are fewer jobs to be filled, less industry and production (only in proportion to the real needs), and it's better for the environment. After all, that's what was preached to us in the 1960s when I was a senior in high school. Reduce your birth rate to ease up on the environment. Now that Quebecers and the West in general seem to have done so, the opposite sermon is preached, we must immigrate to replace you!

    In fact, the mass immigration has nothing to do with compensating for birth rate, its goal is to geopolitically re-engineer Canada into a miniature demographic map of the globe, thus eliminating the Founding Peoples and Confederation. Same thing is happening south of our border, and at the same time, Canada's traitors who are detaining office in our parliament are busily ANNEXING CANADA to the multicultural USA, BOTH of our populations being GEO-ENGINEERED specifically for this.

    Kathleen Moore
    HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
    The Official Legal Challenge
    To North American Union

    http://www.youtube.com/user/crazyforcanada

    ReplyDelete