Montreal Gazette Gets it Wrong on Descriptors.

As you may well know, the Office québécois de la langue française(OQLF) lost rather badly in court over the use of descriptors, the proposed regulation whereby stores with English names would be forced to add French modifiers in order to satisfy the OQLF's desire to lower the English language's 'pollution' of the French linguistic landscape of Quebec.

For those who aren't familiar with the legal term, a declaratory judgment is one that resolves legal uncertainty where the plaintiff is in doubt as to his or her legal rights. The regulation that the OQLF tried to enforce had zero basis in law, the OQLF knew it and the companies that pushed back knew it as well. The judgment surprised nobody, but disappointed many in the French language militancy movement.

So why did the OQLF go where it knew it had no legal right to go?

For every major gaffe that comes to light, like Pastagate or Spoongate, there are hundreds and hundreds of victories over business' that decide that for financial reasons, or out of fear, not to fight, businesses that cave to OQLF pressure even when they are not breaking the law.
It's a cynical plan, one in which the OQLF calculates that the few setbacks it suffers by its ultra-vires action are worth the effort and that intimidating businesses without the force of the law on its side, a paying proposition in the long run.
It's the same rationale that scofflaws use when they exceed the speed limit or park illegally on an ongoing basis with the full understanding that the few times they get caught make the effort a paying proposition.

The real conclusion that the Montreal Gazette should have reached from the story is that the OQLF is an untrustworthy organization, one which enforces its mandate with reckless abandon and cynical disregard for the law and the rights of those they harass.
And so it was more in sadness than in anger that I read the shameful editorial by the Montreal Gazette encouraging the English community to give up in the face of this intimidation, because the issue of descriptors is not a 'big deal' and not 'worth' the fight.

"In a ruling earlier this month, the Office québécois de la langue française was reminded by the province’s Superior Court that the law is the law, and it is not incumbent on the language-watchdog agency to make it up as it goes along.
The ruling by Justice Michel Yergeau was in response to arguments from a group of large retail companies with English corporate names that the Office was overstepping its powers with a campaign to have them add some French generic words to the unilingual-English outdoor signs. The group included such firms as Best Buy, Costco, Gap, Old Navy and Walmart.
The Office was acting on complaints that reflect a growing feeling among many francophones that the proliferation of big-box stores and multinational franchise outlets with English brand names has become detrimental to the predominantly French face that Quebec should be putting forward.
At first, the Office launched a public-relations campaign aimed at persuading the targeted businesses to comply; then it followed up with warnings, threatening sanctions. It was then that the retailers went to court seeking clarification of their rights.
The court correctly noted that under the province’s language law, Bill 101, corporate trademarks are exempt from the rule obliging all commercial signage to be predominately in French. The exemption was written into the original bill when it was passed in 1977, and no government of any stripe has been moved to change it since.
Therefore, as the judge reminded it, the Office should have gone not after the stores, but to the government — to seek a change in the law that would sanction its initiative. There was no evidence that it did so, at least not while the former Marois government was in power, for nothing concerning trademarks was included in the former government’s Bill 14, an act to amend Bill 101 that it ultimately shelved (and then later promised to revive if elected April 7).
The retailers have a point, in that they are known the world over by their famous corporate names. On the other hand, they do protest a bit much with their claim that adding a generic French term that describes what they are selling would dilute the force of their brands.
Some have done so voluntarily with no evidence that it has hurt their business. Examples include Second Cup coffee shops in the province that have added a discreet “les cafés” to their logo, with the trademark otherwise predominant, or the New Look eyewear chain that has added “lunetterie” to their store signs. Some chains have gone so far as to translate their names entirely, such as Chalet Suisse restaurants, which are Swiss Chalets elsewhere, and Village des Valeurs stores, which are Value Village shops outside the province.
It is hard to see what harm it would do to the holdouts to follow suit, especially as the former Charest government had offered to help underwrite the cost of amending signage to add French generics. It would surely be the courteous thing to do in Quebec, and it would help relieve growing tensions in Quebec on the language front — which in turn might help prevent frustrations from being taken out on language issues that would directly harm the English-speaking community, notably with respect to recognition of municipalities’ bilingual status.
This is one language measure where anglophones should comfortably stand in unity with the Office, and help persuade these large mostly U.S.-controlled retailers that they should show a little more market sensitivity.

This editorial could have been written by someone suffering from 'battered person syndrome,' where after years of physical and mental abuse, the abused believes that he or she is indeed the guilty party and that he or she well deserved the punishment meted out by the abuser.

Battered person syndrome is highlighted by the following beliefs and attitudes;

• The abused thinks that the violence was his or her fault.
• The abused has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
• The abused fears for their life and/or the lives of their children
• The abused has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient. Link

Yup, that pretty much sums up the Montreal Gazette editorial.

• The Gazette thinks that having an English name is shameful and dirty.
• The Gazette thinks that it isn't the OQLF that is at fault, but the English name holders
• The Gazette fears that the OQLF will punish us if we don't give in.
• The Gazette fears that the OQLF is omnipresent and omniscient.

 Let's deconstruct the editorial and hold the Gazette accountable for what it is peddling.

"a growing feeling among many francophones"
I defy the Gazette to provide statistics proving that this is true.
The simple truth is that the issue is contrived, whipped up by sovereigntist language militants and the OQLF to stir up linguistic trouble. The only  'growing feeling'  is the one at the OQLF, Société Saint-Jean Baptiste and Imperatif-francais, There isn't a poll or a survey that indicates that this assertion is true and I'll bet dollars to doughnut that the majority of francophones, if asked, would consider descriptors a non-issue.
I can't say for certain that I'm right, but then neither can the Gazette say that it is right.

Even if it were true, is that a reason to cave in?
Who can deny that there's "a growing feeling among many francophones" that the burgeoning Muslim community is a threat and that they should be controlled. Will the Gazette write an editorial supporting that?

At first, the Office launched a public-relations campaign 
The Gazette editorial makes it seem as if the OQLF was acting in a conciliatory fashion, which it wasn't. The campaign was an illegal fantasy, a softening up effort, meant to get companies used to the idea of descriptors.
It's no different than a bully who spends all week reminding those in the schoolyard to prepare to pay protection money next week.
Politeness doesn't change anything. 

"The exemption was written into the original bill...and no government of any stripe has been moved to change it since. Therefore, as the judge reminded it, the Office should have gone not after the stores, but to the government — to seek a change in the law that would sanction its initiative."
Back in 1977, the original framer of Bill 101 was the rabidly anti-English Camille Laurin, who included clause after clause of clearly unconstitutional regulations, all of which were thrown out by the Supreme Court. He actually admitted to Réne Levesque that he did so on purpose, hopeful that when the Supreme Court ruled against those clauses, the political humiliation would propel Quebec towards sovereignty.

So why he didn't include a clause demanding descriptors wasn't a case of benevolence, it was probably because he didn't think of it. At the time there were but a handful of stores with English names, the most important being Canadian Tire. Both Eaton's and Steinberg's had already dropped the apostrophe " 's " from their respective names and American retailers hadn't yet decamped.

But when later governments looked at the 'problem' of English store names, as more 'foreign' retailers joined the Quebec market, they were probably given legal advice that they couldn't change the law because of NAFTA, the trade agreement with the United States that forbade such a practice.

Article 1708: Trademarks Link
10. No Party may encumber the use of a trademark in commerce by special requirements, such as a use that reduces the trademark's function as an indication of source or a use with another trademark.

By the way, had the government changed the law introducing descriptors and had the court ruled in favour of those descriptors, a complaint could very easily have been launched by any company affected under NAFTA rules. Governments may enact laws that contravene NAFTA, but they can be sued under the terms of the agreement.
This has happened before and it can be expensive. In 2010 a NAFTA arbitration panel ruled that Newfoundland had violated the NAFTA agreement in  expropriating of the assets AbitibiBowater and it cost the government $130 million dollars in compensation. Link
NAFTA's provisions allow foreign companies to file claims when their investments are adversely affected because of government action that contravenes the agreement, be it regulation, legislation or expropriation.

At any rate, the PQ government under Lucien Bouchard did consider changing the law in 2000 and sought advice from the Conseil supérieur de la langue française, a pro-French language body formed by the government to advise it on language matters.
Judge Michel Yergeau, who ruled against the OQLF in the anti-descriptor judgment, actually quoted from that report, in which the Conseil argued AGAINST adding descriptors for legal reasons.
The Conseil concluded that international law precluded the imposition of descriptors.  Read the Judgment in French


 ...their claim that adding a generic French term that describes what they are selling would dilute the force of their brands
I've never heard any company make any such claim.
In fact the eight companies involved in the litigation have refused to discuss the matter and have placed a complete news blackout and embargo on the subject.
I'm sure the Gazette begged every single one of these companies for an interview or statement, but to no avail and to put words into these companies mouth is to impugn their motives.

I somehow suspect that the answer is a lot simpler. The companies don't want to add descriptors because the law doesn't provide for it and they like their trademarks just the way they are.

 Some have done so voluntarily with no evidence that it has hurt their business
Because some companies make the business decision to change their name, does it mean that everyone has to?
Some women object to changing their name when they marry, some don't. (In fact, in Quebec, you must actually keep your maiden name.)
But because some women choose to take their husband's name without ill effect, does it mean that those who choose to remain faithful to their maiden name are somehow disrespectful and wrong?

Is it any argument to tell women that they should be obligated to change their name, because they won't suffer any prejudice and so should do so out of respect to their husband?

surely be the courteous thing to do
Hmmm...  Opening the door for someone, giving up your seat on the Metro, allowing someone to take the last piece of pie, these are courteous things to do.
Changing your name because someone else is offended because it is English, is not a courteous thing to do, it is sadly indulgent.

comfortably stand in unity with the Office
The office québécois de la langue française is an enemy of Quebec Anglos and ethnics, something that should be manifestly clear to an English newspaper like the Gazette.
The Oh-feece has used as standard operating procedures, intimidation and threats. It has enforced rules that don't exist and terrorized merchants by marching in their places of business like storm troopers. There is nothing under the sun that the Oh-feece can do that Anglos should support, except should it ever announce its demise.
To make common cause with your abuser is as sad as a battered woman defending her abusive husband.
It's pathetic.

mostly U.S.-controlled retailers
Another sad and pathetic argument made by the Gazette, is intimating that since it would mostly be American-owned stores that would suffer, we should somehow let it go.
Really?

might help prevent frustrations
I have three grandchildren who I adore and by whom I readily admit to spoiling as much as I can.
I feed them too many sweets, let them stay up past their bedtime and let them play on their IPads much too long. I know I shouldn't, but invoke the grandparents version of the 'notwithstanding clause.'

But kids will be kids, they ask for the moon and always want more...just one more chocolate.. another hour before bed, just one more video game.

And so there comes a line I daren't cross.
They can't eat sweets to the exclusion of all else, they can't stay up forever and there comes a time when I have to forcibly remove the IPad from the vise-like grip they maintain on their precious screen.
My four-year old grandson is quite the negotiator and can perfectly justify why that fourth cookie is not only fair, but reasonable and failing a positive response sometimes (not often) resorts to a tantrum or the dreaded waterworks option.
Alas I admire his efforts, but try to remain stoic and firm. There's a limit to indulgence that good parents and grandparents must abide by, even in the face of such pressure. (believe me, it's hard to say no!)
And so I understand why the Montreal Gazette would want to indulge French language militants over their demand that stores in Quebec add descriptors, but it is a case of bad parenting, allowing good intentions to be manipulated beyond what is normal and healthy.
We've all witnessed those parents who give into their children, no matter what, and it usually makes us cringe when we witness such a public humiliation.

Such is the Montreal Gazette, an indulgent parent to a fault.
Just because the separatist language militants want a fourth cookie, doesn't mean we should give in.
Language militants are fanatics, nothing will satisfy them until the last Anglo quits Quebec. If the Gazette thinks that giving in on descriptors will be the end of the battle, they should read on.

This from Imperatif-francais website;

"In Gatineau, several angry citizens held protests against the offensive and polluting name; "Bulk Barn", which attacks Quebec's cultural environment.
Bulk Barn," a name that doesn't fit in with our Quebec character! Just seeing and saying the name "Bulk Barn" and looking at the company colours, one can understand that it has a rather anglicized profile...
...This visual pollution is spreading all over Quebec Link

Readers will note that the sign is complete with a descriptor, even if the law says it doesn't need one, but for radicals, that Maple Leaf, perhaps more than the name itself, is just unbearable.

Radical groups like IM, are hysterical in their denunciation of Canada and complain about just about everything, including chastising companies for having the audacity to defend their rights before the courts.
Jean-Paul Perreault, president of this language-defence group slammed those contesting 'descriptors,' urging shoppers to boycott stores which he claimed “lead a costly and merciless legal battle against Quebecers”.

Over at the Société Saint-Jean Baptiste website, they are expressing outrage that certain members of the Liberal party took the oath of office in English.

"April 17, 2014, several members of the PLQ took the oath of office in English at the National Assembly. Liberals do not seem to understand the distinction between individual and institutional bilingualism.

Knowledge of several languages ​​is a personal enrichment. But the English-French bilingualism in public institutions creates a divide that hinders integration. Link

This is the type of people and organizations that the Gazette thinks they can satisfy by giving in on descriptors. Sorry...it ain't gonna happen!

Now back when the descriptor controversy first hit the media, the SSJB defended their use as something normal and acceptable and in common use all over the world.

"If you're in Norway, it is normal to display in Norwegian, likewise in Japan. Why would it be different here? Because we are only eight million? "Asks Mr. Rousseau. Link

Toy R Us in Norway (above) and in Japan (below.)

Not one mainstream media outlet challenged the SSJB on the facts, which were false and easily verifiable.
I'm proud to say that I wrote a post that completely destroyed that fantasy, taking readers on a visual tour of the world, where the exact opposite of what the SSJB contended was true.
Read that post: OQLF Demands Descriptors, the World Laughs 

I sent that post to all the media outlets, both English and French, as well as the SSJB and Imperatif-francais. I received nary a response.

But from that day on, neither separatist/lobby group ever repeated the lie that the rest of the world uses descriptors.

When the Gazette editorial board climbs down from its ivory tower, they might realize that giving in to these language fanatics over descriptors will never buy any peace.
I'll bet if these zealots had their way, the Gazette would be forced to publish its advertisements in French only.  I'll bet some of them will argue that the Gazette shouldn't be allowed to publish in English at all or should be sold from under the counter, so as not to despoil the linguistic atmosphere.
  
As for normal francophone Quebecers being all steamed up over English names, don't believe a word of it. 
 
'William' is the most popular name among francophone new born babies. Yup, William, not its French equivalent of 'Guillaume.'
There were 823 babies named 'William' born last year, while only four were named 'Gilles' and eight 'Guys'
It's funny how facts on the ground don't match up with separatist hype. The SSJB tells us that Quebecers hate our monarchy and want nothing to do with royals, yet the most popular name remains William.
In Quebec lat year, 625 babies were named 'Lea' and only four were named 'Josée'. 

In fact, it seems that Quebecers are obsessed with Jewish biblical names for boys, including Nathan, Samuel,  Jacob and Gabriel, all in the top ten. Link
Go figure.

Lastly readers, to the editorial board of the Gazette, a question.
Why doesn't the Montreal Gazette put its money where its mouth is and also adopt a descriptor, after all, everything they say in the editorial applies to itself. Even though it isn't the law, isn't the name of the newspaper as big an affront as is Canadian Tire to the French linguistic atmosphere of Quebec?

Further reading:
OQLF Sign Directive Not Necessarily Legal 
OQLF Serves Up a Hearty Dish of Statistical Lies and Nonsense

OQLF versus Wal-Mart ..Language Militants Lose Either Way

Election Recap....Shadenfereude Edition

This will be the final post on the last election, it's time to consign it to the history books and turn our attention to matters at hand.

But before we do, I'd like to offer a little bit of delicious shadenfreude, that special sinful delight in
enjoying other people's pain.

The loss for separatists was all the harder to bear because it was in fact a self-inflicted wound, the election triggered by greed, the PQ not satisfied with ruling as a minority, seeking a majority and shockingly receiving an exit pass from voters.

What really made the loss so hard to take is that the PQ leadership believed that the worst they could do was to be returned as a minority government, not bad for Plan B, which would buy the PQ another year or two of government.
Getting the boot was just not on the radar and the separatists in the PQ and in the media wore the shock and deception very publicly.
So why don't we enjoy a little of it?

If you're a kind and gentle soul, you can skip this post.
But if you're a mere mortal, I think you might get a kick out it,
So let's have a little fun and savour some of those woe-is-me missives, a little treat of schadenfreude, the guiltiest of pleasure, even lower than rank gossip.

Let me start with a delicious bit of painful whining from our good friend Gilles Proulx, who is at his sarcastic best when reminding the Quebecois how stupid they are. If you try just a little, you can see the acid dripping from his words, his obvious rage and pain a most delicious treat.

"And so happiness is upon us with Philippe Couillard in power in Quebec, because soon we will enjoy  the great Eldorado, where everyone will have a Cadillac and palm trees will sprout from earth and so Quebecers, emotionally illiterate, should now demand the abolition of the Charbonneau commission.

Because these stories of fraudsters, are beyond their comprehension, why would Quebecers continue to fund this  paralegal reality show?

Quebecers, one of the stupidest people on Earth,  drove out their world of Catholicism which inspired their collective life to accommodate without discrimination, a multitude of other religions.

For Easter, the New Testament relates an ancient custom of Pontius Pilate who commutes a death sentence. To celebrate the Liberal Easter, I say commute all the fraudsters, all mafiosi to free up room in our prisons..

Quebecers should also demand the immediate abolition of the Office québécois de la langue française, because they couldn't care less for the development of their language.

We should also require  freedom, freedom and nothing else on behalf of the latter, allowing any bare-foot peasant  from dolling themselves up in a uniform like a clown,  wearing a "religious symbol" in the police, for example, or in a court of justice.. Link{fr}

 Ahh, the poet......

Then there's our old friend Louise Beaudoin, a woman who put the 'hard' in the PQ hardliners;

"I didn't expect the magnitude of this defeat. And so is the idea of ​​independence that of a single generation?  Have we failed to instill the idea of country in our young? The answer lies in the new generation. For me, this [result] gives me leave to throw in the towel and pass the baton to others, "she posited. - Link{fr}

It is becoming increasingly clear that its first article the option on sovereignty, has gone over like a lead balloon and this for some time.-Gerard Bouchard (bouchard -taylor)  Link{fr}

Defeated in his own constituency, the outgoing Minister, Yves-François Blanchet admits that they  committed strategic errors during the election campaign.

I think his quote is my favourite after-election comment; 

"Opponents have handed us a trap on the referendum. The trap shouted: I am a trap! I'm a trap! I'm a trap!.... And we fell right into it, anyways. Link

Ruminating in Le Journal de Montreal,  Richard Martineau comments reminded me of the shakespearean phrase;
"A countenance more in sorrow than in anger"

But it is precisely this that hurts Pauline Marois' party the most. Despite scandals, rumours and allegations; despite the post-its, envelopes and UPAC searches, Quebecers preferred to vote for the Liberals instead of the PQ! Holding their nose, they actually preferred to vote for the Liberals rather than return the Parti Quebecois to power! Link{fr}

Not all the pain was excluseivly the domain of the Pq, ex-Liberal MNA Fatima Houda-Pepin had one of the safest seats in Quebec.
She objected to the Liberal party's renunciation of the Charter of Values and chastised the party its stand in public.

She paid the price of her convictions by being fired by Philippe Couillard, which would have been admirable if she left in a dignified manner.

But she decided to either punish or embarrass the Liberals by running as an independent, I cannot for the life of me believe that she was dumb enough to believe that she could win the riding.

Lapiniere is a Liberal stronghold where the large Chinese community would vote for an Al Quaida terrorist if he ran as a Liberal.

Th irony of it all is that the Charter of Values is dead and she is out of a job, essentially for no reason.

Do I feel bad for her?...Read the title of this post!

Alexis Deschênes, the defeated candidate in Trois-Rivières, told reporters that "the ambiguity of the referendum" was one of the causes of the defeat PQ. "Should we? Should we not? I think in the future we need to clearly answer that," said Mr. Deschênes.
"On the ground, people wanted to know, I would have accepted the idea that there would be no referendum in the first term; But on the other hand, I wanted to speak of benefits associated with the independence of Quebec, "he added.   Link{fr}

Sheesh! Somebody ought to tell this guy to make up his mind!

Bernard Drainville was caught breaking the election law by campaigning in a cegep which doubled as a polling station. It is against the law to campaign or distribute campaign material in a polling station.

But the hilarious pat of the story is the reaction of his aide;

Bernard Drainville is currently being audited by the Chief  Electoral Officer because he visited colleges during polling day .
The PQ candidate wasn't embarrassed to post pictures of his meetings with students at CEGEP Lionel-Groulx and Ahuntsic and the Lanaudière in L'Assomption  on Twitter , Tuessday.

The  Marie-Victorin incumbent was accompanied by the candidate in Groulx, Martine Desjardins, and one in Acadie , Evelyne Abitbol .
A clear law

However, the Election Act states that " on the premises of a polling place , no person may use a sign to identify their political affiliation or expressing support for or opposition to a political party or a candidate or engage in any other form of partisan advertising. "

Reached by telephone , the communications director for Bernard Drainville , Manuel Dionne, denied having violated the Elections Act. He first confirmed that the candidate had indeed distributed flyers in the college, but said he had complied with the law.
However, he went back on his words during a second call. "To my knowledge, nobody distributed leaflets. We were present, but did not partake in partisan activity. You do have the right to be there and talk with people ," said Manuel Dionne, while adding that he consulted about it with the Office of Elections.

Now if you're going to tell a blatant lie, it's important to destroy any evidence, especially when it comes from the candidates own Twitter account;

 Here is a picture of Drainville, (taken from his Twitter account) not distributing campaign material in a cegep. Ha! Ha! Link{fr}


Dominique Payette defeated PQ candidate in Quebec city blamed the media for it all, particularly Quebec City radio stations known derisively as 'Radio Poubelle' (Trash) which treated the PQ rather harshly.
Talking directly to reporters she said;
"I think that you were manipulated by the Liberal party."

Daniel Breton,  another defeated PQ candiadte chimed in on that very subject;
"and in social media as well. I've been harrassed, I've been insulted and I've been threatened in the social media"

Émilien Pelletier,  yet another defeated PQ candidate  was visibly furious when she aked this of reporters; media
"First of all, are you going to tell me what deal you made with Mr. Couillard?"
You were negative on  everything about Madame Marois !"

 Here's a comment taken from a newspaper online story that I just couldn't resist.

 Translation: This morning I'm asking myself what I'm going to do for the rest off my life. I refuse to work in English, nor serve anyone in that language.
I just modified my C/V: I am no  longer bilingual.
There's too much time to live. I am unfortunately in good shape and I think that I haven't yet lived half my life!
Enough time to see my people completely assimilated.
What torture!
My last hope resides in the outbreak of a third world war.
If there are some who rejoice in the disappearance of the Quebec nation, why shouldn't I rejoice in the disappearance of humanity?

Some notable quotes

Francoise David, leader of Quebec Solidaire.
"We know that on the ground and in the regions, particularly in the regional cities we are expecting significant gains tomorrow night."

Pauline Marois
"My little finger is telling me that on Monday night, we'll be very happy. And another thing my little finger is telling me : I am in possession of certain information that tells me we're going to elect a PQ  government"

comments from vigile.net

No whine-a-thon would be complete without a few delicious comments from Quebec's premier separatist website;

"The Liberals are the local elite who have enriched themselves by aggressive control of the colonized people of Quebec, by maintaining a status quo favorable to the colonizer. Because Quebec is still locked in a colonial structure which weakens it on an ongoing basis, the Liberals, stealing elections with the active complicity of the media and the Orangemen of Canada, will always be protected for its major crimes, as Israel is by the USA. Conclusion: do not get distracted by the possible arrests of Liberals, because this party allows Canada to continue its work of undermining Quebec (economic exploitation, etc..,) in a province of cowards easy to screw."

"It seems that Quebecers now elect their government the Italian way, or if you prefer, à la Berlusconi.  
On April 7 we witnessed a travesty of democracy. This government is illegitimate, it is mafia-like and Anglo-Islamic.
Journalists behaved like lap dogs to the system and did the job of manipulating the people through phoney public opinion polls.
Rotten Liberal  lawyers, through their injunction prevented the citizens of Quebec from exercising their right to vote in a fair and enlightened manner.
As a citizen and patriot, I do not recognize this government!
Quebecers elected as the head of their state, an agent of  denationalization, someone who had previously been schooled in two important experiences including one in Saudi Arabia and other CSIS. Couillard is acting with the sole purpose of the destruction of the state of Quebec."

"The Quebec Liberal Party has become an organization that aims to enrich its friends and nothing else, except to trivialize Quebec and make it fit in within the Canadian order. Never before has an elected Prime Minister been suspected of so much, even before being sworn in. Never have so many doubts existed over potential cabinet ministers. All this for not willing to consider a possible referendum. Thank you God, the forces of the nation are on guard, and maybe we can relive the feverish era experienced by baby boomers, our forefathers who took to the streets to denounce the villains. The profound insignificance of Hamad, of Tomassi, to name just a few, takes on a special signifigance when we recognize the role they played in the Charest team, the most harmful of all Quebec prime ministers except perhaps Mousseau in the nineteenth century."

"Early on, anger reigned in my heart, then the sadness and now a big smile.
Because the Liberals will be pursued by police and encircled by journalists, one can only laugh. Over the weeks and months to come, we will have the pleasure of seeing them wither slowly but surely because journalists will not let go.
The PQ needs to hammer home the subject of sovereignty, its economic viability and the pride of our founding roots. PKP would be a good leader but he needs to take  speaker's courses in order to be able to inspire crowds."

"Throughout the West, we currently live the narrative of the mainstream media which preaches for the maintenance of the current political, social and economic status quo.This is highlighted by the realism of young Quebec-born families who did not vote for the PQ in the last election .It is held in most of the media that it isn't realistic to believe in the Quebec sovereignty and young Quebec families who are more realistic than the generations that preceded them, are manipulated by these media stories of what is and isn't realistic.
All that to say that the new "realism" is not absolute and objective but rather subjective and totally adapted.The new realism is simply one meant to protect at all costs, our personal situation, that which we consider satisfactory and enviable.Faced with such an evolution of Québec society, an evolution, it must be said, which affects all the of the West, we can wonder if those who over the centuries, from Nostradamus to Machiavelli who predicted the end of our time, were actually right."

To counter these false eulogies, it would useful if  Vigile established a section devoted to the Order of useful idiots, in continuation of the work that Pierre Vadeboncoeur inaugurated in relation to our Quebec politicians, in his book 'The great fools,' and which would give a nuanced portrait of the spinelessness, demagoguery and compromises of those who betray their country, their fellow citizens and our project of national emancipation. Firstly, I would see the name of Denis Coderre added, our faux-mayor, federalist, liberal and body and soul sell-out, all to our detriment. 

It is rather disturbing to see the Liberals returned to power, but it highlighted the weakness of leadership or charisma of Ms. Marois. Not to mention, the obvious lack of renewal and updating the vision of the PQ.

I feel bruised by this victory of unscrupulous people. 
 

comments from Le Journal de Montreal

The people do not want a referendum, for the moment, so thank you to the liberal campaign of fear and the spineless ... we'll see. We have time. Federalists said the same thing in 1994, and a year later plus, they were scared of out of their lives. The sovereignty project is the best thing that we can achieve ... this is not a defeat that will stop this project, and it is certainly not Goldinocks (sic) that will do  it.

Natives or the naive, it isn't the Anglos who lost the elections for the PQ, but the ambiguity and the reality of the PQ changing positions at the discretion of the electorate. A country is not built on improvisation and ambiguity, this legitimate  project deserves better.

Maybe I'm dreaming, but when you have a noble ideal that makes a country and ensures the future of our children, it is very rewarding and perfectly acceptable to do so. I'd rather dream than continue to let myself be fleeced by Canadians who continue to rob us (examples are of which there are so many,) continue to see the French language scorned to Montreal , Laval ... . ; the future belongs to those who stand, not to those who are crushed.

Ah the egocentrics! a virtual black hole, an ogre with a gargantuan appetite, which leaves nothing over for the collective, the community, the nation and what distinguishes it from others: its identity, language, culture.  
"What's in it for me?" The new credo of a generation. Everything is measured in terms of the dollar, the yardstick of modern success. ....The future will tell us if we were wrong. Why think about the future when the present moment is glorified.  
The grasshopper having sung all summer, was greatly at risk with the coming of winter ...

It is not because an election was conducted by a bunch of idiots that the freedom of a people is put into question. And so all the money and media support for the Liberals means that every election for the PQ becomes a referendum. Sovereigntists must unite and continue the work.

The old always complain on the young. It's always been like that. Older Baby Boomers such as Marois and Martineau have trouble understanding and accepting that they are old and outdated. Life changes. Tastes change. Society changes. The world is changing. Accept and appreciate it instead of spitting upon it. If not, you will become, if you're not already, old whiners who continually talk about the good old days .... yuck! 
 

AND THE KNIVES COME OUT

...A major cleanup is about to take place within the PQ after its crushing defeat April 7^th.
The party’s President Raymond Archambault; director general Sylvain Tanguay and director of communications Jean Bouchard are no longer welcome in the organization, according to members of the PQ. LINK

Caption this-

How about readers offering some appropriate captions for these photos?

and in conclusion, some humour.. Quebec style;

Have a great weekend!

Bonne fin de semaine!

Election Recap....The Good, the Bad and the Very Ugly.

I cannot help but wonder if anything could have gone much worse for Pauline Marois and the Parti Quebecois, looking for a majority government with the fail-safe backup plan that if they didn't get that majority, they'd be no worse off than before the election, perhaps buying another year or two of minority rule.

But as the old  saying goes,  'Mann tracht und Gott lacht' (It rhymes in Yiddish) or in plain English;
 Man plans and God laughs.....

The campaign was perhaps the most bizarre I can remember, where absolutely nothing went according to plan, and where not one of the so-called pundits came anywhere close to getting the final results right.

Now everything looked bright for the PQ at the onset of the campaign, you couldn't really fault them for triggering an election with a couple of points lead in the polls over the Liberals and the CAQ lagging badly, its best showing in months. If those poll numbers held, it would mean a PQ majority government.
 
But the wheels fell of the PQ campaign bus soon after Pierre-Karl Péladeau entered the fray, swearing his separatist fervour and telling voters that he'd work to make Quebec independent, something nobody could have predicted would backfire so badly.

Perhaps it would be an interesting exercise for me to engage in a little self-important hubris and not so humbly present to you what I'll call the Editor's Golden  Rules of Campaigning, rules that may seem cynical and perhaps, even counter-intuitive.
Nonetheless, I stand by them and so let's put them to the test;

1. It isn't what you don't say that gets you in trouble, it's what you do say...so say as little as possible.
    
2. Negative is positive..... Find your opponent's weak spot and hammer away, but do it politely.
    
3. Don't promise voters anything, they won't believe your lame promises anyways. That is  UNLESS it is a new hockey arena or cement plant for their town. Local issues trump everything, so by all means, promise voters cement plants and hockey arenas, if you can deliver.  
    
4. Dress impeccably, always wear a suit and tie (or women's equivalent.) Remember that being overdressed is expected of leaders. Don't don construction helmets or hairnets, lab coats or any other such nonsense during factory visits. (Ask Gilles Duceppe about this rule....)
    
5. Never let them see you sweat, never answer a tough question, never ad lib or improvise and never deviate from talking points, no matter how hard it is to do. Don't think too much, just follow the plan.
    
6. Don't defend the indefensible. Never compound an error. Admit a mistake and move on.
    
7. Don't be wrong on the facts and try not to look foolish. Reporters will destroy you for your mistakes. This is perhaps the hardest rule to follow 

Let's apply these rules to the campaign.

The Fist Pump Fiasco 
Pierre-Karl Péladeau's entry into the fray was supposed to be a big boost for the PQ, everyone assumed that he would have a huge impact on the race and he certainly did, but not in the expected way.

This turning point in the campaign wasn't actually a PQ mistake, it didn't violate any of the above rules because it was supposed to be a key plank in the election, one that was supposed to be a positive momentum shifter in favour of the PQ.
It didn't work out, PKPs awkward fist pump and solemn pledge to work towards sovereignty went over like a lead balloon, but stunned PQ handlers were bowled over by the negative reaction and were clearly unable and unprepared to react.

And then Pauline made the worst mistake of the campaign;

“We could wish to have a seat at the Bank of Canada but we accept the fact it is the bank’s monetary policy that would apply,” 
We’ll still be able to go see the Rockies out West and go to Prince Edward Island and they’ll be able to come here. There won’t be any borders or tolls.”

Do you think that policy was crafted by PQ organizers before the campaign? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the exact opposite is true and the policy was to steer clear of such a debate.
So in one fell swoop, Pauline violated four of the above rules and violated them so badly, she and the PQ never recovered;

Rule One 
Why bring to the debate the issue of sovereignty and referendums when the whole campaign was supposed to be based on good government and perhaps the Charter of Values? It was an amateur mistake of saying too much, way too much.
Rule Three
She made unrealistic promises about an independent Quebec that had her looking quite the buffoon.
Rule Five
She went off message, improvised and ad-libbed, made up policy on the fly and completely ignored the polished script prepared for her by organizers. She took and answered questions that she should have deflected and looked ill-at ease in doing so.
There are four constraints in Rule Five, she violated them all.
Rule Six
She compounded PKP's inadvertent error over sovereignty in defending what had become an indefensible position... the possibility of a referendum. Trying to appease everyone by promising a referendum only if Quebecers wanted one, satisfied no one and actually alienated everyone.
Instead of immediately making the decision to forcefully eliminate a referendum possibility, Pauline soldiered on down the path of destruction

Now errors occur in every campaign, they are inevitable. Candidates are bound to make mistakes and say the wrong things at a certain point. Imagine this type of error as standing on the middle rung of a very shaky ladder, you can choose to keep climbing up or choose to stand down.
Only the smartest and most disciplined make the right decision to come down off the ladder, Pauline kept climbing to the top and and like Humpty-Dumpty, had a great fall.


The Anglo Student Fiasco 
The student fiasco occurred when an amateur and desperate campaign tried to seize on facts that were not facts, a clear violation of Rule Number Seven.... Don't be wrong on the facts.

The three Musketeers, including the Justice Minister  all get it embarrassingly wrong over 'dastardly' Ontario students

Holding a news conference to alert voters to an imaginary invasion of hordes of evil anglo students, intent on stealing an election would be a brilliant campaign strategy if it were true, but a disaster if it wasn't true.

It wasn't true.....

And so the Justice Minister Bernard St. Arnaud, who should have known better then to open his mouth without a clear understanding of the facts, demonstrated his rank amateurism and clear desperation.
When the facts surfaced that in fact there was no such invasion, the PQ looked utterly foolish, something that contributed more than one might think, to the public perception that the PQ were not ready for prime time.

The Janette Fiasco
Janette Bertrand was supposed to be an asset who would inspire Quebecers of a certain age and temperament to rush over to the PQ in support of the Charter of Values. Capturing the older conservative demographic was key, because of its propensity of voting Liberal.
The strategy worked well before the campaign actually started, with a seeming groundswell of support for the old-time and popular TV personality speaking for the Charter of Values, inspiring a small movement of activists.

But at a PQ campaign event  featuring a defence of the Charter of Values,  Janette Bertrand made a speech in which she accused rich Muslim McGill students of attempting to take over, a speech which had Liberal opponants howling in laughter and PQ supporters grimacing in pain.

"Imagine, she said, two men come to a swimming pool in a Montreal apartment, and the sight of women in the water upsets them.
“Well, suppose they leave, and go see the owner,” said Bertrand, an 89-year-old former actress and journalist, emphasizing that the owner would be happy to have such “rich” McGill University students in the building.
“Then they ask, ‘Well, can we have a day,’ and they will pay… And then in a few months, it’s them who have all the pool time.”
“That’s what will happen if there is no charter.” Link

As I said before, there's always going to be these 'gaffes' in any campaign but it was the reaction to Bertrand's fantasy story that was telling.

There was Bernard Drainville, standing stoically behind Madame Bertrand during her speech, nodding his head in support, instead of doing the perspicacious thing and grabbing the microphone away or failing that, slink out from the frame, thus perhaps disassociating himself from the fiasco and perhaps saving his own skin. But the stink rolled over him royally and he cemented the public's perception of him as an unrepentant ideologue.

But it was Pauline's impassioned defence of Bertrand's Muslims-in-the-pool missive, that clearly violated Rule Six, which reminds politicians not to defend the indefensible nor compound an error.

[Bertrand] spoke from her heart,” the Premier said. “She spoke of her commitment to a cause that has been close to her heart for 70 years, the equality of men and women.”  -Pauline.

None of the opposition leaders were willing to attack a dotty old lady, but it was that defence of Bertrand that gave opposition parties the ammunition to dump all over Marois and dump they did.

Now consider Jean-François Lisée's reaction, a textbook lesson in how to diffuse a bad situation.
He smiled broadly and told reporters that perhaps Bertrand had 'senior moment' one that we should all perhaps forgive.

“My reaction was that this was not the best quote of the campaign, this was not the best argument for the charter.

But the woman is 89, so I’m going to cut her some slack.” 

Brilliant... Who's going to argue with that. Case closed!

Fire the Doctors Fiasco
There's nothing stupider than a throwaway candidate mucking up the works by making some inopportune statements that snowballs right into a fiasco of major proportions.

"Evelyne Abitbol shocked the crowd of scholars at Vanier College’s Charter debate by blurting out that doctors who would not comply in the given time to the Charter’s regulation could get fired – except those that work at the Jewish hospital. Link

The PQ candidate made two grievous mistakes, the first showing up to a debate in an English cegep, an act as stupid as gun control advocate speaking at a NRA convention, especially considering that she hardly spoke English.

But no where in the PQ policy handbook is there a hypothetical provision for firing doctors or nurses who refuse to remove religious headwear, so thank you Ms. Abitbol for wading into shark-infested waters.
Once again Pauline violates Rule Six by defending the indefensible and confounding the error.  In a radio interview over the subject, Marois jumped right into the quicksand, offering this nonsense.

“In the laws and regulations that we propose, it is possible to find alternate pathways. And at the end  (transition years), it is possible we can admit or accept that there will be an extension.....We do not foresee and we do not want layoffs, she added. “We believe it is possible to find pathways to steer these people to other jobs that match their skills, because (the charter) does not touch the private sector,” Marois told Montreal radio station 98.5 FM. Link

Really... can that be helpful?

New Tax Breaks
People ask why I was so sure that the Liberals would win a majority government and I tell them it was Pauline's late promise of tax breaks, a move that even the most politically uninformed recognized as a desperate attempt to buy some love.

In fact the move was so nakedly desperate it could only have been precipitated by panic in the PQ ranks, where either internal polling indicated the coming meltdown or where candidates and organizers in the field were putting pressure up above in the face of voter abandonment.

Whatever the case, promising tax breaks is a clear violation of Rule Number Three. Voters aren't cynical, they just don't believe or care about these pie-in-the-sky promises.
Who of you out there believes that even one voter was swayed to change their vote over to the PQ over this lame-ass and patently ridiculous promise?

It's a sad litany of failure that should be compared to the Liberals error-free campaign.
I can hardly think of one Liberal gaffe, because Philippe Couillard kept his mouth shut on the issues and his head down over accusations of past corruption.
His one declaration, a not-so-veiled threat to Marois that if she flung dirt at him over corruption, he'd do the same over Pauline's hubby's alleged corrupt conduct, a threat she apparently took seriously.

Couillard promised almost nothing, but looked confident and handsome doing it. He avoided PQ attacks by doing a wildly successful version of political  rope-a-dope.

And so, Pauline and the PQ delivered an abject lesson in how to lose an election. She isn't alone, both the Alberta and British Columbia elections unfolded exactly the same way, with both the highly-favoured Wildrose party losing in Alberta and the NDP in British Columbia, both running similarly deficient campaigns.

Let's review Couillard's and the Liberal party performance in relation to the above-mentioned rules.

Rule One- Keep you mouth shut..............., CHECK!
Rule Two- Go negative.............................. CHECK! (referendums and sovereignty)
Rule Three- Make no promises.................. CHECK!
Rule Four- Look Handsome...................... CHECK!
Rule Five- Keep to the plan........................CHECK!
Rule Six- Don't defend the indefensible.... CHECK!  (there were no gaffes to defend....amazing!
Rule Seven- Be right on the facts.............. CHECK!  (when you say nothing, it's hard to be wrong!)

Woody Allen once said that 80% of success is just showing up and that's exactly what the Liberals and Couillard did, they just showed up, smiled and did nothing more.
The political lesson to be had....Look smart and  keep your head down and your mouth shut and then hope that the other guys do the opposite.

It happens more often than not..