Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Charter of Values....the Wrong Debate


The debate over the Charter of Values may be but a ploy by the PQ to find some new and fertile land in the electoral landscape, but questions surrounding the direction our society is going in relation to Muslim immigration, is in fact legitimate and one that our society should and must face, sooner rather than later.

Let's be honest, the Charter of Values is all about  forcing Muslims to integrate, the Jews and the Sikhs are irrelevant.

Looking at the polls, opinion seems to be equally split on the Charter of Values, with sound minded people supporting one side of the issue or the other, both able, it seems to me,  to make a good case. 
There is also, I believe, a considerable amount of people who are wrestling with the issue (I for one), those who believe in personal freedom but are afraid that Quebec may end up like France, Germany or Scandinavia, where Muslim immigration has been problematic (to say the least) because too many immigrants are determined to bring the old ways of home to their new country, instead of adapting to western culture.

It is these 'old ways' that many object to, not exactly the religious part, but mostly the social, where women are believed to be chattel to be dominated by the men in their lives.

For those who are concerned about this problem, the veil is perceived as the symbol of female oppression, the thin end of the wedge and so they believe that banning the veil sends a powerful message that Quebecers will no tolerate their society going the way of the aforementioned countries, which are, in varying degrees, gripped in social upheaval based on Muslim versus western values.


I listen and read all the different positions and somehow feel like Teyve in the Fiddler on the Roof, who when asked to referee an argument finds himself agreeing to both opposing positions.

video

Any thinking person should understand that the issue is difficult, a question of drawing the line between personal freedom balanced by the greater public interest. Where that line is properly placed is a matter of honest debate.

And so I must reject those editorialists who are shocked that such a debate is taking place, I bet those in Europe would wish to turn back the clock and embark on exactly the same process we are undergoing.

What direction would the Europeans have chosen for their countries, if they knew then, what they know now?

 I condemn all those on both sides of the debate with hardline positions, who see those with opposite views  as stupid, naive, traitorous or worse still, racist.

Here is a typical editorial view from the ROC;
"Setting Quebecers against minorities and English Canada is a strategy Marois hopes will resonate with supporters and clear a path to majority government in the next election. It is cynical but typical. If this is the fight the PQ has chosen, Canadians, including many in Quebec, should not shirk from it. From banning hijabs and turbans from soccer fields to blaming money and ethnic votes for the 1995 referendum defeat, trampling on minority rights has become a Quebec pastime. If ever there was a time to draw a line under official discrimination, this is it. The Quebec charter is an affront to everything we hold dear in Canada." Ottawa Citizen

While there is nary an article in English Canada supporting the Charter of Values, paradoxically, the numbers of Canadians who believe that religious limitations are reasonable is remarkably similar to sentiments in Quebec..

Here, the National Post was surprised by reader responses;
"Quebec’s proposed secularist Charter of Values has not proven to be popular with pundits — but a surprising number of National Post readers like it. That became evident as readers answered this week’s Letters-page question: “Do you support Quebec’s proposed ban on religious symbols in the workplace?”
A full page of responses will fill Monday’s Letters page, with the notes falling into three main groups. The largest is from readers who feel religion has no place in a public workspace. Here are a few examples:
“God or Allah or Jehovah or Vishnu are supreme, all-knowing deities,” wrote J. Bakker. “They know what is in your heart and soul. It is a true faith that will get you to the wonderful afterlife, not what you wear. Religious symbols should be worn in the home or in a place of worship only.”
“Premier Pauline Marois at least has the intestinal fortitude to express her feelings publicly,” added Don Forbes. “I believe the majority of Canadians have similar feelings, but are reluctant to say so. The rest of Canada should extend the ban to all places outside of the home and places of worship, especially in schools.”
Link{PW}
There are plenty of these hard-line bashers, on both side of the debate, those who spew venomous insults in print and on the air. 
They are singularly obtuse, spouting their opinion as if it is holy gospel (excuse the reference) and that those opposed are to be humiliated and shamed.

On the opposite side, here is a nasty screed from the singularly vapid, vacuous, and vicious Richard Martineau of Le Journal de Montreal, who writes nugatory articles on a high school level, which do however unfortunately appeal to his target audience of low-brows.

I don't usually write to humiliate, but since Martineau seeks to humiliate individuals who have an opinion other than his, someone should stand up to a simpleminded schoolyard bully.
The Missionary Position
The saddest of all, are the feminists - like Francine Pelletier, who just the other day, assailed  'secular extremism' on Radio-Canada, the official anti-charter organ. 
Francine Pelletier, damn it! 
One of the founders of La vie en rose! (feminist magazine-editor)

Defending the right to wear the veil! 

It's like Françoise David becoming the president of the Kim Kardashian Fan Club or a judge in a Mini Miss contest.

It reminds me of the 65,000 black soldiers who fought in the Confederate Army during the Civil War ...Uh ... Didn't they see that they were fighting on the wrong side?


RED SUBURBS
A few years ago , I went to La Courneuve, to interview a young Arab actress. La Courneuve is a steamy suburb of Paris which exploded in 2005. When I arrived, thugs put to torch a brand new cultural center. 
Local youth had not even had time to enjoy it - it was destroyed before it even opened its doors. In short, not a beautiful part of the country.
The young actress lived in a very dilapidated public housing project, inhabited by a majority of Muslim immigrants. She wasn't quite 18, but already had a woman's body, curves, a luscious mouth,  feline hair ...
THE MADONNA AND THE WHORE
The young woman told me that when she left her home, she had to "show decency" and dress 'discreetly'  because she was being harassed by boys. In her neighborhood, there were two kinds of girls. Those who covered up (and who were worthy of respect) and the others, easy girls, whores that guys would grope because they did not obey the principles of the Qur'an and didn't respect themselves.

That's the veil. 
It serves to distinguish the good girls from whores and that's what Françoise David and Francine Pelletier defend? I'm must be hallucinating .
The pioneers of feminism must be turning in their graves. It shows how the Trudeau philosophy has contaminated the elite. Muslims have their Koran, we have the Charter of Rights. Each their own prayer book.

KNOW YOUR PLACE 

The girl had fully bowed to the will of the young Muslims who were the law in neighbourhood. 
She wore baggy clothes to hide her sensuality. She walked the neighborhood, head down, without make-up. 
They told her what her place was and she had accepted, obediently while saying that it was her choice and that nothing had been imposed

Shame on those Western feminists who defend the veil. 

You may say that women have the right to do what they want with their bodies - prostitution, injecting botox in the lips, or sporting huge breast implants. 

But name me a country where women who refuse to dress up like a babe risks whipping, imprisonment and death. 
There is none.
In defending the veil, you turn your back to women throughout the Muslim world, who are  fighting for their freedom .
Shame on you . LINK{fr}{PW}
So according to Mr. Martineau, it is the veil that is the problem and like Samson's hair, it too is magical, in this case, a divine source of fundamentalism.

If we'd just ban the veil, observant Muslim women would instantly become emancipated, embrace poutine and maple syrup and hopefully (cross your fingers) become committed sovereigntists.
Hmm...
It's like believing that if your punk daughter would remove her piercings and change her hairstyle from spiked florescent pink to something more conventional, all would be well... Ah!..If only life was that simple. 

