From Montreal, Thank You Vancouver!

Thanks to the City of Vancouver for making the Montreal Stanley Cup riots a thing of the past, an dim memory supplanted by the nasty and classless rioting displayed by 'disappointed' fans.
We are off the hook.
When the hockey world next talks about classless, riotous fans, Vancouver is what we'll remember.

And so Vancouver, as the motto of the Montreal Canadiens says;

"To you from failing hands we throw the torch. Be yours to hold it high." 

I'm not sure why the big surprise over the loss to the Bruins, every hockey fan outside Vancouver knew that the Canucks had lost the series back in game 3. 

How nasty were the Vancouver fans?
Here's a video of the mayhem, watch at the 3:15 mark to see a security guard  get the bejesus kicked out of him for trying to defend a storefront from looting.

The only happy circumstance is that the riot took place in daylight and there were a million cellphone cameras recording for posterity.
This will get interesting in the next days as police round up the major offenders.

Watch police nail someone in the nuts with a flash-bang grenade...Ouch! 
More video of rioting
Even More rioting video

As for the Vancouver Canucks, it would have been the worst travesty had they won the last game, having been thoroughly thrashed and embarrassed by a Bruins team that was just plain tougher.

Lets face it, the Canucks have a talented team that can win in the regular season but not when things get down and dirty.

The Bruins humiliated the Canucks and what most fans suspected all along, Roberto Luongo is just not a clutch goalie, having been thoroughly out-classed by Tim Thomas. To make matters worse Luongo had the audacity to call out Thomas' play in classless and stupid outburst that made little senses considering that Luongo was playing scared.  In a sarcastic comparison to another choker the Canucks goalie is now being hailed as "LEBRONGO"...ahem.

Up until the forth game I was hoping for a Vancouver victory, more because they were facing the hated Bruins and less because the team was Canadian, but my loyalties shifted to the team that truly deserved to win.

The proud legacy of the Olympics and the stellar image portrayed to the world of  Vancouver as a beautiful world class city, gets flushed down the toilet as riot footage gets beamed around the world.
And no, it wasn't just a few bad apples rioting, it was widespread.

And so the goat horns of shameful failure is shared equally between the hapless Canucks and the proud rioters  of the City of Vancouver.
Sadly it looks good on both.

Don't Count Sovereignists Out

There's little doubt that the sovereignty movement suffered a monumental setback with the massive defeat of the Bloc Quebecois in last month's federal election.
The electoral bashing was as painful to the sovereigntists as it was satisfying to federalists.

Things went from bad to worse with the recent defection of four hard-line sovereigntists from the PQ caucus, ostensibly over the Pauline Marois' forced support of Bill 204, a law designed to shield the city of Quebec from any legal action in relation to its arena with Quebecor, but in reality a denunciation of the party's go-slow approach to sovereignty.

Falling polling numbers indicate that the party is now trailing the Liberals, an unimagined turn of events that few would have predicted just one month ago.

To make matters worse, Francois Legault finally announced that he will be launching his new party in the fall and appears to have more support than anyone else. It's abundantly clear that Quebecers  are tired of hearing about sovereignty and referendums. Mr. Legault has cleverly positioned his party as nationalist, but has wisely excluded talk of  the big "R" or the big "S"

It's heady days for Quebec federalists, with newspaper article after newspaper article heralding the final demise of the Quebec sovereignty movement, but before breaking out the champagne we would be wise to reconsider that conventional wisdom.
I am reminded of the famous retort that the famous American novelist and humorist, Mark Twain made after hearing that his obituary had been published in the New York Journal.

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated!"

No, there's little doubt that the movement has suffered a setback, but those of us in the federalist camp who believe that the movement will peter out and die are sadly optimistic and perhaps are viewing events through rose-coloured glasses.

Looking at the situation realistically and unemotionally, we must reluctantly admit that despite recent events, not much has changed over the last ten or fifteen years in terms of support for the sovereignty option.
Notwithstanding the election results and falling polling numbers, support for sovereignty remains remarkably resilient and at a level that should continue to make life uncomfortable for federalist Quebeckers.
Despite all the sovereigntist bad news, between 35% and 45% of Quebeckers still remain committed to the ideal of independence.
And so if support for the movement remains stable, it would be fair to ask what happened in the last federal election and what happened to the Parti Quebecois' fall from grace.

In a word - fatigue.

Quebeckers have come to realize that right now and for the foreseeable future, the votes for sovereignty are just not there and they are tired of fighting and losing.
The 50% plus one referendum rule is a double-edged sword. Lose by just one vote and Quebec sovereignty is a no-go, as we came to learn in the last referendum.
As the old saying goes, "Close only counts in Horseshoes and hand grenades"

In many respects Quebec is less ready for independence than it was in 1995 when the second ever-so-close referendum took place.
Since then, the province has accepted almost 400,000 immigrants who will massively vote NO in a future referendum. Quebec's finances are in disarray and the province has piled on tens of billions of dollars in additional debt. Dependence on Ottawa's largess via equalization payments is at a record high and public confidence in its institutions and politicians (of all stripes) is at a record low.

Many Quebeckers who remain sovereignist are also pragmatists who realize that Quebec is in a mess. They've decided that it's time to put the sovereignty option on the back burner and concentrate on the more pressing issue at hand, getting the provincial house in order.

It's a concept that the old sovereigntist guard led by Jacques Parizeau have difficulty accepting. Facing down their twilight years, he and his aging cohorts simply don't have the time to wait for conditions to improve and so they selfishly demand that Quebec give it that another roll of the referendum dice, with the odds stacked badly against them. This reckless attitude, afforded by the comfort of a secure retirement, had the Young Turks of the Parti Quebecois seeing red. Just last week, they sent a polite letter to Parizeau telling him to butt out of affairs.

Intuitively, most sovereignist Quebeckers realize that the option must be put on hold until conditions improve, not necessarily sovereigntist conditions, but the general political and economic climate that has hit rock bottom.

Those Canadians smugly satisfied that the sovereignty threat is gone are sadly mistaken.

The 35%-45% number of sovereignty supporters remains problematic and disquieting.

I recall Richard Nixon's bold trip to China, at the height of the cold war in 1972  and the subsequent  opening up of relations between the America and the Eastern giant.
It seemed that a Conservative president accomplished what no Democrat was able to do. It was an unexpected and brilliant coup.

In this respect I believe that Stephen Harper, in a position of strength and power, can have the confidence and determination to do what no Liberal could achieve. That is to make a constitutional deal that would drive sovereignist numbers way down.
Now is the time.
While the militant sovereignist would bray at any deal, most Quebeckers realize that perhaps half a loaf of bread is better than none.

If Canadians think that the prospect is not in their interest, they are wrong.

Denis de Belleval -Quebec's Most Hated Man

You'd never know it looking at the photo of Denis de Belleval that he's now probably the most hated man in Quebec. The mild-mannered, soft-spoken ex-civil servant is the paragon of calm, reasoned and lucid reasoning and perhaps that is why he is so disliked.

Mr. De Belleval is an ex-Quebec city manager who has taken exception to the under the table deal that Mayor Regis Lebeaume struck with media scion Pierre-Karl Péladeau, in relation to the proposed new arena in Quebec City.
Mr. De Belleval has unleashed, by way of his threatened lawsuit which would challenge the legality of the deal, a series of improbable and cascading events which has shaken the political foundations of the Parti Quebecois. For an excellent explanation of the whole affair watch the video report by CTV Montreal HERE{Eng}

There's little doubt that Mayor Regis Lebeaume pulled a fast one in signing the deal with Quebecor without calling for tenders as required by municipal law, hoping that in the frenzied anticipation for a new NHL team, nobody would contest the faux pas.
But somebody did and when De Belleval made noises about challenging the deal in court Lebeaume scurried to his friends in the PQ to help him insulate the deal by way of a private members bill that would shield the city from any such litigation.
As we all know, that didn't turn out well for Lebeaume and the PQ and the failure of the Bill to pass in Parliament has allowed the lawsuit to go forward, much to the chagrin of arena supporters.
This has unleashed a torrent of hate and nastiness,  directed at Mr. De Belleval for his audacity to challenge the collective will of arena supporters. While one would expect the comments sections under related news articles to be filled with vitriolic denunciations, what is shocking is the virulent and nasty criticism levied upon Mr. DeBelleval in the mainstream press.
I've seen a lot of angry denunciations in my time, but this one, by Albert Ladouceur of the Journal de Quebec,  has to take the cake. The level of anger and hate is beyond the pale and is usually reserved for war criminals and serial killers;

The vicious hypocrisy of hate

"Removing the mask of Denis Belleval unveils the face of the vicious hypocrisy of a former politician and civil servant who is waging a personal and acrimonious war on the backs of the whole population.

Belleval hates mayor Régis Labeaume to the depths of his soul....
.. His press release yesterday betrays contempt for Quebecor and the NHL.....

...This man has never been motivated by a sincere desire to defend democracy.

... By his arrogant attitude, his pretentious speech, this character places himself in a position of vulnerability from individuals who do not always express their feelings of frustration and anger in a civilized manner.

