Separtists Begin Campaign of Organized Intimidation

Campaign financing rules in Quebec provide for a maximum $3000 per taxpayer (recently lowered) and for the publication of the names of those who make political contributions to provincial parties.

While the law is designed for maximum transparency, like many good ideas, there remains a distinct possibility of abuse and the recent actions of the militant Reseau de resistance du Quebecois, (RRQ) has used the list of names to undertake a campaign of intimidation and harassment.

The radical separatist group has published the names of donors to the Liberal party who have made the maximum $3000 donation over the last two years. In addition they have published their home addresses and identified their business affiliation in some cases.

The RRQ has sent a letter to each of the 780 people, chastising them and holding them responsible for the Premier's decision not to hold an inquiry into alleged corruption. In addition, the RRQ invited it's members, to letter bomb these donors to add pressure.   Link

"We have launched a website (donsliberaux.resistancequebecoise.org) that identifies you as large donor to the Liberal Party of Quebec. Your name is there as is your home address, public information that the Chief Electoral Officer provides. On this site, we denounce corruption and Jean Charest who refuses to shed light on the scandals afflicting his administration. We invite people to copy us and put pressure on you and demand that you listen at last to the people. Because your leader speaks only the language of money, perhaps you the financiers 0f the Liberal party, can convince him.
I hope this letter has provided you an understanding that in becoming a generous donor to the Liberal party, you have become a target."

"...The day major donors will be able to convince Jean Charest to obey the people, we will close the site. And then you can find peace."

"I hope you understood that it is likely that many other people will follow suit and will also write to you"

As you can see the letter highlights the image of the infamous 'patriot' brandishing a rifle that was used in the various FLQ terrorist manifestos. Very subtle, indeed. CBC STORY

Sending, a letter emblazoned with a terrorist symbol, to somebody's home is a threat and beyond mere protest. It is intimidation, no different than a Mafia type warning you on the phone not to bid on a certain contract.
Of course, this is Quebec and nothing will likely come of it. The police will run away from the file as fast as they can.

Of course the RRQ will claim that it isn't intimidation, because they cleverly make no threats. It reminds me of the Mafia enforcer who walks up to your home and shows you a picture of your children, asking how they are, then asks if you are still interested in supporting a certain candidate.

It is thuggery, plain and simple. Patrick Bourgeois et als, are thugs of the lowest order.

Intimidation is a two way street, it wouldn't be that hard to create a website with the names and addresses of RRQ members, so that others may respond to the intimidation in kind.

It wouldn't be that difficult to make life and careers hell for RRQ members.

It's an idea......

Montreal Going in Opposite Direction of Toronto

A while back I wrote a blog piece advancing the notion that Montreal is a better place to live than Toronto. Read Why Montreal is Better than Toronto.

A lot of that was based on geography and Montreal's advantage of having a huge park in the center of the city à la Central Park and it's proximity to cottage country, chock full of lakes and mountains. Another fact that influenced my piece was the cheaper price housing and the more 'progressive' thinking of Montreal, making it a more livable city.

But there's always the danger of too much of a good thing and sadly Montreal has clearly gone off the deep end in undertaking feel-good lifestyle projects that are ill-conceived and unaffordable.

So while Montreal is headed in a direction whereby it is orienting itself to serve one sector of it's population, the bicyclists, the granolas, the students and the poor, Toronto, through the election of its new mayor, is reasserting its policy of supporting wealth creation and it's related benefits.

While Montrealers crow about their bicycle lanes as the be-all and end-all, the inconvenience to drivers and the damage done to the economic well-being  of the city is largely ignored.

The massive elimination of lanes and parking spots continues to have a large, yet unmeasured impact that few elected officials dare to acknowledge. The cost of the massive construction project that created these bike lanes is borne by motorists and homeowners as taxes spiral up, ending in an assault of the wallets of the minority that pays. Of course cyclists pay nothing, either for the maintenance or construction of these paths as if it is their God-given right to have others pay their freight.

And so Mayor Tremblay announced that come January, a new tax will be levied on every car registered in Montreal. He also advised homeowners that taxes would rise between 4% and 8%

In Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's first act as mayor was to announce that the city's car tax would be eliminated and that taxes would be frozen for the coming year.

If ever there were two cities going in opposite directions, it is Montreal and Toronto.

While Montreal extols the social benefits of bike lines and public transit, Toronto has decided to back the automobile and halt any thought of bike lanes on busy streets.

Toronto's new populist mayor Rob Ford

To Montrealers Rob Ford may as well be the devil incarnate, his pronouncements so shockingly at odds with what the current thinking is in Montreal. It's clear that  both cities are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Like Montreal, Toronto has chosen to represent the interest of a sector of the population, this time the taxpayers, those who actually pay the bills.
These people have a different agenda, seeking lower taxes, efficient city management and a desire for Toronto to be a place where wealth creation remains a priority.

The Toronto mayor was unequivocal, cyclists and motorists will always be at war. Backing cyclists who return no money to the city, and tramways that choke the streets, means that the economic well-being will be adversely affected.

Here are some  Rob Ford  more interesting remarks; Link

"My campaign was based on a simple idea, that city hall should respect the taxpayer," Ford said


"...we're not going to take away parking spaces for bike lanes!" Link


"Cyclists are a pain in the ass to the motorists. Let's be quite frank.... There's this huge animosity between the motorists and the cyclists.... and it's never going to go away. Link


"Toronto taxpayers expect the wasteful spending and the annual tax increases to come to an end. Toronto taxpayers do not want a larger budget and more spending," 


"I'm going to put money back in the hands of taxpayers."

"Ladies and gentlemen, the war on the car stops today, we will not build any more rail tracks down the middle of our streets."

"Expect the wasteful spending and the annual tax increses to come to an end. There will be no tax increase next year and there will be no cut in service."

If you are a Quebecker who finds these pronouncements frightening, consider that 30% of Montrealers live under the poverty line.
Since homeowner taxes or debt is what pays for grand projects, it's hard to understand how we can afford all these designer projects.

Currently Montreal's debt is almost 40% higher than that of Toronto and this not even considering that the latter is much bigger and richer. It remains to be seen, twenty years down the road, which city made the right decision.

I'm betting on Toronto.

Is Yves Michaud a Racist?

Imagine a government that legislates that right-handedness shall be the official policy of the state and that while left-handers will be tolerated, it's up to them to adapt to a province that is officially right handed.
The government's rationale is that since over 80% of the population is already right-handed, it makes for a more cohesive society if we were all the same.

And so the government requires that everybody who works in public must be able to use the right hand. Machinery should be built for right-handers alone and lefties are told that they must become ambidextrous, if they want to succeed in this province.

Most lefties sadly acquiesce, they use their right hand in public but switch back in the privacy of their home. Every time they rise up and argue for left-handed rights, the extremists come out to defend the government's policy.
These extremists are so radical that they believe that left-handedness should be driven out of children from the time they enter school. They tell lefties who complain that they should consider moving out of the province.

Now imagine a referendum, where this policy will be enshrined, the province will become even more radically right-handed.

The referendum fails by the narrowest of margins. The Premier, the sponsor of the failed referendum,  rails that it's those nasty left-handers that voted NO in the referendum, that they are to blame. If one would count only the votes of right-handers, the referendum would have been successful!

Years later,  a certain politician gives a radio interview where he expresses shock and dismay, that 95% of left-handers voted 'NO' in the referendum.
'How can it be that left-handers so massively rejected the right-hand manifesto?' He wonders aloud.

He meets a leader of the left-handed rights movement in the barbershop and chastises him for his community's rejection of the will of the majority.
"We are left-handers. Why on Earth would we vote against our own interests?" answers the leader"

"To show solidarity and respect for the majority, that's why!" snorts the politician.

And so meet Yves Michaud, a man who believes ethnics and anglos have an obligation to vote as francophones do, because...well....errr..... that's what he wants!

For those unfamiliar with Mr. Michaud, he is a longtime separatist of the old school. A good buddy  of René Lévesque, it was he who provided an alibi when the then Premier ran down and killed an unfortunate vagrant in the middle of the night, backing up Lésveque's story that he wasn't drinking that night. Hmmmm.....
Of course the police conveniently forgot to administer a Breathalyzer test on Levesque and the whole affair was hushed up rather conveniently. Hey, it's Quebec....

Michaud bounced around a bunch of government jobs, courtesy of Lésveque, for the next decade, but after losing a pile of dough in an investment scheme, which he blamed the banks for, he became a crusader, known as Robin des banques, insisting that bank directors become more accountable.

In 2000, Michaud, furious about how the vast majority of Jews (and other ethnics) voted in the referendum, made some injudicious comments on a radio show, complaining that Jews acted as if they were the only people to suffer a holocaust.
 He complained that in Jewish areas of Montreal, absolutely nobody voted in favour of the referendum, nobody at all. According to Michaud the reason for this phenomenon;

"There are three reasons for this: the first is a rejection phenomenon. They reject us completely. The second is that there is a feeling of hatred. The third is that they have understood nothing of what they said."  

A couple of days later he re-iterated these remarks in an ad hoc submission before the Estates General on Language. He nastily accused the B'nai Brith of being extremist and anti-Quebec and his tone as well as the content of his remarks enraged politicians of all stripes. Many in the Parti Quebecois were sensitive to opening themselves up to charges of racism.

This was the trigger of the so-called Michaud Affair

Lucien Bouchard, the new sovereignist Premier, had enough of the radical Michaud and looked to dump him from the party as well nixing the possibility of him running as PQ candidate in Mercier riding.

The next day, in the National Assembly, Bouchard ordered his caucus to support a motion of censure put forward by Lawrence Bergman, a Jewish Liberal member of the Assembly. 

"That the National Assembly condemns, without nuances, clearly and unanimously, the unacceptable remarks made with regard to ethnic communities, particularly in respect of the Jewish community maintained by Yves Michaud at hearings of the Estates General on French in Montreal, December 13, 2000" LINK

And ever since, Michaud has been wearing been the goat horns of a denounced racist. It hasn't been easy for him, he's remained heart-broken and bitter over the label of a racist.

Michaud soldiers on, trying to have that resolution overturned with the aide of a large group of supporters which has been mobilized to help rehabilitate his 'good' name and force the National Assembly to reverse the condemnation.

The rehabilitation of Michaud has become a cause celebre, with supporters painting him as modern day Alfred Dreyfus, the wrongly convicted and betrayed French military officer.
In the finest tradition of Emile Zola's J'accuse!, letters and books have been written in his defence.

But is Michaud guiltless?

The essential question remains... Were Michaud's statements racist?

I think I have to quote Robert Libman, ex mayor of the predominantly Jewish Montreal suburb of City of Côte Saint-Luc, who called Michaud "a sovereignist dinosaur".

While none of Michaud's statements can be construed as antisemitic, per se, his tone was certainly nasty.

He puts forward the disturbing notion that ethnics and anglophones 'owe' a certain measure of respect to the francophone majority and as such have an obligation to act as the francophone majority, especially when it comes to voting.

At best this attitude is paternalistic and at worst, racist.

While Michaud is shocked and dismayed at the massive rejection of sovereignty by anglos and ethnics, I remain surprised that even one person from these communities voted YES.

What sane left-hander, would vote for a right-handed agenda that discriminated against them

There is a certain rage that exists in the sovereignty camp against anglos and ethnics who are blamed for the failure of the last referendum. Jacques Parizeau summed it up rather succinctly in his referendum night speech when he blamed the loss on "money and the ethnic vote"(with 'money' a clear euphemism for Anglophones.)

That rage is based on the concept that minorities shouldn't have the right to confound the will of the majority. Minorities should vote in the best interest of the majority, and unlike francophones, forgo their own selfish interests.

That being said, I must say that I do feel some sympathy for Mr. Michaud.
He seems genuinely hurt and humiliated by the charge of racism and true racists aren't particularly troubled by such condemnations.

But until he understands why left-handers will never vote for a right-handed agenda, he is doomed to arrive at his faulty conclusions.
Espousing his opinion that we are somehow wrong and unfair by voting in our own best interest, is patently foolish and supposes that only francophones have that right.

That may not be racism, but it certainly is wrong.

Rage is Legitimate

I'm mad as hell!

Mine is a small blog, where I try to offer commentaries that you don't get in the mainstream press. I am not restricted by advertisers or politically correct editors and bosses. Sometimes what I say displeases people, sometimes people agree. It does seem that some are interested, including you, dear reader, who is perusing this blog right now.

When I started writing this blog almost two years ago, I was lucky to get a dozen visits a day. Yesterday the blog recorded over 1,200 page views, from every province and several foreign countries. I'm very appreciative and I thank all who visit, it makes writing rewarding.

As this blog developed, comments have become an integral element. Many readers find the missives in the Comments Section more interesting than my central piece, which seems to act as a platform or moderator in a debate, something to get the discussion started. That suits me fine. The Comment Section is the driving force behind the numbers of visitors on this site.

The essential point that I wish to remind everyone is that nobody has to come here if they don't want to.

I am by nature a libertine, and loathe to restrict what people say. In fact, I particularly enjoy the rants appearing in the Comments Section, whether they be written by federalist or separatists, English or French.

I don't allow people to hide behind anonymity to defame anyone and frankly I don't think anyone has tried to do so. Ever since I made an adjustment to the Comments policy a few months ago, the level of civility is just about right. I continue to believe that a certain level of rage, sarcasm and condescension is fair. Almost every one follows the rules.
I've removed some comments for being a tad racist or personally offensive to others, but again, fairly few.
There remains things that I won't publish, but it's hard to describe. I can say that I'm not very partial to gratuitous swearing  or comments written in large caps.
I'm not interested in printing re-hashed quotes from Pierre Falardeau or Karl Marx. If you are a sovereignist and if you write in French, you are welcome here.You are entitled to your opinion and entitled to confront those ideas, either mine or that of commenters that you don't agree with.

Over on Prefontaine's blog, a commenter pointed to our blog's Comment Section as 'shockingly offensive' and was sad that many people expressed such angry opinions towards Quebec.

How exactly does he expect people to react to the sort of drivel that however politely framed on that web site, is essentially nothing more than hate?

So, tough noogies... people are angry.

Say that you are fed up with Quebec and it's a sure bet that nobody will publish you. Say it with emotion or passion and you may as well be talking to yourself.

Everything is so controlled and sanitized. Well, not here.

I'll repeat what I said. If you don't like it, don't come.

Fully half of the people who read this blog are francophones. I'm sure that a lot of them on the nationalist side are drawn here as people are to a car wreck, morbid fascination.

While web-site after web-site trash English and anglophones, calling us colonialists and oppressors, those people seem surprised and offended by our reaction.

There are those who complain about the anonymous nature of my posts and your comments. They  say it's dangerous because people don't have to be responsible for what they write.

This is just hogwash that people blather when they don't like what they read.

While anonymous posting is considered an outrage by the highfalutin, anonymous voting is the hallmark of our democracy.
Should we be obliged to go to the voting station and shout out our choice?

The very nature of the secret ballot means that people can express themselves without influence or fear of reprisal.

That is exactly what happens on this blog.

I hear a lot of frustration and anger in a lot of your comments and the emotion is compelling. I enjoy the drama, which is very real. Expressing rage and letting loose a good rant is legitimate. It reflects how some of us feel about the politics around us.

I am happy to say that most of our commenters are intelligent, witty, and certainly opinionated (a good thing.) Commenters keep me on my toes and they drive me to check and recheck my facts. Errors that I make are quickly pointed out.
And yes, I still consider Julie Snyder married to  Pierre Karl Pelédaeu.

One thing that we all share is a thick skin. If you're going to comment here, you're going to have to  absorb the not so polite barbs of those who disagree. It's part of the unwritten contract to posting here. If you dish it out you'd better be prepared to accept a few body checks!

Sometimes we have comments that make no sense and sometimes we have some that are downright moronic, but it spices up things.

If you're like me, and I assume most are, the very worst thing about writing a piece or a comment is to be ignored.

As the editor of this blog I resist using my position to censor or even to respond to commenters unless I feel particularly compelled to do so. That's because my policy is that the comment section doesn't belong to me, but rather the readers.

As to the comments themselves;

I'd like to remind readers that it would be helpful if they followed a few simple rules when commenting;

First, if you are not addressing the story that I wrote about and are replying to another commenter, please identify who you are referring to.

To Anonymous @ 12:46 PM
or; 
To Canadagirl @ 10:05 AM

Next if you are quoting something he or she said, put it in quotes like this;
You said- "I think Canada is great"

Skip a line to make it clear that it is you now talking and make your reply.

I urge readers to adopt an anonymous pen name, so that people can follow your thoughts consistently.
If you don't have a Blogger profile, sign your comments with an alias. It's fun to be referred to by a name.
IT DOES NOT IMPINGE ON YOUR ANONYMITY. (Oh, Oh, large caps..tsk..tsk)

If you are a lurker, I encourage you to take the first step. One small comment, that's all.
You might find participating interesting.

At any rate, I'd like to hear your opinion about our Comments Section. Tell me what you think. I do listen.
To francophones who write in English, I appreciate the effort,anybody who complains that the English is sometimes rudimentary is a spoil sport.

Finally, to end on a upbeat note, I wish to share my all-time favourite rant. It comes from the Academy award winning film "Network" Peter Finch delivers a superb performance in a scene that reminds me every day that we have a right to be furious and a right to express our anger.
Enjoy!

Ha! wasn't that great!
Now GET MAD! Go out and write an interesting comment!
People across the world will be reading what you say!

115% of Anglos and Ethnics to Vote NO in Referendum!

Having some experience as a pollster, (I organized internal polling for several political candidates, in a past life) I have come to trust them less and less.

Even though pollsters remind us that their polls are accurate to about 3 percentage points, 19 out of 20 times, we tend to view a poll printed in the newspaper as automatically being a true representation of what people are thinking.

But polling is inexact and even asking the simplest of questions is complicated, as I learned from experience.
Let's say you want to find out whether people are going to vote for Candidate 'A' or Candidate 'B.' It seems that it would be as simple as phoning people within the voting district and asking them for whom they'll vote.

Simple right? Not really.

There's no use in asking someone about their preference, if their intention is not to vote. So you've got to qualify voters before. What about all those who refuse to answer? Do those people have a decided preference?
What about people who don't have a home phone and are impossible to contact? They tend to be younger and more mobile and would likely vote strongly for one candidate over the other, but their voices are not counted.
What about the cross section of the sample? (those polled.) Did the pollsters get an accurate cross section that accurately reflects the district?
Modern pollsters face these problems and work to to make sure their polls are as accurate as possible, but sometimes they fail miserably. 

Even the largest of polling firms can fall victim to these problems which can result in a flawed pool. Here's an example of a much ballyhooed poll that has problems on every level. So many problems that the whole thing should never have been published. It appeared in the Journal de Montreal last week and was conducted by Leger Marketing which actually used a very large sample, supposedly making it even more accurate.

First problem is the question;

"Do you wish Quebec to become a sovereign state within ten years"

If someone wants to see Quebec sovereign within ten years, does it mean that he or she may not want Quebec to become sovereign in the eleventh year? They should have put a period after the word 'state' and chuck the rest. Reminds me of the famously flawed referendum questions.

The poll purports to show the opinion of francophones towards a sovereign Quebec and separately the opinion of the entire population, including anglophones and allophones.
Too bad it doesn't have a separate bar to show how the allophones and anglophones polled as a group, it would have been interesting.

Here's the problem.

Francophones make up between 80%-82% of the Quebec population. For argument's sake, let's take the lower number, it makes the math easy. (The higher number makes the poll's accuracy even worse)

If one believes the poll and applies the 52% figure to that 80% group of Quebec Francophones, (80 x 0.52) the answer comes out to just under 42% of the total sample and this before any of the allophone and anglophone numbers in favour of sovereignty are added in. (if there are any.)

In fact, for the poll to make sense, 115% of the allophones and anglophones would have to have answered negatively! Hmm.

We all know that the anglophone/allophone group is massively against sovereignty, but 115%?

What likely happened is that the pollsters over sampled the anglo/allo side, a fatal mistake that can be easily corrected through 'weighting,' a process whereby the sample of anglos is reduced down to a level that represents their true demographic weight.

The sample should have included  anglos and allos in the 20% proportion that they represent  and not the actual poll sample which works out to about 25%.

It's the only answer that makes sense.

It's an amateur's mistake and I'm a bit surprised at the flaw (but not overly)

As far as I know, not one member of the the media pointed out this fatal flaw in the poll.

These errors are a lot more prevalent than you think. Here's a funny one from FOX News;

This above error is comical, the numbers add up to 110%.

But how the numbers got to where they are is a concern. It looks like somebody massaged the numbers and then made an adding mistake. Not so funny.

By the way, I haven't touched on how certain polling  questions are so leading that it's obviously going to affect the response.

 As you can see from the questions on the right, how you phrase a certain question affects the response.

51% of the polled group agree with those who object to  Muslims building a mosque near the World Trade Center, yet when the question of rights is phrased differently, as in the second question, the answer don't coincide!

As for polls, I view them all cynically. A dishonest pollster can easily manipulate data or ask a skewed question.
Then there's the methodology problems as illustrated above.


My least favourite type is those voluntary Internet polls that are completely unscientific.
I tend to agree with the late Prime Minister Diefenbaker who commented rather famously that "Polls are for Dogs!"