TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Sorry for the nasty tone this letter will take but like so many Anglos and ethnics in Quebec, we are utterly fed up with the nasty and cruel assault on our communities. It behooves me to point out the obvious painful truth in a rather frank and perhaps unkind manner in response to the unacceptable scapegoating that we have borne with too much silence, dignity and sadly, acquiescence.
Once again, for political reasons, the harping has been raised over language and sadly, the feds are jumping over hoops to see how high each party can reach to placate the unplacatable.
While your demand that living and working in French in Canada be an established right, you continue to argue that living in English in Quebec is but a privilege, one accorded, as we are constantly reminded, by the grace and generosity of the benevolent francophone majority.
While you demand that every airplane flying between Vancouver and Victoria have a French-speaking cabin crew member with francophone passengers but a rarity, you defend as reasonable and fair, the right of a bus driver in West Island Montreal not to answer a passenger's question in English even though the makeup of the riders may be 70% English.
It is the same mean-spirited policy that posts a police resource officer who cannot speak English to serve in a 1,500 student English language high school in Laval. This in a police force of 800 officers.
Let me blunt.
It isn't the job of Anglos and ethnics to protect the French language in Quebec while Quebec francophones make zero effort to protect their own language.
It is that simple.
Every proposal to safeguard the French language in Quebec that has been enacted or proposed is targeted at our community, giving life to the lie that we are responsible for the fictitious demise of the French language in Quebec.
If francophones want to protect their language they can do so themselves.
We are not the cause of its perceived and sadly exaggerated demise. We have become a political football no different from other minorities in other countries scapegoated and blamed for the failings of the majority.
It is a convenient political lie that must be denounced.
So let me get to the point.
Fix your own language problems within your own community before knocking on our door.
If you don't want immigrants and especially French-speaking Muslim immigrants because they won't 'assimilate' and adopt Quebec cultural practices, then stop immigration.
Let every 'pur laine' family adopt a policy of three children instead of the under two that is presently the case. I know that it is an effort and perhaps an imposition in this modern world but if protecting French is so important, I'm sure the effort is merited.
Instead of consuming English culture, how about absorbing Quebec French artists and television programs instead of Netflix and English artists.
As it is, the under-watched French version of the CBC, Radio-Canada, is over-funded by English Canada, all without a thank-you very much.
How about stopping the practice of dubbing Anglophone shows like Brokenwood, Grantchester, Downton Abbey and a myriad of others in favour of French-language shows from Belgium and France.
Hmmm. Not interested?
The Quebec film industry consists of but a handful of decent films a year, despite a robust subsidy program with Quebecers seemingly more attuned to Hollywood blockbusters. STOP GOING!!
Unlike the dozens of anglophone artists who perform successfully in Quebec City and Montreal to mostly francophone audiences, the same is not the case for Quebecois francophone artists who struggle to attract paying customers. No Quebec Francophone artist can sell out the Bell Centre in Montreal except perhaps Celine Dion, who in reality ceased being a francophone artist when she consciously removed the accent on her name (Céline) and embraced English music as her mainstay.
As the organizers readily admit, the annual summertime Quebec music festival would not be able to sell a fraction of the tickets were it not for the headline English artists who actually draw the patrons. And these patrons are almost all francophone.
As for English CEGEPS and universities drawing too many francophone students, another red-herring complaint, I couldn't care less if francophones were banned, but the government won't adopt this measure because francophone families would rebel.
Preserving the French language seems less important when it is francophones who need to make the effort and sacrifice.
The absurd debate in Quebec as to the danger of teaching English in Quebec public schools is a sad testament of how out of touch with reality language militants are In fact, North Korea understands better the importance of English and does a better job of teaching it in public schools than francophone schools in Quebec.
Can you think of anything sadder?
And lastly, if the French language is in such dire straits and if it is so important, just call another referendum and convince 63% of francophones to vote to leave Canada. It isn't a magical percentage that is absurd, but alas, it is easier to blame 'les autres' for sovereignty's unattainability.
How is it that every language militant, sovereigntist organization and whinging journalist never propose that Francophones make any real effort or sacrifice to save their so-called endangered language?
Is it because they know they'll get no support because the issue is actually just phony or is it because francophones don't really care and prefer to pay lip service by blaming and scapegoating us, the anglophone and ethnic community.
The great language lie is not that French is in danger, (which it is not,) but rather the lie that Anglos and Ethnics are responsible to fix someone else's mess.
Poor little Celine.
ReplyDeleteIn another incarnation (prior to Titanic and breaking into the English-speaking world of entertainment), Celine famously declined an English Artist of the Year award in Quebec because, as she said: "...I wasn't an English artist..." Disturbingly, the audience erupted in applause that at least to me seemed over-enthusiastic. At the time, I remember feeling that this was a big "fuck you" to the anglo community.
Prior to the award ceremony, she had been under pressure not to accept the award, so everyone was wondering what exactly she would do if she won. Well, she obviously gave into that pressure. But this didn't stop her from mega-success in the English-speaking world a few years later.
youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivXa4mWebC4
Philip, a theme of your post seems to be that francophones should be masters of their own demise or survival, as the case may be. Be proactive. Be true to the essence of maitre chez nous. Work on the individual level to support and promote the use of French and not rely upon anyone else...or blame anyone else.
ReplyDeleteThe sign law is a perfect lesson to understand this. Instead of relying upon individual francophones to be vigilant on a daily basis, it is left to government. Requiring French on signs, as is the current state of the law, there need be no individual vigilance; the law will take care of us. But no sign law was ever needed because the marketplace could effect the same outcome, with the added benefit of making individual francophones PROactive in their pursuit of promoting French. If a shopkeeper posted unilingual English signs and/or offered unilingual English service to his francophone clientele, all that is needed to ensure French on signs and French service is a clientele that says: here is my consumer dollar and you are not getting it until you provide me with the service and signs I demand (ie, French signs and service). The almighty dollar is more powerful in achieving the goal than any law could hope because no shopkeeper in his right mind will forgo the revenue he would otherwise get if he continued with unilingual English signs and service.
And, of course, the added benefit is that francophones get habituated to, on a daily basis, actually doing something to preserve and promote French. Passing a law just passes the buck.
I have been patiently waiting for another Article...You did not disappoint. Great piece!
ReplyDeleteThis would make a great letter-to-the-editor (Gazette are you listening) if they had the cajones to actually print it...
Delete1 of 2:
DeleteFor different reasons than sarcasm expressed by the anonymous troll above, I too was waiting for the next chapter of the continuing story on flogging the dead horse in Quebec. At long last, Editor, you delivered.
In the past, I would have gone into a visceral diatribe of the majority who could not on their own succeed to the same level of triumph the minority has done over and over....and over!
Before I go on, I'm hoping an honest contributor, or the editor (no trolls, please--yeah, sure) could provide me with an answer to the following subject: Whatever happened to the little boy whose father is a Francophone Québécois and mother an American from Delaware that was denied access to English school despite his meeting two sections of Bill 101 that clearly would, and should have given him the right to attend English school. I, of course am referring to Section 81 that clearly states consideration must be given to children who have a learning disability, and Section 85.1 that also clearly states allowances could be made for humanitarian reasons. Living in Ontario, I never heard what the follow-up resolution was, except the boy's mother was going to have to commute with her child back (and forth) to (and from) Delaware for him to receive English schooling, thus inhumanely separated from his family at great cost. I looked online plenty for an answer, but could never find one other than what I just wrote.
The worst thing in this to me is that the Great then-Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest did not lift a finger to accord this child an easement within the law he proclaimed he would not so much as change a comma. This so-called federalist, labelled "Captain Canada" in the week leading up to the 1995 Separation Referendum who proclaimed Preston Manning a bigot for ambiguous reasons just sat there in silence and inhumanely left this boy and his family to fend for themselves. There was no shortage of injustices inflicted on Anglophones and other minorities going back to Bills 22, 178 and a host of others, but I saw this one as the ultimate hypocrisy.
2 of 2:
DeleteSometime ago, I picked up a copy of Chutzpah by world renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz, published in 1991. He mostly discusses the endless anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that has taken place in the world for millennia plus contemporary topics on the subject, that is, contemporary until 1991. I confess it's not an easy read, but I have been finding it well worth the time (i.e., I'm still going through it).
Mr. Dershowitz's account of all that the persecution inflicted on the Jews from being forbidden to practice the most prestigious professions of past eras and forced into callings subject to great usury is eye-opening. He devoted an entire chapter to the Holocaust and its deniers, specifically pointing to Ernst Zundel who sojourned in Canada for 45 years untouched (until this hardhat-wearing, softhead stupidly forgot to renew his visa (moron never applied for citizenship--WAIT--THAT'S GOOD!) and was detained then subsequently deported to Germany where upon deplaning there he was arrested and jailed).
That chapter was about the mid-point of the book, so I decided to write Mr. Dershowitz mostly comparing Quebec's persecution of minorities and no less its Jews. I qualified to Mr. D that the machinations in Quebec don't truly compare to the Holocaust (which mentioned it was not only Germans doing the exterminating, but Poles and other nationals as well), far from it, but to show that even this Jew felt compelled to leave his birthplace due to unjust persecution. I sent it by snail mail since no email address was given (forgetting this was 1991) hoping CNN could somehow forward it to him as I used their care-of address in the book. I hope it eventually got to him and I hope he'll take the time to respond, but I'm not waiting with bated breath.
As a final note on that subject, I remarked how his remarks of the day held true for the events on that day of infamy, January 6, 2021, the day that proved to me that those Americans who went to wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, even Grenada, fought and died in vain.
The Editor of this blog has proven Quebec's French language fight is all in vain, when push comes to shove. Oh, and Celine Dion (notice no accent?) to me is still a 'otdog-et-poutine eater. It's the money that brought her class.
Mr. Sauga:
Deleteyou can avail yourself of Mr. Dershowitz's phone number to his videocast, The Dershow. It's on youtube and at the end of every episode, Dershowitz takes questions that viewers have left on his voicemail, the phone number of which is posted at the end of each broadcast. This doesn't guarantee he'll take your question but you can try.
I try and watch at least part of every Dershow. I find it one of the best videocasts/podcasts around. He is NEVER politically correct and his keen insight is always done with the constitution in mind.
About 15 years ago, I emailed him in response to one of his many interventions in support of Israel that was reprinted on David Horowitz's website, frontpagemag.com. How did I get his email address? Well, whenever anyone who you want to contact by email is a professor at a university, all you have to do is go to his university webpage and 99% of the time you'll find it there.
He actually responded to me. It was at a time when the Democrats were doing something terrible vis a vis Israel and Dershowitz was, as he quite often does when it comes to the Democrats and Israel, dressing them down, something he does a lot of these days despite the fact he is a member of that party. So my email said something to the effect: so when are you going to quit the party? His response (sent by his Blackberry) was: "Don't tell me what to do."
As for Bill 101, I recall that Joel Goldenberg of the Suburban cornered Dershowitz on one of his visits to Montreal to give a speech and asked him, if memory serves, about the sign law or something and Dershowitz was not very sympathetic to our cause. I could be wrong because I am going on memory here but that's what I remember.
Note that one of his best friends -- Dershowitz refers to him as the "Canadian Dershowitz" -- is Irwin Cotler, formerly the MP of Mont-Royal riding...a man I hold in contempt for his countering intervention at the Supreme Court when Brent Tyler presented his freedom of choice in language of education challenge. Cotler was, I believe, Justice Minister at the time and despite the fact that about 90% of his constituents supported freedom of choice, he opposed it and supported the Quebec Government side (I hope my memory is not failing me here, but I believe this is accurate...but I'll be happy to stand corrected if I've got it wrong).
"For different reasons than sarcasm expressed by the anonymous troll above, I too was waiting for the next chapter of the continuing story on flogging the dead horse in Quebec."
ReplyDeleteMr. Sauga; What in the world would make you think I was being a troll? Those were my genuine feelings about the article! Geez, what is in he water in Ontario?
Mr. Sauga, what is in the water in Ontario?
@anonymous
Deletenothing wrong with ontario water, mate. sauga's bad temper has more to do with 40 years of bitterness since it was made illegal to disrespect francophones in Quebec in the late 70's. he never admitted it clearly but there is also frustration caused by not being able to charm french girls a long time ago when he was young. the dude is just angry all the time. you can browse through older posts for proof.
OK, Anonymous, fair enough, point taken. I mistook you for someone else [place wink here!]. Ontario water contains fluoride hence we're not in dentures by age 30 like much of the majority in Quebec is! [Place another wink here!].
DeleteIn follow-up to my question in bold print, I found a couple of articles on what happened to young Justin Le Blanc, the unjustly treated child who had to go back to Delaware for his English education. He did just that. Mrs. Le Blanc took Justin and their daughter back to Delaware for English schooling while the others stayed in Chambly to get their education in French. Charest threw away all his credibility about calling the kettle black, i.e., calling Preston Manning a bigot.
DeleteCharest was too much a chickens--t to do what was right, and what the law clearly provided. Instead, he caused that family much grief undue hardship. All that to help one mere child. That's his shame to live down, and as far as I'm concerned, like with other seppies, he can go s--t in the ocean, the S.O.B. that Goldilocks is.
Regarding Justin LeBlanc: not familiar with that case. It appears that one parent is an anglophone from the States and the other a francophone Quebecer who does not have the right to an eligibility certificate?
DeleteThere is actually someone "famous" to whom this applied: Stephen Crowder, an American conservative talk show host. His mother is a Quebecer and his father, I believe, is an American. Thus, no eligibility certificate for English school. He was brought Up, I think, in Greenfield Park and had a hell of a time trying to get into an English school. Not sure if he was ever allowed to.
Anyway, here he is on youtube talking about this discrimination (I've cued it to start at that specific discussion):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pN6ZgGRfQU&t=1516s
Tony, thanks for forwarding that piece from You Tube. Unfortunately, I don't understand what Mr. Crowder is talking about re "Separatist Liberals". I think he should have stated "Federalist Liberals" (yeah, and pigs could fly, too), or "Nationalists/Separatists".
DeleteI suppose there are some people who are "true" liberals, i.e., both languages are equal because Quebec is still part of Canada, and will be for the foreseeable future. These would likely be older people who lived with both languages, but the younger Liberals I see are those who want to have their cake and eat it too, i.e., believers in that old "Sovereignty-Association" buzz term René Lévesque was trying to promote especially outside Quebec. To that aspiring S-A crowd, they are still language zealots, and are now middle-aged or younger.
Be it Mr. Crowder or Mr. Le Blanc and others we don't know about, one thing is for sure: It's all on "Goldilocks" for not having exercised one or both sections of Bill 101 that make allowances for those with learning disabilities and/or on humanitarian grounds, i.e., Sections 81 and 85.1 respectively.
In follow-up to my question in bold print, I found a couple of articles on what happened to young Justin Le Blanc, the unjustly treated child who had to go back to Delaware for his English education. He did just that. Mrs. Le Blanc took Justin and their daughter back to Delaware for English schooling while the others stayed in Chambly to get their education in French. Charest threw away all his credibility about calling the kettle black, i.e., calling Preston Manning a bigot.
ReplyDeleteCharest was too much of a two-faced chickens--t to do what was right, and what the law clearly provided enabling him to honourably do...if he really wanted to. Instead, he caused the Le Blanc family so much grief and undue hardship. All that to help one mere child. That's his shame to live down, and as far as I'm concerned, like with other seppies, he can go s--t in the ocean, the S.O.B. that Goldilocks is. John James Charest is NOT a federalist.
@mr. sauga
Delete"John James Charest is NOT a federalist."
of course, and you are not an angryphone.
I notice the readership of this blog unfortunately seems to have pared down, but I'm going to write about my belief of the Charter of the French Language again. Why? 'Cause I feel like it, and I find writing therapeutic.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I must congratulate Quebec for doing SOMETHING better than Ontario. Although Quebec still hold the Canadian provincial record for most deaths, in quantity and per capita, at least Quebec is doing a better job of administering the anti-COVID vaccines than Ontario is. Impressive....and rare!
The Charter of the French Language, a.k.a. Bill 101 was created primarily for one reason and one reason only:
FRENCH QUEBEC CAN'T!
The simple fact of the matter is, the Quebec Regional Offices of the Roman Catholic Church suppressed French Quebec of its collective abilities by what proved to be the artificial, empty promises that aimlessly making babies à «la revanche des berceaux» would solve the matters. Now that babies aren't being made recklessly, the big fear is French will be somehow usurped from Quebec. I don't see how that would happen after almost 500 years since Cartier "discovered" French Quebec. French Quebec no longer needs anyone to handhold its collective pride to speak French (Joual, really). Actually, it never did.
That French Quebec, without government interference, couldn't succeed was not the fault of the «maudit anglais.» French Quebec was duped, yes DUPED into depending on the dictates of the Church and corrupt politicians to survive.
This is what made Quebec an almost permanent underclass for over 200 years...and for the most part still is. Anything where Bill 101 gave them a "bigger" piece of the pie was deceptive. Overall, the "big tortière" is actually smaller than it was about time of the Quiet Revolution. The demographic changes brought on by the threat of separatism and subsequent language legislation merely created a brain drain, and with it less economic wealth.
Dr. Camille Laurin, an American-taught psychiatrist, the author of the most stringent and viscerally hateful version of French language legislation, viscerally hated the English, Jews and other minorities, and inadvertently screwed up French Quebec's aspirations of separation.
The law was so effective of shoving "The Québécois Way" down English speakers' throats rendered separation unnecessary; too, federalists, not very, but effectively enough, pointed out the projected costs of separation. They never promoted how being Canadian is good for them without showing French Quebec the money.
It has been pointed out, that although only 15,000 Jews still live in Quebec, or did a few years earlier, six of them were billionaires. That's one in 15,000 Jews vs a mere one in 800,000 «Québécois pur laine», a ratio of 53.33 Jews per one «Québécois pur laine». This is why French Quebec hates the Jews and other minorities, like the English: FRENCH QUEBEC CAN'T!
FRENCH QUEBEC CAN'T!
Case closed!
CORRECTION: It is 90,000 Jews or so who still live in Quebec, and six of the 90,000 were classified billionaires, so the ratio is one in 15,000. While a lot of the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is systematic, the likes of Abbé Lionel Groulx and others were envious bigots who could neither take the success of many who came to North America penniless and either worked their way to prosperity, or invested in their children's education to move their families forward. Same goes for other minorities as well who have a higher ratio than French Quebec.
ReplyDeleteHEAR O FRENCH QUEBEC: You now have two choices: (i) Read it and weep, and eat your collective heart out forever, or (ii) Don't be so jealous; do better!
I agree 100% with all the points you make. The issue facing French Canada (Quebec) is not one of language but that of demographics. The language debate is only a sideshow.
ReplyDeleteWell-l-l-l...I wouldn't simply call language a side show. It was meant to get French as the everyday language in Quebec...unfortunately, by force.
DeleteI do think the harm done far exceeded the "good", if any of the concept was good. It was a form of what the Americans called affirmative action, and I don't believe in that concept either. Affirmative action was reverse discrimination, and as far as I'm concerned, discrimination is discrimination and that's not good any way you cut it. There is something to be said for equal opportunity, but in reality, that doesn't truly exist; nevertheless, striving towards equal opportunity is ideally the best way to go. America has seemed to move backwards no thanks to the nefarious machinations of POTUS #45, a one-term, twice-impeached POTUS.
Language legislation brought racism in Quebec to the surface, and while much of it has gone to the undercurrents (it has never completely disappeared), the specter occasionally rises to the surface as this editorial has shown, and will continue to do so.
Mr. Sauga writes:
Delete"...It was meant to get French as the everyday language in Quebec...unfortunately, by force."
I assume by "it" you mean Bill 101. If so, then they are rather explicit about it in the preamble which includes the following:
"Whereas the National Assembly of Québec recognizes that Quebecers wish to see the quality and influence of the French language assured, and is resolved therefore to make of French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business;"
I find this rather frightening. A government is resolved to make a particular language the language of communication. But communication is something done between two or more consenting people; it's none of the government's f*cking business, yet we somehow turn a blind eye to this encroachment upon both freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Mr. Sauga also writes:
"Affirmative action was reverse discrimination, and as far as I'm concerned, discrimination is discrimination and that's not good any way you cut it."
"Reverse discrimination" -- or, if you will, preferential discrimination -- is already prohibited by law and is part and parcel of anti-discrimination legislation. Here, in part, is section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms:
"Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right."
As for affirmative action as it applies to Bill 101, both the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights contain provisions that allow for affirmative action as a justification for enacting laws which violation of equality guarantees. This is found in section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter under the heading "Affirmative Action Programs" and in the Quebec charter in s. 86.
Curiously, I haven't found any instances in which the Quebec government invoked either the Canadian or Quebec charters' affirmative action provisions to justify their rights-violating legislation in court challenges to Bill 101. I could be wrong because my research may not be complete, but I ask myself why this is. And the answer I come up with is that Quebec would be laughed out of court if they ever tried. Affirmative Action for a majority group (80% of the population) which has had voting rights for about 200 years?
Tony K.: All your points are cogent, no dispute here. One other bit of literature I read was written by the late Claude Ryan, circa 2003, while the hypocrite John James Charest was premier. In it, Ryan describes the will of the majority has the upper hand vs the will of the minority. I felt the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end when I read this, but let's face it, that's how the Quebec government rolls.
DeleteBou-bou in his second iteration as premier invoked the Notwithstanding Clause, that gaping hole in the wheel of Swiss cheese Daddy Trudope put into the constitution since his objective with his last term in office was to repatriate the Constitution. Nothing else really mattered, so to paradoxically appease the Western Provinces, it was Quebec and Ontario that exercised the option to so invoke.
Bou-bou used it to screw English 100% x 2 (i.e. Bills 22 + 178 = 200); Doug Ford, the current Premier of Ontario, used it to disrupt the City of Toronto electoral process and severely cut down the number of city counsellors considerably "notwithstanding" the fact Toronto's mayoralty campaign was already underway. Too bad the same isn't done by Leggo to butcher the ridiculous overrepresentation on the Island of Montreal, but living in Ontario now, ask me if I care. Ford would have been smarter to let the last election play out and then make changes for the next election since he would still be in office. Municipal elections in Ontario are every three years.
But I digress as I too often do. Quebec ALWAYS has to play the victim hence what you say has merit, plus the author of Bill 101 has a visceral hatred of those not of his multi-generational White, French mother-tonged, Roman Catholic ilk. If that sadist had it all his way, he would have held mass beheadings of the maudit anglais daily at Phillips Square until they were all dead...OK, maybe just the "Westmount Rhodesians", whatever that means.
...and, ironically, the most famous "Westmount Rhodesian" of all time very well may be the non-White, non-Anglo-Saxon Kamala Harris. Odds are that Westmount High School will be renamed "President Kamala Harris High School." This, I predict, will happen in 2023 a few months after the 25th amendment is successfully invoked.
DeleteYou read it here first.
OMG, Tony! For shame! You're putting Joe in his grave? He doesn't strike me as having Alzheimer's, but I don't keep up on Joe Biden's medical record. You may be right about the renaming as there at one time was a JFK High School in Montreal. In my old Laval neighbourhood, there was a JFK Park, so who knows?
DeleteI'd hope, if anything, it would be named after a Canadian, but then again, how many Canadian schools can brag they had a future POTUS (but first, she has to win...fat chance in the racist south...they'd vote for a bleeding pig on a hook before they'd vote for a woman of colour)! Then again, Georgia, for the first time in its history, elected a black and a Jew to the senate...in the same election yet while passing a law to promote voter suppression against people of colour! I'll keep your announcement in mind, Tony! America moves in mysterious ways! ;D
...that's the beauty of it; she doesn't have to win anything. She's already got the #2 spot which in 2023 (plenty of time before the 2024 elections) will be about the time Joe can no longer function mentally or physically without asking if it is Pudding Day. The 25th Amendment means Joe can be removed by the cabinet (I think) without any election called.
DeleteTony Kondacks: "Affirmative Action for a majority group (80% of the population) which has had voting rights for about 200 years?"
DeleteIn his book "In the Eye of The Eagle" Jean Francois Lisee reported that many Pequistes in the Rene Lévesque era actually saw themselves fighting the same battle that the Blacks in the US were fighting at the time for civil rights. Lisee mentioned one PQ minister in Lévesque's cabinet by name (I forget the name though, I read the book 10 years ago) who had Martin Luther King's picture in his office, and equated his struggle to MLK's struggle.
Mr. Sauga: regarding Claude Ryan and playing the victim card.
DeleteI remember back in the 80s or 90s when Ryan was once on the old Joe Cannon show on CJAD. Ryan was asked why he didn't support the English when Bourassa was drafting Bill 178 (Ryan was in cabinet at the time). Ryan's response was very telling. This Giant of all things decent let slip that he didn't feel compelled to support the English because they didn't support him during the Liberal Party of Quebec leadership race which replaced him with Bourassa. Quite the moral stalwart.
Then there's the Beige Paper of about 1979 of which Ryan is considered the principle or sole author. A constitutional policy paper of the Quebec Liberal Party, the preamble is a veritable cornucopia of victimhood, recounting all the wrongs perpetrated upon the French by the English throughout Canada's and pre-Canada history. A justification for all the goodies the Liberals demanded that would follow in the document's main narrative.
Interestingly, the Beige Paper remains mostly intact as the party's constitutional policy. Hasn't been rescinded yet. And what do we find there? The policy that immigrants from English-speaking countries should be allowed to attend English language public schools in Quebec. Despite numerous Liberal governments in Quebec City in the 40 plus years since, the Liberals have NEVER even considered enabling s. 23.1.a of the Canadian Charter of Rights which would allow this, either through a vote in the National Assembly (via a resolution) or a cabinet edict.
Speaking of resolutions, the Equality Party hled four of 125 seats National Assembly seats from 1989-1994. As a small party, this gave them the right to introduce only one Wednesday Motion during this entire period. A Wednesday Motion is one which impacts on important issues, which the Official Opposition has the right to introduce; the Equality Party had only one for its five years. This type of motion is to be differentiated from "regular" feel-good motions, such as celebrating International Lesbian Day or some such nonsense.
And what did the EP choose for this all-important motion? You'd think it would have been something substantial, such as introducing a resolution to invoke s. 23.1.a in Quebec, something that was a hot topic for the Gazette at the time (they supported the #1 recommendation of the Chambers Report which addressed this issue). But that buffoon Gordon Atkinson insisted that the motion be to install the Canadian Flag in the Blue Room...a silly motion considering that several other "English" provinces also did not have Canadian flags in their provincial assemblies. Atkinson -- who was always a tiger in front of a microphone when he did editorials at CJAD -- was not so brave either in person or in the National Assembly where his claim to fame was not drinking for the 4 or 5 hours it took him to learn and memorize his usual mamby-pamby speeches in the National Assembly, peppered politically correctly with equal doses of English and French (which he spoke at a Grade 3 level). But Atkinson threatened to quit the party unless he got his way. Libman wanted to do the s.23.1a motion which would have gone a long way to get the Gazette on our side...in addition of course to being the right thing to do. But Gordon insisted upon donning his war medals (which one regular at Winnie's claimed he had bought on St. James Street) and introducing the feel-good flag motion, which everyone snickered at anyway. May he NRIP.
adski, first of all J-F Lisée is a rabid fascist with a visceral hatred for everything not of his ilk like the author of Bill 101, and I've already written that frothing-at-the-mouth racist's name, and I will not again. It surprises me none he'd try to equate himself and others with blacks who were lynched, shot, had their houses and businesses burnt down, and had to guess how many jelly beans there were in a jar to be given the right to vote.
DeleteI've got two words for J-F Lisée. I'll leave it to your imagination what those two words are. Gee, did Francophones have their properties burnt down? How many were lynched for being Francophones? How many, at the voting polls, had to win a contest to be able to vote.
Don't waste our time with that loser and his absolutely nonsensical gobbledygook!
Tony, I was about to ask what the Chambers Report was, but with a little research, I found it. That report was done by Gretta Chambers who used to host a barely-watched local CFCF show called The Editors, that I believe was aired on Saturday nights at 10:30 PM. Since I was in CEGEP and/or uni when it aired, I rarely saw it since I was out socializing most Saturday nights or watching hockey games.
DeleteGordon Atkinson was 75 years old when he was elected MNA, so what did he care about anything else. Libman should have shot down his gibberish before he could begin, and that he didn't was on him.
The few times I saw it, it did have journalists of the Quebec "elite" (if you can call them that) like ultra-seppie Pierre Bourgault, Claude Ryan, Solange Chaput-Roland, Gérald Godin and other journalists-turned-politicians. Godin was actually a poet.
From the abridged version of that report I found (or I abridged it by giving it a cursory look), it was a bitch session that, from what I saw, allowed Anglophones to blow off steam about what can be done to curb the tide of minorities, like myself, who gave up on Quebec (as soon as Bill 22 became law).
Certainly enrolment in English schools dropped 57% within the 20 years that report was submitted to, and promulgated by the Minister of Education. How could it not? Francophones certainly couldn't make use of them, not nobody, not no how! Even the Canada Clause was fought strenuously by anti-English Quebec government bureaucrats as they dragged their feet maximally to slow down issuing certificates of eligibility to Anglophones who studied outside Quebec, but elsewhere in Canada.
English speakers coming from English speaking nations outside Canada? Fuhgeddaboudit! The law made it clear that allowing foreign English speakers to go to English school discriminated against other newcomers who did not speak English and by law/default had to go to French schools.
74 pages that were read one day and used for fireplace kindling the next, including 27 pages making up the body of the report and 47 pages including bibliographies, the title page, the half-page mandate, numerous tables taking up several pages, the members of the panel and presenters, etc. etc. etc.
Now in my 37th year self-emancipated from Quebec, I've increasingly met Francophones from Africa, Haiti and other members of la Francophonie who bypassed Quebec altogether having learned about how Quebec shoves its language and culture down their collective throats...plus, they wanted to learn and work in English.
Tony, I was about to ask what the Chambers Report was, but with a little research, I found it. That report was done by Gretta Chambers who used to host a barely-watched local CFCF show called The Editors, that I believe was aired on Saturday nights at 10:30 PM. Since I was in CEGEP and/or uni when it aired, I rarely saw it since I was out socializing most Saturday nights or watching hockey games.
ReplyDeleteGordon Atkinson was 75 years old when he was elected MNA, so what did he care about anything else. Libman should have shot down his gibberish before he could begin, and that he didn't was on him.
The few times I saw it, it did have journalists of the Quebec "elite" (if you can call them that) like ultra-seppie Pierre Bourgault, Claude Ryan, Solange Chaput-Roland, Gérald Godin and other journalists-turned-politicians. Godin was actually a poet.
From the abridged version of that report I found (or I abridged it by giving it a cursory look), it was a bitch session that, from what I saw, allowed Anglophones to blow off steam about what can be done to curb the tide of minorities, like myself, who gave up on Quebec (as soon as Bill 22 became law).
Certainly enrolment in English schools dropped 57% within the 20 years that report was submitted to, and promulgated by the Minister of Education. How could it not? Francophones certainly couldn't make use of them, not nobody, not no how! Even the Canada Clause was fought strenuously by anti-English Quebec government bureaucrats as they dragged their feet maximally to slow down issuing certificates of eligibility to Anglophones who studied outside Quebec, but elsewhere in Canada.
English speakers coming from English speaking nations outside Canada? Fuhgeddaboudit! The law made it clear that allowing foreign English speakers to go to English school discriminated against other newcomers who did not speak English and by law/default had to go to French schools.
74 pages that were read one day and used for fireplace kindling the next, including 27 pages making up the body of the report and 47 pages including bibliographies, the title page, the half-page mandate, numerous tables taking up several pages, the members of the panel and presenters, etc. etc. etc.
Now in my 37th year self-emancipated from Quebec, I've increasingly met Francophones from Africa, Haiti and other members of la Francophonie who bypassed Quebec altogether having learned about how Quebec shoves its language and culture down their collective throats...plus, they wanted to learn and work in English.