AngryFrenchGuy

Can you tell the difference between a Fascist and a National Post Columnist?

with 198 comments

hitler-vs-the-national-post

Come on, now!  I don’t think the good people on Canada’s National Post opinions editorial board are as bad as Nazis.  They do not advocate the extermination of any identifiable human group.  They only want to see those who are wrong (according to them) sternly reprimanded, denied federal funding and stripped of their passports and right of habeas corpus.

I do, however, believe that National Post writers and columnists share with fascists a very inflated sense of their own culture’s achievements and a self-righteous conviction that their own opinions and values are eternal human truths.  They also have a very unhealthy fixation on a few bogeymen on which they can conveniently blame for everything they don’t like about the world.

You disagree?  Well let’s see if you can tell the difference between National Post columnists and history’s great fascists!

Click here or on the pic to take the Quiz!

Written by angryfrenchguy

March 3, 2009 at 2:59 pm

198 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Oui Fon! Tu as fait ici une analyse époustouflante qui a bien précisée la conception centrale de l’affaire!

    In other words, I wish that I had been able to put it so succinctly as you have! You’ve gone right to the nub!

    Respect!

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 12:17 pm

  2. Thanks for referencing this point, littlerob, as it passed totally over my head.

    Your last line raises concern, though, for your state of health. Are you in OK condition? Hopefully.

    I’ve kind of forgotten also what I probably should already know about your Québec/Canada connections or maternal tongue, but I do recall now that you mentioned before about living in Pennsylvannia.

    Bonne dimanche à toi et à tout le monde.

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  3. @johnnyonline

    > referring to the natpost as irrelevant is your bravado working overtime – now elizabeth may is another story – when you look up “irrelevant” in the dictionary, there’s a picture of her. <

    Well I know, my man, that the NP is not irrelevant to you personally, and while it may seem to be MSM to those of you who adhere to Canada’s most conservative minority faction, it is nonetheless of rather marginal importance in this land where the great numbers read the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.

    Because we are, as Canadian/Canadien citizens, in the final analysis, a centre and slightly left tending small “l” liberal type of people, in the majority numbers sense, whether we speak French or whether we speak English.

    By the way, Johnny, if you spell Eugène Tache with capitals, may I remind you that one also spells ‘elizabeth may’ as ‘Elizabeth May’, irregardless of where one “may” find their picture in the dictionary!

    Have a good one Dude!

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  4. À propos de cette affiche-ci,

    I believe you may recall that well renowned press baron, Baron Konrad von Black …oops! désolé! je veux dire Conrad Black, lui, le même qui languit maintenant dans une prison de la Floride pour fraude, vol et des autres crimes, who started his press career à Québec with the Sherbrooke Record. Cet homme qui a dit qu’un journal national conservateur ne peut guère exister au Canada, and for that reason he would have to subsidise the National Post when he started it up … how’s that for right wing welfare!

    But before he went to prison, the now beknighted Conrad Lord Black of CrossHarbour, he had to sell his beloved National Post to the Asper family of Winnipeg because it was hemorrhaging too much cash that he needed for his mansions and for Barbara Amiel’s obscene dress budget, (to quote Barbara herself.)

    Funny how English is ambiguous that way where French would not be. Were her dresses then obscene, or was it was rather the budget (or could it have been both)?

    Perhaps we’ll really never know for sure, but anglos de souche will immediately conclude that by context it means it was the budget, … duh!

    Ahh! La génie de la langue anglaise!

    On the other hand …. elle se mogue de temps à autre. Oui … la langue et Barbara aussi! Elles se moquent!

    De toute façon, revenons-nous à nos moutons, … il semble pour ait été nommé un noble anglais Conrad avait dû rélinquir sa citoyenété canadienne, ce qu’il veut maintenant regagner!

    Mais le gouvernement canadien n’ôse pas faire ça même s’il est minoritairement conservateur avec Harper, parce que Conrad n’a pas retenu aucune popularité au Canada!

    Ainsi, Lord Black is serving time in Florida for having been that crooked little thug with an inflated pompous vocabulary that he is, was, and always will be.

    Oh Jean Chrétien, merci trente-six fois pour votre pérspicacité dans cette affaire-là!

    But in any case, it is the rich pretty conservative Aspers of Winnipeg, qui ne respectent vraiment pas la libérté de la presse, when push comes to shove, who must now hemorrhage their own cash to subsidise le NP.

    Étonnant, n’est pas?

    Mais les Aspers sont dans de beaux draps fiscals aujourd’hui, je pense, malheureusement pour les adeptes du NP comme toi …

    Toutes mes condolences, Johnny! Mais tu pourrais bien profiter de ton exemplaire pristine de la première édition du NP, valeur exceptionelle de $400.00!

    Félicitations, donc! Tu vas gagner encore une fois!

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 2:00 pm

  5. “I was surprised to see it because Vinster didn’t strike me as particularly attached to Quebec”

    You see, this is the reason why I get so pissed off when I talk to some Sovereignist : it seems like whatever you’ll tell them, they’ll find a way to try to make you feel less Quebecker than they are. There’s a good reason why I don’t strike you as particularly attached to Quebec, and you quoted it perfectly : Sovereignist like to think that they’re the only ones allowed to have some nationalist pride. It seems like being openly “federalist” or “anti-Sovereignist” equates to “doesn’t give a shit about Quebec and gets a hard on thinking about the Rocky mountains” for a lot of people in Quebec. I was born here. I’ve spent my entire life here. My ancesters have lived here ever since the French army first got here. I love this place just as much as any Sovereignist, and whenever I read comments in other places telling me that I’m “un traître à plat ventriste” (yes, it did happen to me on multiple occasions) it makes me feel like punching someone in the face.

    Vinster171

    March 8, 2009 at 4:11 pm

  6. M. Bruce: Ma langue maternelle, c’est l’anglais. J’ai passé presque toute ma vie ici en Pennsylvanie. Ma famille et moi, on a eu des liens avec la francophonie a partir des annees 50 grace a notre connaissance de la famille du feu Harry Batshaw, ancien juge de la Cour Superieure du Québec. Voir svp mon commentaire sur le billet “Québec Needs More Jews.” d’AngryFrenchGuy pour plus d’infos.

    I am in reasonably good health for someone my age.

    For those of you who take an interest in the Mumia Abu Jamal case, google the name “Steve Lopez” along with “Mumia Abu Jamal;” Mr. Lopez, who I believe opposes the death penalty, has repeatedly expressed his opinion that opponents of capital punishment in this country are harming their cause very badly by choosing Mr. Abu Jamal as their “poster child,” because Mr. Abu Jamal has spent the last 28 years trying to get away with a murder he committed. The irony is that if he had pleaded guilty at the time, he might be out of prison by now. From all accounts, he has been a model prisoner, and he had no criminal record before he shot Patrolman Faulkner to death.

    littlerob

    March 8, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  7. Bravo, Vinster!

    Tu dis une verité admirable!

    Tu es un homme brave, fier et confiant en lui-même sans ces insécurités, ces crises d’identité dont tant de gens ici plainent, qu’ils ne peuvent pas garder la langue et la culture etc.

    Mais ils peuvent, absoluement — sans aucune question à mon avis.

    Tu es un héros autant qu’aucun indépendantiste qui veut arrôser son autofixation. Chus fier de toi!

    Tu n’as pas rien de cette obsession compulsive duquelle beaucoup de gens souverainistes parle souvent d’être membres d’un “petit peuple” — cette fixation-là si décourageant à voir dans beaucoup de blogues.

    Parce que toi, Vinster, tu appartiens à un grand peuple, un peuple francophone et fier avec un beau et un grand patrimoine.

    J’aime beaucoup ton patrimoine, ta culture et ta patrie
    autant que les miennes, de la colombie britannique.

    Nous sommes des amis, des frères, des concitoyens heureux et chanceux.

    J’ai l’honneur de te connais.

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  8. Bruce,

    such an attack. Maybe you should take your silly, paternalistic advice to Rosbif and apply it to yourself. Namely, you should make social engagements for the weekend and try to forget politics for a time.

    I don’t like Conrad Black for his attitude towards Quebecers but I am detached enough to see that compared to other financial crooks such as Bernard Maldoff, Black’s crimes were mild.

    Antonio

    March 8, 2009 at 4:53 pm

  9. I noticed that none of the federalists on this blog still haven’t responded to Marc’s question: What do they want like Quebec to be?

    Come on, say something.

    Antonio

    March 8, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  10. i want canada to live happily ever after:

    quebec to have smaller decentralised government;

    union officials not invited to government ministerial policy meetings;

    privatisation of hydro quebec;

    advancement in the civil service based on merit;

    teacher/firemen/policemen/public sector pension funds fiscally responsible so that taxpayers are not forced to bail them out of their managers’ poor decisions;

    build roads and infrastructure designed for a northern climate:

    defunding and shutdown of state-owned radio and television;

    welfare reform;

    incentives / less red tape for the startup of small business;

    lower taxes – preferably a low flat tax;

    an end to wasteful alternative energy schemes like wind turbines and bio-diesel programmes;

    a court system that supports victims and not criminals;

    an end to the aboriginal reserve system and its debilitating effects;

    antonio – i speak for myself and nobody else. but my list would start there.

    johnnyonline

    March 8, 2009 at 6:03 pm

  11. Try not to use a double negative in English, Antonio, because it means, in effect that they have all responded to Marc’s question.

    Anyhow — what would I like Quebec to be, (au sein du Canada bien sûr)?

    I would like Québec society to be very vibrant, confident and successful in every domaine going forward, creative both artistically, economically and scientifically, possessing a high level of scholarisation, a high level of productivity, a high level of engagement both with the rest of Canada and with the planete, an excellent standard of living and an even more excellent quality of life, a high level of environmental acheivement and leadership, a high level of expertise in both languages, including a 100% level of competence in Québecs only official language, which is French, a much more joyful integration of and economic opportunities for, those newcomers the Québecers seem to be counting on to boost the demographics of the future, more personal confidence and security and inner peace about one’s identity and one’s great promise within a great Canadian 21st century, less indebtedness,less recrimminations, less doubt, less paranoia and fixation with humiliation and past sufferings, more determination to be like Fon, and Henri and Vinster optimistic, open to the world, even to us anglophones perhaps. Determination to help the Haitiens, and to help their tortured homeland as well. That would good. They speak French. What would I not like for Québec that is not good? What would I not like for all of Canada?

    A society that is in its great majority at least, tolerant, liberal, just, peaceful, industrious, harmonious, sufficiently thrifty and self-sufficient, and imbued with optimism and commitment to a better future here at home and for the planet, a citizenry that is increasingly engaged in an increasingly democratic system, for example, proportional representation rather than first past the post, and a general realisation as well that the country and the government CANNOT do everything for us, we must accept responsibility along with protections, rights and priviledges.

    Getting back to Québec specifically, yeah I’d like to see more tourism for you guys, and more economic diversification, which while not bad, could still be further improved. An example is Route 175 going into Chicoutimi region which will make it easy to go there from Québec city. Because people there need tourism and other industries due to the decline in forestry.

    I’d like to see a lot more student home stay exchanges with other parts of Canada going into your totally francophone regions for at least six months to give young anglos a chance to power ahead in oral French, likewise for the francophone students of Québec.

    But all has to be acheived within some framework of fiscal realism and responsibility. Canada is not Utopia, nor will Québec get that magic distinction whether in or out.

    You know Québec already has a wonderful ethos, a great cultural and linguistic heritage, and everything that basically is needed to build success upon success, and the majority of Québécois, looking around the world, already realise that. Only a minority there are bemoaning all the time that they are suffering from being a “petit peuple” au lieu d’un beau et grand peuple.

    There is no good reason for people to be autofixated on identity, self-esteem, minoritisation, and comparing who is dissing who the most in an endless circus of recrimmination and counter recrimmination.

    This is not a healthy psychological preoccupation, and doesn’t build strength for the future, but is like a self fulfilling prophecy that is similar to an excuse that ‘ if only… those 30+ percent of us had this so far imaginary country, we could overcome everything that is a problem in our society…. and the chattering intellectual class could be big VIPs on their own state delegations here and there autour du monde.

    Well you never voted for that to happen so far, and who knows, but it seems like a lot of people are suffering this bitterness about not “having our own country” when in fact you pretty do have your own country in practically every way that really counts. Because Canada is a diverse and tolerant place, and blessed for all of that. And the reality is that, while many people complain that Québec seems to cost us a lot, Canadiens nonetheless feel that Québec is very much a part of our own roots, whether or not we can speak a word of French or no. As Johnny quoted from the poem about the lys and the rose, we’re all better because of our binational history, a country intertwined, with an epic astounding past, and a future, that in the world context, could hardly be more blessed with great promise of a truly civilised and innovative society.

    And yeah you have to realise you can’t force Islamic newcomers to abandon their own cultural ideas, or not wear the hajib or the naquib etc. These integrations come to whatever in the following generations, if the individuals are comfortable with that. And they are in time for the most part. But you can’t allow honor killings or stuff like that either. Obviously.

    So what do I want for Québec — a French speaking society of course, a continued flowering of the arts, of litterature, of tolerance and civilisation, parallel to the same in anglophone Canada.

    Reasonable people in other parts of this country do not in any way wish or expect francophones to assimilate themselves into English, and the diversity in our country of having these two great languages, those of Molière and of Shakespeare is a shining glory of Canada.

    Try to wrap your imagination around the concept that when Québec succeeds, all of Canada succeeds as well.

    Canada is much an idea, a vision, a leap of faith as it is a chunk of geography. The geography of Québec is not what is in the Canadian imagination — it is the paintings of Krieghoff, Gagnon, Kane, the story of Champlain and the couriers de bois, les voyageurs, the toponymie of much of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, folksongs we learned at school, the French we attempted to learn, the history of France that we learned, the pride we feel in our communities that we do have friends with Québec names and roots, and relatives, the joy of skiing in the Laurentians, going to Carnaval or watching les baleines dans le golfe Saint Laurent.

    Québec is Canada’s earliest story, and that is very seminal in the soul.

    You know Marco Micone is someone from your own heritage who wrote “speak what?” comme une pastiche or questioning hommage to “speak white”. And he speaks of the sacrifices that immigrants make in coming to belong in Quebec society. But it’s important to realise that the anglos, there for 200 years are, for most of them trying to adapt and make accomodement raisonable.

    dave and johnny are fine en français et ABP habite pour la plupart en Saskatchewan; sa dame est la membre de sa famille qui parle mieux le français, Pis ABP ne menace pas la scène linguistique à Montréal. C’est seulement le jerk au grand “O” qui ne peut pas acheter un hot dog en français. C’est pas grand chose dans le cadre des problèmes dans la francophonie.

    So I also think that Québec can assist in the Francophonie — médecins sans frontières, par exemple.

    Les pays francophone de l’Afrique ont beaucoup de besoin de notre aide canadien, dans leur langue maternelle, soit Bénin, soit Chad, soit Côte d’Ivoire, ou des autres pays pauvres.

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  12. Hey Johnny!

    For what you want, you need to get yourself a subsription to the NPost!

    But me, I do want those wind turbines! Forget the biodiesel however.

    Don’t bother touching CBC or radio-canada either.

    Another thought: Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation!

    But yeah, they should be well thought out well allocated and deliver just value for the money spent.

    Johnny you’re a libertarian, not a fascist, but you are none the less a tad reactionary!

    Hydro Québec should not be privatised.

    Some of your points are very valid: advancement based on merit, for example.

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm

  13. bruce,

    you tell me who did the stealing on a board approved, payment to the executive (black et al).

    “The usurper management at Hollinger had told shareholders they were demanding one-and-a-quarter billion dollars back from Black’s “corporate kleptocracy.” When the court threw out the racketeering claim, that came down to half-a-billion. By the time the criminal charges were filed, the Justice Department was alleging a heist of a mere $84 million. By the opening day of the trial, the government had reduced it to $60 million. And on Dec. 10, Conrad Black was sentenced for stealing $6.1 million — or about half-a-per-cent of what Hollinger’s “special committee” was claiming at the height of its anti-Black hysteria. Hold that thought: a $6.1-million “theft” on asset sales of over three billion. If you were a realtor or car salesman, that “crime” would be called a one per cent sales commission. Instead, Black’s ill-gotten booty represents about 10 per cent of what he’s spent on lawyers. And God knows what percentage of what the U.S. government has spent hounding him. Or about two per cent of what his successors at Hollinger have spent investigating him.”

    company stock fell from $18 to 94¢ during the prosecution – if you held stock – you took a bath. this was clearly a case of the jury “eating the rich” – as your reference to his wife’s fashion sense so adroitly indicates.

    and oj simpson was not guilty!

    as for the numbers on readership – who cares if 500,000 in and around toronto read the red star or the mop&pail – they’re the same people who elected dalton mcguinty – a true champion of socialism and the nanny state.

    johnnyonline

    March 8, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  14. A crime is crime, Antonio, and dishonesty is dishonesty.

    Black’s crimes were not “mild”, and he is doing the “time”, as hopefuly Madoff will also.

    Thanks for your generosity of spirit, quand-même!

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  15. why would i want a subscription? newspapers are dinosaurs waiting for the asteroid.

    wind turbines are giant blenders that eat birds by the thousands. didn’t you read the reports?

    well then let’s put the cbc/src on pay per view and you can subscribe if you want.

    i didn’t say eliminate taxes – i would like to see them reduced.

    hydro quebec could use some management that calculates the cost of electricity and consumers pay for it.

    johnnyonline

    March 8, 2009 at 7:03 pm

  16. It’s not so much the fact that you’re a federalist that made me wonder how strong your attachment to Quebec was. I mean, Acajack is also a federalist — he gets called a separatist but whether or not you agree with what he says here, I’m sure you’ll agree with me that he’s as much of a separatist as you’re a traitor — and I wouldn’t question his attachment to Quebec, and even I, while I wouldn’t call myself a federalist and definitely think of myself as a Quebecer before thinking of myself as a Canadian, think the best solution would involve Quebec remaining part of (a different) Canada.

    No, what put me off track, so to speak, is the fact that you seem to like to criticize Quebecers (and especially sovereigntists) but have very little negative to say about anglophone Canadians. For example, in this thread the subject is Quebec bashing, and you seem to think it’s not really a problem — rather a separatist invention — but somehow Quebec comedians making jokes about anglophones is. It’s as if you think francophone Quebecers aren’t really good for much, and should instead learn to become more like anglophones in order to be worth something. I see this idea that our culture isn’t very valid, or that the language we speak is only a patois of “real French”, or that we should be “more ashamed” of ourselves quite often (including of course on this blog), and… well, it makes me feel like punching someone in the face.

    Also, you don’t seem to consider sovereigntism to be a political opinion worthy of respect. This appears to make bruce love you a lot, since he doesn’t really respect it either and doesn’t want to consider that sovereigntists have valid points. But as someone who lives in Quebec, I’m sure you see that people of all political persuasions have valid reasons to think the way they do. The Liberal Party isn’t the only party with intelligent people in it, you know.

    Marc

    March 8, 2009 at 7:11 pm

  17. Que de ridicule!

    Black got exactly what he deserved!

    Johnny, you’re so full of bull!

    As for McGuinty, a decent man, he is a whole truckload better than the antediluvian Harris barbarians we had in here before. Ontario is by no stretch of the imagination a nanny state or a socialist workers paradise or whatever you’re trying to imply here.

    For effective socialism you need to check out Saskatchewan and Manitoba, provinces with a long tradition of compassionate and fiscally prudent leftism, and of course various successful European and Scandinavian places. Enlightened and intelligent policy always trumps ideology.

    You’re on the wrong side of civilisation baby, but at least you’re not a total “piece of work” such as we sometimes have the priviledge of seeing here, although the tone on the blogue has over-all improved, don’t you find?

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 7:14 pm

  18. Cool Dude!

    I forgot that after your $400.00 first day copy you went on line for free! Dumb like a fox eh?

    Actually, blenderised birds in turbines are relatively uncommon, birds being a lot more adroit than you might imagine.

    cbc/src — oh what the hell let’s just tune into Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and let the planet go to hell.
    Stop worrying and let Karl Rove triumph over stupid little annoying things like telling the truth.

    I don’t know maybe AFG could compare the New American Century aspirations of Wolfowitz, Frum, Rumsfield and those good ol’ boys with the machiavellian machinations of the bumptious bungling craven conspiring evil endgaming progagandistic imperialistic hell-bent-on franco oppression quasi authoritarian need to humiliate driven féderale!

    Who, out of all context said what? NEXT time passing score 85% Stay sharp everybody!

    Québec Hydro — sure better management is always good. Auditors and internal and external reviews can identify unnecessary waste, and pinpoint potential savings. No argument there.

    Do consumers pay too little? How much more would they pay if Johnny owned the utility?

    Of course Hugo Chavez doesn’t charge Venezuelans that much for gas and oil, does he? Probably HydroQuébec is better priced to market than this guy — did you mean to imply, btw, that he and McGuinty are fellow travellers.

    Just wondering where your head is tonight Johnny!

    Best!

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 7:34 pm

  19. Bruce—this comment is the best evidence I have seen yet on this blog of my surmise that it is Québec that makes Canada what it is/gives Canada its national identity vis a vis the US.

    I don’t think that there are many places in the ROC without people with Québec/Franco roots. I mean, for gosh sakes, my college roommate Garth from West Phocolle, Alberta, had Franco neighbors.

    Did you mean to write “toponymie?” The word is “toponymy” in English. Or you can just say “place names.” :-)

    littlerob

    March 8, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  20. Yah, I meant it in the French version!

    Je comprends ce que tu dit, mais, j’ai voulu à voir si Antonio comprend le mot en français, et comme tu sais je mélange d’habitude ici les deux langues. C’est un jeux écumenique qui est peut-être un peu bizarre!

    Le français préfère la terminologie savante, but I agree with you that ‘place names’ is a lot less snooty than toponymy. But my French prof likes to throw those erudite words at us. And he’s no snob, he’s a great guy!

    I agree with you that culturally Québec helps to make Canada an even more wonderful society, but I believe true that Canada, in turn, makes Québec also a more wonderful society.

    This is a perception however that the Antonio’s of the world would never be able to truly fathom. It’s not a fashionable view amongst sovereignists. That’s their point of view, but to me that’s a smaller vision, won’t build a better world.

    Thanks for telling me more about you in your other post, littlerob.

    Je ne suis pas anti-américain, mais je suis d’accord avec Noam Chomsky sur la question de la fabrication du consentement par les médias privément contrôlés, qui achève souvent le vol de la vraie démocratie.

    Bonne semaine à toi!

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  21. “It’s as if you think francophone Quebecers aren’t really good for much, and should instead learn to become more like anglophones in order to be worth something. I see this idea that our culture isn’t very valid, or that the language we speak is only a patois of “real French”, or that we should be “more ashamed” of ourselves quite often (including of course on this blog), and… well, it makes me feel like punching someone in the face.”

    So… you basically assumed a whole bunch of things without much to back it up. Pardon me, but where have I ever said that we should be like anglos? Where have I ever said that our language is not real French? Where have I ever hinted that Quebeckers aren’t good for much? That our culture isn’t valid? (while on the other hand, it is frequent and somewhat well accepted in Quebec to say that anglos don’t have a real culture… how ironic!) That we should be ashamed? Answer : I HAVE NEVER WRITTEN SUCH WORDS NOR THOUGHT SUCH INSANITIES.

    And with this whole paragraph of yours, you’ve just proven Bruce right : people in Québec are so insecure that they tend to often feel ostracised. Damn it, why is that so? You say I have little negative to say about anglos… anglos of the ROC are not perfect, but I just can’t stand it when people here critizice anglos for this, anglos for that… while doing the exact same thing on their side. My first working hypothesis is this : there are idiots in the ROC, just like there are idiots in Quebec, but overall, most of Canadians, including Quebeckers, are bright and reasonable people. Your first working hypothesis SEEMS to be this : anglos are meaner torwards Quebeckers then Quebeckers are to anglos, and this attitude is more generalized in the ROC than in Quebec. See how biased it is? Paranoid much?

    I, for one, am not scared. I refuse to feel insecure. I love my culture, and I know it will survive, as it has for the past 400 years. It will survive because you, as a father, will teach your kids how important and beautiful this culture is, and I will do the same on my side. There’s only so much the state can do for you, there’s only so much responsabilities we can dump on the state as parents, and bitchin’ and whining will get you nothing.

    Is sovereigntism worthy of respect? Well, I’ll say this : when this political current uses economical arguments, promotes Quebec’s Sovereignty by showing how inventive and strong we can be as a people, I clap my hand whole-heartedly. But when the only arguments sovereignist leaders can use to give some speed to their option is based on old historic grudges, that’s where I stop listening. Through the whole argumentation, however, I can’t help but think this : Canada is the union of two (and more) strong people. We could probably do a whole lot on our own, but we can do so much more as a team. Problem is, we’ve never had a good enough captain…

    Vinster171

    March 8, 2009 at 8:17 pm

  22. Je me demande pourquoi quelconque personne aurait le besoin de donner un coup de poing à un autre …
    Ça ne resoudrait rien jamais!

    Les souverainistes tous ont le droit de voter dans les scrutins réferendaires… je suis tout à fait d’accord avec ça et de discuter leur pointe de vue dans des discussions, des blogues et de toute manière civilisée etc.

    Mais les féderalists comme Vinster aussi ont le droit d’exprimer leur point de vue, sans étant fait l’objet de ridicule et de rire peu respectueux. Je crois que cela est la plainte qu’il a constaté ici. Il s’attend un dialogue civil au lieu des atteintes “ad hominem” dont Antonio a fait réference.

    Bruce

    March 8, 2009 at 8:31 pm

  23. > Bruce—this comment is the best evidence I have seen yet on this blog
    > of my surmise that it is Québec that makes Canada what it is/gives
    > Canada its national identity vis a vis the US.

    But it’s not. (English) Canada has a very strong sense of its own difference from the US. Yes, when they think about it, Canadians do realize that they’re not all that different from Americans, and yes, some anglophone (and even some francophone) Canadians are afraid that the US’s cultural hegemony will destroy what makes the country special, but for the time being they’re quite aware that they’re Canadians, not Americans, and will take the time to tell you what it means. (Yes, that’s true of both anglophones and francophones.)

    Anglophone Canadians may go with the “and some of us speak French” as another argument for why they’re not Americans, but the furthest they are from Quebec, the more of a second thought it is.

    Marc

    March 8, 2009 at 9:16 pm

  24. i think most who drop by realise that there is not a lot of trolling for “conversions” – that despite whacky opinions and personal passions – most agree to disagree and will let the election polls sort out the direction du jour.

    as far as civilisation goes bruce, and i expect we never will see the day, i think you’ll find that when people are hungry – society is exposed as a collectivity with a very thin veneer. don’t expect “travellers” like dalton mcguinty or gilles duceppe to protect you.

    johnnyonline

    March 8, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  25. “As others have pointed out in this blog, any anti-anglo comments in French tends to be tame and tends to target anglo policies rather than personal attacks on anglos. In other words, ad hominem attacks (which are the serious attacks in my opinion) against anglos is much less frequent than those that anglos bring to Francophones.”

    So… in other words : we might be mean some times, but they are much much worse than us. In other news, the sky will turn green with pinkish spots tomorrow, hell will freeze over and airports will start taking “Anti-Flying-Pigs” measures by the end of the month…

    Anonymous

    March 8, 2009 at 10:02 pm

  26. … and by the way, that last comment was mine…

    Vinster171

    March 8, 2009 at 10:03 pm

  27. johnnyonline, Bruce, and any other federalists on this board.

    You are not really answering the question. The question was constitutional in nature.

    Quebec wants a decentralized federation with autonomous 10 provinces. It wants the role of the federal government to be reduced to providing monetary policy and an economic union between the provinces. Everything else, like health, education, culture et al. should be the EXCLUSIVE property of the provinces. Is that what you want also or do you want a more centralized federal government?

    Quebec also wants recognition for its distinct status as the only French state in North America and additional powers to protect this fact. Call it distinct society or nation or whatever. Is that what you want also or do you want Quebec to be treated as one province of ten with one-tenth of the voice?

    These are what Quebec wants out of the constitutional framework and has CLEARLY told Canada what it wants.

    I am asking you two questions:
    Do you agree with Quebec’s wishes as stated above?
    Does your wishes also reflect the wishes of your fellow Canadians?

    Antonio

    March 8, 2009 at 10:15 pm

  28. johnnyonline, Bruce, and any other federalists on this board.

    You are not really answering the question. The question was constitutional in nature.

    Quebec wants a decentralized federation with autonomous 10 provinces. It wants the role of the federal government to be reduced to providing monetary policy and an economic union between the provinces. Everything else, like health, education, culture et al. should be the EXCLUSIVE property of the provinces. Is that what you want also or do you want a more centralized federal government?

    Quebec also wants recognition for its distinct status as the only French state in North America and additional powers to protect this fact. Call it distinct society or nation or whatever. Is that what you want also or do you want Quebec to be treated as one province of ten with one-tenth of the voice?

    These are what Quebec wants out of the constitutional framework and has CLEARLY told Canada what it wants.

    I am asking you two questions:
    Do you agree with Quebec’s wishes as stated above?
    Does your wishes also reflect the wishes of your fellow Canadians?

    Antonio

    March 8, 2009 at 10:16 pm

  29. Bruce,

    “Je comprends ce que tu dit, mais, j’ai voulu à voir si Antonio comprend le mot en français, et comme tu sais je mélange d’habitude ici les deux langues. C’est un jeux écumenique qui est peut-être un peu bizarre!”

    I understand the word “toponymie” or “toponymy” just fine. So, what is your point?

    A word of advice. It is commendable that you want to speak and practice your French, however, keep it simple by sticking to one language per post. Mixing the two languages in a post is not very elegant and very annoying.

    Antonio

    March 8, 2009 at 10:23 pm

  30. > Answer : I HAVE NEVER WRITTEN SUCH WORDS NOR THOUGHT SUCH
    > INSANITIES.

    Okay, no problem. All I’m saying is, the way you were critizing francophone Quebecers but not anglophone Canadians, I thought you thought Quebec had things to change and things to be sorry for, but the rest of Canada didn’t.

    > My first working hypothesis is this : there are idiots in the ROC, just like
    > there are idiots in Quebec, but overall, most of Canadians, including
    > Quebeckers, are bright and reasonable people.

    But if that’s what you think, then I have no quarrel with you. Unless you think that the 35 % of Quebecers who would vote for Quebec independence today are the “idiots” and the 65 % who wouldn’t are the “bright and reasonable people”. There are bright people and idiots in both groups.

    > Your first working hypothesis SEEMS to be this : anglos are meaner
    > torwards Quebeckers then Quebeckers are to anglos, and this attitude
    > is more generalized in the ROC than in Quebec.

    Well, this hypothesis doesn’t contradict the first one, really. But honestly I do think that Quebec makes anglophone Canadians uneasy in ways that are not reciprocated. Maybe that’s because Quebecers, for the most part, don’t really see the rest of Canada as their turf. On the other hand, Canadians outside of Quebec see Quebec as their turf — it is after all part of Canada — so when Quebecers act in ways that are perceived to be “non-Canadian”, now that’s when the uneasiness sets.

    I’d say a majority of Canadians outside of Quebec, when asked, would say that Quebec brings a lot to the country. (Maybe we can ask Acajack if he’d agree.) But I believe — and I guess I may be wrong — that to them, what Quebec brings to the country is mostly ethnic colour. They think it great to have a part of the country that works in another language and with other customs, the way Torontonians, for example, feel proud when they hear that 50% of their city’s residents are born outside the country and when hear dozens of languages just riding on the subway. (And I’d agree that Torontonians are right to feel proud about this.)

    But the problem is that many Quebecers, sovereigntists as well as federalists, want their province to be more than a giant ethnic neighbourhood. And I believe this is what causes problems in many Canadians’ minds. Hence, for example, the common complaint that Canada is “bilingual” while Quebec is “French-only”. Of course, Quebec is in actuality more bilingual than most of the rest of Canada — and I don’t have a problem with it — but to use a sort of metaphor, while many Canadians would be quite happy to speak French with us as long as it’s clear that they’re doing us a favour, they’re rebuted by the fact that now they “have” to. Yes, I guess we can’t blame them for this, and I guess I can see how it makes some of them feel that Quebecers are being ungrateful for the efforts Canadians are making to include them in the country, but it’s also hard to blame francophone Quebecers for wanting to be more than a minority, even a loved and highly considered one.

    > I, for one, am not scared. I refuse to feel insecure. I love my culture,
    > and I know it will survive, as it has for the past 400 years.

    Again, I don’t want my culture to survive. I want Quebec to thrive as a modern society. Of course French will survive in Quebec whatever we do. Even if we tried to eliminate it, we couldn’t. (It’s been tried before.) But maybe we’d find ourselves with a society split in two groups who don’t know or trust each other much. I don’t want this to happen. As well, maybe you’re right when you say I’m insecure: when I see immigrants learn French and learn about Quebec, I tell myself that maybe we’re not bad after all.

    > Through the whole argumentation, however, I can’t help but think
    > this : Canada is the union of two (and more) strong people.

    And more? I’m not sure who the more is, but that’s my problem with Canadian-type multiculturalism: it reduces francophones in Quebec to the level of Ukrainians in Manitoba or Chinese in Vancouver. Yes, I know that their ethnic background occupies an important place in many Canadians’ identity, and some francophone Quebecers tend to forget this when speaking about “English Canadians”. (I guess it also tends to make Quebecers appear more ethnocentric.) But, without trying to dismiss ethno-Canadians’ identity, Quebecers’ sense of being Quebecers is something different. See my “ethnic neighbourhoood” comment.

    > We could probably do a whole lot on our own, but we can do so much
    > more as a team.

    That depends. What do Canadians really do as a team? Our goals often tend to be opposed to each others’.

    Marc

    March 8, 2009 at 10:31 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: