Yay! I voted in a real election

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Surprisingly, the National Post didn't mention that part. Meanwhile, Don Cherry still works for the CBC.

My article was from CBC, not National Post. Please be factually correct.

Yes Don Cherry is still at the CBC. So is Wei Chen. What is your point?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wezil
Listening to the defence/excuses on this issue is like listening to southerners defend the confederate flag.

Yes. And anybody who draws a Mohammed cartoon obviously hates Muslims.

[Richelieu]

On another note, i'm preparing for my upcoming avatar change

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Richelieu
On another note, i'm preparing for my upcoming avatar change

Despair with Dion? I'd love nothing more than to see Harper take a ****kicking in the next election but Dion just was not the guy to do it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wezil
Can I call you a frog?

The Anglos have called us frogs long before I was born. I have no problem with it, but I agree it's not the same, as the Rosbifs haven't managed to exploit us for 560 years.

When I hear "frog", I definitely don't think of it as a derogatory word. Except, of course, from some French-haters, in whose mouth the word "French" is just as derogatory.

If you were a politician, you should watch your mouth in case somebody (or some group) interprets your harmless word as being a proof of racism. But the use of the word itself doesn't indicate that you're a hater.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wezil
You keep saying this. Are you hoping it will become true? I'm not trying to convince you Fake Boris, that is impossible.

Let's reassess:

a) Separatists have alienated the Crees

Fact 1: the major hydroelectric projects that alienated the Crees were undertaken by Robert Bourassa.

Fact 2: It's Landry's separatist government that signed a "truce" with them, by granting them larger autonomy over their territory, and ensuring them royalties on hydroelectricity and forest exploitation.

Fact 3: Ungava is Quebec's riding with the largest Native population. That hasn't prevented the 1995 results to be a 46.91% YES.

b) Separatists are racist towards foreigners

Fact 1: The Bloc Québécois, right now, in Ottawa, has four sitting foreign-born MPs.

Fact 2: PQ support amongst 'neo-québécois' is 15%. Not amazing for sure, but sufficient to demonstrate that they can't be that bad. Do 15% of Muslims in France vote Le Pen?

c) 'Pure laine' is a separatist slogan

Plain false. Incidentally, you haven't been able to find a single instance of a separatist MP or politician pronouncing it.

d) Parizeau has shown the true nature of the movement

Parizeau was widely condemned, and forced to resign. In his autobiography, he has described his speech as an unfortunate blunder, but has defended the factuality of his declaration (which is correct).

Listening to the defence/excuses on this issue is like listening to southerners defend the confederate flag.

If you're willing to invoke stuff from the 19th century, here's for you, Lord Durham*, 1839 (bolding mine):

There can hardly be conceived a nationality more destitute of all that can invigorate and elevate a people, than that which is exhibited by the descendants of the French in Lower Canada, owing to their retaining their peculiar language and manners. They are a people with no history, and no literature.

But, I repeat that the alteration of the character of the Province ought to be immediately entered on, and firmly, though cautiously, followed up; that in any plan, which may be adopted for the future management of Lower Canada, the first object ought to be that of making it an English Province; and that, with this end in view, the ascendancy should never again be placed in any hands but those of an English population. Indeed, at the present moment this is obviously necessary: in the state of mind in which I have described the French Canadian population, as not only now being, but as likely for a long while to remain, the trusting them with alt entire. control over this Province, would be, in-fact, only facilitating a rebellion. Lower Canada must be governed now, as it must be hereafter; by an English population: and thus the policy, which the necessities of the moment force on us, is in accordance with that suggested by a comprehensive view of the future and permanent improvement of the Province.

The greater part of the plans which have been proposed for the future Government of Lower Canada, suggest either as a lasting or as a temporary and intermediate scheme, that the Government of that Province should be constituted on an entirely despotic footing, or on one that would vest it entirely in the hands of the British minority. It is proposed either to place the legislative authority in a Governor, with a Council formed of the heads of the British party, or to contrive some scheme of representation by which a minority, with the forms of representation, is to deprive a majority of all voice in the management of its own affairs.

* I don't want to invoke Durham's report as a tool to justify whining and plaintive victimization. However, I would like to stress that this report was the major drive behind the Union Act, that also led to the Confederation. This helps understand British policy wrt to French Canadians, and why we are still sensitive about issues relating to preservation of culture, language, and self-determination. The irrational and radical rejection of Bill 101 by English Canada appears to be the natural continuation of the policy set forth by Durham's report in 1839.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wezil


My article was from CBC, not National Post. Please be factually correct.

Yes Don Cherry is still at the CBC. So is Wei Chen. What is your point?

Boisclair's slanting eyes remark doesn't even approach some of Cherry's best and finest about Eastern Europeans and Québécois. What we know in Quebec, is that a Don Cherry equivalent would never be granted public coverage, yet alone a tribune at the CBC.

The bottom line is that racism is a structural problem of societies. Quebec is no more and no less affected by it than other similar democracies; but separatism, which threatens the interests of a certain establishment, makes for a convenient pretext to deliberately distort Quebec's reality in order to serve its agenda.

Their latest to date is the front line assault against Boisclair's slanting eyes remark, which has been misquoted and extirpated from its context (as usual).

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Wezil


Despair with Dion? I'd love nothing more than to see Harper take a ****kicking in the next election but Dion just was not the guy to do it.

Well, you never know. Recent events have led me to believe that starnge things happen at election time.

But i'm not holding my breath. Dion's a walking disaster.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Let's reassess:

a) Separatists have alienated the Crees

Fact 1: the major hydroelectric projects that alienated the Crees were undertaken by Robert Bourassa.

Fact 2: It's Landry's separatist government that signed a "truce" with them, by granting them larger autonomy over their territory, and ensuring them royalties on hydroelectricity and forest exploitation.

Fact 3: Ungava is Quebec's riding with the largest Native population. That hasn't prevented the 1995 results to be a 46.91% YES.

Um, I didn't make the Cree argument. Still, by your own numbers 53.09% (a majority) were against, even when non-natives are included in the number. (ie. meaningless stat).

b) Separatists are racist towards foreigners

Fact 1: The Bloc Québécois, right now, in Ottawa, has four sitting foreign-born MPs.

Fact 2: PQ support amongst 'neo-québécois' is 15%. Not amazing for sure, but sufficient to demonstrate that they can't be that bad. Do 15% of Muslims in France vote Le Pen?

People often vote against their own interests and candidates often run for a party with the best chance of success (opportunists). The federal Liberals thrive on it.

c) 'Pure laine' is a separatist slogan

Plain false. Incidentally, you haven't been able to find a single instance of a separatist MP or politician pronouncing it.

We already established that the Toronto Sun coined this, didn't we?

Incidentally, I didn't even look for the separatists saying this. If you want to deny this was a separatist phrase, go ahead.

d) Parizeau has shown the true nature of the movement

Parizeau was widely condemned, and forced to resign. In his autobiography, he has described his speech as an unfortunate blunder, but has defended the factuality of his declaration (which is correct).

Parizeau, Boisclair, ... The leaders of the movement keep making these "unfortunate blunders" don't they?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Boisclair's slanting eyes remark doesn't even approach some of Cherry's best and finest about Eastern Europeans and Québécois. What we know in Quebec, is that a Don Cherry equivalent would never be granted public coverage, yet alone a tribune at the CBC.

I wasn't aware Cherry was leading a political movement. Surely you can see the difference. What about Wei Chen?

The bottom line is that racism is a structural problem of societies. Quebec is no more and no less affected by it than other similar democracies; but separatism, which threatens the interests of a certain establishment, makes for a convenient pretext to deliberately distort Quebec's reality in order to serve its agenda.

The Orange Order Party in Ontario is making huge inroads.

Their latest to date is the front line assault against Boisclair's slanting eyes remark, which has been misquoted and extirpated from its context (as usual).

Sorry, everybody (including his own supporters) misunderstood the poor man. Our bad.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wezil
Um, I didn't make the Cree argument. Still, by your own numbers 53.09% (a majority) were against, even when non-natives are included in the number. (ie. meaningless stat).

WTF meaningless? The burden of the proof is on you, if you want to demonstrate alienation, i.e. widespread rejection based on generalized oppression. That 30 or 40% of Crees would vote YES is ample enough evidence to make my point.

People often vote against their own interests and candidates often run for a party with the best chance of success (opportunists). The federal Liberals thrive on it.

So separatism = racism, and the 'proof' is that immigrants that have adopted it are doing so against their own interest?

We already established that the Toronto Sun coined this, didn't we?

Yes - Richelieu invoked the name of the Toronto Sun as a generic example of bad faith reporting, turned out to be 'wrong'. What have you demonstrated about 'pure laine'?

Incidentally, I didn't even look for the separatists saying this. If you want to deny this was a separatist phrase, go ahead.

It was, in the times when it was opposed to the dominating English minority. It's not anymore, and I mean 20-30 years.
You can hear it sometimes, as an expression used to describe French Canadians born in Quebec. The context of the discussion allows you very easily to see if your interlocutor is meaning it in a neutral or pejorative way.

Parizeau, Boisclair, ... The leaders of the movement keep making these "unfortunate blunders" don't they?

Dumbass... Boisclair was saying that we should increase education spendings and host more international students.


I decided to wait until the thread would reach this point to resort to insults, but the natural conclusion: denying such a mountain of evidence as that I have presented makes you a clueless piece of ****.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


WTF meaningless? The burden of the proof is on you, if you want to demonstrate alienation, i.e. widespread rejection based on generalized oppression. That 30 or 40% of Crees would vote YES is ample enough evidence to make my point.

Again you are pulling numbers out of your ass. What is the native % of the riding. Without that, your stat (and argument) are ****.

So separatism = racism, and the 'proof' is that immigrants that have adopted it are doing so against their own interest?

You offer up at tiny % of ethnic members as proof the movement is inclusionary. Maybe they are "Uncle Toms"?

Yes - Richelieu invoked the name of the Toronto Sun as a generic example of bad faith reporting, turned out to be 'wrong'. What have you demonstrated about 'pure laine'?

I feel no need to argue the obvious.

It was, in the times when it was opposed to the dominating English minority. It's not anymore, and I mean 20-30 years.
You can hear it sometimes, as an expression used to describe French Canadians born in Quebec. The context of the discussion allows you very easily to see if your interlocutor is meaning it in a neutral or pejorative way.

"You misunderstand" .... "It was a long time ago" blah blah blah. Quit making excuses.

Dumbass... Boisclair was saying that we should increase education spendings and host more international students.

So if he was referring to black students, it would be okay to use the term "darkies"? It is after all, only descriptive.

I decided to wait until the thread would reach this point to resort to insults, but the natural conclusion: denying such a mountain of evidence as that I have presented makes you a clueless piece of ****.

Again you state the conclusion you want. OT debating rules - Claim the victory and it is yours. Who's the dumbass?

[Fake Boris]

Want to argue about 'racism' from the past? Let's present what British entrepreneurs and governors said about the inferiority of the French Canadian race.

You've shown yourself to be even more of a dumbass than I thought.

[Wezil]

What is this? Resorting to the "They did it too" argument? Dumbass.

[Fake Boris]

FYI, Ungava's population is 40,000, of which 22,000 are Natives.

Participation rate at the referendum was 84%. Final result, 46.91% YES. You've lost.