Pauline Marois Buries her Betrayers

Pauline Marois- Winner by a knockout!

We've all heard the familiar saying, 'To the victor belong the spoils' and most of us have understood it to refer to war, wherein the winning side gets to confiscate the riches of the vanquished.

But the saying actually has a different root.
"During a Congressional debate in 1831 a New York senator, William L. Marcy, used the phrase "to the victor belong the spoils." This saying accurately described the spoils system of appointing government workers. Each time a new administration came into power thousands of public servants were discharged and members of the victorious political party took over their jobs."

For the fifty odd years before the Parti Quebecois was elected, the Quebec government flipped between the Liberals and the Union Nationale party and with each change, supporters of the winners were rewarded and losers were punished.
The practice of spoilage was so entrenched that there were actually 'Blue' snow removal contractors and 'Red' snow removal contractors and rights were awarded according to which political party held power in Quebec City.

Even today, the effects of this type of dishonesty haven't been banished from government completely and rewards for political support remain a sad part of the Quebec political landscape all the way from our towns and cities up to the highest echelons of government.
Today, politics remains a game of winners and losers, where partisanship, financial benefit and personal aggrandizement override the public's best interest. Those things never seem to change.

Yes, Politics is a rough and dirty game, even rougher and dirtier in Quebec, just ask Gilles Duceppe who was destroyed by Pauline Marois when he attempted to engineer a takeover of the party and steal her job.
It seems that Marois had been keeping in reserve a devastating political skeleton, the fact that Duceppe has used House of Commons funds to improperly fund partisan party politics.
From the speed at which Duceppe exited the political stage after the bombshell was dropped, it became patently clear that she had the goods on him.

Yup, things get rough, especially in the PQ caucus where over the years, leader after leader has been betrayed and driven from office or leadership by a dirty backroom effort by those colleagues and party members who should have been loyal.

A couple of months ago, Pierrre Curzi and three others PQ MNAs decided that by bolting the PQ caucus to sit as independents, they could trigger a leadership crisis that Pauline Marois could not survive. They believed that their action would leave Marois in an untenable position, a political dead woman walking, a scenario that just about every political pundit believed to be true.
Hoping to return to the party in triumph after her demise and a Gilles Duceppe coronation, things didn't exactly work out as he and the other conspirators planned.

As we all know, Marois pulled victory from the jaws of defeat and the stunning turn of events sent the bewildered hard line conspirators to the rail.

It is perhaps one of the greatest turnarounds in Quebec political history and places Marois alongside Jean Charest as a political operator extraordinaire.

And so the Curzi group was forced to confront the reality of a future electoral disaster, as independents with zero prospects of returning to the National Assembly. They were left with the choice between grovelling for reintegration into the PQ  or ignominious retirement.
 
You'd think Pierre Curzi would understand that a return to the PQ caucus after his duplicitous betrayal was a non-starter, but apparently he's a dreamer in more sense than one.

Apparently he thought he'd be welcomed back like the Prodigal Son and so had the audacity to demand that Marois give him his old job as language critic back and a commitment from her that he would be allowed to re-write Bill 101 to his hard line satisfaction à la Camille Laurin.

While toying with Curzi during those few 'reintegration' conversations, Pauline must have been wondering whether Curzi was smoking crack, so out of touch with reality was he to naively believe that all would be forgiven and that his previous vaulted position would be returned to him on a silver platter. To the victor belongs the spoils and Curzi and friends were decidedly the losers.

If Madame Marois was to accept Mr. Curzi back into the fold, it wasn't to forgive and forget, it was to humiliate.
Poor Pierre was to be banished to the obscurity of the back benches where he would fulfill the role of a stuffed Rhinoceros head on a wall, a trophy conquest held up as an example of what happens to those who cross Pauline.
Like a group of mutineers on a pirate ship after a failed mutiny, it is time for the plotters to walk the plank.
When the penny finally dropped on Curzi that he was dead political meat, he abruptly announced his retirement, with Marois surely enjoying the moment.
Let's be fair, she deserved her moment of revenge.

And so the same fate awaits Louise Beaudoin who is also trolling for the right to return to the PQ caucus after bolting with Curzi, Lisette Lapointe and Jean Aussant.
Lisette Lapointe, a sworn enemy of Pauline was smart enough to read the handwriting on the wall and took  the only option open to her- retirement.
Jean-Martin Aussant, is playing out the string as leader of a no-chance party with less prospects of electing a member than the Montreal Canadiens have of making the playoffs. It won't be long before he'll be teaching 'Separatism 101' in Cegep in Drummondville.

Watching the events of the attempted insurrection over at the PQ reminds me of those all too often  coup d'etats attempts in various South American or African banana republics.
The rebels mutiny and try to storm the palace to supplant the leader du joir. Sometimes they win and sometimes they don't, it's always hard to predict who will prevail, these things seem to turn on the smallest of variables.
The very clever rulers keep themselves out ahead of the conspirators and make contingency plans even before the plots are hatched.
It is rumoured that Fidel Castro kept ahead of coup plotters by surreptitiously hatching his very own phony plots to overthrow himself which allowed him to scoop and neutralize anyone stupid enough to join,  thus eliminating potential problems before they happened. Clever!

Those political leaders who don't watch their backs are prone to be stabbed between the shoulder blades, the best example perhaps, is Paul Martin's two year campaign to destroy the then sitting Prime Minister, Jean Chretien.
Surprisingly, Chretien, usually a savvy and competent operator, didn't show much spunk in fending off the attacks and ultimately was taken down in a palace coup that led to his resignation and subsequent coronation of Martin as leader.
The list of similar victims is long, especially in the ranks of the PQ leadership, including Rene Levesque, Lucien Bouchard and Andre Boisclair, to name just a few.

Like Castro, it seems that Pauline, has mastered the art of self-preservation, something none of her predecessors managed to do.
We need to give her due... Pauline played a political game of hardball that few knew she had within her and out manoeuvred any and all rivals, destroying them in the mix.
   
What is most interesting in all this is that Madame Marois has decimated the radicals in the party  and will be the first PQ leader to rule without the radicals nipping at her heals, at least for the forseable future.
Swept aside are the ultra radical elements which have always demanded a referendum come Hell or high water, a sure-fire loser and electoral albatross.
This leaves Marois free to pursue her policy of sovereigntist governance, a policy that dictates a nationalist agenda with a referendum an option only in the case of winning conditions.

So now Pauline is free to make a serious run at power.

Just last week the PQ unveiled the new election platform, one which promises whatever the people want, regardless of cost, regardless of consequences.....a surefire winner in Quebec.

And so the PQ has come out in favour of students in their battle to reverse fee increases and has promised to eliminate the health premium to be charged all Quebecers next year. Also they are promising to put a moratorium on just about any wealth producing energy or mining project, all very popular among the entitled set.
The vote for sixteen year-olds, and consultative referendum process, proposed during the PQ's darkest days, is still on the table but will probably be dumped after an election victory.
 
Today the PQ is concentrating on old fashioned pandering and to that end has stolen a page from the old ADQ, in appealing to xenophobic elements by attacking Halal meat as some sort of Muslim conspiracy to take over the province.
With the greatest impediment to a PQ resurgence out of the way, the PQ can realistically compete to become the next government.

And so we have a whole new electoral ballgame.

Does Partition Make Sense for Sovereigntists?

There's little doubt that most Francophone Quebecers abhor the idea of partition and when it comes to militant sovereigntists, just the mention of the word is enough to get their mouths frothing in rage.

I don't know if many readers recall a letter campaign back in 1998 directed at Westmounters by a nationalist group, in which some dire threats were made against the town for even thinking about partition.

The letter was all the more frightening because it was distributed by a militant group that included Rhéal Mathieu a member of the FLQ in the sixties, who served nine years for terrorist activities and who again was convicted in 2000 in relation to the bombing of the Second Cup Coffee shop. In a piece on vigile.net, he gives an account of that operation. Link{Fr}
I've gone ahead and translated the threatening diatribe, since I've wasn't able to find an English version online.
It may well be the first translation of the document. I've posted the French original online and you can read it by clicking under the image below.

THOUGHTS ON CANADIAN UNITY

See the original document in French

ON THE OCCASION OF THE CELEBRATION OF VICTORIA DAY

On May 5, 1997, the City of Westmount adopted a resolution on Canadian unity proposed by militants and described by the media as 'partitionist.' Mayor Peter Trent himself has repeatedly stated that these unity resolutions, in and of themselves, are partitionist. This resolution is actually a 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over your head. This letter is intended to make you aware of the immediate and long-term consequences of adoption of such a resolution.

In effect, you must now consider what you will do when Quebec becomes a sovereign state. You should think carefully before acting, because if your city is considering partition, it is likely that your life will become a Hell. Your situation may be similar to that of the American hostages in the embassy in Tehran, or at best, to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

In the very real world, what would life in a partitionist regime be like? You should be aware that should Westmount decide on the partition, the situation would be entirely different from that of Northern Ireland where there are airports and seaports. Westmount is an enclave within the city of Montreal, compared to Northern Ireland which is on a peninsula. Londonderry, Belfast and Newcastle are seaports, a stone's throw from England.

The strategic position of Westmount looks much more like that of West Berlin under Soviet blockade than that of Northern Ireland. With one exception, however, because in Westmount you could not even attempt to move across the wall, because you are surrounded by Québec!

If you tried to partition, refusing to pay your taxes to the government of Quebec, it is foreseeable that the worst of disasters could befall you and your families. You could run out of drinking water, fuel, electricity and in short, all the amenities you need to ensure your daily survival. A political hailstorm on the city.

Is not, the first responsibility of a municipal government to provide the population basic services, such as protection against fire, water supply, traffic management, and disposal of waste water? The constitution is outside municipal jurisdiction. By adopting such a resolution, your municipality does a disservice to your best interests. It puts you in a rather untenable position.

After any attempt to partition, it is clear that collaborative arrangements with the city of Montreal on the protection against fire, the water supply, waste management, sewage and traffic would fail. Westmount Square could go up in smoke and no firefighter from Montreal would come to the rescue.

From where does the water that your firefighters need come from? Westmount does not even have potable water of its own. Why would the city of Montreal or the Quebec government provide drinking water, filtered and disinfected, to people who want to extract a piece of territory? As citizens, you would be forced to collect rain water for your household needs.

With regard to traffic management, the situation would be unbearable. To prevent smuggling as in Kahnawake, Quebec would have to establish a security cordon with  several customs stations mounted at key locations in Montreal and forcing citizens who wished to enter or leave to lose several hours a day in order to present themselves to Quebec Customs officers.

If we consider the issue of domestic waste management, what would happen? Within two weeks, Westmount would become a dump, because the government would refuse a Canadian city, in this case Westmount, to export its waste to Quebec.

Today, do you think you would easily find a buyer for your home if Keith Henderson, Tyler and Galganov continue to say, in agreement with your local council, they will partition Westmount, build a wall around it to isolate it from the city of Montreal? Do not let these racist idiots speak for you!

You know the motto of Quebec: "I remember." Well! We remind you that today is the 35th anniversary of Operation mailboxes in Westmount, led by the Front de Liberation du Quebec, May 17, 1963: 10 bombs, five explosions, an officer of the Canadian Army seriously injured.

Today, in Westmount, Quebec patriots came to your house to your mailbox, with an olive branch in hand, not with dynamite. As in Northern Ireland, we want peace. We took our pen to appeal to your reason.
- We demand that the Mayor Peter Trent declare that the City of Westmount is not partitionist.

 -We demand that the citizens of the city of Westmount appear before the City Council and adopt a resolution confirming that they agree to submit to any democratic decision of the Quebec people.

If the council persists in its anti-democratic path, legal action to boycott the city of Westmount could be undertaken in the coming months. These actions would be aimed at teaching Westmounters what everyday life would be in an partitionist enclave. Obviously, in addition to the disadvantages that would befall everyone, one would expect that the market value of your residential and commercial buildings in Westmount would be greatly affected.

We do not want that to happen. Rather, we hope to receive a positive response to this call, otherwise you and we, will live with the consequences.                                        National Liberation Movement of Quebec

I'm not going to critique the letter, readers are welcome to do so, suffice to say that I reproduced it here as an extreme example of how seriously sovereigntists consider the partition threat.

But I'd like to present a different scenario today, one where maybe, just maybe, sovereigntists could possibily consider the idea of partition viable.

Here goes;
Let us for the sake of argument consider a PQ majority victory in an election sometime next year, followed by an unsuccessful referendum which again, for the sake of argument, was lost 55% to 45% margin.

Nobody can dispute that this third kick at the can will be devastating. It would be unthinkable for Pauline Marois (like Parizeau before her) to give a speech promising another referendum.

The referendum would cool the ardor of that younger generation of militants that never had a chance to vote for independence. For the older generation of sovereigntists, it would signal the end of their dream.

So where to go from there?
With the vote for independence going backwards, coupled with the demographics of immigration that sees another 40,000 federalists entering Quebec each year, even the most ardent of sovereigntists would be demoralized.

As the old saying goes, Half a loaf is better than none.


At that point the only way to achieve sovereignty would be partition.
Allow the island of Montreal to become Canada's eleventh (then tenth) province and remove all those anglos and Ethnics from voting in a new referendum, which I have no doubt will pass.

Quebec minus Montreal would be painful but would return Quebec to what sovereigntists dream it should be.
Eliminating English altogether in Quebec would force new immigrants to adopt French.

Those Francophone Montrealers who wished to remain in Quebec would merely have to move to Laval and vice versa for federalist Quebecers who wished to remain in Canada.

It's a rather neat solution, don't you think?

By the way, all those threats above......hogwash.
It cuts both ways.
It would be in everyone's interest to cooperate.

Language Hotheads Breed Violence

The day after Benoit Dutrizac aired the infamous recording of a Verdun depanneur cussing out his Francophone customers, he followed up the story with an interview with Quebec's most renowned Anglophobe, Gilles Proulx, who reminded listeners rather seriously that if the store was located in Northern Ireland, it would long ago have been burned down via a Molotov cocktail. Listen{Fr}

The next day a militant language group demonstrated in front of the depanneur, hurling not only insults, but feces as well.
The police had to advise the owner to close up shop for his own security. Link

Of course Mr. Proulx would be the first to tell you that he didn't incite anyone to violence, he was just stating a fact in referring to violence in Northern Ireland.
He did the same thing back in 1995 during the Mohawk blockade of the Mercier bridge, hissing on the radio that the Mohawks involved, couldn't even speak French, fanning the flames of hate in an unstable and potentially violent situation.

That scene ended shamefully with vigilantes attacking a convoy of cars full of Indian women and children trying to escape.
I hope the Jeunes Patriotes du Québec who participated in the attack on the depanneur have a chance to watch this video, so that they can see the consequences of their actions and perhaps understand what is to be hated by a gang of racists.
This video isn't of Palestine, Syria or Tibet. This was Quebec 1995.

Pathetic...

At any rate I'm not really sure what Mr. Proulx was so upset about, it certainly couldn't be the statement that had every one else riled up, the one made by the depanneur owner, impinging the reputation of his customers;

"You stay at home, you drink beer, you smoke cigarettes, you take welfare," he said. "I am an immigrant here. I have a business. I take care of you people."

You see readers, Gilles Proulx made a similar statement himself on the radio, (one which he was reproached for by Quebec's Press council) when he said this about Quebecoise women on welfare.

"grosses torches qui mangent des chips et boivent du cola en écoutant les émissions les plus stupides"

I'll let our Francophone readers do the translation for you......

At any rate it isn't surprising that Stéphane Gendron, the controversial mayor of Huntingdon who characterized Bill 101 as racist, had his home and automobile vandalized last week.

No doubt language militants including some of those who habituate the comments sections of this blog applaud the action.
All this over an opinion in a province that is supposed to encourage free speech.
To all of you who think that the depanneur and Mr. Gendron got what they deserved, you should understand that you are a testament to savagery and a shining example of the same intolerance displayed in the video above.
I hope you are proud of yourselves. I wonder where you learned your democratic principles.

But unfortunately, it's not only the shock jocks, the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, or militant bloggers who are raising  the level of language tension here in Quebec, shamefully it is the OQLF which is stirring up the pot in a dishonest campaign of misinformation meant to dispel it's image as ineffective.

For many months now, ever since the OQLF came out with a new policy whereby stores using a registered trademark would be required to add a French 'modifier' I've been telling you that they had no legal basis to do so.

I also ruminated that it was wrong that nobody in the mainstream Press seemed to be interested in that aspect of the story. And so perhaps my interpretation was wrong, it's happened before.

But FINALLY somebody agrees and does so in print.
Yesterday in LaPRESSE,  Denis Lessard has written an article that says that the OQLF has no legal basis to force 'modifiers' on store names.

"Yesterday, the spokesperson of the Office, Martin Bergeron, argued that it was too early to announce the number of complaints made ​​on the question of name displays as a result of the campaign organization. "We checked our legal interpretation before moving forward. We understand that there are people who do not have the same interpretation as us, "he said.

 That readers is the closest you're going to get to an admission that the OQLF knows that it is wrong.
Mr Lessard went on to say this on the subject.

"This new campaign of the OQLF ignored a formal opinion of the Conseil de la langue, provided the government of Lucien Bouchard in 2000, at a time when  Louise Beaudoin was the minister in charge. The PQ government was told then that it was advisable to use incentives to get companies to francize their names, since according to the law, they were not on solid ground." Link{Fr}

And so the OQLF is out of line and knows that it is on thin ice, the question  remains as to why it pursues this course of action.
Can it be that it is doing exactly what Camille Laurin did when he introduced Bill 101, thirty-five years ago, that is, advancing policies that cannot stand a court test in order to foster discord and thus further the cause of sovereignty?

What is clear is that this new aggressiveness has whipped up language militants into a frenzy, triggering a slew of new complaints by militants emboldened by the actions of the OQLF.

Our intrepid defender of the French language, Louis Prefontaine, is so riled up that he has promised to head down to Huntingdon to search out and denounce to the OQLF all illegal English signs.

I hope he is received politely, you might remember what happened to the OQLF inspector who was given quite the welcome in a small English town, a few years ago.
'In 1999, a group of militant Shawville English-speakers gave a provincial “language” inspector quite a rude welcome and finally chased him out of town during a showdown over English on business signs.'

You see Mr. Proulx, two can play the innocent incitement game. It isn't nice.

Finally some push back.
In an article in LaPresse, Yves Boisvert writes;

"In several cities in Quebec, as Huntingdon, the two linguistic communities live in perfect harmony, many couples are "bicultural", there are English and French schools and no one is fainting because they heard a word of English at the convenience store .

What harm does it cause to French if some cities adopt a bilingual policy in their communications, even if "only" 44% of citizens are English speaking?

Can we not imagine some flexibility in applying the law to take into account local traditions, the size of the municipality....."

These things apparently cannot be said."  Link

Yup, rationality is out the window, when language fanatics, encouraged by the government itself, run riot over free speech and free choice.

It seems that all is fair in the language debate in Quebec.

I wonder if Dutrizac or Proulx would be offended if someone planted a microphone in their homes or under a table in a restaurant where they were dining and aired some of their injudicious remarks on the radio. I'm sure they wouldn't like it.

But how can you blame these shock jocks for ethical lapses when an official arm of the government is leading the crusade against English by totally abandoning all sense of fair play, by advancing policies that cannot be defended legally.

Such is where we are.

If something isn't done to stop the insanity we are headed down a road that will hurt Quebec badly and I mean the Francophone majority.

I shall turn things around and remind militants who are raining down hate down on Anglos and ethnics that it is a sure-fire  formula for making 350 million enemies around you.

In order to survive in a free and independent state, as you hope, Quebec will depend on the good will of neighbors and like the poor depanner in Verdun, spitting on your customers is decidedly bad business.

Is OQLF Making it Up As it Goes Along?

I know I promised a blog piece today on partition, but I think that the order of the day should be rearranged to accommodate a followup to Monday's post.

No doubt you heard about the Chinese Nigerian depanneur in Verdun who was secretly recorded in a telephone call by a researcher for Benoît Dutrizac, a noted Quebec shock-jock widely known for his rabid Anglophobia.
The Chinese immigrant was castigated for his lack of French and given a lesson in Bill 101, but the shopkeeper wasn't having any of it and unloaded on his accuser, in no uncertain terms.
It was actually quite hilarious.. Give a listen;
If you don't speak French it doesn't matter, most of the action is in English.

As you can imagine when the call was aired on the radio, it evoked quite a reaction.

Here's a video of a demonstration mounted in front of the convenience store by Les Jeunes patriotes du Québec. YouTube

Here's a story over CTV.

Read some of the comments below the article for a laugh!

Thanks to Andrew for the story.

Now I mention all this because the next day, Mr.  Dutrizac interviewed none other than the esteemed Madame Louise Marchand, head of the l'Office québécois de la langue française, who tut-tutted  at the extreme disrespect shown by this immigrant to the francophone majority.

It's one thing for a renowned Anglo-hater like Dutrizac to unload on an immigrant, taping a conversation surreptitiously and airing it without permission. Picking on the most vulnerable, an immigrant shopkeeper who probably works a hundred hours a week, may be par for the course for this self-important sleazebag, BUT......
the head of the OQLF dumping on the shopkeeper goes beyond the pale.

It seems that Madame Marchand is doing a lot of talking lately and I am fast coming to the realization that a lot of it is misdirection and malarkey.

Her latest campaign of 'persuasion' instead of enforcement in the matter of English store names and 'descriptives' has me thinking that the lady has no case at all.

It's like a cop making a friendly 'suggestion,' ....it only happens when he has no legal way to force you to do what he wants you to do.

Let's go back to the beginning.
Bill 101 was drafted almost thirty-five years ago by the famous Dr. Camille Laurin, who made no bones about the fact that it was a more than a law about protecting and promoting the French  language but rather a political instrument designed to further the cause of sovereignty.

It is important to understand this aspect, Bill 101 was created to promote sovereignty, as the good doctor freely admitted.

When Rene Levesque first saw the draft version of the law presented to his cabinet, barely three months after the PQ won the election, he was quite honestly appalled and pointed out to Laurin that many parts of it were clearly unconstitutional, plain to see, even to non-lawyer.
One of the original clauses in the act actually outlawed English in the courts and the legislature, something directly contravening the B.N.A Act.

Laurin told Levesque that it was part of the strategy, to create a law that would be attacked by the Anglos.
Those court challenges which would ultimately succeed, would engender a sense of rage among francophones, feeding the fire of sovereignty.
The strategy worked magnificently, over the years, some 70 clauses have been repealed, rejected or rewritten, representing about one-third of the law.

Today it is an integral part of the sovereigntists narrative that the evil Supreme Court has taken an axe to the law in revenge against Franco-Quebecer nationalism.
In that respect Mr. Laurin is to be congratulated for his grand deception, a marvel of cynical manipulation.
But pardon me if I don't clap.

When Laurin first presented his draft law to reporters at a press conference, a young reporter at the time, Don Macpherson, asked Dr. Laurin if he was prepared, and if he would indeed welcome the exodus of minorities that would surely ensue. A deadpan Laurin answered that he would regret such an exodus, but clearly it was lie.

Although Levesque objected to the law, he was overwhelmed by his own cabinet and when Laurin presented Bill 101 to Parliament Levesque signaled his displeasure by walking out on the presentation, but the law passed anyway.
Bill 101 was conceived as a weapon for sovereignty and remains such today, to pretend otherwise is pure fantasy. Ask any of the mayor players involved in its creation and they will freely admit it.

Unfortunately most francophones have bought into the lie that Bill 101 is only about protecting the French language, not persecuting minorities.

It is in this context we can understand why the OQLF attempts to restrict, eliminate and render minorities uncomfortable, in any way it can. It is all about sovereignty.

It still goes on today. Anglophones being told they cannot buy English products because they are in Quebec.

Thanks to Susan for the link...

I don't even know what this product is, but does it mean that you cannot order a book or a film over the Internet if there is no French version available?
I don't think that the law provides for that, but I'm sure the OQLF is creating a climate of fear, scaring manufacturers with misinformation, then claiming they had nothing to do with it.

Not only does it make no sense, it's petty and vindictive, meant purely to harass English speakers.

Now the law provides many rules and regulations for the use of French and places limits on minority languages rights, but a lot is left unsaid and so Bill 101 actually provides for the government to add definition to the law by means of regulations that the OQLF may provide from time to time.

Two of these regulations, or interpretations are quite interesting.

One concerns the name of businesses and the right to use a registered trademark on its masthead and in advertising.
Now here are the regulations directly from the OQLF website, I'm not making any of it up.

Regulation respecting the language of commerce and business

Charter of the French language

 (R.S.Q., c. C-11, ss. 54.1, 58 and 67)

25.  On public signs and posters and in commercial advertising, the following may appear exclusively in a language other than French:

  (1)    the firm name of a firm established exclusively outside Québec;

  (2)    a name of origin, the denomination of an exotic product or foreign specialty, a heraldic motto or any other non-commercial motto;

  (3)    a place name designating a place situated outside Québec or a place name in such other language as officialized by the Commission de toponymie du Québec, a family name, a given name or the name of a personality or character or a distinctive name of a cultural nature; and

  (4)    a recognized trade mark within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13), unless a French version has been registered.     OQLF LINK

 Clearly, there is no such requirement for a 'descriptive' phrase to be added to a trademark.
I have no idea by virtue of what rule or regulation the OQLF is now demanding that companies do so.
I also believe that trifling with international law vis-a-vis trademarks is a losing proposition if the OQLF decides to add a rule to provide a requirement for modifiers.
As of now, I believe none exists.

Secondly is the concern over English communication in Huntingdon.
The OQLF has said that it is illegal for the city to add English in addition to French in its communication with citizens.
As I told you on Monday, (after Hugo S. pointed it out) this goes against the OQLF's own interpretation.

Link to original OQLF web page

So it seems that municipalities do have the right to communicate with townsfolk in another language as long as French is included.
I don't think the above notice could be much clearer.

I'm not a lawyer, but these two examples seem to run completely opposite what Madame Marchand is saying in public.

Is the OQLF out of control, making things up as it goes along?

Does Madame Marchand actually know what the heck she is talking about, when she tells us that Canadian Tire must by law add a descriptive, where no law or regulation exists requiring it to do so?

Why isn't anybody calling out for clarification?

************************************************

************************************************

UPDATE!

************************************************

************************************************

Here is a story on the depanneur that was aired on CBC.  Listen here

Huntingdon Mayor Shows Up Gutless Anglo Community

When it comes to defending our own language rights, it's embarrassing to say that one gutsy Francophone, Stéphane Gendron, has more gumption than almost all our Anglo community.

An editorial piece in the Montreal Gazette last week typifies the defeatist attitude that permeates the Anglo community, where even those in leadership positions choose to give up rather than fight. 

"Gendron has proposed that municipalities with an anglophone population of 10 per cent or more be required to provide bilingual service. That’s asking a lot. A more reasonable proposal would be to require municipalities with 50 per cent or more anglo residents to provide bilingual service, and give other towns the option of doing so.
But the sad reality, as demonstrated by the all-party reaction to Gendron’s campaign, is that under present circumstances asking for any change in the language law that would benefit the province’s English-speaking minority is asking too much." Link

 Five years ago, on the thirtieth anniversary of Bill 101, the Gazette published this drivel.

Bill 101 paved way for peace

"A generation later, the language charter is widely accepted as an intrinsic part of Quebec’s social fabric. Both anglos and francophones of moderate persuasion say the law has engendered an unprecedented era of social peace and easing of language tensions and fostered a cross-cultural communication between English and French Quebecers that has served as an important bridge between the storied "two solitudes" of the bad old days." Link

Social peace...

The collective wisdom of our Anglo intelligentsia, spearheaded by the Montreal Gazette, Hubert Bauch and Anne Lagacé Dowson is that whatever rights we give up each day is a small price to pay for the peaceful coexistence we have achieved.
Put that way, it sounds pretty neat.

But if one considers that it is really no different from paying a weekly protection fee to the local street gang in order to 'insure' that the goons don't beat the crap out of us, it doesn't sound so noble, but that is what we have done, bargained away our rights in the name of security.

Those of us in the English community who advocate appeasement, conveniently forget that hundreds of thousands of our fellow Anglos were chased out of this province by language persecution. When reminded that this was the price of this so-called 'social peace,' they make the case that those who left were no better than Rhodesians, unwilling to downgrade their status to second class citizenship in the name of safety and expediency.

The appeasers have bought into the narrative that somehow the English, the Irish, the Scots and later the Ethnics are all evil anglicizers, exploiters and colonialists of the innocent and naïve Francophone nation, when reality tells us that proportionally, it is the industry of these minorities that actually made the greatest contribution to the building of the province.

Slowly over the last forty years Anglos went from being full and respected partners in Quebec society to an afterthought, a people whose rights as a founding nation were cast aside, replaced by the notion that we are a bother, interlopers who have overstayed our welcome and where our Francophone hosts begrudgingly tolerate us because they have to, not because they want to.
Like an unwanted longtime resident in a rent controlled apartment building our Francophone landlords wait rather impatiently for us to die off or leave, turning off the electricity every now and then or cutting off the heat in an effort to hurry up the process.

Like the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water, our status and rights were incrementally chipped away until we became what we are today, a second class element of society along with the immigrants and ethnics, reminded on a daily basis that we are not what Quebec is supposed to be.

It's sadly amusing to read justifications in the press describing how necessary and reasonable provisions of Bill 101 are and that the restrictions and denial of civil liberties imposed on the English and ethnics are not that big a deal.
It's not surprising that the law is popular among Francophones, the price for defending the French language is paid by our community, not theirs.

The issue of bilingual status for towns is one of Bill 101's cruelest and most vindictive elements.
The law demands that a city or town have an outright majority of Anglophones before it can use the English publicly, alongside French, of course.
To Francophone militants this seems eminently generous, but the provision was actually put in place in an attempt to avoid a human rights outcry at the United Nations where the Quebec government would be obliged to explain how a town like Montreal West with 80% anglophone population would be barred from using English.

And so when it comes to rights, it seems that fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

Somehow it is fair that a town in Quebec with a 49% Anglophone population be denied the right to communicate with citizens in English, but an Air Canada flight with no French passengers aboard be obliged to have French speaking personnel to communicate and make announcements to passengers in both languages.

Each day, we are told that Francophones, as the church lady used to say on SNL are "Special" and as such deserve extended language rights in Canada which they deny their English citizens in Quebec.
Imagine if Air Canada or Via Rail were free to impose that same 50% threshold rule in their operations and so be required to offer French only in the case where there was a clear majority of Francophones aboard an airplane or train.
In cases where there weren't enough Francophones aboard, a passenger could still order a Seven-Up in French.
All she'd have to do is wait for the crew to finish serving everyone in English and then send a written request to the pilot requesting service in French. How convenient and fair!
Such is the stupidity of the argument made by French militants who tell us that English townsfolk can get English documentation, available on request!

Should the 50% rule be applied by Ontario and New Brunswick, Francophones in cities like Moncton (34% French) and Ottawa (21% French) would lose the right to receive French communication alongside English, from the city as a matter of course.
In fact just about every city or town in Canada outside Quebec would fall short of a Francophone majority and as such, would be ineligible for bilingual communication, a situation that would be described as unfair, by French language boosters.

To these French language defenders there is nothing discordant in supporting the requirement for bilingual personnel in a Cornwall hospital, while defending the principle that nobody be 'forced'  to speak English on the job in Quebec.

Incredibly, in Quebec, it remains public policy that minority rights are to be tolerated only in cases where the minority is the majority, a convoluted notion if ever there was one.
Again, perfect sense in this province....

The unmitigated effrontery of the double standard is maddening.
I could go on and on.... so could you.

And so that brings me back around to the likes of Stéphane Gendron, a man clearly tilting at windmills.

You know you've struck a nerve when the whole Quebec establishment, both sovereigntist and federalist attacks you.
That the Francophone community is furiously denouncing him in a vitriolic campaign of denigration is understandable.
The story has already spilled out across Canada and the fear remains that the story could spread to the United States with the province again subjected to ridicule and derision, perhaps by another '60 Minutes' fiasco.

But it is the reaction in the English media that is saddest, where Gendron is portrayed as a pitiful figure fighting a losing battle and discredited because he made some injudicious remarks about Israel (for which he later apologized for) therefore disqualifying him now from being taken seriously.
But as Jonathan Kay wrote in the National Post 'sometimes devils dance on the side of angels'

Like those merchants in the neighborhood who continue to pay the street gang protection money while rationalizing it as a good business decision, seeing somebody stand up to the hoodlums is embarrassing.

When he ultimately fails, the Anglo detractors will say 'I told you so' as if their chosen path of appeasement is validated.

History abounds with stories of heroic, yet futile resistance and those of shameless collaboration.
History judges the appeasers and collaborationists harshly, it is the resisters who we admire, whether those efforts are futile or not.

Stéphane Gendron is a hero very much because he is bound to lose his fight.

One thing remains indisputable, the longer he lasts on the battlefield, the more harm he does to the credibility of his opponents and like Rocky Balboa boxing against Apollo Creed, just standing on his feet for the full fifteen rounds, is victory in and of itself.

For those apologists who say his fight is useless, I tell them that they are wrong.

Everyday that Stéphane Gendron continues the fight and keeps the story in the news, the issue of minority English rights in Quebec remains unsettled and that so-called 'social peace' declared by appeasers, remains an illusion.

That is what the other side understands better than we, and that is why they hate Gendron so much.

Ultimately, it remains humiliating that a francophone is fighting a battle that we are too afraid to engage in ourselves.

All I can offer is this brief passage from one of my favorite poems;

"And you, my father, there on that sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light"

**************************************************

**************************************************

 

It  has been pointed out in the comments section that perhaps Huntingdon is NOT breaking the law!

This according to a memo written by l'Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) itself, in  1999.

Click Here for the original at the  OQLF website

"ALL of Quebec's municipalities can put out information in both languages and it wouldn't break the law. (nice research Steve) So the OQLF harassing him at all is ridiculous, even from their own text."

Thanks to Hugo  for pointing this out.