Mr Martineau starts his piece by telling us that Muslim women who wear the veil are as misguided as the 65,000 Black soldiers who fought for the South in the American civil war.
It would be an interesting analogy, unfortunately it is utter rubbish, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Blacks, in any number fought on the Secessionist side. None...zip...nada!

It's hard to take seriously an article where a feature writer in Quebec's largest newspaper can tell us a blatant untruth, a falsehood worthy of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

How utterly discourteous and arrogant can one writer be to repeat an internet myth without undertaking the most rudimentary of fact-checking!
In the comments under the story Martineau is challenged on this falsehood, but another reader provides a link that 'proves' that it is indeed a fact that thousands of Blacks did indeed fight for the South.

I checked out the link, which leads to the reader section of the Huffington Post in France, which prominently displays a disclaimer that the article is unverified by editors.  In it, the author also claims that the American Civil War wasn't even fought over the issue of slavery and quotes the discredited writer, who propagated the myth.  Hmmm...
"The Washington Post reported last week that a textbook used by fourth-graders in Virginia had a startling inaccuracy about the Civil War. Our Virginia: Past and Present by Joy Masoff tells students that thousands of African-American soldiers fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War and that two battalions of African-American soldiers served under Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. Masoff, who told The Washington Post that she is a "fairly respected writer," has written previous books, including history texts aimed at children on the colonial period and the American Revolution.
Masoff is not a historian, however. We could debate the merits of a school system using a textbook written by a non-professional, but more interesting is how Masoff got into trouble in the first place: she relied on the Internet, home to all sorts of misinformation and refuge for all sorts of conspiracy theories, junk science, and racist scholarship. It was the website of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a Confederacy "heritage" organization, where Masoff gleaned her information." Read more
The Washington Post had an interesting article debunking the myth of Blacks fighting for the South.

I hope Mr. Martineau reads the above stories and makes a retraction, but of course it will never happen because to admit the moronic mistake would be just too embarrassing.
I would however suggest in the future he use more trustworthy sources, otherwise he may as well quote from the Onion,  or the  Le Journal de Mourréal

At any rate, the naive and infantile notion that banning the veil will somehow change the faith of those so inclined to wear it, is nothing but deflection.

The greater issue is whether Quebec can dodge a bullet that no western country in Europe has managed to do, that is to transform ultra-observant Muslims into models of integration, instead of a sinister fifth column.

An apology to Canadian Muslims who have done their darndest to assimilate, veiled or not. The problem lies with the minority who wish to live apart.
I honestly don't know what proportion of Muslims in Canada are unwilling to accept our society for what it is and the truth is that nobody else seems to know either.
It's too bad, because it is fundamental to the debate,
Perhaps the whole issue may just be a Tempest in a Teapot, because the PQ government itself has absolutely no idea about how many Islamic fundamentalists there are in Quebec, nor do they know how many government employees wear the veil.
By the way,  outside the medical profession, I think that you could count the number of government employees who wear a kippah or turban to work, on your fingers and toes....er...Maybe just your fingers...and maybe on just one hand.

But there is a larger issue, we don't have to be prescient to see where the self-exclusion of a minority of Muslims may lead, the European example is ominous.

That is the real debate, one that charter supporters refuse to embrace, because simple answers to complex questions is what the readers of Richard Martineau really want.

108 comments:

  1. From the Rationalist.
    Evidently, this author has bought into myth of some imminent threat posed by those whose faith differs from his. Where are these "ultra-observant Muslims", this "fifth-column"? The Pakistani merchants on Jean-Talon Street trying to eek out a living? The girls at Écoles Musulmanes de Montréal, who in the last year the marks have been posted by the Quebec education department (2008), placed first out of over 500 schools in their high school leaving exam - "Histoire du Québec et du Canada"? Will this threat be coming from these very same students who'll be trying to enter the labour market of a society in which 70% of French Canadians express "little or no trust" in Muslims? A society in which 49% of French Canadians have an unfavourable opinion of Muslims? No, the greater issue is our own fears of the "other". The greater issue is that we, English speaking Canadians who've lived our entire lives in Quebec, have bought into tolerating the fact that of the over 600,000 of us, only 523 have managed to land a job with the Quebec - a job in a workforce of over 55,000. The threat doesn't come from our Muslim neighbours, and when they can manage to find a job, colleagues. The threat comes from good people who'll do nothing in the face of evil. And it is evil to treat fellow citizens the way we have been treating Quebecers of the Muslim faith. You, Mr. Editior, despite your pretense of standing up for Anglo rights have for some time now implied that the mistake lies in "our" having permitted "them" to live among "us". You're no better than the Péquistes on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you RATIONALIST for your contribution.
      I am always thrilled to see comments that oppose my view and which offer well-thought out responses that remain respectful to myself and our readers.
      It contributes to the debate and that is all that counts.


      Delete
  2. If there is indeed a future problem of uncooperate Muslims, or non-integrated Muslims, or whatever the fear is (not that I believe it exists) why even bother focusing on the current population? If you don't want individuals who you believe to be extremists or will resist integration, just don't let them into the country in the first place. Quebec has control over it's immigration policy and there is decades of research on the factors that promote or hinder acculturation to host country's culture, it would be rather easy to create measures to detect this, then to top it off have interviewers to assess the genuineness of the applicants beliefs in western ideals. I mean hey, if you want a way to discriminate against people based on their culture, do it before they become citizens and people feel the need to stick up for them, that way you'll get the public support for the laws you need and you'll sleep better at night knowing that hey, at least you aren't discriminating against Canadian citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the Rationalist.

    Thank you Mr. Editor for expressing your appreciation for my comment above, which as you say, "contributes to the debate and that is all that counts." But what is this "debate"? The debate is not the degree to which Quebecers and to a much greater extent, French Canadians, express anomalous levels of disfavour and mistrust towards Muslims and Jews. No. The debate focuses on how much further we should go and the means we should be using to further discriminate against Muslims and Jews. Instead of the debate being over the reasons for our antipathy, mistrust and intolerance, it is how we can erase the consciousness of their presence amongst us. In a society that is virtually bathed in the symbols and ethos of Roman Catholicism, it is their presence, their hijabs and yamulkas that are deemed to be ostentatious. Make their symbols go away and maybe if they too will not go away, at least we won't have to see the Muslims and Jews amongst us.

    What has been the greatest complaint of the Québécois, the greatest historical accusation against the English? That there once was a guy named Lord Durham who came here and wrote a report to the King's ministers in London advising that les Canadiens, a people he claimed to be without a history and without a future, be assimilated in their own best interests and in the best interests of the Crown. And what does this Charter say? That we must establish a public space, starting with the civil service (which going by the numbers is already a fait acompli) and extending to the entire public sector, where the visible presence of Muslims and Jews should be effaced. And if it is permissible and good for the State to discriminate in this way, why not private enterprise? Why shouldn't they too be able to cloak discrimination with the excuse of wishing to establish "a neutral space" ? We will have, in fact, reproduced the culture of the ghetto. Assimilate or you will be consigned to the ghetto. Who cares if our government surveys tell us that compared to 14% of us overall, 32% of Quebecers of Arab origin have a university degree? You people with your indiscreet "ostentatious" faiths must be isolated and your ability to earn a living further restricted.

    Debating about how far we should go to deprive fellow citizens of fundamental rights is not a valid debate. It is unseemly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FROM ED
      "The girls at Écoles Musulmanes de Montréal, who in the last year the marks have been posted by the Quebec education department (2008), placed first out of over 500 schools in their high school leaving exam - "Histoire du Québec et du Canada"?"
      Good for them. Which history are they expert in? Quebec Nationalist History the way the PQ wrote it or the truth. Getting an A and still knowing nothing that actually happened is meaningless. Ed

      Delete
    2. Yeah, an A here if they go to school here but worth an F anywhere else. Who knows what revisionist history these kids are being taught nowadays in this province.

      Delete
    3. To put your minds at ease the high school course "Histoire du Québec et du Canada" is not new, the content is not being controlled by the PQ, it is standardized across the province and it is a neutral retelling of history with the majority of the content covering events before the 1960's.

      Delete
    4. That's nice to hear - thank you - a long time since my kids were in school.

      Delete
    5. @cutie003

      you think it's nice to hear that kids don't get to learn about the lesage years, the october crisis, the rise of the pq and the referendum? you manage to top yourself every day mate. sad sight.

      Delete
    6. Hmm I think she was talking about the lack of a political slant to the course. Worry not student Lesage's Liberals ending the reign of Duplessis, the FLQ terrorists, and the two failed referendum's are covered, and the PQ is briefly mentioned, though to be fair why spend much time on 19 years of mediocre governance by one party in a 400 year history? The book is only so long and there have been an awful lot of terrible political parties, and much more important things happened during the history of Quebec.

      Delete
    7. @thatguy

      why do you claim pq is guilty of mediocre governance?!?

      and can you give examples of much more important things that happened in the history of quebec than the rise of the political force that fights for the province's autonomy? i mean, aren't independance drives pretty much the most important thing that happens in the history of all nations?!?

      Delete
    8. @ student

      "i mean, aren't independance drives pretty much the most important thing..."

      Nope

      LMAO

      Delete
    9. "why do you claim pq is guilty of mediocre governance?!?"
      History?

      "can you give examples of much more important things that happened in the history of quebec"
      If you paid attention in history class/passed it you wouldn't need to go around asking what important things that happened over the span of 400 years. Try typing the "History of Quebec" into google, as a student you should probably try and educate yourself once and awhile.

      "i mean, aren't independance drives pretty much the most important thing that happens in the history of all nations?!?"

      Not when they are complete failures.

      Delete
  4. The "clash of civilizations", rather a sort of global "culture war", which in itself is omnipresent in our own society over pretty much every "issue" conceivable, is I believe a direct result of globalization, as it was in Tevye's time, just at a much faster rate.

    I don't think we can even agree on what are "western values" any more, as much as what is touted as social progress, is in fact proving itself to be "good intentions gone terribly wrong". As someone so succinctly said (who coined the phrase is disputed) "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions whose original intent got lost somewhere along the line, you know, like a very long current carrying cable. The length of the cable determines the amount of power lost, which in the case of "data", will result in data lose.

    As for Blacks having fought for the south, I don't see why that would be so unfeasible. The world in the 1860's was a very big place. It would seem quite "natural" that some Black-Americans, who by the time of the civil war might have been 4th generation Southerners, would have felt tremendous loyalty to what was essentially their home, despite the "obvious". Humans are complicated creatures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FROM ED
      Blacks in the south did not fight for the CSA. No self respecting southerner would lower himself to fight along side them. To see a black man allowed to wear the same uniform as himself would be an insult he'd never accept. Blacks were seen as their enemy but needed for their usefulness.. As the PQ sees English now, the South saw blacks as an annoyance they've had to put up with. Furthermore, they weren't stupid enough to hand a black man a gun knowing they'd most likely be the target.
      Ed
      their usefulnress.

      Delete
  5. Jack Nicholson's great "Can't we all just...get along." speech (even greater "finishing smile :) ) from the movie "Mars Attacks" comes to mind. And we are ALL acting like the fishbowl aliens. No one is conceding! Another "sign of our times". I think Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" did more damage to our collective consciousness then we know. Terribly "romantic" the whole Wallace saga, but also slightly ridiculous.

    Pour some water in your wine as the ancients said.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All quebec has to do is put a paragraph into it's application for immigrants that says: "If you wish to live in quebec, you must be a christian and speak french. People of other religions are not accepted into our society as we are not open to any others".

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you be prepared to rewrite Bill 101 and change Quebec's Franco-centric immigration policies? If not, Shut the F Up. The only French speaking immigrants moving around the World these days are from Muslim nations.

      Delete
    2. On the..."Can't we all just get along bit" ...

      As I was walking down René Lévesque blvd late this afternoon, there were a couple of guys walking toward De la Montagne, and one guy was in full regalia sporting a Leafs jersey, with cap and team scarf, and a huge Leafs flag worn as a cape. Next to him another guy with a Habs cap, Habs game shirt and Habs flag also worn as cape, walking side by side, laughing and joking. It looked like they were friends and I suppose they were going to the game together...

      If they can get along....

      Delete
  8. Richard Martineau is an avowed racist, are we surprised? No. Those separatist like to drag out this false debate. Pauline Marois herself is just a social worker who has no business or medical experience. She doesn't have a clue on how to create jobs and improve the healthcare of the province. Totally clueless, just like her ministers who haven't left the separatist bubble.
    Take Minister Hebert the most clueless minister Quebec has ever had. The Minister wants to divert fund from the Hospital fundings and divert them to his Union friends at long term care. What about our long waiting list? Lack of medical schools? Why create more responsibilities for the Government? When the ones already under it's responsibilities are struggling under lack of investment? All those problem are too big for the doctor too fix and frankly trowing money to his union friend is too attractive.
    The issue of daycare is of particular embarrassment for Pauline, who championed and created the existing system. Nicole Leger now wants to undercut the private sector and give more money to the Union and government-run CPE. Typical for a social worker who has no clue on how the province. Now, I am not disparaging the profession in general, where I have met many social worker who did great things. But I am criticizing Premier Pauline Marois, whose only recourse now is to deflect the problem, and the scapegoat is naturally, immigrants. How surprising! Editor, I am surprised you caught on the bait. Their is more than this Quebec Charter of Values, including that the Marois Government is totally discrediting itself.
    http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-quebecoise/201309/28/01-4694247-apres-boisclair-lopposition-cible-maintenant-marois.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_lire_aussi_4694789_article_POS5
    "Québec Solidaire say that the Government is discrediting itself" (translation) I totally agree with Quebec Solidaire on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In a special to the Montreal Gazette, Mr. Yves Thomas Dorval sums it nicely:

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Stop+blaming+others+lagging+prosperity/8978395/story.html

    "More broadly speaking, we need to put an end to political debates that aren’t a priority for Quebec, and which sow division and dissent, as well as divert us from what should be our primary objective: tangible and constructive improvements in the areas of labour availability and quality; taxation; government regulation; and improvement of Quebec’s overall business climate."

    Mr. Dorval is totally correct, we need to stop those debate that does't improve the business situation of the province and we need to get moving on creating jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The minority government that the irresponsible populace of this province elected isn't interested in behaving responsibly. They more interested in stirring up crap...rather than doing their job. You get what you deserve.

      Delete
  10. Contrary to Martineau, it does make sense for feminists to defend the women's right to wear a veil, as it makes sense for them to defend the women's right not to wear a veil. These two positions are not contradictory: the common point is that there are women who want to cast off the veil against the wishes of some, and there are women who want to wear a veil against the wishes of others. BOTH of these groups deserve protection, not just the first group.

    Apologists for secular extremism (I like F.Pelletier's term) like Martineau and apologists for Islamic extremism are like-minded people. What unites them is the belief that they know best and that their will should be imposed, not just suggested, promoted, or encouraged.

    And I don't believe that people like Martineau, Beaudoin, Drainville, etc..have welfare of women at heart. I think what drives these people is power, i.e. being able to dictate and have others follow. The fight is between these extremists and the ones they allegedly fight against, with the women being mere pawns caught in the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Editor: "because too many immigrants are determined to bring the old ways of home to their new country, instead of adapting to western culture."

    “What do I think of western civilization?” “I think it would be a good idea” - Mahatma Gandhi

    ReplyDelete
  12. So it starts that the PQ are trying to insinuate that Bill 14 is now the new law in quebec. A tale of what one of our soldiers encountered trying to get his child into English school:
    http://putbacktheflag.blogspot.ca/2013/09/canadian-soldier-told-that-his-daughter.html
    Since when is it acceptable to pretend that laws exist that don't really? The PQ are trying to change everything to Bill 14 law that is not even being debated in the NA yet. Their nerve is astounding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the information of those that think Bill 14 is dead:
      http://www.cjad.com/CJADLocalNews/entry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10596415
      Don't ever trust that witch - they are always, everyday, every hour, up to something to further show their dominance over this province.

      Delete
  13. Corrupt union FTQ spending $30K *PER MONTH* at Cavali restaurant.

    FTQ's tab at the restaurant for one month? $30 ,000. #ceic

    All in the duty of protecting the francophone PQ "worker" of course.

    Unworker/placeholder/waste of flesh is what they really are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe now some of these union supporters will see exactly where there cash is going every month and not be so enthusiastic about supporting them all the time. These people follow like sheep until something is shoved in their face. Imagine - $30,000 a month at a restaurant! What the hell were they buying besides ladies of the night?

      Delete
  14. Ubisoft : 500 emplois de plus à Montréal

    http://tinyurl.com/mknpa7d

    Excellent travail Madame la première ministre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Letter+Quebec+invests+video+games+while+cutting+education/8981953/story.html

      Bribe companies to produce jobs and give huge tax breaks to the employees to work here - that's how Miss Piggy intends to improve the economy. What a joke!

      Delete
    2. what a joke. 500 subsidized jobs where they will program in ENGLISH computer languages video games.

      To quote somebody else here...

      You want to make a country out of this?

      Quebec govt offers subsidiers to large company from France.

      What changes in Quebec over the years exactly?

      Pathetic.

      Delete
    3. Exactly - nothing changes for the province. Jobs to keep people off the streets at our own expense except more expensive than EI or welfare.

      Delete
    4. Hmm odd the PQ didn't thank the federal government for putting up half of the subsidiaries to get Ubisoft into Montreal in the first place, can't think of any reason they wouldn't do that.

      Delete
  15. From the Rationalist:

    The Real Debate?

    Try these hard facts: In a civil service that counts 55,532 regular full-time workers, only 523 are anglophones. Out of 678 senior directors, only 12 are anglos. Out of 3,885 managers, only 31 are anglos. Out of 21,222 professionals, only 190 are anglos. Out of 216 instructors, only 5 are anglos. Out of 16,102 technical staff, only 128 are anglos. Out of 9,203 clerical workers, only 99 are anglos. Out of 3,290 peace officers only, only 42 are anglos. Out of 936 blue collar workers, only 16 are anglos. There you got it. 523 anglos out of 55,532 civil servants.

    Over 600,000 anglophones in this Province, making up about 7.6% of the population. Yet only 0.9% of the government workforce. By comparison, while francophones make up only 4% of Ontario's population, they comprise 8% of its civil service. Or on the federal level, while francophones make up 24% of Canada's population, they comprise 32% of its civil service.

    Mr.Editor, get real. Instead of worrying about "ultra-observant Muslims ... becoming a sinister fifth column", reproduce on your site the table found on page 101 of the Quebec government's own report on who works for it. Then we can turn our attention to the real debate.

    How should we confront and reverse this sinsiter pattern of systemic discrimination by our very own Government of Quebec?

    Source: http://www.tresor.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/PDF/effectif_fonction_publique/effectif10_11.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Difficile de trouver des anglos bilingues et à la fois compétents.

      Delete
    2. Looking at the public service I'm not sure why you think competence is a requirement for employment.

      Delete
    3. Anglos are under represented in Québec civil service.

      Do they even apply?

      Québec anglos are most often bilingual. Does it not give them an edge in the federal government where bilinguism goes a long way? Would they not then rather seek employment in the federal government where possibilities of advancement reach coast to coast levels and international levels, and not just Québec?

      Could it be that they speak french enough to be qualified as bilingual in the federal government, but that their french writing skills would still not be up to the standard and would lower their score (just a little) in hiring contests?

      Do they prefer to work for the federal government where the wages are better? Especially when one is bilingual?

      Could they prefer to work in the federal government where you don't have to work in french most of the time?

      There are Québec governement jobs in Rimouski and Sept-Iles. Could it be that there are not so many anglos willing to move to those places? You know, living among francos in rural Québec...

      One could think that francos, for linguitic reasons, tend to apply for Québec government jobs instead of federal government jobs. And one could think that not so many anglos from ROC would be willing to move to Québec to fill federal government jobs on Québec territory. So the relatively small english community would face a much smaller competition seeking federal jobs than when seeking Québec gvt jobs. Could one think that many of them would not then bother applying for Qc gvt jobs and would prefer seeking federal jobs (which have better benefits, where they have a linguistic competitive advantage, etc...)

      All these factors of course play no part in this. The under representation of anglos in Québec civil service is, of course, as every body knows for a fact, due to our atavistic racism and to this atavistic racism alone.

      Delete
    4. I think it has more of a reason to do with not wanting to work with boorish, uneducated honky assholes.

      Rednecks working blue-collar jobs for public service everywhere else outside of Quebec are bad enough, but why would Anglos want to deal with a bunch of Star-Academie worshiping Jean-Guys 9 hours a day?

      Personally, I'd rather contend with an STD.

      Delete
    5. Do they even apply?
      Yes.

      Québec anglos are most often bilingual. Does it not give them an edge in the federal government where bilinguism goes a long way?
      So do a lot of other jobs, that does not preclude them from applying to provincial government jobs.

      Do they prefer to work for the federal government where the wages are better? Especially when one is bilingual?
      Quebec jobs pay just fine, do you know that federal jobs pay more?

      Could they prefer to work in the federal government where you don't have to work in french most of the time?
      They seem to be fine living in Quebec where you have to speak French most of the time.

      There are Québec governement jobs in Rimouski and Sept-Iles. Could it be that there are not so many anglos willing to move to those places? You know, living among francos in rural Québec...
      Most government jobs are located in Montreal and Quebec city, and shocker there are actually anglos that live in Rimouski and Sept-Iles.

      One could think that francos, for linguitic reasons, tend to apply for Québec government jobs instead of federal government jobs.
      But you said people would apply for Federal jobs if they were offered more money?

      one could think that not so many anglos from ROC would be willing to move to Québec to fill federal government jobs on Québec territory.
      If more Anglos moved to Quebec that would increase the number of anglos in the province, meaning that the percent of anglos of the population would increase, meaning that while equal representation might get closer, you'd never hit it unless more anglos who already live in Quebec were able to get into the provincial service.

      So the relatively small english community would face a much smaller competition seeking federal jobs than when seeking Québec gvt jobs.
      How so? There are many qualified bilingual francophones. Does every anglo applying to federal jobs get them? If they don't do they just not apply anywhere else?

      Could any of these factors explain the disparity? Maybe a bit of it, nowhere near all of it. Of course none of these things explain why allophones are underrepresented as well.

      Delete
    6. "Could it be that they speak french enough to be qualified as bilingual in the federal government, but that their french writing skills would still not be up to the standard and would lower their score (just a little) in hiring contests? "

      I would love to test the French of Francophones who are there now.

      You want to work for the provincial civil service, you are non- francophone and have a foreign sounding last name...?? No prob, just stick an ACCENT AIGU on any "e" in your name..they 'll luv ya...lol...I hear it's been known to work!

      Delete
    7. I like how one user on this thread asks 6 questions about anglophones. Only thing is that they are not real questions. It's like what a junior psychologist would try. He is trying to lead you in a certain direction.

      Take the first question for example as for anglos in the civil service: "Do they even apply?" Well, I have a question for you. Do you know that they do not apply? Please show some proof that they do not apply, if you have some. I won't hold my breathe.

      They there are the would this and could that and a bunch of suppositions. Please.

      If you want to say something, just say it. Say it and back it up. Could it be that there is nothing behind your questions?

      Then, this user says that under representation is of course because of "avatistic racism." He is trying to use amateur reverse psychology.

      So, yes, racism is at play and this systemic discrimination has to stop. I think the post from the Rationalist was spot on. The stats say it all. The Quebec civil service has to be more representative. The status quo is unacceptable. Shame on the Quebec government for its hiring practices.

      Delete
    8. "Do they even apply?"

      If it turned out that at this point in time many don't even bother applying, would it be the end of story? Or would it be the beginning of a more interesting story of the cultural and political factors that "discourage" them from applying?

      Delete
    9. I like how one user on this thread asks 6 questions about anglophones. Only thing is that they are not real questions. It's like what a junior psychologist would try. He is trying to lead you in a certain direction.

      Take the first question for example as for anglos in the civil service: "Do they even apply?" Well, I have a question for you. Do you know that they do not apply? Please show some proof that they do not apply, if you have some. I won't hold my breathe.

      Then there are the would this and could that and a bunch of suppositions. Please.

      If you want to say something, just say it. Say it and back it up. Could it be that there is nothing behind your questions?

      Then, this user says that under representation is of course because of "avatistic racism." He is trying to use amateur reverse psychology.

      So, yes, racism is at play and this systemic discrimination has to stop. I think the post from the Rationalist was spot on. The stats say it all. The Quebec civil service has to be more representative. The status quo is unacceptable. Shame on the Quebec government for its hiring practices.

      Delete
    10. The questions imply that under-representation is a result of the lack of interest by the under-represented, without addressing possible causes for the lack of interest.

      This reminds me of a NY Times article a while ago on the NYPD. After blacks and latinos have politically wrestled a more equitable access to the police academy, the NYPD went into step 2 of defense mode: through mobbing practices of training officers and white recruits against black and latino recruits it caused many black and latino recruits to quit training, and overtime lowered the number of applicants from black and latino communities. In line with M.Patrice's "logic", an apologist for the NYPD could ask a bunch of similar questions: do they even apply, is it possible that police work does not pique their interest, do they maybe prefer to work at the KFC, etc...?

      Delete
    11. "The questions imply that under-representation is a result of the lack of interest by the under-represented, without addressing possible causes for the lack of interest."

      I address possible causes : the availability of better paying jobs in a sector where they have a linguistic competitive advantage and where they face less competition. (3 possible causes here.)

      Roger Rabbit accuses me of making a bunch of suppositions. Indeed, I came up with a (short) list of suppositions, suppositions indeed, not facts. On the other hand, Roger Rabbit and the Rationalist, among others, come up with one supposition : anglos are under represented, therefore quebeckers are racist. Je trouve simplement que c'est un peu court et un peu mince.

      "atavistic racism" is not reverse psychology, it is sarcasm.

      My firts question "do they even apply?" is a real question. I have another question : what are the fields where anglos are over represented? I have no answer but the question is interesting.

      Let's say they were over represented in the federal civil in Québec, that would be in line with my suppositions. Let's say they were over represented at McDonald's, that would mean that, because of a lack of opportunity, they would be kept in dead end low paying jobs. But what if they were over represented in high management jobs? Would it not mean that they just have better opportunities than Québec civil service?

      P.S. Reading Johny Rotten's clever reply, one could almost think that my unwillingness of anglos to move to rural Québec to live among francos supposition is not that farfetched after all...

      Delete
    12. I can't argue with what you say adski. I just wanted to say that I recognize that the question "Do they even apply?" is a leading question. I was trying NOT to give my idea of why anglophones would not apply because there is no proof that this is the case.

      Imagining that it was the case that anglos don't apply for provincial service jobs, anybody could surmise that is because anglos haven't been judged fairly against francophone applicants. In that case, it becomes a vicious self-perpetuating cycle.

      However, I don't want to surmise this because there is no proof that anglos don't apply for provincial government jobs. It is just a leading question that the user asked in order to build an argument. In my opinion, it's like a stack of cards that falls down because it has no foundation.

      Kudos to Marvin Rotrand, though, for bringing up the issue of minority and anglo under-representation at the municipal level. Coincidence? I think not.

      Delete
    13. "I was trying NOT to give my idea of why anglophones would not apply because there is no proof that this is the case. "

      I think some still apply, but many are smart (and proud) enough not to even bother. But even if it is their decision not to apply, does it mean that everything is dandy and we can ride off into the sunset? Or should we better (if for no other reason than curiosity) lift up the carpet and analyze what's under it?


      "because there is no proof that anglos don't apply for provincial government jobs"

      It can be surmised. Why would anyone apply to where one is not welcome?

      Delete
    14. "anglos are under represented, therefore quebeckers are racist"

      This can be surmised directly your own argument: since there are no administrative obstacles that prevent them from dropping off their CV, there is something else that holds them back from dropping it off.

      Delete
    15. adski,

      I get your point. Here is mine.

      There is no administrative obstacle that prevents me from dropping off my CV at MacDonald's, yet I haven't ever done it, therefore something holds me back from doing so?

      I have never done it because there are for me plenty of better opportinuties, in my much more paying field, where I have many competitive advantages and where there are far fewer applicants than at McDonal's.

      Delete
    16. The lack of interest in the NYPD amongst the blacks and latinos is not because they are not interested in police work (unlike you and everyone else not being interested in Macdonald's because who wants to flip burgers day in day out). The lack of interest is because of exclusion, before practiced officially, now practiced unofficially with more tacit, subtle, hidden methods.

      The situation with Quebec's public service is much more like the NYPD example than the MacDonald's example.

      Delete
    17. Here is an example of this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFitWmzlTk&t=8m41s

      The class instructor leads the cheer after a black recruit resigned, and the class applauds.

      Delete
    18. "I have never done it because there are for me plenty of better opportinuties, in my much more paying field, where I have many competitive advantages and where there are far fewer applicants than at McDonal's."

      By that logic no one would work in the provincial public service, including francophones because there are an unlimited number of other better available jobs. It also assumes that every single anglophone in Quebec is overqualified for provincial jobs and those that apply to better jobs always get them, and that would be why they don't apply to provincial jobs. The whole premise of which doesn't make sense, not everyone is experienced enough to get better jobs (and again Quebec provincial jobs pay extremely well for the demands of the job, see SAQ and STM employee salaries) and jobs are not unlimited. You might not have dropped a CV off at McDonalds, but a heck of a lot of people from all walks of life have, and I'm guessing their work force isn't completely over represented by one linguistic group.

      Delete
    19. "There is no administrative obstacle that prevents me from dropping off my CV at MacDonald's, yet I haven't ever done it, therefore something holds me back from doing so?"

      What prevents Anglos & Allos from dropping theirs off for possible quebec Civil Service Jobs is knowing it will be a waste of good paper, and maybe they aren't into killing trees!,

      Yeah that's right..we could all provide flip answers, but when you go to bed at night and turn off the light, you know damned well why EVEN the ones that do apply..don't get hired.
      Stop playing dumb, it's unbecoming...and boring.

      Delete
    20. Michel Patrice needs to start looking at facts instead of continually asking nonsensical questions and dealing with suppositions. Don't think you will sidetrack me. Where is the proof that anglos don't apply for jobs? You just don't want to deal with the facts as given by many users on this blog, who have applied for jobs within the civil service or couldn't go higher in their jobs, who have had to write exams, and who know exactly what the unequal French and English exams are like and the discrimination that takes place.

      You don't want to deal with the facts. Anglophones and minorities are underepresented in Montreal's municipal government. They are also underrepresented in the provincial civil services. Anglos make up 7.6% of the population and make up only 0.9% of the Quebec government workforce. Meanwhile, francophones are over-represented in the Canadian government. If francophones were under-represented by a factor of 8 times in the Canadian civil service, as anglophones are in the Quebec government, the pequistes would be screaming discrimination.

      This discrimination most definitely has to end and John's idea of affirmative action for non-francophones is something that must be looked into.

      Oh and please don't try your amateur best to put words in my mouth. I never said Quebecker's are racist. I am a Quebecker myself so I would never say that.

      However, the segment of the population who are endoctrinated separatists, which includes you, are the most priveleged minority in the world and you should thank every day that you are in Canada and for being subsidized the way you are.

      By the way, Michel Patrice, I have a few questions of my own.

      How come you have no comments or dialogue on your biased website? Could it be because many people see through your misinterpretion of facts?
      Maybe after a while, they notice that you are just a "pur et dur" looking for justification for anything the PQ does. Do they realize that when facts come out, you try to massage it so that it makes your side seem right and the other side wrong? Do you think they recognize when you ask leading questions because you think it will give you the answer you want? Or ask 6 questions in a row? You think this isn't evident to others? Is this why you have no comments on your site?

      Of course, I'm not saying this is the case. I am just wondering. Just asking questions.

      Like you.

      Delete
    21. @roger rabbit

      "Where is the proof that anglos don't apply for jobs?"

      there is no proof, apart from the daily quebec service bashing one can read here. it's easy to get the impression anglos wouldn't be interested in working there. the existence of michel's hypothesis makes it impossible for an honest analyst to conclude discrimination is the reason for anglo under representation in the quebec civil service. honest may be the key work here.

      "I never said Quebecker's are racist."

      so why are anglos under represented in the civil service then roger rabbit? you must have a third hypothesis to propose since you don't agree with michel and you don't think it's "racism". it's strange you didn't share it yet as it would have been more relevant than anything you have contributed yet to this particular discussion.

      Delete
    22. An honest analyst would make a hypothesis (with which I happen to agree) but would then honestly pursue the reasons. His comparisons of what would be for many an attractive form of employment (if it wasn't for the racism) in the civil service with unattractive and last-ditch employment at McDonald's shows how honest he is. The refusal by whole segments of the population to apply to institutions such as the NYPD, London Met Police, or Quebec civil service, is not the same as someone's refusal to apply to McDonald's. And so there goes his honesty.

      I don't know what the reasons are for this society to be exclusive. It could be racism which is there, but a more fitting term is supremacy, which happens when the cultural foundation of a society is the concept of "maitres". This in turn leads to petty possessiveness, entitlement, and nationalist populism.

      Delete
    23. Nepotism, need not be racist, it is however discrimination.

      Delete
  16. FROM ED
    She' giving ten percent tax break. How can the unions not see that as unfair. Other cmpanies will lose their experienced employees to that one. Established companies will feel the pinch. At least most of the work will be done in English. Ed

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Over 600,000 anglophones in this Province, making up about 7.6% of the population. Yet only 0.9% of the government workforce. By comparison, while francophones make up only 4% of Ontario's population, they comprise 8% of its civil service. Or on the federal level, while francophones make up 24% of Canada's population, they comprise 32% of its civil service. '

    Its obvious whats been going on and its only getting worse especially outside Quebec where they get more and more government jobs all across the country. Go look at NB, what a mess, Ottawa another mess where they are grossly over-represented in anything and everything to do with government, federally, provincially and municipally in Ottawa. Police, health care... Are they happy yet...? NO not at all...we want more jobs for the french...

    Enjoy the clips- nothing but the facts...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfz3o0bXxfc&hd=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZz61S3sTA8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui_XgfFceYc&hd=1

    ReplyDelete
  18. As we face an election soon we need to remind ourselves of some of the decisions the brain trust in the givt has left us with.

    This is a great article
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/quebecs-biggest-obstacle-to-attracting-data-centres-quebec/article4358296/

    """
    But Hydro-Québec refused to offer Google the same type of deal on preferential electricity rates as the ones enjoyed by the big aluminum-smelter companies because its skeleton-staffed server farm wouldn’t create many jobs, he said.

    """

    Meanwhile of course Quebec really was saving the deal for OVH a France company that does data centers. Only a few months after this treachery OVH was given a sweatheart deal at Bauhornois.

    Today at Charbonneau we learn that Tony Accurso has been in charge of the FTQ investment funds. Wasn;t that suposed to be Pauline's husbands job?

    Stay tuned for the PQ getting really nervous and Charbonneau only dancing around gently there under a "media ban" so we never find out about PQ treachery so close to the leader.

    Seriously tho. We know Pauline husband when he was at FTQ was instrumental in giving finds to establish Accurso dominance in Quebec. Now we see that Accurso is basically running the fund too.

    So what exactly did Paulines husband watch go down?

    Was he fucking the dog in the corner and putting cash into his pockets like every other civil servant? or was he just doing a Tremblay. "I hear nothing, I see nothing".

    Wonder what company did all the construction of chateau pauline (that just got sold ) back then?

    Hard to know really.

    Good thing construction firms NEVER pat the back..

    Meanwhile we learn that not even 9 months ago the mob was harassing that concrete association lady.

    Not only is the construction industry the biggest source of corruption in montreal and Quebec it's also the source of all our shitty roadwork.

    They are doubly bad. They steal from us continually and give us massively shoddy work and traffic jams in return.

    Montrealers are suckers.

    We bend over for the PQ, we bend over for construction unions/workers/companies.

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Macpherson+Boisclair+have+explaining/8978468/story.html

    Why is this Loser still collecting a salary..THAT WE ARE PAYING?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parce que le "loser" n'est pas celui (ou celle) que vous croyez ?Un miroir dans votre 31/2?

      Delete
    2. Ha ha ha ha, using the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I", the height of SR's debating repertoire.

      The better question is why were we eve paying for his salary? It's not like it was news that he was a washed up politician coke head. I want to know what Boisclair has on either the PQ or Pauline herself that had her give him this plum position in the first place.

      Delete
    3. The PQ is buying him off until the next election.

      That's as long as the support lasts.

      They can;t possibly afford to have him "outside the fold" and running around talking about whatever else he knows.

      The damage will spread to the PQ unless Boisclaire feels secure.

      This is the entire essence of the Quebec political system. Playing games paying your friends/ex-friends/co-conspirators along the way.

      Boisclaire is happy as long as he's getting a paycheck.

      That's the only goal he has. If the PQ keep the $$$ flowing while they are in power then he stays a "public friend".

      Boisclaire is so "done with that NY scene" and will be happy to be back in Quebec among his peers.


      Delete
    4. "Parce que le "loser" n'est pas celui (ou celle) que vous croyez ?Un miroir dans votre 31/2?"

      Ahhh s.r., you have a crush on him or something? Lol

      Delete
    5. And they've placed him in that "permanent public service" position that he was double dipping before he moved to NY. So no matter what happens through all this lawsuit business, he's on the public dole from now until he wants to leave. God, these crooks cover for each other so much and it's so blatant, you would think that their followers would catch on at some point. When is the electorate in quebec going to see through these sovereignists and their motives? Scary.

      Delete
    6. FROM ED
      Cutie, I think they do see through it but they don't care. "As long as i am getting my welfare, if I make trouble for him I might lose my income. Why should I care what he does?" Ed

      Delete
    7. God I hope you're wrong about that Ed. They'd better realize that their welfare does not come from only the quebec treasury but contributions from everyone in the ROC also. The liberals should be pushing this information and not remaining quiet as they do about the benefits of belonging to Canada. When are they going to start speaking up on these matters? Seems to me now is the time.

      Delete
    8. @ed

      why do you associate separatists with welfare recipients? not all your readers are clueless like cutie003 you know? you should adapt to a higher standard.

      Delete
  20. http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/62-in-quebec-oppose-firing-public-servants-for-wearing-religious-symbols-1.1479601

    Well either a lot of people blindly support the charter, but not results of it, or support for the charter continues to drop.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And this sums up where we are going with the PQ government in charge:
    http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Division+diversion+bring+Quebec/8983257/story.html
    Let's hope she is going to call an election soon and that we can get them out of power before we are totally destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asking for a permanent exemption for health care workers.
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-hospitals-ask-for-values-charter-exemption-1.1874961
      We can little afford to lose the health care workers we have now. Why would they stay and take the abuse and less money when they can work in Ontario hassle free?

      Delete
    2. Why would they go to Quebec when they could go to Ontario? Just a few month, the health care agency for Gatineau, announced that it had recruited 30 doctor. How many will stay in Quebec for the career? This province is dead. How is the project for a medical school in Gatineau affiliated with McGill? Probably dead because of lack of money. We are Quebec 4th largest city and we don't have a medical school! How is that acceptable?

      Delete
    3. By the way Liam, the guy running against Bureau for mayor is apparently an avowed separatist. Just to let you know before the election in November. Not sure about Bureau for the other guy definitely is. Can't remember his name right now.

      The talk of the medical school here didn't last long but why would the doctors stay here when they're bilingual and can easily work in Ottawa for more money and less BS from the provincial government? We are still way short on doctors and I know one lady that has been on a list for 12 years for heaven's sake. Is that stupid or what? What a mess this province is.

      Delete
    4. I will be voting for Action Gatineau. Maxime Pednaud Jobin will be bring a much needed change to our city. Look at his video. He promises to fight for us at the federal and provincial level. He will relax the amalgamation brought to us by the PQ. He will fight to bring change needed to attract business in our city. He's got my vote. Beside many in his team supported the Liberals.
      http://actiongatineau.org

      Delete
    5. For your info Liam - Not sure what I'm going to do yet but this is a good sign for me to vote for Bureau right now although I like Stefan.
      http://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/actualites/ville-de-gatineau/201310/02/01-4695569-des-affiches-in-english-a-aylmer.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B13b_ville-de-gatineau_86608_secti
      lol on J. Perrault - Idiot bigot.

      Delete
    6. And now Parizeau says the Charter goes too far - I wish these idiots knew what the hell they're doing but it's obvious they have no idea. They shoot first and then analyse their moves. When are the polls open?

      Delete
    7. @cutie003

      parizeau's retired mate. what year are you in?

      Delete
    8. Cutie, you are right that Bureau respect anglophone, but I can remind you that Pednaud-Jobin, taught english in Japan and wrote an article to the anglophone published in West Quebec Post:
      http://www.maxpj.com/documents/maxime-pedneau-jobin_june12.pdf
      You would also write that Pednaud-Jobin was a political attache for a PQ Minister, David Levine. Now, Levine was an hypocrite, going to work in Ottawa, but Pednaud-Jobin at least stayed in our region. Also, he tempered his view regarding amalgamation, promising to bring in district councils. He also has a coherent vision regarding tourism, in her region promising to work with Ottawa to bring in tourism in the region. I am tired of Marc Bureau and do not believe he has a vision regarding the future of our city.

      Delete
  22. Look, we all know the PQ has been engaged in a culture war for decades.
    It started with Bill 101 which was expressly designed to force people to speak French and thereby BECOME French (based on the notion that if you speak a language you automatically become a member of that culture).
    While it succeeded in empowering francophones and the French language, it didn't gain any significant converts to Quebecois culture, and the PQ braintrust, still grappling with the notion that their key idea is just wrong, have decided to go expressly for this cultural war.
    There's no hiding that this is an attack on people who dress differently, and so they figure they'll just ban it and everything will be hunky dory.

    The problem, the massive problem, is that it won't work. And all the evidence points to it failing.

    I get that lots of people are worried about social unrest in Europe. I get that lots of people are worried about terrorism.

    So look at the root causes fer crissakes!

    Paris's banlieues are a hotbed of unrest because the French won't let people integrate into French culture.
    Where do Al Qaeda and its spinoffs recruit? Among educated muslims who cannot get jobs in their own country!

    We don't need a law that will prevent people from wearing hijabs from working. We need a law that will force affirmative action for non-francophones!

    (and don't tell me we don't. We live in a province where francophones who go to an English university are told in job interviews that they cannot be hired because they don't understand Quebecois culture.)

    -John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good post John.

      If you start to exclude people from different facets of life because they have a different religion, you set in motion the underpinnings of future radicalism. People who have jobs and are treated with respect don't have a reason to not feel part of society and so are less apt to be the target of recruitment by terrorists and are less likely to cause any more problems in society than anyone else.

      I hope people will realize that treating people as outcasts or as the out group will never work.

      That's why affirmative action is now needed for non-francophones, as you said. Bill 101 has been an affirmative action plan for francophones but now this society has changed and it is no longer needed because the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. It is now non-francophones that are being descriminated against and that have lower levels of employment, even though they have much higher rates of bilingualism.

      Affirmative action for non-francophones in Quebec: I agree.

      Delete
    2. "Bill 101 (...) is no longer needed..."

      fetch the stats mate.

      Delete
    3. @student

      The stats have already been posted by the Rationalist.

      I can't spoonfeed you, mon cher habitant.

      Delete
  23. A great clip on Quebec...enjoy.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moyen trou du cul ce wilson ,est-ce l'idole de l'information des anglos?

      Delete
    2. "Moyen trou du cul ce wilson ,est-ce l'idole de l'information des anglos? "

      You would bemoan someone Fair, Honorable & Decent, AND a Seeker of Truth!
      Le "trou du cul" n'est pas celui que vous croyez!
      No mirror in that cardboard box you sleep in day in and day out? LOL LOL

      Delete
  24. Now we see who the PQ supporters really are.

    Francophone mobsters.

    http://live.montrealgazette.com/Event/At_the_Charbonneau_Commission_3

    """Pereira also went to see alleged "real boss" at FTQ-Construction: mobster Raynald Desjardins. Told him he didn't want to make peace w union."""

    The live Charbonneau is so much better then the journalists sanitzed version.

    By the time they take out all the details, hide the facts and turn everything into "allegedly happened" you wonder if there is any point to journalism anymore.

    They should just link to the transcripts and we can skip the journalists "sanitized summary" without any meaningful details.

    The lawyers suing for every little bit of information that makes it into the newspapers and it's obvious why nobody is reading newspapers anymore. There are sanitized of any useful content.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Québec : «Battre sa femme est une manière de l’éduquer» (imam de Laval)

    http://www.postedeveille.ca/2013/10/quebec-battre-sa-femme-est-une-maniere-de-l-eduquer.html

    Et pourquoi pas?Nous sommes dans un pays libre, non?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I understand your "logic", you want people to support the charter because the charter , though it does not directly target hate mongering imams in any way, does nonetheless attack Muslim women in the Quebec civil service, so indirectly it attacks Islam, and by attacking Islam in broad strokes it is bound to indirectly target a subset of adherents of Islam that are extremists, such as the imam in question. So you want people to make a leap from some crazed imam to a woman who just wants to go to work in a head scarf, and you want to equate the utter pettiness of going after some insignificant head scarf with fighting the worst kinds of extremists, which incidentally the charter will not affect.

      Delete
    2. Dossier : Dalila Awada, le voile, QS, la FFQ et les paillette

      http://zodode.5.50megs.com/dossier_Awada.htm

      Le voile cache souvent quelque chose.

      Delete
  26. S.R.. I must say, you wrote an amazing comment on Le Devoir.

    http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/388969/charte-des-valeurs-drainville-condamne-la-violence-contre-les-femmes-voilees

    Sylvain Racine - Inscrit
    2 octobre 2013 15 h 41
    Charte des valeurs canadienne-françaises d'un temps révolu
    Il refuse d'en assumer la responsabilité, sauf que lui, et chacun des députés du Parti québécois en sont directement responsables.

    Quand M. Drainville dit que "ça fait longtemps que les Québécois attendent des règles claires en cette matière", c'est n'importe quoi. C'est une infime minorité des québécoises musulmanes qui portent le voile dans la fonction publique, et ça se passe fort probablement en majorité à Montréal. "Gilbert" à Matane ou "Louise" à Victoriaville n'attendaient sûrement pas "des règles claires en cette matière", donc, oui, ils sont responsables, et ça ne va évidemment qu'empirer.

    Je suis Québécois et indépendantiste, et ça ne me représente pas du tout cette Charte. Cette charte aurait dû s'appeler "Charte des valeurs canadienne-françaises d'un temps révolu".

    Gouvernance souverainiste égal seulement ADQ 2.0, soit autonomisme et populisme.

    Le PQ est en train de mettre le clou dans le cercueil du projet de faire du Québec un pays. Honte aux péquistes!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that is really what he wrote, then it just proves he's on this site to troll.

      Delete
  27. FROM ED
    Sorry John, bill 101 was not meant to force anyone to speak French. Robert Bourrassa, the Premier who enacted it spoke English most of the time. The bill was meant to have the French Majority an upper hand, a perfectly natural idea. The FLQ was still sabre rattling because many French who were jealous of the English were complaining aloud. We were tired of bombs and war measures and we gladly accepted 101 which quieted everything down. The French felt they had won the right to use their own language, (which they always had and didn't know it) and a breath of fresh air swept through the province.
    Unfortunately Rene Levesque couldn't leave it that way and the fresh air was blown away by a creeping cold air that eventually changed all our lives.
    In reality, forcing French and hatred of Anglos began with Pauline Marois and her flying monkeys.
    I get tired of having people ask me, "Why didn't you fight them back then? Why didn't you do something? There was nothinhg to fight. Having street signs changed to French gave Montreal a European appearance which was good for tourism. With Expo and the Olympics our minds were on other things. Everyone seemed happy. Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In reality, forcing French and hatred of Anglos began with Pauline Marois and her flying monkeys."

      alzheimer?

      Delete
    2. "In reality, forcing French and hatred of Anglos began with Pauline Marois and her flying monkeys."
      I would respectfully disagree, Ed. I'd say it started with Camille Laurin, the so-called "father" of Bill 101, who was a virulent anti-anglophone. Don't forget Claude Charron and other members of that hateful little gang that called itself the PQ cabinet in 1977.

      Delete
    3. FROM ED
      SDorry EX, you don't guess at these things. I was there when the bill was presented in the papers word for word. There was nothing hateful in language. In fact Dr.Laurin worded the bill so as not to upst Anglos. Claude Charron was a ittle idiot. Got himself into more trouble than a teenager, sexual, speeding and abuse were his lifestyle. Not dangerous, just stupid. Ed

      Delete
    4. That may be Ed but discrimination against anglophones has been going on here for a lot longer than the introduction of Miss Piggy. She is just continuing down the same road. Discrimination especially from the SJBS and IF has been around for at least the last 20 years = it was just more under control when the liberals were in power for 9 years but it sure as hell was there. Even the liberals legitimatized it by hiring more language police themselves so there is not one party in this province that does not discriminate against the anglos.

      Delete

  28. http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Charbonneau+Commission+Union+boss+control+witness/8982361/story.html

    Yes, we all knew they were "as innocent and pure driven snow" lol. I can't wait to see the Tv ad from the "Syndicat des cols bleus regroupe de Montreal, paying to produce this air commercial, "portraying Têtes à claques-style characters accepting cutbacks or bribes while playing the spoons, sporting sweaters with an embroidered 3% as a reminder to what really went on."

    Mmm yeah it isn't likely to happen for obvious reasons, Unions don't flout Unions I suppose, and francophones protect their own...lol, n'est ce pas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "as innocent and pure driven snow"

      who's that quote from mate?

      Delete
    2. FROM ED
      It's from Anectote. Can't you read. Ed

      Delete
    3. @ed

      that's what i thought. she made up an easy to refute quote. it's a classic. very popular amongst bad debaters.

      Delete
    4. Why are you talking to the trolls Ed?

      Delete
    5. Huh, looks like I didn't need to go back to find evidence of you talking to trolls, are you ready to apologize for insulting the intelligence of anyone who ever responded to them?

      Delete
    6. FROM ED
      Why would I apologize for your lack of intelligence. Everyone else on the blog knew that while I directed the comment at the troll , it was for the purpose of giving everyone a laugh. Instead of creeping around peeking in other peoples lives get a sense of humor. You try to put yourself up by putting otherfs down and it doesn't work. Ed

      Delete