As the Bloc Quebecois leadership fiasco unfolds, it is becoming increasing clear that the die-hards, led by leader Martine Ouellet, remain steadfastly faithful to the ideological goal of Quebec sovereignty, supposedly achievable in our time, the discredited and defeated notion which like those who believe that the Earth is flat, proves that for some, reality remains a step too far.
There are many good people who believe that Quebec sovereignty is a noble and justifiable goal, but who realize that in the context of today's political and social reality, it just isn't going to happen.
Then there are those that refuse to accept reality, the Bloc Quebecois militants led by idealogue Martine Ouellet who believe that everything can be achieved if only one dreams hard enough.
We've seen this attitude amongst cultists and anti-vaxers where science and reality are irrelevant and where dogma and blind faith supplant truth.
Such is the case of the faithful adherents and members of the Bloc Quebecois who overwhelmingly support Martine Ouellet's fantasy that keeping the faith and working towards the goal of Quebec sovereignty is a noble, justifiable and realizable goal, fantasists who also must believe that pedaling on a stationary exercise bike is a likely conveyance to propel them to the promised land.
Then there are those seven members (out of ten) caucus members of the Bloc Quebecois members of Parliament who know different and who bolted the caucus not only because they believed that right now, given the diminished support for sovereignty, that the role that he party must undertake in Ottawa is one where it stands up and protects 'Quebec interests.'
This realistic conclusion is one that the 'Dear Leader' of the Bloc cannot and will not accept along with the backing of most of the Bloc membership who also support the 'sovereignty or death' choice.
And so the two factions seem unable to heal the rift which has exploded into an irreconcilable schism. The fact that Martine Ouellet is also bat-shit crazy, something almost everyone who has worked for her admits, doesn't auger well for reconciliation.
As for myself and most readers of this blog, the only word to describe the imminent collapse of the Bloc Quebecois is not English nor French, but rather German.
That word is 'schadenfreude,' the pleasure derived from another's misfortune.
Yes....
The topping on this sundae is the hope that the death spiral of the Bloq will be exceedingly long and painful, wiping the idiot smile off Mario Beaulieu's face and breaking the spirit of Martine Ouellet.
Let the seven members of the Bloq who bolted the caucus sit as independents until they take their leave come next election.
Or better still, let them run and split the remaining Bloq vote, insuring an election wipeout that will seal the deal and consign the Bloq Quebecois to the history books along with the Union Nationale or the Ralliement créditiste.
The Prime Minister's latest fiasco, an unsuccessful and laughable adventure in India underscores Justin Trudeau's obsession with form over substance.
But the India trip has had some real impact on Liberal support and one has to ask whether Justin has peaked and is on the way down.
Even the Indians cringed at the Bollywood style outfights that our first family decked themselves out in and questions are starting to be asked, even among supporters, just how stable our PM is.
His cringe-worthy outfits, costing tens of thousands of dollars belies that fact that the Indian government think poorly of him and has shunned him badly on the trip
"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada was the subject of global ridicule for his Bollywood-worthy outfits during a weeklong trip to India.
His
elaborate dress was called “too Indian even for an Indian.” Above, Mr.
Trudeau and his family with the movie star Shah Rukh Khan."New York Times
All this after the "humankind' fiasco where our intrepid PM hectored a questioner at a town hall meeting advising her that 'mankind' was no longer acceptable in his eyes. The backlash was particularly vicious and humiliating, prompting Trudeau to tell the media clumsily that it was all a joke. Not many of us, even the faithful believed that.
It may very well be that the "humankind"
gaffe may have sent Justin 'jumping the shark.' the exact point at which we can say he turned from a modern new-age feminist superstar to bumbling dolt.
At any rate, the Liberals and Justin personally suffered real damage after the Canadian diplomatic reception in India that offered an invitation to a Canadian man connected with Sikh terrorism. The invite was quickly rescinded, but the damage was done.
To make matters worse, those speaking for the Prime Minister intimated that it was elements in the Indian government who made the invitation in an effort to discredit Trudeau.
This assertion set the Indian government into a rage and in a sharply and undiplomatic rebuke, told the Canadian government that India had nothing to do with the invite and in a diplomatic note said that; "Any suggestion to the contrary is baseless and unacceptable.”
And so the latest poll shows Trudeau and his Liberals falling behind the Conservatives and the only thing surprising is why it took so long.
For the longest time, Trudeau's support was rock solid despite his many gaffes, missteps and reckless overspending, but cracks in his feminist/new world armour appeared when he started to be mocked in the media, especially the foreign media.
It isn't policy that is hurting the Liberals, it is Trudeau's personality, which is what propelled the Liberals into power back in 2015 and which is sinking the party now.
Like young teen girl giddy over the latest iteration of a popular boy band, when the crush is over, it is over, and near impossible to get back on the bandwagon.
As for Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, we've not heard or seen much of him, which is a good thing because when your opponent is driving towards a cliff, it's bad form to yell.... Faster! Faster!
But sensing trouble, Trudeau will fight for his political future tooth and nail and damn the consequences for the country. He's already demonstrated his selfish propensities by running up the debt for no good reason except to keep him and his party in power, a selfish decision that demonstrates his utter contempt for taxpayers and future taxpayers.
And so we all sit here and hope that the NAFTA negotiations are successful and conclude without inflicting too much damage on us, pain that we are already factoring in, in order to placate Donald Trump's ego.
But let's be clear, any NAFTA is better than no NAFTA.
And so Justin finds himself between a rock and a hard place, deciding between a bad deal in NAFTA or no deal at all.
Now Trump has gone all in, by making an exemption for Canada from the soon to be imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum conditional on a successfully re-negotiated NAFTA.
It seems that Trump, sensing that Canada is on course to reject the NAFTA deal and damn the consequences, is terrified that failure to 'win' a new favourable deal for the USA would destroy his image as the great negotiator, something we all know he is loathe to allow.
If the deal is scrapped, the full weight of the disaster on the economy will take a year to be felt and another year to send unemployment skyrocketing and the economy tanking and since the Liberals are running a huge deficit already, there's no way to ease the pain through spending.
All this in the runup to the next federal election.
Even if Justin somehow makes a deal, the political pain from the moaners who lose out because of Canadian concessions made will be harsh.
Since it is inconceivable that Justin will allow the dairy cartel to be dismantled or the duties on cross-border online shopping, it probably falls on the auto sector to be given up, a disaster for Ontario.
Make a deal and face a political disaster or make no deal and face a political disaster, a veritable 'Sophie's Choice.
It is lights out for the Liberals and there's no new age blather that can talk Justin and the Liberals out of this one.
Facing diminishing polls, ridicule and difficult decisions ahead, I think we're going a different Justin, a nasty sort who will bare his teeth and viciously attack opponents, blaming others for all his woes.
In other words, just another cheap politician.
And here is another fearless prediction.
You won't see another photo of Justin in costume anymore, not even for Halloween!
And I'll bet he's also ditching the goofy socks too.
Well, the Bloc Quebecois finally imploded under the weight of the cancerous leadership of Martine Ouellet, with seven of the ten sitting parliamentarians bolting the caucus after sending an ultimatum to the leader that she resign or face the resignations of 70% of her caucus.
Martine Ouellet is the clueless idealogue that reminds me of those still 'living-in-the-past members of the Quebec Communist party which actually still exists.
She is a brainless twit who is despised by most around her and the PQ, where in her failed leadership attempt she garnered just 16% of the vote.
In that leadership race she promised that if elected Premier of Quebec, she would nationalize the internet, forgetting or not understanding that telecommunications are in the domain of the federal government.
She also said Jagmeet Singh was unfit to lead because he is too religious for Quebecers.
Ouellet outlined her idea of a potential independent Quebec constitution where Quebecers would retain the Canadian dollar and passport — but could choose to have a Quebec and a Canadian passport. Link{fr}
She promised that if elected Premier she would demand that Canada's Olympic hockey have a minimum of 20% Quebec players, talent notwithstanding.
How's that for looney!
I know I've published this YouTube video before, but if you missed it, it's a chance to see what a real dimwit she is.
Aside from firing and replacing just about all the support staff, Ouellet offended almost her entire caucus with her fanaticism and authoritarianism, the very essence of a 'Bad boss', something the oldtimers just couldn't stomach.
But the real breach is idealogical, where those who left have been worn down by the lost sovereignty fight and now believe that their role in Parliament is to defend Quebec interests, something the new leader refused to accept.
In fact, she actually has the backing of the party, who like her still believe that the fight for independence is viable.
Just two weeks ago the party faithful voted to reject the notion that the Bloc should switch gears and have as its primary responsibility the defence of Quebec interests.
It was a realistic approach and honest admission that there's nothing to be done in Ottawa that could possibly advance the cause of sovereignty.
Ouellet has dreamed of leading a party for so long that despite losing the confidence of her caucus, she will soldier on, at least until the party stops paying her, which is unlikely because she actually enjoys more support than the members who have left the caucus.
What will happen?
Will the party collapse?
Will Ouellet resign?
Will the members re-integrate after a make-up session?
Anyone who predicts anything is playing a mug's game, but here are my two cents.
The deputies who left the Bloc will form a new party that will be dedicated to sovereignty, but which will officially work in Ottawa to promote the interests of Quebec as long as Quebec remains a province. Sort of a PQ-lite version.
Running on such a platform just might have traction.
As for the original Bloc, hardliners will have to make a decision between idealism and pragmatism, and the split between the factions may be fatal.
That being said, almost 20% of Quebecers voted for the Bloc in 2015, so predictions of its death may be premature.
The ever thin-skinned 'done-me-wrong' cadre of op-ed Francophone journalists reacted with bitterness and savage contempt towards Anglophones over an opinion poll that showed that young Anglophones are largely dissatisfied with current language relations in Quebec.
The Leger web online poll asked young anglophones what they thought of the language situation in Quebec and while the results probably surprised nobody in our community, francophones reacted with shock at the temerity of Anglos to complain.
For most francophone intellectuals, the notion that Anglos are treated badly in Quebec is an impossibility, repeating the oft-told fantasy that Anglos are treated with kid gloves.
While anglophones are indifferent or oblivious to the poll, the French media has gone apeshit over the results which sent editorialists into a frenzy. The Journal du Montreal is running story after story of anglo angst followed by savage and mean-spirited rebuttals by op-ed journalists.
Here are the questions, that the poll put to the anglophones;
Are current relations between Quebec francophones and anglophones harmonious or conflictual?
57 % Harmonious
33 % Conflictual (Under 35 years 49 %)
9 % Dunno
Have you considered living in another province?
60 % Yes
38 % No
2 % Dunno
Do Quebec francophones make an effort to understand the realities that anglophones face?
63 % No
20 % Yes
17 % Dunno
Do the results surprise any of you? Not me...
The comments section were largely closed for each and every article but in those articles that were open, readers vented in rage heaping down contempt on anglophones for daring to complain
In a nasty and sarcastic article written by Richard Martineau entitled 1-800-SAVE-AN-ANGLO, he sums up his opinion rather succinctly.
"I read the piece on the Anglos in the Journal and their ordeal broke my heart....Boo, hoo, hoo"
"We're smothering them, crushing them, strangling them! Call in the United Nations!
Quick stop the massacre!"
Hmmm....
According to Denise Bombardier of the Journal de Montreal who in a nasty opinion piece dripping with venom claimed that anglophones don't get jobs because they aren't sufficiently adroit in written French.
I laughed out loud when I read this considering that prospective French-language teachers flunk their written French leaving exam at a rate of 50%. Passing this exam is required in order to obtain a teaching license and so because of the massive failure rate the government allows them to take the test over and over again until they pass. If this is the case for prospective French teachers, I can only imagine the proficiency of francophone students barely making it through high school.
A few years ago a Quebec Muslim received a $15,000 award from the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal because the government agency to which he applied for a job refused to even give him an interview. It seems that after having his C/V ignored repeatedly the complainant sent in identical C/Vs with only the name changed from Arabic sounding to Francophone sounding, the latter all of which were granted an interview!
So, Ms. Bombardier, I imagine it wasn't his written French that sunk his application. Ha! Ha!
And while hard to prove, how many applications with English sounding names are passed over by Quebec employers (including the government) in favour of applications submitted by francophones?
Her article goes on to complain that anglophones refer to her hero, the father of Bill 101 Dr. Camille Laurin as a Nazi and a fascist, when in fact in her opinion, he was just an eminent psychiatrist.
All I can say is Dr. Mengele was also a physician.
Dr. Camille Laurin was a rabid Anglophobe who deliberately and dishonestly loaded Bill 101 with all sorts of unconstitutional clauses meant to incite linguistic conflict. He sold the blatant manipulation to René Levesque as a necessary stratagem to raise linguistic conflict to the boiling point, a tactic he constructed to bolster the case of sovereignty.
When those clauses were ultimately rejected by the supreme court, he portrayed it as a gross humiliation and used it to incite hatred of Canada and Anglophones. Dr. Laurin wanted Bill 101 to be as punitive as possible, not only to protect the French language and eliminate English in Quebec but more importantly to chase Anglos out of the province. Some hero.
Nope, the real reason anglophones hate Bill 101 so much is because it is tinged with contempt and hatred.
For example, for a city or town to be recognized as officially bilingual, the English minority must number 50% plus one. Yup, in order to be recognized as a minority, the anglos have to be in the majority, an idea that is fodder for a Monty Python sketch. Even if the town council votes unanimously to communicate in English with members of their town, the province refuses to allow it.
This clause is unadulterated hatred.
To think that in Canada, a country where 77% of its citizens are English, a province may ban the language with the tacit consent of the federal government is outrageous.
Richard Martineau also went on to remind the ungrateful Anglo bastards that;
"Permit me to remain impervious to the crocodile tears shed by Quebec anglophones. Your community is the most pampered minority in the world."
Alas, Mr. Martineau, you are wrong.
Anglos are not the most pampered minority in the world, not even in Canada.
That would be of course francophone Quebecers, who with just 22% of the population are guaranteed one-third of the Supreme Court judges and where English Canadians in the ROC shovel about ten billion dollars of 'foreign aid' to Quebec each year. Where Radio Canada receives double the allotment it deserves demographically and where English Canadians subside bilingualism to the tune of 75%. The law provides that on a flight from Vancouver to Victoria, francophones (which make up 2% of BC's population, ) are entitled to order a seven-up in French while on a bus ride through Pointe-Claire, Quebec where perhaps 75% of riders are Anglo, the driver is not required and indeed encouraged not to offer English instructions.
When militants complain about the poor language options for minority French communities outside Quebec it would be useful to compare their situation to those of Anglophones in rural Quebec.
But the biggest concession to pampered Quebec minority is the tacit permission to terrorize English citizens from speaking their native language and living their native English culture in a country that is 77% English.
Attention Mr;. Martineau. While we may live in Quebec and we may speak French, we in no way are required to embrace French Quebec culture, no more so than francophones must embrace Canadian English culture by virtue of living in a province outside Quebec.
And no.... I don't want to listen to second-rate artists like Marie-Mai and watch lame French TV, usually poor copies of American English TV anyways.
When we are reminded to embrace the culture of the majority, I always ask....which majority is that?
All these blowhards make arguments as if Quebec is a defacto country where everyone within its borders must embrace the Quebec francophone reality, forgetting deliberately that Canada and English is the majority in Canada. I will remind these idiots of the fact that Quebec athletes wear the Maple Leaf at the Olympics and that the Quebec flag is banned at the Olympics.
Francophones outside Quebec can listen to Marie-Mai or watch the dreadful Julie Snyder or watch the insipid Tout le Monde en Parle, no anglophone will tell them to assimilate into the majority culture of the province they live in.
To those who tell anglos that if they don't like the situation in Quebec, then they should get out, I remind them, we are not tenants, we are owners. What we do not like, we work to change.
If you do not like having anglos as co-owners, vote for sovereignty and kick us out.
I dare you.
Til then understand that our rights as Canadians are equal to yours.
While these commentators demand that anglophone Quebecers respect the French majority in Quebec, they bridle at the notion that francophones owe the English majority in Canada the same.
So, Mr. Martineau, I shed no tears for you and your cry-baby cohorts who tell us how great and strong Quebec is while demanding special political treatment, asymmetric advantages and massive financial transfers from English Canada.
Of course, many Quebec commentators argue that it just isn't so, throwing out misleading statistics to muddy the reality of the advantages Quebec receives by remaining in Canada.
To illustrate my point to those who bear Quebec's entrenched sense of entitlement, I always put this simple question....
In Quebec Hollywood movies are required by law to be dubbed into French, failing which the English version cannot be played. The cost of the dubbing may run up to $100,000 and so the question I put is... who should pay for it?
Should a surcharge be placed on each ticket shown in theatres showing the French version or should Canadians across the country all pay a slightly higher price to subsidize the dubbing.
I have heard all sorts of answers, some hemming and some hawing, but I have never heard a francophone say that those who watch the dubbed version should pay.
Let the English pay....
While slagging and denigrating those nasty Canayans for time immemorial, Quebec has never stopped grabbing the money like a disaffected wife who stays with her husband because the money is good.
Say what you will, the naked contempt and aggression demonstrated by these commentators underscore the reality that was laid bare by the Bonjour/ Hi controversy, that is that there remains in Quebec a latent pathological enmity towards anglophones that even the progressive francophones bear.
If Vladimir Putin ever retires and seeks another occupation, I'm sure Hollywood would come beckoning for him to play an evil antagonist in a Bond or Star Wars movie.
He so exemplifies evil, right down to his evil Mr. Burns sneer. He so fits the part because he's an easy character to hate.
And boy do the Americans ever hate him, not because he is dishonest, sneaky and underhanded as we are reminded constantly by American politicians and the American media, but rather because he is infinitely more successful at his job in advancing his country's interests than any American president he has faced.
Russia successfully ended the bloody Syrian civil war by bringing overwhelming air power to the battlefield, bombing the heck out of the opposition forces with a pragmatic view towards civilian casualties, rejecting current western philosophy where civilians casualties must be avoided at all costs. While true that civilians did die under the unremitting and sometimes haphazard bombing, it is hard to fault the Russian argument that had the war dragged on, many more civilians would be lost. In fact, in can be argued that the ruthlessness of Russian fighting tactics brought the war to a much quicker end.
Putin not only ended the war but did so on Russian terms, supplanting America as the dominant foreign power in the middle east, where even Israel now looks to Russia as the kingmaker.
The Russian air force and navy may have lacked the ultra high tech weapons of the western world, but made good use of what it has.
While NASA invented a pen that could write in the zero gravity of outer space, Russia made do with pencils. It is the Russian way of succeeding with much fewer assets that is so maddening to the Americans.
As for interfering in other countries elections, in this case, the presidential election in the USA, the only thing that is surprising is how easily it was done. Russia employed some pretty basic hacking and low-tech spoofing.
Say what you will, if Russian meddling actually worked and helped elect Donald Trump, Putin should be congratulated his geopolitical strategy, which is of course to advance Russian fortunes.
Now and for the last year, we have been bombarded with American outrage that a foreign government had the audacity and in fact the ability to interfere in the presidential election.
It is especially sweet to see the fulminations and outrage expressed by politicians like Lindsay Grahm and media types on CNN and MSNBC over the affair.
But good on Putin for teaching America a lesson, like the bully who gets his comeuppance.
How come in all the outrage, nobody is saying what is patently evident, that is the United States just got schooled at their own game.
How come nobody points out that interfering in other country's affairs is as American as apple pie, a practice that every single American president has engaged in since World War Two, including Obama who funded groups opposed to the re-election of his nemesis Bibi Netanyahu.
The State Department
paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli
group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.Washington Post
Could you imagine the outrage if it was found that Russia funded a group that bought anti-Hillary television ads?
Why is it fine for America to interfere in other country's affairs and not so for Russia?
The United States created the CIA expressly for the purpose of interfering in other country's business, which includes funding opposition groups of unfriendly governments on the soft side to targetted murders and outright invasions.
According to one academic, the United States interfered in about foreign 72 elections since 1945 and Russia about half as much.
As for arranging coup d'etats, the CIA had a direct hand in the overthrow of the governments of Iran in 1953, Guatemala in1954, the Congo in1960, the Dominican Republic in 1961, South Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in1964 and Chile 1973. Link
"...given the long list of US involvement in coups and assassinations
worldwide – the agency was forced to cut back on such killings after a
US Senate investigation in the 1970s exposed the scale of its
operations.
Following the investigation, then president Gerald Ford signed in
1976 an executive order stating: “No employee of the United States
government shall engage in, or conspire in, political assassination. Link
Today the CIA doesn't call their actions 'assassinations,' which would technically be illegal, but rather uses the term targetted killings. ...from aerial bombing of presidents to drone attacks on alleged terrorist
leaders. Aerial bomb attempts on leaders included Libya’s Muammar
Gaddafi in 1986, Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 and Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein in 2003. Link
Of course, the Russians have always favoured assassination and continue to murder 'enemies' that not only include foreign politicians but those opposed to Putin's rule.
And then there is outright invasion, a tactic used by the United States in Iraq, Panama, Grenada and Cuba, just to name a few and Russia in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and parts of the Ukraine.
So what are the lessons to be learned from Russia's interference in the presidential election?
None.....
As long as there is a capability, governments like the United States, Russia, France, Great Britain, and Israel will interfere.
The higher the capability, the more the interference.
The United States has developed the world's most potent apparatus for spying both through signals and human intelligence and is wont to make good use of its investment.
Ask any American if it was right for Russia to interfere in America's presidential election and you would get a resounding No for an answer.
Ask any American if it is right for America to interfere in Israel's election or any of the dozens of other foreign elections and you would perhaps be surprised by the answer.
The Russian presidential-election interference caper should serve as an eye-opener for all us and help Americans understand that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
And so to America, I say...stop whining.
Most of what I've written above isn't news to those who keep up with current events but I would like to point out the media's complicity in selling the idea that somehow Russia is evil for doing what America is expert at... interference.
I watch Russian TV news, CNN, FOX and surmise that none lie, but rather shade the news by selecting stories that fit their narrative.
American media acknowledges that America is the world's biggest election interferer, but shades the story by seldom if ever running stories about it,
Don't you think it would be a great and relevant story for American media to run a feature on American interference in foreign elections?
Why hasn't it happened?
Fake news is easy to dismiss, but slanted news isn't.
Whenever you hear an American politician go apeshit over Russian election interference remind yourself that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
