Friday, August 30, 2013

Charter of Quebec Values- Manufacturing Dissent

With all the sound and fury in the Press over the proposed Quebec Charter of Values, one might be led to believe that the issue is of paramount importance to Quebecers.
It isn't...
In a Leger poll conducted before the grand debate was launched by the Parti Quebecois, this is what preoccupied Quebecers;
Quebec Priorities
  1. Control Government Spending........51%
  2. Lower taxes and tariffs.....................44%
  3. Fight Corruption................................43%
  4. Job creation.......................................38%
  5. Supply cheaper oil and gas..............24%
  6. Supply end-of-life assistance...........22%
  7. Fight social inequality.......................18%
  8. Fight greenhouse emissions..............9%
  9. Strengthen Bill 101..............................9%
  10. Adopt a Quebec Charter of Values....7%
  11. Sovereigntist governance..................3%
  12. Non of the above................................ 1%

It's a bit sad to see the Parti Quebecois use this Charter of Secularism as a wedge issue manufactured to reap political rewards, by basically appealing to the lower nature of people.

Here is a translation of an article "Statistiques laïques" written by Jérôme Lussier 
for L'actualité  magazine.
If you read French, please do the author the courtesy of reading the original article by clicking on the link.
Some Interesting statistics on the Issue of the Day in Québec…

  • Number of circumcisions performed for cultural or religious grounds in Quebec hospitals in the last five years : 0.
  • Number of excisions and stonings in Hérouxville practiced during the century prior to the publishing of the Code of Conduct" in 2007, which prohibited stoning and female circumcision: 0. 
  • Number of Canadian and Quebec laws currently in violation of the principles of neutrality and secularism of the state : 0.
     
  • Number of Canadian and Quebec laws that currently allow attacks against men, women and children for cultural and religious reasons : 0.
     
  • Item number of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982 ), which explicitly affirms and protects the equality of men and women in Canada : 15.
     
  • Item number of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Quebec (1975), which explicitly affirms and protects the equality of men and women in Quebec: 10.
     
  • Homicide and/or assaults forgiven by the courts of Quebec and Canada last year in deference to religious or cultural beliefs of the accused : 0.
     
  • Number of judicial or administrative decisions made ​​under Sharia , the Talmud or the New Testament, in Quebec, in the past five years: 0 .
     
  • Number of Bills of Islamic inspiration currently debated in the House of Commons or the National Assembly : 0.
     
  • Number of Canadian and Quebec laws that currently discriminate against men, women and children, by applying religious principles : 0.
  • Number of Quebec officials reprimanded in the past five years for having used their jobs and their religious symbols for the purpose of proselytizing : 0.  
  • Number of users of public services in Quebec who have demonstrated over the past 10 years, that they had been under-served because of religious symbols worn by government officials : 0.
  • Number of persons injured by a turban, a veil or a yarmulke at a sporting or cultural event held in Canada during the last 10 years : 0.
     
  • Number of persons injured by a religious symbol worn in public in Quebec last year : 0.
     
  • Number of people whose human rights were violated last year in response to requests for religious or cultural groups in Quebec : 0.
     
  • Number of provinces that have seen fit to adopt a 'charter of secularism' to implant a secular government, or any "Charter values ​​" to implant their provincial values ​​: 0.
     
  • Number of religions for which a beard is a religious symbol : 1 (minimum).
     
  • Number of religions for which a wig is a religious symbol : 1 (minimum).
     
  • Number of religions for which long hair is a religious symbol : 2 (minimum).
     
  • Parti Québécois proposals on the procedure that will determine which employees may (or may not ) have a beard , wig and long hair ( in particular,)  why , and in what context : none.
     
  • Rationale of the Parti Quebecois in linking the wearing of some religious symbols and incompetence or bias in the performance of official work : none.
     
  • Percentage chance that the PQ Bill  on 'Quebec values'  is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter and/or the Quebec Charter : 100% .
     
  • Nationality of Bachir Lazhar , aka 'Monsieur Lazhar' the last teacher character to have entertained us: Quebec Algerian. (Percentage of Muslims in Algeria : 99%. )
     
  • Number of reasonable accommodations crises identified by commissioners Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor in 2008 , compared to a " media frenzy " and " erroneous or partial perception of practices found on the ground" : 0.
     
  • Probability that the PQ without viable economic success or to assert its political project, has decided to conduct the next election on the backs of immigrants : high.
    Manufacturing dissent..... that's what its all about.

    It's hard to read the above and not laugh at the rank stupidity and naked manipulation of a government intent on creating division in order to survive.

    The 'need' for a so-called Charter of Values is directly related to the immigration disaster that is also directly related to the government's ill-suited plan to bring in French speaking immigrants at all costs.

    Doesn't anybody see the irony of each year, bringing in scads of orthodox Muslim immigrants with few skills and then complaining about orthodox Muslims immigrants with few skills.

    It's like ordering takeout food, complaining about the poor quality and taste and then ordering the same meal from the same restaurant again and again, all the while chastising the restaurant owner.
    DON'T COMPLAIN.....YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GETTING.

    The self-self-delusion is maddening and worse, shameful.

    How can the PQ  tell us, and how can we accept with a straight face, that a crucifix is not a religious symbol if it is in the National Assembly or on top of Mount Royal, because it is actually a patrimonial item?

    Under this rationale, perhaps the Jews can argue that a kippah isn't a religious symbol but merely a patrimonial heritage.
    After all, Jews have been wearing kippahs in this province for over two hundred years, a lot longer than the crucifix in the National Assembly which was installed in 1936 and the Cross on Mount Royal which was installed in 1924.
    The idiotic rationale of the crucifix not being a crucifix made by Bernard Drainville , actually makes me think of the game Twister.
    Read: National Assembly’s crucifix is a Duplessis-era bond between politics and religion


    Mr. Drainville and former PQ Premier Bernard Landry are both on a campaign to salvage Quebec's sinking reputation, demanding that politicians and journalists who oppose the potential law  'raise the debate' and refrain from calling the law and Quebecers themselves xenophobes and racists.
    Good luck with that...
    Read: PQ to Trudeau: don't compare us to American racists
    Read; Bernard Landry blasts 'Quebec bashing' over secularism charter

    These gentlemen should understand that the hackneyed theme of 'Quebec-bashing' plays only in paranoid Quebec.
    At any rate, I must say I'm impressed with Mr. Landry's chutzpah in assuming that anyone in the federal government or in fact anyone at all in the ROC gives a rat's ass what he thinks or in any way will be influenced by his demand.

    Both Drainville and Landry should practice defending Quebec's good name, because frankly, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    The story of the kippah ban will be of particular interest to the American media, controlled influenced populated by many Jews.
    The first time a big American newspaper or television or news magazine runs this story, it will be epic.....I promise.
    Remember 60 Minutes?

    251 comments:

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

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Contra LOL...YOU TOO...you make my day !! LOL

        <----- WHAT HE SAID !

        INDEED !

        Delete
      2. The sad thing is, they actually do!

        Delete
      3. You're right.

        We should be nothing less than absolutely proud to be a "nation" (and I use the term very loosely) of state-traumatized paranoiacs giving into the manufactured dissent that Editor lays out in the above blog post.

        That kind of hatred might not pay the rent, but it sure makes the tacitly codified "nous" feel protected, even though no tangible genuine benefit for the pure laines could seriously come of it.

        But whatever; this is inevitably one of the dying generation of péquistes' last hurrahs and we would be remiss not to recognize a historical and political supernova when one were occurring beneath our very eyes.

        Hopefully a more cooperative and peaceful coexistence awaits us all once this cohort of interwar and baby boom politicians who've benefited handsomely from our largesse have all died off and are relegated to the trash heap of history.

        Delete
      4. @appartachik

        "That kind of hatred might not pay the rent,..."

        who's hating whom? i missed that bit.

        "...no tangible genuine benefit for the pure laines could seriously come of it."

        how about the female doctor not having to swap place with a male when giving care to a sexist patient? that's tangible.

        "...this is inevitably one of the dying generation of péquistes' last hurrahs..."

        wrong. the chart idea, as there is not chart yet, is seen positively by a majority of quebeckers amongst all age groups. it's not a supernova.

        "Hopefully a more cooperative and peaceful coexistence awaits us all..."

        we have the same hopes, mate.

        Delete
    2. When you have senile Bernie Landry crawling out of his hole to deliver a fiery speech blasting English Canadian journalists, something has touched a nerve. These PEQS and their Little Rascal-esque rules to live by are an embarrassment and a joke. Canada is an Immigrant Nation and it is 2013. The sight of a Turban hurts you? Move to fucking Matane! Are we sophisticates or are we back-water bum-kins? The unconstitutionality of their proposed Charter is glaringly obvious to anyone and I can foresee lawyers lining up to take a crack at this train wreck of a Bill if it ever sees the light of day. Their threat to invoke the Notwithstanding clause rings hollow as this whole charade never had popular support to begin with. This whole exercise is a political maneuver to bolster their dismal approval ratings and mask their complete and utter incompetence concerning Quebec's collapsing economy. This may win them some points in the sticks, but the rest of us can see right through this one. I'd also like to point out that this whole "Identity Crisis" was started by and inflamed by The Journal de Montreal back in 2006. That tabloid rag launched this whole debate and the Quebecois political class, bankrupt of any constructive policy ideas, ate it up like a fat kid eats cake. The Bouchard-Taylor gong-show and now this PQ Charter are all a result of what that paper started. There really is a true leadership vacuum in Quebec and these pointless debates make that glaringly obvious.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. "When you have senile Bernie Landry crawling out of his hole..."

        opening up with an insult is the best way to lose credibility, mate.

        "...something has touched a nerve."

        of course. what did you expect?!? nobody likes to be called a xenophobe. above all when it's not true.

        "Are we sophisticates or are we back-water bum-kins?"

        i think internet insulters like you are more akin to "bum-kins".

        "The unconstitutionality of their proposed Charter is glaringly obvious to anyone..."

        not an argument. maybe the constitution is not perfect. it wasn't drawn out by god you know?

        "...as this whole charade never had popular support to begin with."

        haha. it has popular support. big one. so much that even your best bud couillard turned around on that one. it's even got big support in the roc!!! lier or ignorant?

        "...and mask their complete and utter incompetence concerning Quebec's collapsing economy."

        not at all. it was part of their electoral platform. and it's possible to handle secularism and economy at the same time.

        "...but the rest of us can see right through this."

        who's us? here's a clue: you are alone here. anonymous and alone. talk for yourself.

        "...the Quebecois political class, bankrupt of any constructive policy ideas..."

        flase. the quebec independance idea was very much alive in 2006. and it's the most constructive thing you can imagine. but the liberals were in power. i agree these guys have been low on ideas lately.

        wow that's a lot of meat to digest, mate! take it easy.

        Delete
      2. @Lord D

        Have I ever told you HOW MUCH I enjoy your posts? Lov'em. Mostly, I must admit, they make my day, and this one has just started!

        I am not sure which one of the trolls actually said that, Quebec has Canada by the balls, but the sad and irritating reality FOR THEM, is that the Anglos/Allos have quebec by the balls, and we've had them by the balls for the past 40 years! The minorities have basically kept the separatist's pipe dream of an independent quebec from happening for decades now, add to that the seppie's shear ineptness when it comes to managing the economy, and their obsession with pur-laine supremacy, safe to say, they're looking at another 40 years of pipe-dream hoping and praying.

        The toilet's going again and this time it's Bill 14, and soon we'll hear the second flush with the "Charter of Quebec Values" finding its way to the St-Laurence as well. It's never a bad day to take out the garbage. Soon enough it will be spring and we'll take out a huge load at the next election.

        Balance of Power isn't everything. IT'S THE ONLY THING!...and it remains...with us...Les Autres !!!...Suck on that bag of sour lemons.
        And if YOU don't like it...MOVE !!

        Have a great day everyone!!

        Delete
      3. Qu'allez-vous faire lorsque le Parti Québécois (tôt ou tard) sera élu majoritaire?

        Delete
      4. What part of...PIPE DREAM...did you not ..understand? LOL

        Must I do everything for you??


        "Pipe dream
        noun
        1.
        an unattainable or fanciful hope or scheme.
        synonyms: fantasy, false hope, illusion, delusion, daydream, chimera;"

        Write it down now...keep it next to your teddy-bear, cuddling both as you fall asleep at night.

        Delete
      5. "What part of...PIPE DREAM...did you not ..understand?"

        Connaissez-vous les différentes significations du mot "pipe" en français?

        Delete
      6. Peu importe, et on s'en fiche!

        Ce qui compte plus, c'est que tu saches la signification IN ENGLISH, petit con.

        (yawn)..NEXT...suivant...

        Delete
      7. Prise 2 :

        "What part of...PIPE DREAM...did you not ..understand?"

        Dream

        Delete
      8. One-liners and especially one-word comments are against the rules of this blog.

        Try to raise yourself up to a minimum level of dignity by governing yourself accordingly (especially before you even consider telling other people to follow the rules).

        Delete
      9. FROM ED
        These shit box one liners use up the reply buttons so that serious posters can't put in a relevant statement. It is of course exactly what the trolls want and people like Anectote are still accomidating them, in French yet. Ed

        Delete
    3. What happens with the unconstitutionality of their proposed Charter is clearly conspicuous to anyone and I can foresee solicitors coating up to take a chink at this train wreck of a Bill if it ever sees the light weight of day.

      Regards,
      Tropic isle jamaican black castor oil

      ReplyDelete
    4. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTFriday, August 30, 2013 at 6:01:00 AM EDT

      Military family cannot send their kids to english school in quebec city:
      http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/education/201308/28/01-4684183-la-famille-dun-militaire-perd-son-droit-a-lecole-anglaise.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B13b_education_563_section_POS4

      ReplyDelete
    5. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTFriday, August 30, 2013 at 6:04:00 AM EDT

      The quebecois: cheater and lazy?
      "Quebec government workers used more sick days in 2012 than other public workers in Canada"
      http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/29/quebec-government-workers-used-most-sick-days-in-2012-watchdog

      ReplyDelete
    6. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTFriday, August 30, 2013 at 6:08:00 AM EDT

      quebec's economy "breaking down fast": Desjardins.
      http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/ignoring+economy+Couillard+says/8848456/story.html

      ReplyDelete
    7. Charte des valeurs: les accommodements pèsent lourd pour les enseignants

      http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/education/201308/29/01-4684597-charte-des-valeurs-les-accommodements-pesent-lourd-pour-les-enseignants.php

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. du même article:

        Que pense un spécialiste en droit du travail de cette future charte des valeurs québécoises? «Ça va mettre beaucoup d'argent dans les poches des avocats parce que ça va créer des litiges qui n'existaient pas», croit-il.

        Tout pour embourber davantage un système déjà trop embourbé. Allez-y donc cher péquistes; des juges et des salles d'audience ça se finance tout seul, les couts excédentaires appréhendés aussi. Légiférons sur tout et sur rien, question de bien faire connaitre au petit peuple comment se comporter à chaque instant. Et ensuite critiquer les religions qui osent faire ainsi.

        Le temps est venu d'arrêter de tout chambouler afin d'apaiser l'insécurité sélective de certains canadiens-français frileux, impressionnables et nationalistes qui occupent davantage de place que ce qui leur revient. Côté "identité" on s'est bâti au Québec un état (et doté d'un système) tout à l'image des pires complexes de "la majorité" sans pour autant mettre fin à la mentalité d'assiégés léguée par notre époque catho. Tels des chiens pavloviens, on s'époumone à japper fort quand nos prêcheurs (jadis religieux, désormais nationalistes) nous annoncent l'arrivée d'un nouveau bonhomme sept-heures aussi amorphe qu'irréel. Peuple à genoux un jour, peuple à genoux toujours.

        Notre spécificité québécoise, c'est ça?
        Ça semble en être notre spécialité, en tout cas.

        Delete
      2. From the same article:

        What does a labour law specialist think of this upcoming Charter of Quebec Values? "It will put a lot of money into the pockets of lawyers because it will create litigation that didn’t exist," he believes.

        Everything to bog down a system that is already too bogged down. So knock yourselves out, dear pequistes; judges and courtrooms are self-financing, and any excess costs are taken care of as well. Let’s legislate on everything and anything, in order to let the little people know how to they should behave at all times. And then let’s criticize religions who dare to do likewise.

        The time has come to stop upsetting everything in order to appease the selective insecurity of some oversensitive, impressionable and nationalist French-Canadians who take up more space than they deserve. On the "identity" side of things, in Quebec we have built ourselves a state (and endowed it with a system) that is the spitting image of the worst of the “majority”, all without having put an end to the siege mentality that has been bequeathed to us by our Catholic times. Just as with Pavlovian dogs, we render ourselves hoarse in barking loudly when our preachers (formerly religious, henceforth nationalist) announce to us the arrival of a new bogeyman who is as amorphous as he is unreal. A people who kneel once kneel forever.

        Is this our specific Quebec character?
        It certainly seems to be our specialty, in any event.

        Delete
    8. Les immigrants sont un fardeau fiscal de 20 G$, selon l'Institut Fraser

      http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/colombie-britannique/2013/08/29/002-rapport-selection-immigrants-institut-fraser.shtml

      ReplyDelete
    9. Editor,

      I know that you are just quoting somebody. However, your putting his comment on your piece without disclaimer makes your owning the burden of proof too. My particular concern:

      Number of circumcisions performed for cultural or religious grounds in Quebec hospitals in the last five years : 0.

      I find it hard to believe that there is no circumcision done on baby boys at the JGH in the last five years. If so, where do the Jewish parents usually do it?

      Also, do you have the reference or the link to this?

      The idiotic rationale of the crucifix not being a crucifix made by Bernard Drainville , actually makes me think of the game Twister.

      On a slightly good news, the PQ admitted that their Bill 14 is dead on arrival and therefore they shifted the attention to this Charter of Values. However, surely that this Charter can not survive judicial review. Unless the PQ government is ready to amend the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom, Charter of Values contradicts directly with its part I, chapter I, paragraph 3:

      Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. "...where do the Jewish parents usually do it?"

        Êtes-vous bien certain de vouloir une réponse?

        Delete
      2. The reference to the link is right at the top of the story which appeared in L'actualité, a highly reputable magazine.

        As for brisses (Jewish circumcision) I was surprised that the author made the contention and actually it was the one fact in the article that I did tried to check.
        The JGH doesn't list a briss room on their website. However, I remember one room in the basement where an outsider was called in to do the circumcision for the family. The room was large enough for a little gathering of family and friends. But my memory of the "Brith Room" (as the sign indicated)dates back twenty years and I have no idea if it is still there.

        As for Jewish brisses today, almost all are held at home or in synagogue. A religious specialist called a 'Moyal' does the actual circumcision reciting prayers before the family where all who have the stomach to do so, can watch.
        Afterwards, there is a celebratory party.

        Delete
      3. "Afterwards, there is a celebratory party"

        Est-ce que le jeune homme est aussi invité à la fête? Et ma question est sérieuse Editor.

        Delete
      4. Editor,

        Thank you for the reply. Actually, the one piece that I requested the link / reference is this one:

        The idiotic rationale of the crucifix not being a crucifix made by Bernard Drainville , actually makes me think of the game Twister.

        I just want to see what kind of smoke a PQ minister tries to blow up our collective asses.

        Delete
      5. @ Troy
        Here is the French link. Link
        Drainville talking about the crucifix in the NA;

        "Il va rester parce que c'est notre patrimoine», a déclaré M. Drainville qui ajoute que l'on devra mettre fin au débat rapidement."

        "It's going to stay because it's our heritage.....we need to end this debate quickly"

        Delete
      6. "Il va rester parce que c'est notre patrimoine», a déclaré M. Drainville qui ajoute que l'on devra mettre fin au débat rapidement."

        If the crucifix were simply an artefact heritage, its place would be in a museum. But it's not - it is a symbol of Quebec's religion and this is why it'll stay in the nat'l assembly. Which makes the charter an emblem of qc's intolerance.

        As someone pointed out in the past few days, qc is filled with religious references, such as names of streets, municipalities, etc (st-something of the something). To believe that the charter's intention is to create a true secular society, all these names and refernces should be removed from public life. Even if they are part of the heritage, no? After all, qc had no problem renaming streets/boulevards - see René Lévesque Blvd formerly Dorchester Blvd... Right?

        Delete
      7. I beg to differ here. I find it shocking that you somehow think that the crucifix is a sign of intolerance. Excuse me..this country was founded by christians and on christian fundamentals. Your attitude is exactly reflective of what many Canadians fear..we are losing control of what this country was..its become increasingly acceptable to attack any sort of christian symbolism in our governments. Its gotten to the point where the word holiday is now replacing the word christmas. The state has now pretty well wiped out any religion in schools..this is exactly the sort of thing people feared for decades. As soon as you start letting in more and more non-christians into the country then you start hearing this sort of nonsense. If you dont stand up to the founding values and beliefs of our nation then our nation is what exactly..where are we going??
        It is now become politically cool and correct to slam any sort of christian involvement in government. Heaven forbid we say anything against any other religious symbolism..but slam the founding religion day and night.


        Delete
      8. ""The state has now pretty well wiped out any religion in schools..this is exactly the sort of thing people feared for decades."

        The state has itself become a religion in some secularized countries.

        I think the best solution is to have a secular state with multiple institutional alternatives, including religious institutions. Plurality of institutions is a good thing in a society, and religious institutions are good if they function as challengers to secular rulers, and not so great when they themselves become the rulers (that's when you get theocracy).

        So for example, I find Islam in Iran deplorable, but in Quebec a good thing. In Quebec, it dilutes deference and allegiance to L'Etat Quebecois which the only totalitarian institution in this province. All the other ones are just trying to survive.

        Delete
      9. Jewish bris and Muslim circumcision of 8 year olds are the few religious practices which I would applaud the state to crack down on. Sweden and Finland tried 10 years ago. Germany and the city of San Francisco tried a year ago. All 4 attempts failed as a result of the pressure from religious institutions. Too bad, but there will be more of these, until this archaic practice is banished to the ash heap of history where it belongs.

        Delete
      10. Guardians of Rights &amp; FreedomsFriday, August 30, 2013 at 2:28:00 PM EDT

        Hey... What about those "Legal Holidays" that will have to lose their status in a "Secular" state.... Christmas and Easter... GONE!!!!

        Happy Day!!!! No more Traffic Jams!

        And SUNDAY Shopping.... No more Short Hours so people can go to church!

        Bahh... HumBug!

        Delete
      11. "Jewish bris and Muslim circumcision of 8 year olds are the few religious practices which I would applaud the state to crack down on"

        That's interesting adski, I see you have limits as well. Are you being intolerant now by expressing your opinion, just as you said I was a few blog posts ago? When do our beliefs and values become intolerance, in your opinion?

        I'd also like to remind you of this:
        "Having said that, as much as I do tolerate individual intolerance, I cannot stand people making recourse to the state system (i.e. the apparatus of coercion) in order to act out their prejudices. " - adski


        Also adski, I'm curious to know what you think about Halal and Kosher slaughter practices, even if it seems kind of unrelated.

        Delete
      12. "When do our beliefs and values become intolerance, in your opinion?"

        I made it clear a couple of weeks ago, when this topic came up. Where I draw the line is physical action against another human being (in the vast majority of cases, a child), or even an animal, i.e. when something like this creeps into our societies, our institutions should react, as the UEFA is lamely trying to do by issuing "warnings".

        I don't mind physical action against oneself. If an adult wants to convert, he is very welcome to undergo any procedure he sees fit. His life, his choices.


        "Having said that, as much as I do tolerate individual intolerance, I cannot stand people making recourse to the state system (i.e. the apparatus of coercion) in order to act out their prejudices"

        Footnote: unless the prejudice is against something universal. For example, everyone should be making recourse to the state system in order to act out their prejudices if that prejudice is against rape or bank robbery. But these are not the same as cultural prejudice against someone's wardrobe or someone's commitment to the preservation of some language.

        Nice try though.

        Delete
      13. @adski:
        You must be confused if you think I have any prejudice against what someone wears or the language they speak. What I have a problem with is what you mentioned, or when I hear about honor killings, fanatical christian groups, or certain ridiculous slaughter practices which are considered legal for religious reasons.

        Even you admit there are certain aspects of certain religions that are unacceptable in our society. You said you'd want the state to crack down on Jewish bris and Muslim circumcision of 8 year olds.

        So how do we go about deciding which issues require state intervention and which don't? I like your idea of "physical action against another person or animal" and "universal prejudice", but things never seem to be so simple in real life. I'm sure even your proposal to ban circumcision of children for religious reasons would get a lot of opposition.

        The reason I attacked all religions so directly is because I don't think it would be possible to start addressing any of these issues without first looking into the reasons for which we engage in such ridiculous behaviours in the first place, which is organized religion. At some point, your beliefs and your actions need to be *somewhat* compatible with the society you live in. Not the same, diversity is a great thing - but *somewhat* compatible.

        I think the reason this so called PQ "Charter of Values" seems to have so much support right now is that they haven't listed any specifics. I'm sure we all have our own religious craziness that we'd love to see banned, even you do adski!
        Once they list the details though, I doubt they will see anything more than 30 - 35% support.

        Of course it's obvious the PQ is just using this whole thing as yet another political tool to advance their cause, and that's all anything like this will ever amount to, until people are ready for real change.

        Delete
      14. "So how do we go about deciding which issues require state intervention and which don't?"

        I already explained twice.

        Let us not beat a dead horse any longer.

        Delete
      15. @adski

        "Where I draw the line is physical action against another human being (...), or even an animal..."

        if i interpret correctly the emphasis you put on "physical", you think reprehensive physical action on animals calls for state intervention but psychological abuse of humans doesn't. that's a weird priority hierarchy mate. even weirder if i assume you knew that the soul doesn't heal as efficiently as the body.

        Delete
      16. "psychological abuse of humans doesn't"

        You need to draw a line somewhere.

        Physical abuse is quantifiable, visible, hear-able (humans and animals scream when pain is applied).

        Psychological abuse can be serious, or it can be trivial. For example, someone like SR would feel psychologically abused if he saw a public sign written in English only.

        Lots of older people in Quebec are psychologically scarred by years of Anglo domination which they still remember. I have little hope for them, they cannot be cured. They need to be helped, understood, even tolerated, but not given tools or power to enact vengeance. And things like for example giving them an ability to call the OQLF to rat out fellow citizens is poor therapy.

        It would be better for Quebec to focus on the young than to listen to people like B.Landry or SR.


        “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”

        ― Frederick Douglass

        Delete
      17. @adski

        "You need to draw a line somewhere."

        of course. but your criteria is not good.

        Delete
      18. I think the reason this so called PQ "Charter of Values" seems to have so much support right now is that they haven't listed any specifics. I'm sure we all have our own religious craziness that we'd love to see banned, even you do adski!
        Once they list the details though, I doubt they will see anything more than 30 - 35% support.


        Call me a cynic (which I am), but I subscribe to the trial balloon theory.
        The media fanfare was completely anticipated; I'll bet the final version of what will finally be unveiled hasn't even been penned.

        Delete
      19. FROM ED
        When I see people referring to he CROSS as a religious SYMBOL I feel sorry for them. They know nothing of it's value. How many times at the more than a thousand funerals I have prayed for have I seen a widow surrounded by crying chidren fondling the cross between her hands knowing it was the only hope of her late husband and a promise of help for the future of her and her children. I was no different. When my first wife died I took my two teenagers to the Church and we prayed for their mother and our safe life coming. After the funeral we looked forward to a new life with strength which the words of God left in our hearts. Nothing has changed, the Lac Megantic survivors gathered in the Church to give thanks for their survival and pray for help to go on.The people that founded this country did the same things. Relying on the strength of their God they took incredible large steps for the future of all of us.
        No Government has the power to change what has been ingrained into our hearts for centuries. Nothing has changed and this never will. FAITH OF OUR FATHERS may sound phony to some people but it worked for them and it can work for us. Ed

        Delete
    10. http://www.canada.com/Stephen+Harper+questions+motives+Charter+Quebec+Values/8848119/story.html

      Ya think??? About time Mr. Harper !

      "Charter of Quebec Values"...flush flush...flussssshhhhhhhhhh LOL

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Une journée après Trudeau...ça sent les érecttions...heu..Élections :)

        Delete
    11. @Editor

      I love how your posts and comments have a way of finding themselves in mainstream english media du jour.. eventually...lololol. It's almost like ....admitting stuff here..on NDOA makes it okay for conventional media to pick up on it and to do so as well and acknowledge what everyone is really thinking.

      Perhaps it isn't the politically correct thing to do, (in the eyes of some), especially in this single-minded-often-racist-province, ..admitting the truth in the published news world, that is. But one has to admire the audacity they display now, inspite of all things against it, to do so.

      For those who sometimes doubt the worthiness, usefulness or Fate of your blog, they can go fly a kite !!!

      You are changing the landscape one little blog post at a time.

      Keep up the excellent work !!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. nice rim job, mate. you're a pro.

        Delete
      2. ToTo est une femme,student...Un peu de respect.

        Delete
    12. I agree that this charter is just something to conquer and divide quebecers. Its to distract from the real issues in this province. The PQ is failing miserably with respect to the economy and jobs so they come up with this.

      Having said that there is some truth to what landry is saying. We have to be careful on how many immigrants we accept from countries with radically different cultures and religions that what our country is founded on. There are problems in many European countries now because of an excessive number of Muslim immigrants who have not assimilated well at all. At some point there has to be some limit as to how many people we accept from certain backgrounds. People are so politically correct about this but reality tells us that it is a problem. And you will see that there are quite a few comments in the Landry article from Canadians who agree that Landry is on the right track. When you start having whole cities dominated by one ethnic group in this country I start to get worried..you go to Richmond and you think you are in Hong Kong..there are countless parts of Montreal and Toronto where you literally feel like you are in another country. At what point does it become a problem..right now the numbers are still relatively low..but at some point if 30 percent of the population is Muslim or Chinese then how does that affect our country and the direction it heads into. There is a tipping point when it will become a serious problem..when the country we all know ceases to exist.



      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. "Having said that there is some truth to what landry is saying. We have to be careful on how many immigrants we accept from countries with radically different cultures and religions that what our country is founded on."

        But this is not Landry is saying. He is not saying: let's not let into our house those that we don't want in our house. He's saying: let's swing the doors open for these people, because the floors need to be swept and the food needs to be cooked and my royal maitre chez nous ass is not going to stoop to these jobs and is on this earth for higher purposes.

        And he is not stopping there, he goes on piling it on: once these people are here doing the jobs our people wouldn't do, let's follow them around (because obviously we have nothing better to do) and beat them over their heads about their weird habits we just don't find comfortable to look at. These may be habits that they hold dear and the habits that keep them sane and give them dignity and meaning, but what do we care. We are les maitrez chez nous. What we say should go.

        Finally, Landry proceeds to chastise those who find his views distasteful, calling the critics "Quebec bashers". Of course. This is all about Quebec bashing, totally unrelated to what Quebec is actually doing.

        Delete
      2. I'll go one farther and ask you if we really all agree on our "values". What I value in society is freedom of speech, religion and individual freedom in general. I don't care about Canada being English or French at all. Those rights and freedoms are not simply there for when they're convenient, if that was the case they're not freedoms at all.

        Considering how the government likes to trample our rights, you expect me to care about people wearing some funny hats? Really?

        Delete
      3. I am not so sure thats what he is saying..it sounds more like your interpretation. He..like many Quebecers are worried about the growing number of people living here who have quite different religions and views on things which eventually when a certain threshold is reached could have enough political weight to change some fundamental ways the province is run. You cant just keep saying yes to people with very different views without it eventually causing tensions. Its already a reality in much of Europe.

        You have some sort of chip on your shoulder about the fact that most immigrants who come here have to do crappy jobs. But its always been like this..most immigrants who have come here generally start pretty low and within a generation or two their offspring often do quite well. On the other side of the coin I am little tired of hearing from well educated immigrants who seem to think they are owed a great job as soon as they immigrate to this country..I have heard too many of their grumblings. I would never expect to find a great job if I moved somewhere else even if I was educated and spoke the language well..it just doesnt work that well..it takes times to integrate into a new country.

        The Quebec bashing argument is tired..everytime someone dares criticize Quebec this old argument pops up..even if its clearly true. The article from Macleans about corruption in Quebec is a classic one..the uproar in Quebec was incredible but the truth is that this is the most corrupt place in Canada..

        Delete
      4. "You cant just keep saying yes to people with very different views without it eventually causing tensions"

        You also can't have it both ways.

        On one hand, Quebec and other western countries do not want to, can cannot stop immigration. Stopping immigration would cut these countries off from the labor that local populations will not do. On the other hand, these countries do not want immigrants because immigrants dilute local cultures. Of these contradictory interests, the economic one prevails. What business wants business gets. Cultural warriors and regular folks who have to live side by side with the new comers always come second.

        This is exactly the same predicament as Thatcher's government faced in the 80s. Thatcher let in a lot of immigrants from former British colonies because British economy needed labor and Thatcher did not want to deal with the unionized domestic labor force. Around 1987, Thatcher started appearing on television complaining that "British values" are under threat from people who do not "share" these values.

        But this is what happens when you want to have a cake and eat it too.

        You are someone who wants to have it and eat it too. You think we can bring immigrants over, and have them behave like good appreciative obedient "guests" deferring to their "hosts". But people don't work like this. People keep their cultures, their values, their customs. These things cannot be turned off upon arrival at the airport. There is no magic switch. So all I'm telling you is: you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

        Delete
      5. complicated,

        There is actually a very easy solution to solve the problem of immigrants once and for all.

        Close the door to immigration.

        Easy-peasy. And Quebec has the unique power to do so, compared to the other provinces. If closing the door is to hard to do, make the immigration process be more difficult. Make it a requirement that immigrants leave their (our) values behind when they (we) apply to the process.

        The very fact that Quebec government does not do that is your first clue that they are not really serious or even care enough about the issue itself. They only do it to gain votes, damn the next governments.

        I actually dare the government to choke down the flow of immigrants, and I say this as an immigrant myself.

        Delete
      6. @troy

        closing the border would be stupid troy. improving integration is a much more intelligent approach.

        Delete
      7. Adski has the right of it. When you start letting in different peoples from around the world, you form new societies and new cultures together. I would again argue our founding principles are basic freedoms to be extended to everyone.

        Delete
      8. Well it seems to me that most immigrants are coming here because their lives are pretty miserable in their homeland. It seems that it is them who want their cake and to eat it. Why are we asked to bend over backwards to accomodate all their customs and religions when they are the ones looking for a better place to live? Why are we the ones on the defensive concerning the founding religion and customs of this nation? Why are we the ones demonized for questioning why many of these newcomers should have special exceptions made in the name of their culture and or religion? I am tired of what little culture we have in this country being relegated to the back burner in the interests of political correctedness. Sorry but if you come here its you who should adapt to our customs and it should be made clear beforehand otherwise please find another home. I dont think this would deter too many of them honestly but it would be clear that if you come here then you will adapt to our customs.

        Delete
      9. complicated,

        Nice try diverting the discussion. However, after the lengthy post you still do not answer my suggestion above. Why does Quebec not simply shut down immigration?

        Let me give you an anecdotal example of how immigration works in two communities.

        When I was in Montreal, the places I worked in proudly stated that they embraced diversity. Fine. Good. In one of the places they had people of Italian, Greek, Jewish, British and French ancestry. And me. They claimed it was diversity. Maybe except that all those others are white. I was the only visible minority.

        My team here consist of a Black British who was born in Guyana, an Anglo-Saxon from Newfoundland, a Trinidadian of Indian descent, a Black from Barbados, a Chinese, a Serbian and an Indian born in Lachine whose parents drove down 401 because of Bill 101. So 8 people, only 2 Whites and one of them foreign-born.

        Take the walk down Yonge Street. Take the Subway. Better yet, take the GO Train and go to suburbs. Toronto today is a city build by immigrants. And we can see there, very obvious, which city is more successful between Toronto and Montreal*. And I do believe that even the Editor would agree with me in deciding which city - in aggregate - is more successful.

        *Of course you could make the same argument Michel Patrice has, that it is a natural occurrence on both sides of the international border that economic gravity shifted towards the interior after the opening of St. Lawrence Seaway, EVEN THOUGH contemporary evidences suggest otherwise. And before you argue with Yannick's theory, no, there is no oil in Ontario.

        Delete
      10. When you say "our customs" what exactly do you mean? If your referring to religion being state enforced that can't happen, it's unconstitutional, and you'd get push back from secular/religious groups as well.

        I keep reading problems in Europe, like what exactly? What awful calamity is on the horizon, do you have a concrete example or two? The only thing I've read is that natives in European nations don't like the sight of minarets. Or that the Muslim population is growing.

        Delete
      11. "if you come here its you who should adapt to our customs and it should be made clear beforehand otherwise please find another home."

        But it is not made clear beforehand. It is made clear only after they're already here.

        And there is a reason why too strong deterrents aren't presented to immigrants beforehand, and why the immigrants are even allowed to come in in such high numbers to begin with when culture is under threat, as we hear every single day. The reason is the business community which owns this place and places like it would not have it any other way.

        Why do you think Thatcher incited so many Caribbean and South Asian people to come to the UK in the 1980s? Why did she open up British borders and ended up changing the racial landscape from mostly white (but strike-ridden and class-conscious) Britain of the 1970s to the "colorful" Britain of the 1980s? Because she followed some moral imperative that made her want to help poor disadvantaged people from poor countries (while her son Mark Thatcher was traveling all over Africa selling arms)? Or because she was ordered to open up the borders by British business sick to the bone of dealing with antagonistic labor?

        Why did the UK allow Eastern Europeans to flood its market in 2004 after the EU expanded? Because the UK wanted to give these people a chance out of benevolence? Or was this the reason? (the kids of the desperate 1980s immigrants were UK-born and antagonistic, so an injection of new blood was needed)

        Statements like: we should close our borders, or: we should make immigration so unappealing that they won't even want to come, are just cliches. Think why we DON'T do just that, why we don't close our borders or why we promote immigration all over the world instead of discouraging it. And you'll realize that the very economic system, which we so cherish because it provided us with so much material abundance over the last century or so, has inherent contradictions which cannot be resolved.

        Delete
      12. @Troy:

        Regarding MP's argument, it’s worth keeping in mind that Chicago was thriving for well over a century before the opening of the seaway to the Great Lakes. Also, though it’s not on the seaway, New York City seems to be doing rather well for itself even though it’s located on the East Coast, with no noticeable gravitational shift. Toronto, Chicago, New York and Montreal have all long been interconnected by railroads, but only one of them has declined economically in recent decades. I suppose that trying to divert attention away from Montreal’s decline by using the seaway as the bogeyman rather than the instability caused by the PQ is more convenient and appealing for a Quebec nationalist, however.

        Delete
      13. I never said immigration should be shut down. We obvously need it but I think we should be more selective of the immigrants we accept and I think it should be made very clear to any new immigrants that if they come here then they better adapt to the ways of our land. It seems to me that we..and we as born and bred Canadians..should not have to constantly defend our founding traditions/religion and culture..yet it seems we are expected to accept anybody from anywhere and any of their traditions/religions..this seems completely backwards. You dont move to another country and expect to live exactly as you did back home..pretty arrogant and naive if you ask me.

        I think overall Canada has bent over backwards trying to accomodate people of differents faiths/etc and there is a limit to it. As soon as we try and stand up and say something then we are told we are intolerant or backwards or racist..totally unfair.
        There are all sorts of tensions in many European countries with Muslim immigrants..go to France and there are whole ghettos full of such immigrants where crime is sky high..where the police dont even venture in any more..where many french people feel unsafe and threatened..their traditions totally clash with those of french people.

        Its nice to believe in fairy tales..that we can accept cultures from all over the world indefinitely and that we will all get along wonderfully but history says otherwise. Canada has done pretty well to now but there will be a tipping point at some point where all of a sudden many of us will not recognize this country.

        Delete
      14. adski - You make it sound like Britain forced all these immigrants to come to their country. Its the other way around..its the immigrants who obviously wanted to come..they wanted a better life..nobody forces anyone to immigrate. The onus should be on the immigrant to do the research to figure out if they should go ahead and move. The vast majority of immigrants move because they are in miserable conditions..I would say the vast majority end up better off in the new country but of course they often will start out with menial low paying jobs.
        I never said we should shut our borders..but we should be a lot more selective of who we accept in. I also dont believe we are hiding anything..anybody who puts in some effort can contact people/friends living in a country such as Canada and find out what life is really like here. My main point also is that I am sick and tired of defending our customs and traditions in this country to many immigrants..if you come here then dont start whining about our customs..dont start labelling us racists/intolerant because we dont accept your customs and traditions. Is it really too much to ask that sikhs not bring in daggers to schools or that muslim women not cover their face..if it is then these people should return to their country.

        Delete
      15. You are way out of you league, complicated.

        Delete
      16. "You make it sound like Britain forced all these immigrants to come to their country"

        I used the word "incited", which is not exactly the word I meant. I meant to say: enticed.

        There were enticements for immigrants, as in the promo campaigns that ran in Eastern Europe at the time of EU expansion in 2004.

        The point is that the relationship is reciprocal: the immigrants want to leave their countries, and the countries d'acceuil need these immigrants. You seem to acknowledge this reciprocity: "I never said immigration should be shut down. We obvously need it" only to contradict yourself a minute later and go back to the one sided view that they need us more than we need them: "Its the other way around..its the immigrants who obviously wanted to come..they wanted a better life..nobody forces anyone to immigrate. The onus should be on the immigrant to do the research to figure out if they should go ahead and move"

        People like you prefer the one sided view because it helps justify the host-guest paradigm, a hierarchy in which we are above them, and we are entitled to dictate and they have to listen.

        But if you accept a more reciprocal paradigm and you learn enough about the history of the cynicism in western foreign and immigration policies, you would be more willing to embrace a more open and liberal attitude to immigrants. But that would conflict with the maitres chez nous paradigm.

        Delete
      17. "I think we should be more selective of the immigrants we accept and I think it should be made very clear to any new immigrants that if they come here then they better adapt to the ways of our land"

        We are selective in Quebec as in we select based on language.

        Immigration officials do their best to make things clear, but even they know that once the immigrant enters, he/she is beyond any control.

        Yet we still allow immigrants to enter, and we still find that despite selectivity, the point systems, etc..., it's not what we wanted.

        There is a lot of hypocrisy in allowing people in and then beating them over the head with things like the proposed charter of secularism. It would e much more ethical not to let them in, but that conflicts with the need of the economy. You must be blind not see see hypocrisy and cynicism in this.

        Delete
      18. complicated,

        Please explain to me one thing. Toronto and Vancouver are much more ethnically and culturally diverse than Montreal. Calgary even has a Muslim and non-white as its Mayor. Why and how is it that those cities are more successful than Montreal?

        Delete
      19. We need immigration because of economics and demographics but we can certainly be more selective than we are and it might not be a bad idea to put the brakes on the numbers. The problem I have and you are not addressing..is why are we the ones who always have to apologize to the newcomers? We are doing them a great favour by letting them in..sorry but the relationship is not reciprocal..the immigrant gets a lot more out of this than the country. If we stopped immigration totally for a few years I doubt that our country would fall apart. If anything it might actually be a positive. Meanwhile not letting some of these immigrants into our country could have dire consequences for them.

        I have no problem with most immigrants who come here..who integrate well..who respect our laws, traditions and customs. But it seems there is an increasingly vocal group who are demanding that we relax our rules/laws to accomodate them..thats completely backwards to what it should be. You call this beating them over the head..I call it having respect for your new country. You dont come here and then start demanding that we all bend over backwards to accomodate your customs. And of course anyone who dares brings this up is labelled a racist, a christian nutcase, intolerant and so on when all we want is to preserve the traditions of this country.

        Delete
      20. Troy - I think we all know what Montreals problems are..not sure what your point is..we all know the anti-english PQ government obviously destroyed the economy of Montreal. The high tax extreme left wing governments in this province have done the damage..I dont think having more immigrants in Montreal would have made any difference. The problem is not due to the number of immigrants..there are less immigrants here because the city is not an attractive place to move to. Immigrants will go to where they can most easily find a job and to where the opportunities are..Montreal has been poorly run for decades. I am not sure where you are going with this..I never said immigrants are bad for the economy..in fact immigration is strictly allowed for economic purposes. My fear is when you reach a point when a sufficient number of immigrants with very different beliefs, customs start demanding that we change our traditions and customs to accomodate them.

        Delete
      21. @troy

        "explain"

        mate you want me to explain why it's better to improve integration then closing the border?!?

        well. where to start. i guess it has to do with me rating cordiality higher than hostility. but that's just me. you're not with me here troy?

        Delete
      22. @troy

        yes mate. some things are simple.

        what is it that remains blurry from your point of view troy?

        Delete
      23. When you start having whole cities dominated by one ethnic group in this country I start to get worried..you go to Richmond and you think you are in Hong Kong..there are countless parts of Montreal and Toronto where you literally feel like you are in another country. At what point does it become a problem..right now the numbers are still relatively low..but at some point if 30 percent of the population is Muslim or Chinese then how does that affect our country and the direction it heads into. There is a tipping point when it will become a serious problem..when the country we all know ceases to exist.

        I'm sure the original intent here was to include neighborhoods like Montreal-North, Chomedey, or Saint-Laurent. But I can't help but feel the same way when traveling through certain other "heritage" neighborhoods like Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Pointe-aux-Trembles. Two generations ago, the a rather homogeneous contingent of French-Canadian nationalists banded together and deliberately changed the face of Montreal, forever affecting the direction our city (and province) have been heading in. Francophones account for about 23% of Canada -- a country based on and dominated by supposedly overwhelmingly WASP power and principles -- yet one in which French-Canadianism has not only found its voice, but its genuine empowerment... all while disparaging and vilifying the very parliamentary democracy and power dynamics of the federative system that has made it all possible.

        Imagine that! A group of people that changed the face of Canada. The First Nations peoples who gladly and willfully bequeathed this land to the White invaders must take one look at that and be absolutely dumbfounded. Or bemusedly indifferent.

        Through gradual attrition, erosion, and evolution, the Canada of 1867 has in many ways ceased to exist. Whether or not that is a problem, in my judgment, is a matter of debate and personal opinion. But whether or not our country (or any country, for that matter) should evolve and respond to and embrace changing realities, is much less a matter of opinion and more an opportunity to undertake a depoliticized society-wide examination of where we're going.

        To think that we're squandering a great opportunity saddens me. Dwelling on the length and size of hats and other accouterments seems rather drab -- and cheap -- when I consider what the alternate non-partisan exercise could be. The Islamist fallout from the Mohammed cartoons controversy might have been expected from interlocutors who by Western standards are viewed as jealous, retrograde, zealous ideologues who are better suited to rampage than reflection.

        I hold our society -- one that claims to be superior and open to genuine dialogue -- to a higher standard. Perhaps this is an error on my part; time and again we westerners have shown ourselves to be as ignorant and superficial as our opponents, on whom we variously lavish paternalistic pity or labels thick with doublespeak. I have felt this to be no less the case in the last few days, even though as a cynical political operative (on the other side of the debate), the episode came entirely anticipated.

        Rather than forcefully challenge each of us to individually and thoroughly consider how to best balance various ancestral systems of spiritualism with our own primal biases while living in a hyperconnected world underpinned by increased globalization, we're waiting for a provincial legislature to tell us who we are... and aren't.

        Delete
      24. Heaven forbid that french canadians try and preserve their culture. They were only one of the two founding people of Canada..they do not deserve to put in the same category as more recent immigrants. When I hear comments like yours then I seriously start to question our entire immigration policy..if immigrants to this country can just simply discard our history and relegate french canadians to just another ethnic group then we have a serious problem. Its exactly your arrogant attitude that is creating the backlash against accomodation..people are fed up with having to bend and bend and bend to make every immigrant from around the world able to live exactly as they were accustomed. Once again if its asking too much then these immigrants can find another willing country to move too. I think Canada has gone way out of its way to accomodate..in my opinion too far in many cases.

        Once again the implication is that anyone who dares speak out against unlimited accomodaton is racist, intolerant, unsophisticated. Its a clever tool used to shut up anyone who dares speak out..I call it the politically correct disease.


        Delete
      25. @complicated

        You've been beat dude.

        Now tuck your tail back between your legs and hit the showers.

        Delete
      26. I concede that the underlying issue with my position is that it arguably legitimates the granting undue latitude to newcomers to establish the rules by which they will settle here.

        But you must concede that the underlying issue with yours is that it legitimates granting not merely sweeping authority, but attempts to confer a monopoly of morality about said authority, to an existing group of people based solely on their time of arrival. And on that group's ability to do exactly to the Natives (demographically and sociologically) what we now fear the newer newcomers will do to us.

        Neither of these positions alone constitutes the silver bullet in the wider debate.

        My evolving and ever-growing disapproval of various French Canadian attempts at "preservation" has much to do with what I perceive to be the hypocrisy of self-declared importance. Being myself an individual of shared franco-anglo-allo extraction, I take great exception to your comment which more than strongly suggests that more recent Canadians deserve less to have their respective cultures and established presence in this country be valued, recognized, celebrated, and legitimated than those of the original French or British invaders.

        And I find it quite regrettable that comments like mine prompt a kneejerk paranoid reaction from you rather than a flood of serious thought on how as living, breathing individuals these newcomers might weave their own story to (y)ours. I don't think that this is any more arrogant than an obtuse assimilation/melting pot model wherein all newcomers are expected to throw their individual and collective memories into a proverbial dumpster before being allowed off the boat. The serious problem at the root of the backlash against "accommodation" is twofold: one, how the actual problem is magnified and exists more in the excitable and paranoid minds of the feeble, and two, how to genuinely accomplish an integration process whereby both sides (host society and newcomers) arrive at a healthy symbiosis. To put it plainly, I think we need to adjust to us about as much as we need to adjust to them. And to shirk either adjustment is to stall for peace or ignore potential problems that will inevitably arise.

        I too agree that our country has been far too accommodating on some levels. But not so on others.

        It behooves us to do our homework though. Why don't we as the "establishment" Canadians learn about recent Indian political history or Islamic jurisprudence, for example, so as to be better equipped to deal with the supposed hordes of savages who've flocked to our shores?

        We demand that they learn our language, clean our toilets, and adopt our customs.
        The least we could do is avert social issues by learning exactly who they are before it's too late.

        Delete
      27. @appartachik

        "I too agree that our country has been far too accommodating on some levels..."

        you are here confirming the pq project is legetimate. if you care about coherence, you'll need to change your attitude towards the current legislature.

        Delete
      28. @apartachik

        can you give examples of occurences when "our country has been far too accommodating"? be careful cause by providing some you will engage on the road to relevance. it may lead you to a situation where you have to explicit your criteria: where to draw the line. which is, what a coincidence, exactly what the pq is trying to do with its "charte". reply at your own risk mate.

        Delete
      29. Heaven forbid that English-Quebecers should wish to try and preserve their distinct culture. Arrogant attitudes such as yours are the cause for much of the antagonism that currently exists.

        Delete
      30. I think Canada has been far too accommodating in letting in so many immigrants while allowing its existing citizens to remain passively ignorant about the various newcomers to our shores.

        The PQ's project in my view is a cheap proxy for the real debate that should be going on, namely what kind of adaptation are we as citizens willing to accept in short order while demanding equal adaptation of our new neighbors. But then again, the PQ's identity politics is a cheap proxy for our country's true issues that I wouldn't trust them to organize a smoke-up in an Amsterdam marijuana lounge.

        Delete
      31. @aparatchik

        "The PQ's project in my view is a cheap proxy for the..."

        how do you know?!? it's not even on the table yet.

        "...the real debate that should be going on, namely what kind of adaptation are we as citizens willing to accept in short order..."

        basically you think canadians and quebeckers don't adapt enough to the immigrant's lifestyle. the hosts society should change more quickly in order for the newcomer to feel more at ease. that's an original opinion. but i don't agree. the host society should be welcoming, but it shouldn't be asked to compromise on its definition "in short order". first because it's impossible and second because the immigrants wouldn't like it. they left their country for a reason, i reckon most of them don't want to find the same setup in canada or quebec.

        one of the main issues being addressed right now is gender equality vs freedom of religion. they are on par in canadian law right now. pq wants to give precedence to gender equality. don't you think quebec needs this kind of law, or are you a sexist too?

        Delete
      32. Google the definition of “trial balloon”.

        Delete
      33. @étudiant

        sure. but a balloon is blown up to start with. and then it's blown up again by quebec bashers.

        that's why i still think apartachik should wait for the real thing before condemning the pq's efforts. don't you?

        Delete
      34. It beggars belief that it should be necessary to instruct even a cocky UQAM student in such a basic political concept.

        Delete
      35. pq wants to give precedence to gender equality. don't you think quebec needs this kind of law, or are you a sexist too?

        Gender equality is already a part of both the Quebec and Canadian Charters, which outline several other rights as well, including but not limited to freedom of expression, religion, and assembly. Those same charters also make very explicit the mechanisms by which a government may curtail some or all of those rights.

        Also, civil liberties like those are DELIBERATELY not subject to a prioritization or hierarchy, SPECIFICALLY to avoid the sort of sterile populist circus we're witnessing right now. Imagine how silly it would be for a government to pass laws to arbitrarily rank the importance, respectively, of freedom of expression, of gender equality, or the security against search, seizure, or arbitrary detention or imprisonment.

        That's what Drainville's law is doing.

        And in so doing, the PQ is demonstrating yet again its crass disregard for the constitutional structure and mechanisms that govern both levels of government for populist gain. All while making a mockery of our parliamentary culture's traditional adherence to notions of peace, order, and good government.

        Delete
      36. @aparatchik

        "Imagine how silly it would be for a government to pass laws to arbitrarily rank the importance, respectively, of freedom of expression, of gender equality..."

        of course it would be silly to do it arbitrarily. no doubt. but what if it's done in a way that reflects what quebec society is; i.e the society quebeckers built and the society immigrants chose to join?

        you kinda sound like you think gender equality should not be given a higher value than freedom of religion. when do you come from mate? middle ages?

        Delete
      37. basically you think canadians and quebeckers don't adapt enough to the immigrant's lifestyle. [...] immigrants wouldn't like it. they left their country for a reason, i reckon most of them don't want to find the same setup in canada or quebec.

        First off, it's not Canadians AND Quebecers/Canada OR Quebec. One is the territorial subset, the other is the superset. Your usage is in line with French Canadian nationalist weasel wording whose underlying purpose is to subconsciously establish first a terminological, then conceptual drift away from the subset/superset of reality into a fantasy disjunction that serves their own political agenda.

        @Editor: I'd like you to weigh in on this sort of weasel wording and respond to its implications in an upcoming post.

        And secondly, while immigrants arrive seeking a future they subjectively (or objectively) qualify as "better", humans are necessarily creatures of habit. Becoming accustomed to a new environment with zero support of any kind from the surrounding environment seldom aids the newcomer objectively more than, say, if said environment proactively helps him bridge the gap between former and new. Sitting back and saying "he's new to the neighborhood, I shouldn't have to proactively engage him (or myself!), I've been here longer" isn't a foundation on which to build good neighborly relations; it certainly isn't one for wider societal ones either.

        They're in OUR country now. OUR immigration system let them in. Now it's up to US to build bridges with them before they start nightly urban riots because our indifference has marginalized them.

        Delete
      38. Canada is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world..we bend over backwards to accomodate. 20 percent of our population is foreign-born which is much higher than in the usa or any other european country. We have done more than our fair share of accepting immigrants with open arms. I personally find most immigrants I have met to be very hard working, respectful and decent people. I think in general we do a fine job of adjusting to immigrants..try to find another country that adjusts more than us and I dont think you will.
        But I have a problem when certain foreign customs and traditions start forcing changes in our traditionally accepted ways of living. For instance, muslim women covering their faces is an issue in some instances, bringing daggers in schools and more importantly an increasingly anti-christian narrative. This narrative that suggests we are intolerant because only the crucifix is allowed in government buildings..but excuse me do we now have to give up the founding religion of this country in order to appease the politically sensitive crowd. We already banished any reference to christianity from our schools which I think is sad but of course anyone who agrees with this is labelled a dinosaur, a racist, an intolerant unsophisticated brute. The popular narrative now is the one in which we must always embrace new cultures, new customs even at the expense of our own otherwise we are not progressive.
        We have the right to preserve certain values and customs and if that offends or disturbs some traditions of newcomers then so be it. Otherwise I think all the gnashing of teeth on this forum is greatly exaggerated. We are clearly one of the most open and tolerant societies in the world. Am I in agreement on the charter put forth by the PQ..no..I think its main purpose is to divide and to distract from the real issues. However I do sympathize with some of the sentimenet behind this charter and I believe we do have the right to impose certain limits on how far we accomodate. Unfortunately on this forum one can never sympathize with one iota of what the PQ believes in otherwise one is demonized to the nth degree.

        Delete
      39. @apartachik

        "Becoming accustomed to a new environment with zero support of any kind..."

        that is total bs. they have tons of support already. too much actually, as their right to religious expression is bullet proofed, so much that they can legally discriminate against women! "zero support of any kind.."!!! hahaha! (you seem less intelligent than before. what happened mate?)

        "Now it's up to US to build bridges with them..."

        of course. but shouldn't quebeckers have a say on the bridge specifications? shouldn't there be a limit on the costs? yes and yes. hence the need for legislation.

        Delete
      40. of course it would be silly to do it arbitrarily. no doubt. but what if it's done in a way that reflects what quebec society is; i.e the society quebeckers built and the society immigrants chose to join?

        What does that tangibly mean? The society built by Quebecers is in constant evolution. Its values, heritage, priorities, and challenges differ month to month, year to year, and generation to generation. Consider how a populist hypothetical "Charter of Quebec Values" authored one, two, three, or four generations ago, would have been vastly different and perhaps even at complete variance the one that it seems will be presented a week from now. One need only consider Duplessis' dislike for Jehovah's witnesses to imagine what a Duplessis-era "charter" might have said about accommodating non-Catholics!

        To make a long story short, Duplessis' populist vision and actions regarding the "intrepid defense" the French-Canadian identity of the '40s and '50s laid the groundwork for the later péquiste (however ironic) fixation on the same identity card. Ironically, many péquistes repudiate Duplessis despite being themselves the modern torch-carriers of his populist "nous" -- to the letter, substituting religion with language.

        All this to say while the letter of our priorities change, the spirit often doesn't. Time and again, our identity politics have shown themselves to be little more than a crass manifestation of minorities-baiting, all powered by our own disingenuous claims of David-like vulnerability while the henchman of our mob-like excitability and policy does our dirty bidding as Goliath.

        And in such a context, endorsing that a skittish party fixated with identity definition for reasons having everything to do with its own self-preservation should enact laws to prioritize one vital human right vis-à-vis another for everyone in our territory is tantamount to letting the salesman dictate your shopping decisions.

        you kinda sound like you think gender equality should not be given a higher value than freedom of religion. when do you come from mate? middle ages?

        No, I come from 2013 and by the tenor and quality of your interventions suspect I've studied Constitutional Law a bit more than you have, although I admit I don't pontificate quite as well (or perhaps as badly) as you do, whether in the nauseous written franglais that is your trademark or in either official language of our nation -- Canada.

        Freedom of religion is also the freedom not to have a religion -- and when I think about the implications of that idea alone, the conclusion I draw is that it is no more or less important than any other Charter freedoms.

        Delete
      41. @apartachik

        "What does that tangibly mean?"

        well it means gender equality precedes religious fantasies, to make a user-friendly example for you. if this tangible enough mate?

        "Consider how a populist hypothetical "Charter of Quebec Values" authored one, two, three, or four generations ago, would have been vastly different..."

        sure. but we still need charters. even you keep refering to the 1982 canadian charter of rights as if it came from god.

        so you're not achieving anything by trying to run down the very concept of a charter. find something else.

        "Freedom of religion is (...) no more or less important than any other Charter freedoms."

        well maybe you'll have to swallow it and find a way to cope with a law that forbids a dude to be sexist because some god told him to be so. i'm sorry if it makes you sad.

        p.s. please avoid claiming superior studies or superior writing style. you can't prove the former and the later is just, well, irrelevant. stick with arguments.

        Delete
      42. We have done more than our fair share of accepting immigrants with open arms. I personally find most immigrants I have met to be very hard working, respectful and decent people. I think in general we do a fine job of adjusting to immigrants..try to find another country that adjusts more than us and I dont think you will.

        Perhaps we're good at the fuzzy open arms stuff, but we're deficient in other areas of our immigration policy. For example, I've more overqualified and underemployed taxi drivers with advanced degrees in their countries of origin but unable to find equivalent or related work here than I care to count. What good is it to "welcome" Algerian doctors, Indian dentists, and Lebanese lawyers if their ability to practice their professions in our various provinces is severely circumscribed if not entirely hampered... all this while industry clamors for an ever more specialized labor force that fails to materialize.

        But I have a problem when certain foreign customs and traditions start forcing changes in our traditionally accepted ways of living. For instance, muslim women covering their faces is an issue in some instances, bringing daggers in schools and more importantly an increasingly anti-christian narrative. This narrative that suggests we are intolerant because only the crucifix is allowed in government buildings..but excuse me do we now have to give up the founding religion of this country in order to appease the politically sensitive crowd.

        While some may argue it is necessary, I am a greater proponent of religious laissez-faire. I don't advocate the takedown of the National Assembly cross (or any other cross, really) just as I don't have a problem with fully veiled females studying in our universities or eating in our restaurants. Most often, it isn't the newcomers who agitate against "established" customs, but rather the descendents of much older stock who decide they have an axe to grind or a "point" to "prove".

        We already banished any reference to christianity from our schools which I think is sad but of course anyone who agrees with this is labelled a dinosaur, a racist, an intolerant unsophisticated brute.

        Let's recall that it was under none other than madame Marois' disastrous tenure as education minister (Quebec bungled school reform: need we say more?) that Quebec's school boards went from confessional to linguistic.

        The popular narrative now is the one in which we must always embrace new cultures, new customs even at the expense of our own otherwise we are not progressive.

        Those who seriously advocate that are advocating a pandering and hypocritical view of multiculturalism if ever there was one. I have met such self-deprecating, self-denigrating "progressives" myself, and I find their attitude as saddening as the culturally and racially homogenious paranoiacs who fear the savage hordes at our gates. Balance, people. Balance.

        We have the right to preserve certain values and customs and if that offends or disturbs some traditions of newcomers then so be it.

        I fundamentally agree with you. When ideological conflict is properly handled, it isn't a bad thing at all but rather the testing ground for later philosophy. I think if anything what we should be doing is equipping ourselves and the newcomers for genuine and informed debate, rather than lipstick identity angst and "oooh they're not like us" wails of despair.

        Delete
      43. Otherwise I think all the gnashing of teeth on this forum is greatly exaggerated. We are clearly one of the most open and tolerant societies in the world. Am I in agreement on the charter put forth by the PQ..no..I think its main purpose is to divide and to distract from the real issues. However I do sympathize with some of the sentimenet behind this charter and I believe we do have the right to impose certain limits on how far we accomodate. Unfortunately on this forum one can never sympathize with one iota of what the PQ believes in otherwise one is demonized to the nth degree.

        I realize that there are true, serious, extremist, religious fundamentalists we are hoping to stave off. And I realize that our existing system, when applied with far too much laxity, allows for said fundamentalists to exploit our existing freedoms and system to disseminate hate against the very system that welcomed them.

        But I think we are already equipped with the tools to properly combat the serious threats that face us as a result of poor/failed integration. My concern is that we're caving to manufactured populist fear rather than truly putting our finger on the actual issues surrounding the huge theme surrounding immigration, and allowing ourselves to change and be changed by such an analysis. But here's where my own cynicism kicks in. The work to be done requires profound and applied study and action, and the follow-through will inevitably require measures likely unpalatable to any political party. Sadly, we are doomed to weather another angst-ridden storm timed to last a news cycle, after which the same populism will nudge us to put our umbrellas away, only to be caught, I fear, completely unprepared by our current shallow handling once the real economic and social hurricane hits.

        Delete
      44. [tangibly] means gender equality precedes religious fantasies, to make a user-friendly example for you. if this tangible enough mate?

        Still seems like we're needlessly focusing on one freedom that is already in both the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

        we still need charters. even you keep refering to the 1982 canadian charter of rights as if it came from god.

        I find it kind of amusing you should say that, considering the flurry of debate leading up to the final authoring of the preamble of that very document, which states: Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:...

        But no, I don't believe the 1982 Canada Act came from God. I know it came from Westminster and its enactment repeated and completed in Ottawa.

        so you're not achieving anything by trying to run down the very concept of a charter. find something else.

        Au contraire; charters can be as broad as they can be vacuous. Even the Quebec government incorrectly calls it the Charter of the French language, when constitutionally it's just an ordinary law ;-)

        well maybe you'll have to swallow it and find a way to cope with a law that forbids a dude to be sexist because some god told him to be so. i'm sorry if it makes you sad.

        But if a law encourages a dude to act subtly and smugly superior because a parliament told him to, that's perfectly fine. Got it.

        please avoid claiming superior studies or superior writing style. you can't prove the former and the later is just, well, irrelevant. stick with arguments.

        Your attempts at English are certainly laudable, especially as a francophone. But the quality of your interventions, both in style and in substance, continue to reek of non-sequiturs, fallacies, and selective cherry-picking of comments that communicating with you is best kept at a minimum.

        Delete
      45. @apparatchik

        "Still seems like we're needlessly focusing on one freedom that is already in both the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

        your answer would be good if i had claimed gender equality wasn't in our charters. but unfortunately for you it's not what i claimed at all.

        "I don't believe the 1982 Canada Act came from God."

        ok well then stop debating as if it were perfect.

        "But if a law encourages a dude to act subtly and smugly superior because a parliament told him to, that's perfectly fine. Got it."

        no it's not. i don't understand your point. why can't you agree that god-sanctioned sexism as no place in quebec?

        "But the quality of your interventions, both in style and in substance, continue to reek of non-sequiturs, fallacies, and selective cherry-picking..."

        please give me a few examples of a "style non-sequitur" i'd have proposed please. i'd like to improve.

        on a positive note, let me grab this opportunity to return the compliment and laud your mastery of the english language. you're pretty good too.

        Delete
    13. Mark Cummins

      Let Quebec separate! Think about it... With Quebec as its own country the English living here would finally be seen as a legitimate minority and would be far better protected under international treaties than we have been by Ottawa, and with separatism taken off the ballot politicians would have to focus on real issues (i.e. economics, education, infrastructure), in order to get elected, not to mention that without transfer payments from the RoC, Quebec would probably open up very quickly to the idea of courting international businesses and doing whatever they can to make their dollars (and languages) feel welcome here. It's just a thought.....

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hey Mark - we are all well aware of the points you make and I don't disagree with you except for the fact that belonging to Canada gives us so many advantages towards our whole monetary system and our social security that I, for one, have no intention of upsetting that apple cart and throwing my money behind some pie in the sky dream that has never been defined and put on paper for anyone to analyze and no one knows what the hell would happen if the province leaves Canada. The "blackhole" that Charest talked about is one I'm not willing to jump into and until some of these separatists prove to me, on paper, that they can make it and be prosperous without the ROC, I will fight for partition of this place and let those sink that vote to sink.

        Delete
      2. watch it mark. if you venture off the established narrative here you'll be badged as an evil racist separatist troll in no time. my advice is to start repeating the obvious mantras right away. follow robots cutie003 or quebecker of tree stump for cues. you'll get the hang of it quickly.

        Delete
      3. With Quebec as its own country [...] and with separatism taken off the ballot politicians would have to focus on real issues

        How about we do one better and just start focusing on real issues rather than those manufactured by and for the PQ and their clientele of excitable French-Canadian morons?

        Delete
      4. @apratchic

        why did you change your style, mate? did you change your target audience? you were much better before.

        Delete
      5. J'ai remarqué que les fédérastes pro bilinguisme sont totalement instables...De vraies girouettes.

        Delete
      6. Pas plus instables qu'une bande de caves francosuprémacistes incapables de formuler un argument sans se contredire en tout cas.

        Le crucifix de Duplessis à l'Assemblée nationale ferait partie de notre "patrimoine" et devrait rester... mais l'anglais présent chez nous depuis au moins 1759 est une langue "étrangère" à éradiquer. Un "patrimoine" à tout le moins sélectif, et le mot est faible.

        "Le Québec au Québécois"... je veux bien. Sans oublier que le Québec appartient autant à ceux qui ne s'identifient pas à la collectivité canadienne-française qu'à ceux qui se veulent les maitres du Québec du seul fait de descendre de quelques orphelines françaises. Un Québécois, c'est l'immigrant tamoul que tu détestes tant, tout comme la variante post-catho, blanche et consanguine à laquelle tu t'identifies, Sebbie. Financer l'état c'est y faire partie à part entière. Ou comme on dit si bien en anglais: you fund it, you own it.

        En quoi la pratique d'une religion serait-elle franchement assimilable à un refus de s’intégrer? N'a-t-on pas, chez nous, des lois qui protègent la liberté de religion? Un homme portant une kippah, une femme voilée (partiellement ou intégralement), un chrétien avec une grande croix, et j'en passe; ces gens qui pratiquent leurs religions, même de manière très visible, ne font-ils exactement ce qu’on leur donne le droit de faire dans notre cadre législatif (autant provincial que fédéral)? Ce pour quoi nous -- occidentaux -- nous sommes battus pendant des générations?

        Des girouettes, Sébastien, il y en a dans tous les camps. Mais t'attendre à ce que l'état légifère, balise, confère et définisse ton identité, c’est rechercher la dictature. Et tous savent qu'une dictature, c'est le genre de système politique stable que tous souhaitent pour toujours... et qui perdure le mieux (sarcasme).

        Penses-y coco.

        Delete
      7. @Apparatchik

        His name is Simon...and he believes the things he draws become true.

        Delete
      8. @appartachik & @anonymous coward

        sebastien, simon... why don't you guys use s.r?!? you guys are anonymous. respecting other contributor's anonymity is minimum decency. are you up to the standard asked by the editor on his blog?

        Delete
      9. @Student

        You're such a contradiction mate.

        Just on this blog comments section alone, you've supported the Editor, then totally dissed his blog, called AnecTOTE a rim-job artist and now this?

        This is why you guys keep failing - you don't have an ounce of integrity.

        Delete
      10. @johnny rotten

        can you explain the contradictions further mate? i sincerily don't see any.

        it's easier to prove your lack of integrity, as writing that i dissed the editor's blog is a pure lie.

        Delete
      11. studentSunday, September 1, 2013 at 2:43:00 PM EDT

        @apartchik

        ---->>>> i also can't understand why you choose not to share your knowledge on a blog that has been built precisely for antagonists to juxtapose facts and opinions. <<<----

        Does that help?

        Of course it doesn't because you're a master at fucking around and you're bound to spew up another pointless inanity.

        No wonder youre a sep.

        Delete
      12. @johnny rotten

        "does that help?"

        it helps, but not in the way you intended. my comment there certainly is not "dissing". quite the opposite actually. is it "antagonists" you don't understand? or "juxtapose"? i'm sorry but they were the best words i could find, mate.

        check this one out: http://dictionary.reference.com/

        Delete
      13. They are no more unstable than a band of franco-supremacist nutjobs who are unable to formulate an argument without contradicting themselves, anyway.

        Duplessis’ 1936 crucifix in the National Assembly would be considered a part of our "heritage" and therefore should remain ... but English, which has been part of our homeland since at least 1759, is a "foreign" language to be eradicated. This is a highly-selective type of "heritage", to say the least.

        "Quebec for Quebecers"... you betcha. But let us not forget that Quebec also belongs as much to those who do not identify with the French-Canadian community as it does to those who fancy themselves to be the masters of Quebec by virtue of having been descended from a few French orphans. A Quebecer is the Tamil immigrant whom you detest so much just as much as it is the post-Catholic version, white and inbred, with which you yourself identify, Sebbie. Financing the state is to wholly be a part of it. Or as we say so well in English: you fund it, you own it.

        Just how is the practice of a religion frankly comparable to a refusal to integrate? Do we not have, here at home, laws that protect the freedom of religion? A man who wears a kippah, a woman who wears a veil (partially or fully), a Christian who wears a large cross, and so on… are these people who practice their religions, even in very visible ways, not doing exactly what we have given them the right to do within our legislative framework (both provincial and federal)? Something which we - Westerners – have fought for for generations?

        Weathervanes, Sebastian, exist in all camps. But for you to expect that the state legislates, signposts, deliberates and defines your identity, that is seeking dictatorship. And everyone knows that a dictatorship is the kind of stable political system that everyone wishes to always have ... and which endures the best (sarcasm).

        Think about it, sweetie pie.

        Delete
    14. Paul Weston : I am a racist (French subs)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWcVguB0GaY

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. "Je veux préserver la culture de mon pays"

        Il est évident que le Québec a plus à perdre que le canaya.

        Delete
    15. Now that we’ve killed the PQ’s ill-conceived Bill 14, it’s time for us to turn our attention to killing the PQ’s ill-conceived charter of shame, and then work to boot out the extremely-unpopular, paranoid PQ at the next election so they can’t cynically re-introduce them.

      Then we can return to working on real problems facing Quebec instead of the false ones manufactured by the PQ, with their phony education summits and their rampant incompetence.

      Héhé! :)

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Tout comme l'extinction prochaine des Canadiens-français?

        Delete
      2. @apparatchik

        i can't decipher your intent here apparatchik. what is it?

        Delete
      3. Sorry dunce cap, you need to have a minimum knowledge of the French language and historical Quebec polemical sloganeering to understand.

        Back to Study Hall.

        Delete
      4. @apartchik

        i also can't understand why you choose not to share your knowledge on a blog that has been built precisely for antagonists to juxtapose facts and opinions.

        if i were the editor i wouldn't appreciate it when a dude takes up comment space to announce he'll keep his reasons for himself. counter productive in my humble opinion.

        Delete
      5. A student at UQAM’s Faculty of Logical Fallacies (who, after all these months, remains categorically incapable of properly transcribing a simple Russian-origin username) would have us believe that his unending questions have something to do with his belief that he is apparently “busting shit arguments”, as he claims in his characteristically inelegant manner of speaking.

        Back to Study Hall, indeed.

        Delete
    16. Hey SR, how's that bill 14 coming along for ya?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Please don't encourage him to post more of his drivel.
        You already know he's got bats in the belfry.

        Delete
      2. By System of a Down

        Delete
    17. student, there is no country where muslims have integrated. In fact, all of the evidence is to the contrary.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Below is a comment in the National Post by Salut:

        "The problem has been manufactured by Québec immigration poicy of both the PQ and Liberals of the last 15 years. It has nothing to do with normal immigration of Latino, Haitian, Chinese, etc. They adapt easily in Québec.

        French-speaking immigrants from Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon and France have been flocking to Québec because they speak French.

        The Qc minister of immigration, Diane De Courcy, just changed the policy on August 1st 2013 to make it even easier for French-speaking muslim immigrants to apply. It was already easy but it will be even easier..Chinese immigrant will find it more difficult if he does not speak French ( point system)

        I know it is unbelievable..but it is the reality and the stupidity of the PQ

        So, now all medium-sized town of Québec has a mosque run by affiliates of Muslim Brotherhood organizations

        Montreal has over 75 mosques.

        You want the name of the towns with Muslim Brotherhood type of islamic teaching mosques: Valleyfield, Sherbrooke, Gatineau, Chateauguay, Brossard, Longueuil, Joliette, Rouyn-Nornada, Chicoutimi, Trois-Rivières, Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe, Drummondville, Rimouski, Rivière-du-Loup, etc. Most of them are run by Morrocans."
        "

        Delete
      2. UN GARS BIEN SYMPATHIQUE DE FRANKFORTSaturday, August 31, 2013 at 8:57:00 AM EDT

        @John Krug
        quebecois refuse to have large families for some resons...
        Might as well have franco Muslims come in where they have 5 or 6 kids per family....
        My God, in 2 generations quebec will be fully Islamic.... quebekistan.
        No more booze, no more strippers, no more bikinisON THE BEACHES, no more wearing shorts for men, no more skirts for women, the burqa will be in fashion in quebec...no more masses in churches, no more music, no more catholicism, destroy all churches, persecute the minority catholic pure laines, nice!!!
        The present quebecois will be yet again...... a minority!!!

        Delete
      3. @un gars bs de frankfort

        please stop being a paranoid freak.

        Delete
      4. John, not everyone who comes over is religious or fanatical. I work with someone from the above countries who's perfectly normal. And the answer to this, assuming it actually is a problem, is to let a more diverse group of people into the province. Something that won't happen because of language hawks.

        Delete
      5. FROM ED
        R.S.
        Commenting on a post of yours; You're right. It was not the seaway that closed Montreal Harbour. It was the language law.. Ships kept coming to Mtl. for two years after the seaway opened. They didn't want to lose an extra day going to Hogtown but the french only law made forwarding impossible. Ed

        Delete
    18. Now that the PQ is trying to distract the population from their failures by scaring francophones into believing that we are at risk of imminent invasion by burka-clad Muslims who want to impose death by stoning on us (and consequently, that they should leave if they don’t like our ways), a Concordia student has come up with a very interesting video documentary in response, called “Welcome to Alexis Nihon”, showing just how preposterous that is and how Muslims are normal people like everyone else.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUiHJ6EjDos

      When The Gazette published this story about it just yesterday, there 8500 views; now it’s at 9300.

      http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Just+normal+people/8844883/story.html

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. I don't know how much more integrated than this it is possible for Muslims to be. Successful, gainfully employed, trilingual...

        Unilingual francophones, on the other hand, who pride themselves on refusing to integrate with their North American milieu, are the last, last people to harangue others about integration.

        Delete
      2. Wow, what an interesting video… and holy crap, Marc Arsan, Bilal Shansal and Joel Ghazi are so freaking hot... *fanning myself with both hands* (also the mystery one starting the Harlem Shake).

        I go to Alexis Nihon Plaza (named after a wealthy Belgian immigrant) all the time and I had no idea that it was a centre of Montreal’s Syrian community.

        Montreal would be such a culturally-poorer city without its Arabic influence, as well as without its much longer-standing Jewish, Italian, Greek, Chinese, Latino and other influences.

        Syrian-Canadians are also shown as being influenced to rethink taboo subjects from back home, such as interfaith marriage and gay marriage, and becoming much more open-minded about them.

        Can you imagine living in a community that had no international influences?? Blecch, no thank you.

        Now I’m getting all teary about what Bashar al-Assad is doing to his country… reading about it in the news is so different from meeting our actual neighbours who are affected by it… something that is highly unlikely to ever happen to the PQ-voters in Hérouxville…

        Delete
      3. @the cat

        "Now I’m getting all teary about what Bashar al-Assad is doing to his country…"

        what is it that he's doing to his country mate?

        Delete
      4. Are you completely out of touch with reality, student? Assad just killed hundreds of people (including women and children) with chemical weapons.

        Delete
      5. Where is the proof Durham. Based on what Al Qaida integrated rebels and a govt that was planning to attack syria from many years ago say so? Can you say false Flag?

        Delete
      6. @durham

        why would he have done that?!?! was he that anxious for damas to be flattened?!?

        or do you just blindly gulp the official storyline?

        Delete
      7. I can't believe anyone here is actually debating this little dick regarding this matter.

        Folks, THIS is the most classic example of flame-bating. I can guarantee you he would never dream of pulling this shit face-to-face with someone (unless he has the cops on speed-dial on his cell).

        Please do not encourage him.

        Delete
      8. @anonymous coward

        mate you should be more polite with durham. he has the right to express his bad opinions just like you. tone it down.

        Delete
      9. @AC

        Totally right about this little clown. Man, I wish I could get a job where all I do is sit around and hurl insults at people and deflect reasoning for a pointless political movement.

        Funny how the one calling other people's arguments "bad" has absolutely none of his own, he only regurgitates what his racist daddy told him to think, which is what his racist granddaddy taught him.

        Delete
      10. @johnny rotten

        mate this particular thread had turned into a discussion about syria. durham posted a weird opinion and it was very interesting until you stumbled in. can you steer yourself towards what you interrupted or are you too jammed in your crap rut to join us?

        Delete
      11. Nope, this conversation is still about how the PQ is insidiously trying to scare its supporters into confusing “Muslims” with “crazy Islamist preachers” and to use the two terms interchangeably, when nothing could be further from the truth.

        Delete
      12. @r.s

        when did a pq official use "muslims" and "crazy islamist preachers" interchangeably?

        hint: never.

        stop lying please. you'll feel much better.

        Delete
      13. Prove he isn't lying.

        That's the one thing you separatist bigots can't do.

        You simply make statements like "stop lying" and hope we just take you at your word.

        Come on Student, think for yourself. It's really not that hard.

        Delete
      14. @johnny rotten

        "Prove he isn't lying."

        sorry mate, i really can't prove r.s is not lying. you're asking for the impossible here.

        Delete
    19. Let's hear it Mr. Saga:
      http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/dream+inclusive+Quebec+Couillard+says/8854648/story.html

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Les liens de Philippe Couillard avec l'Arabie saoudite font des vagues

        http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201111/23/01-4470733-les-liens-de-philippe-couillard-avec-larabie-saoudite-font-des-vagues.php

        Tiens donc

        Delete
    20. Sondage Léger-Le Devoir - La Charte relance le PQ

      http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/386445/la-charte-relance

      Le gouvernement retrouve les appuis qu'il avait lors de l'élection de septembre 2012

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Wouhou!

        Espérons maintenant qu'il retrouve la même position minoritaire!

        Comme on se fait dire dans l'bus: "avancez vers l'arrière!"

        Delete
      2. @appartchik

        what do you mean? they already are a minority. anyways i'm quite surprised that you wich for a pq government.

        Delete
    21. Les conférences des Islamiques radicaux prévues au Palais des Congres les 7 et 8 septembre sont annulées.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Hum... ce même Palais des Congrès dont le conseil d'administration relève du ministère provincial du Tourisme?

        N'allez surtout pas me dire que ce n'est pas arrangé avec le gars des vues...

        Delete
    22. Bientôt chez Tim Horton...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF0IhyAasWw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DLF0IhyAasWw&nomobile=1

      ...I want my Donuts!!!

      ReplyDelete
    23. Was in Hawksbury in the last 48 hours.

      Remember, everybody should be driving there, filling up your car with gas and booze.

      Gas and booze are all taxes. Even if no difference in price at least Ontario doesn;t use the tax revenue to try to:

      break up the country
      support student boycotts
      harass anglophones
      harass immigrants
      harass the religiously inclined
      drive companies out of business with rules and red tape
      corrupt politicians
      support mafia construction (y it's all fixed!)

      the list goes on and on

      You arn;t hurting small quebec companies. The SAQ is the govt directly so fee's especially good to deny them.

      Talk about Hydro Quebec being over staffed? How many no work employee's in the SAQ that can;t be fired and to support seppies that are unemployable otherwise.

      Most gas stations are corporate these days. Buying you gas from Shell in Montreal is no different from Shell in Hawksbury. In fact the Hawksbury Shell is more likely to be a locally owned franchise vs montreal and large city gas stations that are corporately owned.

      99% of the small gas only stations are gone. Now it's all Tim Hortons attached and moving product. They wouldn;t know how to change a spark plug anymore then you.

      It's awesome. I'd say 90% of the people in the store were francophones speaking french. A predominance of license plates were local Ontario so these are all smart citizens that bailed on Quebec already(or their parents generation did) for taxes, laws, economic opportunity etc.

      One of the most telling signs is that Jean Coutu has their massive warehouse there. Just 10 km from the border of Quebec. They get all the best things. Francophone employee's to deal with head office and low taxes and a isn;t racked with hatred for companies and beating them with social policy.

      They standard answer from a seppie will be "JC votes liberal so he's already a traitor". Y but the problem is everybody that makes jobs is a liberal to start with. The PQ guys are all union members or living in the hinterlands of the province. The kind of place where they only see outsiders on tv. In the USA they are called Hillbillies. In Quebec it's the core cultural group for the PQ.

      French at any cost is the PQ matra. Destroy the economy, live in third world interpretation of democracy. The city is falling apart now. Just wait until all the pharma companies bail out of the province after separation. To say nothing of anything else left here. Most won;t leave with huge announcements of course. It's just you'll notice the address now starts to say missasauga a lot more and you'll hear anecdotally about some company constantly downsizing the montreal office.

      Welcome to Cuba. Your house is my house comrade.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Vous devriez faire vos bagages pour Hawksbury (héhé!),vous feriez des économies sur l'essence et du coup,du bien pour l'environnement.

        Chez Jean Coutu,on trouve de tout,même un ami :)

        Pensez-y!

        Delete
      2. @cebeuq

        dude you have a right to repeat the same comment over and over again. no doubt about that. but you should really refrain from accusing others of using mantras. it's just too contradictory.

        Delete
    24. SpeakingEnglish WhenIwant

      "Screw partition. Anyone who doesn't want to be a Canadian should fucking well bugger off! Why partition what you own?"

      Barry Renouf

      "You own fuck all (idiot with no name, above). You sat on your ass while Quebec committed genocide against you and now you are shooting your mouth off on a computer? The only name for you is brave and brainless. Mind if I call you BB?"

      Haha!Je l'aime bien ce Barrie

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Barry Renouf is as crazy as you are SR and everyone on the sites he goes to either block him or laugh at him - same as we do with you on this blog except we're not lucky enough to be able to block your inane comments. Wish we could.

        Delete
      2. Depuis quand lisez-vous mes "posts" peggy?

        Delete
    25. http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/caq-leader-legault-blasts-marois-for-walking-away-from-bill-14-1.1435415#commentsForm-430516

      Something to say complicated?

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. CUTIE... (re: Marois dropping Bill 14)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA

        Delete
      2. Very possible Admrial = with those sneaks we never know what to expect. Far from honest or upfront that's for sure. We will all be watching very closely.

        Delete
    26. Un témoignage indigné sur le voile, de Mme Fawzia Zaghbouni, Tunisienne arrivée au Québec en 2008.

      "Figurez-vous que cela fut un énorme choc pour moi, lorsqu’arrivée au Québec en 2008, j’ai croisé dès ma première journée beaucoup plus de femmes voilées que j’en croisait en Tunisie, pays musulman.
      J’ai été trop déprimée de penser avoir échappé à cette société d’hommes égoïstes et de femmes hypocrites, en choisissant le pays de la dignité et des droits de la femme! Et voilà que je les retrouve en puissance ici, bénéficiant de tous les avantages et tous les droits!
      S’affichant partout avec leur camouflage qui n’exprime que le vil déni et le radical mépris des valeurs de la société Québécoise et de l’être humain en général.
      Moi en tant que Tunisienne de parents musulmans, ayant vécu parmi eux et les connaissant mieux que quiconque, j’étais incapable de garder mon calme et de tolérer le fait qu’ils viennent jusqu’ici pour nous narguer avec leurs valeurs dégradantes et humiliantes, totalement à l’opposé des nôtres!
      Dans un pays où la femme marche la tête haute et l’homme à ses côtés lui tenant la main avec fierté!
      Je me demandais comment vous, qui vous êtes battu durement, qui avez sacrifié tellement de choses et versé votre sang pour vous libérer de l’obscurantisme et esclavagisme des religions!
      Comment étiez-vous capables de tolérer un tel mépris!
      Et jusqu'à ce jour je m’étonne encore, de voir un grand pourcentage de Québécois les laisser piétiner librement ce que le monde entier vous envie!"

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. [...] Et jusqu'à ce jour je m’étonne encore, de voir un grand pourcentage de Québécois les laisser piétiner librement ce que le monde entier vous envie!"

        Je ressens le même étonnement en constatant la tolérance, l'indulgence, et la patience du gouvernement fédéral envers le nationalisme ethniste, sélectif et francosuprémaciste articulé par la génération perdue des RINistes et véhiculé toujours par le PQ.

        Mais notre système est ainsi fait. Pour certains, c'est le côté moins reluisant de la démocratie, pour d'autres, c'est leur salut même.

        Mais comme dit le dicton, tout ce qui va revient. Et on vit déjà la revanche des berceaux à l'inverse. D'ici cent ans les fanatiques musulmans francophones que nous avons déjà accueillis pourtant si allègrement (accord sur l'immigration Québec-Canada et loi 101 obligent!) auront fait des centaines de millions de petits. Le multiculturalisme "canadian" que tu vilipendes tant aura accouché d'un pendant québécois dont les origines étaient on ne peut plus péquistes. Imagine-donc ça, Sébbie: nous parlerons alors tous un créole arabo-franco-anglo-pendjabi-tamoul en s'empressant de terminer notre poulet tikka et du merguez halal dans la casse croute du coin avant de se faufiler dans la mosquée la plus près pour l’énième prière de la journée...

        Mais tout n'est pas sombre: au moins les maghrébins nous auront appris à mieux parler français avant de nous assimiler.

        bang et re-bang, héhé!!

        Delete
      2. Mais tout n'est pas sombre: au moins les maghrébins nous auront appris à mieux parler français avant de nous assimiler.

        Tu m'as fait cracher mon café, cher Apparatchik.

        Delete
      3. Hé bougnoule nique ta mère pas ma meuf nactabarr (Tabarrnac en kabil)

        Je vois que nos deux girouettes s'entendent plutôt bien...Quelle surprise!

        Delete
      4. Hey Simon, we really like you as our troll mascot. Just try not to write a line every time you find a penny on the sidewalk. Wait until you collect them into double digits - it will help you get off BS.

        Delete
      5. [...] And to this day I am still surprised to see a large percentage of Quebecers allow them to trample freely upon that which the whole world envies you!"

        I feel the same astonishment in noting the tolerance, leniency and patience that the federal government has expressed toward the selective and franco-supremacist ethnocentric nationalism that was formerly enunciated by the lost generation that followed the RIN and which continues to be proclaimed by the PQ.

        But that is how our system is made. For some, this is the not-so-shiny side of democracy, and for others, it is salvation itself.

        But as the saying goes, everything that goes around comes around. And we are already living the revenge of the cradle in reverse. A hundred years from now, the French-speaking Muslim fanatics that we have already welcomed so blithely (thanks to Bill 101 and the immigration agreement between Canada and Quebec!) will have created hundreds of millions of little ones. The "Canadian" multiculturalism that you vilify so much will have given birth to a matching Quebec equivalent whose origins could not have been more pequiste. Just imagine that, Sebbie: we will all be speaking an Arab-French-English-Punjabi-Tamil pidgin while rushing to finish our chicken tikka and halal merguez sausages over at the corner snack bar before sneaking into the mosque for the day’s umpteenth prayer...

        But all is not gloomy: at least the North Africans will have taught us to speak French better before they assimilate us.

        bang and re-bang, heheh!

        Delete
    27. https://snt145.mail.live.com/default.aspx#n=1433010257&fid=1&cid=13372683-6ab2-fb84-cbb2-51239dc71a96&fv=1

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. that's your best comment ever, mate. keep it up.

        Delete
    28. I am afraid English Canada does not really fares better. Just spend some time in Toronto and suburbs to see English-speaking religious fanatics.

      ReplyDelete
    29. From LeDevoir:




      Lettre ouverte


      Maripier Isabelle, doctorante en économie à l’Université de Toronto; Benjamin Prud’homme, avocat et chercheur en sociologie du droit à l’Université de Montréal; Émilie Nicolas, doctorante en anthropologie linguistique à l’Université de Toronto; Julien Gagnon, doctorant en économie à l’Université de Cambridge; Pierre-Luc Brisson, candidat à la maîtrise en études classiques à l’Université de Montréal.

      Nous, soussignés, unissons nos voix pour mettre nos élus et nos concitoyens en garde contre les dispositions de la « Charte sur les valeurs québécoises » que le gouvernement confirme vouloir présenter à l’automne. Bien que le texte exact des propositions ne soit pas encore connu, le gouvernement trace déjà un parallèle avec les difficiles débats à l’origine de la Charte de la langue française, sans pourtant qu’on ne ressente une tension sociale comparable justifiant pareil arsenal législatif. Il évoque le courage politique qui a mené à l’adoption de la loi 101 pour discréditer à l’avance comme simple résistance au changement les voix qui s’élèvent contre le projet actuel.

      Les signataires de la présente lettre proviennent de tous les horizons politiques – de la gauche à la droite, du fédéralisme au souverainisme. Nos sensibilités politiques sont très diverses, mais notre malaise, lui, est unanime. La vision du gouvernement ne correspond ni à notre expérience de la société québécoise, ni à l’image que nous souhaitons donner du Québec, ni à un legs politique que nous serions fiers de transmettre aux générations futures.

      Une mauvaise réponse à un faux problème

      Au cours des dernières années, le débat public a relayé une inquiétude exprimée par plusieurs de nos concitoyens quant à l’expression visible de croyances religieuses. Pour certains, celle-ci porterait atteinte à des valeurs « partagées » par les Québécois. Le projet de charte du gouvernement veut répondre à cette inquiétude, assimilée à une demande de « balises claires ». Il s’agit d’après nous plutôt de balises partisanes et injustes visant à reléguer l’expression de la diversité de conscience des Québécois hors du domaine public.

      ReplyDelete
    30. Part 2

      La finalité de la laïcité, que la Charte vise à encadrer, n’est pourtant pas la censure des Québécois. Il s’agit au contraire d’assurer la pleine liberté de conscience et l’égalité de tous devant la loi. La neutralité de l’État en est une des conditions de possibilité. En proposant d’interdire le port de signes religieux pour les employés des secteurs public et parapublic, le gouvernement suggère, à tort, que le port de tels symboles est en soi suffisant pour traduire l’intention réelle ou présumée d’un individu de laisser ses croyances influencer ses actions et déterminer ses décisions. Cet argument se fonde sur le postulat que le choix d’une personne employée par l’État de porter un symbole religieux — crucifix, hidjab, kippa ou autres — indique de facto sa propension à prendre des décisions partiales dans l’exercice de ses fonctions. Nous croyons que ce postulat repose sur des stéréotypes offensants. Les Québécois qui affichent leur foi ne sont pas moins professionnels, ni ne vont agir de façon moins éthique, que les individus qui n’ont pas la foi ou qui ne l’affichent pas. Le gouvernement devrait s’employer à combattre ces stéréotypes plutôt que de s’appuyer sur eux pour justifier des politiques qui entretiennent la méfiance envers certains de ses citoyens; des politiques qui s’appliquent à tous sur papier, mais qui en pratique, discriminent toute une classe de citoyens.
      Avec son projet, le gouvernement alimente insidieusement le doute quant à l’impact du port de signes religieux sur la solidité du tissu social québécois. Il suggère qu’il est légitime de s’inquiéter du port de tels symboles par un professeur d’université, un employé de Revenu Québec ou un infirmier même si cela, en soi, n’influence en rien la qualité ou le caractère impartial des services offerts par l’État. Ceci est d’autant plus frappant que le gouvernement réitère du même souffle son intention de s’imposer des standards différents de ceux qu’il prescrit à ses citoyens — pensons entre autres au maintien du crucifix à l’Assemblée nationale. La Charte qui nous est proposée est une mauvaise réponse à un faux problème, qu’aucune urgence ne justifie – sinon l’agenda électoral du gouvernement – et qui ne fera qu’attiser inutilement les tensions entre Québécois.
      Égalité hommes-femmes et liberté de conscience : des impératifs de justice
      Nous croyons fermement que nous pouvons continuer à garantir le respect des libertés individuelles, incluant la liberté de conscience, sans que cela se pose en menace pour le caractère distinct du Québec. La promotion et la préservation de la culture québécoise ne passent pas par l’adoption d’un concept éthéré de « valeurs québécoises » et le retrait de droits aux Québécois, mais plutôt, par exemple, par le biais de nos écoles et institutions d’enseignement. Ce sont elles qui mettent et mettront de l’avant une Histoire où toutes les communautés ont eu et ont toujours un rôle à jouer.
      Nous sommes fiers de l’héritage culturel et politique distinct du Québec. Cet héritage inclut la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés de la personne, qui garantit déjà les droits individuels, notamment l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes ainsi que la liberté de conscience. D’ailleurs, ces principes sont plus que des « valeurs » subjectives : ils forment des impératifs de justice. Il est désolant que le gouvernement tente de porter atteinte à ces impératifs à des fins électorales en attisant des tensions qui n’ont pas raison d’être. Nous attendons plutôt de nos décideurs qu’ils se fassent les porteurs d’une vision s’appuyant sur notre héritage dans l’élaboration de politiques publiques justes, inclusives et ambitieuses.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Mieux vaut prévenir que guérir...Demandez aux Anglais,aux Français,aux Allemands,etc.

        Delete
    31. Part 3

      Signataires:
      Ahmad Cameron Président des jeunes libéraux du Canada (Québec)
      Akoury Maro Candidate aux élections fédérales de 2006, Parti libéral du Canada et Candidate aux élections provinciales de 2007, Action démocratique du Québec
      Alliance Andrew Candidat à la maîtrise en sociologie, Université de Montréal
      Arsenault Gabriel Doctorant en science politique, Université de Toronto
      Audy Émilie Doctorante en sociologie, Université de Montréal
      Barsoum Jad-Patrick Avocat
      Bélanger Jérôme Candidat à la maîtrise en droit, London School of Economics
      Benoit-Gagné Guillaume Candidat à la maîtrise en droit international, Université de Montréal
      Blouin Samuel Candidat à la maîtrise en sociologie, Université de Montréal
      Bonnely Jeremy Vice-président aux politiques et statuts, NPD, Section Québec (* pour signature en son nom uniquement)
      Breton-Carbonneau Gabrielle Doctorante en éducation, OISE- Université de Toronto et ex-enseignante en francisation
      Campbell-Duruflé Christopher Avocat et détenteur d’une maîtrise en droit international des droits humains, Université Notre Dame
      Chaput Vincent Directeur général, Centre NAHA
      Chevarie-Cossette Simon-Pierre Candidat à la maîtrise en philosophie, Université de Montréal
      Cooper Celine Doctorante en humanités, sciences sociales et justice sociale en éducation, OISE- Université de Toronto
      Daniel Philippe-Olivier BAA finance, Etudiant au Barreau du Québec
      Denis Myriam Candidate au Juris Doctor, University of California at Berkeley
      Etison Adam Post-doctorant Mellon Sawyer, philosophie, City University of New York
      Forest Alexandre Avocat, McMillan et administrateur, Centre NAHA (*signature en son nom personnel)
      Gagnon Sophie Candidate à la maîtrise en droit, Université de Montréal
      Geloso Vincent Chargé de cours à HEC Montréal et Doctorant en histoire économique, London School of Economics
      Jolicoeur Simon Vice-président aux communications, NPD – Section Québec (*signature en son nom personnel)
      Laliberté Jean-William P. Doctorant en économie, Université de Toronto
      Lavoie Samuel Président des jeunes libéraux du Canada
      Mercier-Dalphond Alexandre Ing, MSc, MBA, consultant en stratégie corporative
      Montpetit Marie Présidente, Commission politique du PLQ
      Moquin-Beaudry Ludvic Professeur de philosophie, Cégep de Saint-Jérôme
      Paquette Éric Chargé de cours, ESG-UQAM et ex-directeur général du Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec
      Paquin-Pelletier Alexandre Doctorant en science politique, Université de Toronto
      Pétrin-Desrosiers Claudel Présidente, Fédération Internationale des Étudiants en Médecine, section Québec et Ambassadrice jeunesse de Montréal
      Perez Eduardo Ancien co-président, Jeunes du NPD – Québec
      Racine Guillaume Candidat au MBA, INSEAD
      Routhier Labadie Annick Ing., MSc
      Suchowlansky Mauricio Doctorant et assistant de recherche en science politique, Université de Toronto
      Thérrien-Binette Anne-Sophie Candidate à la maîtrise en philosophie, Université de Montréal

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. ”THE CHARTER OF QUEBEC VALUES” - A WRONG ANSWER TO A FALSE PROBLEM
        August 31, 2013 | Authors’ collective | Quebec City
        http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/386389/une-mauvaise-reponse-a-un-faux-probleme#

        We, the undersigned, are united in putting our elected officials and our fellow citizens on guard against the provisions of the “Charter of Quebec Values”, which the government confirms it will introduce this autumn. Although the exact text of the proposal is not yet known, the government is already drawing a parallel with the difficult discussions that were at the origin of Bill 101, without, however, there being any comparable social tension to justify such a legislative arsenal. The government is preemptively evoking the political courage that led to the adoption of Bill 101 in order to discredit the voices that are rising against the current project as being that of those who simply resist change.

        The signatories of this letter come from across the political spectrum - from left to right, from federalism to sovereignism. Our politics may be very different but our unease is unanimous. The government's vision corresponds neither to our experience of Quebec society, nor the image that we wish to give to Quebec, nor to a political legacy that we would be proud to pass onto future generations.

        A wrong answer to a false problem

        In recent years, public debate has echoed a concern expressed by many of our fellow citizens about the visible expression of religious beliefs. For some, this would affect the values "shared" by Quebecers. The government’s draft charter intends to respond to this concern, while providing the requested "clear guidelines". As far as we are concerned, this rather constitutes partisan and unjust guidelines that aim to relegate Quebecers’ diversity of beliefs out of the public domain.

        The purpose of secularism, which the Charter aims to regulate, is not the censorship of Quebecers, however. Rather, it is about assuring full freedom of conscience and equality for all before the law. The neutrality of the state is one such possible condition. By proposing the banning of wearing religious symbols by employees in state-controlled and partly-state-controlled sectors, the government suggests, wrongly, that the wearing of such symbols is in itself sufficient to reflect the actual or presumed intention of the individual to let their beliefs influence their actions and determine their decisions. This argument is based on the assumption that the choice of a civil servant to wear a religious symbol - crucifix, hijab, kippah or other - indicates de facto their propensity to take biased decisions in the exercise of their functions. We believe that this assumption is based on offensive stereotypes. Quebecers who display their faith are no less professional, nor will they act less ethically, than atheists or those who do not display their faith. The government should work to combat these stereotypes rather than relying on them to justify policies that perpetuate mistrust toward some of its citizens. These are policies that apply to all on paper, but in practice, discriminate against an entire class of citizens.

        Delete
      2. By proposing to ban the wearing of religious symbols for employees in state-controlled and partly-state-controlled sectors, the government suggests, wrongly, that the wearing of such symbols is in itself sufficient to reflect the actual or presumed intentions of an individual to allow his beliefs to influence his actions and to determine his decisions. This argument is based upon the assumption that the choice of a person employed by the state to wear a religious symbol – whether it be a crucifix, hijab, kippah or other – in fact indicates his propensity to make biased decisions in the exercise of his functions. We believe that this assumption is based on offensive stereotypes. Quebecers who display their faith are no less professional nor will act less ethically than individuals who do not have a faith or who do not display it. The government should work on combating these stereotypes rather than relying on them to justify policies that perpetuate the mistrust of some of its citizens; policies that apply to all on paper, but that in practice discriminate against a whole class of citizens.

        With its project, the PQ is insidiously feeding doubt with regard to the impact of wearing religious symbols on the strength of Quebec’s social fabric. It is suggesting that it is legitimate to worry about the wearing of such symbols by a university professor, a Revenue Quebec employee or a nurse, even if it does not in itself influence the quality nor the impartiality of services offered by the state. This is all the more striking given that, in the same breath, the PQ reiterates its intention to impose different standards from those it prescribes upon its citizens, such as its insistence on maintaining the crucifix in the National Assembly, among others. The charter that is being proposed is the wrong answer to a false problem, which is justified by no emergency whatsoever (apart from the PQ’s electoral agenda) and that will do nothing other than unnecessarily inflame tensions between Quebecers.

        Delete
      3. Gender equality and freedom of conscience: the requirements of justice

        We firmly believe that we can continue to ensure respect for individual freedoms, including the freedom of conscience, without this posing any threat to the distinctiveness of Quebec. The promotion and the preservation of Quebec’s culture have nothing to do with an ethereal concept of "Quebec values" and the withdrawal of rights from Quebecers but rather, for example, through our schools and teaching establishments. It is they who will put forward a history in which all communities have had and always will have a role to play.

        We are proud of the cultural heritage and distinct politics of Quebec. This legacy includes the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which already guarantees individual rights, including those of gender equality and the freedom of conscience. Moreover, these principles are more than just subjective "values": they form the imperatives for justice. It is saddening that the government is trying to undermine these imperatives for electoral motives, by stoking tensions that have no reason for being. Rather, we expect that our decision-makers will make themselves vision-holders who base themselves upon our heritage in the development of public policies that are fair, inclusive and ambitious.

        * Maripier Isabelle, Ph.D. candidate in Economics at the University of Toronto; Benjamin Prud'homme, lawyer and researcher in Legal Sociology at the University of Montreal; Émilie Nicolas, Ph.D. candidate in Linguistic Anthropology at the University of Toronto; Julien Gagnon, Ph.D. candidate in Economics at the University of Cambridge; Pierre-Luc Brisson, MA candidate in Classical Studies at the University of Montreal.

        More than 30 additional signatories also join the authors of this letter. The full text as well as the full list of signatories is available at this website: Open on Quebec

        Delete
      4. Of course, our trolls have nothing to say on this matter.

        BTW, Student, read the creds on these peeps.

        Those are REAL students, people who've invested themselves in their careers and so societies...people who actually have something worth discussing.

        Delete
    32. If any North American francophone wishes to live their life completely sheltered from any contact with English-speakers, all they have to do is to flee by taking the 132 to Rimouski or the 175 to Chicoutimi (neither of which sounds like a particularly French name, incidentally). They will be left perfectly free to knock themselves out in their French-only ghettoes. No one is stopping them.

      Leave Montreal alone. Montreal is a distinct society.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Yep - not just Montreal that is a distinct society that want no part of Quebec any longer. Let them hit the road for sure. We in the Outaouais and Pontiac want no part of them either. Let them leave our country and have their ghettos.

        Delete
    33. Lord Dorchester

      Link: Muslim Mayor of Calgary invites Quebecers to freely practice their religion in his city.

      http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nenshi-to-quebeckers-come-to-calgary-where-we-dont-care-how-you-worship/article14068619/?service=mobile


      Link: Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary crack top five of best 100 cities to live.

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/08/daily-chart-19?fsrc=rss

      My two cents. Backers of Bill 101, when it was first implemented, kept using the argument that it was a law that would help new immigrants integrate and speed their assimilation which would allow them to find good jobs and become successful. BULLSHIT. It is a law that subjugates people and controls what choices they can make all because some francophones wanted to be SERVED by others in French. Heaven forbid they heard English spoken to them. It was never put in place to benefit new comers, it was put in place so they could be controlled and kept down socioeconomically. Immigrants are not allowed to climb the mobility ladder faster than the native Quebecois, don't you know? If it was there to benefit newcomers and let them climb the economic ladder they would be forced to learn BOTH of Canada official languages. As stands now and for the past 35 years that I have noticed, Visible minorities are blocked at every turn when it comes to breaking into the White Collar civil service or well paying unionized government jobs. Have you EVER seen a visible minority working on a hydro poll or behind the desk at the SAAQ?
      This PQ "Values Charter" is more of the same HORSE SHIT. They claim it will allow "others" to better integrate and succeed here in uber tolerant Quebec by un-chaining themselves from their ignorant religious shackles. But, to these assholes I say these "others" are already HERE and have been for generations! This is simply another Quebecois power play to control and KEEP OUT people they don't feel comfortable with because of cosmetic differences. This racist PQ charter is gaining traction in Quebec's hinterland regions and I would hazard a guess that NONE of those people that back this have every come face to face with a Muslim, a Jew or a Sikh. I'm a visible minority and I grew up in a small town in the Eastern Townships in the 70's, you could count the visible minorities in town on both hands back then. It's no different 30 years later. We are letting the ignorance of others , through non-scientific polling, dictate the laws of the land. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how dangerous and how much of a slippery slope this will start. The PQ is pulling the strings on this one and we as a society are sleepwalking behind them.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. "Have you EVER seen a visible minority working on a hydro poll or behind the desk at the SAAQ?"

        yes. often.

        is this enough for your whole argument to buckle, or should i carry on?

        Delete
      2. Carry on by providing documentation from at least 4 peer-reviewed sources in triplicate indicating how well the Quebec civil service matches its population in terms of representing its visible minorities… and anglophones too, while you’re at it.

        Delete
      3. ah, and if you don't see enough visible minorities at saaq you should diss the liberals. they were in charge of hiring lately remember? or you can continue to gratuitously bash as it's not forbidden yet.

        if the pq people were that racist they wouldn't have elected the first black to the national assembly. and the bloc québécois separatists wouldn't have voted in latinos and lebanese to the house of commons.

        i don't think your rant was worth two cents mate. unless it's aimed at a ranting contest.

        Delete
    34. Is this a good example of where we are headed in this province?
      http://www.cjad.com/CJADLocalNews/entry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10583836

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. This is also about the mosque being vandalized by hoodlums that now think they have the government sanctioned right to further make the lives miserable of those that are not pur laine francophone. Bet they won't work too hard to find the culprits. What a hateful, distorted, province this is turning into and the acts and bills have not even passed into law yet. We are headed for big trouble in this province with our intolerance towards anything and anyone not privileged enough to be born into a francophone family. And they talk about the Queen and descendants - what a joke.

        Delete
    35. https://soundcloud.com/cjad800/quebec-values-fo-niemi-from?utm_source%3Dsoundcloud%26utm_campaign%3Dwtshare%26utm_medium%3DFacebook%26utm_content%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fcjad800%252Fquebec-values-fo-niemi-from

      ReplyDelete
    36. A mosque near Chicoutimi was vandalised this weekend by being splattered with what is believed to be pig's blood.
      http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Vandals+splatter+mosque+Quebecs+Saguenay+region+with/8859789/story.html

      Disgusting. What direction are we going in? We're supposed to be a tolerant, multi-cultural country!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. JF

        Who did it? A Quebecois racist did it of course. And why not? Racism against Muslims is now sanctioned by the Governement of Quebec.

        Delete
      2. @jf

        or could it be someone who's against the charter of values?

        "Racism against Muslims is now sanctioned by the Governement of Quebec."

        that's troll talk. you are the argument against the existence of internet forums.

        Delete
    37. 'Disgusting. What direction are we going in? We're supposed to be a tolerant, multi-cultural country!'

      Not in Quebec, are you kidding me...?

      Quebec is simply, the most racist, intolerant, xenophobic (bills 22, 18, 101...) province or state in all of North America. Its nice that this message is finally getting out far and wide thanks to the internet. Keep it up bigots, you deserve the reputation you have as a corrupt, back water, hill billy, trailer park trash french - metis people.

      You are a disgrace to to the country.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. why did you add "metis"? i mean how does it contribute to the point you are trying to make?

        Delete