Pauline Marois Throws in the Towel.

Looking at the polling numbers and realizing that her dream of becoming the next Premier of Quebec is a nonstarter, it seems that Pauline Marois has made the only rational and expedient decision that she could, that is to save her own ass derriere.

Her decision to go hardline, that is, to embrace a platform that includes a referendum and promotion of independence isn't as bold or dangerous a strategy as one might imagine.

If you're going to lose, you may as well stand on principle and be seen as an honest separatist rather than a dishonest waffler.

It seems to me, that after the inevitable electoral loss that the Pq will suffer, Marois will be able to look hardliners in the eye and say 'told you so," instead of having the hardliners blame her for the loss because she soft-pedaled sovereignty.

For Marois, it's the only pragmatic avenue left open that will maintain her leadership.

The Pq itself has realized months ago that they are bound to occupy the benches of opposition for the foreseeable future.
You can always tell when a political party knows that it isn't going to win power anytime soon, they come up with the stupidest  policy proposals that nobody but nobody can take seriously.

The federal Liberal party proposal to legalize marijuana is just such a fantasy as is the PQ's proposal to allow 16-years olds to vote, or the nonsensical idea of publicly triggered referendums as proposed by the awkward fool, Bernard Drainville.

But let's not soft-pedal this stunning turnaround in direction by Marois.

For years she avoided pushing a referendum strategy, in fear that it would insure an election defeat, but with an election defeat a near certainty, the sovereignty/referendum platform becomes a viable option. At least she could get back the hardliners and maintain a certain credibility as a political force.

Why am I so sure that the Pq can't win?
Well, even with the polling numbers indicating that the three parties are neck and neck, it still looks like a difficult road ahead for the Pq.
As soon as the Liberals play up the spectre of a losing referendum and if they craftily describe such an undertaking as a further humiliation for Quebec after the inevitable loss, Quebecers will back off the Pq.

Even if that isn't the case, it's likely that a minority government will ensue and a coalition between the Liberals and the CAQ will happen. That scenario is more likely than a PQ/CAQ coalition, because in order for that to occur, either the PQ or the CAQ would have to betray it's most fundamental position over a referendum and be seen as betraying its base.

At any rate, back to Marois, who is orchestrating her 'Save Marois' plan with the consummate skill of an orchestra conductor.
In creating her new committee for sovereignty, she craftily cobbled together a collection of political lightweights, artists and has-beens, a group created in her own image and easily controlled and manipulated.
No Parizeau, Curzi, Aussant or Landry, just a bunch of nobodies.

Well-played!

No doubt that the committee, full of brightly scrubbed and eager faces will dance before the cameras for the amusement of all, like performing monkeys doing back flips for the edification of the masses, a classic and cynical case of  Panem et Circenses.

I am reminded of a favourite Shakespeare quote from Macbeth;

"a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. "

As the election draws near, look for the majority of the separatist 'betrayers,' those who quit the Pq (Aussant, Curzi, Lapointe, et al.) to return, cap in hand.
(This doesn't include Louise Beaudoin, who won't be running.)

As things stand now, they are all dead politicians walking, not one will be able to save their National Assembly seats under the independent label and for these political animals, that is a fate worse than death.

For the betrayers, Marois' newly minted election platform putting sovereignty front and center is the excuse they need to return to the party.
Marois will accept their return like the proverbial prodigal son, as long as they agree to toe the line.
Again, Marois the manipulator, displays the master's hand, adopting the maxim first enunciated by Sun-tzu;

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

Although Marois has been dubbed the 'Concrete Lady,' I'm not sure it is appropriate.

I think the Pq and Marois should adopt as the theme song for the next campaign, Gloria Gaynor's "I'm a Survivor" just as long as they can get somebody to do a French version.

Bill 101...and the Slippery Slope to "Poutineism'

From birth we are taught that equality before the law is the hallmark of any democratic society.
And so when a state treats one citizen differently than another, and affords unequal rights based on religion, ethnicity, origins, language or religion, it surely must offend our conscience as it betrays the basic tenets of democracy as we define it.

But somehow in Canada, our highest court has ruled that for a 'greater good' such discrimination is justified and so we are subject to the precepts of the infamous Bill 101, a law that makes a mockery of the term equality.

As a result, citizens of Quebec are imbued with certain rights, or lack thereof, based on an accident of birth, be it the language of their parents or the location of their birth.

My discomfort with Bill 101 is not rooted in any negative experience that I or my family may have suffered under its application.

You see, I am born of the privileged class which enjoys certain rights and freedoms that other Quebecers are denied. I am English.

Like the British royal family, I get to pass down to future generations these rights in perpetuity, a neat benefit that makes me feel superior lucky.

I and those like me, possess a birthright that is unique in this province and if you are Francophone or have emigrated here from another country, my rights trump yours.

I can, as we all know, opt for a publicly-funded English education, while you, my fellow citizens, are told that such a choice is not  available to yourself or your family, because you have been forcibly drafted in the 'war' to preserve the French language and culture, while I am given a deferral.

Yes, Monsieur or Madame Untel, it doesn't matter if your Quebec roots date back to the 17th century, I and my descendants, relative latecomers to Quebec, are afforded more rights than you and what is most puzzling to me is that most of you are fine with it.

This post is not about Ethnics and immigrants who came to this province knowing full well they'll be denied equal rights.
In many respects it's a bargain they made, the rules were clear enough before they made their decision to make Quebec their home.

But the fact that the future rights of two children, one French, one English are unequal, even though they were born side-by-side in the same Quebec hospital, on the very same day, offends my sense of fair play, I can't help it.

Now most francophones reading this piece will argue that this limitation or infringement of personal rights is something that they readily embrace and voluntarily accept and that this opinion is also held by the the majority of their francophone brethren.

Fair enough.

If Francophones wish to limit their own rights for the greater perceived good, that is their right and who am I to tell them otherwise.

Today, some thirty-five years since the imposition of Bill 101, Francophone language militants will tell us that the law was essential in preserving Quebec as a French culture, while other like myself would argue that French in Quebec had flourished and grown for over 300 years without any artificial help.

It doesn't matter, the argument is moot and the law endures, if for no other reason than because it is a source of pride, an everlasting symbol and tribute to the victory of French over English in this province.

But there is no doubt that Bill 101 has had an ancillary effect on Quebec society, it has promulgated the notion that restrictions of all manners are acceptable in defense and promotion of the French language and that not only are these restrictions necessary, but desirable.

Today, Quebecers remain proud that they are free of the once powerful and domineering Church, whose unelected officials ruled Quebec society with an iron fist until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960's liberated Quebecers from the dominion of Rome.
At its height, almost every aspect of the lives of every individual Quebecer was controlled, to the point that the parish priest advised families as to how many children to have, or what kind of employment to pursue.

But this new found freedom was short-lived and barely two decades after throwing off the shackles of the Church, language replaced Christianity as the religion of the masses and a new cabal of unelected and self-appointed  'priests' has arisen, deigned to instruct Quebecers how to live and act with the same force and holier than thou attitude that the church historically demonstrated.

This is the slippery slope that Bill 101 has led us to.
As Yogi Berra said it,- It's deja vu, all over again.

Today Francophone Quebecers are once again instructed on how to live and conduct their personal lives.

The likes of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Impératif français, Mouvement Québec français, as well as a plethora of other organizations have elected themselves as defenders of the faith, dedicated to defend and promote their elitist and narrow view of Quebec society by exhorting francophones to adopt a certain comportment and attitude, one perceived to promote the French language and culture, according to a narrow and dogmatic view.

So ardent are these zealots that their exhortations sometimes border on the ridiculous;

"The situation of French in Quebec:  Increasingly, we see young francophone parents giving English names to their children.
Is this just a preview of the future Anglicization of Quebec? These young people who without any pride, embrace American music and movies and thus could not care less of their origin.
I think we should talk about this publicly, and even make changes to Bill 101.
Merci." Submitted by Robert David, novembre 8, 2011" Link{fr}

And so the author demands a law that would force Francophones to give their children good Christian French names, stop watching English films or listen to English music.

Laughable?  Foolish?

Unfortunately, the author above is not alone, far, far from it.

Last week I told you about an outraged citizen in Chicoutimi who was deeply concerned that a local theatre would be showing an original English film one day a week.
The writer was worried that francophones would be allowed to see Hollywood films in their undubbed English versions, a travesty and dangerous invitation to Anglicization.

'Poutineism'- Quebec's latest political dogma

An article in Le Journal de Montreal, by Mathieu Bock-Côté, is typical of the current dogma advocated by leading separatists who like the priests before them, wish to impose their particular view on society.
Mr. Côté, a self-styled separatist intellectual, is the latest wunderkind of Quebec media, someone who has a particular dislike for multiculturalism, believing that all minorities must give up their individualism and be absorbed into mainstream Francophone culture.
For want of a better word, I will refer to this political dogma as "Poutineism" in honour of an African women who before the Bouchard Taylor Commission, asked if she had to eat poutine to be accepted as a Quebecer.

Mr. Côté, complained about a Muslin organization that had started a service whereby Muslims could meet other Muslims seeking marriage within their faith.
Bad! Bad! Bad!
Mr. Côté, complains that Muslims are closing themselves off from mainstream Quebec society by choosing to remain within a 'clan'
I imagine that Mr. Côté would equally disparage J-Date or Marriage-Chretien....or perhaps not in the case of the latter.
And so, according to Mr. Côté, choosing to marry within one's faith is wrong, something to be opposed in the new Quebec.

As for free will, Mr. Côté reminds us that we can marry who we want, but.......

 "The sacrosanct right to be different must be balanced with the duty of similarity of identity. Being a Quebecer is not just about paper. It is also a question of identity. Those who join a society  must learn to integrate with those who welcome them." Link{Fr}

And so everyday Francophones are bombarded by dogma of Poutineism, proffered by idiots in the opinion section of vigile.net or in the mainstream press by deep thinkers like Mario Beaulieu or Mathieu Bock-Côté, all righteously reminding Quebecers, with the fervor of  bible thumpers, that Quebec is on the road to linguistic and cultural destruction.

In 2009, the tiny Quebec village was mocked for creating a "Code of Life" that immigrants were encouraged to adopt before settling in town. Read about it here and see the code.
I can tell you that in comparing the 'Code of Life' to 'Poutinism,' I much prefer the former.

POUTINEISM

• Abhor religion, but demand that Christian symbols be maintained in public.
• Don't speak English to Quebec Anglophones, demand that they speak French.
• Embrace the idea that learning English is unnecessary for success or fulfillment. 
• Adopt the ideology that multiculturalism and plurality are evil. Accept  that there is room for only one true culture in Quebec. Allow no accommodations, religious or whatnot.
• Don't attend or allow your children to attend an English cegep or university and demand that other Francophones be denied the choice to do so.
• Purchase and listen to French music only. Always attend concerts by Quebec French artists, even if you prefer world-class acts that perform in English!
• Don't watch English television, read English books or magazines or play English video games, even if they are unavailable in French.
• Always opt for the dubbed or subtitled movie, even if you understand English.
• Don't speak English at work or accept that sometimes English is necessary in the workplace. Refuse to correspond or publish scientific work in English!
• Never buy a product that doesn't have French labeling, even if you want it or need it.
• Always blame the English or Ottawa for any problems that exist and always treat the federal government as if it is an enemy.
• Accept the mantra that anything that is English in Quebec is a direct threat, be it one English sign, or one English clerk.
• Embrace  and promote the concept of language paranoia and that French is in mortal danger.

I think the priests were less burdensome.

While Rene Levesque remarked that the imposition of language restrictions was a sad necessity, today's French language militants lovingly embrace the imposition of restrictions, whether imposed upon Anglophones and Ethnics or Francophones themselves and live by the credo that the more control, the merrier.

So what happened to free will in Quebec and what is to happen to those Francophones who don't want to drink the Kool-Aid?

Are Francophones high achievers who want to earn an 'ivy-league' quality diploma in a world class university like McGill to be chastised?

Are those Francophones that choose to make a life with an Anglo and decide to make their family English, traitors?

Are those who choose to attend a Madonna concert instead of Marie-Mai concert to be perceived as sellouts?

Are those Francophones who use every opportunity to polish up their language skills by speaking English to Anglos, contributing to the downfall of the French Quebecois nation?

And most importantly, are these Francophone 'heretics' who pursue English, within their rights to do so, even if it contributes to the downfall of French in Quebec? (Which is, of course, ridiculous)

Perhaps it is now the time to throw off the shackles of the French language supremacists who have taken over from the priests.
Perhaps it is time for a second Revolution tranquille.

Are we there yet? ......Not by a long shot.

CAQ Loses its Shine

When Francois Legault came onto the scene and declared that the sovereignty issue would be set aside in order to afford a government led by his new party the freedom to concentrate on economic issues instead of the life sapping independence debate, people were excited.

This breath of fresh air was immediately appealing to a large majority of Quebecers, federalists who could live with a nationalistic government without the sovereignty option and separatists who were tired of talk of a referendum which in their hearts, they knew could not be won.

The merger between the CAQ and the conservative ADQ augured well for his vision and with the inclusion of an anti-Bill 101 militant, Bill Johnson, Mr. Legault gave evidence that indeed he was organizing a rainbow coalition of diverse elements that would have by its very makeup the force to stay clear of the referendum question, or else explode from within. 

For a while he talked the talk of a radical reformer, but alas, he and his new party has backslid significantly and is more and more becoming just another banal party falling somewhere in between the Liberals and the PQ.
It didn't take long for the politics of expediency to take over and sadly, the CAQ has has sunk quickly into the mire of language and entitlement.

And so we are starting to hear the same old, same old and it's most disheartening.

Sadly, it seems that a potential CAQ government will embrace and promote the same old fantasy that French is under attack and in consequence, attacks on the English language, Ethnics and Anglos will become an entrenched part of the party platform.

"...Mr. Legault emphasized the defense of the French language and is "concerned about the situation in Montreal." "We are within our rights as Quebecers, to worry about preserving our language, our culture and our identity," he said. "Quebec is the only government in America, which represents a majority of francophones. It has a duty to defend the identity of the Quebec nation." According to him, "the Liberal government has failed in its duty to protect our identity, allowing several businesses in Montreal to neglect to serve their clients in French."
Also, the Charest government has allowed  "those who can afford it, to buy a right to go to English schools, in full contradiction with the principles of the Charter of the French language." "For us this right is unacceptable," insisted Mr. Legault.  Link{Fr}

I get the feeling that these attacks are inspired by the Roman tradition of gladiatorial spectacles, a question of bread and circuses, designed to fulfill and satisfy the deviant blood lust of the masses, in this case, language supremacists.
It remains a dishonest and expedient political device, giving these people what they are perceived to desire, not what is right.

Before the ADQ merged with the CAQ, its then leader Gérard Deltell was unambiguous about English immersion in grade six;

"The ADQ wants all children enrolled in sixth grade to receive half their instruction in French, the other half in English.
This bold proposal emanates from the ADQ leader, Gerard Deltell, who says he is very concerned about the low rate of bilingualism among young Québécois. In an interview with The Canadian Press, Mr. Deltell argued that the intensive teaching of English in primary and secondary school should become a priority.
It is urgent, he argues, to train a generation of Quebecers perfectly bilingual and take the necessary steps to get there, and that, whatever the cost."    Link{Fr}

But that position hasn't survived the merger of the ADQ and the CAQ.

Eric Caire is now the education critic for the CAQ.
This once ADQ member supported the intensive English approach while he was an independent member of the National Assembly, but since joining the new party is parroting the new party line;

"The Charest government is wrong in wanting to impose a  "Wall to Wall" program of intensive English in sixth year, according to the Eric Caire of the CAQ. 

But "to impose a  wall to wall model" as does the government may cause problems in some schools, he believes. Students with learning difficulties could be doomed to failure, especially."   Link{Fr}

So much for integrity....

It seems that the CAQ has adopted an anti-English platform that is as bad as the PQ, minus the referendum.
It is in fact a humiliating disappointment.

While the CAQ has promised a new approach, their proposals now sound like the same wishy-washy drivel emanating from the Liberals and the PQ.

As for new proposals, the CAQ has recently backed off its hardline promises to reform Quebec society and tackle the problems of big government, union avarice and the public demand for entitlements.

A good example is the current issue of revolving strikes in the public daycare program.
While the public would support and embrace a total ban on job action, the CAQ has offered a tepid response, allowing the union to retain its right to strike, but  declaring the sector an essential service, subject to limitations set out by the Conseil des services essentiels, a board that limits how far a union can go when striking in an industry determined as essential.

The board is charged with telling striking municipal workers how much snow to remove, or how much garbage to pick up and how many employees must remain on the job during a strike.

How would this work in the daycare industry?
Would the board allow one worker instead of three, mind the 16 children in a certain CPE or would they allow two out of three daycare centres to close down during a strike? Arrghh!.....

As for solving the current shortage of family doctors, the CAQ has proposed that every family doctor take on another 1,000 patients.
Poof, problem solved!

These ridiculous proposals demonstrate that the CAQ is an immature work in progress, it's party platform nothing more than a lick and a promise.

The party's erratic behavior and unrealistic policy declarations have Quebecers backing off.
And like the proverbially crucial second date, the flaws are fast becoming apparent.

Already, the party has plunged in popularity and now the three parties, the Libs, Pq and CAQ are all tied in the polls, a far cry from a couple of months ago, where the CAQ was far out in front.

Alas for we Anglos, there is nothing there for us.

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

Next week the ever popular French versus English will return. 

If you come across any stories or nuggets of information that might make the post more interesting, please drop me a line at anglomontreal@gmail.com

Even if you think the story will be sent in by someone else, please make an effort.

I cannot always devote the necessary time to ferret out all the stories, I have a job and sometime there are time constraints.

Please help!

Whatever modest success our blog achieves, it is in fact, reader based. Contribute!

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

Here's something fun for the weekend....

I'm sure you are all familiar with GOOGLE AUTOCOMPLETE.
It is the search device that tries to complete your thought when using the Google search box, sometimes with hilarious results.

Here's one that happened to me, which I swear I didn't Photoshop.

 

So go ahead, let's see how clever and original you are. Complete the following search items with a one word or a short phrase, English or French...

I look forward to your offerings in the comments section.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU               _________________

JEAN CHAREST                     _________________

STEPHEN HARPER              _________________

PAULINE MAROIS             _________________

FRANCOIS LEGAULT          _________________

FURTHER READING:
French versus English Volume 47

Have a great weekend!

Gary Carter has passed away. RIP..

I was one of those that attended the very first EXPOS game in Jarry Park.
My mom told me she wouldn't lie on an excuse note for my high school and wrote quite honestly that I took off class because I had EXPOS fever.  I received no detention.
I sat on the 1st base line on a bridge chair because the stadium wasn't complete.
Memories......

I'm not good at sentimental claptrap, but Gary Carter remains a fixture in my Expos memories with the likes of Steve Rogers, Maury Wills, Rusty Staub, Bill Stoneman, Mack Jones, Don Clendenon  and a myriad of other players who were my heroes.

Readers, who was the first player to hit a home run which landed in the swimming pool outside right field?

Most of you are too young to remember Gary, but if you do take a moment in the comments section to offer a kind word.....

Quebecers and Their Beloved Entitlements

Instead of the motto "Je me Souviens," it wouldn't be unreasonable for Quebec to change the old standard to "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" a more appropriate maxim that better reflects the reality of our modern Quebec society.

Last week a devastating report was published by a professor at Quebec's prestigious HEC business school revealing that Quebec was on its way to becoming the poorest province in Canada.

In almost every category, Quebec excels in economic underachievement, the buying power of its citizens eroded by the highest taxes in the country, coupled with lower earnings directly related to poor productivity.

Quebec society has adopted state-sponsored cradle to grave socialism that not only saps the economic strength of the province, but kills the entrepreneurial spirit and teaches indolence and dependence as well as destroying thrift.

But blaming our leaders for this calamitous state of affairs is disingenuous, the government serves at our pleasure and can reign over us only as long as we allow it.

The reality is that we have become used to our entitlements and are loathe to give them up.

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!

And so daycare workers go off on strike, making the most absurd salary and benefits demands only because they can, caring not a whit for the pain and suffering they inflict on parents who must make alternate arrangements for the care of their children or stay home from work.

Listening to student leaders justify their position that their low tuition fees should not be adjusted upwards to more realistic North American standards, augers poorly for the future, as the next generation learns from the previous that entitlements are more important than fairness.

Reading the newspaper on Friday, I almost gagged on my coffee at the absurd arguments made by feminists to justify lower tuition for women, by a professor and a student of the illustrious Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University, an institute dedicated to feminism, where traditional male-bashing and female whining is honed to an art form.

I don't think I've ever seen so many false arguments and stupid conclusions in one newspaper article.

I can forgive the student, but the Professor who penned the article should be ashamed for polluting the minds of students with foolish feminist drivel that promotes the fiction that women are horribly oppressed and thus entitled to social redress. Read the entire article in the Gazette   Alternate Link

"For decades, feminists have argued that women earn less than men for doing the same work. Recent statistics support this claim: the latest data available, from 2008, demonstrates that women still earn 71 cents for every dollar earned by men."

The above statement, from the article, intimates that women are underpaid by men who choose to exploit them. It's the feminist holy tenet that they are victims of salary inequity, a holding that somehow isn't quite true.

Show me a male telephone operator who makes more money then the female operator sitting beside him or a female cop who is paid less than her male counterpart and I'll listen to the argument.
Of course feminists don't like to hear this type of inconvenient comparison, they choose to use the  'equivalent worth' argument, a clever way to avoid the obvious.

There are many reasons why women earn less than men, most of it is CHOICE!
Yes readers, women make less money than men because they choose to.

"There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles. Comparing the wage gap between women and men ages 35-43 who have never married and never had a child, we find a small observed gap in favor of women, which becomes insignificant after accounting for differences in skills and job and workplace characteristics.

This observation is an important one because it suggests that the factors underlying the gender gap in pay primarily reflects choices made by men and women given their different societal roles, rather than labor market discrimination against women due to their sex."

 What Do Wage Differentials Tell Us about Labor Market Discrimination?

"Since marriage and having children affect male and female earnings differently, men and women workers can't really be considered "counterparts" in a statistical sense, and any unadjusted comparisons would be comparing apples to oranges. In fact, some research has concluded that the factors of age, marriage and motherhood explain all of the male-female pay gap."

Most or All of The Pay Gap Disappears After Controlling for Marriage and Having Children 

 

"A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men."

"Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics."

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap 

For Francophone readers, here's a pretty good article on the subject as well.

Le mythe de la discrimination salariale

Finally here's an interview (with French subtitles) that you'll find most interesting.

But even if women earn less than men by choice or not, does it really make a difference?

"Since women still earn less than men overall, raising tuition fees will affect women first. It is an example of social policy that perpetuates gender inequality."

Does the good Professor contend that women should pay less for tuition just as seniors and children pay less at the movies?

Should women pay less for cars and groceries?
Should women pay less at restaurants and should women pay less to get on the bus?

Is this  the equality that the good professor seeks..... Methinks so.

"Members of the teaching faculty at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute maintain that raising tuition fees will have negative consequences for teaching and learning more broadly. The more expensive the tuition is, the less diversity there will be in the classroom, since access is dependent on financial resources"

 "...When social policy results in the exclusion of women and people from diverse backgrounds from post-secondary education, the work of teaching is compromised."

This passage posits that women are more affected by higher tuition than males. Why?
Is it because male students come to university with more money or that they have richer parents than female students?
Will more women decide not to start university because repaying student loans later in life is more of a burden on them, then for men?

This argument is particularly laughable because each year Canadian universities graduate 145,000 women versus 95,000 men.
Enrollment is almost 3 to 2 in favour of women!

Perhaps universities should be required to implement an affirmative action program in favour of men and maybe men should pay lower tuition fees than women in order to redress the inequality of male/female representation!
Maybe university quotas should be implemented to insure gender equality, especially in elite programs like medicine where 65% of students entering med school are women.

Is this over-representation of females in university a blatant case of gender bias and inequality?

No my dear readers, there in no great feminist plot, sometime differences between the sexes are not based on discrimination, other more benign factors are in play, just like the salary gap between sexes.

How do our feminists suggest our government fund reduced tuition fees for women?

"A redistribution of resources – for example, the $105 million given in bonuses to managers of sociétés d’état in 2010 – could make equal access to education possible. One idea: imposing a licensing fee of one cent per litre on mining and industrial manufacturing companies’ use of water could yield $775 million annually."

Let business pay!

Let the rich pay!

Let the men pay!

Let Ottawa pay!

Let me pay!

I myself have a good idea on how the government can save money.

Get rid of the Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University and get rid of professors that teach students that they are victims and that they are justified in whining for entitlements.

The reality is that in Quebec each and every special interest group, be it women, students, union workers, single mothers, natives, the infirm, the poor, and left-handed clowns with red hair, believe they have a special right to ask society to subsidize their existence.

Some groups (especially the poor and infirm) deserve consideration, most others, especially women students, don't.

When females students whine that they need special treatment, it is nothing more than a sad display of greed and avarice, just like the day care workers.

Shame on them and shame on us all who demand an undeserved slice of the social pie, just because we feel entitled to a free lunch.

Civil Disobedience and Bill 101

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

A recent story about the the controversial mayor of Huntington, Stéphane Gendron, inspired me to delve into the question of civil disobedience in regards to a law that many Anglophones believe discriminatory, the infamous Bill 101.

The Huntington mayor is certainly unafraid of tilting at windmills, he was forced to come off his position that Israel didn't deserve to exist after the television station which airs his new magazine program where he made the remarks, was inundated with complaints.

But that's not what I wish to address here today, rather, it is his controversial stand against Bill 101 and his promise that he will ignore the law and continue to maintain bilingualism in his tiny town, which historically was English, but no longer qualifies for bilingual status under the law.

"I have no use for the insecure and culturally impoverished that are tightly-knit within the French language, who let their lives be governed by its potential disappearance from North America. By focusing on this linguistic insecurity, Quebec has been impoverished while Ontario, which said yes to immigration, ended up surpassing us."

("Je n'ai que faire des insécures et des pauvres culturels que sont les tricotés serrés de la langue française qui ne vivent qu'en fonction de l'heure de leur disparition en Amérique, a-t-il indiqué. À force de focuser sur l'insécurité linguistique, le Québec s'est appauvri et l'Ontario - qui a dit oui à l'immigration et à la diversité - a fini par nous doubler au passage.") LINK {Fr}

The OQLF has confirmed that a complaint has been laid, but went to lengths to say that they are looking to settle things without resorting to court.

I imagine they would, but that may not be possible, as Mayor Gendron has committed to defying any ruling or ordinance issued by the OQLF in regards to removing bilingualism from the town.

Mr. Gendron has promised that if need be, the town will create a line item in the budget entitled  "Human Rights and Dignity," to pay for any fines.

That doesn't augur well for the OQLF who are desperate to avoid publicity, especially internationally.

A plucky mayor of a little town, who fights the big bad language police, is a David and Goliath story that is sure to capture plenty of print space and air time.

That is something the OQLF is desperate to avoid.
As long as the debate rages in Quebec, everything is fine as far as they are concerned, but if this story leaks out of Quebec and is picked up by the American press, it will be a public relations nightmare for the province.
Let us just say Americans are not quite so nuanced and see language laws as discrimination, pure and simple.

I don't have to remind readers about the negative repercussions that still reverberate over Mordechai Richler's condemnation of Quebec in the New Yorker and on 60 minutes. Even though these interviews and stories appeared back in the nineties, they still haunt French language militants who reserve a special hate for the sardonic Richler, for humiliating them south of the border.

If the mayor of Huntington actually decides to fight, as he said he will, it will be the first time any city or town defies the OQLF and there is little doubt that the affair will be messy and embarrassing.
Over the course of any litigation, which of course will drag out for years, Mr Gendron will have plenty of opportunity and will be afforded plenty of face time on television to denounce the OQLF in the most colourful and unflattering of terms.

Now, over the life of this blog, a sentiment by French language militants has been oft repeated, that is the idea that even though we Anglos do not like Bill 101,  we must 'respect' it, because ours is a society of laws.

Here's typical opinion;

"Nous ne faisons que faire respecter la loi. Dans notre pays les lois sont importantes et tous, sans exception, doivent s'y conformer,"

(In our country, laws are important and we must obey them all without exception)  

Now before I continue, I AM NOT comparing Bill 101 to the Nurenberg laws, the various Apartheid laws of South Africa or race laws that discriminated against Blacks in the USA.
So please, no comments that I am making such a comparison.
Bill 101 is nothing like those laws and to intimate such, is to belittle the trials and struggles of those people subjected to their cruelty .

This post is merely a discussion over whether one should be obliged to obey an unjust law, and whether Bill 101 falls into this category.

That sounds like a good description of what the mayor of Huntington is suggesting he and his town are going to do..

Readers, if you aren't familiar with Martin Luther King's famous  "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" I would recommend reading it. It is a masterpiece.
It's a bit long, so you might want to save it for the weekend. Prepare to be humbled and inspired.
READ IT HERE    IN FRENCH

Would the shoe be on the other foot, I wonder if these French language militants would be so 'respectful' of a law that discriminated against their language.

What if Mr. Harper passed a federal law that forced every sign in Canada to be in English, with minority languages (including French) allowed, but on a diminished basis?

I don't even make the case that there is an equivalency to the above and Bill 101, the point is whether Francophones would feel justified in disobeying what they would clearly perceive as a discriminatory law?
How would it play out in Chicoutimi, Quebec City or Val D'Or?
Would these same militants who tell Anglos to respect Bill 101 because it is the law, advise Francophones to 'respect' this Harper law, or would they feel justified in disobeying.

It's easy to fall back on the old chestnut, that the law is the law, and that we all must obey it because it was passed by the majority.

But philosophers greater than I have built a consensus that such is not the case.

And so readers, the question as to whether Bill 101 is just or unjust, may be a matter of perspective.
And for those who believe it is unjust, the question remains as to whether it rises to the level of discrimination that morally justifies disobeying it. 


Henry David Thoreau framed the question quite succinctly;

"Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?"