AngryFrenchGuy

The Habs Discriminate Against French-Speakers

with 178 comments

2172832498_0d6572053d_o

Canada has always been preoccupied with preventing French-speaking people from handling numbers.  Until well into the 20th century, the Minister of Finance’s job in the Québec government could only be given to an English-speaking gentleman and when francophones in Québec demanded the end of dicriminatory practices and their share Montréal’s many high finance and management jobs in the 1960’s and 70’s, English-Canada’s very prudent and rational reaction was to move Canada’s entire financial sector 300 miles west to Toronto.

It’s still going on today with the slow but steady purge of anyone who’s ever been associated with la Bourse de Montréal from the new “merged” Stock Exchange.

Sure, there are very good reasons for this.  Business and Management are English words, aren’t they?  And isn’t it a man who got his MBA at Québec’s City’s Université Laval who is responsible for the near-collapse of capitalism we just went through?

But no.  The truth is much more sinister.  French-speakers are kept away from the numbers because if they took a closer look, they would discover that French-speaking hockey players in the NHL are undervalued and underpaid!

This is the dark secret uncovered by Marc Lavoie, an economist at the University of Ottawa.  Using rigorous statistical analysis, the scientist discovered that francophone players systematically scored 10 more points per season compared with English-speaking players drafted in the same round, which either means that there is discrimination against Francos or that participation really is more important than winning…

Mr. Lavoie also established that francophone defencemen earn 25% less than Anglophones with comparable statistics.

What’s even more interesting is that Le Canadien de Montréal, that venerable institution that turned the mythology of a scrappy band of French farm boys with only third grade education but big hearts into one of the most valuable sports franchise in the world, did not – repeat not – do a better job of hiring francophones.  Even the Nordiques systematically gave Franco’s the shaft.

But then, Mr. Lavoie is a francophone.  For sure he got his math all wrong.

UPDATE: Prof Lavoie kindly sent the AngryFrenchPeerReviewMob a copy of the study:

https://angryfrenchguy.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ajes-drafthockey-2003.pdf

Enjoy.

Written by angryfrenchguy

May 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm

178 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. And that incident with Carroll found its way into parliamentary discussion as well, with the drearily predictable reaction of the English Canadian wagon-circlers about how petty it is for Parliament to be discussing the matter when there are much more important… blah blah blah. Basically a carbon copy of how they banalized the Doan incident. And it went to parliament for the same reason the Doan incident did, which was that that Swimming Canada did nothing and sent the matter into a cul-de-sac just as the LNH had done with Doan over the heads of those who’d officiated the game and reported on the matter. And the minister responsible couldn’t explain why it’s ok to brandish a Saskatchewan flag at an international sports award ceremony but not a Québec one.

    James

    May 31, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  2. Thanks Edward! And the keyword to remember was “TRYING” to learn Vietnamese. Gosh, this isn’t simple! By comparison, learning English was a walk in the park… Well, of course, I was 15 years younger, which helps a bit!

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 9:26 am

  3. @ Kriss :

    I’m francophone, and I used to watch “Tout le monde en parle”. The first two seasons were actually entertaining, but I’d have to agree with ABP here : there are multiple jabs and negative comments made against anglos and the ROC. Those jabs and comments aren’t very mean and obnoxious, but they are still existant. The thing is, Quebeckers are so used to it that we sometimes don’t notice it anymore.

    That being said, I do agree that Guy A., although he often gets on my nerves, is not Don Cherry. But still, you can very easily guess were his allegiances lie. It’s okay to have opinions. But whenever he receives politicians on his show, he is much nicer with those from the PQ, BQ or Québec Solidaire.

    As for this comment from ABP : “Definately an undercurrent that Quebec is far superior to English Canada from a cultural and social perspective.” Kriss, if you honestly can tell me that you’ve never heard anyone say that English Canada doesn’t have a real culture like Québec, than you’re deaf. And probably blind to, since I can remember this debate taking place on these pages.

    Admitting all this is by no mean a way to bash Quebec and Quebeckers. It is simply acknowledging what is.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 9:34 am

  4. @ Rayman :

    – Numerous comments about how Toronto, Winnipeg and anglos in general are boring.

    – Numerous comments about frigid Ontarian women

    – Rude attitude towards any federalist politician invited to the show. I sincerely cannot begin to understand why Jean Charest accepted to go there so often.

    If you can’t accept what you hear and see what is, then you’re living in your own little perfect reality where anglos have all the blame and francos are pure and perfect. Personally, I don’t like to indulge in delusions.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 9:46 am

  5. @ Antonio :

    “The draft is a little like a lottery; there is luck involved on whether the player makes it to the NHL. These people could have made it to the NHL or not, given the right guidance.”

    That’s why teams hire scouts. Sometimes, a simple ranking cannot tell you if a player will be good or not. Sometimes you need to see a player’s abilities with your own eyes, and then decide if you think they’ll make it to the next level. This explains why the Detroit Red Wings are so successful : just look at where Zettererg and Datsyuk were drafted. It’s not look. It’s a good evalution of talent.

    There’s only so much “guidance” can do. All those Quebeckers the Habs didn’t pick were selected by different teams, with arguably very good development system. Yet, few of those Quebeckers make it to the NHL. Maybe the Habs were actually very good at evaluating talent. You can teach a guy how to skate harder and faster, how to hit and backcheck, how to play in a system. But you can’t buy them a new set of hands.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 9:51 am

  6. @ Edward :

    I think that some locals actually took advantage of the Habs over the years to get higher salaries than they would have gotten elsewhere. Brisebois on his first trip here is a good example, Stephane Quintal is another one. Then, you’ve got Briere that totally used the Habs in order to negociate himself a higher salary in Philly.

    At equal talent, I’d agree to pick a local player over a non-local. Habs scouts have been doing an excellent job since the André Savard – Bob Gainey era, so I totally trust them.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 9:54 am

  7. @ AFG :

    I’m merely here for the discussion and free laughters, which provides me with a good excuse for my lazyness. On the other hand, you are the one “reporting” here, and there’s no excuse for you being too lazy or biased to provide links in the first place. I’m not the one not doing my job properly.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 9:58 am

  8. First, anyone not behind a proxy from an institution with access to this publication won’t be able to see the PDF. It’s a good thing I’m behind a Université de Montréal proxy.

    Second, this study dates from 1985. If you seriously think you can imply that the management of the Habs as of today, in 2009, discriminates on francophones based on a 22 year old report, than your logic fails the test.

    Third, this paper is a reply to previous papers by Michel Boucher, in 1983 and 1984, showing that francophones in the NHL had actually higher salaries than anglophones! While it is okay for Lavoie to express a different opinion using different methods, quoting one study while ignoring the other two is intellectually dishonnest.

    Fourth, it is clear that both Lavoie and Boucher were biased in their analysis, although not defending similar opinions. In both cases, reviewers felt like those papers deserved to be published, so I won’t push my judgement further.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 10:08 am

  9. Vinster “I’m francophone, and I used to watch “Tout le monde en parle”. The first two seasons were actually entertaining, but I’d have to agree with ABP here : there are multiple jabs and negative comments made against anglos and the ROC. Those jabs and comments aren’t very mean and obnoxious, but they are still existant. The thing is, Quebeckers are so used to it that we sometimes don’t notice it anymore.
    That being said, I do agree that Guy A., although he often gets on my nerves, is not Don Cherry. But still, you can very easily guess were his allegiances lie. It’s okay to have opinions. But whenever he receives politicians on his show, he is much nicer with those from the PQ, BQ or Québec Solidaire.”

    Regarding TLMEP…

    Guy A. Lepage and Dany Turcotte make no bones about being sovereignists, so I guess that means that some people are always looking for the slightest sign of bias when they have federalist guests.

    However, as a fairly regular viewer of the show, I can tell you that Jean Charest was not treated “roughly” the several times I have seen him there. In fact, many Liberals like Denis Codette, Michael Ignatieff and Sheila Copps get treated like “old friends” by Guy and Dany and perhaps more warmly (or certainly as much) as Pauline Marois or Gilles Duceppe do.

    I saw David Suzuki and Margaret Atwood there last season and they were treated warmly and like old friends as well. The fact that they were English-speaking Canadians didn’t make one iota of difference.

    This past season Heritage Minister James Moore (who speaks good French) was on and was treated cordially, though they did put him through a pop quiz about Canadian culture where he did very poorly. I thought that was fair game: the show does this with many of its guests and since he is in charge of Canada’s cultural policies, one would assume he would know something about his portfolio’s area of expertise.

    Mario Dumont (is he a fed or a sov? I am not sure) got a really rough ride there once, but it wasn’t so much from Lepage and Turcotte, but from fellow guest Chantal Hébert.

    Noted sovereignist and union leader Gérald Larose also got a rough ride once from Lepage and Turcotte (and other presumed-to-be-sovereignist guests like Patrick Huard) when he came on to talk about a school workbook meant to educate Quebec kids about sovereignty. Larose was lambasted by the others.

    The city councillor from Hérouxville (who may be a sovereignist for all we know) who was behind the code of conduct for immigrants was totally made out to be a hick by Lepage and Turcotte on TLMEP.

    So TLMEP can be a tough show to appear on, especially if the hosts have made their up minds that you are a dickhead, or at least if you’re coming on there to attempt to defend the indefensible. But I don’t think that has anything to do with the sovereignist leanings (or not) of the hosts or guests.

    Acajack

    June 1, 2009 at 10:42 am

  10. @ AFG :

    Thanks for the link. I am looking at it right now, and will comment it as I read :

    1- My first concern is the publication is was published in. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) has an impact factor of 0.192 (http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0002-9246). As a mean of comparison, I know people in our research group would have go be pretty desperate to publish something in a publication with an impact factor below 1. However, since the field of biology/microbiology/nature sciences is much more developped in terms of journals than the fields of economics and sociology, I’d have to say that lower impact factors for such journals are to be expected.

    The AJES ranks 173rd out of 191 journals in the fields of economics, and 82nd out of 96 journals in the fields of sociology, as of 2007. In short, it means that this journal will accept pretty much anything that is submitted. These numbers can only be calculated after the facts, as they take into account the number of times papers in this journals were cited by others over the years. Data from 2007 is therefore the most recent.

    2- Out of the 40 or so papers cited by Lavoie, only one was published after the beginning of 2000… precisely in 2000. Other papers cited were published, in majority, in the 80s. While the subject of discrimination in sports might not have seen many publication in the 90s and 2000s, therefore explaining the low amount of publications cited after 2000, authors have to be aware that what they are citing to support their hypothesis might very well be out of date. Also, authors cite publications that “showed that teams located in the US and english canada are underpaying francophones” without considering for one second that maybe teams in Quebec (Canadiens and Nordiques at the time) might very well be overpaying these players! There is a very small note at the end of the paper mentioning this.

    3- “The test assumes that the lifetime performance of each player, measured by the number of points scored
    per game on average through his career, should be an inverse function of the rank at which the player was chosen during the universal amateur draft.”

    Therefore, I am beginning to think that the authors exclude from analysis factors such as age, weight, hits, blocked shots, etc… from the analysis. Further showing this is this quote : “Finally, Table 1 shows that French Canadian players do systematically
    perform better than English Canadians equally ranked at the time of the draft, scoring between .06 and .12 extra point per game, or about 5 to 10 additional points in an 80-game season.”

    I won’t argue with the importance of 0.06 or 0.12 pt per game, or the 5-10 additional points per season. I do believe that these numbers are correct, based on the factors Lavoie CHOSE to analyse. Also, I am by no mean an expert in statistics. Quite frankly, it is not my forte (and no, I do not drive a KIA).

    Later on, other factors are indeed tested by the authors. I would however like to know the “weight” that each factors were attributed. The methodology is basically absent from the manuscript (no equations, no description of variables and values), but maybe this is the way publications in sociology are presented. Results are hard to judge if you can’t clearly see how they were obtained, and you can pretty much make the numbers say whatever you want them to say. The way this is presented, I doubt anyone could reproduce the experiment. Again, in all objectivity, I have to mention that maybe this is the way sociological studies are presented. But it seems to me that publications should always be descriptive enough for anyone working in the field to be able to reproduce it completely. I doubt anyone could reproduce this one (but this might be caused by my lack of deep knowledge in statistics).

    4- “Junior player Éric Desmarais, previously drafted by the Montreal Canadiens, made the following remarks one month after having been cut off from the Canadian national junior squad: “My defensive game was mentioned… It seems that people believe that
    Quebec players can only play offensively. For sure, an offensive player may have some small defensive weaknesses, but I do not believe that Quebec players are weaker than other ones on that.””

    To me, this is a perfect representation of how the author of the study might have somewhat of a bias. It seems to me that if Éric Desmarais had had somewhat of a brilliant career, this comment by him would be relevant. If you go on The Internet Hockey Database (www.hockeydb.com), a site which host stats from players of a high number of hockey leagues, you won’t find the name Eric Desmarais anywhere. I doubt that he was discriminated against so much that he wasn’t accepted anywhere!

    5- Lavoie fails to really get into the details of the various junior hockey leagues in Canada. The only stats Lavoie provide is the number of goal per games in each leagues, which is pretty much equal. This number is used to show that the QMJHL is not an “offensive-minded” league, and therefore that it is false to thing that francophones are not as good defensively. It would have been a good idea for Lavoie to mention that the QMJHL is considered as being the less competitive junior league in Canada, which therefore might explain why francophones are often ranked lowers in the drafts. One could use complicated stats in order to try to prove that the QMJHL is equal to the OHL or WHL, but the best way to show that there is a difference is to look at how many times a Quebec team has won the Memorial Cup since 1980 (over the last 27 years). Quebec teams have won 6 of those (22%), and the QJMHL is the league with the fewest teams (18 in Quebec vs 22 in the West and 20 in Ontario).

    6- The main argument in Lavoie’s study is that francophones are drafted later on in the draft. While I think that my point at #5 might bring a good explanation as to “why” this is, what his results show is that francophone players actually hold their grounds and even have somewhat of an advantage when compared to anglophone players drafted at similar spots. What I do not understand is why this becomes a question of “draft discrimination”. If you where playing in a league that wins less championships than another, your performances would understandably be toned down when compared with those from players in Leagues that have lots of championships. Lavoie’s number, while showing that this assumption might be wrong, do not indicate a “racial prejudice”. Numbers fail to measure intentions.

    7- Overall, I can understand that statistics require that you group players. I would have been curious, however, as a hockey fan, to see player names in different groups. I can however understand that for the purpose of a statistical publication, this was not relevant. I simply feel that, as a hockey fan, it would be easier for me to make a good judgement based on my own knowledge of the game. Of course, this would also be a biased analysis.

    Finally, is Lavoie’s study rigorously wrong? No, it probably is not. Is it completely right? I cannot say yes either. To me, lots of stuff seems to be “hidden”. It just seems to me that a statistician who would have tested the opposite hypothesis of that of Lavoie could probably just have proven his point as convincingly as Lavoie tried to.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 11:35 am

  11. @ James

    I wish I could name them, James, for it would mean that I was involved in the selection myself. Gosh, those GM jobs are tempting! Remind me to send Pierre Boivin my resume when he fires Gainey…

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 12:51 pm

  12. I agree with most of your comments ACJ and you are absolutely right that the jabs and negative comments are usually pretty subtle and sometimesjust remarks that seem condescending.

    On the whole, its fairly entertaining at times and they do have some interesting people on the show (Alice Cooper for instance).

    On the James Moore issue, well, I suspect he should have known of Celine Galipeau, as many times she reports on the english network of CBC and of course is for the most part Peter Mansbridges parallel on Radio Canada. On that subject Celine Galipeau gave Harper one of the worst grillings I have recently seen, shortly after the CBC cuts were announced. One would have thought she sits beside Iggy in the commons with the content of that interview. I don’t think she is someone I would want to piss off too badly.

    ABP

    June 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm

  13. It really is ironic to be trying to point up TLMEP as a forum for anglo-bashing. Treatment of English Canadian guests on the show, from all I’ve seen which is quite a bit, has generally ranged from cordial to fawning, with the Suzuki and Atwood interviews falling into the latter category. As I recall Suzuki was never even confronted about his sanctimonious sortie wherein he was “disappointed” in the Québécois for voting so heavily for Harper. Comment? A Western Canadian upbraiding the Québécois for *their* support for Harper? Look who’s talking! Shit, we’re being governed by Harper thanks to English Canada and Michael Ignatieff. Or his baloney about why should the Québécois be investing their energy in trying for sovereignty when they should be saving the environment instead, and about their “genocide” of the James Bay Cree, as if belonging to the pseudo-federation which subsidizes the Tar Sands, destroyed the Atlantic fisheries and used taxpayer $ to stuff unifoliés everywhere puts you on some environmental moral high ground. He was rightly slammed by Falardeau last year for this in the latter’s column in Ici, but none of this hypocrisy was brought up on TLMEP. By contrast, the last time Falardeau was on TLMEP, the *first* thing the chic souverainistes du Plateau hit him with was his vulgar attack on St. David.

    In fact the most merciless skewerings on TLMEP have been reserved for politically incorrect francophones : Jeff Fillion, Gilles Proulx, Doc Mailloux, Mario Dumont. Ignatieff was handled with kid gloves. Nothing about how Blood and Belonging traded in stupid stereotypes about French Canadians, or why the Newfoundland Liberals get to vote as a group (against the budget) but not the Québec ones, which is weird considering they supposedly represent a “nation.” Layton got off smelling like a rose – no uncomfortable questions about his support for the Clarity Act or his backing of the moronic demand from within his own caucus that Dion should renounce his French citizenship. A sovereignist needs much more armour to face these guilt-ridden souverainistes du Plateau than does your average English Canadian public figure.

    James

    June 1, 2009 at 4:11 pm

  14. your “analysis” was based on a series of hypotheses which you couldn’t even flesh out. You simply don’t know who was asked to serve on the 2007 among francophones players available, and the Commons “inquisition” couldn’t even produce that information for us, because this “inquisition” was a joke. And Hockey Canada’s first response was to serve up false examples.

    Lavoie has produced a whole series of studies and monographs on the subject. As far as I know the ’85 was the first, prompted by Boucher, to whom me makes a rejoinder in the same journal which you can find on erudit also.

    James

    June 1, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  15. First, anyone not behind a proxy from an institution with access to this publication won’t be able to see the PDF. It’s a good thing I’m behind a Université de Montréal proxy.

    nope. I was able to open the file in its entirety.

    Got any more fake expertise for us?

    James

    June 1, 2009 at 4:39 pm

  16. Man, you are one angry puppy! The proxy thing popped up on me when I clicked on the link. Maybe it is not necessary, maybe it is.

    Anonymous

    June 1, 2009 at 6:38 pm

  17. I just have a short fuse for charlatans, is all. You know, the Rakoffs, the Wongs, the Simpsons, the Prattes, the Richlers, etc. I like people who speak *within their knowledge*, regardless of their positions on things. Acajack’s a federalist. I’d put his intellectual honesty up against any sovereignist’s though. That’s what I like. People who don’t assume that someone who supports a different political option from them is operating from some kind of moral deficit. That’s why I did the Reverse Iggy on another thread. To just imagine, well, how would *your* group like being talked to like this all the time? To take the narrative of Blood and Belonging and just reverse the direction of the lens.

    James

    June 1, 2009 at 7:36 pm

  18. Marc, I remember that sketch from having watched it en direct, and it’s interesting to see how things take on a life of their own once they start their way through the media spin mill. The journalist in question was Denis Lévesque of TVA. And the satirical premise as described by the authors of the sketch was pretty simple. Lévesque seems to conduct airhead puffball interviews with his guests (ex the Paul McCartney interview, which inspired the sketch), making him a kind of Québécois analogue to Regis Philbin. So the idea was to take an event like Obama’s ascension to the presidency and to imagine what kind of an interview a Lévesque-type TVA airheard would conduct with President Obama. The satirical focus was not on Obama – that was *obvious* from watching the sketch – but on Lévesque. The authors of the sketch acknowledged that they had no basis for attributing racial stereotypes to Lévesque, but it was obvious that these stereotypes were the *object* of satire and not being condoned. And then there was the J-F Mercier tirade at the end of the show which supposedly “attacked” anglophones. He was doing a persona of the p’tit frustré, and as an anglophone I wasn’t the slightest bit offended by it. In fact I see this whole tollé over Bye Bye 2008 as another manifestation of a very unhealthy post-nationalist guilt-mongering taking over the media in Québec, and was happy to see Louis Morissette pointing it up a few days back on Bons Baisers de France.

    James

    June 1, 2009 at 9:33 pm

  19. @ James

    “To just imagine, well, how would *your* group like being talked to like this all the time? ”

    Just out of curiosity… what would you define my group as? Seriously, I’m interested. I’d just like to see how farther up your a$$ you can push your own head. Because from what I’ve read on these board, you talk about intellectual honesty yet you have none whatsoever. Because if you were intellectually honest, you’d realize that this “reverse Blood and Belonging” discourse already exists. But you’re so fond of the “poor little victimized Québécois” theory that you can’t see it or hear it. If you want to live like a victim, be my guest. But don’t expect me to join in the lamentation.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 10:14 pm

  20. `so I guess that means that some people are always looking for the slightest sign of bias when they have federalist guests.`

    Sure.

    `I saw David Suzuki and Margaret Atwood there last season and they were treated warmly and like old friends as well`

    Suzuki’s name came up in another installment of the show when he wasn’t there to defend himself. The hosts didn’t try to defend him either.

    Margaret Atwood stated publicly that Duceppe would have made a better prime minister than Harper. What better way to suck up to pro-Bloc hosts and audience. And totally discredit yourself.

    `So TLMEP can be a tough show to appear on, especially if the hosts have made their up minds that you are a dickhead, or at least if you’re coming on there to attempt to defend the indefensible`

    What about this dickhead? He had it easy. And the audience was lenient too. 0:35 – hahahaha, so funny.

    `But I don’t think that has anything to do with the sovereignist leanings (or not) of the hosts or guests.`

    Sure.

    allophone

    June 1, 2009 at 10:33 pm

  21. “ just have a short fuse for charlatans, is all.“

    You don`t cease to amaze.

    “You know, the Rakoffs, the Wongs, the Simpsons, the Prattes, the Richlers, etc. I like people who speak *within their knowledge*, regardless of their positions on things.“

    You have a problem with Andre Pratte now?

    “Acajack’s a federalist“

    And afg ain`t no nationalist, he`s an independentiste. And you`re an Anglo-hating Anglo. Oh, and I`m Donald Duck.

    allophone

    June 1, 2009 at 10:40 pm

  22. Vinster,

    The group I was talking about is the one I grew up in. And I heard their stupid mouthshit at the dinner table, at family gatherings, at school, at university, at work, read it in their journaux de marde, in their “best sellers” de marde, etc. I heard it/read it ad nauseum. And it’s still out there and flourishing. In the leading dailies of my “volk”, in the mouthshit of their idiot insignifiant politicians. And you have to try *very* hard, outside of Québec, to find any correctives to it. And any time you want to refute me on *facts,* allez-y. J.

    P.S. oh look another link to Lavoie(2003) which doesn’t require UdeM proxy server! :

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_2_62/ai_100202312/?tag=content;col1

    James

    June 1, 2009 at 10:50 pm

  23. What a traumatic chilhood. Worse than growing up in the slums of Bombay.

    allophone

    June 1, 2009 at 10:58 pm

  24. @ James

    I’d play the violin for you if only I had some musical talent.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 11:15 pm

  25. well, « Vinny » (lame pun intended), the invitation stands. :-)

    James

    June 1, 2009 at 11:28 pm

  26. @ James

    You mean your invitation to refute your facts? Read the analysis I made on Lavoie’s paper a bit lower. As for the rest of your facts… I’m not refuting your facts, James, simply because those events you describe did happen. I am refuting the interpretation you make with those facts, and that is where your “intellectual honesty” fails. You wish, like AFG, to bring along some dark examples and proclaim them as truths, as proofs of concept of what it is that lies in the evil entity otherwise known as the ROC. Well, I’m sorry to inform you, but Québec isn’t the pure innocent young women you think it is. She is very attractive, youthful and enthousiastic at times, with such optimism that she can accomplish great things! If only she could just stop thinking about this shirt that her big sister took away from her ten years ago and move on with it!

    Like I’ve said previously : you want to live like a victim all your life? Be my guest and keep up the lamentation. You want to feel shame for your heritage and spit on what your ancestors, who were probably pretty decent fellows, accomplished? Well, do as you wish. It is not my life you’re wasting, it is yours.

    Vinster171

    June 1, 2009 at 11:52 pm

  27. Well, I’m sorry to inform you, but Québec isn’t the pure innocent young women you think it is.

    But this is a strawdog you’re mounting here. It’s a canard. Why does Québec have to be “pure” and “innocent” to be sovereign or even to just be judged by the same criteria as English Canada? Of course it doesn’t. This is one of the oldest canards making the rounds. This is the best you can dish up? LAME!

    James

    June 2, 2009 at 12:12 am

  28. @ James

    “But this is a strawdog you’re mounting here. It’s a canard. Why does Québec have to be “pure” and “innocent” to be sovereign or even to just be judged by the same criteria as English Canada? Of course it doesn’t.”

    You’re right. But… uh… where did I ever mention that this was an argument against sovereignty? Do you even take time to read what people reply to you, or you’re just too busy trying to find a way to paint me in a corner? I’ll tell you right now, you’ll have a hard time with that…

    My argument was the following, and I’ll try to explain it with simple words so you can understand. You and AFG like to create generalized facts out of dark examples brought to life by a minority of idiots. Meanwhile, both of you like to banalize similar episodes taking place in Québec and targeting the ROC. This is where your “intellectual honesty” fails. While this is not an argument against sovereignty, it is an argument against the use of these generalized facts as a way to promote sovereignty. Yes, there is a difference. If you take a bit of time to think about it, you should find it.

    Vinster171

    June 2, 2009 at 12:22 am

  29. Would appear I don’t have to take notes. Il y a d’autres qui fait des choses.

    ABP

    June 2, 2009 at 12:26 am

  30. The Habs should have picked Falardeau for coach, feeble attempt to get blog back on subject !

    Dave

    June 2, 2009 at 6:18 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: