AngryFrenchGuy

Liberals Talk the Talk. Bloc Walks the Walk.

with 101 comments

Ruby Dhalla

It’s so hard to find good help these days.  They have no respect, run their mouths to the neighbours and think they have all the rights of, you know, real Canadians.

Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla won’t find much sympathy out there.  You can’t be young, scandalously sexy, successful, represent a battleground ridding and not expect the other side to try to portray you as an evil Veronica Lake.

We all know Ms Dhalla was accused a couple of weeks ago of mistreating three live-in domestic workers hired to take care of her mother.  One of them even accused the MP of withholding her passport.  The accused claims it’s some kind of vast right wing conspiracy and that its her brother who was abusing the Filipina workers anyway.

When my uncle was transferred to Singapore by his company, he told me about how the apartments literally came with a live in maid who had her one little room without Air Conditioning only two two rights: to work or to leave.  This is a common way of treating workers in many parts of the world.  There are many countries who recruit their labourers with temporary schemes and single-employer visas.  The Middle East is notorious for these emirates where 70% of the population is made up of temporary workers with partial rights who can be asked to leave the country on at any moment.

Canada has usually recruited its workers the other way: by granting those who agree to come, after some basic bureaucratic formalities, full rights of citizenship.  It’s a little more expensive to do it this way, but it tends to attract better quality personnel.

But there are a few exceptions to this rule.  Temporary agricultural workers, for example.  Or Live-in domestic help.

Live-in nannies and maids, contrary to other landed immigrants, are only allowed to work for one employer.  They are also obligated to live with this employer and do not benefit form all social services, things like CSST (work-accident protection) in Québec, for example.

This is, of course necessary because, well, do you have any idea how expensive it would be to hire three live in workers at a real salary?  You have to be serious, now.

Ms. Dhalla’s Liberal Party has always won the hearts and purses of Canada’s immigrant communities by portraying the Conservatives and, above all, the indépendantistes as evil and anti-immigrant.   Of course, live-in maids and nannies don’t vote, so the Liberal were quick to dismiss them and stand behind Ms. Dhalla.

Besides, anyone who’s ever walked through Westmount, Town of Mount-Royal, Hampstead and other Liberal strongholds in Québec between 9am and 5pm understands that any salary increase given to immigrant care-takers would seriously diminish the amount of disposable income these constituants would have for things like campaign donations.

People in Rosemont and Blainville, on the other hand,  can’t afford that kind of help, even the imported discounted kind.  That’s probably why the Bloc Québécois (with the NDP elsewhere in Canada) has been the only party actively working for the rights of these workers way back before this latest scandal made the issue sexy and politically lucrative and why they’ve  had the abolition of these discriminatory rules in their political platform since 2000.

This of course is surely only a cynical ploy to win over the nanny vote to their treasonneaous seccession projects.

You know, that horrible Republic of Québec that will treat immigrants and minorities like second class citizens that the Liberal Party is trying to protect you from…

Written by angryfrenchguy

May 18, 2009 at 7:08 pm

101 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well, I was speaking generally about the language issues in this province and I think no matter what I post as examples, it’s not going to mean very much.

    I guess what I’d say generally is 1) I don’t think people who support the Bloc/PQ’s position on language issues realize how much resentment they foster and — by extension — 2) I think Quebec would be a much better place if it — in the words of HEC Montreal’s Germain Belzile — “opened itself up to the world.”

    Donder

    May 24, 2009 at 10:07 pm

  2. Do you mean open to ENGLISH world?

    midnightjack

    May 24, 2009 at 10:35 pm

  3. How many cities in Canada have so much people bilingual, or trilingual? Should we ask to Ottawa, Saskatoon, Calgary, Woodstock, Halifax, Victoria, to be more open?

    midnightjack

    May 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm

  4. Something like 40% of francophones in Quebec are bilingual in English and French, a figure which rises to 50 or 60% in Montreal, the province’s main business centre. And something like 5% of Quebec francophones can speak French, English and Spanish, which isn’t that far off from the 7% of anglos in the ROC that claim to be bilingual in English and French.

    Nowhere in North America is there a place where multilingualism is so present. Indeed, relatively few places in the world have more multilingual populations than here.

    So I am once again dismayed that Quebec is getting ragged on again over language.

    Now, openness to the world is not just about speaking many languages, but once again, I’d like to know if there are places in North America where the % of people who read novels translated from Portuguese, Swedish and German, watch Italian and Danish movies, take dance classes for Zouk and Baladi, etc., is higher than in Quebec…

    Acajack

    May 25, 2009 at 8:09 am

  5. Look, I’m not trying to be insulting, I merely stated that, unfortunately for me — and I suppose that’s my choice — no matter how “right” the Bloc and PQ are on some issues, I feel that their attitude on some issues (and, yes, the issue of English-speakers in this province is a hugely glaring example of this) is somewhat myopic in my view.

    While I’m grateful to this blog (and to AFG and his hard work) for taking the time to explain differing perspectives to me, I have noticed several things both on this blog and, generally, in Quebec:

    1) Anytime anyone expresses a view that Quebec might not be as enlightened or progressive or fair as it thinks it is, it’s labelled “Quebec-bashing.”

    2) Anytime anyone suggests that language policy here has not been an outright success, he or she is reminded that it is an expression of “democracy” (silly me for believing Tocqueville when he says that protecting minority rights is essential to the definition of democracy.)

    3) Related to the above, if someone suggests that the language policy in Quebec might not be exactly right, the immediate response is “well then you must want to see French disappear from North America!” as if this were a zero-sum game.

    4) This is not the happy place that many seem to think it is. I like to think of myself as a fairly impartial observer — coming from abroad, I don’t feel necessarily that I have any vested interest in this debate. In fact, when I first came here I even thought that an independent Quebec might actually correct an historic wrong. However, what I have since noticed is a lot of resentment on the part of non-francophones in this province. Some ignore Quebec’s politics, some make jokes and yes, some, well, many move. However — and I hope this isn’t a surprise to anyone — what will hold Quebec back from coming into its own is a feeling of belonging to this society and there is a substantial minority in this province who don’t feel this.

    For the record, I would say that I could even see myself supporting Quebec being an independent country. However, not as it’s generally proposed and not as led by the PQ and the Bloc.

    If I find a link to Belzile’s essay, I’ll post it, I thought it was very eloquent when I read it.

    Peace.

    Donder

    May 25, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  6. Still, midnightjack and Acajack’s comments are valid: when you say Quebec should “open[] itself up to the world”, what is it that you mean? Francophone Quebecers tend to speak two or even more languages (sure they could be more bilingual or trilingual, but they’re already doing relatively well) and they are relatively open to foreign cultures, possibly more than the average North American, as Acajack points out (if there’s a way to quantify this). Sure not everything is perfect, but what should we do?

    When people say that francophone Quebecers should be more open-minded, usually what they mean is that they should accept the nature of “Canadianity” as defined in the rest of Canada, and be more like them. But as we’ve pointed out, while the rest of Canada is also quite open to the world, it’s not perfect either. Many anglophone Canadians like to pat themselves on the back over how open they are, while “deploring” the fact that we, in Quebec, are supposedly close-minded and ethnocentric. And I’m very sorry, but (even recognizing that not everything is perfect here) this is a falsehood.

    So of course criticism of Quebec’s level of enlightenment is often called Quebec-bashing and considered to be supportive of assimilation: most of the time it is just that; it is “why can’t you people be more like us?” And I’ll say that Canada’s cultural model also isn’t perfect (you may have seen my discussions with Edward about Canada’s “show-and-tell multiculturalism”), and probably isn’t the right model for Quebec without some changes, for the simple reason that Quebec’s main cultural/linguistic group isn’t as attractive of immigrants than Canada’s main cultural/linguistic group. Not because it’s culturally inferior, but because it speaks a language that’s not presently the main international language.

    So that’s why when you say that we should be more open to the world, you should specify what you mean. Do you mean become more like Torontonians, or do you not totally condemn our cultural model but rather suggest we improve it? If it’s the first, I disagree, but if it’s the second, of course I agree.

    Marc

    May 25, 2009 at 5:04 pm

  7. Donder:

    “1) Anytime anyone expresses a view that Quebec might not be as enlightened or progressive or fair as it thinks it is, it’s labelled “Quebec-bashing.””

    But is this not true of any group of people in the world? That people will react if they feel they are being criticized unfairly?

    “4) This is not the happy place that many seem to think it is. I like to think of myself as a fairly impartial observer — coming from abroad, I don’t feel necessarily that I have any vested interest in this debate. In fact, when I first came here I even thought that an independent Quebec might actually correct an historic wrong. However, what I have since noticed is a lot of resentment on the part of non-francophones in this province. Some ignore Quebec’s politics, some make jokes and yes, some, well, many move. However — and I hope this isn’t a surprise to anyone — what will hold Quebec back from coming into its own is a feeling of belonging to this society and there is a substantial minority in this province who don’t feel this.”

    Once again, this is true of most societies in the world, including the entity known as Canada. Consider that when you count many aboriginal Canadians, a certain portion of our immigrant population, and perhaps half (or more) of the francophone population of Quebec, you’ve got between 15 and 20% of Canada’s population that refuses to “go with the flow”. That’s actually higher than the entire non-francophone population of Quebec, of which we know there is a good proportion that does have a sense of belonging to the province and its unique identity. Does this mean that the Canadian identity is illegitimate because many people in the territory known as Canada reject it? Is 100% buy-in required?

    My point here is really to suggest that Quebec is a society like any other, with its strengths, weaknesses, hang-ups and even ugly sides. But many of Quebec’s detractors seem to want to portray it as somehow “abnormal”. It isn’t. I’ve been pretty much all over the world and can tell you that Quebec is a typical western society.

    Now, in spite of this, I don’t know if you truly realize just how much scrutiny Quebec can be subjected to in the English-speaking provinces of Canada. It comes in waves, but sometimes it’s just totally over the top and nuts.

    “For the record, I would say that I could even see myself supporting Quebec being an independent country.”

    With all due respect, I don’t believe for a second that you would (and neither would I in fact). You’re probably just saying that in order to make people here take your opinions more seriously.

    I can’t speak for them but I suspect that sovereignists probably know what I know: that people like you are as likely to vote Oui in a Quebec independence referendum as the Toronto Maple Leafs are of winning the Stanley Cup.

    Acajack

    May 25, 2009 at 9:48 pm

  8. Оригинальная идея. Интересно сколько времени он на это потратил

    Avertedd

    May 26, 2009 at 12:44 am

  9. “you’ve got between 15 and 20% of Canada’s population that refuses to “go with the flow”

    sort of the same % of the U.S. population that beleives Elvis is still alive

    “Now, in spite of this, I don’t know if you truly realize just how much scrutiny Quebec can be subjected to in the English-speaking provinces of Canada. It comes in waves, but sometimes it’s just totally over the top and nuts.”

    You mean like an English version of N. Lester’s “le livre noir du Canada anglais” ?

    Dave

    May 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm

  10. “you’ve got between 15 and 20% of Canada’s population that refuses to “go with the flow”

    sort of the same % of the U.S. population that beleives Elvis is still alive”

    So not identifying with the Canadian identity for political and personal reasons is on par with hallucinating about an American pop singer who died long ago?

    “Now, in spite of this, I don’t know if you truly realize just how much scrutiny Quebec can be subjected to in the English-speaking provinces of Canada. It comes in waves, but sometimes it’s just totally over the top and nuts.”

    You mean like an English version of N. Lester’s “le livre noir du Canada anglais” ?“

    We’ve been over this issue many times here, and even with Lester’s books (he wrote three, and they were written in *response* to Quebec-bashing) it still only modified things very slightly.

    Quebec-bashing in the ROC still outpaces ROC-bashing by a wide margin, in spite of the fact that Lester may have changed the ratio from perhaps 100 to zero to 100 to 3, or something like that.

    Anonymous

    May 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  11. I just got back from Dallas. How y’all doing?

    It was funny to see all these Spanish-only shop signs. And no laws to “protect” the language of the majority at every possible level.

    I think it’s now time for one of you non-clownophones to cite some examples of school-board rulings in California and equate them with Bill 101. Allez-y.

    And go Barca.

    allophone

    May 27, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  12. Oops. Last post by Acajack.

    Acajack

    May 27, 2009 at 3:43 pm

  13. Nice comparison: French in the Canadian province of Quebec on the continent of North America VS English in the United States of America.

    BTW, good on FC Barcelona. But you never answered my query in another thread about if you were from Spain (perhaps Catalonia)?

    Acajack

    May 27, 2009 at 3:45 pm

  14. I don’t know…..why not talking about anti-gay laws in Texas or KKK presence.

    kriss

    May 27, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  15. actually, there was an English language version of Normand Lester’s « The Black Book of English Canada. » It was just one volume, as opposed to the three published in French, and it is long since out of print, which is an interesting indication of how much English Canada enjoys looking at itself in the mirror. By contrast, Mordecai Richler’s « O Canada O Québec » , published over a decade *before*, was a great commercial success and is still easy to procure. So we know what English Canadians like reading about their relations with French Canadians : information which reinforces their chauvinism rather than challenging it. Lorsqu’on se regarde, on se désole, mais lorsqu’on se compare on se console….

    When I bought the English volume of Lester’s excellent book as a gift for a friend, I had to use a used/antiquarian dealer.

    And btw 15% is about the pct of English Canadians who believe that the Québécois form a nation, that’s about the inverse of the percentage of Québécois who believe that Canadians and Aboriginal peoples form nations. So I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s as big a pct of English Canadian pure laines who believe Elvis is still alive as believe the Québécois form a people.

    James

    May 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm

  16. In consulting non-clownophone websites on Texas, it’s remarkable to see how much the experience of Tejanos, a conquered and inferiorized people subject to the full force of anglo-imperial assimilation and discrimination, parallels that of French Canadians under Canadian rule. And the many decades it took to affirm the legitimacy of Tejanos’ language. Why, one would almost think one was dealing with franco-Ontarians and Regulation 17, or franco-Québécois pre-Bill 101! And all these liberation movements gestating about the same time. The long arm of coincidence reaches out…

    http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/BB/khb2.html

    BILINGUAL EDUCATION. On June 3, 1973, Governor Dolph Briscoe signed into law the Bilingual Education and Training Act (S.B. 121) enacted by the Sixty-third Texas Legislature. This event marked a historic turning point in the education of Mexican-American students in the state. The bilingual-education aspects of the law were new and unprecedented. The centerpiece was the mandate that all Texas elementary public schools enrolling twenty or more children of limited English ability in a given grade level must provide bilingual instruction. That a language other than English could be used in the instruction was especially significant because it abolished the English-only teaching requirement imposed by state laws dating as far back as 1918. The law dealt a serious blow to the notorious “no Spanish rule” institutionalized by the measures. For decades Texas teachers had used English-only laws to sanction punitive actions against Mexican-American students who violated the no-Spanish requirement. In the early 1970s, the United States Commission on Civil Rights reported that Mexican-American students caught speaking Spanish faced fines (a penny for every Spanish word), had to stand on a “black square,” or were made to write “I must not speak Spanish.” School personnel rationalized these actions as pedagogical measures.

    Tensions between Anglos and Mexican Americansqv had existed in Texas since the earliest settlements. Anglos saw Tejanos as “culturally dissimilar” and unassimilable. Because of their Mexican culture, Tejanos also complacently accepted social inequality. The nationwide xenophobia and nativism at the turn of the century exacerbated the ethnic rift in Texas. The segregated Mexican schools that operated in the 1920s and into the 1960s reflected these tensions. Educators insisted that segregated schools were needed for the benefit of Mexican-American children. But the “language handicap” in Mexican schools was an excuse to isolate the children. Indeed, school authorities often assigned Mexican-American students to segregated schools purely on the basis of surname, although their first language was English. Mexican schools became socializing instruments for cleansing the “Latin” children of their linguistic and cultural baggage before mixing with Anglo peers. A statement of the Texas Department of Education (later renamed the Texas Education Agencyqv) in 1923 illustrated this view. It extended a welcome to Mexican-American parents, but advised that the Mexican language and customs were unacceptable. Mexican children must learn the English language and shed their cultural habits. The “melting pot” dictums were rigidly followed and often forced Mexican-American children to spend two to three years in the first grade to learn English. Furthermore, Mexican schools often had run-down facilities and equipment, shortened school terms, and large classes taught by underpaid, ill-trained teachers. The case United States v. Texas (1981) affirmed “pervasive, intentional discrimination throughout most of this century” against Mexican-American students. Prejudice and deprivation, District Judge William W. Justice stated, blocked equal educational opportunities for these children and produced a “deep sense of inferiority, cultural isolation, and acceptance of failure.” Through their segregated schooling, Mexican Americans had suffered de jure discrimination from the state of Texas and the Texas Education Agency, whose actions were found to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Between 1971 and 1974 the United States Commission on Civil Rights documented the effects of separate and unequal education, the no-Spanish rule, and other culturally exclusionary acts on the education of Mexican Americans. The commission reported that traditional monolingual schools had fostered poor academic performance, demeaning influences, and alienation among Mexican-American students. In a 1967 conference, Sévero Gómez, a TEA official, reported on the consequences of sub-par education. He said that about 89 percent of the children with Spanish surnames, and those with Spanish as their primary language, dropped out of school. More specifically, he said that in one of the five largest Texas cities 15 percent of the children had Spanish surnames but provided 90 percent of the dropouts.

    Before the passage of S. B. 121 in 1973, both educators and private citizens in Texas had supported projects to improve the education of Mexican-American children. In the 1920s escuelitas offered home-based reading and writing instruction in Spanish for preschoolers. These barrio “schools,” found mainly in South Texas, operated as late as 1965. In the late 1920s the League of United Latin American Citizensqv established the “First 100 (English) Words” program for Spanish-speaking preschoolers. In 1958 LULAC, in cooperation with the American G.I. Forum,qv organized the community-based “Little School of the 400.”qv These schools taught basic English vocabulary considered essential for success in the formal school setting. In 1959 the TEA launched “Little Schools of the 400” summer preschool programs. By 1964 these programs had enrolled some 20,000 students in 173 school districts. Programs in English as a second language also promoted English skills among Mexican-American students with limited English proficiency. In 1964 Texas had the highest concentration of Mexican-American students enrolled in elementary and secondary ESL programs in the Southwestern states. The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and other legislation sparked a flurry of compensatory measures for “disadvantaged” students. Head Start, Title I, Migrant Education, and Follow Through programs employed varying approaches and techniques to promote English skills. These programs concentrated on language teaching and learning and affirmed that the “language barrier” was primarily a symptom of incompatibilities between the school and learner. In the 1960s the civil-rights movementqv and the Great Society programs of the Johnson administration caused a major change in the perception of ethnic minorities. Institutionally segregated schooling ended, political mechanisms obstructing minority group voting collapsed, and it became unpopular to be publicly racist. Equal educational opportunities for linguistically and culturally atypical learners became a desirable goal. Bilingual schooling emerged as an alternative approach.

    In 1964 Superintendent Harold Brantley of the Laredo United Consolidated School District launched the first bilingual program in Texas. He built on the experience of the first bilingual program in the nation, initiated in the Coral Way school in Dade County, Florida. At Coral Way federal funds supported bilingual education for Cuban immigrants and inspired similar ventures elsewhere in the nation. Brantley made the initial effort in the first grade of the Nye Elementary School, and expanded the program into the second and third grades. The idea spread to schools in San Antonio, McAllen, Edgewood, San Marcos, Harlandale, Zapata, Del Rio, Edinburg, Bandera, El Paso, La Joya, Mission, Corpus Christi, and Del Valle. The programs fostered the transition of Spanish-speaking children from instruction in their native language to English-only teaching and learning. The program ranged from exclusive instruction in Spanish with gradual integration of ESL, to thirty minutes a day in Spanish with the rest of the instruction in English. District funds financed the initial programs and later were supplemented with federal subsidies available under Title I or Title III of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. By May 1969, Texas had sixteen school districts with bilingual programs serving 10,003 students.

    Before the passage of the Texas Bilingual Education and Training Act in 1973, TEA officials had faced an interesting dilemma when asked to review proposals that violated the English-only law. At first they circumvented the law by reporting these programs as experimental. In 1967, TEA developed an accreditation standard that allowed school districts, on a voluntary basis, to offer non-English-speaking children an instructional program using two languages. In 1969, with support from Representative Carlos Truan and Senator Joe Bernal, the Sixty-first Texas Legislature legalized this permissive standard and permitted bilingual instruction when such instruction was educationally advantageous to pupils. In 1971 Representative Truan presented a bill in the legislature for stronger bilingual programs, but was unable to muster support because the Sharpstown Stock-Fraud Scandalqv dominated the proceedings. In the next legislature Truan, Senator Chet Brooks, and other supporters won the needed support. The passage of the federal Bilingual Education Act in 1968 helped their cause. This law, originally approved as Title VII to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, addressed the problems of those children who were educationally disadvantaged because of their inability to speak English. Title VII provided competitive grants directly to school districts. Districts were obligated to finance their bilingual projects after a period of five years. By the spring of 1973, nineteen Texas school districts with Title VII programs had to seek local or state funding. They looked to the state for help. Title VII funds also had helped support students deficient in English, but this money could not accommodate the 243,185 limited-English-ability children needing instruction. School districts with the highest proportion of Mexican-American students historically have been the poorest funded because of insufficient property taxes. These local districts have been severely hampered in maintaining regular programs.

    Chicanoqv activists were able to persuade the United States Office for Civil Rights to investigate violations against “national-origin minority” children. This helped to fortify the argument for bilingual legislation in Texas. OCR broadened its enforcement policies beyond reviews involving discriminatory acts against African Americans.qv On May 25, 1970, OCR director J. Stanley Pottinger issued a memorandum stipulating that those school districts with more than 5 percent national-origin minority children were obligated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide equal educational opportunity for language-minority students. Specifically, school districts had to take action where “inability to speak and understand the English language” excluded national-origin minority children from participation in the educational programs. The OCR outlined three criteria: 1) school districts could not assign students to classes for the mentally retarded, or exclude them from taking college courses on the basis of tests measuring only English language skills; 2) ability grouping for the purpose of dealing with special language needs was permissible if temporary; and 3) parents of national-origin minority children must be informed of school activities in a language other than English, if necessary.

    The Texas Bilingual Education Act (S.B. 121) required that school districts use native-language instruction to promote learning and facilitate the transfer of the language-minority child to the English-only mainstream program. English literacy skills were to be developed through ESL teaching. State funds from the Foundation School Program could be used to support these special programs. The allocation for the first biennium (1973-75) of the program was $2.7 million.

    The Lau v. Nichols decision of the United States Supreme Court (1974) assured the survival of the bilingual program. The court declared that children who could not understand the language of instruction were denied access to a quality education. On August 11, 1975, Education Commissioner Terrel Bell announced guidelines for identifying and evaluating children with limited English skills and for planning appropriate bilingual education and ESL education. United States v. Texas, filed by the G.I. Forum and LULAC, reinforced legal support for bilingual education. It criticized state efforts to address the needs of children. Judge Justice ordered the TEA to initiate additional bilingual instruction, if needed, to satisfy “their affirmative obligation” and guarantee linguistically deprived children an equal educational opportunity. The decisions in United States v. Texas and Lau v. Nichols were prime catalysts for the expansion of bilingual and ESL programs in the state. Also, increased immigration of non-English speakers has required more language programs to include children from Latin America and Asia.

    Reportedly, the Texas population will grow four times as fast as the nation’s during the next fifty years. Hispanics will rival Anglos as the state’s dominant population group early in the twenty-first century. In 1990, in Texas, of 3.5 million children ages 5-17, 28.2 percent did not speak English at home, and 25.8 percent of the same age group spoke Spanish. The 1973 legislative mandate to increase learning opportunities for Mexican Americans heralded a new era in Texas education. The legislation recognized the political feasibility of requiring instruction in a language other than English, thereby effectively nullifying the infamous no-Spanish rule. However, native-language instruction has been provided for only a fraction of the students who need it, due in large measure to the dearth of qualified teachers. These limitations, notwithstanding, the past twenty years have brought about changes. Though bilingual education has provoked controversy during its short history, it has gained legitimacy as an appropriate and pedagogically sound way to educate language-minority students in the public schools of Texas.

    James

    May 27, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  17. “We’ve been over this issue many times here, and even with Lester’s books (he wrote three, and they were written in *response* to Quebec-bashing) it still only modified things very slightly.

    Quebec-bashing in the ROC still outpaces ROC-bashing by a wide margin, in spite of the fact that Lester may have changed the ratio from perhaps 100 to zero to 100 to 3, or something like that”

    Yes we have been over this many times and all you guys ever manage to come up with are links to random comments on blogs, or that one article that some obscure Toronto Columnist wrote that one time. Gimme some book titles and I’ll head straight to the library.

    RoryBellows

    May 27, 2009 at 8:21 pm

  18. “And btw 15% is about the pct of English Canadians who believe that the Québécois form a nation”

    Actually, according to a Leger poll, the number is more like 38%

    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=23ba4837-5854-458d-b513-0c2d2d0b5ea3&k=50919

    But its nice to see you persecutaphones not letting silly things like facts get in the way of your arguments.

    RoryBellows

    May 27, 2009 at 8:28 pm

  19. Amazon sucks I just went there looking for the black book of Quebec, Frogly, The Invention of the Quebec Minority, Quebec’s Ethnic Obssession and Anglo Niggers of Canada and I can’t find any of them. That website is slipping.

    RoryBellows

    May 27, 2009 at 8:46 pm

  20. Dammit, now Google is broken. I’m trying to find Kim Campbell’s quote after she lost in ’93. You know, let’s stop talking about english Canadians, instead let’s just talk of us.

    Or what about that liberal MP who said something about how post Meech the federal government would have more teeth to deal with the Quebecois, like stripping them of the right to vote? Dammit, the internet sucks.

    RoryBellows

    May 27, 2009 at 8:51 pm

  21. Or remember that time that convicted terrorist got out of a jail and gave a speech at a Liberal party convention and got a standing ovation.

    I’m going to go Youtube that right now. *fingers crossed*

    RoryBellows

    May 27, 2009 at 8:54 pm

  22. About as ridiculous as your 21st century francophone hockey playing millionaires vs. 1960s Mississippi negro football players.

    RoryBellows

    May 27, 2009 at 8:58 pm

  23. time for you and the other clownophone number crunchers to go back to night school. That’s not what the Léger poll found. It found that “Support for Quebec nationhood ranged from 11 per cent in the Prairie provinces to 19 per cent in Alberta” (Canadian Press, November 28, 2006), with the numbers for the rest of English Canada as follows: Atlantic 12%, Ontario 15% and BC 12%. All then in the 10-20 percentile, as I said (http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/11/28/canadians-reject-quebecois-nation-poll/).

    The figure of 38% is the pct of *non-francophone Quebeckers who agree Québec is a nation.* My, quel esprit d’ouverture. It’s not the nationwide total of English Canadians. Only 26% nationwide of all groups together agreed with the question: Are the Québécois a nation.

    James

    May 27, 2009 at 9:16 pm

  24. Umm, your link doesn’t work. And you might want to remove your paranoia-tinted glasses and re-read the article I posted (I know it’s from the Gazette, but don’t worry only the paper version burns your flseh).

    “But when asked if Quebecers are also a nation, only 48 per cent Canada-wide agreed, and 47 per cent disagreed, among them 33 per cent who strongly disagreed. The remaining five per cent either refused to answer or had no opinion.

    Broken down along official language lines, a strong majority of francophones (78 per cent) agreed Quebecers are a nation, nearly double the figure for anglophones (38 per cent).

    RoryBellows

    May 27, 2009 at 9:34 pm

  25. Geez you’re on quite the roll there Rory.

    It’s still out there no matter what you say, and you probably even know it.

    Even anglo journalists like Peter Scowen have written books about it like “La Trahison tranquille”, in which he made the following statement: “Le dénigrement continuel de la réputation des Québécois francophones par le Canada anglais équivaut à l’une des entreprises de diffamation d’un peuple les plus outrancières et soutenues de l’histoire du pays”.

    Funny thing, Scowen’s book I don’t believe has ever been translated into English.

    If Scowen’s not credible enough for you, Canada’s current Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser wrote a book called “Sorry, I don’t speak French”, a large part of which deals with Quebec-bashing and anti-French sentiment in English-speaking sentiment.

    Apparently, the book’s premise wasn’t sufficiently dubious or embarrassing to Fraser for him not to be chosen by the PM to lead the touchy official languages file for the Government of Canada.

    But I guess Fraser, Scowen and I are just dreaming all of this up, right?

    Acajack

    May 27, 2009 at 9:40 pm

  26. “It’s still out there no matter what you say, and you probably even know it.”

    I know its out there, its just a matter of where there is. It is around water-coolers, or call-in talk radio shows, and if you hold back just enough, sometimes on 1/10th of page 12 of a national newspaper.

    It isn’t in best-selling books, on nationally televised talk shows or governing party conventions. It is ugly, but at least it stays where ugly belongs.

    RoryBellows

    May 27, 2009 at 10:02 pm

  27. Ummm, do you know how to remove parentheses from a url or are you completely helpless?

    http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/11/28/canadians-reject-quebecois-nation-poll/

    James

    May 27, 2009 at 10:04 pm

  28. I don’t know what suddenly made you so angry at us Rory. But I have to ask you: do you consider Quebec and francophone Quebecers to have some redeeming values? Or are we basically always wrong?

    Marc

    May 28, 2009 at 12:01 am

  29. James—thank you for this interesting post. I am sometimes surprised at what I don’t know about the history of my own country.

    South of San Antonio, Texas is majority Hispanic, and always has been AFAIK. The Hispanic population there and elsewhere in Texas (and the rest of the US of course) is growing fast because of new immigration. There are other areas in the US that are majority Hispanic (notably in California and New Mexico), but none, AFAIK, where the population is as large or as concentrated as in South Texas.

    littlerob

    May 28, 2009 at 4:24 am

  30. I don’t think you quite understand the point of a clickable link. Hows about you just post some random letters and numbers and blast me for not figuring out that I’m supposed to re-type the entire URL myself.

    RoryBellows

    May 28, 2009 at 7:58 am


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: