And In Foreign News...

Just proves the west isn't the only one that won't miss them. LOL

Montreal's new generation of pseudo intelligentsia still flirting with separation and the intolerance of the mono lingual, mono cultural esoteric state....hmmm seems unoriginal bad ideas are in vogue again.

Understanding the politics at play in Quebec's urban environs these days takes a PhD in abnormal psychology...how else could you explain the "trendy" anti zionist/anti semetic atitudes that allows callous opportunist politicians to capitalize on openly displaying support for outlawed terrorist organizations:

http://tinyurl.com/s7wlb

May this be prophetic. I'd like to see a smaller country in a few years. One with no french provinces...

Quebec as a foreign entity? Oh! I wish!

As it's under the "Foreign" heading, maybe it's a typo of "PA captures two Montreal-area byelections"? Especially considering the recent support there for Hizb'allah.

To a Quebecois, it's accurate. They do not consider themselves part of Canada. They divide the world linguistically. The anglophone world, which includes the Rest of Canada, the USA, the UK, etc - are all 'Other'. The anglophone world is greedy, capitalist, war-mongering, etc etc.

The francophone world, on the other hand, is cultured, civilized, operating within 'nuances', and superior in every way to the Evil Anglo World.

Of course, Quebec expects the ROC to support it, and be grateful for its 'civilizing influence' on the uncivilized capitalists of the ROC.

The francophone world sees no point, ever, in assisting the Other World.

As I have stated many times before my loyalty lies with the West not Canada as a whole. Anyone interested in starting an advertising fund to support the Parti Quebecois in the next quebec provincial election? The sooner they are gone the better, as far as I am concerned it's a start. Remember, as cretien said, you people out West are different and I've always said yes we are, different values different ethics and different morals. To support that last statement go back over the last 30 years and see how many Federal scandals you can find that don’t involve francophones.

A cereal box sans French written all over it.

At our breakfast tables

In our cities

Here in Canada

I didn't make this up

How refreshing!!

On another note within the same vein

Supporting Quebec based businesses that have
bought out Western Cdn. business and in turn have
stopped using Western Cdn. suppliers in favour of Quebec based suppliers is NOT in Western Canada's best interests.
Something to think about on your next trip to the building supply store.

I boycott eastern businesses and have done so for the last 20 years. My latest mad on is the dairy industry that was backed to the hilt by the federal governments of the past. Read backed quebec. Furthermore, just try and buy butter in Western Canada that doesn't come from a quebec based Company other than a few small local suppliers.

It's taken me a long time to warm up to the "Just go!" stance on Quebec separation, but I have to say that the end of official bilingualism, and the attendant savings to both government and industry, have been a tipping point, to be sure.

It's taken me a long time to warm up to the "Just go!" stance on Quebec separation, but I have to say that the end of official bilingualism, and the attendant savings to both government and industry, have been a tipping point, to be sure.

(sorry for the double post - some kind of Movable Type software belch, I think....)

"Something to think about on your next trip to the building supply store."

I'm assume you mean Rona. I've never liked to shop there and wondered why. Now I know.

Horny Toad

Freudian slip? Perhaps not.

I could almost live with dealing with Quebecors in french inside the province if it wasn't for their arragance, being forced to supply them with taxpayers "equalization" funds at the same time being forced to be bilingual and put up with that crap in the ROC. Work for the federal government? Ever see that glass ceiling where you cannot move up the ladder if you aren't bilingual? Ever see the other ceiling where unless you are bilingual AND born in Quebec you don't get near the top?

Ever wonder how the Polish, Ukrainian, Finnish, German, Chinese and other ethnic communities in Canada can keep their heritage, language and culture (and food) alive and still be Canadians? The fact that it is not a God given right may have something to do with it.

So what differentiates most of the comments made in this thread from most comments made by the intolerant lefties that live in places like rabble/babble/trabble? Just asking.

Gabby, here most comments made have some facts to back them up. I sorry if that bothers you but having lived and worked from sea to sea to sea, I have seen the "equality" with the handling of quebec and ROC.

" A house divided against itself will fall"
Old addage. But very true.
Canada doesn't get it , yet. It has cost us enormously to refuse to accept that fact.
The US is coming to that very reality with all their immigration issues before them right now.
One country. One language ( official) One for all and all for one. Quebec wants that one to be them and intend to grind the English into dust if they can. They cannot do it militarily but hope and plan and continue to insist politically and culturally.
And that includes these so called "first nations" who continually hijack the process for their own ends.

1. Could Ms. Kate have posted this to show us how "reliable" The Star's reports are, rather than trying to elicit all sorts of negative comments about Quebec?

2. Could you show me a place on earth where you will not find bigoted people? Perhaps six feet under.

I'm not excusing bigots of ANY stripe. As a proud Conservative, I just think we (Conservatives that is) should be above that kind of venomous invective.

Gabby, the mistake you make is the assumption that this site is exclusively populated by proud Conservatives...

Separatism is the cancer we have to fight, be it from Quebec or Western based.

I provided the screen capture to Kate since the issue of media accuracy has been discussed a bit recently (Hello Reuters). I considered sending a comment to AZ at the Star to see if she would provide feedback to their webmaster. In the end I sent the tip to SDA just because I found it amusing and I would rather toss it out to a blog that I prefer to visit over AZ's.

In the big scheme of things does the slip up by the Star matter? No. Did I find it amusing that the Star can make a mistake? Yes. In the dog days of summer I look forward to the BBQ when I get home more than worrying about how the Star posts stories on its website.

As they say in my beer recipe book, Relax and have a homebrew!

Steve J

Gabby, unless comments are purposefully intended to hurt and without any merit or substance, the commenters on this blog should be permitted to express themselves freely (within Kate's rules)...freedom of expression. We should be free to criticize Quebec and complain about Quebecers if we so choose...anything less is stifling opinion lest we offend anyone's delicate sensibilities (which has manifested itself in the hated Political Correctness mode we find ourselves in).

Your comments seem to be suggesting that no one should say anything negative about Quebec. I don't recall similar complaints from you regarding comments related to other nationalities / ethnicities (but I haven't been paying close attention, either).

"Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". Either we say nothing negative about anyone or we speak our minds freely...you can't have it both ways.

As much as it is within us to do so, we should temper our comments about everyone...but we should never be afraid to speak our minds honestly.

Posted by: Hassle at August 16, 2006 06:00 PM:
"Your comments seem to be suggesting that no one should say anything negative about Quebec. I don't recall similar complaints from you regarding comments related to other nationalities / ethnicities (but I haven't been paying close attention, either)."

I couldn't be bothered to go too far back, but if you'd care to, check one of my comments proving I'm not Quebec-centric.
Posted by: Gabby in QC at July 20, 2006 11:23 AM

But hey, if you and others want to keep on bashing the province that helped elect Mr. Harper, that Mr. Harper has been courting to hopefully gain a majority, that Mr. Harper has been treating with the respect due to all provinces, go ahead. And lest you think I'm a West-basher, I usually defend Alberta whenever any attacks are launched her way.

From Gabby: "But hey, if you and others want to keep on bashing the province that helped elect Mr. Harper, that Mr. Harper has been courting to hopefully gain a majority, that Mr. Harper has been treating with the respect due to all provinces, go ahead."

While we're at it, we should make sure we don't bash Jews, muslims, communists, socialists, leftists, gays, lesbians, pyromaniacs, etc. ad nauseum so we can maximize the vote-getting for the Conservatives (of course, bashing white, anglo-saxon Christians is ALWAYS fair game). That is the Liberals game plan and I won't play it.

I understand your point and agree we shouldn't ignorantly call names or ridicule, but if there's a point to be made or a whistle to be blown or someone called to order, then we should be free to speak our minds and not get caught in the PC trap.

'The province that helped elect Mr. Harper'...Do you mean the provinces of the West?

Why is it that only ONE province of Canada, Quebec, is constitutionally guaranteed a major proportion, 24%, of the seats in the House of Commons, even though its population base in Canada is only about 20%? This allots power to one province and I wonder why this is so?

Why is it that our federal gov't is constitutionally defined as bilingual, when this is a pure fiction. Factually, Canada is not and never will be bilingual. 80% are anglophones, and 20% are francophones. Only 10% of anglophones are bilingual. Got that? And about 45% of francophones are bilingual. The result, after one full generation of massive amounts of our tax dollars invested in bilingualism - is a stasis.

And the result is that the majority of Canadians are barred from any key authoritarian role in political and gov't economic decision-making. That's a disastrous action in a democracy for it removes the definition of 'democracy' from Canada. Canada is an oligarchy, not a democracy, because the majority do not and cannot, have gov't power.

No, don't say - 'So go learn French'. There should be no 'entry requirements' for democracy. By the time someone has reached maturity in his economic role, the time, language learning ability and cost, of 'learning French' so they can move into gov't roles - is prohibitive.

We are not bilingual. Period. And our gov't should not require its citizens to be bilingual before they can serve in key roles - as judges, as reviewers, as deputy ministers, as CEOs, etc and etc.

And, as noted, Quebec IS anti-anglophone, anti-American, socialist, union-trapped, expecting favours and benefits. Dairy production? Don't cows exist in the West? But Quebec dairy farmers are guaranteed the market in cream, butter production. Why? Why?

So, Gabby, don't remove Quebec from criticism. Don't say that Quebec 'cannot be critiqued' because it helped elect Harper. Or, for any reason. Any and all reality can and must be open to analysis and criticism. That includes Quebec.

If we don't maximize vote-getting (up to a point I agree), we'll never get elected. Welcome to the real world of politics. I'd rather get elected and get 65% of my platform through than keep missing the boat and bitch about the wrong kind of people running this country and what they're doing to it. And then if I get elected AGAIN, I can get another 25% done, and so on and so on. Look at what the Harper government has accomplished with a minority! He had to accomodate some groups, no? Did it stop him from doing a lot of good things?

On a related note, the link below the link in question (the piece honouring the late Cpl. Andrew James Eykelenboom by Rosie DiManno) was well done and worth a read.

ET:
YAWN! I am not in your lecture hall, the captive of a boring professor droning on with his/her absolutist admonitions or warnings.

"Why is it that only ONE province of Canada, Quebec, is constitutionally guaranteed a major proportion, 24%, of the seats in the House of Commons, even though its population base in Canada is only about 20%? This allots power to one province and I wonder why this is so?"
Take that one up with the Fathers of Confederation. If - no, excuse me - no ifs or buts, YOU surely think you have a better idea.

"Why is it that our federal gov't is constitutionally defined as bilingual, when this is a pure fiction."
Again with rewriting the constitution! You see, when I came to this country, I did not come with the idea of reshaping it to suit MY needs. I adapted. I learned both languages, not an impossible or inhuman feat.
Just because YOU are unwilling or unable to function in the other language ... the constitution has to be changed to suit you? Get over yourself.

"And the result is that the majority of Canadians are barred from any key authoritarian role in political and gov't economic decision-making"
What is KEY in that sentence is your use of the word authoritarian - describes your posts to a T. Yes, I know, ad hominem ... double YAWN.

"Don't say that Quebec 'cannot be critiqued' because it helped elect Harper."
Please do me the courtesy of removing the quote marks from 'cannot be critiqued.' It is a figment of your overwrought imagination. Never said that.

"Any and all reality can and must be open to analysis and criticism." And that includes your lengthy authoritarian - as opposed to authoritative - pamphleteering.

I use something called mgi photosuite. cant remember where I picked it up. the screen capture doesnt work on freeze framed video play backs for some reason, does really weird multi-overlays with some sort of offset, but everything else it will get.

I think Gabby in QC is just trying to make the point that all Conservatives have to work together if they want PMSH to win a majority government.

IMO undermining or ridiculing Conservatives from Quebec (or Conservative allies in the USA, Briton, Israel, Germany etc. etc.) is not going to help to achieve any of the Conservatives shared goals.

Posted by: concrete at August 17, 2006 12:21 AM:

"I think Gabby in QC is just trying to make the point that all Conservatives have to work together if they want PMSH to win a majority government.

IMO undermining or ridiculing Conservatives from Quebec (or Conservative allies in the USA, Briton, Israel, Germany etc. etc.) is not going to help to achieve any of the Conservatives shared goals."

YES!! THANK YOU!

Gabby, I found ET's post well-reasoned and informative. All your posts are aimed at squashing debate. I am a little confused. Who is the authoritarian?

Posted by: Tom Penn at August 17, 2006 12:35 AM:
"Gabby, I found ET's post well-reasoned and informative. All your posts are aimed at squashing debate. I am a little confused. Who is the authoritarian?"

Beg to differ. As Concrete pointed out in his/her post prior to yours, I am cautioning those who tend to get carried away with bashing various groups, both within and without our country.

Perhaps I am wrong in wanting to put on the brakes on some of the vehemence of some comments. I do not pretend to have ALL the answers, as a well-known poster here thinks he/she does and who makes a practise of Quebec-bashing. All I know is that, given the danger our country faces from WITHOUT (terrorists), we do not need to bring up old arguments, and to foment discord WITHIN (anti-Quebec sentiments). We need a UNITED country now more than ever.

What you call my trying to squash debate is simply a reaction to some pretty inflammatory statements verging on civil insurrection, e.g.:
"If our police and politicians cannot bring themselves to face the reality of the times then I think Mr. and Mrs. Joe and Jane average Canadian have a duty to take the law into their own hands."
and
"is it illegal to form a private militia in canada?"

You yourself reacted to those comments in a previous thread, remember?
"NO! Going "western jihadi" is absolutely NOT THE ANSWER. Bringing more chaos and bloodlust into western civilization is NOT the answer. Further undermining the order of our civilized Nation States is NOT the answer."

As far as the poster whose logic you admire, there's nothing to prevent you from continuing in your admiration. By all means, you are free to be enthralled by his/her arguments. I do not share your enthusiasm.

Posted by: Tom Penn at August 17, 2006 12:35 AM:
"Gabby, I found ET's post well-reasoned and informative. All your posts are aimed at squashing debate. I am a little confused. Who is the authoritarian?"

Beg to differ. As Concrete pointed out in his/her post prior to yours, I am cautioning those who tend to get carried away with bashing various groups, both within and without our country.

Perhaps I am wrong in wanting to put on the brakes on some of the vehemence of some comments. I do not pretend to have ALL the answers, as a well-known poster here thinks he/she does and who makes a practise of Quebec-bashing. All I know is that, given the danger our country faces from WITHOUT (terrorists), we do not need to bring up old arguments, and to foment discord WITHIN (anti-Quebec sentiments). We need a UNITED country now more than ever.

What you call my trying to squash debate is simply a reaction to some pretty inflammatory statements verging on civil insurrection, e.g.:
"If our police and politicians cannot bring themselves to face the reality of the times then I think Mr. and Mrs. Joe and Jane average Canadian have a duty to take the law into their own hands."
and
"is it illegal to form a private militia in canada?"

You yourself reacted to those comments in a previous thread, remember?
"NO! Going "western jihadi" is absolutely NOT THE ANSWER. Bringing more chaos and bloodlust into western civilization is NOT the answer. Further undermining the order of our civilized Nation States is NOT the answer."

As far as the poster whose logic you admire, there's nothing to prevent you from continuing in your admiration. By all means, you are free to be enthralled by his/her arguments. I do not share your enthusiasm.