French vs. English Volume 6

Latendresse Trade Irks Militant?

Georges Le Gal is one of those frothing at the mouth, French language fanatics, who clog up the blogsphere with nonesensical rants, most of which make no sense. In his latest missive he complains that the Montreal Canadiens don't hire enough Francophone players and is specifically upset that the Canadiens traded away one of them, Guillaume Latendresse.

"Indeed, with the recent departure of Guillaume Latendresse, only Maxim Lapierre, Georges Laracque, and defenceman Marc-André Bergeron remain."

Of course he conveniently fails to mention that Latendresse was traded for another Francophone, Benoit Pouliot, who has joined the team and is waiting for an injury to heal before taking his place on the bench.
Mr. Le Gal then goes on to complain that when the Canadiens retired the number of Émile 'Butch' Bouchard at the 100th anniversary ceremony on December 4, they were forced by "Anglophone" pressure to include an English player alongside and thus retired Elmer Lach's number as well.
Finally, Mr. Gal completes his hat-trick of faulty logic, absurdity and bad math, with this pearl of wisdom. "It makes me think of the financing of the two mega hospitals in Montreal: 50% funding for McGill University Health Center for the 10% Anglophones and 50% of funding for CHUM for the 90% Francophones!"

Are Francophone children smarter than Anglophone children?

Shopping for toys in Wal-Mart, I couldn't help noticing this anomaly. It seems that there are different standards for Anglophones and Francophones in terms of age recommendation for video games.

Letter writer offended by bilingual announcement in English towns?

In it's latest newsletter the Mouvement Montréal français complains the the AMT, the agency which runs trains to suburban Montreal was disrespecting the French language by announcing stops bilingually, when passing through predominantly English towns.

"What surprised me was that this organization promotes bilingualism! I understand that this line (and who knows about the others?) passes through towns that is home to a great part of the anglophone population of Montreal (Saint-Laurent, Roxboro, Pierrefonds, Sainte-Dorothée) but is it necessary to call out stops bilingually, dozens of times per day;

"Prochain arrêt/Next Stop, Gare Bois-Franc/ Bois-Franc Station"

Oh, the inhumanity!!

Money more important than principles?

The Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec, the union representing the 43, 000 Quebec government workers, has loudly opposed bilingualism in the civil service and militated against what they perceive as 'creeping bilingualism.' Last year, the union participated in an anti-English campaign called "Press 9" (read- 'press nine for English')  that attempted to restrict the automatic right of citizens to be served in English. The head of the union opposes citizens retaining the right to have their government file designated as "English," thus obliging the government to serve them in English.

This week however, the union hypocritically demanded that Quebec pay 'bilingualism' bonuses for those employees that do speak English to citizens. When asked about the discrepancy, Lucie Martineau, the union's leader said that she saw saw no contradiction in their position.

Mouvement Montérégie francais is born.
Inspired by the Mouvement Montréal français, a new organization has been created to defend the French language on the south shore of Montreal.

"The island of Montreal is Anglicizing and it's spreading to the periphery. French is losing ground in several places, Brossard, Châteauguay, Delson, La Prairie, Longueuil," said the spokesman of the group, the author Yves Beauchemin.

Yesiree, it's best to be vigilant.

They can start by picketing the  McDonald's restaurant on D'Anjou boulevard in Chateauguay which is perpetrating an egregious attack on the integrity of the French language.

Before my very eyes, I recently witnessed senior citizens playing a bilingually run BINGO game run, right in the middle of the restaurant, without any shame whatsoever!
 BAY-DOUZE , BEE-TWELVE,
JAY-QUARANTE SIX, GEE-FORTY-SIX.
EEE-VINGT-DEUX, EYE-TWENTY-TWO

As I munched on my chicken sandwich, the Bingo caller expertly shouted out the numbers in Frech ana English to the delight of a senior group that was made up of an interesting mix of Francophone and Anglophone seniors.
"What did he say?" Asked an elderly Anglo to her French seat mate.
"Coudon!, il a dit EEE-VINGT DEUX!"
"Ok, Ok, Keep your shirt on!!,"
This new language organization is going to have to be on it's toes, otherwise bilingualism may spread to other Bingo games across the Montérégie region and that would clearly be disastrous!!


Blame Canada
In an unsigned article entitled" "The Canadian Governement discriminates against Independantists" appearing on the Ameriquebec.net website, the writer complains about the fact that enviormental demonstrators on Parliament Hill received more favourable treatment than those protesters who demonstrated against Prince Charles in Montreal. He is furious that the Ottawa demonstrators who were arrested were fined only $65 by the RCMP while the Quebec demonstrators who were arrested were fined $500 by the Montreal police.
Somehow, according to the writer, this is a plot to discriminate against separatists. What's puzzling is how all this relates to the headline attached to the story, which would make more sense if it read" "Montreal Police discriminate against Independentists"
If the fine assessed by the Montreal police is overly harsh, what does it have to do with the Canadian government?

Does Education department Ruling Leave Other Schools Vulnerable

As those who are regular readers know, I'm not a great fan or supporter of the private education provided for and by the Montreal's Hasidic community, but the abrupt withdrawal of funding by the Quebec Education department based on the fact that classes are segregated begs some serious opposition. The Montreal Gazette questioned quite rightly whether the move was just strictly political and undertaken to quell the voices of anti-religionists and anti-accommodationists.

There are many legitimate reasons to restrict or remove funding from these religious fundamentalist schools, who by and large ignore provincial rules concerning curriculum, but removing their funding with little notice based on the notion that separate classes for boys and girls runs contrary to Quebec values is strictly not kosher. That Quebec education minister Michelle Courchesne chose to act against the Hasidic school and no other school that are gender based smacks of discrimination.

There is legitimate academic debate concerning separate boys and girls classes. Many moons ago, I myself was streamed into an all boys class in grade seven at the Protestant School Board's Van Horne School in Snowdon, while the girls were sent off to their own class.
Was it good or bad? Dunno...
We were told by authorities that boys and girls had different educational requirements and separate classes would help focus on the different developmental needs of each group.

I guess that rationale doesn't run counter to Quebec values, but separating the sexes basesd on religious values obviously does. That being said, banning and tolerating the exact same practice based on different motives is hard to defend.

If this prohibition is applied by the education department equally across the board, it will have an effect on countless private schools across the province who also practice single-sex education, the majority which are Christian faith-based.

Does this ruling mean that all-girl schools like Miss Edgar and Miss Cramps (high school) could lose their government subsidy if they refuse to accept male students? There are dozens and dozens of schools in the same boat.

I don't particularly like religious fanatics who practice self-imposed apartheid. I particularly have little use for Hasids and their fundamentalist values.

That being said, it is incumbent on all of us to defend any minority when they are under attack strictly based on their religion. It is called DISCRIMINATION and as a good citizen I will defend the Hasidic school's right to be treated as equally as the Christian faith-based schools or the secular single sex schools.

What makes this blatant religious attack more disturbing is that the French press has roundly applauded the action of the minister. There's a constituency of left-wing nationalist stateists that have been waiting a long time to punish the Hasidic community.  It's too bad that they can't see the attack on the Hasidic school for what it is- payback for all those pesky accommodations.

SHAME!!!

Quebec's National Day of Procrastination

In Quebec, December 15th is the last day by which all motorists must have their cars outfitted with snow tires. Tire shops across the province are jammed today with some staying open until midnight to accommodate the back log of those who perpetually leave things to the last minute.

As I drove through the west Island of Montreal this afternoon, it was apparent that there was also a run on Christmas trees. With Christmas just ten days away it's a case of better late than never, as panicked shoppers (mostly men) finally get it in gear.

It would be useful if Quebec would mark the date, December 15, as an unofficial holiday, to be known as "PROCRASTINATOR'S DAY."

Those with an inclination to leave things to the last minute, would have a date that they could reference, one which would serve as a reminder that it's just nine more days until Christmas Eve, their favourite shopping day!

Koodo Ad in Bad Taste?

This ad is part of a series that depicts Koodo telephone users with exaggerated mouths.
I'm certain that the company wasn't trying to be racist, but isn't this version of a black guy with huge lips and teeth just a bit it off-putting?

The Pie in the Sky Greening of Quebec

..it is a tale Told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. -Macbeth

For personal reasons I don't usually write negatively about Premier Charest, but I shall make an exception and comment on his speech about reducing greenhouse gases out of profound admiration for his unbridled 'chutzpah.'

I couldn't help but get a chuckle at the ridiculously amateur and completely ineffective plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that he outlined in his speech on November 24th. It was patently clear that he hadn't put much effort or content into his plan, correctly and cynically concluding that nobody in the press would dare to tell him that his plan was as phoney as an Emperor with no clothes.
That the press took him seriously and failed to challenge him on the crock that he spouted was another case of failed journalism.

As skillfully as David Copperfield, our illustrious premier used the tried and true magical device of misdirection to concentrate and direct our focus elsewhere. Suffering from scandal after scandal and in virtual free fall in the polls, the Premier decided to re-focus the subject of public debate in the faint hope of changing the dynamics of a government in trouble.

And so, out of the blue, Premier Jean Charest announced, with a straight face, that by 2020, the province will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels, a goal similar to the target the European Union has adopted. The idea is so absurd, it as testament to his sang-froid and his confidence in his ability to mislead convince us.

Let's do some high school math to figure out what his proposed reduction actually means. For argument's sake, let's assign a number of 100% to the benchmark 1990 emissions level that the Premier referred to. To reduce emissions by the 20% that the Premier proposed, we'd have to get down to 80% of that number. Considering that our emissions have risen by 26% since 1990, we'd have to cut  greenhouse emissions by a whopping 36% in ten years to achieve Mr. Charest's goal.

Doable? Not a chance!
To pretend that it is, is nothing but pure fantasy, as realistic as Canada's Kyoto Accord commitment wherein we promised to cut emissions by a paltry 6% and failed miserably, actually increasing our output by 26%. Deja Vu?

How does the Premier intend to get to this mythical land of environmental equilibrium? Through a nonsensical and unrealistic mixture of hyperbole, magic and fantasy. His plan doesn't even stand up to the most cursory of analysis.

"Mr. Charest said he plans to reach the new objective by investing in public transportation and adopting tough regulations to reduce automobile emissions similar to the strict standards set in California. The province is also hoping rapid development and marketing of electric automobiles will significantly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels." Globe and Mail

Electric Cars Ha Ha!!!!

Let's quickly expose Mr. Charest's ideas as pie-in-the sky.

Increasing Public Transportation. People take public transport because a car is either unaffordable or inconvenient. If Mr. Charest thinks he's going to convince a significant number of those people, for which a car is affordable and a convenient alternative to public transport, to switch, out of an altruistic respect for the environment,  he is sadly out of touch with the human condition. A fact that environmentalists ignore, is that public transport is only marginally more environmentally friendly than cars. Aside from rush hour, buses and trains run all day long, near empty, while cars remain parked. At any rate public transport ridership in Canada has been increasing by less than ½ of one percent per year, unimpressive at best. If Mr. Charest increases that figure by ten-fold (a mean feat)  it will mean a paltry 5% increase in public transport use, hardly a breakthrough.

Lower emission Standards. The internal combustion engine has progressed to the point where new efficiencies are going to be marginal at best. The only way to lower emissions is to mandate smaller cars with smaller engines. The other alternatives is to eliminate cars. Do you think Mr. Charest is planning to enact legislation setting upper limits on size and horsepower or by banning the second family car?

Electric Cars. I'm not even going to comment. Perhaps Mr. Charest's next suggestion is that we power our cars with foot power à la Fred Flintstone.

For Mr. Charest and the citizens of Quebec discussing the reduction of carbon emissions without addressing the proverbial 'Elephant in the Room" is disingenuous.

Instead of nonsensical solutions, Mr. Charest and the good citizens of the province should address the problem of the hundreds of thousands of wood burning stoves, still in use in Quebec, which represent a monumental environmental disaster. While several Quebec cities have recognized the problem and moved to ban the purchase or installation of new stoves, nobody is remotely considering a plan to get rid of the old ones.

...."This is as rational as banning the purchase of new cars but letting people continue driving gas guzzlers."

..."Environment Canada asserts,  for example, that a conventional wood stove, burning for nine hours, emits as much particulate matter – known historically as soot – as a car driven 18,000 kilometres."

...."Combined, Montreal's wood stoves emit as much particulate matter as a car driven 207 billion kilometres. -NEIL REYNOLDS Globe and Mail

What is more disheartening is that 90% of the wood stoves currently in use in Quebec, are the old inefficient ones that burn up to 94% less cleanly than the newer models, the ones that follow EPA standards. Quebeckers who heat with wood and who are too cheap, lazy and inconsiderate to upgrade their equipment in the name of lowered emissions, are the real environmental bandits among us. Instead of carping about the Alberta Tar Sands, why don't we Quebeckers and Mr. Charest concentrate a little closer to home. An inconvenient truth, perhaps?

If Mr. Charest was the least bit interested in making genuine progress in reducing Quebec's emissions, he'd start by dealing with this environmental disaster,  one that can be actually remedied rather easily, or a least with less pain and expense than other solutions that reduce emissions.

Quebec has the lowest electricity rate in North America and forcing the public to switch to electric heating from wood (or oil and gas, for that matter), would be the first logical step in lowering our carbon footprint. If Quebeckers are the environmentalists that they claim to be, we would embrace a law that would phase out wood-burning stoves and gas and oil furnaces. Electricity may cost more than fossil fuels, but the cost-benefit co-efficient is the highest of any currently available option to lower carbon emissions. Banning fossil fuels as heating devices, would be the first real step to changing our lifestyle and a concrete commitment to change.  It's a no-brainer.

So why isn't the Premier talking about meaningful change? Because deep down, he knows that real change is hard to sell. The public, despite the talk, isn't really ready to sacrifice. That's why our carbon footprint continues to grow.
I once heard an environmentalist question an audience, asking how many people had really made a significant change in lowering their personal carbon footprint, a change that entailed considerable personal hardship or expense. Nary a hand went up.

Instead of real change, our Premier talks about mythical electric cars. The  media eats it up and the public is satisfied that we're supposedly on the way to doing something.

Deep down, none of us really care enough to change our lives, and none of us are prepared to take a significant hit in our pocketbook or in our lifestyle.

As we poke fun at world leaders who have jetted over to the Copenhagen conference on climate change in private planes and who are flitting about the city in oversized limousines, let us accept that we are every bit as hypocritical.

Mr. Charest, you are not alone....