babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Rideau Hall pick disappoints separatist hard-liners

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Rideau Hall pick disappoints separatist hard-liners
FastFoodFreddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10062

posted 11 August 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for FastFoodFreddy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Like were surprized

Ewww! They continue to slither amoung us and love to feed off the pig trough of Canada's slush fund.

quote:
Rideau Hall pick disappoints separatist hard-liners


quote:
MONTREAL -- The imminent arrival of Michaëlle Jean and husband Jean-Daniel Lafond at Rideau Hall has received positive reviews across Canada, but raised the hackles of one disenchanted group -- Quebec's hard-line separatists.

An article in the next issue of Le Québécois, the voice of the province's sovereignty watchdogs, says the group was crushed by Prime Minister Paul Martin's nomination of Ms. Jean and Mr. Lafond because separatists considered the duo as two of their own.


quote:
separatists considered the duo as two of their own.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050811/LAFOND11/TPNational/?query=Micha%EBlle+Jean+


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 11 August 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can you keep your hateful nationalist sentiments to yourself?
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Betray My Secrets
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9834

posted 11 August 2005 01:02 PM      Profile for Betray My Secrets     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why would they think she's a Blochead? After the whole Aristide fiasco, you'd be hard pressed to find a progressive Haitian Canadian self-hating enough to vote for a party other than the NDP.
From: Guyana | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 August 2005 01:10 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe they're, like, moles or something! Maybe they'll use the powers vested in the GG to dissolve Canada.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Cyber Menace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9296

posted 11 August 2005 01:28 PM      Profile for The Cyber Menace   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Betray My Secrets:
Why would they think she's a Blochead?

Maybe because her husband made a famous documentary which was sympathetic to the FLQ?

Also maybe because they hired an FLQ killer to build their library for them?

From Bourque.org,

quote:

"Lafond is very proud of his home's new library. He confides that Jacques Rose re-built it for him. Jacques Rose, the second FLQ'er in the drama that ended in the death of Liberal Cabinet Minister Pierre Laporte. To highlight that Jean-Daniel Lafond doesn't hang around with just anyone ! Further that it is Jacques Rose, the able carpenter who had conceived the Queen Mary Road hiding place, he who had re-built his home-office with its precious library. Jean-Lafond was so proud that he confided to me that Jacques Rose, who had not lost his touch for mysterious hiding places, had made him a secret compartment in case Jean-Daniel would want to hide guns in it. Evidently, Jean-Daniel was delighted ..."

From: The Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Johan i Kanada
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9881

posted 11 August 2005 01:40 PM      Profile for Johan i Kanada        Edit/Delete Post
But it is ironic, isn't it, that the GG who is supposed to represent the Queen in Canada, is married to a possible separatist and might even herself have separatist leanings?

Only in Canada.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 11 August 2005 02:01 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As a Franco-Ontarian, I became tired at an early age of separatist dogma and of those who regurgitate the doctrine.

"Maudits fanatiques" is the expression that my Dad used to describe them. Their extreme - often hateful - diatribes are also directed against those who are not 'pure laine', those descendants of the original habitants of Nouvelle-France who co-exist peacefully with Anglos, and the non-Québecois francophones in communities established by European immigrants who settled in Western Canada.

And yet ... when I found myself living in la belle province in 1975, I was transported by the progressive platform of the PQ. Yes, I voted in support of their social programs because the Liberal Party was same-old and the the Union Nationale was frightening.

Now, back in Ontario, I say: Get over it!! All that "Je suis un chien qui ronge un os" blather is becoming quite tiresome. If you don't want to live in Canada, leave and go back to France. You will quickly discover that unless you are talented like Diane Dufresne or Michaëlle Jean, you will be treated like merde.

[ 11 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 11 August 2005 02:02 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Cyber Menace:
Also maybe because they hired an FLQ killer to build their library for them?

Maybe the next time they go to IKEA, Karla Homolka can put it together for them.


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 11 August 2005 02:09 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He met Rose while making a documentary. Why would it be unusual for him to contract his services thereafter, if Rose is a good craftsman?
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Cyber Menace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9296

posted 11 August 2005 02:10 PM      Profile for The Cyber Menace   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Krago:

Maybe the next time they go to IKEA, Karla Homolka can put it together for them.



I don't think she's a separatist, though.

From: The Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
FastFoodFreddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10062

posted 11 August 2005 02:25 PM      Profile for FastFoodFreddy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
He met Rose while making a documentary. Why would it be unusual for him to contract his services thereafter, if Rose is a good craftsman?

quote:
By Harry Blutstein

Paul Rose was bemused by my question as to whether making a bomb was difficult. As a member of the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ) during 1969 and 1970 he would have addressed this task more than once as part of the struggle for an independent Québec. Rose explained how simple it is to make what he called “la bombe domestique” using a couple of sticks of dynamite, detonator and clock timer.

In October 1970 Rose led a cell of the FLQ that kidnapped and executed Pierre Laporte, Québec's acting Premier, in what has become known as the October Crisis. This action climaxed seven years of bombings, armed robberies and violence by nationalists. Rose was convicted to two life sentences for his role. He served 12 years before being paroled in 1982.

Paul Rose is now 48 years old and has a young family. He is an imposing man with large powerful hands. His moustache edged with grey.

He says that his actions were provoked by his own early experiences when Québecois were subjected to economic and linguistic colonialism by the English-speaking minority. It was not unusual for a francophone (French-speaker) to be told to “talk white” in shops and factories.

“I lived in a poor working-class suburb on the south shore of Montreal. There was no electricity, no running water and the street was unpaved. All these services were available in the adjacent St Lambert, a wealthy Anglo suburb. When you are young you don't know why you can't have the same things”.

Halloween has left Rose with bitter memories. He would go up to rich Anglo homes and use the only English words he knew, “charity please”. “Many would just close the door when they heard my French accent. It was like a slap in the face.” To get around this he learnt that if he was accompanied by a kid who spoke English it improved his chance of success.

The 1960s saw the first stirrings by Québecois to improve the position of French in the province.

“The police conducted a deliberate program to destabilize nationalist groups”, Rose says. “We couldn't demonstrate in the streets. The popular groups were being undermined and all legitimate outlets were blocked. This provocation made me a militant. The FLQ was the last resort”.

His talents as a natural leader were quickly recognised by the FLQ leadership. Rose was given the task of fundraising, which included bank robberies and credit card fraud.

“The FLQ project was for greater equality in society. We wanted real independence, without oppression, racism or sexism. There is no point hout transformation of society”.

The April 1970 election was a critical turning point for the FLQ. Their hopes were raised when the newly formed independentist Parti québecois ran for office. They decided to put some faith in the democratic process and declared a moratorium on direct action.

A few days before the election the Royal Trust Company sent a convoy of armoured trucks to Ontario, supposedly containing bonds and valuables belonging to anglophones worried by the independence movement. This stunt played on the insecurity of francophones, which was reflected in the outcome. The result was Liberals gained 44% of the vote and the Parti québecois 24%, giving them just 6% of the seats. The election totally discredited the political process for Rose.

After this election the FLQ decided to up the ante and go beyond planting bombs. “Our objective in kidnapping political figures was to sensitize the people to their social and historic oppression. The events of October 1970 were to connect these two parts of our reality.”

At the time of his capture Rose said, “we wanted to speed up history and perhaps we belong to the lost generation. We have no regrets... We accept responsibility for the violence that occurred and we will pay for it.”

He was not forthcoming as to whether he had doubts and suffered guilt at the action he took in October 1970.

When I spoke to Rose, Québec was preparing for a referendum which could bring it closer to sovereignty than ever before. Rose said he didn't know whether the October Crisis had accelerated the movement toward independence.

Today Rose eschews violence in his fight for independence. But he continues the struggle he started in the mid-'60s to ensure that an independent Québec is created on a social project to better people's lives. “Under the current political leaders the fight for independence is nothing more than a transfer of power. It is just a cynical move to retain power. Sovereignty today has become just a game of words. The social project has been lost”, he says.

Rose is no longer an angry young man. Talk of “la bombe domestique” is just part of his memories. But his enthusiasm for an independent Québec is undiminished. He wants Québec independence to be achieved through positive forces which will lead to a more equitable society, not by default. “Sovereignty is only the first step”, he says.



A real sweetheart of a guy,just your local freindly Home renovator.All one can say is

Lord Thunderin Jesus is there and sanity left in this country.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 11 August 2005 02:58 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, you are confusing your Rose brothers, Jacques and Paul. Jacques was the cabinetmaker.

Paul Rose is a trade unionist now. Many people in the trade union movement and other social movements here know him, at least in passing.

I don't understand the problem. Both brothers were convicted of their role in the October Crisis (were they both charged with murder? I honestly don't remember offhand, must look it up...) I know Jacques Rose was released from prison quite a while before Paul Rose.

Both did their time. (And neither got a plea bargain deal like Karla Homolka: they did hard time). Like any former convict who has done his or her time, the Rose brothers are entitled to rehabilitation. One of the most important aspects thereof is gainful employment.

The article about Paul Rose (must be several years old, Paul Rose is considerably older than 48 now, I'd think almost ten years more) says he now eschews violence for his political goals, so what on earth is the problem? Unless you are trying to criminalise his political orientation, and not the kidnappings and the killing of Laporte?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 11 August 2005 03:03 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What good is quoting an entire article about Jacques' brother, Paul Rose, the more notorious of the Rose brothers?

I agree with LTJ, and would add that I would *love* to have a bookshelf with a cool secret compartment built by a former member of a terrorist network!

[edited to add] lagatta beat me to it! Jacques was acquitted of Laporte's murder, but convicted of being an accesory after the fact. He was granted parole in '78

[ 11 August 2005: Message edited by: kingblake ]


From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 11 August 2005 03:05 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you want people to give up violence, you have to accept that they have a right to be in society and function normally in society AFTER they've given up violence.

It would serve no purpose to continue to stigmatize the man.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Cyber Menace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9296

posted 11 August 2005 03:07 PM      Profile for The Cyber Menace   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, why not get bin Laden to build a patio deck? Or Saddam Hussein a rocking chair? Woudn't that be cool too?
From: The Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 11 August 2005 03:08 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can you imagine how much that rocking chair would go for on eBay?
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 August 2005 03:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hear that Karl Rove is handy with a chainsaw.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Cyber Menace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9296

posted 11 August 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for The Cyber Menace   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I hear that Karl Rove is handy with a chainsaw.

I heard the same about Ed Broadbent.

From: The Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 11 August 2005 03:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure you hear a lot of things. Many voices, etc.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Cyber Menace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9296

posted 11 August 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for The Cyber Menace   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I'm sure you hear a lot of things. Many voices, etc.

Yes, especially when people are talking.

From: The Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
FastFoodFreddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10062

posted 11 August 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for FastFoodFreddy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
If you want people to give up violence, you have to accept that they have a right to be in society and function normally in society AFTER they've given up violence.

It would serve no purpose to continue to stigmatize the man.


Do you really think this group have given up the cause.And it just seems odd for Martin to choose this GG (Who has done virtually nothing for Canadians)with this type of connections to the separatist cause.

Maybe its the Sponsership scandal and all the sleaze thats made me overly suspicious.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 11 August 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What "group"? I don't believe what's his name (Michaëlle Jean's husband, Lafond, is it?) was even on this side of the pond at the time. He had nothing to do with the FLQ. If he had, the RCMP would certainly have spoken up, and Michaëlle would never have been chosen as GG.

What "cause"? A commitment to the use of violent acts including bombings, kidnappings etc (I think the murder was actually a mistake but I'm not playing down the threat to life implicit in kidnapping)? Or a preference that Quebec be independent and socialist? A hell of a lot of people here share the latter opinion, are you insinuating that it is criminal?

Paul Rose renounced violent means to achieve such an end. Good. What more do you want? That he recant his political beliefs? (I'm sorely tempted here to refer not to Hitler, but to Stalin, but suppose that is not permitted under Goodwin's law either )...

Rehabilitation is a key element of a modern penal system. One of the stated goals is to bring the offender, once he or she has done the time, back into society as a productive citizen. Organising unions. Or making furniture. Unless you are opposed to either of those activities?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 August 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly I'm amused by how much this Mme Jean business has worked up the parochialists on either side. In anglo media all the closet racists suddenly crawled out of the woodwork to complain that the Real Canada wasn't represented by her. Where are the respectable elderly white men, they ask??? How can a black, relatively young FEEEEMALE respesent Her Majesty???

I'm not surprised that there is a mirror image on parts of the sovereigntist side.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 11 August 2005 05:07 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And if Jacques was, in fact ACQUITTED of murder(which means, in the eyes of the law, that he didn't do it)why should he be stigmatized at all?

Sounds a bit too much like "we know his kind" to me...

And Jacques Rose is nothing like Saddam or Osama, so that analogy was a totally cheap shot.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 11 August 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
Where are the respectable elderly white men, they ask??? ???

Oh, like that nice formerly elderly Mr. Massey
whose brother was on Dr. Kildare and who had such pleasant things to say about the Jews?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 August 2005 08:24 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the other hand...

http://www.ledevoir.com/2005/08/11/87968.html

quote:
Toujours est-il que c'est Jacques Rose, l'habile menuisier qui avait conçu la cache du chemin Queen Mary, qui lui a refait son bureau avec sa précieuse bibliothèque. Jean-Daniel Lafond en était si fier qu'il m'a confié que Jacques Rose, qui n'avait pas perdu la main pour les cachettes mystérieuses, avait fait un double-fond au cas où Jean-Daniel voudrait y cacher des armes. Évidemment, Jean-Daniel en était ravi même s'il doutait d'avoir un jour à se servir de ce double-fond. Mais enfin, ça met tout de même du piquant dans la vie.

Pourquoi je dis tout ça, en sachant que toute la presse anglophone va s'emparer de cette histoire et se mettre à charcuter le couple princier ? Parce qu'il le faut, simplement. Paul Martin avait besoin de la pureté et de la naïveté pour l'immoler sur l'autel de l'unité canadienne. Un bel ange nous a été enlevé et sera demain livré aux vautours. Nous devons démasquer la combine de Paul Martin et, pour ce faire, nous servir de la vérité qui est parfois si cruelle.

Mais elle n'était pas cruelle avant ce jour, elle était même sympathique. Nous savions que là-haut, dans la tour de Radio-Canada, derrière son interdit de parole, une superbe conscience, héritière des grandes littératures de son pays, voyait notre combat et attendait son heure pour venir nous rejoindre. Au lieu de cela, elle se retrouvera seule à lutter contre une mer démontée et nous ne pourrons rien pour elle, sauf attendre que la vague la repousse sur nos rivages.

Je pense qu'il faudra alors la recueillir et lui ouvrir à nouveau les bras. Car la haine de notre liberté que révélera la campagne anti-québécoise qu'elle aura suscitée suffira peut-être autant que tous les lacs Meech à nous souder ensemble dans un même et seul destin, nous les Québécois de la séculaire résistance.


On the other other hand...

quote:

Mais peut-être que je me trompe, que Paul Martin, dans l'espoir d'arrêter la marche de l'indépendance, réussira à imposer son choix de Michaëlle Jean comme gouverneure générale et commandant en chef des forces armées canadiennes. Alors, c'est bien vrai qu'il aura réussi un «bon coup».

Mais j'ai comme un doute. J'ai l'impression que dans cette histoire, à double-fond, le dernier mot appartiendra aux illustres revenants politiques que sont les militants du FLQ. Je suis sûr que Paul Martin ne l'attendait pas celle-là.


...maybe "illustres revenants politiques" suggests that he is not all, um, there.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 11 August 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, that's three hands!
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 11 August 2005 09:32 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
so let me try to understand this. some supporters of the bloc and parti quebecois are angered because "one of them" has turned federalist?

Me thinks that they are arguing about this because they see how their compadre and companion Jean Lapierre has made a mockery of them by becoming not only a Federal Liberal again but by being not only the Quebec Lieutenant but also a senior minister in the Martin government.

Then again since the separtist hard liners want to divorce Canada and by association the Crown why should they care who becomes the Queen's rep since they have no use for the Dominion of Canada or the Queen's role in Canada.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 11 August 2005 10:34 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I'm a federalist and have no use for the Dominion of Canada or the Queen's role in Canada. I don't think that's what they're griping about. Or maybe it is; on top of every other stupid thing separatists think they have to endure, this (the Dominion and the Queen's role with regard to her loygal subjects) is just another irritant in a long line of them.

Fuck the Queen. Fuck her hard and fuck her long.

[ 11 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 11 August 2005 11:14 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
On the other hand...
August 11, 2005 - Le Devoir
...maybe "illustres revenants politiques" suggests that he is not all, um, there.

Or perhaps Paul Martin is the reincarnation of William Lyon Mackenzie King?

The editorial cited from Le Devoir attempts to unmask the PM's devious strategy in florid, fervid and turgid terms, casting the golden couple as innocent pawns in his odious plot to destroy the PQ and nationalist movement. It predicts that the ploy will fail and rebound against the evil federalists.

[ 11 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 11 August 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I could barely get through two paragraphs of the thing. My hauteur meter was off the scale, and my sarcasm drip pan was overflowing.

When the separatists get this peevish, you know they're exceedingly pissed off (as opposed to just lightly pissed off, which is their normal state.)


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 12 August 2005 02:27 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The appointment of Michaelle Jean communicates a simple message to hard-line separatists and WASP purists:

Canada is a divee country, Canada is proud of that diversity, and Canada is big enough to accomodate every ethnic group and every culture within its borders, and Canada welcomes people of all backgrounds.

(Just to clarify: I know that problems with discrimination still exist, but the above is the ideal that Canada strives for)

[ 12 August 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 12 August 2005 08:22 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
hard-line separatists and WASP purists

Who are just two sides of the same coin really.

If Maurice Duplessis had grown up in the 1960's, he'd just be another pequiste.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 August 2005 09:04 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's what I need. Something piquant dans ma vie. *sigh*
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johan i Kanada
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9881

posted 12 August 2005 03:50 PM      Profile for Johan i Kanada        Edit/Delete Post
And now some premiers are starting to wonder about the incoming GG's commitment to Canada:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123867922693_119277122/?hub=TopStories

From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 12 August 2005 04:07 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I just lost the iota of respect I held for Bernard Lord. Gordon Campbell has always been beneath contempt; I'm sorry to see Premier Lord lower himself to that level.

Frankly, I was expecting to find Ralph Klein as one of the miscreants in this little drama.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 12 August 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually both the premiers and the pequistes are basing their comments on the same premise:

If you're a Quebec intellectual, who's worked in the media, and gives a damn about ordinary people, you have to be a pequist.

Funny that nobody drew those conclusions about Pierre Trudeau though.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Johan i Kanada
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9881

posted 12 August 2005 04:24 PM      Profile for Johan i Kanada        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
Well, I just lost the iota of respect I held for Bernard Lord. Gordon Campbell has always been beneath contempt; I'm sorry to see Premier Lord lower himself to that level.

But why? Isn't it a fair question? Whatever your position on Quebec separatism, wouldn't it make sense if the GG actually wanted to keep Canada as one country?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 12 August 2005 04:32 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
~ yawn ~
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 12 August 2005 06:22 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But why? Isn't it a fair question? Whatever your position on Quebec separatism, wouldn't it make sense if the GG actually wanted to keep Canada as one country?

No it's not a fair question. Jean has never publicly supported the PQ (Martin is not crazy enough to pick someone who has). She took an oath of allegiance when becoming a Canadian citizen, and will take another when invested as G-G, and that's good enough.

The premiers have no constitutional mandate to vet the G-G on this or any other issue, and if they want one, they should try to get the constitution changed.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 12 August 2005 06:38 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
That's what I need. Something piquant dans ma vie. *sigh*

Piquant - spicy, like hot chili peppers, like high drama, like sea monkeys in one's bathwater?

Or piquant - prickly, like a pair of nettle undies?


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 12 August 2005 10:57 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, according to WK this appointment may prove to be another disasterous blunder by PM Martin:

quote:
August 12, 2005 -
But the big talk was about Michaëlle Jean, the new Governor-General. A few days ago, I gushed about the appointment, calling it "inspired" and "brilliant." But, knowing too well the rank incompetence of much of the crew around Paul Martin Jr., I also threw in a qualifier: it was inspired and brilliant "unless I am missing something."

Well, it may be that I, we, did "miss something." The stuff about her having dual citizenship is no concern to most Canadians, I suspect. France? Big deal. Hell, it's not like she was a member of the Taliban or something. And how she voted in the referendum? We'll never know, I suspect, because she'll never say. As is her right.

But these revelations about the allegedly cozy relationship between she and her husband and FLQ murderers - revelations which Pierre Bourque has been bringing to English Canada, and revelations which include (as-yet unproven) suggestions that Jean's husband hired Pierre Laporte's killer to build a place to stash guns - are extraordinary. If true, they spell big, big trouble.

If true, there will be a lot of people in Ottawa asking who knew about the connection between the Jeans and the FLQ, and when did they know it. Personally - and this is me trying to be fair, so take note - I don't believe that Martin's crew knew about these allegations, and then appointed her anyway. I, the big anti-Martin guy, can't believe that, even if churlish others do.

So what happened, then?

Well, there are two possibilities. Either the allegations were thoroughly checked out by RCMP/CSIS, and disproved. Or, two - and this one is frightening - RCMP/CSIS knew, and let it happen anyway, because they (like plenty of other non-political types in Ottawa) dislike the Martin crew, and wanted to embarrass them.

I enjoy egg on the faces in Langevin as much as the next guy, believe me. But knowingly and maliciously handing the keys to Rideau Hall to a couple who allegedly cavort with FLQ killers? Christ Jesus, that's extraordinary. Can you imagine something like this ever happening under any administration in the United States? Me neither.

If I were Martin - and, speaking on behalf of both of us, I'm delighted I'm not - I would haul in the Mounties and CSIS onto the carpet, and demand to know how the Hell this (allegedly) got past them. Is it true? And, if so, how in the name of God did they not tell anyone in PMO?

Will any of that happen? Beats me. But one thing's clear: this story is getting bigger every day.



From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 12 August 2005 11:40 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see why this is a story.

I don't believe Michaëlle Jean has ever made a pronouncement advocating either independence or federalism. That is very partisan here. As far as I know, she has been much more involved in issues of development and social justice - in particular in Haïti, in women's rights and immigrant rights and those of people of colour, and simply in journalism.

The "murderer" stuff makes me sick. Jacques Rose, who as said above was convicted only of a lesser charge, has done his time and so much the better if he has found work as a craftsman.

It is essential to reiterate the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Suspect there is a wee cultural divide here - in French it would be normal for Jacques Rose to make jokes about the possible use of a bookcase, in light of his known past. Does anyone seriously think Lafond planned to hide weapons there?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johan i Kanada
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9881

posted 12 August 2005 11:41 PM      Profile for Johan i Kanada        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by brookmere:
No it's not a fair question. Jean has never publicly supported the PQ (Martin is not crazy enough to pick someone who has). She took an oath of allegiance when becoming a Canadian citizen, and will take another when invested as G-G, and that's good enough.

The premiers have no constitutional mandate to vet the G-G on this or any other issue, and if they want one, they should try to get the constitution changed.


So it would not matter to you if she, as the incoming GG, had actually voted for for Quebec independence?

The premiers have every right in the world to ask questions, don't they? Of course, there is no constitutional requirement to be approved by the premiers, nor by anybody else, but isn't that actually a weakness?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 12 August 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Votes are secret in a democracy.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 12 August 2005 11:50 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But these revelations about the allegedly cozy relationship between she and her husband and FLQ murderers - revelations which Pierre Bourque has been bringing to English Canada, and revelations which include (as-yet unproven) suggestions that Jean's husband hired Pierre Laporte's killer to build a place to stash guns - are extraordinary. If true, they spell big, big trouble.


I think this is the issue.

I don't think who people voted for in a secret ballot is relevant here although it would not look very good if she had voted to separate.

PM Martin is obviously extremely worried though as hre is calling the premiers and telling them to shut up about it.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 13 August 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, Lagatta.
It's all such a big dump of merde... as if it MATTERS one way or the other!! The whole GG thing was started for purely political reasons, it's actually a recent thing, it's just another way to put some pomp into play, the GG cannot actually DO anything or CHANGE anything or accomplish dick all. The one we just had did a great job of spending money but I guess "money" doesn't mean fuck all unless it's in circulation and she did a good job of circulating a heap of it!

And WHY was Ralston Saul called "his excellency"? Adrienne was HER excellency, she was GG, he was just the spouse. I know of no woman who became "her excellency" just because her husband was GG...

And what's the kid doing front and centre all the time?

such a fuss over something which is in no way the least little bit IMPORTANT...jesus...every second of every minute of every hour of every day children die of starvation, dehydration and the spreading sickness of war and these people are worried about how a woman voted in a legal election. We have the right to secret ballot.

To pressure someone to tell how she voted in her rightful secret ballot is to be so UNcanadian the impulse is to tell them to shut the fuck up!!

Leave her alone and she'll go home when her tenure expires.

Then, who knows, maybe we'll get an aboriginal person. That would be at least novel!!


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 13 August 2005 12:06 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh yes, Klein opened his big yap; but apparently Martin reassured him so maybe he can zip it up. CBC story.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 13 August 2005 12:20 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Révélations-chocs sur Jean-Daniel Lafond
From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 August 2005 02:03 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, I read the article, and all those appear to be dubious without further context, and again appear to be more mischief.
quote:
Notre complicité fut immédiate, comme si nous partagions depuis longtemps la raison secrète de son exil, la blessure profonde que l’histoire avait laissée en lui et le grand silence qui entoure ce moment de collision en soi du politique et de l’intime, celui qui conduit un jour à décider de la mort d’un homme
This can just as easily be read as a sentimental identification of an author/documentarist and his subject. Only someone literal-minded would immediately say that he is endorsing his subject. Let's have more context, please.

I guess anyone who writes about "dangerous topics" will now be disqualified from the post. And what are these people trying to protect us from, anyway?


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 13 August 2005 03:31 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Man, some of the posts on this list make me want to separate from Canada! I am always nonplused by the anger and humiliation that separatists feel about the rest of Canada, but seeing the reactions here, I feel like joining them.

All this fuss is dredging up some really putrid comments that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about Quebec nationalism as a national liberation movement, and how the FLQ, like the ANC, PLO, or IRA, represented in their heyday a radical aspect of the popular struggle of oppressed peoples. It is this snide dismissal of the rationale for Quebec nationalism, that really brings out the worst in even so-called progressive English Canada.

Aargh. How frustrating.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 13 August 2005 06:26 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So it would not matter to you if she, as the incoming GG, had actually voted for for Quebec independence?

Yes it would matter to me, but nobody has the right to ask her. The secret ballot is one of the most fundamental rights of a democracy, and it is unconditional.

quote:

The premiers have every right in the world to ask questions, don't they? Of course, there is no constitutional requirement to be approved by the premiers, nor by anybody else, but isn't that actually a weakness?

I don't recall any Alberta appointees to the Senate or the judiciary ever being asked whether they had voted for the Western Canada Concept, or Ray Hnatyshyn being asked if he had voted for the Unionest Party.

Or for that matter, appointees from anywhere being asked if they had voted for the Communist Party, Marijuana Party, etc. Do you see where this leads?

Again, if the premiers want to get on board the G-G selection process, they should get the constitution changed. I think their present behaviour is a good reason why it shouldn't be.

[ 13 August 2005: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
dramaman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5586

posted 13 August 2005 05:21 PM      Profile for dramaman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lagatta -

"As far as I know, she has been much more involved in issues of development and social justice"

You DO realize that any suggestion that Jean is/was active on issues of 'social justice' means that she's automatically suspect?

"Social justice" issues are not issues that are high on socon's lists of important issues.

Therefore (and add the factors of CBC connections, colour of skin) -

She is automatically suspect.


From: SW Ontario | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 August 2005 05:41 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dramaman:
Therefore (and add the factors of CBC connections, colour of skin) -

She is automatically suspect.


Let's not forget that she's openly female.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 August 2005 06:34 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And doing it all while Black!

(diawb)


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 13 August 2005 09:33 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As a Franco-Ontarian, I became tired at an early age of separatist dogma and of those who regurgitate the doctrine.

"Maudits fanatiques" is the expression that my Dad used to describe them. Their extreme - often hateful - diatribes are also directed against those who are not 'pure laine', those descendants of the original habitants of Nouvelle-France who co-exist peacefully with Anglos, and the non-Québecois francophones in communities established by European immigrants who settled in Western Canada.


In other words, you don't know anything about the sovereignist movement, but that doesn't bother at all in your hatred towards it. BTW, the only ones I know of who keep coming back to the "pure-laine" concept nowadays are all federalists trying to denigrate sovereignists by painting them as something they are not. Sovereignists aren't any more xenophobic, racist or dogmatic than any other political group, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if, on such questions, the PQ and BQ supporters were on the left of the NDP supporters, more tolerant and open-minded.

quote:
If you don't want to live in Canada, leave and go back to France. You will quickly discover that unless you are talented like Diane Dufresne or Michaëlle Jean, you will be treated like merde.

You really don't know anything at all. First, sovereignists are sovereignists not because they hate Canada but because they love Québec and believe that as long as Québec is a part of Canada, its development is stunted. So your comment about "leaving Canada" is just plain stupid, that's not what sovereignism is all about, it's about giving to Québec every possible tool to develop itself as it wants, making Québec leave the Canadian Federation is merely a mean that is necessary. Second, though there is some emotional link between Québec and France, no Québec nationalists consider themselves as French nor want to abandon their identity as Québécois for a French identity. Third, actually my family has traveled in France many times and they actually found out that French people tend to be very fond of Québécois.

As to the whole FLQ thing, it was more than 30 years ago, all of the former members have paid for their activities and most have now become law-abiding citizens who contribute to society. I thought we progressists supported rehabilitation and giving second chances to people, not succombing to the neanderthal doctrine of "once a criminal, always a criminal".


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 13 August 2005 09:57 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sovereignists aren't any more xenophobic, racist or dogmatic than any other political group, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if, on such questions, the PQ and BQ supporters were on the left of the NDP supporters, more tolerant and open-minded.

Oh, here we go. Once more, with feeling....

Sovereigntists certainly were xenophobic and dogmatic; assuredly not more than any people rallying around a nationalist movement, but xenophobic and dogmatic nonetheless. Remember les hambourgeois, Simon? Remember les cadavres encore chauds?

quote:
Third, actually my family has traveled in France many times and they actually found out that French people tend to be very fond of Québécois.

Well, yes, but only by little snobinettes from la petite bourgeoisie like you, they might be impressed. God forbid, you should roll an "r"...

Actually, I've never been treated badly in France. They like Franco-Ontarians as well; oddly, they really can't tell the difference between them and the Québécois. Which is, I'm sure, chagrinning news to some people.

[ 13 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johan i Kanada
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9881

posted 14 August 2005 12:06 AM      Profile for Johan i Kanada        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by brookmere:
Yes it would matter to me, but nobody has the right to ask her. The secret ballot is one of the most fundamental rights of a democracy, and it is unconditional.

Of course we have the right to ask her. It's a free country, isn't it?
But she has no legal obligation to answer, although it probably would be good for her GG'ship if she did.

(Btw, in my opinion the whole GG concept (and the monarchy) is outdated and should be abolished.)


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 14 August 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sovereigntists certainly were xenophobic and dogmatic; assuredly not more than any people rallying around a nationalist movement, but xenophobic and dogmatic nonetheless.

Not at all. The sovereignist movement became mainstream when Lévesque founded the Parti Québécois, and he defined the movement. Only an ignorant blowhard would ever claim that he was ever xenophobic or dogmatic. Sovereignism was never about xenophobia, racism or any other thing like that, it did foster a national consciousness and of desire to fight against national oppression (the domination of the anglophone community over every important part of Québec's society), but then again are blacks fighting against racial discrimination racists? Are women encouraging gender-based analysis of discrimination sexists? Then why would a nationality taking conscience of the erodation of its power be xenophobic?

quote:
Well, yes, but only by little snobinettes from la petite bourgeoisie like you, they might be impressed.

Can you actually discuss anything WITHOUT attacking personally the one you're talking to? You're acting just like a conservative.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 August 2005 01:21 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland: Québec nationalism was racist and dogmatic, for these reason (...lists reason). I was there, I should know.
Simon: No it wasn't. I'm 21, I don't know much of anything, but I do know that.
Hinterland: Va te faire foutre.
Simon: Can't you discuss anything without reverting to personal insults?

...etc. etc.

[ 14 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 14 August 2005 03:05 AM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again personal attacks with absolutely no arguments. It's funny how you would call ME arrogant whilst using my age to attack my credibility instead of talking with me.
From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 14 August 2005 03:32 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The personal attacks might have existed, but so did real arguments:
quote:
ctually, I've never been treated badly in France. They like Franco-Ontarians as well; oddly, they really can't tell the difference between them and the Québécois.
I'll concur with Hinterland on this one. I've been to France, and was very well accepted, even as an anglophone Canuck with only halfway-acceptable french language skills.

And as to which French-Canadians they truly love....


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 14 August 2005 03:37 AM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's not an argument, that's a red herring, it has nothing at all to do with my rebuttal of the argument by one here that the French would hate Québécois except if they had some "special talent".
From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 14 August 2005 03:41 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of red herrings, that wasn't Hinterland's argument to begin with....
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 14 August 2005 03:50 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Allow me to tell you a story about a family, Simon. It's mine; or rather, it's my wife's - a family that has been in Canada since the 1700s.

Some of the family is in Quebec. A good part of the family is in Ontario. Of the family in Quebec, there are both federalists and separatists. The federalists keep in touch with family across the country. The separatists disown the Ontario branch of the family, and pretend they don't exist - and snub them if they are invited to family events. They snub them whether or not they have maintained their french language and heritage.

Suffice it to say, I think I understand where Hinterland's resentment is coming from. Until I married into this family, I don't think I would have.

[ 14 August 2005: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 14 August 2005 08:37 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I have no family experiences to relate like LTJ, but I did know several Franco-Manitobans a few years back, who felt that the Quebecois French were totally disinterested in any Franco-Canadians outside of their own provincial enclave, something the non-Quebecois Francophones resented it mightily.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 14 August 2005 08:48 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've known Franco-Albertans growing up who expressed similar sentiments as well.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 14 August 2005 12:36 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Simon is just as wrong in denying that there are any bigoted nationalists as would be someone who says that the entirety of the Quebec national project is bigoted through and through (not that anyone here is necessarily saying that).
quote:
Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
If you don't want to live in Canada, leave and go back to France.
I think someone should apologize for that though.

From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johan i Kanada
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9881

posted 14 August 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for Johan i Kanada        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:
Can you actually discuss anything WITHOUT attacking personally the one you're talking to? You're acting just like a conservative.

Hey, try to be a non-socialist on this site and the name calling starts immediately. Which is sad for this site.

Seems many, not all, posters here automatically consider all opponents to be morons, as opposed to just opponents.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 14 August 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think Simon is just as wrong in denying that there are any bigoted nationalists as would be someone who says that the entirety of the Quebec national project is bigoted through and through (not that anyone here is necessarily saying that).

Where did I say there weren't any? You'll find bigoted people everywhere in every movement, including progressive movements. I simply deny that the movement was, at any time in its history, so much penetrated by "bigots" that it could be called xenophobic.

As to the Franco-X resentment because Québécois don't devote their lives to them, frankly grow up.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 14 August 2005 04:21 PM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As to the Franco-X resentment because Québécois don't devote their lives to them, frankly grow up

That is not what the posters are saying. Read Lard tunderin' jeesus story and you'll see that.

I also would like to know whether you would support certain portions of a sovereign Québec to vote to seperate from Québec and possibly rejoin Canada. All the native Americans, for example, or maybe West Montreal.


From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 14 August 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Johan i Kanada:
Seems many, not all, posters here automatically consider all opponents to be morons, as opposed to just opponents.
Johan doesn't seem to realise that it was all too easy to immediately identify him as a moron.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 August 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Johan i Kanada:
Seems many, not all, posters here automatically consider all opponents to be morons, as opposed to just opponents.

Nonsense! Many Liberals are quite clever. We don't consider Conservatives stupid because they're conservative. We consider them stupid because of their unblemished record of mind-boggling stupidity (and fashion faux pas).


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Johan i Kanada
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9881

posted 14 August 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for Johan i Kanada        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
Johan doesn't seem to realise that it was all too easy to immediately identify him as a moron.

See what I mean? Automatically: opponent = moron.
Tell me, were you a bully in school?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868

posted 14 August 2005 05:57 PM      Profile for melovesproles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The poll on the Globe and Mail which suggests most readers demand to know how the GG and their husband voted on the referendum is just totally disgusting. I'm personally a little resentful about the way Quebec sovereignists have often collaborated with the most reactionary Canadian Conservative Canadian movements like Mulroney and more recently Harper over the budget but the idea that the way someone voted on a democratic referendum has any bearing on their qualifications for a government post is scary.

I wish Canada would scrap the Monarchy and address that the whole allegience to the Hanovers isn't exactly a great way to make natives, Quebecois, or new Canadians feel like part of the nation. That said though I like having a powerless figurehead as head of state so modifying the position of the G.G. to a post with more unifying symbolic value would be alright with me(personally I think it should be honouring the first nations).


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 14 August 2005 06:45 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That is not what the posters are saying. Read Lard tunderin' jeesus story and you'll see that.

Frankly, I don't care much for his family stories, family problems are not representative in any way of national problems.

quote:
I also would like to know whether you would support certain portions of a sovereign Québec to vote to seperate from Québec and possibly rejoin Canada. All the native Americans, for example, or maybe West Montreal.

Native Americans as differents nations have a right to self-determination that must be accommodated, but their absence of any border or organized State makes it impossible to take a piece of land and simply "rejoin" Canada, I would be more in favor of negotiating with them to try and accommodate their desires, offering to resign any deal they had with Canada, if it fails, agree to let them be judged according to Canadian law and participate in Canadian programs. As to anglophones, they are not part of another people and are citizens of Québec, their right to self-determination is shared with other Québécois and they are bound by it.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 14 August 2005 07:30 PM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As to anglophones, they are not part of another people and are citizens of Québec, their right to self-determination is shared with other Québécois and they are bound by it.

They ought to have self determination then to seperate from a sovereign Québec. If any province in Canada can seperate from Canada, any part of Québec should be able to seperate from a Québec that is its own country. Otherwise the Québec government would be being repressive. One other question for you: do you support the idea of Ontario seperating from Canada?


From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Johan i Kanada
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9881

posted 14 August 2005 07:36 PM      Profile for Johan i Kanada        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:
Native Americans as differents nations have a right to self-determination that must be accommodated, but their absence of any border or organized State makes it impossible to take a piece of land and simply "rejoin" Canada..
As to anglophones, they are not part of another people and are citizens of Québec, their right to self-determination is shared with other Québécois and they are bound by it.

You can't be a citizen of Quebec, since it is not a state. Quebec is merely a province, like the rest.
Why would anglophones right to self determination(necessarily) be shared with other Quebecers? And what do you mean "they are bound by it"? Are you implying that being a federalist in Quebec is like being a traitor? (Perhaps in the same way Quebec separatists are traitors?)


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 15 August 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee: You really don't know anything at all. First, sovereignists are sovereignists not because they hate Canada but because they love Québec and believe that as long as Québec is a part of Canada, its development is stunted. So your comment about "leaving Canada" is just plain stupid, that's not what sovereignism is all about, it's about giving to Québec every possible tool to develop itself as it wants, making Québec leave the Canadian Federation is merely a mean that is necessary.

You were born in 1984, is that right? Perhaps you are the one who knows nothing at all, regarding the historical context that I evoke by refering to separatism. Souveraineté is a recently coined term. The article in Le Devoir sounds like it came from a crony of Jacques Parizeau - surely you are old enough to remember his comments after the last referendum!!! Those remarks were xenophobic, and hateful.

When I speak of separatist dogma, I am alluding to a generation of Québecois who expressed that particular discourse. They are contemptuous and scornful of anyone not pure laine. They call Francophones living outside Québec, and those inside the province (such as Montréalais who happily rub elbows with their neighbours of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds) des vendus - traitors who sold out.

What I expressed in my original post is based on my experience of living in Ontario and Québec, reading history, and listening to older people describe the ongoing struggle to survive as Francophones. I also said that I voted for the Parti Québecois in 1976 because the policy platform and the integrity of its candidates resonated with my own views.

Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? Imagine separatism, the Parti Québecois and the souveraineté movement as three overlapping circles. In one subset, you would find, for example, people who agree with PQ policy and the principles of souveraineté. René Lévesque (I presume) and Luck Mervil would belong there. But the members of the strictly separatist/PQ camp could be ambivalent, if not secretly hostile, to Luck's high profile and visibility as a champion of souveraineté.

The ideological hearth of separatism was dug and banked by the Catholic clergy with the complicity of political parties in Québec. Suspicion and hatred of everything not 1)French 2) Catholic and 3) European provided the fuel. Rancour and a sense of victimization stoked the flames.

Though much of this occured in the past, there are still live embers that occasionally flare up, such as the often repeated statement: “hors du Québec point de salut”. You can read more about this debate here.

And I will not apologize for saying “If you don't want to live in Canada, leave and go back to France.” It was not directed to one person in particular, but to those who maintain a "Je suis un chien qui ronge un os" hargne. But I was wrong in suggesting that they would not be welcome in le pays de nos ancêtres. Au contraire, armed with their complex attitude of entitlement and persecution, they would be greeted warmly by Le Pen and his followers.

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 15 August 2005 05:37 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MonkeyIslanderPolical23:
One other question for you: do you support the idea of Ontario seperating from Canada?

As an aside, I'd love to see a joke site of an Ontario Separatist Party... I find the idea even funnier than the Bloc quebecois de l'Ontario. Would be sort of funny to troll the western separatists at the dark side with it too. But, alas (or not), I have more important things to do.

Of course, now if such a thing were to be done my someone else, my denials would not be believed and I'd have to hang my head in shame. But I'm really not planning on doing such a thing, despite dreaming up the idea!


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
FastFoodFreddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10062

posted 15 August 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for FastFoodFreddy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
simonvallee

"You really don't know anything at all. First, sovereignists are sovereignists not because they hate Canada but because they love Québec and believe that as long as Québec is a part of Canada, its development is stunted. So your comment about "leaving Canada" is just plain stupid, that's not what sovereignism is all about, it's about giving to Québec every possible tool to develop itself as it wants, making Québec leave the Canadian Federation is merely a mean that is necessary. Second, though there is some emotional link between Québec and France, no Québec nationalists consider themselves as French nor want to abandon their identity as Québécois for a French identity. Third, actually my family has traveled in France many times and they actually found out that French people tend to be very fond of Québécois.

As to the whole FLQ thing, it was more than 30 years ago, all of the former members have paid for their activities and most have now become law-abiding citizens who contribute to society. I thought we progressists supported rehabilitation and giving second chances to people, not succombing to the neanderthal doctrine of "once a criminal, always a criminal".


Your dream of a Separate Quebec will come true very soon, I believe.And we should all thank Paul Martin and the Liberals for helping the cause.
It's astonishing how Paul Martin has been able to create such divisions amongst the citizens of this great country,in such a very short time.

Here we go again " sacrificed on the altar of morality" what the hell is that suppose to mean ?


New GG's Husband says PM 'Sacrificed' Many
Josh Pringle
Monday, August 15, 2005 2:44 AM

The husband of the incoming Governor General suggests Prime Minister Paul Martin sacrificed a lot of people during the sponsorship scandal.

Jean-Daniel Lafond says former Via Rail head Jean Pelletier was sacrificed on the altar of morality.

A published report says the husband of incoming Governor General Michaelle Jean made the comments during a March 4th, 2004 interview on a Radio-Canada radio show.

Lafond has been accused by some separatists of supporting an independent Quebec.


http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=30900

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: FastFoodFreddy ]


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 August 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Again personal attacks with absolutely no arguments. It's funny how you would call ME arrogant whilst using my age to attack my credibility instead of talking with me.

You're right. I shouldn't let my anger and my ill-will prevent me from talking with you. But you have to understand that non-Québécois francophones don't see the projet national in exactly the same way as you do, and that some older ones remember the bad history that went with it. You should acknowledge a few of the things I've told you in the discussion I've had with you: There was no need to involve extra-provincial francophones in the battle you were having with the English elite; that that was done for purely political purposes. We are, were, and had been, fighting the exact same battle against second-class citizenship as you were (against greater odds, I might add) and you guys decided to dismiss us as vendus, canards morts and cadavres encore chauds. Until you recognise that this was a bad move among Québec sovereigntists, you'll never understand how this kind of negative nationalism led to a loss of sympathy for your cause among francophones outside Québec.

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 16 August 2005 12:14 AM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
CFRA has ridicuously short articles.

quote:
Your dream of a Separate Quebec will come true very soon, I believe.And we should all thank Paul Martin and the Liberals for helping the cause.
It's astonishing how Paul Martin has been able to create such divisions amongst the citizens of this great country,in such a very short time.


We should thank Jean Chretien, more than Paul Martin.

Other thann the sponsorship scandal issue, were you thinking of some other division that Paul Martin has created?


From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 16 August 2005 12:48 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Who are you asking? You know, I find the discussion of Canadian nationalism so very wearying because of this: Very few people among you have ever asked yourselves what exactly is your sense of nationality, or what exactly it means? Does it mean a set norms centered around language, food, music? Does it mean something more or less profound than your attitude to democracy? Do you even think about this, ever?

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 16 August 2005 12:48 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Deleted. Double post.

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 16 August 2005 02:12 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it really a question that requires an answer? If we are to have a nationalism, I'd rather have one that is defined by as few identifying traits as possible. Every identifying trait becomes a basis for exclusion. You yourself have implied this regularly.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
FastFoodFreddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10062

posted 16 August 2005 06:38 PM      Profile for FastFoodFreddy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Vallieres later says: "Not only should Martinique go to independence, but to revolution, as Quebec should."

To that, Jean replies: "Yes, one doesn't give independence, one takes it."


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124157789091_15/?hub=Canada

I'm 70/30 on this GG.


But is she a Nationalist or a Quebec sovereigntist ?

One could say the GG is dead weight in the political forum but on principle should she not represent and unite all citizens of Canada.

Or am I just an old fart who puts to much emphases on principle ?

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: FastFoodFreddy ]


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 17 August 2005 12:47 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ms Jean is still serving the separatist cause by dividing Canadians over her position as GG.

She's dividing Canadians before she even takes on the job. Separatists will be proud of her.

[ 17 August 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 17 August 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who cares?

It's the GG.

It's a symbolic position that should be given to an artsy person, as judging art and literature are its current main goals. Some of the right wing suggestions are absolute phillistines, and would not be suited to the job.

As long as old Queeny over the pond rubber stamps the PMs suggestion...Who cares?


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 17 August 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:
Ms Jean is still serving the separatist cause by dividing Canadians over her position as GG. She's dividing Canadians before she even takes on the job. Separatists will be proud of her.
Gee Mary123, perhaps you should apply for the GG job then. It appear that you are an expert on divisiveness and possibly, western separatism?

[ 17 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 17 August 2005 01:07 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah another newbie who knows it all.

In the end, I can't be bothered responding to you.

[ 17 August 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Captain Obvious
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9009

posted 17 August 2005 03:25 AM      Profile for Captain Obvious     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Does it mean something more or less profound than your attitude to democracy? Do you even think about this, ever?

This part I do think about, yes. If Quebec can't handle the level of decentralization Canada has now and votes for sovereignty, then we should come to an amicable division of assets, keep a common market and restructure our federation. I don't want them to go, but I respect their right to decide. No sense in getting mad about it if it happens. We'll need our energy to stay together in that event.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 17 August 2005 03:49 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
If Quebec can't handle the level of decentralization Canada has now and votes for sovereignty, then we should come to an amicable division of assets, keep a common market and restructure our federation. I don't want them to go, but I respect their right to decide. No sense in getting mad about it if it happens. We'll need our energy to stay together in that event.
Very well said. I am so weary of the threats and I am feeling right now if the majority of people in Québec believe (or sadly, have been convinced to believe) that the quality of their lives will be improved without Canada, then do go. I won't be holding the door open, but I won't be begging them to stay.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marg Bedore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9838

posted 17 August 2005 02:07 PM      Profile for Marg Bedore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jean's statement today should satisfy Canadians and show how the hard separatists have badly handled the situation trying to smear Jean Too bad Harper couldn't resist using the separatist rhetoric Jack Layton's response was excellent and the PM responded well also
From: Kingston | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 17 August 2005 02:15 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I take it your period key is malfunctioning?
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zach Gebello
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10272

posted 30 August 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for Zach Gebello     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can Michaelle Jean bee nominated as Governor General of Canada when she does'nt believe in one of it's fondamental principle: multiculturalism?

Governor general Adrienne Clarkson just recently declared, in the name of Her Majesty The Queen, the 27th of june National Day of Multiculturalism.

Yet, as reported by Elias levy, in Canadian Jewish News, Michaelle Jean criticised, just last april, vigorously against Canadian Multiculturalism as a terrible abomination and suggested it should be abolished:
http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=7095

(sorry, the article is only in french)


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 30 August 2005 02:47 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't read the article, but it seems to me that lots of people have problems with the idea of multiculturalism, not because they are racists, but because they feel it pays only lip service to "diversity". It lets Canada get away with basically being a white, Anglo country in its institutions, while allowing "ethnic" people to express themselves through dance, costume, and other totally irrelevant displays. Not that this is my position, but just to say that it is possible to disagree with the idea from a progressive point of view.
From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
toddsschneider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6280

posted 25 May 2008 02:16 PM      Profile for toddsschneider     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Popular Quebec author says Governor General executes dirty deeds of PM"

http://tinyurl.com/6ybu35

quote:
MONTREAL — One of Quebec's most popular authors says Ottawa is using Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to "forcefully integrate" the province into the Canadian ensemble.

Victor-Levy Beaulieu, who has penned some 70 works of fiction, non-fiction, drama and poetry, referred to Jean as "La Reine-Negre" - or negro queen - in an editorial he wrote for an independent newspaper.

Beaulieu, a staunch sovereigntist, said he based the term on the so-called theory of the roi-negre, which he claims identifies the leaders of African colonies put in place to deliver the colonizer's message to the population.

The author, known simply as VLB to his fans, maintains his argument is not a racial shot at Jean, who is black ...



From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 May 2008 03:05 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course it was an inexcusable racist comment, as Vivian Barbot said immediately. Beaulieu owes Jean an apology, as it was a racist and sexist personal attack, not just a republican opposition to the Governor General's position (I agree with Beaulieu about that).

This article WAS much more accurate than an earlier Gazette article in which the "Negro Queen" was used without explanation(nègre can also mean the N word, it can on the other hand have a positive connotation in l'art nègre, la négritude (a French-language equivalent of Black Consciousness). Les Rois nègres served European colonial interests and in certain cases abetted the slave trade. That is a legitimate historical expression used by historians who are African or of African descent, and by non-racist historians of whatever origin.

But there is no way I can see using it as a snide comment against Jean is anything but racist.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
toddsschneider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6280

posted 25 May 2008 03:15 PM      Profile for toddsschneider     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Les rois aigres"

http://tinyurl.com/6fgwmt

quote:
L’écrivain Victor Lévy-Beaulieu vient de commettre un texte dans lequel il s’en prend à la gouverneure générale, Michaëlle Jean, qu’il appelle «la Reine-nègre». Le beaulieu_s.jpgtexte est bourré d’insultes, à commencer bien sûr par le titre.

«Reine-nègre», cela renvoie notamment aux éditoriaux signés il y a 50 ans par le journaliste André Laurendeau, qui accusait les anglophones du Québec de fermer les yeux sur les abus de démocratie commis par Maurice Duplessis comme le faisaient les Britanniques à l’endroit des «rois nègres» de leurs colonies.

J’ai toujours été à la fois étonné et inquiet par la présence au sein du mouvement indépendantiste d’une frange substantielle chez qui la calomnie sert de principal argument. À ces militants, il ne suffit pas de critiquer le point de vue des fédéralistes. Il leur faut les insulter, mettre en cause leur honnêteté, leur amour pour le Québec. Les Québécois qui s’opposent à la séparation sont à leurs yeux des traîtres et des vendus. Ainsi, dans cette diatribe publiée dans l’Aut’Journal, VLB ne se contente pas de déplorer ou de dénoncer tel ou tel propos de Mme Jean. Non, il affirme qu’elle était une mauvaise journaliste et il l’accuse d’avoir abandonné ses convictions contre de l’argent: «Quand on lui en donne la chance, et les billets verts du Dominion, rien de plus facile pour le colonisé que de devenir colonisateur» ...



From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 25 May 2008 04:18 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pratte is a self-important defender of the established order; he is also full of shit; Vivian Barbot spoke out against Beaulieu's comments right away, and I'm certain other progressives will too, no matter how disappointed many of us were that the excellent journalist Michaëlle Jean accepted that position.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 25 May 2008 09:37 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by toddsschneider:
"Popular Quebec author says Governor General executes dirty deeds of PM"

Duh - that's her job. She wasn't elected.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
toddsschneider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6280

posted 26 May 2008 08:34 AM      Profile for toddsschneider     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Self-important? Compare his tone to VLB's. And Pratte *is* important, one of the leading federalist voices in Quebec. Not that there is much competition these days.

Besides, Pratte notes that silence is the reaction of the Quebecois de souche, not francophone immigrants, welcome as they are.


From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 26 May 2008 08:36 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Closing for length.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca