Friday, March 16, 2012

Language Hotheads Breed Violence

The day after Benoit Dutrizac aired the infamous recording of a Verdun depanneur cussing out his Francophone customers, he followed up the story with an interview with Quebec's most renowned Anglophobe, Gilles Proulx, who reminded listeners rather seriously that if the store was located in Northern Ireland, it would long ago have been burned down via a Molotov cocktail. Listen{Fr}

The next day a militant language group demonstrated in front of the depanneur, hurling not only insults, but feces as well.
The police had to advise the owner to close up shop for his own security. Link

Of course Mr. Proulx would be the first to tell you that he didn't incite anyone to violence, he was just stating a fact in referring to violence in Northern Ireland.
He did the same thing back in 1995 during the Mohawk blockade of the Mercier bridge, hissing on the radio that the Mohawks involved, couldn't even speak French, fanning the flames of hate in an unstable and potentially violent situation.

That scene ended shamefully with vigilantes attacking a convoy of cars full of Indian women and children trying to escape.
I hope the Jeunes Patriotes du Québec who participated in the attack on the depanneur have a chance to watch this video, so that they can see the consequences of their actions and perhaps understand what is to be hated by a gang of racists.
This video isn't of Palestine, Syria or Tibet. This was Quebec 1995.


Pathetic...

At any rate I'm not really sure what Mr. Proulx was so upset about, it certainly couldn't be the statement that had every one else riled up, the one made by the depanneur owner, impinging the reputation of his customers;
"You stay at home, you drink beer, you smoke cigarettes, you take welfare," he said. "I am an immigrant here. I have a business. I take care of you people."
You see readers, Gilles Proulx made a similar statement himself on the radio, (one which he was reproached for by Quebec's Press council) when he said this about Quebecoise women on welfare.
"grosses torches qui mangent des chips et boivent du cola en écoutant les émissions les plus stupides"
I'll let our Francophone readers do the translation for you......

At any rate it isn't surprising that Stéphane Gendron, the controversial mayor of Huntingdon who characterized Bill 101 as racist, had his home and automobile vandalized last week.

No doubt language militants including some of those who habituate the comments sections of this blog applaud the action.
All this over an opinion in a province that is supposed to encourage free speech.
To all of you who think that the depanneur and Mr. Gendron got what they deserved, you should understand that you are a testament to savagery and a shining example of the same intolerance displayed in the video above.
I hope you are proud of yourselves. I wonder where you learned your democratic principles.

But unfortunately, it's not only the shock jocks, the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, or militant bloggers who are raising  the level of language tension here in Quebec, shamefully it is the OQLF which is stirring up the pot in a dishonest campaign of misinformation meant to dispel it's image as ineffective.

For many months now, ever since the OQLF came out with a new policy whereby stores using a registered trademark would be required to add a French 'modifier' I've been telling you that they had no legal basis to do so.

I also ruminated that it was wrong that nobody in the mainstream Press seemed to be interested in that aspect of the story. And so perhaps my interpretation was wrong, it's happened before.

But FINALLY somebody agrees and does so in print.
Yesterday in LaPRESSE,  Denis Lessard has written an article that says that the OQLF has no legal basis to force 'modifiers' on store names.
"Yesterday, the spokesperson of the Office, Martin Bergeron, argued that it was too early to announce the number of complaints made ​​on the question of name displays as a result of the campaign organization. "We checked our legal interpretation before moving forward. We understand that there are people who do not have the same interpretation as us, "he said.
 That readers is the closest you're going to get to an admission that the OQLF knows that it is wrong.
Mr Lessard went on to say this on the subject.
"This new campaign of the OQLF ignored a formal opinion of the Conseil de la langue, provided the government of Lucien Bouchard in 2000, at a time when  Louise Beaudoin was the minister in charge. The PQ government was told then that it was advisable to use incentives to get companies to francize their names, since according to the law, they were not on solid ground." Link{Fr}
And so the OQLF is out of line and knows that it is on thin ice, the question  remains as to why it pursues this course of action.
Can it be that it is doing exactly what Camille Laurin did when he introduced Bill 101, thirty-five years ago, that is, advancing policies that cannot stand a court test in order to foster discord and thus further the cause of sovereignty?

What is clear is that this new aggressiveness has whipped up language militants into a frenzy, triggering a slew of new complaints by militants emboldened by the actions of the OQLF.

Our intrepid defender of the French language, Louis Prefontaine, is so riled up that he has promised to head down to Huntingdon to search out and denounce to the OQLF all illegal English signs.

I hope he is received politely, you might remember what happened to the OQLF inspector who was given quite the welcome in a small English town, a few years ago.
'In 1999, a group of militant Shawville English-speakers gave a provincial “language” inspector quite a rude welcome and finally chased him out of town during a showdown over English on business signs.'

You see Mr. Proulx, two can play the innocent incitement game. It isn't nice.

Finally some push back.
In an article in LaPresse, Yves Boisvert writes;
"In several cities in Quebec, as Huntingdon, the two linguistic communities live in perfect harmony, many couples are "bicultural", there are English and French schools and no one is fainting because they heard a word of English at the convenience store .

What harm does it cause to French if some cities adopt a bilingual policy in their communications, even if "only" 44% of citizens are English speaking?

Can we not imagine some flexibility in applying the law to take into account local traditions, the size of the municipality....."

These things apparently cannot be said." 
Link
Yup, rationality is out the window, when language fanatics, encouraged by the government itself, run riot over free speech and free choice.

It seems that all is fair in the language debate in Quebec.

I wonder if Dutrizac or Proulx would be offended if someone planted a microphone in their homes or under a table in a restaurant where they were dining and aired some of their injudicious remarks on the radio. I'm sure they wouldn't like it.

But how can you blame these shock jocks for ethical lapses when an official arm of the government is leading the crusade against English by totally abandoning all sense of fair play, by advancing policies that cannot be defended legally.

Such is where we are.

If something isn't done to stop the insanity we are headed down a road that will hurt Quebec badly and I mean the Francophone majority.

I shall turn things around and remind militants who are raining down hate down on Anglos and ethnics that it is a sure-fire  formula for making 350 million enemies around you.

In order to survive in a free and independent state, as you hope, Quebec will depend on the good will of neighbors and like the poor depanner in Verdun, spitting on your customers is decidedly bad business.

251 comments:

  1. Editor, you put too much faith in these braindead fascist frenchmen. The majority of les quebecois are racist cowards and I'm shocked that the Canadian military hasn't stepped in and jailed these traitorous french cowards.

    Why don't we all boycott Quebec products, stop doing trade with an independent Quebec, exclude it from world NGOs etc... until its fascist, racist laws are eliminated? Maybe they'll consider it when they're on the streets dying of hunger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear readers: It looks as if I'm in one of my long-winded moods today, so here we go:

      1 of 2:

      While my anonymous ally above sadly speaks the truth, i.e., I'll modify that the majority are really more indifferent to the racist goings-on, just like the Germans public was of the Nazis during WWII.

      What happened to the Aboriginals in 1990 and this latest reprehensible escapade to the Nigerian dep owner and everything in between are just countless and endless examples of a defective society.

      Like an immensely heavy locomotive's steel wheels on its steel rails, the locomotive starts very slowly (unlike some sports cars that can go from zero-to-sixty in the blink of an eye), picks up steam and speed and then can go pretty fast on the rails after a couple of minutes. It takes time to start up that locomotive, and it takes time to stop said locomotive--it cannot stop on a dime!

      This is how language legislation started with Bill 63 (Union Nationale), then Bill 22 (Bourassa's "federalist" Liberals) and finally Bill 101 (The "Master Plan" of the fascist/separatist Parti Québécois). The UN released the locomotive's brake, Bourassa moved the throttle forward and the PQ jumped it into full throttle. In addition, the PQ installed devices along the way that cause a bell to go ding-ding-ding, red lights to flash and a gate to go up and down. On a dark night, those red lights shine brightly a fair distance away, and the ding-ding-ding of the bell could be heard a km or two away, sometimes even further away.

      Delete
    2. "...Canadian military..." Les canadiens ont une armée?

      Parlez-moi d'un cerveau bien vivant et en pleine forme.Tous les espoirs sont permis.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Sauga writes:


      This is how language legislation started with Bill 63 (Union Nationale...)


      While true that there were provisions that promoted the French language in Bill 63 -- thereby technically making it a piece of "language legislation" -- let's not forget that Bill 63 established freedom of choice in language of education for all Quebecers.

      Delete
  2. Mr. Sauga concludes... (for now!)Friday, March 16, 2012 at 1:59:00 AM EDT

    And finally:

    2 of 2:

    It seems nobody is taking the time in Quebec government, including John James "Captain Canada" Charest in the 1995 Referendum "No" campaign and now the Premier of Quebec who seems to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil through all this. He's just bumping on a log, sitting on some chaise longue and guzzling la bière Laurentide while this all unfolds before him, not unlike the PQ who really put this into full throttle. Premier John James "average 1930s German Hans Citizen" Charest won't attempt to put on the brakes to these rabid shenanigans.

    Because Premier John James "average 1930s German Hans Citizen" Charest doesn't so much as lift a finger to put the brakes to the locomotive, it's quickly becoming a runaway train that is only going to get worse and worse and worse and worse. Like what happened in Nazi Germany because the people who saw and knew what whas happening, they didn't give a damn it was happening, and now the people of Quebec today don't give a damn that this is happening.

    Instead of protecting the dep owner, the Police told him to stay away from his business and have to give up his livelihood for at least a day. Gee, how krystalnacht of them! Why didn't the police instruct the demonstrators to throw rocks to break all his windows and watch while the protestors then go in and loot his store? Isn't it the duty of police to serve and protect? Hmmm, that's what they write on the side of their cruisers in Toronto and the regional governments surrounding Toronto. Then again, maybe this is why there were violent clashes between the Montreal Police and the so-called Anarchists yesterday!

    Whatever. The proof is in the pudding that this train is fast becoming a runaway, and if successive Quebec governments, whatever they're named, just sit back while it happens, maybe Quebec WILL turn into a Northern Ireland in the future. Is this the Quebec you want, readers?

    Oh...and before the cowardly anonymous contributor obnoxiously writes his donut comments, let me remind readers that yes, there are a lot of doughnut shops in the Greater Toronto Area, but it should be known that doughnuts are really a small part of their business. They pour a lot of coffee, and they move a lot of food, mostly of the soup-and-sandwich variety, i.e., light lunches. Compare that with Quebec's overload of La Belle Province (started, no less, by a Greek entrepreneur, as was Scores that has been punching out the lights of St-Hubert), Valentin's, Moutarde et Ketchup and a host of other hot dog and poutine emporiums lighting up the Quebec landscape and the resulting heart defibrolator machines everywhere. So much for "donut" shops just selling doughnuts. And readers, when he does make his remarks, don't respond. Don't give him a wall upon which he can bounce his ball.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Don't give him a wall upon which he can bounce his ball."

    Donut respond.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't agree with the manifestations in front of the Verdun dépanneur. I think that this poor man doesn't deserve such a bad treatment and, although I am all for the defense of the french language, I believe that these methods are counter productive and, needless to say, lack humanity.

    This man should not be blamed for not learning french. I believe that learning a new language is a long term task and a very difficult task. As soon as he knows enough english to get by (and he probably knew some english before getting here), it is easier to find ways to get buy without french than learning french. And people tend naturaly to follow the shorter term path of least efforts.

    I don't care that this man does not speak french, what matters to me is that his children attend french school. Immigrants cannot be expected to become quebeckers overnight, they will become quebeckers over two or three generations.

    I will overlook his rude comments on quebeckers but there is one thing he said that I find interesting, he said : « This is Canada here (...)» A commenter on montrealgazette.com said it even more clearly, he wrote : « This is Canada FIRST, Québec SECOND (…) » So there is the issue : the colliding visions of two nations and the struggle for preponderance of two visions. This man is a innocent bystander stuck between the ROC and a hard place.

    Canada first, Québec second. Says who?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Says who? Reality check for you my friend. Last time you woke up in the morning the country was Canada, the province was Quebec...

      Delete
    2. Says the National Assembly of Quebec. Look at the end of the Red Chamber in that building. What flag is it on the right?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 08:44,

      Not smart enough to come up with a reply, are you not?

      Delete
    4. Troy,

      The question was who says that it is Canada first and Québec second.

      With the presence of both flags, the Assemblée Nationale says that there are both Québec and Canada. It doesn't say that one is above the other, and if so, it doesnt say which one is above the other. (Unless being on the right side means being on top, I don't know...)

      And you understand that my point was that this issue is yet another example of the two colliding visions.

      P.S. Members of the Assemblée Nationale sit in the Blue Chamber (in which, there is also a canadian flag). The Red Chamber was for the Conseil Législatif, the Conseil Législatif no longer exists.

      Delete
    5. Michele Patrice writes:


      I don't care that this man does not speak french, what matters to me is that his children attend french school.


      Oh, really?

      And what are immigrants to you...just fodder to promote the French language?

      61% of francophones want the right to send their children to English schools. Prior to Bill 22, over 90% of immigrants did the same thing.

      You want to segregate Quebecers, Michele. This is the road to much suffering if it is allowed to continue.

      Delete
    6. Mr Kondak,

      No, immigrants are not just fodder to promote fench.

      What I said was about my vision of integration. Let me explain it.

      A man moves to Québec, he doesn't speak a word of french but he cannot be expected to learn french overnight (or even over a few years), some will never learn french, I don't blame them since it is dificult to learn another language.

      But his chilren will grow in Québec and integrate our society, they will be more quebecker than their father will ever be. They won't forget their foreign heritage, but this immigrant family will become quebecker over a few generations. One cannot expect immigrants to become quebecker overnight.

      The answer to the question who is a quebecker could be : the one whose children are quebecker. I like this answer because it deals with belonging and disregards origin.

      I understand that you will disagree on this idea of learning french to integrate our society. And you will probably accuse me of rejecting our english co-citizens who are, you will say, also quebecker just like any other one. And I have no definite answer for you other than, no, I don't see immigrants just like fodder in a age old fight and I have no solution to this integration challenge that all western socities face.

      P.S. You often quote this 61% figure. I am curious, where does it come from?

      Delete
    7. Michel Writes:

      I understand that you will disagree on this idea of learning french to integrate our society.

      But why should they integrate into your society? If they want to just learn English and not integrate into French-speaking Quebec society, why is that any of your business?

      You must get this idea out of your mind that Quebec is a country; it isn't. There is another society the immigrant lives in and that is Canadian society. You see, until you have your own country -- and grow the balls to vote in the majority "yes" to a hard question -- you will always be a province.

      But even if you get your own country (which I sincerely hope you do!), even then, why should anyone feel the need to adopt the language of the majority if they don't want to?

      Michel further asks me:

      You often quote this 61% figure. I am curious, where does it come from?

      It is from a poll that The Montreal Gazette commissioned from several years ago. I have the link to the Gazette article but it seems they have taken the page down. Anyway, here it is for what it is worth:

      Gazette poll link

      I will try and find it on vigile.net which despite their radical separatist credentials, is an excellent source for these kinds of things.

      Delete
  5. There is no shortage of comments simplisticly comparing Québec to Nazi Germany. But there is nevertheless something to it.

    I rememeber writting a while ago :

    "If we give up, it will be the louisianisation of our nation, a slow death. Les peuples qui meurent meurent longtemps pis ça fait mal. (Falardeau again…) Franco-ontarians, franco-albertans, natives, cajuns are all dying people slowly going quietly down the assimilation road. They can be ignored because they are minorities on their own territories.

    Quebecers will be harder to ignore because they are a majority on their territory and they control their own government. They will take a very long time to die and it will be painful.

    Nazi Germany was born out of the humilitation and the despair of the german people.

    You see in the debate over english cegeps, over english on the radio, and so on, signs of intolerance. I see this intolerance as the first symptoms of the slow death of a proud nation, a slow and painfull death.

    I much more fear that we someday give up than whatever would come out of independence. I see the symptoms «(…)du sentiment dévorant de disparaître sur place de ce peuple qui n’en finit plus de ne pas naître.» (Miron)"

    When Falardeau said that people die of a painful death, I did not then realise that he could mean that it would not only be painful for the dying people itself but also for those around it.

    http://michelpatrice.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/ms-porridge44/#comment-39

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I much more fear that we someday give up than whatever would come out of independence."

      As a quebecker i really hope so. Nothing good will come out of this.
      Yes Michel, you can start proving me wrong with assumptions on how Quebec will flourish. My statement is also an assumption but it's way more realistic than yours.

      Delete
    2. My point is not that Québec will flourish with independence.

      My point is that without independence, quebeckers, seeing that they no longer have real and/or significant political power, might give up on politics which would be bad for democracy and would lead to cynism (by rejection of the political class) and intolerance (out of frustration).

      And I think that we can say that there is already cynism and intolerance in our society. And the current situation that I see as a political dead lock, only fuels this cynism and intolerance.

      Delete
    3. Michel, I'm starting to get real tired of the idea that old-stock French Canadians' egos need to be continually stroked and reassured otherwise they'll start behaving badly.

      I'm part French-Canadian myself... and maybe this is my inner anglo and allo parts writing... but watching the events of the last few months unfold has caused me to be horrified by the petty vigilanteism that is condoned at all levels (police, provincial, federal, and media). This "peace" is bought and paid for on the backs of non-French-Canadians, while militant French-Canadians run loose and get to say what they want virtually with impunity.

      - RRQ (Charles and Camilla's visit, William and Kate's visit, ...)
      - RRQ, SSJB (Cunneyworth, Caisse de dépôts, ...)
      - Jeunes patriotes du Québec (Verdun dépanneur)
      - Louis Préfontaine (whose on-again, off-again, love-hate with various militant groups, despite being one himself, is the stuff schoolyard thriller fare)
      ... et j'en passe.

      This notion of yours that we need more Francophone-controlled institutions seems (to me, at least) to be more of an insidious way to let "notre monde à nous" continue to enjoy the trappings of power, dominance, and privilege... all while building a greater and greater reserve of effrontery to strip anybody not like them of the freedom to live and influence this province as they please.

      The English conquered Canada but were comparatively indifferent to us (as were we to them). While the English were busy applying Protestant capitalist notions, building our country economically (along with the millions of immigrants who arrived and got to work right along with them), that previous bastion of French-Canadian control (the Church) was busy filling our heads with a losing Catholic doctrine (en français) that was more about ensuring our (but really their) continued control. The immigrants who showed up figured "heck, the English here are at least getting things done and the French are all about themselves - it's pretty obvious where MY bread will be buttered". The French then -- as now -- have been guided by a doctrine of survival whereby a handful of scrappy colonialists (pure of soul and faith) need to tough it out in the wilderness (filled with heathens... both savage and Protestant). And the cycle continues today, just with different vocabulary. Ugh...

      Delete
    4. To our friends (sic) on Vigile who routinely (and understandably) parade news examples of a "collapsing" capitalism as the failure of 18th and 19th century Protestant philosophy, I remind them that nationalism is also the product of that same era, and has just as many warts, and has produced just as many casualties. That's why you can't (and shouldn't) choose one over the other over something as arbitrary as ethnicity.

      I'm glad that as a society we've worked toward helping French-Canadians achieve upward mobility. But I don't care for the language in which that upward mobility occurred or will continue. And I think a society shouldn't really care either.

      (And if it does, it should be a distant second or third consideration. France silenced its own dialects with the very same linguistic imperialism our language militants today denounce against the English in North America -- hypocritical double-standard if I can say so myself)

      What does it give anybody to know that the upper crust of their city/province/country has been replaced and is now French rather than English (or any other language)? I've thought about this, and what it all boils down to, Michel, is pride. And I mean pride as in "orgueil", not as in "fierté". And all the other petty (and large) ugliness that permeates a society built on orgueil in my view is no better than one in which the losers of a colonial war adopt reactionary attitudes ranging from cynicism to intolerance.

      Live and let live. Let what's dead rest. We've wasted too much time resisting the working system right under our noses in favor of building from scratch a new "society" which (barring the marketing, colors, and language) is quite similar to the one it hijacked and replaced, and bears overwhelming and shocking 'identicalities' to the supposedly homogeneous "enemy" we're apparently "at war" with.

      Bull. Fucking. Shit.

      Delete
    5. Patrice: "My point is that without independence, quebeckers, seeing that they no longer have real and/or significant political power, might give up on politics which would be bad for democracy and would lead to cynism (by rejection of the political class) and intolerance (out of frustration)."

      In the province of Quebec, francophones exercise full democratic control, with almost every MP in L'assemble nationale being a fracophone, from either of two parties which are BOTH open towards ethnic nationalism. The new contender, the CAQ, is also a.francophone and b.nationalistically-inclined.

      On the federal level, Quebec is not only represented, but overrepresented relative to the total population, and sends to Ottawa whoever it wants, including separatists and nationalists.

      This is exactly why the 1992 UN commission on territorial integrity of Quebec ruled that neither Quebec nor Canada are divisible. It didn't grant Quebec the green light to divide Canada because it refused to recognize Quebec as a colony. In response to D.Turp's motion that Quebec was a colony, the committee ruled that a. he won't be able to convince a single rational person that that's the case, and 2. that Quebec CAN voice its grievances democratically without any restrictions in the context in which it finds itself. This second point is important. Francophone Quebeckers can make themselves heard within Canada, and they do have representation in the governing bodies, much more so than allophones within Quebec where electoral system over-represents the regions and under-represents Montreal.

      This also reminds me of an interview on C-Span in the mid 1990s, when the host Brian Lamb asked the British journalist Peter Hitchens why he supports Mandela and his ANC, and not Gerry Adams and his IRA. Hitchens said that Mandela and ANC are shut out of the democratic system, whereas the Irish Republicans aren't: Ireland is its own country, and Northern Ireland is represented in London. For exactly the same reason, I never found militant Quebec groups legitimate. On top if it, the Quebecois opted to stay in the Canadian "prison" twice. So it's either not such a prison after all, or the Quebecois are masochists. I think it's the former.

      Delete
    6. Thank you adski.

      I completely agree with your assessment of Quebec militant groups, however I find the soft-spot (if not the back-room links and outright pliability) that the more legitimate elements of our political process have for groups like the FLQ and even the SSJB, MNQ, and RRQ extremely disconcerting.

      As I've previously also said, I'm also not sure how much I should be able to trust a Francophone-controlled institution to act in the best interests of Francophone. Time and again, these have shown that they act in their OWN interests first and foremost, with the true needs of their supposed constituents dead last:
      - Catholic Church
      - Fearmongering post-Quiet-revolution provincial legislature
      - nationalist-leaning media
      - French-language pre-university educational institutions that barely make us functional in English
      - paragovernmental language militant groups (their legendary infighting and their disturbing vigilantism)

      As an anglo/allo, I would probably feel some kind of natural curiosity about why the French-Canadian majority in Quebec gravitates toward institutions that don't really help them.

      As a (supposedly "bad") Francophone, I have nothing but contempt for the very entities that say their raison d'être is to defend my interests all while keeping us shackled... and handsomely lining their own pockets.

      The monsignors' powers might be gone, but their mind control game is still very much alive in our politics, sadly.

      >@francophones indépendantistes: Qu'en pensez-vous? Vos idées (sans jokes plattes de beignes svp!) sur ce parallèle seraient fort intéressantes

      Delete
    7. Apparatchik:

      Your 3:46 post and follow-up was great...no more needs to be added.

      But threbottom line iis: if the Quebec people want their own REAL country with borders and all that, they should have it.

      What we can't continue to have is violation of rights.

      Where the capital is, is a secondary consideration.

      Delete
  6. How awful... Gilles Proulx and his cronies are a bunch of small-minded thugs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a normal society Gilles would have been at least sanctioned for instigation to violence and those protesters arrested for vandalism.

      Delete
    2. Gilles Prude is the Qu Qlux Qlan - Q'bec style.

      Delete
    3. You might be interested to know that the Ku Klux Klan had its strongest support in Canada in SasKKKatchewan. The Klan claimed 40,000 memebers in the 1930s. 40,000!?

      They fanaticaly hated french and catholics which, oddly*, did not have much appeal in Québec.

      Delete
    4. "SasKKKatchewan."

      Ho!Boy...MDR!

      Delete
    5. "You might be interested to know that the Ku Klux Klan had its strongest support in Canada in SasKKKatchewan. The Klan claimed 40,000 memebers in the 1930s. 40,000!?"

      and the group you are referring to, turned out to be a small-minded minority among english canadians, no better no worst than those fucktards of Quebec separatists..

      Delete
    6. I think that's the point. Extremists are everywhere. Painting everyone with the same brush is unhelpful.

      Delete
    7. How about taking a different tack altogether?

      Extremists are essentially the same everywhere and the only way to deal with them is through heavy-handed and exceptional intervention by the State -- and occasionally, from external forces.

      French-language extremist militancy (which I emphasize IS distinct from the general desire to see French survive in North America) is clearly Quebec's "peculiar institution".

      Delete
  7. It is not two nations. Canada is one nation. Quebec is a province within that nation (at least until the unlikely event that the province passes a referendum to split from the rest of the country).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry for using the offending "n" word.

      Would it be ok to say that we are a large human community who shares a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or vision of its history, and who share a common feeling of belonging and who, through its government, has instituated its own political institutions?

      Perhaps you would find more acceptable "a tribe that lives closed on itself"? If it is still too offending to you, feel free to say so and I will try to find something else.

      I believe that you confuse the concept of nation and the concept of United Nations recogninized sovereign state. It is a common mistake.

      Delete
    2. Then Mister Patrice, can't we just say that the people of Huntingdon are a nation too? They share a common feeling, a same vision and culture ! Is it true?

      Delete
    3. Or of the Greater Montreal Area as a whole?

      I would caution our separatist friends against using the sociological "nation" argument as fuel in their aspiration for independence. Montreal is and will continue to be sufficiently distinct from the rest of Quebec that Montrealers can also credulously and legitimately speak of themselves as being a "nation".

      From that perspective, would it be right for Montrealers to argue that the current political configuration is unfair and should be changed to give us more power to both "de-Quebec" and "de-Canadaize" ourselves from the yoke and agents of provincial and federal power?

      A slippery slope indeed, and not one that I prefer. While I agree that the soft nationalists and partitionists have legitimate points and grievances, I am and remain committed to unity. Both that of Quebec and that of Canada.

      If this is a French province and must remain that way,
      this is a united and multicultural country and must too remain that way.

      Delete
    4. I want the GMA to separate from Quebec so it can be its own province...

      Delete
    5. Well good luck with that. You need the province's consent. It's in the Canadian constitution. Borders of a province can't be changed without the assembly's consent.

      Delete
    6. Je crois que beaucoup d'immigrants rapportent avec eux des substances qui les font voyager dans des univers parallèles ou ils ne connaissent vraiment rien de la constitution canadienne.

      Delete
    7. Que faire alors du Bloc Québécois qui veut créer un Code Criminel du Québec alors que la constitution canadienne dit clairement que c'est de compétence fédérale?

      Seraient-ce les mêmes substances?

      Delete
    8. Le Bloc Québécois est un parti politique reconnu qui a représenté l'opposition officielle à ottawa pendant plus de 20 ans.Qui sont les fondateurs de l'association des anglos/allos partitionnistes de Montréal?Je demande un nom seulement.À moins qu'il s'agisse d'une secte secrète constituée d'illuminés,se réunissant occasionnellement (les soirs de pleine-lune) dans caves obscures du chinatown pour y sacrifier des animaux exotiques ou y brûler des Fleurdelisés.

      Delete
    9. > Le Bloc Québécois est un parti politique reconnu qui a représenté l'opposition officielle à ottawa pendant plus de 20 ans.

      Hop là...attention, le Bloc n'a été l'opposition officielle que pendant 4 ans (soit de 1993 à 1997). Remplacé d'abord par le parti Réformiste (1997) devenu l'Alliance Canadienne (2000), devenue le Parti Conservateur (2004) jusqu'en 2006, année où les Libéraux prirent leur place. Depuis mai dernier, c'est le NPD.

      Ne pas confondre opposition officielle et opposition perpetuelle (ou parasitaire, c'est selon) ;-)

      >Qui sont les fondateurs de l'association des anglos/allos partitionnistes de Montréal?Je demande un nom seulement.
      Et une adresse?

      >À moins qu'il s'agisse d'une secte secrète constituée d'illuminés,se réunissant occasionnellement (les soirs de pleine-lune) dans caves obscures du chinatown pour y sacrifier des animaux exotiques ou y brûler des Fleurdelisés.
      J'aime l'image même si je la trouve un peu farfelue voire mélodramatique.

      Delete
  8. 1 of 2

    To mister Patrice:

    Dear sir, I don't know you and I don't read your blog.
    But i can say that I managed to form an opinion about your character, after I read a couple of your posts here.
    You are playing a double role. You want to pass as a pacifier, as an intellectual separatist but you don't differ too much the excrement-protesters from Verdun. I bet you think about yourself that you are superior to them but you are not, because deep down in your conscience you approve this kind of behavior, all for the good of the survival of french language.

    So please, I now that this is an opened blog, and everybody is welcomed ( even the stupid and pathetic donut friend with microscopic brain ), but do us all a favor and stop treating us as ignorants.

    For many of us you are equivalent to our seppie friend. If you really believe that today, or in the future, Quebec would really be an independent nation, a prosperous country, right beside USA and Canada, now when the globalization is rising you cannot be more wrong ( wrong use of superlative ? ).

    What is Quebec producing now? What is the industry here? Really mister Patrice, if you want to pose as an intellectual you should embrace the reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Froggy to M.Patrice: "You are playing a double role. You want to pass as a pacifier, as an intellectual separatist but you don't differ too much the excrement-protesters from Verdun."

      This is exactly what he is. In a soft spoken and calming tone, he spouts the same ideas as the institutions he supports. The message is the same though as that of the SSJB, OQLF, PQ, etc...

      As to what Quebec would be like if it ever became independent, it's irrelevant. Independence of Quebec is not the issue, it's the concept or the possibility of Quebec independence, and the effect this concept or idea has on other people. If the idea didn't raise any controversy or generate attention, it would have died a long time ago, or remained on the margins with negligible support.

      Delete
    2. Isn't he allowed to have the same opinions as the SSJB, PQ, OQLF?

      What's the message here? He should be spouting hateful rethoric like an extremist?

      Delete
    3. The SSJB, PQ and OQLF are extremists.

      Delete
    4. "The SSJB, PQ and OQLF are extremists."

      Peut-être mais le peuple Québécois les aimes.Que voulez-vous?C'est la vie...

      Delete
    5. The PQ as a whole, even down to the last MP or supporter, are all extremists? News to me...

      Or does wanting independance automatically make you an extremist?

      Delete
    6. Les anglos ont l'extrémiste et le nazi facile,en fait tous ce qui ne correspond pas à leurs valeurs.Ce sont des gens très bizarres.

      Delete
    7. No one is quite as bizarre as you are, Seppie/OQLF/Press 9.

      Delete
    8. > "The SSJB, PQ and OQLF are extremists."
      Peut-être mais le peuple Québécois les aimes.Que voulez-vous?C'est la vie...


      ça nous prend un Office Québécois de la protection des relations raciales et linguistiques.

      hoho! ga'ben ça: Centre de recherche-action sur les relations raciales

      Comme dirait la clique: commentaire inutile à m'envoyer: tiens, un organisme qui ne se gêne jamais pour chier sur la tête des méchants francophones blancs

      Delete
    9. Que diriez-vous de l'Association Linguistique Locale des Opprimés Sociaux (A.L.L.O.S)?

      Delete
    10. Cute. Mais tristement cute.

      Delete
  9. 2 of 2:

    I stumbled upon this link:
    http://www.gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commun/portrait/economie/?lang=en

    Here we find out that the advantages of Quebec are:
    Its strategic position in North America; --- really? even in the event of separation?
    Abundant natural resources; --- yeah, but we don't want to exploit them
    Hydro-electric power at relatively low production costs; --- true
    Highly educated and skilled workforce; --- decreasing very rapidly !!!!!!!!
    Innovative and dynamic R&D as shown by the excellence in advanced technologies; ---yet in Montreal slabs of cement fall in your head !!!!
    Exportation of products across the world. --- enough to sustain an independent Quebec????

    And for Montreal:
    Montréal is known throughout the world in the fields of life sciences (pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry sector) and video games. --- AstraZeneca,Johnson & Johnson ...

    Republic of Quebec would be an independent and impoverished country with no allies except may France ( far away ), a cow ready to be milked by USA and Canada ( they will benefit not us ).

    e should try to bring economy back to Quebec, in Montreal especially, to create jobs no matter the language, try to rebuild our infrastructure, try to educate our kids better and stop language wars, stop wasting time and money on language police, stop wasting time and money on another "independence comity".

    We should work and stop complaining Mister Patrice!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Froggy,

      I have read your comments.

      I don't want to sound superior or anything, but am I wrong in thinking that probably no one ever accused you of trying to pass as an intellectual?

      Delete
    2. "Then Mister Patrice, can't we just say that the people of Huntingdon are a nation too? They share a common feeling, a same vision and culture ! Is it true?"

      Avec une telle affirmation,je ne crois pas qu'il soit un intello.Si oui,il le cache très bien.
      Je crois qu'il est plutôt un fan assidu de "America's got talent".

      Delete
    3. Not even France! They're going bankrupt, their bond rating was lowered a couple of months ago, and they're having problems with their own immigrants.

      Delete
    4. "They're going bankrupt"

      Comme les É.U ?

      Delete
    5. "Avec une telle affirmation,je ne crois pas qu'il soit un intello.Si oui,il le cache très bien.Je crois qu'il est plutôt un fan assidu de "America's got talent"."

      at least he's not a fan of that fat singer Ginette Reno like you...

      Delete
    6. Je ne suis pas un fan de Ginette Reno pas plus que vous en êtes un de lady caca,enfin je l'espère pour vous.

      Delete
  10. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/16/quebec-canada-poll_n_1352912.html?ref=canada

    Allez !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I assume that by "Alley", you are implying the Canadians want Quebec to leave, and you are egging them on. Yet if you actually read your own poll :

      "Despite a majority feeling Canada would not suffer without Quebec, only 16 per cent of Canadians in the rest of the country want Quebec to become a separate country. Three-quarters of respondents want Quebec to remain Canadian, compared to 45 per cent of Quebecers who support independence."

      Delete
  11. "Allez !"

    Alors au prochain Référendum,pas de pancartes "We love you" dans les rues de Montréal ?

    Héhé!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you will be leaving this country without Montreal and I can assure you that,you dirty piece of rotten vomit feces!!!!

      Delete
    2. Est-ce qu'on peut garder Longueuil ?...SVP

      Delete
    3. "Alors au prochain Référendum,pas de pancartes "We love you" dans les rues de Montréal ?"

      There will not be another "Love-In" in Montreal in any future referendum. Many Canadians are fed up with Quebec's shenanigans and would like to see it leave. Quebec is just a parasite and an anchor weighing down the rest of the country.

      Delete
    4. That's entirely up to Longueuil to decide....

      Delete
    5. Moi je suis de Laval et je veux être annexé avec les É.U,pouvez-vous nous aider?

      Delete
    6. mais bien sur nous pouvons t'aider...mais va falloir dire bye bye a ta langue une foie annexee au USA, vue que seule l'anglais reigne comme langue officielle...

      Delete
  12. "...you dirty piece of rotten vomit feces!!!!"

    Si je comprend bien,vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec notre projet de société et que nous ne pourrons pas compter sur votre collaboration.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Editor: “Gilles Proulx, who reminded listeners rather seriously that if the store was located in Northern Ireland, it would long ago have been burned down via a Molotov cocktail.”

    So according to Proulx:
    1. Mr.Williams shouldn’t feel victimized. He should feel lucky and be happy. Because it could have been much worse.
    2. The protesters shouldn’t feel bad, they should feel good, because “others” would have gone further

    Black is white. White is black. Quebec Inc’s shill has done his job.

    -----

    Editor: “The police had to advise the owner to close up shop for his own security.”

    It’s a shame that they told him to close. This is a capitulation in the face of extremists.

    I wonder what would have happened if ethnicities were reversed. If it was a franco shopkeeper and allo protesters. I bet the cops would encourage the store owner to stay open, and they’d triple the number of patrols in the area. If trouble started, they’d crack down within minutes, to teach the protesters a lesson.

    -----

    “"We checked our legal interpretation before moving forward. We understand that there are people who do not have the same interpretation as us, " – M.Begeron, OQLF

    “"This new campaign of the OQLF ignored a formal opinion of the Conseil de la langue, provided the government of Lucien Bouchard in 2000, at a time when Louise Beaudoin was the minister in charge. The PQ government was told then that it was advisable to use incentives to get companies to francize their names, since according to the law, they were not on solid ground." – LaPresse

    Ok, what is this “not the same interpretation” nonsense? Or the “not on solid grounds” nonsense? There is one clear provision – registered trademarks are allowed. Until this provision changes (and it never will, not even under any pq govt, because Quebec will never have the guts to go after big business and multinationals, it's too weak to play in the big leagues), then there is no middle ground, shades of gray, differing interpretations, or shaky grounds. This isn’t a complex issue of abortion or euthanasia. This is a simple issue of a yes-it’s allowed, or a no-it’s not allowed. Why is the taxpayer's money wasted on convening the "councils" in order to "analyze" this issue? What is there to analyze? This is a clear cut case.

    The fact that OQLF has to resort to “soft measures of persuasion” mans that legally, they cannot do anything. "Different interpretations” and “not being on solid ground” have nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because, regardless of budget/legal status/relevance, through overanalyzation they're trying to gradually wriggle their way into imposing more and more "implied" language restrictions until it becomes perfectly legal to fine passersby on the street for several hundred dollars for addressing you in English first rather than French.

      Delete
    2. Wait... "legal"? Sorry, I meant "socially acceptable", since it isn't written in Bill 101 or any other law.

      Delete
  14. Je ne vois pas les raisons pour lesquelles la communauté anglos de Montréal est si rébarbative au projet de pays du Québec.Je crois que si ils étaient mieux informés sur les conditions améliorées que nous leur réservons,plusieurs d'entre eux se rangeraient du coté de la majorité.Le Québec en tant que pays serait beaucoup plus "sécure" en ce qui a trait aux considérations linguistiques ainsi moins de pression sur ses minorités.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Je ne vois pas les raisons pour lesquelles la communauté anglos de Montréal est si rébarbative au projet de pays du Québec."

      Abrasif, leave the Anglos alone. The Anglos are just a bunch of Christopher Halls (of JdeM). They are a supine and gutless bunch (NoDogs and few others excepted). Your real "problem" these days are the allos. Trust me on this one.

      ----

      "Je crois que si ils étaient mieux informés sur les conditions améliorées que nous leur réservons,plusieurs d'entre eux se rangeraient du coté de la majorité."

      False. There can never be a set of conditions under which you'd be happy. This is exactly why there is no point conceding to you or making any accommodations with you. Because you always ask for more.

      ----

      "Le Québec en tant que pays serait beaucoup plus "sécure" en ce qui a trait aux considérations linguistiques ainsi moins de pression sur ses minorités."

      Condition under which you'd be "secure" is an impossibility. It does not exist.
      Pursuing this set of conditions is a waste of time because the finish line is constantly repositioned further and further up.
      What needs to be done is more of sequestering away, more of ignoring, more of deaf ears, and more of turning of our backs.
      I'd love it if we could get along. But if your definition of getting along (referred to in your circles as "social cohesion") is subordination of others, than it'd be better if we lived our lives in parallel. I'd have no problem with that. I don't smear your dep in shit because it operates in French, you don't smear my dep in shit because it operates in English, Italian, Greek, Spanish, or a Nigerian dialect. Deal? Or no deal?

      Delete
    2. M. Abrasif, could you please elaborate on this statement: "Le Québec en tant que pays serait beaucoup plus "sécure" en ce qui a trait aux considérations linguistiques ainsi moins de pression sur ses minorités."

      Why would Quebec be more secure? The way the whole 'francization' is portrayed now is that French is i a sea of English and everything that it's done it's done to protect it from that sea. What would change in the event of separation? WOuld Quebec move? Would be less English around? Care to elaborate?

      Delete
    3. Presumably it's because only french would be the official language, so there would be much less incentive for immigrants not to learn it, meaning that the fear of anglicization would be less founded?

      Delete
    4. French is the official language in Qc and immigrants still learn English. Are you trying to say that in the event of Qc separation, there wouldn't be anymore English schools and universities? That there will not be anymore English in Qc?

      Delete
    5. It's been said that immigrants immigrate to Canada, not Quebec. There they understand themselves to be in an anglophone country, Quebec nonwithstanding.

      I'm just saying that if Quebec was an independant country - like France, Germany, Denmark, then there would be no question of immigrant access to anglophone schools, or to the fact that immigrants are in an anglophone country. They would be in a francophone country. Immigrants would no more get access to english public schools than they do in any of the above. In a way it would make expectations much clearer rather than the Canada vs Quebec debate that exists today.

      Presumably the english schools and universities would remain to service the anglophone minority, though how many of them would choose Quebec over Canada I don't know. I expect there would be migrations, from francophones within Canada to Quebec and from anglophines within Quebec to Canada.

      Delete
    6. Is this the issue with Qc as a province of Canada? that immigrant expect to come to a Anglophone country? You do not understand my friend are are not aware of the immigration process.


      If I remember correctly, Quebec has full control over its immigration, and the recent influx of immigrants comes from former French colonies, where French is spoken widely. Again... where is the problem?

      ...and remind me and what access has an immigrant now to English schools? The only way is through fully-private schools. And since a very small percentage of immigrants afford to send their children to private schools, one can safely argue that most likely a newcomer to Qc will send his/her children to the public school. Where is the problem then? Since private schools are not subsidized by the publics, access to English private schooling is not an issue, is it?

      Delete
    7. "Since private schools are not subsidized by the publics"

      Hein ?

      Delete
    8. @Anonymous 11:25

      Immigrants moving to Toronto can move to Montreal, even if they don't know french. Quebec has full control of its direct immigration, nothing more. And even so, there are certainly people like the Dépanneur owner who move to Quebec without knowing french. He said it himself : "You are in Canada FIRST, and Quebec SECOND." as the editor quoted him.

      Now yes, immigrants have no access to english schools, but many feel like they should have access to them. If Quebec was a country, there would be no rationale for Quebec to provide public education to its immigrants in anything other than French, so people wouldn't continue asking for it.

      I'm not saying that there is a problem that seperation can fix, I'm just trying to explain how some might feel an independant country would be more confident culturally than a non-independant one.

      Delete
    9. Thank you for taking time to answer my not-proofed reply.

      The immigration process as I know it first-hand from 10-15 years ago requires an interview that establishes proficiency in Fr, among other things. Should an would-be-immigrant not speak a level of french that would ensure a certain degree of fluency, he/she would not receive the OK to emigrate to Qc. Of course there are exceptions, however we are not generalizing those, are we?

      One more thing... as long as Qc is in North-America, an immigrant will consider a working-knowledge of English necessary. Moreover as long as there will be anglophones in Qc you cannot stop the immigrants integrate in the English community if they choose to do so. I also believe that the separatists are well-aware of that and they have been trying for the past decades to get rid of the anglophones in Qc.

      Personally, I believe a lower-than-expected rate of integration of the immigrants in the francophone culture is a direct result of the Qc society that expects the immigrant to integrate not only nationally, but also culturally. And this is something that makes the 'other' side more attractive. And by side I am referring to the Canadian side. You know, with statements such as “Multiculturalism is not a Quebec value” one can understand why the other side looks better.

      Delete
    10. I can't speak of the Qc society as a whole, I only know a few Quebecois, and have not spent any lengh of time in non-Montreal Quebec except for a brief stint in Quebec city as a child. I do think it's universal though to expect immigrants to learn the local language. I don't believe for a second that France is ok with the children of immigrants not learning French, or that Germany is ok with children not learning German.

      I think you missed my point about immigration practice - if you succesfully immigrate to Toronto, you are free to roam about as you please afterwards. Technically you can end up in Montreal. Quebec has control over immigrants who immigrate directly to their province, but not over those whi immigrate indirectly to their province. I don't know how many immigrants do this.

      IMO, the role of the State in integration is limited to teaching the children of immigrants the local language, what they do with that is truly up to them.

      Multiculturalism in the ROC is a nice word, but I'm unsure how different the situation is compared to Quebec's. From what I've seen, we accept immigrants, and we don't force them to integrate, but they certainly are expected to go to english public school, learn english, and work in english in our society. They're certainly not expected to immigrate here, ask for public schools in french and then provide french-only services at their place of employment. They don't put the onus on us to learn their language rather than learning our own. Is it so insensitive to expect the same of immigrants going to Quebec?

      Delete
    11. I've seen many, many people leave Quebec never to return to live--hundreds...thousands. Know how many I know that moved back? Answer: 3! One was cousins of mine who hated Toronto from the start, looked for all the bad, and decided to move back; another was my cousin's sister, who moved for years to Toronto, then California, Arizona, back to California, and after the last of her 3 failed marriages wanted to move back to be with family (I suppose because nobody else will have her!)

      Too bad, I've always thought her a good cousin, but she couldn't hold a marriage together, and certainly two of the fellows she married were good fellows. She didn't come back to Quebec for Quebec, but for her family. I know a couple of other ex-Montrealers who are talking of retiring there, but considering the drop in the quality of hospital services, the impossibility of finding a doctor and the confiscatory taxes that have only gotten worse since I left Quebec, they'll probably suddenly realize they have nothing to gain by moving back. And if the'y don't, lucky Quebec--more Heenglish to habuse!

      Delete
    12. It's unlikely that many immigrants who move initially to Toronto end up in Montreal.

      Delete
    13. @Abrasif 404 "Conditions améliorées" my ass. Editor said outright in one of last week's posts that an independent Quebec would gradually strip as many English language rights as possible.

      Delete
    14. @Adski "False. There can never be a set of conditions under which you'd be happy. This is exactly why there is no point conceding to you or making any accommodations with you. Because you always ask for more."

      Exactly! I joked about that very thing replying to Wednesday's post. If they separate, they'll probably keep complaining about the French language in addition to the new economic drawbacks associated with no longer having Ottawa to lean on. La République du Québec would quickly degenerate into something akin to a poorer South American country or Ireland, and Canada would have to swoop in and come to the rescue and offer to re-integrate Quebec.

      And of course, they'd just vote "NON" this time, seeing as they're happier being an independent francophone nation than being part of a more economically powerful country...

      Delete
    15. Anon: "I'm just saying that if Quebec was an independant country - like France, Germany, Denmark, then there would be no question of immigrant access to anglophone schools, or to the fact that immigrants are in an anglophone country. They would be in a francophone country. "

      You're making a huge assumption here, namely that Quebec-the-country would even attract any immigrants. I wouldn't make any bets on that.

      Delete
  15. You know the seppies don't like talking about Partition, just about how it cannot happen. It terrifys them. Imagine losing Northern Quebec and villages, towns and cities all over quebec for the seppies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just imagine if they lost the Montreal and hull region....I'd laugh straight in their faces if it happened.

      Delete
    2. ...and I'd laugh even longer and harder than you!

      Delete
    3. Moi j'aime parler partition,je suis un grand fan de sci-fi,j'adore aussi les documentaires traitant de phénomène paranormaux comme l'explosion du "Donut industry" dans la canada anglais.

      Delete
    4. oh on the contrary, the partition is far from being a sci-fi

      Delete
    5. "villages, towns and cities all over quebec"

      Name them.

      I'll be waiting for your list.

      Delete
    6. Start by listing the municipalities that passed a unity resolution back in the 90's.

      Delete
    7. But he said all over Quebec. Sounds pretty limited to the west island.

      Delete
    8. It's because Montreal is their most powerful city in terms of economy/industry. But that's exactly why it attracts all the anglos and ethnics. So, instead of trying to get rid of Montreal because of all the anglos and ethnics, they're doing it the other way around so that they can have their cake and eat it too.

      Delete
  16. French is an inferior language compared to English.

    It has less words .....much less.

    and Quebec french is a mess

    " Je vas gazez mon char"

    Instead of saying " Je vas mettre de L'essence dans mon auto"

    GAZEZ MON CHAR sounds like English to me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the first time I've heard that languages are ranked by worth according to their number of words.

      Delete
    2. Le vidéo montré est pathétique pour reprendre l'expression de l'article. Il n'y a effectivement rien d'édifiant dans cette démonstration de violence et de lapidation.

      Mais cette vidéo est pathétique aussi parce que elle est sortie de son contexte et liée aux actes de vandalismes à la propriété du maire Gendron dans le but de faire ressortir un caractère intrinsèque aux français, leur intolérance. C'est de la pure diffamation.

      Bien sûr il y a de l'intolérance et du racisme chez les français. Mais plus qu'ailleurs?? Que ce soit une tare congénitale proprement française??À ce compte, nous pourrions faire ressortir les exactions du monde anglo-saxon depuis l'Empire contre l'humanité et nous pourrions faire un BAC avec. Comme quoi, avant de parler de la paille que l'autre à dans l'oeil...

      Je n'applaudis pas au vandalisme sur la propriété du maire Gendron et cette manifestation stupide en face du dépanneur. Je n'applaudis pas aux propos de Dutrizac et de Proulx. Mais vous, vous applaudissez aux propos du Maire Gendron. Vous savez quoi? Ces trois lascars ne sont que des clowns en mal de publicité. Point final.

      Comme l'article le démontre, il n'y a pas que des voix haineuses au Québec. Il y Lessard, Boivert et tous les autres dont je fais partie. Et il y a une façon beaucoup plus saine de faire valoir son mécontentement quand l'on est mal servi: on n'y vas plus,c'est tout, et c'est ce que plusieurs français font.

      Et oui, il est préférable de maintenir de bonne relations avec nos concitoyens anglais. Parce que c'est plus simple comme ça, pas parce que j'ai peur des représailles possibles venant des 350 millions d'Anglais autour.

      Delete
    3. Gaz = Français
      Mon = Français
      Char = Français

      Delete
    4. "Et oui, il est préférable de maintenir de bonne relations avec nos concitoyens anglais. Parce que c'est plus simple comme ça, pas parce que j'ai peur des représailles possibles venant des 350 millions d'Anglais autour."

      If you don't want to get persecuted by the 350 of anglophones surrounding you, then you will definitely need to drop it with imposing BILL 101, that way, everything will be fine and nothing bad will happen to you!!!So, you better follow my advice if you don't want things to turn ugly.

      Delete
    5. To Anonymous @11:05AM
      Mr Gendron never advocated throwing a Molotov cocktail. He stated an opinion freely as we all have the right to do so.

      As for Francophones being violent, perhaps I wasn't clear. It is when hotheads are given license on the radio and when they are not condemned for inciting hate, that good citizens can be carried away.

      The truth is that ALL CANADIANS including Quebecers abhor violence and acts of hate.

      There is a sad minority everywhere that can be pumped up to do things they normally wouldn't do, like a spontaneous riot, it happened in Vancouver, as well as Montreal.

      As for the Mohawks attack back in 1995, I blame Mr. Proulx and the local MP Ricardo Lopez for inflaming passions instead of acting to calm the situation.

      That is the danger we face, that the Dutrizacs and the Proulxs inspire acts of hate.
      This is the second time this year that a Dutrizac diatribe led to acts of intimidation. You might remember he encouraged people to invade the town of Hampstead and frighten the locals because he didn't agree with a certain bylaw.

      Delete
    6. "So, you better follow my advice if you don't want things to turn ugly."

      Je crois qu'il serait plus simple de prendre la 401...M'sieur.

      Delete
    7. I have the feeling that the Editor is much more progressive than his supporters.

      Delete
    8. "I have the feeling that the Editor is much more progressive than his supporters."

      Effectivement,j'ai aussi remarqué le clivage.L'Éditeur semble quelqu'un de posé et de réfléchi.

      Delete
    9. "So, you better follow my advice if you don't want things to turn ugly."

      Je crois qu'il serait plus simple de prendre la 401...M'sieur.

      wouldn't it be more simple if you moved out to a rural area in QC, where there are a lot of pure-laine like you....

      Delete
    10. "wouldn't it be more simple if you moved out to a rural area in QC, where there are a lot of pure-laine like you...."

      Hmmm...Non.Je suis très bien chez-moi ici à Montréal.Pourquoi êtes-vous aussi amer?La loi 101 est une grande Loi Canadienne,non?Vous n'êtes pas canadien?

      Delete
    11. une loi tres abrasive...des chip pi du pepsi mon pite.

      Delete
    12. ''If you don't want to get persecuted by the 350 of anglophones surrounding you, then you will definitely need to drop it with imposing BILL 101, that way, everything will be fine and nothing bad will happen to you!!!So, you better follow my advice if you don't want things to turn ugly''.

      C'est quoi ça? Une menace? Y'a quelqu'un de ta gang qui va venir m'exploser la cervelle? Allons... ça fait plus de 30ans qu'elle est passée et je suis toujours en vie...
      Mais t'inquiète pas... on le savait déjà avant de la passer, vous l'avez déjà fait à quelques reprises...

      Vous voyez cher Éditeur?? Un seul commentaire très posé et la violence n'est jamais loin. La démonstration est faite que celle-ci n'est pas l'apanage des français. Occupez-vous de vos violents, je vais m'occuper des miens.

      wouldn't it be more simple if you moved out to a rural area in QC, where there are a lot of pure-laine like you....

      En passant, mon ancêtre est arrivé à Montréal en 1674, avant même qu'un seul Anglais y est posé le pied. Il a déménagé à Lavaltrie puis est revenu après s'être fait bouffer 4 de ces enfants par des ours. Il a vécu a grande Paix de Montréal, notamment avec les Mohawks. Ses descendants ont vécus la Conquête mais sont restés. Mon arrière Grand-Père viens de St-Henri, mon Grand-Père de Pointe-aux-Trembles.

      Je suis ce qu'on appelle un pure laine...et je vis et travaille à Montréal 101% en français. Des questions?

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    14. J'en prends bonne note.

      Delete
    15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5g-jpaAfGU

      Dutrizac,Proulx, c'est de la petite bière à côté de ça.

      Delete
    16. @ Anon. at 4:36 PM,

      "If you don't want to get persecuted by the 350 of anglophones surrounding you, then you will definitely need to drop it with imposing BILL 101, that way, everything will be fine and nothing bad will happen to you!!!So, you better follow my advice if you don't want things to turn ugly."

      "C'est quoi ça? Une menace? Y'a quelqu'un de ta gang qui va venir m'exploser la cervelle?"

      I believe he was speaking more generally, and perhaps tongue-in-cheek. He probably meant: if you (7 million) Pepsi's don't stop acting like a*&holes, the 350 million Anglophones surrounding you will kick your butts (again).

      Delete
    17. Je parlais aussi en général: sa gang, c'est les 350 millions autour. Si c'est une blague et bien, elle n'est pas drôle. Précisément parce que vous nous avez déjà botté le cul. Il suffit de pas grand chose pour quelques uns d'entre-vous pour passez pour des trous de c**: il suffit d'être français.

      Delete
    18. "En passant, mon ancêtre est arrivé à Montréal en 1674, avant même qu'un seul Anglais y est posé le pied. Il a déménagé à Lavaltrie puis est revenu après s'être fait bouffer 4 de ces enfants par des ours. Il a vécu a grande Paix de Montréal, notamment avec les Mohawks. Ses descendants ont vécus la Conquête mais sont restés. Mon arrière Grand-Père viens de St-Henri, mon Grand-Père de Pointe-aux-Trembles.

      Je suis ce qu'on appelle un pure laine...et je vis et travaille à Montréal 101% en français. Des questions?"

      where do your work? in your basement,in your living room???Wow,it must be fun drinking labatt blue while working...

      Delete
    19. "where do your work? in your basement,in your living room???Wow,it must be fun drinking labatt blue while working..."

      Non,une pizza extra large,12 donuts,1 baril de PFK et king can de canadian. Burrrp!

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    21. "GAZEZ MON CHAR sounds like English to me"

      There is nothing English about that sentence. Not a single word comes from English in that sentence, not even from other Germanic languages. Gaz sounds like Gas but the latter isn't even Germanic, mon is from Latin nothing to do with my or mine and char I'll explain in my next post.

      You're the ones using words that come from French all the time.
      Look at this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Origins_of_English_PieChart.svg

      I could write an entire book in French without using a single word that comes from English. Those are optional (usually always have French alternatives) and haven't been around for several centuries (usually to name modern things like computer-related terms) whereas English has been using old French and Latin words for almost a thousand years.

      Learn some history. England was conquered a long time ago and the language that came out of it was no longer Germanic like it was before 1066. Meanwhile, in France, English was irrelevant and had hardly any influence on French. It stayed like that until modern times... and modern isn't a truly English word, by the way. When we say moderne, we didn't steal it from English.

      Delete
    22. (continued)
      An English-speaker can hardly write an elaborate (that's not a Germanic word) sentence (that's from old French too) with only Germanic words. The word language itself is not Germanic/English.

      Do you look at a cereal (same root as céréale) box and think "Hey, they use so many words from English, many words look the same" because if you do, you need to go see a linguist ASAP. Even Anglo-linguists will tell you you're wrong and it's the other way around and that was decided way before Canada existed, the words were ripped off from old French back in England.

      Gaz doesn't come from English and char is French and it ultimately comes from Latin (nothing wrong with using Latin words in French since French comes from Latin whereas English doesn't yet has so many Latin words unlike German and other Germanic languages) just like the "English" word car!
      See it says so right here:
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/car
      Origin: 1350–1400; Middle English carre < Anglo-French
      And there was nothing Anglo about Anglo-French, it's just the name of the French dialect that was spoken by the ruling classes in England before they switched to the masses' language... sounds like the inferior language to me. You say French is inferior yet history shows otherwise. Before America became powerful, people learned French way more than English and it didn't just influence English, it influenced many other European languages. English people kept borrowing French words for sophisticated (such as sophisticated) things for centuries. You're basically speaking a part-French language only the French words are not pronounced or spelled correctly and you criticize our language?

      When we say char, it ultimately comes from the same word that was used back when France was Roman territory. Roman carts, you know?
      We were saying char before the English conquered Canada and way before cars were invented.
      Quebec French is not some sort of French and English pidgin.

      Delete
    23. Oh yeah, gas comes from Greek apparently. So if it's ok for you to borrow from Greek words, it's ok for us too.

      Delete
    24. Why do I even waste my time here writing long posts, the point is we don't speak French because we think it's superior or whatever, we speak it because we have been speaking it since forever (well, not litterally). We just want to continue speaking it because why should we abandon our language that we spoke before the English arrived (and they might have created a new country around Quebec, but they always were a minority within our territory) whereas immigrants choose to settle in Canada and they choose to leave their country behind so they can't expect to keep their language for generations. We didn't choose to live in a mostly English country (a reality that is sorta foreign to us since we live in a mostly French environment) and when we were given the choice to leave in 1995, most of us (62% I think) voted yes but minorities concentrated in a minority of electoral districts city prevented that from happening.

      Notice how French Canadians that moved to the US are pretty much all assimilated now. Why? Because they were immigrants in a foreign country and living in a mostly English environment, things that don't apply here.

      Quebec will never have an English majority so might as well become a separate country. Canada never made sense and never will. There should only be two countries north of the Rio Grande: the US and Quebec. English Canada should join the US. Why not? You won't lose your language and you would be a part of a much more powerful country.

      Delete
    25. Oh and Alaska wouldn't be cut off from the other states.
      People in the Atlantic provinces say Canada will be unworkable if Quebec separates yet that never caused Alaska problems.

      Delete
    26. @ Anonymous Mar 16, 2012 01:45 PM

      "wouldn't it be more simple if you moved out to a rural area in QC, where there are a lot of pure-laine like you...."

      Why move on a farm* when one can move to the south or north shore where there are plenty of suburbs and they all have French-speaking majorities and since when are suburbs rural areas?

      *you seem stuck in 1912 and think most of us don't live in cities and suburbs and towns. Say, is Quebec City considered rural by your standards? It's not New York City but it's still a city and it clearly has a "pure-laine" majority (like other regional cities) but in your unrealistic anglo-chauvinist worldview it's one big city and the rest is all farms and "pure-laine" people aren't welcome in the big city, even though they founded it and named it (Montreal that's not English and it's actually Montréal officially) and have been living on that island since the 1600s, are the most numerous ethnic group** there and even the mayor is one of them yet it's "your" city and you will keep it if we separate, even though in some eastern parts there are virtually no anglophones you would get to keep it all? Doesn't sound democratic and fair. Good thing some of the eastern districts are among the most separatist in all of Quebec. Those who think they can have the entire island are anti-democratic and parts of it would never vote to stay in Canada.

      **That's right, name ONE ethnic group that is more numerous than French-Canadians/Québécois in Montreal. No, not the English, Scottish, Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks, etc.
      The city itself (which excludes west island suburbs but most of the island's population lives within the city) is over half French and then mostly allophone (which means plenty of small ethnic groups and even when all combined not as numerous as French-Canadians) and a small percentage of people of English and/or Scottish and/or Irish descent.
      Only 15% of the whole island declared having English as their mother tongue and many don't even live within the city's limits.

      Why should minorities (many of whom not even born here) get to keep an entire island where they have little history? Just the other day the Globe and Mail wrote about tourism in Old Montreal and its 350-year old (conquest was only 250 years ago, btw) cobbled streets. We built those streets and old buildings, not some people from Pakistan.

      If we started moving into Ottawa and asked for that city to join Quebec you would be mad, even if we would become a clear majority (which you aren't in Montreal) of that city. At least be consistent and if you were, you would have no problem with, say, Vancouver becoming an overseas Chinese territory.

      Delete
    27. That's a truly idiotic comparison with Alaska. Alaskans can trade directly with the entire west coast of the US. What will the maritimes do? Are we going to build a port in the Hudson bay the Irving tankers will be able to use 6 months a year? Or will all of our trade be airlifted Halifax-Toronto?

      In the advent of a Quebec separation, the maritimes will be cut off from Canada like Alaska was never cut off from the US, all their trading will be with foreign powers and not with other canadian provinces, unless going through foreign territory. I don't know if that means that they can't survive on their own, but the comparison with Alaska is spurious and stupid.

      Delete
    28. Then the maritimes should join the US.

      So separating Quebec from Canada is wrong but Canada being separated from the US isn't? Why?

      You like paying more for the exact same stuff that can be bought in the US?

      Canadian independence doesn't make sense unless you're one of those monarchists but even that doesn't make sense in 2012.

      Europeans I've encountered get Quebec because "ah I see, it was New France, a French colony just like the Thirteen Colonies were an English colony" but they have a hard time understanding English Canada and when they do, they just think it's absurd and makes no sense for them not to join the United States where they have the same language and culture.

      Delete
    29. "and makes no sense for them not to join the United States"

      Mais ils sont déjà des faux-amerlocs (dépendant totalement de leur culture et de leur armée) sauf qu'ils sont encore des sujets de la vieille britannique à chapeaux.

      Delete
    30. "Europeans I've encountered get Quebec because "ah I see, it was New France, a French colony just like the Thirteen Colonies were an English colony" but they have a hard time understanding English Canada and when they do, they just think it's absurd and makes no sense for them not to join the United States where they have the same language and culture."

      I don't thank you have encountered that many Europeans then...

      Delete
    31. "**That's right, name ONE ethnic group that is more numerous than French-Canadians/Québécois in Montreal. No, not the English, Scottish, Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks, etc.
      The city itself (which excludes west island suburbs but most of the island's population lives within the city) is over half French and then mostly allophone (which means plenty of small ethnic groups and even when all combined not as numerous as French-Canadians) and a small percentage of people of English and/or Scottish and/or Irish descent.
      Only 15% of the whole island declared having English as their mother tongue and many don't even live within the city's limits."

      combine all of them together and they will certainly outnumber the pure-laine on island and as for the city being on the island since the 1600's, it wasn't even a city prior to the conquest, not even a town..it was a shithole port basically, not in a position to grow and thrive economically...what makes Montreal so not french and what it is now, is actually what resulted after the conquest...besides, the name of the city melts so well in the english language, that it sounds so much better whenever being pronounced and I'm not saying this to brag the english language whatsoever...

      Delete
    32. it even sounds better in italian and spanish btw...

      Delete
    33. "you seem stuck in 1912 and think most of us don't live in cities and suburbs and towns. Say, is Quebec City considered rural by your standards?"

      and you seem stuck in the pre-conquest, living under that dead french regime and not willing to accept the defeat on the abraham's plain...hard pill to swallow, isn't it???

      Delete
    34. "Quebec will never have an English majority so might as well become a separate country. Canada never made sense and never will. There should only be two countries north of the Rio Grande: the US and Quebec. English Canada should join the US. Why not? You won't lose your language and you would be a part of a much more powerful country."

      that's not the case in the GMA, maybe in the ROQ. besides, I don' even t care if it has a french majority

      Delete
    35. Yet more separatist exaggeration:

      > Je suis ce qu'on appelle un pure laine...et je vis et travaille à Montréal 101% en français. Des questions?

      Je trouve déjà assez ludique le propos selon lequel tu "travailles"... mais le fait même d'affirmer qu'il soit possible de passer 101% du temps à le faire en français je trouve ça capotant.

      ça se passe où tout ça? Au pays fictif appelé "Québec", par hasard?

      Delete
    36. L'idiot qui a dit que le français était ''inférieur'' à l'anglais démontre définitivement son inculture. Si vous ne connaissez rien de la langue française, je vous prie de ne pas répandre des sornettes.

      Delete
    37. "We didn't choose to live in a mostly English country..."

      Actually, in 1760-63, New France colonists in Quebec were offered the opportunity of free return to France with whatever they could bring, as part of the peace treaty. Very few chose to return, mostly senior administrators ie Almost all New France colonists made the decision to live under the British crown than to return to live under the French crown.

      When Montreal was invaded by the US revolutionary forces in 1775-6 at the beginning of the US War of Independence, almost everyone in Quebec chose to remain pro-British, viewing the liberating revolutionary force as unwelcome occupiers rather than as liberators, and once the British forces could return to Montreal in the spring of 1776, the US forces fled for their lives. Quebec support to remain under the British crown never wavered during the revolutionary war.

      In 1812-14, all in British North America, from Upper and Lower Canada and the Maritimes, successfully resisted invasions by the US, be it Lundy's Lane, or at Chateauguay, and all along the boundary.

      In 1867, Confederation happened following the end of the US Civil War precisely because Canada/British North America including Quebec didn't want to be absorbed peacemeal or de facto by economic integration/assimilation into the US. and this has been successful since.

      All this to say that French Canadians did make the choice to be a founder and integral part of Canada throughout its evolving political development from the 1760s onward, and the two Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995, even if close, ultimately reaffirmed this, even if this was not everyones' choice. In fact a post referendum poll showed that a large percentage of those who voted yes to separate in 1995 still believed they could retain their Canadian citizenship and passports through being dual citizens, Canadian money, pensions, Canadian MPs, etc etc etc. Separatist leaders tried to convince Quebec people that dual citizenship was a right which could not be taken away. As such, while there are some people in Quebec who clearly want complete independence, this has never been a majority view, and through history, francophones individually and as a whole have made their decisions.

      Delete
    38. "not willing to accept the defeat on the abraham's plain...hard pill to swallow, isn't it???"

      Not willing to accept the fact that you are and have always been a minority within Quebec's borders?
      So you chauvinists just end up always going back to something that happened two and half centuries ago whereas I look at the situation as it is today and figure it will never work out which is why we must separate. We can vote for independence if we want to and it's perfectly democratic, unlike military invasions. Why should we be forever stuck in Canada if we don't want to? Because of something that happened way before we were even born? We don't have to bow down to you or anyone, you don't own us.
      I guess some people just pretend to believe in freedom but really don't when it's inconvenient to them.

      The Abraham's plain? First time I hear that one, I thought it was the plains of Abraham.
      Battles that happened 250 years ago are irrelevant. The fact is we

      Let's not discuss history then if you can't even get names of places right.

      Delete
    39. > L'idiot qui a dit que le français était ''inférieur'' à l'anglais démontre définitivement son inculture. Si vous ne connaissez rien de la langue française, je vous prie de ne pas répandre des sornettes.

      En aucun temps n'ai-je fait ni cautionné tel propos que vous qualifiez (correctement, à mon point de vue) d'inculte. Ceux d'entre nous pour qui le bilinguisme personnel demeurera une oeuvre d'amour (pour ne pas dire le travail assidu d'une vie entière) pourtant nécessairement inachevé savons tous que l'une et l'autre langue sont à la fois riches, belles, descriptives, expressives, et à notre image.

      Que l'on soit francophone, anglophone, ou allophone d'origine, je suis d'avis qu'il faut tout faire pour s'exposer (en se vulnérabilisant un peu, s'il le faut) et s'approprier les deux langues, question de bien fonctionner chez nous... faute de quoi nous risquons tous de demeurer des Rhodésiens, chacun dans son petit recoin (à Hampstead comme à Hérouxville).

      Tout comme des idioties portant sur des beignes, il vaut mieux ignorer les commentaires des gros cons qui n'aident en rien à promouvoir une discussion saine et complète.

      À vous comme à moi le défi.

      Delete
    40. @ Apparatchick

      Je ne sais pas pourquoi vous trouvez amusant le fait que je travailles. Bien sûr, dans la conception anglaise des français, nous ne sommes qu'une bande de parasites assistés sociaux abuseurs du système et de la péréquation. C'est essentiellement les propos du gérant de dépanneur nigérien qui aura bien retenu les vôtres... Dans un même ordre d'idée, l'idée qu'un français puisse «travailler» sans l'aide de l'anglais est impossible, surtout à Montréal, puisque nous dépendons tous des bonnes grâces de la Reine et de ses sujets anglais. Donc, «travailler» en français pour vous, c'est boire de la Bleue dans mon sous-sol. Cette image est véhiculée ad nauseam à travers tout le Canada: le Québec est un désert de merde avec aucune richesse. Le Québec n'apporte rien. Le Québec est insignifiant. Le Québec est déficitaire. Français=parasite. Français= merde. Nous connaissons la chanson.

      Bien sûr, 101% est une exagération. C'est une boutade ayant pour référence la loi du même chiffre mais je suis sûr que vous êtes assez intelligent pour vous en rendre compte. Mais malheureusement pour vous, ce n'est pas loin de la vérité. Ironie du sort, c'est pour une agence fédérale. Je ne vous en dirai pas plus car il y a semble t-il 350 millions d'anglos autour de moi qui n'attendent qu'une bonne occasion pour me brûler la cervelle afin de vous venger de la loi 101.

      Tout ça se passe À Montréal, au Québec, au Canada, en Amérique et c'est très bien comme ça. Je suis français, je vis et travailles en français. À l'autre bout du spectre, j'imagine très bien mon alter ego anglais et c'est très bien comme ça. Mais il semble que je dérange. Que ce soit inacceptable. Que je devrais m'effacer. Mais je ne le ferai pas. Vous enverrai vos 350 millions autour finir le travail commencé en 1759.

      Le Québec comme pays réel, c'est tous les jours que je le vis, qu'il soit indépendant ou pas. Que vous ne soyez pas en mesure d'accepter cette réalité dans la réalité de votre pays est votre problème. Que vous ne soyez pas en mesure de saisir le Québec, petit pays dans un plus grand pays et qu'il a façonné votre histoire et votre culture est triste. Le destin de mon pays est lié au vôtre, ça vous le savez très bien et je le sais. Ce que vous savez peut-être moins, c'est que le vôtre est aussi lié au mien. Car sans le Québec les français de partout Canada, ce dernier n'est que le 51e état des États-Unis.

      Delete
    41. "French Canadians did make the choice [...] and the two Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995, even if close, ultimately reaffirmed this"

      Really? The French-Canadian vote in 1980 was almost 50-50 Yes-No but the non-Francophone vote made it a No victory. In 1995, it was 62% Yes when only counting French-Canadian votes.

      We accepted the result because we believe in democracy even when minorities end up winning because the majority was divided. No riots after the 1995 referendum.
      So much for "Language Hotheads Breed Violence."

      Delete
    42. Unfortunately for you, Quebec is not "pays reel" and will likely never be an independent country.

      On the 51st State. Canada has many differences from the US.

      Delete
    43. > Not willing to accept the fact that you are and have always been a minority within Quebec's borders?
      Sounds like an analogous argument to the one made by Quebec separatists who are unwilling to accept that they too are a minority within Quebec's borders, and that Francophones in general are (demographically at least) a minority within Canada.

      Neither argument gets us further ahead.

      >So you chauvinists just end up always going back to something that happened two and half centuries ago whereas I look at the situation as it is today [...]

      Pour savoir où l'on va, il faut savoir d'où l'on vient...

      [...]and figure it will never work out which is why we must separate.
      I don't know... it's actually been working despite your whining and bitching. And functionally, I'm still waiting to be convinced about how each Quebecer will individually benefit enormously under this vague new scenario that has never been delineated to painstaking detail (and to my satisfaction).

      We can vote for independence if we want to and it's perfectly democratic, unlike military invasions. Why should we be forever stuck in Canada if we don't want to?
      My impression is that we keep getting pitched the same old snake oil from the separatists and we keep saying "non merci" but that it is the separatists who refuse to recognize our democratically expressed opinion. In a good faith democracy, we respect the opinion of the majority. We don't manipulate people through fear until a minority puts the majority in a lobster trap and finally gets its own way.

      Delete
    44. > Because of something that happened way before we were even born?
      Aren't we all born into a system we didn't design?

      > We don't have to bow down to you or anyone, you don't own us.
      I don't know that being satisfied as an equal to the other nine English-majority provinces means I'm bowing down to anyone. With all due respect, I submit to your consideration that maybe you're the one who's insecure and has a need to overcompensate.

      >I guess some people just pretend to believe in freedom but really don't when it's inconvenient to them.
      Aren't virtually all humans inherently slimy creatures?

      > The Abraham's plain? First time I hear that one, I thought it was the plains of Abraham.
      Between his mistranslations and your picking and choosing which parts of history are worth more than others (along with your own personal angsts) I'm not sure which one is worse.

      > Battles that happened 250 years ago are irrelevant. The fact is we
      Tell that to the natives whose land both the French AND the English (and every other colonial power) stole.
      Tell that to the Americans who fought a war to kick out the British.
      Tell that to the French who had a (not so little) revolution and are now on their fifth(!) republic.
      Tell that to 19th century Europe.
      I could go on.

      > Let's not discuss history then if you can't even get names of places right.
      By your logic, it seems we shouldn't discuss history because what happened yesterday has no bearing on what's happening today or what will happen tomorrow.

      Or maybe you believe that following some arbitrary statute of limitations that you alone set, nothing matters.

      Delete
    45. @ Mar 17, 2012 07:40 AM
      "that's not the case in the GMA"

      GMA as in Greater Montreal Area as in the census region that includes the island of Montreal + Laval + the south shore + the north shore? Or just the island of Montreal? Because if it's the former then yes it is very much the case, it is over 70% French because both shores are way more than 70% French and account for a big part of the population of the GMA. Also vote mostly PQ so you will never have them. As for Laval, it still has a French majority though not as strong. Some allophones have been moving there but guess what, many of us move there too so that doesn't help your cause. There's even an ad campaign on French channels encouraging people to move to Laval from Montreal... or other places for that matter.

      Delete
    46. Just for the record,GMA and Laval are considered to be two distinct regions of Quebec that happens to be apart from each other, so you my friend are wrong...besides there is strong minority of anglophones that current resides in the laval area, looking forward to grow into a bigger number....I have no problem with french in general but people like you sickens me like hell ....

      Delete
    47. Apparatchik, you seem very confused because of your dual identity just like Trudeau was but the majority on both sides only speaks one language natively, which is something Trudeau never wanted to accept.

      Two solitudes, always been and always will be. It's an artificial country. How is an anti-French redneck in Alberta a countryman of mine? This is not normal in a normal country. Notice how Francophones aren't anti-French and Anglophones aren't anti-English but you will always have plenty of people hating the other side so it shows that there are two countries within this country. Trudeau was trying to go against nature because of his background. It was very selfish of him.

      Delete
    48. Je ne sais pas pourquoi vous trouvez amusant le fait que je travailles.
      ça a à voir avec la fréquence des commentaires "épicés" que vous semblez saupoudrer sur ce blogue. Rien à voir avec le steréotype préconçu auquel vous faites référence.


      Bien sûr, 101% est une exagération. C'est une boutade ayant pour référence la loi du même chiffre mais je suis sûr que vous êtes assez intelligent pour vous en rendre compte.
      Bien sûr. Ce que je cherchais à dire, c'est que votre exagération tant au sens littéraire que figuré. Surtout au Québec, on a tendance à être plus catho que le pape (plus francos que les français) en ce qui a trait aux questions de langue. Et c'est ÇA que je trouve désolant.

      Mais malheureusement pour vous, ce n'est pas loin de la vérité. Ironie du sort, c'est pour une agence fédérale.
      Je suis le fruit tant des systèmes anglo-Québécois que francophones du Québec.


      >Je ne vous en dirai pas plus car il y a semble t-il 350 millions d'anglos autour de moi qui n'attendent qu'une bonne occasion pour me brûler la cervelle afin de vous venger de la loi 101.
      Peut-être faudrait-il pas une vengeance mais un examen de conscience collective ainsi qu'une examination honnête et non partisane de l'utilité et de la portée de cette loi.

      Tout ça se passe À Montréal, au Québec, au Canada, en Amérique et c'est très bien comme ça. Je suis français, je vis et travailles en français. À l'autre bout du spectre, j'imagine très bien mon alter ego anglais et c'est très bien comme ça. Mais il semble que je dérange. Que ce soit inacceptable. Que je devrais m'effacer.
      Et c'est très bien que vous existiez. Je crois toutefois que vous devriez jumeler vos efforts aux miennes, par exemple, et qu'on devrait ensemble montrer qu'il est possible d'avoir une présence francophone forte et un Québec tolérant et sûr de lui-même dans un Canada bilingue et uni.


      >Le Québec comme pays réel, c'est tous les jours que je le vis, qu'il soit indépendant ou pas. Que vous ne soyez pas en mesure d'accepter cette réalité dans la réalité de votre pays est votre problème. Que vous ne soyez pas en mesure de saisir le Québec, petit pays dans un plus grand pays et qu'il a façonné votre histoire et votre culture est triste. Le destin de mon pays est lié au vôtre, ça vous le savez très bien et je le sais. Ce que vous savez peut-être moins, c'est que le vôtre est aussi lié au mien. Car sans le Québec les français de partout Canada, ce dernier n'est que le 51e état des États-Unis.
      Encore une fois, être Rhodésien dans son propre coin du monde n'améliore le sort de personne. L'heure est à l'intégration. J'affirme qu'il est possible de s'intégrer doublement (ou triplement) sans oublier qui on est. J'en suis la preuve même.

      Delete
    49. @ Mar 17, 2012 10:26 AM

      "there is strong minority of anglophones"
      Shouldn't that be there is A strong minority?

      "that current resides in the laval area"
      Don't you mean that CURRENTLY resides?

      "people like you sickens me like hell"
      Shouldn't it be SICKEN me?

      Do you consider yourself one of these anglophones?
      I mean, there is nothing wrong with making mistakes, English isn't my first language either but I don't consider myself an anglophone.

      When the PQ came up with Bill 101, they spoke of rights for the historical anglophone minority.
      People like you and most of the "anglophones" in Laval you speak of (most declared Italian and Greek as their mother tongue, not English, do you want me to post the census results? Few native English-speakers there) are not a part of this historical community so why are you trying to hide behind them?

      Delete
    50. @ Apparatchik

      "J'affirme qu'il est possible de s'intégrer doublement (ou triplement) sans oublier qui on est. J'en suis la preuve même."

      On a pas tous des double ou triple identités alors tu ne devrais pas oublier qui ON est.

      Parce qu'EUX ne l'oublieront jamais et ils vont toujours nous mépriser.

      Pourquoi s'intégrer à leur pays alors qu'eux ne veulent même pas s'intégrer aux États-Unis?

      Delete
    51. J'hallucine ou y'a un immigrant pseudo-anglo qui arrive et vient nous dire d'accepter la bataille des plaines (qu'il ne peut même nommer comme il faut) comme si on avait pas déjà assez des anglos haineux qui disent ça mais lui il a tellement pas rapport avec cette époque là. Et c'est probablement le même qui nous dit d'aller vivre en zone rurale. Racisme inversé. C'est le contraire d'un rural qui dit à un immigrant d'aller vivre dans la grande ville.

      J'ai jamais rien écrit contre tous les immigrants mais c'est certain que j'ai un problème avec des colons comme ça. C'est vraiment un colon, c'est de la colonisation ça, il espère que les non-Francophones vont devenir majoritaires à Montréal et même Laval pour pouvoir ensuite nous voler ces territoires que nous habitons depuis des siècles et lui nous dit d'accepter l'histoire de la conquête alors qu'il ne respecte aucunement notre histoire ici? Évidemment, c'est nous les méchants colons, même si on a pas choisi de venir ici tandis que les immigrants oui ils ont choisi. Avec ses références historiques, il va peut-être nous sortir que nous avons pas le droit d'être ici à cause des Amérindiens mais évidemment ça s'applique pas aux nouveaux arrivants étrangement. Y'a des Algériens qui disent ça, réalisent pas qu'ils sont pas Algonquins.

      Et il dit que je le dégoute? C'est moi le méchant? Je veux juste pas que des gens de mon peuple soit séparés du reste du peuple par des partitionistes envahisseurs. C'est quoi le plus juste, que les gens qui sont ici depuis tant de générations garde le droit de rester au Québec ou bien que des immigrants doivent accepter qu'ils restent au Québec et qu'ils n'ont pas le droit d'en enlever un morceau pour joindre l'Ontario? Surtout que ça voudrait toute l'île de Montréal même les secteurs où ils sont minoritaires.

      Il y en a même qui sont nés à l'étranger qui osent nous dire de retourner en France comme si c'était nous qui étions nés à l'étranger. Est-ce qu'on émigre vers leurs pays d'origine et leur dit ça nous? Mais c'est toujours nous les méchants racistes. Je pense qu'on est bien plus tolérant envers eux qu'ils le seraient s'ils étaient majoritaires, juste à voir comment certains se comportent lorsque minoritaires.

      Seppie, tu lis ceci? On va faire quoi avec ça?

      Delete
    52. Je suis Seppie. J'ai lu votre lettre et je suis à l'écoute de vos soucis.
      Quoi faire avec ça? MARCHER DROIT. Toujours marcher droit et garder la foi en Madame Marois.
      Ne jamais commettre de faux pas. Ils n'attendent que ça pour dire AH HA! Voyez-donc ça!
      Ils sont racistes ces séparatisses!

      Merci de m'avoir écrit à moi, connu ici sous le nom de Seppie.

      - Pete Curzi

      Delete
    53. > On a pas tous des double ou triple identités alors tu ne devrais pas oublier qui ON est. Parce qu'EUX ne l'oublieront jamais et ils vont toujours nous mépriser.
      1. Peut-être serait-il temps qu’on essaie de cultiver une seule identité qui réussit à intégrer deux ou trois cultures avec succès.
      2. Eux nous méprisent parce que tout ce qu’ils voient venir du Québec, c’est des militants pour le OUI, que ce soit au niveau constitutionnel, linguistique, ou culturel. Peut-être serait-il également temps que le Québec change de cassette et commence à vouloir s’affirmer au sein du Canada.

      > Pourquoi s'intégrer à leur pays alors qu'eux ne veulent même pas s'intégrer aux États-Unis?
      Là tu dis vraiment n’importe quoi. Le Canada est un pays indépendant, tout comme le sont les États-Unis. Le Québec fait partie intégrante du Canada, donc me semble qu’il nous incomberait de prendre en main nos droits en tant que citoyens et agir en tant que Canadiens de façon pleine et entière. Rappelons que nous sommes politiquement et culturellement à égalité avec tous les autres canadiens et que ce sont les séparatistes qui n’arrêtent pas de nous faire croire que ça va mal mal mal.

      > C'est vraiment un colon, c'est de la colonisation ça, il espère que les non-Francophones vont devenir majoritaires à Montréal et même Laval pour pouvoir ensuite nous voler ces territoires que nous habitons depuis des siècles et lui nous dit d'accepter l'histoire de la conquête alors qu'il ne respecte aucunement notre histoire ici?

      Mort de rire. Un des buts officieux de la Charte de la Langue Française, c’est d’assurer que les anglophones ne (re)deviennent pas majoritaires, et même de faire tout pour empêcher qu’ils soient en position d’acquérir une majorité même à Montréal (comme ils l’ont jadis déjà été il y a plus d’un siècle). On a beau dire appeler ça de « l’affirmation » du « peuple » francophone, mais dans les faits, c’est aller contre ce qui est actuellement naturel, soit un transfert vers l’anglais.

      De plus, je trouve ridicule que vous soyez tellement sur la défensive. Nous on a bâti une province et même un pays sur des territoires sur lesquels les Amérindiens ont vécu pendant des siècles avant notre arrivée. Advenant un OUI, les Amérindiens auront-ils le dernier mot sur ce à quoi ressemblera la carte du Québec version finale? Un peu beaucoup hypocrite.

      > Et il dit que je le dégoute? C'est moi le méchant? Je veux juste pas que des gens de mon peuple soit séparés du reste du peuple par des partitionistes envahisseurs.
      Et les fédéralistes, eux, ne veulent juste pas que les gens de leur peuple soient séparés du reste du peuple par des séparatistes aux buts égoïstes, hypocrites, et intéressés. À mon avis, l’unité nationale demeure la meilleure des situations car c’est la seule qui permet aux deux groupes de continuer leur existence sans grand dérangement.

      Delete
    54. > C'est quoi le plus juste, que les gens qui sont ici depuis tant de générations garde le droit de rester au Québec ou bien que des immigrants doivent accepter qu'ils restent au Québec et qu'ils n'ont pas le droit d'en enlever un morceau pour joindre l'Ontario? Surtout que ça voudrait toute l'île de Montréal même les secteurs où ils sont minoritaires.
      Voir ma réponse en haut. Ce n’est pas parce qu’on a été ici moins longtemps qu’un autre qu’on devrait avoir plus de droits. Le dernier enfant d’une famille n’est pas plus ou moins important que le premier. Ce sont pas seulement les Canadiens-Français qui ont bâti le Québec et le Canada. Ce sont aussi les Canadiens-Anglais qui ont débarqué et qui ont fondé nos institutions économiques, et les immigrants qui ont travaillé à bâtir l’infrastructure qui nous a permis d’arriver là où on est aujourd’hui. Donc effectivement, nous sommes tous dans le même bateau. Vu de cet angle, j’espère que vous comprenez pourquoi la plupart d’entre nous (surtout au Québec) croyons qu’une intégration plus forte et non affaiblie sert le mieux les intérêts de chaque groupe concerné.

      >Mais ils sont déjà des faux-amerlocs (dépendant totalement de leur culture et de leur armée) sauf qu'ils sont encore des sujets de la vieille britannique à chapeaux.

      Et le Québec, est-ce vraiment une société française en Amérique, ou simplement l’Amérique du Nord en français. Même si votre cœur aimerait bien pouvoir dire que c’est le premier, je vous invite à arpenter honnêtement le terrain et de vous convaincre (tout bas) que ce n’est pas véritablement le second.

      > Pete Curzi
      De la preuve, svp.

      Delete
    55. Encore du vol d'identité ?Je croyais qu'il était interdit d'agir ainsi sur ce blogue.Ha les anglouilles libérales.L'honnêteté?...Connais pas!

      Delete
    56. @ apparatchik

      Je ne sens pas plus catholique que le pape et je n'ai aucun besoin de l'être puisque que je revendique ma francitude. C'est probablement cette attitude qui vous énerve tant car elle est en porte-à-faux avec les projets bilingues pour le Québec. Vouloir vivre et gagner sa croute en français et uniquement en français, voilà ce qui énerve un peu tout le monde. Ce qui est normal pour l'anglo est synonyme de repli, d'abnégation et de racisme pour le franco.

      Ceci dit, je suis d'accord avec vous, je suis conscient de l'histoire et des institutions brits qui font un indéniable leg d'importance pour le Québec, et ce, dans tous les sphères publiques. Et je suis prêt à discuter de la loi 101 comme de n'importe quoi de manière non-partisane (je n'ai jamais fait de politique)en autant que vous puissiez le faire. J'affirme donc que cette loi est utile pour tout le monde.

      Je joins volontier mes efforts aux vôtres. Je suis confiant et sûr de moi-même. J'ai fait de nombreux examens de conscience à l'image de mon peuple. Nous ne sommes pas parfait, loin de là... La Canada anglais, lui, l'a t-il fait? S'est-il jamais questionné à savoir pourquoi tant de gens ont voulu quitter leur pays et leurs bons soins?

      Je vous souhaite bonne chance dans votre intégration et je vous souhaite de ne pas vous oublier mais l'histoire du Canada tant à démontrer que les gens comme vous s'évanouisse dans la mer anglaise. Les voeux pieux des Anglais aura toujours été celui d'un Canada anglais ad mari usque ad mare. Il ne sera jamais bilingue, oubliez-ça.

      Le Québec est tolérant. Très tolérant. Il tolère depuis longtemps des insultes et des crachats à son visage sans broncher. C'est un exemple de pacifisme. Ce qu'il demande m'apparaît juste mais nous n'avons pas d'appuis dans ce pays.

      En terminant, sachez que le français n'est pas une langue étrangère dans plusieurs endroits du monde. Parler le français ne signifie pas se replier sur soi comme être unilingue d'un quelconque endroit du monde ne signifie pas être taré.

      Delete
    57. >Apparatchik, you seem very confused because of your dual identity just like Trudeau was but the majority on both sides only speaks one language natively, which is something Trudeau never wanted to accept.
      While I’m flattered that you would compare me to Pierre Trudeau, I couldn’t disagree with the rest of your statement. I am not confused because of my so-called “dual identity”. I have one identity in which I feel I have successfully managed to weave French and English North American components. This isn’t the sign of failure or even confusion. It is the ultimate sign of success and conciliation, and I would thank you to show some respect for my accomplishment, rather than derision.

      Trudeau realized that most Canadians might have one native language, but there was and is nothing wrong with aspiring to speaking another. Integrating French- and English- speaking citizens into one common framework remains a noble endeavor. If anything, the fault is to be placed on less-than-motivated individuals who took the view that if they weren’t (either individually or collectively) willing to achieve some measure of bilingualism that it was proof that the ideal was not one worth tending toward. At one point, slavery was the norm and treating women like property was too. It is only by accepting supposedly revolutionary ideas about equality that anything changed on either front.

      Now the arch-separatists and redneck anglos tell me that something comparatively easier like learning a language with a lot of similarity to one you might already speak is going to be a stumbling block this country can’t get over? Sorry, but I won’t believe that; not in a million years. What I will believe, however, is that if you fight hard enough for your limitations, they’ll be yours. And that’s never something to be proud of.

      Two solitudes, always been and always will be. It's an artificial country.
      India has something like 56 different languages that are official in different areas of the country. Is India an artificial country? China is in a similar situation – is China artificial? In Western countries, we’ve lately seen increasing polarization between left and right, to the point that it now appears as though there are dovish liberals and armed-to-the-teeth conservatives who happen to cohabitating within similar national borders – are the U.S., France, and even Israel artificial countries? Come on now.

      How is an anti-French redneck in Alberta a countryman of mine? This is not normal in a normal country.
      See my point above. We’re making the language thing a much bigger deal than it is. Countries in which people speak only one language are having enough of a hard time finding common ground on issues that threaten to divide them far more than the words they use to babble their disagreement in.

      Notice how Francophones aren't anti-French and Anglophones aren't anti-English but you will always have plenty of people hating the other side so it shows that there are two countries within this country.
      Well isn’t that just fucking polite tolerance (not to mention a hypocritical non-sequitur)? I’m not anti-you and you’re not anti-me but my cousin can’t stand your cousin which proves that you and I can’t belong to the same family?

      >Trudeau was trying to go against nature because of his background. It was very selfish of him.
      Trudeau saw the best in both cultures (much as I have) and believed Canadians have it in them to aim higher. Woe that we’ve allowed ourselves to believe those (both French and English) who say we can’t – or shouldn’t. Why be satisfied with one part when the whole is so much greater than the sum of its parts? There is nothing selfish in this ideal. On the contrary, it is selfish to deny all Canadians the encouragement to get there.

      Delete
    58. > Je ne sens pas plus catholique que le pape et je n'ai aucun besoin de l'être puisque que je revendique ma francitude. C'est probablement cette attitude qui vous énerve tant car elle est en porte-à-faux avec les projets bilingues pour le Québec.
      Faux. Ce n’est pas tellement le fait que vous vouliez vivre uniquement en français qui me dérange. C’est le fait que votre idéologie vise à faire en sorte que le fait de ne pas vivre publiquement partout en français soit balisé voire étranglé. Je trouve le monolinguisme anglophone tout aussi répréhensible que son équivalent francophone, quoique j’abhorre encore plus le fait qu’il existe une loi au Québec pour assurer la survie non pas d’une langue belle et riche quoiqu’en position comparativement précaire, mais bien d’une pratique idiote et limitative. On peut faire beaucoup mieux.

      > je suis conscient de l'histoire et des institutions brits qui font un indéniable leg d'importance pour le Québec, et ce, dans tous les sphères publiques. Et je suis prêt à discuter de la loi 101 comme de n'importe quoi […] en autant que vous puissiez le faire. J'affirme donc que cette loi est utile pour tout le monde.
      Je ne suis pas convaincu du fait que ce soit la survie de la langue qui soit le vrai enjeu principal au Québec. Ce qui à mon avis importe encore plus, c’est que les francophones de souche conquis aient les mêmes chances que les anglophones conquérants de ce pays. Pour moi, l’horreur de la conquête c’est que pendant près de 2 siècles, rien n’a été fait pour redresser la situation en ce qui a trait au différend économique des deux groupes. Mais du même souffle, je ne peux pas accorder toute la faute aux méchants anglais car c’est l’église catholique, l’institution de lavage de cerveau par excellence, qui a été non seulement complice, mais l’instigateur de bon nombre de ces disparités. Tout cela pendant que cette « seule institution contrôlée par les francophones » nous disait qu’elle protégeait nos intérêts. (Vous comprendrez donc pourquoi l’argument voulant que seul le gouvernement provincial aujourd’hui soit le seul qui devrait parler au nom de tous les Québécois retentit si peu chez moi. Ce dernier est lui aussi contrôlé par une écrasante majorité de francophones, mais comme l’Église d’antan, je doute que son orientation « nationaliste » soit véritablement la meilleure pour la majorité des Québécois).

      Je reconnais que la vaste majorité des francophones connaissent un niveau de vie comparativement plus élevé aujourd’hui qu’il y a un demi-siècle, donc bravo. Je reconnais aussi que l’intervention du gouvernement québécois y ait joué un rôle important. Mais il faut évoluer. Continuer d’assimiler l’émancipation sociale d’un groupe historiquement désavantagé (mais plus de nos jours) à l’utilité d’une loi qui empêche ce même groupe (en fait, tout groupe sauf une « communauté historique ») de faire comme bon leur semble me parait de plus en plus anachroniste. Maintenant que les francophones ont en main leur propre destin économique, je ne vois pas pourquoi il faudrait y avoir une loi qui les empêche de se débarrasser de leur langue si bon leur semble. Imaginez s’il y avait des lois qui nous avaient empêché de nous débarrasser de l’Église – il n’y aurait jamais eu de révolution tranquille et aucune évolution sociétale s’y rattachant. Maintenant imaginez en quoi l’actuelle Charte de la Langue Française, de façon contraire, pourrait de nos jours être en train de nuire aux chances (non pas des anglos ou allos, mais bien) des francophones de faire comme bon leur semble?

      Delete
    59. >Je joins volontier mes efforts aux vôtres. Je suis confiant et sûr de moi-même. J'ai fait de nombreux examens de conscience à l'image de mon peuple. Nous ne sommes pas parfait, loin de là... La Canada anglais, lui, l'a t-il fait? S'est-il jamais questionné à savoir pourquoi tant de gens ont voulu quitter leur pays et leurs bons soins?
      Je salue vos efforts et je crois qu’un bon début serait d’arrêter de faire confiance à des démagogues qui font carrière à nous faire peur (d’un côté comme de l’autre). En particulier, cette autojustice faite par des groups de pression composés de justiciers autoproclamés m’inquiète.

      >Je vous souhaite bonne chance dans votre intégration et je vous souhaite de ne pas vous oublier mais l'histoire du Canada tant à démontrer que les gens comme vous s'évanouisse dans la mer anglaise.
      Désolé mais comme j’ai évoqué plus tôt, dans n’importe quel océan, ça prend parfois un poisson qui ose être d’une couleur différente pour accoucher d’une vision (et ensuite d’une façon de faire) qui soit conciliatrice et révolutionnaire par rapport à ce qui a précédé. Pensez à l’esclavage, aux droit des femmes, et aux droits de l’homme ou même au siècle des lumières en général.
      Ça doit faire boule de neige.

      > Les voeux pieux des Anglais aura toujours été celui d'un Canada anglais ad mari usque ad mare. Il ne sera jamais bilingue, oubliez-ça.

      Ça avance et malgré ce que nous ferait croire notre vieille Capitale, les attitudes chez eux peuvent changer. Malheureusement, le comportement de notre gouvernement provincial et d’une bonne part de nos citoyens est allé du mauvais sens. Plutôt que d’adopter une loi conciliatrice et ainsi promouvoir notre propre ouverture au bilinguisme (du moins institutionnel), ils nous regardent et voient une province où l’on dépense des deniers publics pour aller harceler des commerçants (surtout petits) parce que la taille des affiches anglaises ose être pareille à celle des affiches françaises. Ou bien parce qu’on a nos propres KKK paragouvernementaux des temps modernes qui lancent de l’excrément sur les commerces d’autres gens (ou les forcent tout carrément de rester fermer pour peur de se faire attaquer) parce qu’ils parlent mal (ou pas) notre langue. Il faut changer non seulement cette perception à l’extérieur, mais aussi l’attitude qui l’incube chez nous.

      Je crois qu’une fois que nos concitoyens du Canada auront compris que notre petitesse issue de notre crise d’ado est bien enterrée, ils se montreront beaucoup plus favorables à l’idée d’un Canada plus bilingue. À la fois en tant que franco et anglo, je comprends que l’un et l’autre groupe ne comprendra jamais à quel point certains aspects symboliques du nationalisme Québécois et de l’uniformité WASP ont été mal perçu par le camp opposé. Mais croyez-moi, il est temps d’en finir avec nos petitesses mutuelles et se regarder enfin en face les uns les autres et comprendre qu’on a beaucoup plus à gagner à ramer dans le même sens. C’est d’autant plus évident lorsque je considère que les deux groupes linguistiques partagent effectivement les mêmes idéaux (malgré cette trame « je ne reconnais plus ce Canada » que nos médias achetés ne cessent de nous jouer).

      Delete
    60. >Le Québec est tolérant. Très tolérant. Il tolère depuis longtemps des insultes et des crachats à son visage sans broncher. C'est un exemple de pacifisme. Ce qu'il demande m'apparaît juste mais nous n'avons pas d'appuis dans ce pays.
      Commençons par ôter le ruban-cache collé sur les mots « street », « avenue » et « boulevard » sur les anciennes plaques de rues à Montréal. Ramenons l’affichage bilingue. Exigeons que le système anglophone produise des francophones capable de travailler à Hérouxville. Exigeons pareillement des commissions scolaires francophones qu’elles nous sortent des citoyens capables de se démêler et travailler à Medicine Hat. Puis ramenons le « libre choix » aux parents immigrants et francophones, car personne n’aurait vraisemblablement le choix de persister dans sa privation et insuffisance.

      Je suis convaincu que nos amis du Nouveau-Brunswick, de l’est de l’Ontario, et du Manitoba auront compris que l’heure est au changement et qu’il leur incombe de faire autant. S’ensuivra éventuellement le reste du pays. Montrons-leur l’exemple et encourageons leur réciprocité dans un climat moins tendu. C’est ÇA la clé (avant qu’on fasse encore d’autres gaffes référendaires).

      >En terminant, sachez que le français n'est pas une langue étrangère dans plusieurs endroits du monde. Parler le français ne signifie pas se replier sur soi comme être unilingue d'un quelconque endroit du monde ne signifie pas être taré.
      Tout à fait d’accord. Mais voilà qu’on vit en plein milieu d’un continent d’anglophones et on fait comme si on était en guerre contre eux (et contre nos propres anglophones) plutôt que faire comme les Noirs qui ne voulaient que les mêmes droits civils que leurs concitoyens blancs.

      Être francophone en Amérique du Nord n’est pas une tare, mais il faut reconnaitre à l’anglais la place qu’il occupe chez nous. Ce n’est pas en niant la réalité qu’on fera bouger les choses dans le bon sens. Je suis toujours d’avis qu’il faut être et se montrer ouvert si on veut vraiment que des échanges durables et significatifs se produisent.

      Delete
    61. L'anglais n'est pas réprimé au Québec. Il n'est même pas balisé. Beaucoup de l'affichage est en anglais. Les anglais ont leurs écoles, leurs hôpitaux, leurs services et s'adresse en anglais au gouvernement du Québec, à tous les habitants du Québec et se font répondre dans une très large proportion en anglais dans toute la province. Ça c'est la réalité. Ce fut comme ça du premier jour jusqu'à maintenant, 101 ou pas. En ce qui a trait aux minorités françaises ailleurs au pays...isch Manifestation à Cornwall ischhh...

      Quoi que vous disiez, la loi 101 à permis la sauvegarde du français comme langue vivante commune au Québec. Sans elle, à une époque ou nous crevions au travail pour les poches d'anglos, à l'affichage unilingue anglais et où 80% des immigrants se tournait vers l'anglais, elle a donné un second souffle à notre langue, une vitalité certaine et j'ai l'impression d'être maintenant chez-moi aujourd'hui, ce que mon grand-père ne sentait jamais.

      Et ça, tous les observateurs vous le dirons. Bien sûr elle est imparfaite. Bien sûr, elle donne lieu à des situations bizarres. Mais dans les faits, ça marche. Elle bilinguise les anglos, les francos se bilinguise par la force des choses mais les oblige à préserver leur langue et elle trilinguise les immigrants. C'est une loi géniale. Vous avez exactement ce que vous rechercher avec cette loi. Elle a préservé la paix sociale au Québec et elle a préservé l'unité canadienne. Vous avez mieux vous?

      À un moment donné, il faudra reconnaître que ce n'est pas une loi anti-anglos mais une loi pro-francos et j'insiste, la nuance est de taille. Mais là n'est pas votre principal grief. En fait, vos propos vous trahisse. Je sens sous le couvert légitime du dialogue, de l'ouverture à l'autre et de l'avancement de la cause française et bilingue dans le Canada une formidable envie de mourir en tant que français et une volonté ferme de se faire hara-kiri. Cette attitude n'est pas nouvelle hélas comme en témoigne l'histoire de l'Amérique Française et est beaucoup plus répandue au Québec qu'on ne le crois. Cette attitude est blessante pour moi et les miens mais effectivement, aucune loi ne pourra arrêter cela. Mais attention. C'est une attitude qui engage l'humanité entière et quand vous vous réveillerai dans votre univers anglais porté sur toute la planète, votre cauchemard commencera. Le mien sera terminé.

      Pour le reste, je suis assez d'accord avec vous. Toutefois, assimiler l'Église Catholique et l'État est douteux. Et assimilé le combat des Noirs et des Français est tout aussi douteux. Il y a eu des rapprochements qui n'ont pas fonctionné. De toute façon, ce combat est gagné,celui des droits civiques. Ce qui n'est pas gagné, c'est notre reconnaissance nationale et la reconnaissance des tords qu'il nous ont fait, et une rupture symbolique d'avec la Conquête. C'est pas compliqué mais ça semble très douloureux pour les Anglais.

      En tous cas, on ne peut qu'applaudir votre inébranlable foi dans le Canada et la capacité des anglais à s'investir et se remettre en question. C'est du temps perdu pour moi mais je vous souhaite bonne chance. Mais de grâce, oubliez vos prétentions à déchirer la loi 101.

      Le jour où elle disparaîtra, ce sera le jour où je quitterai le pays car ça sera la fin pour moi. Au grand plaisir de tous!

      Delete
  17. The Editor writes:

    Yup, rationality is out the window, when language fanatics, encouraged by the government itself, run riot over free speech and free choice.

    ...and the encouragement is not only on the side of the provincial government and its agencies but the Supreme Court of Canada as well.

    Recall that in December 1988 when the Supreme Court made its ruling on Bill 101's language of commercial signs that there were two decisions on two separate cases: the Brown Shoes case and the Alan Singer case.

    Morton Brownstein only wanted the right to have English alongside French...and if French was required by law, that was all right with him, just as long as he could put up English, too.

    Alan Singer (who fought for our freedoms in WWII as a soldier in the Canadian Army) wanted the right to put up English only signs.

    Brownstein won; Singer won only half way. The Court said that the Quebec government could legislate the requirement of French on signs -- even its marked predominance -- but couldn't disallow the presence of a second language.

    If you ever take the time to read that judgment, you will see a wonderful analysis of free speech and expression, how free speech applies to commercial expression, and how free speech applies to the language one chooses to speak. But when it came to reasonable limits, the court did not follow the rule of law and ended up making the politically correct "marked predominance" decision. Like the politicians in the House of Commons, the Court played politics in order to appease Quebec.

    Had the court followed the rule of law, we would have gotten a full freedom decision in which Singer could have put up English only signs...and we wouldn't have had the kind of language police situation we had in Huntingdon that is causing all these problems because with "full freedom" as the judgment, shop owner could put up any kind of sign they wanted vis a vis language.

    So, yes, blame the Quebec government, certainly. But in the same breath, blame our Quisling Supreme Court of Canada which bends over backwards at every opportunity to appease Quebec and not follow the rule of law.

    And don't get me started on their decision in the Gosselin case in which they sanctioned segregation of school children in Quebec...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right you are, Tony! Now the imbeciles of Quebec put Supreme Court judge candidates through the ringer when they don't speak French. So the unilingual judges should have to apologize and make false promises about improving their French? NO WAY. Quebec is well over represented getting 1/3 of the judges when they should only have 2/9ths in proportion with their share of the Canadian population.

      Maybe J.V. Andrew, who wrote "Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow" back in 1977, had a point.

      Delete
    2. Attention Mr.Sauga notre French connexion a ciblé votre patelin pour l'implantation d'un projet pilote de francisation.Gare à vos fesses petit rebel.D'ailleurs,je recherche une famille-type Mississaugoise prête à l'immersion française et qui serait en mesure de m'héberger (2 mois)le temps de l'expérimentation.Vous êtes partant?

      Delete
    3. "Quebec is well over represented getting 1/3 of the judges when they should only have 2/9ths in proportion with their share of the Canadian population."

      Only TWO judges are Francophone. One of the 3 Quebec judges is an Anglophone Jew: Morris Fish.
      That's the thing about the "3 judges must be from Quebec" rule: there's one of them that is from a minority group meaning the Francophone majority (4/5 of the province) are underrepresented (2/3 of Quebec judges). Now I know you'll say that Quebec is overrepresented with 3/9 but the fact remains that within the "Quebec group" we are not represented fairly therefore the number should be 2/9 from Quebec but it's very likely that in such a case there would often (perhaps always) be one of the two from a minority group so it would be totally unfair for Quebec's majority, minorities aren't half of the province of course and it would very likely always be a Jew yet they are only 1% of the province and yet they would get to be 50% of Quebec judges?!?

      So it's either we get all the Quebec judges or only 66% like right now or worse only one out of two. This can never be fair with only 9 judges which is another reason to separate and have our own supreme court where we won't be a minority.

      Right now, there are no less than THREE other Jews: Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein and Michael Moldaver.

      4 judges out of 9 are Jewish which means almost 45%.
      Jews are only 1.1% of the Canadian population.
      Only 2 judges are Francophones.
      22.3% declared French as their mother tongue.

      This will probably get deleted but I'm only stating facts. If it's okay to say we are overrepresented then why wouldn't it be ok to point out Jews are way, way more overrepresented?
      If 4 judges out of 9 were Francophones we would hear about it a lot.
      But when it's a religious minority instead of a linguistic one, don't even question it, even when extremely overrepresented.

      Delete
    4. People tend to think that jewish people are just as canadian as other canadians, so the fact that there are four of them is as relevant to them as if there were four judges named mike.

      The number of francophone judges is special, because francophones are not as canadian as other canadians, so it's "obviously" a handout, no doubt driven by political correctness or what have you.

      Delete
    5. "People tend to think that jewish people are just as canadian as other canadians"

      And that is to their advantage but not yours.

      They want you to think they are like you but they think of themselves as Jews first and you are Goyim.

      Good thing that trick doesn't work in Quebec because they speak English and therefore don't control the French-language media.

      Delete
    6. Trick question: what if there were 4 muslim judges, would people think of them as Canadians like other Canadians and that they might as well be named Mike instead of Muhammad?

      Jews would be the first to say it's unfair and that they are overrepresented.

      Delete
    7. ...or would it be the complex of PQ/SSJB/RRQ/French-language media come out and start saying we're "totally okay with Muhammads, just so long as they're clearly labeled as such" ? ;-)

      Sarcasm... yet not quite so much.

      Delete
    8. Mr. Sauga writes:

      Right you are, Tony! Now the imbeciles of Quebec put Supreme Court judge candidates through the ringer when they don't speak French. So the unilingual judges should have to apologize and make false promises about improving their French?

      There are two professions in the country of Canada in which there is absolutely no need to speak Canada's two official languages.

      The first is being an MP in the House of Commons.

      The second is being a judge on the Supreme Court.

      Why do I say this? Because these are the only two professions in Canada where all proceedings performed by these professions -- written or oral -- are translated into the other official language!

      A wise man by the name of Bill Shaw (elected to the National Assembly in 1976 in the then predominantly English-speaking riding of Pointe-Claire in the West Island; the riding has since merged with other ones and no longer exists) said this:

      "What's the point of bilingualism if everyone is?"

      This is the most important thing ever said about the concept of bilingualism in my opinion. Why? Because it underlines in its simplicity exactly what "official bilingualism" means as opposed to individual bilingualism, something that virtually everyone gets mixed up about.

      Indeed, when you understand the difference, you see that the two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other in their meanings.

      Official bilingualism means that government services are offered in both official languages. If you are individually bilingual, it matters not whether you get that service in either English or French because you understand both languages equally. Thus, official bilingualism isn't for bilingual people but for unilingual people.

      So, if you're a Supreme Court judge, for example, it matters not whether you are unilingual French or unilingual English because virtually everything is done for you in both languages: hearing testimony, reading evidence, writing opinions. It matters not an iota whether you are conversant in both languages, a luxury we mere mortals in the rest of Canadian society can only wish to enjoy.

      I have always been of the opinion that the Commissioner of Official Languages should be either unilingual English or unilingual French. What better way to demonstrate the actual meaning of official bilingualism than to have as the head of the agency responsible for it one who reflects the people that official bilingualism is meant to benefit.

      Delete
    9. To Anonymous Mar 17, 2012 12:19 AM

      Re: Too many Jews on the Supreme Court
      Perhaps what makes Jews so disliked is the make that they are massive over-achievers and most people can't stand it. Even in grade school we all hated the smarty-pants.
      There are 4 Jews on the Supreme Court because they were the best candidates when allowed to compete fairly.

      In every human endevour, except sports, Jews outperform other races massively.
      Business, Entertainment, Math, Science, Arts and music.
      It seems they are blessed with superior brains.
      I know it hard to take for some, but it's true.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous writes:

      "4 judges out of 9 are Jewish which means almost 45%. Jews are only 1.1% of the Canadian population."

      Perhaps...but they have 80% of the intelligence in Canada. So, from this perspective, they are under-represented.

      Delete
  18. The Editor writes:

    Yup, rationality is out the window, when language fanatics, encouraged by the government itself, run riot over free speech and free choice.

    The editor's words remind me of the following quote by Thomas Jefferson:

    "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's your point, Tony?

      Delete
    2. Paul Rose himself ran for the NDP in the early 90's and remains active in union thuggery.

      What happens when the thugs get in bed with the government? Not just corrupt cost overruns building our roads, but when the government is a puppet of the thuggish special interests that run it, it becomes quite hard to see where the one stops and the other begins.

      But time and again, governments the world order have fallen prey to special interests. So what's really new?

      Delete
    3. Mr. Sauga asks me:

      "What's your point, Tony?"

      It is a sad state of affairs when the criminal mob throwing feces on the windows of a shopowner is on the same side of the government.

      Not exactly analogous to the Jefferson quote but it reminds me of the Huntingdon situation nevertheless.

      Delete
  19. Why cant the frenchmen accept that English is a better language



    Richness. That’s what English has going for it. It’s full of words; words from so many languages. If you say ‘tamale’ while speaking Chinese it just sounds wrong, but it flows well in English. Somehow the language has the arcane ability to use any word without sounding bad.

    And then each individual word. Some words have positive connotations, other negative. Some words bring up ideas that are different from another synonym simply because it’s a different word.

    The language is incredibly versatile, too. One can make an adjective into a noun with the addition of a suffix, like saying how someone did something with much quickity. It may not be real word (The real one would be rapidity) but the point remains. Any fool with some imagination can create new uses for new words (Like dryation, for describing the process of drying. Brilliant, no?) In the same way verbs can become nouns and the cycle goes on.

    Yet another redemptive quality about English is the ways it can be spoken. No other language has the accents that English does. It’s impressive.

    To sum it all up, English is actually a deep and varied language, one that can be used for anything. And when it boils down,


    Sure the majority of speakers in Montreal are french .... but English is better

    FACT

    you could argue all you want about seperating or who was here first , or who is the majority , or about language laws bill 101 etc.
    The fact of the matter is that English is bigger and better than French .

    nobody ...nobody can deny that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:11,

      May I ask you how many languages you know?

      True, english is versatile. Is it superior? I don't know.

      French is different from english, the french language has more precision than english. For instance, could you tell me the meaning of "english teacher"? The question might sound stupid to you, but as a native french speaker, I find that "english teacher" lacks precision since it could mean "un professeur anglais" or "un professeur d'anglais" which are two different things.

      Is french superior? I don't know. If you value precision, it is not bad.

      English is an evocative language, french is descriptive. Which one is better? I don't know, they are different. One thing I know is that I am probably not the only one amused by your candid self assurance of the superiority of english.

      P.S. Am I wrong in guessing that english is your native language? And the only language that you speak?

      Delete
    2. > Why cant the frenchmen accept that English is a better language
      Wow, off the cuff, that just sounds like extra-strength stupid to me. That’s like saying Pepsi is necessarily better than Coke, or that a sledgehammer is a better tool than a microscope.

      > Richness. That’s what English has going for it. It’s full of words; words from so many languages. If you say ‘tamale’ while speaking Chinese it just sounds wrong, but it flows well in English. Somehow the language has the arcane ability to use any word without sounding bad.
      From the sublime to the ridiculous. Try the words “nigger”, “cunt”, and “fucker”. Music to your ears?

      > And then each individual word. Some words have positive connotations, other negative.
      FYI, French has that too. We’ve even got prefixes and suffixes that you can add to most words to let you encode the opinion/feeling of the user. Our resident friend Seppie often talks about anglouilles. One such other suffix is -aille, and it because I’m still laughing at you that I haven’t thought of more examples to throw your way.

      > Some words bring up ideas that are different from another synonym simply because it’s a different word.
      Isn’t that the very definition of a synonym?!?!

      The language is incredibly versatile, too. One can make an adjective into a noun with the addition of a suffix, like saying how someone did something with much quickity. It may not be real word (The real one would be rapidity) but the point remains.
      … because French doesn’t have the adjective rapide from which we can fashion rapidité?
      (P.S.: both languages got that ability from Latin; a language I argue is far superior to both… because I sarcastically said so!)

      …Or turn vite into vitesse? Or (SHOCK) use the borrowed illico?


      Any fool with some imagination can create new uses for new words (Like dryation, for describing the process of drying. Brilliant, no?)
      Any fool with rope, a chair, and a ceiling fan could variously create a merry-go-round, an execution device, or a spectacular clusterfuck. That doesn’t make him brilliant.

      > In the same way verbs can become nouns and the cycle goes on.
      The suffixes –ate (-ater) and –ize (-iser) come to mind.

      Yet another redemptive quality about English is the ways it can be spoken. No other language has the accents that English does. It’s impressive.
      While I’m a huge fan of dialects and accents, I don’t think the number of regional varieties of a language has is inherently either a plus or a minus. An obscure regional accent can be hard for a foreigner to understand, but it can be a missing link between one “language” and another.

      But of course, none of this will matter to you because you think English is just “better” just as simplistically as some of our French-language fundamentalists insist that their own assimilation will spell the end of the world.

      Delete
    3. > In the same way verbs can become nouns and the cycle goes on.
      The suffixes –ate (-ater) and –ize (-iser) come to mind.


      Apologies; I read that backward (noun <-->verb)
      The suffixes -or/-er (-eur) and -ee (-é, -u) come to mind.

      Delete
    4. Apparatchik,

      Arrête! Arrête! Rendu à "Any fool with rope, a chair, and a ceiling fan could variously create a merry-go-round, an execution device, or a spectacular clusterfuck. That doesn’t make him brilliant." j'ai pissé dans mes culottes.

      Delete
    5. J'avoue... était bonne, celle-là ;-)

      Delete
  20. My comments about English being superior must really piss off the Frenchmen . . . .why ? its just a language ,. . it not as if i'm making fun of their children .
    They take it too personal . . this has to do with being possessive.
    1. Of or relating to ownership or possession.
    2. Having or manifesting a desire to control or dominate another.


    NOBODY WANTS TO SPEAK FRENCH

    accept it


    Protecting French by implementing language laws . . is like protecting your 50 year old son by not letting him leave the house .

    fear .....what are you afraid of ?

    English

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are afraid to let their 50 year old son lose his virginity to some unknown foreign woman that will supposedly "brainwash" him against them!!!

      Delete
    2. "NOBODY WANTS TO SPEAK FRENCH

      accept it"

      How about you accept that a bunch of immigrant kids that don't want to go to French schools AREN'T EVERYBODY.

      Polls have shown the majority in Quebec are worried about French in Montreal which shows that we do want to speak it or else we would welcome English with open arms.

      Delete
  21. Franco " We want to protect our culture"

    Anglo " Why?"

    Franco " Je compends pas"

    Anglo " Why do you want to protect it.. if all language are equal , then speak English and join modern society "

    Frenchman " ta's raison . . now i can listen to my music/movie collection and actually understand it "

    English " I'll lend you my Seinfeld dvd's"

    Frenchman " Seinfeld ..cest quoi ca?"

    Anglo " oh boy , where do we begin. . so much to learn .so much to learn "

    ReplyDelete
  22. It would have been much more funny if you had found a very popular show that we really did not know. The joke falls flat because we all know Seinfeld.

    ReplyDelete
  23. My co-workers dont . . i work in the rosemont area.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Seinfeld?

    C'est tout ce que vous avez trouver comme argument?Un clown américain?Très impressionné,vraiment.Si notre culture ne vous intéresse pas,pourquoi venir vivre ici.Il est évident que vous aviez le choix...Ou peu être pas finalement car certains allos peuvent éprouver certaines difficultés avec Google map.Seinfeld... MDR!

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Anglo " oh boy , where do we begin. . so much to learn .so much to learn ""

    Seinfeld?

    Non merci,je préfère aller à la bibliothèque ou apprécier le vrai cinéma (rarement américain sauf dans le cas du cinéma indépendant).Je laisse Seinfeld aux "Brainwashés" bas de gamme.

    "where do we begin..." Commence par aller voir la définition de culture et ce sera un bon début :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Seppie, tu lis ceci? On va faire quoi avec ça?"

    Un grand ménage! Et une meilleure sélection de la part des services d'immigration (Québec).Acceptons-en moins mais prenons-en de meilleurs qualité.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "NOBODY WANTS TO SPEAK FRENCH"

    Personne ne veut d'immigrants globishophone.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "and makes no sense for them not to join the United States"

    Seinfeld!Seinfeld!Seinfeld!Seinfeld!...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Shouldn't that be there is A strong minority?

    Strong minority ?

    Évidemment les Québécois représentent une faible majorité.Ha les pouvoirs de la rhétorique...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Editor,

    Out of topic, but I have an idea for your next post.

    I do not know who started it. The Gazette said it was Mario Dumont while CTV said it was Andre Simard . Regardless, there is a discourse about whether the slaughter of animals in halal or kosher rules in accordance with Quebec values. This makes me scratch my head. Really? What Quebec value is that?

    Of course, kosher and halal traditions have been practiced for thousands of years while the slaughtering practice that is deemed to be in accordance with Quebec values is only several decades old. What makes me wonder is their purpose of alienating Muslim and Jewish communities. To boost their population growth, Quebec relies quite heavily on immigration from French-speaking region the Middle East, namely the Maghreb and Eastern Mediterranean. Like it or not, that region is nota bene predominantly Muslim. Therefore, there are plenty of them in Quebec and they lean more toward French than English.

    As what I read on vigile.net , the issue becomes a conflict of class issue. I think, whoever separatist came with this idea first is not smart. They should choose their battle carefully. Obviously they are in war with anglophones and allophone-English, but now they choose also to declare war with ethnic groups. And Parizeau complained that ethnic groups costed them the referendum?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "there are plenty of them in Quebec and they lean more toward French than English."

      Well actually there are plenty of them in Montreal particularly and yes they do learn toward French yet they don't declare French as their language on the census (because they speak Arabic natively) which is why anglophones and anglicized allophones shouldn't count on the support of all allophones. You think they're against bill 101? Most of them don't know English and it's one of the reasons they have a high unemployment rate in Montreal. Their presence doesn't help anglicizers. They ask for French service, not service in English.

      I think it doesn't fit in this blog since it's more like Francophones VS French-speaking Muslim Allophones yet this blog is called No Dogs or Anglophones but whatever, I'm not the editor.
      And the editor just can't miss an opportunity to make us all look like racists so I expect to read that article very soon.

      Delete
  31. "What makes me wonder is their purpose of alienating Muslim and Jewish communities."


    It's quite simple. The raison d'etre of Quebec is to create a "pure" society of Quebecois: Only those born Lily-white, Catholic and French. Any deviations of this formula must be cleansed and forced out by imitation (of course when this fails or doesn't have a perfect success rate, violence will become a necessity). This isn't much different from another group in history that wanted to create a "pure" society, those white, blond haired and blue eyed. Laugh if you will for bringing up such an extreme comparison, but the frightening thing is the parallels I'm starting to see are shocking real.

    As for Quebec caring about cruelty to animals in how they're slathered? Oh give me a break, this coming from one of the few places on planet Earth where horses are killed for meat, by, oh, shooting them in the head close to a dozen times while withering and suffering in pain (see recent news clips). Or the province, via a Quebec judge's verdict, allowed a man who shot a dog and her puppies through the head with a nail gun, then left to suffer by the roadside a NON CRIMINAL ACT. A few hours of community service, a fine about on par with a parking ticket, and hey, in 3 years even allow him to have pets! The same society where unregulated puppy mills and the most lax laws on animal cruelty in the civilized world goes on unabated.

    There is so much wrong with Quebec society, its government, and its people it just boggles my mind. I've come to the conclusion Quebec is akin to a mentally ill family member that is a danger not only to itself, but others as well. And with no treatment possible, the only viable course of action is to separate it from others by locking it away in a special home/institution. That's right, kick it out of Canada, please. I've changed my opinion from the past, that Quebec can be fixed or helped, it's too far gone at this point. It has no right being a part of Canada, particularly since it continually breaks Canada laws and the federal government looks the other way.

    ReplyDelete