Monday, October 5, 2020

Sorry.... French Quebecers Don't Really Care About Saving French

This post isn't about climate change, but let me preface it with this observation on that subject before I go on.

I often find myself embroiled in debate with climate change proponents who froth at the mouth when they discover my skepticism.
The holier-than-thou lecturers invariably descend into name-calling where I'm treated to various insults which usually includes the infamous 'denier' label, a pejorative inspired by the apostle Peter's denial of Jesus.

My reply is almost always the same. I simply ask these virtue-signallers how much cash they'd be willing to fork over each week to a national fund that would combat climate change.

That's right, how much would they personally commit to paying each week....$10...$20...$50....$100.
You should see their stunned faces. It's as if they never contemplated the question.
I have never had any of them answer quickly and decisively with an amount. It is as if they never considered the idea of paying themselves because climate change is always someone else's responsibility.

Of all the climate change blowhards that you know, how many have downsized their home, sold their car in favour of mass transit, cancelled vacations and given up air travel?
Have they renounced air-conditioning and given up or drastically curtailed meat consumption? Do they buy fewer clothes and manufactured products and do they buy only food locally grown even if more expensive?

The protection of the French language by Quebec francophones falls under the same hypocritical reality that I've described above.

Francophone Quebecers, even the most militant and vocal are not really prepared to lift a finger themselves to help boost their language. As climate activists, their plan is for others to do the heavy lifting while they shout instructions and encouragement from the relative safety of the peanut gallery.
Simply put Quebec francophones believe that despite French being under threat as they believe, responsibility for corrective measures falls on somebody else's shoulders and of course, therein lies the rub.

This post is dedicated to all the French language alarmists like Mathieu-Bock Coté, Richard Martineau and his insipid partner Sophie Durocher, Gilles Proulx and Regis Lebeaume et als as well as the OQLF, SSJB and MMF. 

Let's go...it won't be pretty.....

The Quebec government is presenting its latest iteration of anti-English language measures crafted ostensibly to further promote and protect the French language.

"Quebec will open three new Office quebecois de la langue française (OQLF) offices, hire dozens of new employees and create a French-language accompaniment program to help certain businesses conform to Quebec’s language law, said Simon-Jolin Barrette in a Monday morning news conference.

“We have to be very clear. French is the common language and we need to give the resources to the OQLF to make sure the law is enforced and respected,” said Jolin-Barrette." Link

The language minister is huffing and puffing publicly about the addition of a paltry five million dollars to the OQLF budget, the Quebec agency entrusted in enforcing Bill. 

Proponents on both sides of the language debate have been roused to spirited debate by this announcement ushering in the latest flame-war in the never-ending polemic.

Comedian Sugar Sammy, a poster boy for immigrant children forced into French schools is the embodiment of the reality that while you can lead a horse to water, you cannot make him drink. Flawlessly bilingual, his act roasts Quebecers, English, French and Allophones in both French and English shows.
Sophie Durocher, columnist at Le Journal de Montreal blasted the comedian for the tweet as if he attacked the very soul of Quebec by humiliating the idea of adding more money to the OQLF in times where businesses are dropping like flies.

She then went on to invite him onto her radio show where she'd no doubt lambast him some more but refusing the bait Sugar Sammy told Durocher where to stuff the invite in no uncertain terms.

He tweeted this back to her....

"Even though I've been out of the country for five years I still remember what to avoid in Quebec.
1. Columnists like you.
2. Carbs.

Ha! Ha!

At any rate, the pro and con positions made a big splash in the newspapers but the debate missed the point entirely, which is that the announcement is an exercise in "sound and fury, signifying nothing' as Shakespeare so eloquently described in Macbeth. For a government agency, five million dollars doesn't buy lunch. The idea that it can in any way shape or form make a difference is ludicrous, the government knows it, you know and I know it. 

The obsession with Bill 101 is promulgated by the belief that it is necessary for the preservation of the French language in Quebec an idea which has been driven by generations of politicians and language advocates hammering home the message over and over again, to the point where it is considered sacrosanct in the francophone community, even amongst the less militant.

But Quebec's obsession with Bill 101 can be explained by the selfish desire to have a law protect their language, relieving ordinary folks from any responsibility to take up the task. In other words, why fight the fire yourself when a perfectly adequate fire department is available.

But this bedrock concept that French be protected through legislation is not a given as we'd been led to believe. Denmark, who's Danish speaking population of similar size to Quebec Francophones find themselves in almost an identical predicament, yet eschew the notion that legislation is necessary. Instead, the Danish government promotes the idea that it is the responsibility of each Dane to use and promote its own language to protect it. 

"The Danish Culture Ministry has announced that there is no need to pass language protection laws in Denmark at this time, but that other steps should be taken to protect the Danish language.

According to the Copenhagen Post Online, the announcement marks the conclusion of a special government committee investigation into whether or not the use of English is threatening the future viability of Danish.

Although the report released by the committee did not recommend that any new laws be passed to protect Danish, it did recommend steps that the Danish people should take to help preserve their native tongue. For example, the report stressed the “duty” of Danes to preserve the language in their homes and in their schools." 
 Link

Aha!

Unlike Quebec, the Danes believe that the protection of their language rests on the shoulders of its Danish-speaking natives, while Quebec believes that it is the minorities and the English who need to embrace French to protect the language and in Quebec's case, its culture.

As Quebec faced a population decline it boosted immigration of French-speaking immigrants, largely drawn from the French-enabled Maghreb hoping to fill the breach.

While these largely Muslim  immigrants speak French, they have stubbornly refused to give up their religion and faith. Planners believed that over a couple of generations these immigrants would adopt Quebecois customs as well as language, but it hasn't quite worked out. Maddeningly, these immigrants have kept their faith, their customs and more and perhaps worst of all, embraced Canadian federalism.

A bitter pill for desperate language nationalists and governments who have proposed and enacted stricter provisions in the law as its effectiveness over time is seen as wanting.

But the French language in Quebec cannot be saved by immigrants and Anglos adopting French.
Like the Danish proposal, it is up to Quebec francophones to save their own language if indeed it needs saving.
Alas, such is not the case because quite frankly Quebec francophones are just not interested in putting forth the effort required to save their own language. It is that simple, painful truth that is never discussed, a dirty secret best left under the rug.

And so the entire language debate blaming Anglos and ethnics for the perceived weakened position of the French language in Quebec is constructed to cast blame away from francophones who are shockingly lackadaisical, indifferent and utterly uninterested in making an effort on their own.

If Quebec francophones were serious about saving their language they could accomplish the goal by;

  • Getting 63% of Francophones to vote for sovereignty in a new referendum after which a successful outcome, declare independence and totally ban English  
  • Have all francophone native women undertake to have three children to patriotically ensure survival of the race. This would totally negate the need for those cursed immigrants who are perceived as the major threat to French in Quebec
  • Somehow appeal to francophones not to embrace 'foreign' English culture. Last year I looked at the acts playing at the Bell Centre in Montreal and 90% were performing in English. In fact there were much more English Canadian acts than French Canadian acts (so much for the old canard that English Canada has no culture.) If francophones want to preserve their culture, they should be taught from a young age to promote and support their own artists. 
  • Francophones need to boost their own language skills considering the pitiful state of affairs where the majority of new teachers on the francophone side can't pass a simple written French test.
  • Francophones should voluntarily stop attending English schools, cegeps and universities in the name of preserving the preeminence of the French education system. Proposed laws banning the crossover are cited to contain allophones from attending English schools, but francophones are flooding English schools as well.
  • Discontinue the practice of new companies from adopting English names and discontinue the practice of  adopting English names for products run by and created by francophones.
  • Stop listening to English music on the radio or streaming services and stop watching Netflix in favour of homegrown francophone media.

Have you ever heard a language activist propose the above? Ha!

All these measures should be embraced voluntarily by Quebec francophones if the desire to protect and nurture the French language and culture in Quebec is real. Coercive laws would not be necessary.

Not interested? I fear not.

Then francophones need to shut up about language and live with the consequences. 

It isn't our job as anglos and ethnics to save your language if you aren't willing to lift a finger yourself.

20 comments:

  1. Wow, Phil, I thought your commentaries were gone for good! OK, OK, I have to remember you post editorials at your own pleasure.

    Interestingly, I didn't know about Denmark, but who cares? Danish is only spoken in Denmark and for the 50 or so inhabitants of Greenland. You're right insofar the onus is upon Danish speakers to preserve their language. If they don't put in the effort, it is at their peril.

    Look at Israel. It became a country just over 70 years ago and it actually resurrected the Hebrew language, an unspoken language for a good 2000 years. In that time warp the language had to be enriched as many things that exist today didn't back around the start of the Common Era (i.e, the Gregorian and Julian calendars).
    co
    Too, it's not as if Quebec even speaks French. A fellow I met just over a year ago who teaches French (he's Anglophone) said that while he was in France, a Québécois movie shown in Quebec speak, Joual, or whatever you want to call it, had to put in subtitles in "real" French because the people of France needed the subtitles. As it is, they look down their noses at Quebec speak anyway.

    Personally, I think the raison d'être for language legislation is truly coming to the fore. I think the language legislation was created to force those not of their «Québécois de vieille souche» ilk to a lower class, and this primarily was due to envy.

    Envy due to the fact evil incarnates in the French speaking Roman Catholic Church and evil incarnates in politics (think Maurice Duplessis amongst others) oppressed and suppressed their kind for 200 years while the minorities bypassed this perpetuity of ignorance and prospered...even made working stiffs of the majority.

    Let's face it: The Quiet Revolution came along, they finally came into their own and realized they got the short straws, and they couldn't stand it. They didn't go for higher education with few exceptions; they were kept in perpetual poverty by their own Church and by the 1960s, they just couldn't stand it!

    Bills 63, 22, 101 et al were and are proof they have an enormous inferiority complex, and I guess after 200 years of being in the fog, they felt like complete fools, because they were! These laws were passed with a fury of vengeance...sheer blind vengeance! If they had their way, there would be a language inspector in every office, school, public park and even in private homes.

    Heaven knows, one-time PMO secretary Michel Gratton wrote a book in English, an exposé giving non-Francophones a peek into the life of French Canadians. Having been born and raised in the predominantly French speaking Ottawa suburb of Vanier, Ontario, he described his first foray into Quebec life as a horror! The parish priest convinced Michel's parents to send Michel to a boarding school in Papineauville on the Quebec side, about 40 miles from Ottawa. He faced horrid beratement, not just from his fellow students, but the Catholic brothers as well. I've personally met Acadians, especially from New Brunswick, who have no loveloss for Québécois either.

    Now that my parents and other people closest to me have either left Quebec or died, as far as I'm concerned, let the lazy-assed state split. Let the 63% Jacques Parasite and all those of his ilk (including, as far as I'm concerned, John James "Jean" Charest) who like a kapo despite the portion of his English heritage, alienated Anglophones as well as any of them. Any of my peers who chose to stay get what they deserve! They made their choices. Canada would be better off financially without them. Their laziness is bringing down our GDP, not to mention the benefits off the federal government's teat.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Proactive versus passive.

    My take on this is that the sign law contained in Bill 101 represents precisely what Philip is saying.

    If languages other than French (read: English) on commercial signage were a threat to the French language, the solution is not now nor has it ever been legislation, which is a passive approach, one that doesn't require participation by the populace but that attempts to enact the creation of a certain reality.

    The solution is the proactive approach: francophones taking umbrage at commercial establishments which dare to have signage or advertise in unilingual English have only to withhold their consumer dollars from such establishments...and make it known to the owners that they are doing so and why.

    Not only is such a proactive approach one which renders oppressive language legislation unnecessary, it requires the foot soldiers of the French language army -- francophones themselves -- to be engaged in preserving and promoting the language on a personal day-to-day basis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Philip quotes Simon-Jolin Barrette as saying:

    "French is the common language..."

    This mirrors what, part, the preamble to Bill 101 states:

    "to make French the everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business..."

    Note that this appears in the preamble and is NOT part of the body of the law. Why? Because if it were -- that is, everyone in Quebec was commanded to speak French at work and other places -- it would be a clear violation of human rights legislation on three levels: provincial, federal, and international.

    Common language is the result of two freedoms: freedom of expression and freedom of association; we come together outside the home and communicate with others freely. Two or more people speak with each other, without being compelled to do so in any language. Expression and association.

    Quebec knows it cannot legislate a common language, yet its representatives do not hesitate in declaring that French is, in fact, that common language. Hey, Quebec, show the courage of your convictions and pass a law declaring that everyone must speak French as the common language. Let's see how soon it takes to be challenged in the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Sauga writes:

    "Too, it's not as if Quebec even speaks French. A fellow I met just over a year ago who teaches French (he's Anglophone) said that while he was in France, a Québécois movie shown in Quebec speak, Joual, or whatever you want to call it, had to put in subtitles in "real" French because the people of France needed the subtitles. As it is, they look down their noses at Quebec speak anyway."

    I wouldn't conclude anything other than the French simply wanted an easy way to understand an accent/dialect they weren't familiar with in order to follow the story on the screen. The reason for the subtitles may be other than snobbism or the "quality" of Quebec French.

    I myself refuse to see any British movie WITHOUT English subtitles. This is especially true for films in which Cockney is featured prominently. Okay, maybe I can get away with watching The Crown without subtitles, but that's the exception.

    My all-time favourite British film is the wonderful The Long, Good Friday (it's the movie that make Bob Hoskins famous). I've seen it about 8 times and still can't understand a good portion of the dialog. About 15 years ago, the Criterion Collection came out with a special DVD version of the film and, without checking the particulars, I ordered it simply because I assumed it would contain English subtitles and I could now understand the wonderful, richly written screenplay. Well, it didn't. Criterion has subsequently come out with a version that does, but this first one didn't.

    So I wouldn't read too much into the subtitles being in French for French-speakers, Mr. Sauga, as my own experience suggests that there are other reasons why this may be so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony, your point is cogent indeed. Perhaps I'm a bit of a language perfectionist because as the years have gone by, I've seen and heard media people who can neither speak nor write English effectively. One time I was driving down the 401 from Toronto to Montreal and on CFLY, a radio station in Kingston, I heard this woman doing an afternoon show pronounce archipelago as "ar-CHIP-a-lago", i.e., CHIP as in potato chip. A while later, she told the listeners to get their Mexican in gear as they were "going to Mexico" for a story. Foolish me...I thought the primary language of Mexico is Spanish. She probably thinks Americans speak American! I rolled my eyes during the drive and could have had a collision.

      As for Cockney, I see it as a dialect of the underclass, much like Patwa in the Caribbean and Ebonics, especially in the American Black Ghettos.

      In all fairness, these dialects or vernaculars are fair game because they are understood by various communities, but notice how the better educated Black people learn mainstream languages in order to be understood by the mainstream, and to get anywhere in the U.K. you better speak the "Queen's English".

      Being Jewish myself, my grandparents all spoke Yiddish, but for some reason, I and most of my cohorts, just one generation removed from Yiddish being our mother tongue, do not speak the language except for occasional words or expressions. Any peers I have who speak Yiddish do so because it is/was their parents' mother tongue. It's a hybrid language among Ashkenazic Jews (i.e., the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe primarily) developed starting in the ninth century where Jews would be welcome in a country with a welcoming government or monarchy and then persecuted by a subsequent one causing said people to move where Jews were more accepted...until they were again persecuted. Yiddish is mainly German with Hebrew and Slavic languages that over time entered the mix. Sephardic Jews (i.e., primarily of Iberian and Mediterranean origins) didn't tend to speak Yiddish.

      Delete
    2. In follow-up to my remarks of Oct 6th, it was said several years ago that part of the reason separation has never been feasible is because Bill 101 was stringent enough to render French Quebec satisfied with French forced upon the minorities to "secure" French forever...however long forever will be.

      Now many French speakers, miracle of miracles WANT to learn English. Most of the generation that lived through the Quiet Revolution are the dead and near dead, so all the toxins that surrounded the Q.R. have dissipated. The language zealots who remain and always will (hopefully in dwindling percentages, but never zero) are paranoid, small-minded people who will pass their hatred down the generations, much like the bumpkins in the U.S., especially the south, who still hate Black people for no valid reason.

      All it took to refuel the fires was the election of a rabid bigot to the presidency of four years ago. With any luck, despite attempted voter suppression and other dirty tricks (not unlike some used in Quebec during the referendums of 1980 and 1995) will hopefully lead to the discard of the small mind in the White House in less than three weeks.

      Delete
    3. "rabid bigot"?

      I am not an apologist for President Trump; there are some policies of his I like and others I don't. If I were an American citizen and this was 2016, I probably would have voted for Hillary.

      Nevertheless, I have not seen nor heard anything Trump has said that could be construed as "bigoted," let alone "rabid bigotry." Could you please provide evidence as to why you have described him as such? Perhaps I missed something.

      Delete
    4. Gladly. He has called white supremacists "fine people". He has berated Mexicans as crooks and rapists (every last one of them?), we wanted to erect another Berlin Wall (and notice he far from succeeded?), he told the Proud Boys, a supremacist group to stand back and stand by, he was looking to either expel or prevent Muslims from coming into the U.S., therefore implying they're ALL radicals.

      Other issues: He KNEW the Corona Virus was deadly at least six weeks before anything was said about it, that it was harmless, a hoax, etc. While anti-Black racism has been going on in the U.S. before it became a country, he has exacerbated the problem, practically encouraging the police to be overzealous when dealing with Black people, he legitimized grabbing women by the p***y, constantly interrupted his opponents on debates and has cheated on his wives left, right, and center. No doubt there is no shortage of philandering presidents in the U.S., but it adds one more to his shortcomings. He is tactless, not presidential, crude and boorish. He said he'd disclose his tax returns. Where are they? He would come out with a replacement for Obamacare. Where is it?

      Being Jewish, the only things I like that he has done (well, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, really) is broker trade agreements with some of the UAE countries and is pro-Israel. That the embassy was moved back to Jerusalem is no big whoop to me, but it's what Israel wanted. Unfortunately, Netanyahu is corrupt, but what politicians aren't? Need I say more?

      Delete
    5. P.S.

      Oh, and although you didn't mention it, there is, of course, his infamous words to Representative Omar and other elected representatives that they go back to where they came from. You are mistaking Trump with the Dalai Lama who definitely took this position; Trump definitely did not. And this representation by the press is, in my opinion, more egregious than the "fine people" misrepresentation.

      Delete
  5. Mr. Sauga, I'll try to deal with your evidence of Trump's "rabid bigotry" one by one:

    The "fine people" comment. Really, Mr. Sauga? Really? This has been shown, since he said those words, to be 100% completely untrue. I hesitate to have to reproduce the following but, sadly, it is necessary. It is a 5 minute video giving the evidence that demonstrates the contrary:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM6k8uNAQBA&t=39s

    "He berated Mexicans as crooks and rapists." He said some were rapists...but, of course, some Canadians are rapists, too. Here is what he said (from https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mexicans-rapists-remark-reference-2018-4 ):

    "In June 2015, while Trump was a presidential candidate, he said, 'When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.'

    "He added: 'They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.'

    Re: "Proud Boys". Trump has since disavowed this group.

    "he was looking to either expel or prevent Muslims from coming into the U.S., therefore implying they're ALL radicals." Islam is a totalitarian ideology. The U.S. has a long history of legislature -- approved by the Supreme Court as constitutional -- of denying prospective immigrants on the basis of their adherence to totalitarian ideologies. We may feel uncomfortable with the question: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?," but the Courts have found this constitutional. You may say, Mr. Sauga, that Islam is just a religion but it isn't; it is an all-encompassing ideology that contains as one of its many elements aspects of religion. Now, both you and I may not like what he did regarding his blocking of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries but there was nothing bigoted about it, especially in light of the fact that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had put into place similar presidential orders.

    Re: Coronavirus. I don't know what this has to do with rabid bigotry.

    "...he has exacerbated the problem, practically encouraging the police to be overzealous when dealing with Black people..." I challenge you to produce one shred of evidence that he did this.

    "pussy" comments and such. Has nothing to do with "rabid bigotry." If you wanna accuse him of chauvinism or sexism, you may have a case. Same with your tactless, crude, boorish, and tax return accusations...has nothing -- zippo -- to do with your rabid bigotry accusation.

    There is enough about Donald Trump not to like. Why follow and promote a narrative of the man that is patently false? Stick to things such as his stance on Free Trade, deficit-spending, and his coronavirus handling and you have enough material to advocate for his non-re-election. By promoting false narratives and facts, you fall into the trap of being influenced by a biased and unfair media portrayal of the man that simply is not supported by the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2 of 2

      I guess I could have gone on with respect to his being more than a bigot, but this lack of leadership in this area has led to greater, stronger protests than ever before, let alone the number of people involved. Oh, and please don't try to split hairs with how there are rebel rousers who show up to damage property. Those are a small minority of people with yet another agenda and don't fit the mainstream of peaceful protestors. Since this week is the 50th anniversary of the October Crisis in Quebec, you should have learned then that it takes a dozen or two people to reek havoc on a population of millions. Sadly, these property-damaging s**t disturbers are opportunists who use the tumult of the peaceful protests to raise their ugly heads.

      He said he would disclose his tax returns. Where are they? He said he'd come up with a better health package than Obamacare. Where is it? You wrote "Re: "Proud Boys". Trump has since disavowed this group." Yeah, sure, after he told them in the presidential debate to "Stand behind and stand by," and then the next day disavow any knowledge of THEIR EXISTENCE!!!

      Oh, yes, and his contracting the virus: I think it's a big, fat hoax. He's that afraid and desperate for votes. Too, why isn't he willing to do a virtual debate when he's supposedly contagious with the virus? Answer: Because there will be the ability to turn off the mics when he goes on and on and on to kill time and reduce his having to answer other questions, and avoid Biden from time to properly express his thoughts. The mics should have been given control by the moderators to keep the answers to within the time limits and protocols as set out prior to the start of the debates. Without this control, the moderators could not properly control the debates.


      Tony, go ahead and vote for Trump of you will and can. You'll get what you deserve then...unless, of course, you still have Canadian connections and can abandon the frying pan that will ensue and take your ass unscathed back into Canada! If you're not voting or are not eligible, I don't understand why you're playing the devil's advocate.

      I can go on and on, Tony, but it's the long weekend, and for now I have better things to do. I'll happily await your response...if you have the time, inclination and gonads to do so.

      Happy Thanksgiving, Tony and other readers!

      Delete
    2. I am not a U.S. citizen, nor have I ever been. I live in Vancouver after leaving the States and have been here about 10 years.

      My post was about one thing and one thing only: a response to your calling Trump a "rabid bigot." All the other stuff you write about I may even agree with you. Indeed, I have on my computer a copy of a letter I sent Trump about 15 years ago asking him to take my name of his mailing list (for some University course he was offering). It was in response to his horrible name-calling and treatment of Rosie O'Donnell which I found so disgusting that I went to the trouble of getting my name off of a mailing list.

      However, your defense and response to my response to your "rabid bigot" comment is wanting for lack of substance. As I said, you have more than enough things to not like Trump about. But it really irks me when someone is accused of bigotry (let alone the rabid variety) when it is not warranted. Nothing in your response tells me that Trump is a bigot.

      Delete
    3. How my two-part response ended up coming in reverse order is beyond me, but life happens. That Orange Turd has engaged in name calling with a plenitude of people. People such as John McCain, those who ran for the Republicans in the mid-term elections and lost (talk about adding insult to injury), many who have served in the military, etc. Look at his turnover of staff that he appointed and others he didn't appoint. I forget who it is he fired one day before he was entitled to his pension after serving his country for decades. Talk about vindictive!

      That university crap you refer to was a complete scam. That Orange Turd is an impudent philanderer, unprofessional, unpresidential, narcissist, ascam artist and probable tax cheat, bully and to roll it all into one, a colossally obnoxious, evil incarnate. The New York Times story of a week or two ago labelled him as deeply in debt to Russian oligarchs. I haven't heard him deny it, and if it's all true, let's face it, they have leverage and can forcefully coax him to do things that are in conflict of interest to the good ol' U.S. of A. If he stands to be disparaged by the Russian oligarchs or other foreign creditors with said leverage, that would not only be of detriment to the U.S.A., but allied countries as well.

      Putting his own interests ahead of his country would be TREASON! He should be tried, and if found guilty, at least HE should be executed, just like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg back in the 1950s. Why Ethel was executed is beyond me, other than guilt by association. She was NEVER involved with Julius's wrongdoing, so why not execute Trump's children involved in his politics? He already expressed lust for his daughter/wife! That's SICK!

      Delete
    4. Tony, here is my feedback re the Prager U YouTube video you disclosed above: "...Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that creates videos on various political, economic, and philosophical topics from an American conservative or right-wing perspective."

      America, unfortunately, has divided into extremism insofar as the concentrations of liberal liberals and conservative conservatives. The Orange Turd is not fully responsible for this. Polar opposition has been going on since the turn of the millennium, but it's just that the O.T. is exacerbating the divide more than those in office before him.

      You want to go via Prager U, here is something for you that appeared on TV just last night about the Lincoln Project. (Boy, are we getting off topic from what Mr. Berlach posted!): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-lincoln-project-republican-strategists-super-pac-trump-60-minutes-2020-10-11/ This tells me a lot!

      Delete
    5. Don't attack the source; attack the facts claimed. Are they wrong? Were they misrepresented? Who cares whether it is coming from conservative PragerU or left-wing New York Times?

      Because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

      Gee. I think I am going to dismiss out of hand anything the New York Times publishes because they ignored the Holocaust and minimized its sevrity while it was happening by burying stories about it far from the front page. Or because NYT's Pulitizer Prize winning reporter Walter Duranty's reporting about the Ukrainian holocaust was inaccurate and was a cover for the propaganda of the Stalin regime.

      As for the rest of your diatribes against Orange Man, I'm not interested; I was only interested in responding to your accusation of "rabid bigot" against him. I did not get anything of substance from you in return that adequately defends your accusation.

      Delete
  6. 1 of 2:

    I can't believe I'm going up against someone like you, Tony, who was as unsettled by Quebec anti-minority racism as I have been, but so be it.

    OK, I started with his rabid racism and then moved onto other, to say the least, shortcomings of his. If I remember correctly, you moved to the USA, and are now one of its citizens. So be it. If you want to vote for that zhlob, go for it...it's your right to do so if you're an eligible voter.

    I don't need any so-called media "experts" or pseudointellectuals to make judgments on what I see. No doubt the media has moved from reporting the news to sensationalism for decades now to win the ratings race and/or report what watchers, listeners and readers what to see, hear and read.

    Nevertheless, the only people he is appealing to is his base, and those of his base who like him, like him a lot. Nothing new in politics, but he seems to be catering to the lowest common denominator...white men with inferiority complexes. Others with education, political clout and personal goals obviously have their own agendas so he coincidingly appeals to their aspirations.

    OK, so let me continue with this bully-narcissist's evil faults. OK, he's a chauvinist (like that officer Chauvin who killed Floyd George) and a sexist. Satisfied? He primarily caters to the rich. Want proof? Go look up the tax brackets that benefit the most from his tax reforms. I did! Those who earn between $1-$1.5 million will have the greatest tax savings. The less one's income, the less the benefits, and over $1.5 million get lesser benefits, but still far greater than those who have little or nothing, and those who have little are the neediest. For the working poor, the savings are a pittance. Again, I obtained this information from analysis by accounting firms, not the "left-wing" media. If you earn between $1-1.5 million, you're not that needy, and in the first place, what portion of the population earns income in that bracket?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The FDA approves the birth control pill in 1960. By 1965 it becomes widely available in Canada. Game changer. Quebecois women, who up until then, were treated like sows by Quebecois men, and routinely cranked out 7-10 children put an end to that overnight. That is the true origin of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. Forget hockey riots or the church and politics. The decimation of the birth-rate over night by Quebecois women that now had a choice and control over their bodies is what changed the power dynamic in Quebec. Fearing their grip of power would become diluted over time, the ruling class of Francophones dreamt up laws like Bill 101 to maintain control and manipulate new comers to Quebec. They knew unilingual Francophones were unemployable outside Quebec’s borders and would thus constitute a captive tax base from cradle to grave. Keeping them stupid became the law of the land starting in 1977. They also had to wield control over new comers that had, by in large gravitated to the English side of the fence by forcing them to send their kids into French schools by removing their right of choice. Now, 40 years later we see the fruit of that policy. Bilingual and trilingual Allophones are quickly rising to the top of private sector companies to become the new manager class in Quebec. Shotgun, meet foot. Expect to see more Nationalist flare ups like Bill 21 in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  8. OK, time to summarize:

    Tony: This is an opinion piece. I'm satisfied that the O.T. on many occasions has berated "all" Mexicans, has NEVER, at least as president, advocated for black people (except, say, how he hired black people as a source of underpaid labour compared to whites), etc. etc. etc. I'm not a media person ergo I don't feel I have to answer to your "higher" standard, so my final answer to you re this whole ado about nothing: Whatever!

    Anonymoose: Your arguments are quite cogent. "The Pill" was quite the equalizer for women, but more importantly, the imposition of the Roman Catholic church was no longer accepted. As the Sr. Trudeau stated way back in 1964 when he was the Justice Minister: "The state has no place in the nation's bedrooms". Neither did the Roman Catholic church...ever! A woman's decision to abort a pregnancy belongs to her, and to her only. Far more often than not, it's truly a dilemma for woman to go forward, but it is she who takes all the risks and goes through all the disruptions pregnancy may cause. Even if she chooses not to think twice about having an abortion, it's still her choice. The decision to eat meat on Fridays, again, is up to the individual. Finally, said Church absolutely neither the business invading their parishioners to determine who is keeping the dietary strictures* nor who's womb is with child or not.

    *Abstention from consumption of meat on Fridays, although supposedly Vatican II did away with that ritual.

    Qualification: When I speak of the Roman Catholic Church, I speak of the organization and its imposing directives. My views are not a reflection of those faithful individual parishioners who choose to attend services of, and/or provide voluntary services for said Church and the communities they serve.

    ReplyDelete
  9. lol listen to the racist mr Sauga

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How are facts racist, Hunter? Substantiate or exculpate!

      Delete