As patronizing as an aristocrat from a royal court, De Belleval, CEO of the city during the era when the Nordiques of 1995 left town, he ignores the desire of the majority of Quebecers. He is trampling on the will of citizens who support the construction of an arena and a return of the NHL. He does not listen to them. He hears only himself.

By removing his mask, De Belleval positions himself squarely against the efforts of a major local company to bring the NHL to Quebec City. He has vomited on Bettman and the NHL and all professional sports.

He calls the NHL "an industry so badly managed that the majority of its members are virtually bankrupt. Only the use of public funding allows them to survive.... "

According to De Belleval, "the slavish and destructive pursuit of a professional franchise is undermining the social fabric of many cities in the world and regularly gives rise to public finance disasters."....

...Those who support him may discover in him a destructive and narcissistic tendency, rather than the need to carry the torch of democracy.   LINK{FR}

Wow! The writer actually warns that Mr. de Belleval has put his life in danger!

Here is another pretty vicious attack, this time by Jean-Jacques Samson, again in the Journal de Quebec;

Eastern Quebec supprots the arena project massively

"The allegations by Denis de Belleval on Regis Labeaume, Quebecor and the NHL displays  staggering and contemptuous rage..

His vicious attack is packed with innuendo, malicious references to possible criminal acts or irregularities, of favouritism in the negotiations between the City of Quebec and Quebecor, as we have witnessed in recently in other municipalities.....

M. Belleval makes unfair and derogatory judgments about mayor Régis Labeaume and Quebecor Media, which he associates with corporate welfare bums....

...M. Belleval is discredited by his emotional, offensive and unreasonable accusations.

The  right arm of the former mayor Jean-Paul L'Allier, is in a particularly poor position to criticize anyone, company or individual, having just been removed from the government. His entire career has been spent, with the exception of a brief interlude from 1983 to 1985 , working for the government He has benefited from personal acquaintances with Brian Mulroney, Lucien Bouchard, and friends in an old boys network from the University of Laval."

The author then goes on to a lengthy description of the government largess that Mr. de Belleval benefited from including numerous soft appointments to government jobs and several golden parachutes.

"...Should we then speak of civilian welfare bums to designate members of this small oligarchy which distributes among themselves the positions of power? ...

..I fail to understand what De Belleval seeks, perhaps an escalation of litigation? An old Breton proverb says, that he who pisses into the wind will rinse his teeth." LINK{FR}

Here's one more denunciation from the same article, this time by Jérôme Landry, of 'Nordiques Nation,' a lobby group set up to promote the return of an NHL team to Quebec.

"He knows nothing and it takes up too much public space. He alone knows what is good for society. It is a pretentious position. What is wrong with listening to what people want? I do not know by what right he can put a spoke in the wheels of an important project for Quebec. It's snobbery. He looks down on all that the middle class enjoys. He's a 'dinosaur' according to Regis Labeaume. "This generation of politicians and officials cost Quebecers a lot.

 It is those like him who are responsible for deficits and debt. It is those like him who have created financial problems in Quebec. The generation of the 80s. He's in no position to lecture anyone. I 'd like him to clarify the severance packages he received for his work in the public sector. The author of all that has happened, Denis Belleval put his personal political agenda before the public interest of the taxpayers of Quebec." LINK{FR}

And so the attacks on Mr. de Belleval, mostly ad hominem  display a rage rarely seen in the press. The arena issue and Mr. de Belleval's unwelcomed interference has so enraged the local Quebec City press that all manner of scorn has rained down upon him and the fact that he seems to relish the attention further exacerbates the controversy.

But Mr. De Belleval is not the only one to feel the public's rage in the arena affair. Amir Khadir, the hitherto untouchable member of the Quebec Solidaire, who despite his numerous controversial positions has never really had the shine taken off his apple, is now perceived by 37% of Quebeckers as the chief instigator of opposition to the Quebec City arena.
Through thick and thin Khadir has maintained his personal popularity, but it now seems that it is limited to his constituency in the Plateau Mont-Royal in Montreal. Mr. Khadir, who has attacked, big business, rich people, Israel, the United States, and Canada in the past, much to the indifference of Quebeckers, miscalculated when he attacked hockey.
Now that's something that Quebeckers will just not cotton to!

His position against the arena has badly hurt the chances of his party in the next election and its chance to elect members outside the island of Montreal. A poll in Le Devoir on Saturday pegged the QS support down to 9%, just enough to hurt the PQ through vote-splitting, but not really enough to elect any members aside from Khadir.
Thank-you, Mr. Khadir!


NOTE TO READERS
As summer is upon us, I'm going to take a semi-break by publishing just three times week, MONDAY, WEDNESDAY and FRIDAY, until September.

I do hope you'll continue to drop by!

To Survive, PQ Must Abandon Sovereignty

Recent political events in Quebec have been compared to a 'Tsunami,' with the Bloc Quebecois being suddenly and violently swept away with little or no warning in the federal election of May 2, when they were caught unawares, by a massive and unexpected Ndp wave.

But until the recent past, a Tsunami was described in the West as a 'rogue wave,'  something quite unexpected and deadly, but strangely out of place and in this respect the description bears little resemblance to what  is happening politically to sovereignty movement.

I much prefer the comparison to that of an earthquake that explodes after years of pressure building up between two opposing tectonic plates butting up against each other and moving in diametrically opposite directions.

The recent resignation of four hard-line members of the PQ signals that the two factions, the hard-liners and the pragmatists in the party can no longer peacefully co-exist and after years of building pressure, the fault-line finally exploded in a rupture that has cleaved the party rather dramatically.

It's not a complicated issue, three of the hardliners that left the party are all pushing 70 years old and are old-line separatists, creations of the 1960's. To them fighting the good fight for sovereignty is worth the inevitable pain of defeat. To them the more pragmatic and realistic approach adopted by the PQ since the 1995 referendum defeat, where promises of a  new referendum has been conveniently put off until those mythical 'winning conditions' appear, is a policy akin to waiting for the Rapture.

The PQ finds itself in a difficult spot, Madame Marois has continued this policy of promising a referendum when conditions improve, knowing full well that they won't, but it is this promise that has come to be the Achilles heal of the party facing an electorate which has clearly rejected the idea of another referendum. In fact just the talk of a potential referendum is enough to drive voters elsewhere as the new political reality of Quebec manifests.

After fighting for sovereignty for 40 years Quebeckers are tired. Unless you're a fanatic, it's hard to be on the losing side for so many years and for most, enough is enough.
Over these last forty years conditions have changed so dramatically in Quebec that that many come to question the basic raison d'etre of the movement.
Quebec has moved from a bilingual province, to a unilingual society in full control of the levers of power, be that industry or government and as the province has realized it most basic goals and addressed the most pressing linguistic issue to the satisfaction of the majority, attraction of sovereignty has faded.

A recent poll confirmed the direction of Quebec voters with just 26% supporting the PQ, one point behind the sad-sack  Liberals. What is patently apparent is that should Francois Legault launch his new party he would sweep into power and a Montreal newspaper reported yesterday that he is ready to launch this fall. It seems that his description of the new party's philosophy- nationalist, not sovereignist, is striking the right cord with voters who want Quebec to remain fiercely independent, but don't want any talk of referendums or sovereignty.
A bit of a paradox, but then again so is Quebec.

Interestingly, it doesn't mean that support for sovereignty has taken a dramatic plunge, it just means that many sovereignists have come to realize that the numbers aren't there to win and to continue the fight would be an exercise in self flagellation.

Now that the sovereignist hardliners have left the party, Pauline should actually breathe a sigh of relief. What remains are young pragmatists that yearn for power as much as they do sovereignty. The majority of those left are relatively young have never been in power. For them, a strategic backing away from the referendum option, in favour of actually becoming the government is something they are quite willing to trade off.

Sure Pauline, sure! (ygreck.ca )

And so it befalls Pauline and the PQ to put the referendum business firmly on hold.
In order to claim political power the PQ must unambiguously tell the population that there will be no referendum, at least in the first mandate of a new PQ government.
Of course certain hard-liner will flee to the Quebec solidaire party, but not enough to make a difference.

82% of Quebeckers have indicated that they don't want a referendum, including 71% of the PQ constituency, who according to pollsters are looking for a party that can provide 'good government.'

With the departures of the radicals, Pauline Marois has been handed a unexpected gift, an opportunity to move the PQ towards legitimate power.
All she has to do is to swallow hard and announce a referendum freeze.
The party will accept it and more importantly the public will buy into it.

Does Pauline have the strength to give up on sovereignty?

Readers, can this PQ leopard actually change its spots?

Quebec- First They Took Away Language, Now Religion

Back in the day, when Bill 101 was being introduced, the shock in the English community was something quite extraordinary and there were those who warned that if the government was going to legislate what language people could speak, it wouldn't be long before the government would legislate what religion we must all adhere to.

The defenders of Bill 101 scoffed at the notion, denigrating the complainers by telling anyone who'd listen that these were the opinions of alarmists and that the government would never, ever, interfere in religious affairs.

Skip forward forty years and here we are, with the government doing exactly that.

Back then Catholicism was the majority religion, but today it is largely a spent force with most francophone Quebeckers, Christians in name only. It's fair to say that secularism is the religion du jour, with just 6% of Francophone Quebeckers attending church regularly. The baptism rate for newborns has fallen below 60% and most of these are based on tradition or in order to satisfy parents and family. 

Christianity was chased from the public schools and has recently been replaced with a general course on religion that doesn't teach faith, but rather the nuts and bolts of all religions in a sterile and often criticized curriculum.

But there remains a minority, people of faith who object to a type of religious training that teaches children that their religion is no better or  worse than the rest.
Private religious schools which are also forced to teach this course, have objected that they cannot instruct children from a Christian, Jewish or Muslim point of view. One Catholic high school went to court and won its case. Now the issue will be decided by the Supreme Court and it doesn't look good for the Quebec government once again.

Yolande James- Minister of Anti-Religious Affairs

This week a newly formed group, an alliance between Christian and Jewish organizations is launching another court challenge, this one over the recent declaration by the government that state-funded day cares cannot teach any manner of religion. No doubt this is destined once again, to to head to the Supreme Court, which is over-burdened with cases from Quebec, all relating to attacks on personal freedoms and rights by the provincial government.  LINK

Considering that many of these day cares are operated by churches, synagogues and mosques, it seems a bit harsh to tell them that religion is verbotten. The rules are so silly that it is now legal to have a Christmas tree, but not legal to tell the story of the birth of Jesus. Jewish children may light a Menorah on the holiday of Hanukkah, but the teacher may not tell them why they are doing it.

Childrens songs that have religious references must be purged of offending passages or be banned!

Christmas without Christ

Now many of you out there will argue that the state has no business supporting religion and should remain neutral. It's the responsibility of the parents, if they choose to, to give their children religious instruction on their own time and on their own dime.

Makes sense, right? ......er ....not so fast.

The day-care issue is a case in point on how a government can control people through funding.

Ronald Reagan the old US conservative president lived by the credo that if he didn't like certain public policy he would effect change through funding cuts, instead of legislation.

We're getting a bit of that from the Conservative government which is cutting funding to organizations receiving government subsidies that don't share values with the government with the 'Rights & Democracy' group a prime example. This ranges from support of the arts, special interest groups and international aid groups.
It's toe the ideological line, or no money for you!

Now Quebec's state-funded daycare is so successful because of its low price, that it has practically driven all competition out of business. The $7 a day fee that parents pay is topped up by a government subsidy of $28 per child per day.
How is private industry able to compete with that?

And so  parents who want religious training in daycare are priced out of the market by a government who drives off the competition and then imposes a secular agenda on what is left. How fair is that?

Still not convinced? Let me make an analogy;

Let us say that the government decides that in an effort to make sure that each family has enough to eat, it will enact a universal food program.

The program is funded by all Quebeckers who pay a new tax, which averages out to about $100 a week, per family.
No family is exempt and nobody can opt out. Everybody must pay, like it or not.
For this $100 tax the government provides each family a weekly food package worth about $75 per week (The $25 is lost to administration expenses. Hey, it's the government!)
Government nutritionists choose only healthy foods it deems appropriate and no exceptions or exchanges are allowed.

Now certain Jewish families complain that they eat only Kosher food and that most foods in the basket are inappropriate.
"TOO BAD!" -says the government, "we're not in the religious business! Buy your own food if you don't like it."

Certain Muslim families also complain as well. The meat is not Hallal and we don't want pork products!
"TOO BAD!" -says the government, "we're not in the religious business! Buy your own food if you don't like it."


"BUT YOU TOOK OUR FOOD MONEY!"  the Jews and Muslims respond.

"TOO BAD!"

And that is how the religion of secularism  can be imposed on an unwilling segment of the population..

It isn't the government's job to tell citizens whether they should or should not be religious and it should not dictate to what extent that faith may manifest itself in society.

Refusing public funding of religious schools is not a neutral decision, it is a decision towards secularism. Those people of faith who pay taxes have rights as well and those rights should be respected.
It's easy for secularists to refuse funding to religious day cares because they are in the majority. But the Quebec government has long held a principle that fighting for minority French language rights in Canada is laudable and fully justified.

But not respecting its own religious minority acts completely in opposition to the principles it espouses.

What harm is there in funding religious day care?  Only people of faith send their children there and their tax money is used to fund the program. If you don't like religion don't send your children there!

Government exists to serve the people, all the people, not just the majority.
We all pay taxes and should expect expect equal consideration.

Funding religious day care costs not one cent extra and serves those families who wish to avail themselves of the program.

So what is the real objection?