🚀 go-pugleaf

Luc Marcil wrote:
> 

> :>Why do you get the impression I'm bothered with English, German,
> :>Russian, Italian, Chinese, Spanish (let's not forget our hispanic
> :>friends!), and everyone else? Is it because you'd like to paint me as
> :>intolerant and xenophobic already? Come, now, we've only started this
> :>debate, and already you've got me all figured out! That's not a good
> :>sign for a serious discussion. Keep on like that and you'll lose my
> :>interest.
> 
> Well, well, you keep talking about a French only country! Any reasonable soul
> would assume that other languages are kind of a nuisance to you. If they
> weren't, you would certainly not make such a fuss over languages!!!

I do not talk about a French-only country. I'm talking about a country
where french is the common tongue. That's a very different thing!

I don't make a fuss about language. I was saying that it's easier to
live in English in Montreal than to live in French in Toronto. That's
all. You jump to conclusions too easily for someone who'd like to pass
as a free-thinker and to paint me as a brainwashed demagogue.


> You should be proud to be able to speak and write in English. It shows, like
> most people of Quebec, that your mind is not closed to what's happening in the
> world. As you have probably noticed, I speak and write English as well. I'm a
> French Quebecois as much as you are my friend.

Bon, alors parlons fran�ais.

(I'm snipping here and in other places because this article is too long.
If you feel I've misquoted you, please let me know).

> As for you comment about China, if you follow world developments just a
> little, you'll find out that yes, a lot of Chinese now speak English as the
> big American machine wants the pole position in this emerging market.

A lot of Chinese? Should we compare percentages? "A lot" Empirical
evidence if I've ever seen it...NOT.

> Have you
> ever gone to Hong Kong, what used to be a British Colony? You'll find out that
> a lot of people speak English out there.

Non! Vraiment? Les habitants d'une colonie britannique parlant Anglais?
Tu rigole?

> English happens to be the written and
> spoken language adopted by 2 of the most important economic powers of the
> world: Britain and the United States. No matter how much you'd wish it to go
> away, it never will. Even in a sovereign Quebec, and this the most ironic, if
> it is to be opened for business, and it'd be suicidal not to, it will be
> impossible to do away with English, even for St-Lucien!!!

Pourquoi voudrais-je que l'anglais disparaisse? Tu te m�prends sur mon
compte, mon cher.

> Ask the Catalan people about language and culture opression. Their
> language and culture were deemed illegal by law and they were forcefully
> persecuted by the Spanish people. What the PQ wants to do to the English
> communities in Quebec is nothing but the same: try to prevent them, through
> "legislation", from using their language in a legal manner.

Comparer la situation des Catalans aux Anglophones du Qu�bec, c'est
minimiser les difficult�s que ceux-ci ont eu durant leur longue
domination par les espagnols. Tu devrais avoir honte.

> I was travelling in Alberta
> last Fall: Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Jasper, Banff, Lake Louise.
> Beautiful country. There happens to be a community of French speaking people
> in this province in number large enough to obtain a good degree of services in
> French. To my great surprise, when I opened up the TV from my hotel room, what
> did I notice: there were some 4 or 5 different TV channels in French!!! I
> guess you didn't know that... Probably too consumed by your religion...

Not only did I know that (since I'm not consumed by any religion) but
I've witnessed it first-hand. Notice that in Quebec city, where there
are about 3% anglophones, they still have access to services in English.
Oh, that's oppression!

> :>Ah! English, the master tongue. One day you'll have conquered the
> :>world...
> :>That is such an ethnocentric point of view!
> 
> As pointed out above, I'm a "virgin wool quebecois" myself. I was simply
> pointing out the obvious. Something that neither St-Lucien nor yourself can do
> anything about!!!

Il n'y a pas de "Qu�b�cois de souche". Ou, peut-�tre 2 � 5%. Ni toi ni
moi ne sommes des Qu�b�cois de souche. Ce que tu consid�re comme �vident
me para�t douteux. C'est pour cela que l'on discute.


> :>> History, like it or not, has been such that there are a lot of English
> :>> speaking people in Montreal and certain other areas of Quebec which amply
> :>> justify maintaining services in English. There's no escaping reality!
> :>
> :>Did I try to deny this?
> :>
> 
> I think my original post already included the answer to that!!!

Yes or no, did I try to deny it?

> If you just
> cared to open up your eyes and read along. There are and have always been a
> number of Anglophone people large enough in Quebec to justify full services in
> English.

3% in Quebec city. Try to get French schooling with 3% of the
population!

> Fact: large number of Anglophones/Allophones in
> Quebec. Rhetoric and biggest fallacy of the PQ dogma: Anglophones/Allophones
> should be denied their rights because they have mistreated the French people
> of Quebec throughout Quebec's history and that full services in French are not
> available everywhere in Canada...

Jamais le PQ n'a fait de telle d�claration. Montre-moi o�! Tu sais, �a
ne sert � rien d'inventer des choses pour supporter tes arguments!

> As for history, if Quebec had been so poorly treated, why are French Canadian
> doing so well all over today? (snip) They could
> have simply crushed the French at any moment had they wished to.

Actually, they did in 1837-1838. Don't forget 1755, too!

But you're right. They didn't try to eradicate us, but to assimilate us.
And they failed.

> Like in any other societies in the world, there are always those who preach
> extreme measures. As we are very often reminded by the secessionists, there
> conceivably might have been some of the British representatives in post in
> Quebec that may have preached objectionable policies. But such views, if their
> existence can be proven at all, were evidently those of a few extremists. 

So you admit that you don't really know what you're talking about...

> :>Typical. "Forget the excesses of the past, now we live in the present
> :>bla bla bla"
> :>Yet the past forges the present.
> 
> You seem to subscribe to the secessionist's dogma quite too blindly for your
> own good.

And you seem to subscribe to federalist propaganda too easily for YOUR
own good.

> You should take time out from all this to study your history and
> you'll realize, quite embarassingly, that what you blame on English Canadians
> you should instead be blaming on our good and beloved Catholic Church!!!

I do blame the church! I blame both the church and British Imperialism
(not English Canadians, mind you). Arr�te de me prendre pour un
imb�cile, j'ai pas de temps � perdre avec un d�magogue, peu importe son
all�geance politique!

> 
> The excesses of the past! Yeah! Let's dwell on these so-called "excesses of
> the past" to justify committing new excesses of our own! Great logic.

Tell me exactly which excess we're comitting?

> You'll
> end up in war ridden ghetto, my friend!!!

Nah. The US won't allow it. Get real. Et ne m'appelle pas mon ami
quelques lignes apr�s m'avoir insult�!

> You have a lot of nerves to talk
> about "excesses of the past". Like we were persecuted or something. My God! At
> least, have the decency to research your own history. You're pathetic to allow
> yourself to subscribe to this easy rhetoric.

Va relire le rapport Durham.

> I guess that it's much easier to
> refer those that are less inclined to intellectual efforts to some fallacy
> blurred by the passage of time than it is to face the facts as they are today:
> indeniable.

Primo, je suis plus intelligent que toi. Deuzio, il faut avoir en t�te
le pass� ET le pr�sent pour d�finir l'avenir.

> This whole idea that French Canadians have been persecuted in any
> way is simply preposterous. It's the rhetoric of the liars, the excuse of the
> lazy.

Pr�tendre que les Canadiens Fran�ais n'ont JAMAIS �t� pers�cut� de
QUELQUE FA�ON que ce soit, c'est faire preuve d'une tr�s grande
malhonn�tet� intellectuelle.
 
> You'll certainly agree that
> we're as well off if not better off than France, Britain, El Salvador,
> Columbia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Italy, etc, etc. 

Jolie brochette. Tous ces pays sont certainement sur un pied d'�galit�,
en mati�re de qualit� de vie...

> As a matter of fact, we're as
> well off or even better off than anybody else in the world. What's your beef
> my friend? What "Nirvana" do you thing you'll achieve with your
> "sovereignty"???

Nirvana? Comment as-tu devin� que j'�tais bouddhiste? Et arr�te de
m'appeler mon ami tant que tu m'imagineras d'avance comme un idiot et
seras aussi ferm� � mes arguments.

> :>You can't deny that, until the second part of this century, there was a
> :>certain level of economic inequity between anglophones and francophones,
> :>inside Canada and inside Quebec.
> 
> Past history. Not true anymore today. And most of these so-called iniquities
> that you seem to be so hung up with are the direct result of the teachings of
> the Catholic Church!

Bien s�r!

> It's quite clear to me that a farmer will not wield the
> same economic power as a merchant banker!!! You're repeating the fallacies
> propagated by the secessionists. Yes, there was a time when French Canadians
> were more inclined to be farmers than merchant bankers. Not because of
> systematic opression by English Canadians, but as a direct result of the
> teachings of their "favorite priests"!!!

Oublions tout du capitalisme tel que propag� par l'Empire Brittanique...

De toutes fa�on, tout cela n'a RIEN � VOIR avec les raisons qui font de
moi un souverainiste. Alors cesse de gaspiller ta salive � essayer de me
convaincre que je suis born�. Le plus born� des deux n'est pas celui que
l'on pense...


> :>Which is why we figure it's time to go on our collective way.
> 
> There you go right there! You've just shown the world how little you and
> others like you really are. That's the crux of the whole debate right here my
> friend. Little does it really matter whether or not all of the arguments that
> you try to hide behind are really valid as you've just shown that the only
> thing that you're after is sovereignty for sovereignty. The rest is all
> hypocrit window dressing.

Huh? What did you read in this line?

> You see, the problem I have with you and others like you is that you don't
> have the GUTS to come out and sell what it is that you want for what it really
> is. You're a bunch of racist xenophobes who want to rid a whole geographic
> area of "unwanted elements" to have it all for yourselves. 

HOW the HELL did you deduce such BULLSHIT from what I wrote? You're so
convince of what my thoughts are that you instantly jump to conclusion
with NO ARGUMENTS to support your claim. You want to imagine me that
way? Okay. I challenge you to go through the dejanews archive and find
proof that I'm a xenophobe and/or racist (do you even understand what
the words mean?)

Et tu te dis ouvert d'esprit!

> When given ample reasons to disprove your claims about this so-called
> persecution, the cat really comes out of the bag. We're doing well, "Which is
> why we figure it's time to go on our collective way". Your own words... We
> should take advantage of this good fortune to get out of Canada.

No, what I meant was: we're now strong and organized enough to become a
full-fledged country. We've worked hard for this, and Canada has lived
past its time.

Notez bien, je ne suis pas contre une union de type Conf�d�rative. Mais
puisqu'il semble �vident qu'une telle union ne serait pas accept�e par
le reste du pays... allons-y pour la souverainet�. Il sera bien temps
plus tard d'acc�der au trait�s que nous jugerons utiles...

> No matter
> that this good fortune has come in large part as a result of our participation
> to the Canadian Federation.

It has come mostly through hard work.


> You try to hide your ploy behind a whole bunch of rhetoric and demagogy
> because you all know too well that if you were to ask the people of Quebec
> about outright separation, the answer will always be a resounding NO. You had
> to wrap this whole thing up with your so-called "offer of partnership to the
> rest of Canada" and confuse a whole lot of people to have the resemblance of a
> chance to win the vote.

Dis-moi, source de sagesse. Qu'y a-t-il de mal � offrir un nouveau
partenariat au Canada?

> Even with all your maskarading and artifices, you
> were not able to convince more than 56% of FRANCOPHONES. Had there not been
> electoral fraud and had aboriginals of all descents voted, the real vote would
> have been no better than 40% - 45% in favor of your camp.

Faux. Fais les calculs avant de dire des sottises!

Les sondages montre que le nombre de souverainistes "purs et durs" ont
augment� de fa�on r�guli�re depuis les d�but des ann�es 70. Au prochain
r�f�rendum, peu importe la question, le OUI devrait facilement
l'emporter - puisque de toutes fa�on le Canada n'aura pas r�ussi �
changer d'une miette.

> :>But see, it's not the reason why I'm a sovereignist. 
> 
> You're a secessionist because you're a racist xenophobe. 

Quel argument. J'en reste sans vois. Toi, tu est un f�d�raliste parce
que tu est un idiot cong�nital.

> After careful analysis, all of the classic excuses brought about by
> secessionists for their plan easily fall apart. At the end, the only real
> excuse is racism, xenophobia. No matter how hard you try to convince me
> otherwise my friend, facts are facts.

Donc tu avoue avoir l'esprit ferm� comme une hu�tre.

> If you insist in getting your way, you'll have to
> displace us. Believe me, it won't be easy...

"Us"? Que veux-tu dire par l�?

> You secessionists reason like the little boy who can't get his way and warns
> the others that he will not play anymore. After pulling this stunt once too
> many, this little boy invariably ends up playing by himself in his own
> backyard. I think you've been playing with yourself for too long, monsieur
> Elie!!!

Bon. Inutile de r�pondre � ce post. Tu est trop bouch� et idiot pour
tenir une discussion civilis�e. Je sais que tu vas imaginer que c'est
parce que tu m'a bouch�: imagine ce que tu veux, je m'en TAPE!

> :> to justify the argument that Canada works
> :>is a bit disturbing. It implies that francophone Quebecois wouldn't have
> :>succeeded as much without Canada. Are you suggesting that francophones
> :>wouldn't have been able to prosper on their own? The fact that you
> :>stress this fact, overshadowing the contributions Quebec has made to
> :>Canada, shows how we are still perceived as descendants of those
> :>"lumberjack and bringer of water", like my ancestors have been called a
> :>couple of times on qc.politique.
> 
> You're full of shit, monsieur Elie. I was merely pointing out what is factual.
> Quebecois are doing well today, period. Read again if you care. Never did I
> write or imply that Quebecois would not have been as sucessful without Canada.

But if you carry the argument to its end, it is exactly what you're
implying. Oh, I forgot to add: YOU FUCKING INBRED PRETENTIOUS
CLOSE-MINDED SHITHEAD. Sorry, I answer insults with insults. I would
have been more subtle, but it's late and I can't wait to get to the end
of this post.

> :>Hatred! My, how strong you go! Dreams of Power? No. Dreams of democracy
> :>are what fuel me.
> 
> Dreams of Democracy? From a bunch who will stop at nothing to have their way
> against the will of a clear majority??? A bunch that will justify suspending
> others' rights for the so-called protection of their own??? You have to be
> kidding, monsieur Elie!!!

You don't even know what you're talking about!

> 
> :>But I'm not an idiot.
> 
> Boy, from reading you, it's not all that evident!!!

I'd challenge you to a contest of wits, but it would just crush you.
Plus, I don't have all that time to spare.

> :>I know that separation does not
> :>mean an ideal society. But I know how to distinguish between different
> :>political battles.
> 
> Please monsieur Elie, a simple answer to my question: What is it that your
> separation will bring me?

A sovereign country. Nothing more, nothing less. The rest will come
through other struggles.

> A better standard of living, a better economy, more
> jobs, a better education, better health care, 

This will require a lot more than sovereignty! Also, by the time
sovereignty comes, we'll see what's left of these inside Canada, shall
we?

> better harmony with thy
> neighbours, after having kicked them out?

You're the one who wants to kick them out, it seems. You're the one
always bringing it up!

> Will this "state of mind" really
> enrich my life experience? I'm afraid not, monsieur Elie. I'm quite happy with
> my life experience as it is now. I don't see what a Republic of Quebec could
> add to this.

Of course not, you're a close-minded federalist (fortunately, not all
federalists are as fanatical as you are!)

> No politician in 1996 enters politics for you and me, monsieur Elie.
> They all do it because they see a big payoff for themselves at the end of the
> rainbow.

But of course! At least we agree on something.

> The name of the game in politics is the larger your sphere of
> influence, the larger the payoff at the end of the road.

So you're a defender of imperialism? 

> Do you honestly
> think that Bouchard is in this for the welfare of the good people of Quebec.
> If you do, monsieur Elie, you're really due for a wake up call!!!

I don't. Do you really think that Chretien is in it to protect human
rights?

I have no lesson to receive from you, "monsieur". I think you are
pathetic, "monsieur".

> :>I'm not talking politics to tell other francophones to hate the english.
> :>I know that's how people like you would like to portray me, because you
> :>can't find the faults in my arguments.
> 
> What are your arguments other than "persecution mongering", monsieur Elie.
> What will separation bring me that I don't already have or that I can't get
> within the Canadian Federation???

A coutry that works. A smaller country that can better adjust to rapid
economic changes. A country where we have one dominant culture - like
most normal countries - instead of an incessant power struggle between
two dominant cultures.

> According to this religion of yours,
> everything that the other side does is "bad" and, of course, your own side can
> do no wrong!!!

You realize the exact same thing can be said of you.


> :>> The bottom line today is that the French fact has gained
> :>> tremendous strenght in Quebec in the last 30 years.
> :>
> :>Yes, that's only natural: they're the majority.
> 
> Yeah, we're a majority in Quebec and that doesn't give us the right to deny
> the minority any of its rights.

Stop embarrassing yourself. Reread the last three "paragraphs" and
you'll realize how intellectually dishonest you are.


> :>The quality of life of all westerners has greatly improved in the second
> :>part of the 20th century. This does not mean that a)there was no
> :>exploitation before and b)that sovereignty is not a legitimate political
> :>option.
> 
> Exploitation! Like your "excesses of the past"!!! Plain bullshit dude. And you
> know it.

Not bullshit. Give me proof that there was NO exploitation before.
Matter of fact is, you can't! All you do is present your opinion as
argument. Doesn't work that way.

> Go talk to your local catholic priest about all this if it makes you
> feel better!!!

I'm not a catholic. In fact, I'm not even baptized. I have some sympathy
for the buddhist faith. I asked my buddhist priest about Quebec
sovereignty, and all he could say was: "Ever changing world..."

> :>
> :>Some sovereignists thrive on the notion that Quebec is constantly
> :>shafted by Ottawa. Not me:
> 
> Geeze, from reading you, this is not at all eveident!

I suggest you re-read, with an open mind this time.

> :> I say it's occasionally shafted by Ottawa,
> 
> Geeze, that's a big step in the right direction!
> 
> :>Yes, it's become more centralized.
> 
> Again, educate yourself. Canada is amongst the least centralized federations
> in the world.

Still, it's a federation. And that's too centralized for me. I'll settle
for a confederation, though.


> :>It also has a national debt no one envies at all, believe me! It has
> :>higher unemployment than a good deal of other industrialized countries,
> :>and a widening income gap. Governments are cutting down those programs
> :>that gave us those high standard of living. Constitutional talks lead to
> :>deadlock, and regionalism is at an all-time high...
> 
> The problem of the national debt, unemployment, decrease in expenses, and
> every other evil things that you cite is a worldwide problem, monsieur Elie.
> The US, France, Britain, Germany, Japan, etc, all experience these same
				    ^^^^^ 
Japan has no foreign debt, I believe.
	
> problems to an extent or another. New Zealand had to slash every thing to the
> core a decade ago. They went through it and are all doing much better today
> for having had the courage to face their problems. It's not isolated to Canada
> or Quebec.

Of course not!

> Again, you're using disinformation to incite Quebecois to believe
> that all of the ills that are currently facing them are directly the fault of
> Ottawa and the rest of Canada.

No, I didn't. You're the one engaged in disinformation here - though it
just might be that you're too thick to understand that my point was
thus: this high standard of living you're priding yourself on is going
down the drain, throughout the western world.
 
> As for constitutional deadlock, for as long as Quebec is represented by
> secessionists, there can never be any agreement.

The liberals haven't done much better. But you probably believe they're
sovereignists, too!

> Nothing will ever be enough!
> It takes 2 to tangle, monsieur Elie.
                ^^^^^^
That's Tango.    	

> :>Anyway, a good standard of living has nothing to do with with
> :>sovereingty.
> 
> Maybe not for those who masturbate and ejaculate on political debates, 

Have you come yet? This is getting boring.

> Racism and xenophobia. Nothing else.
> At least, have the guts of your opinions!

Needless to say, I disagree with you. At least you could agree to
disagree without feeling the need to slander me.
 
> 
> It will evolve, as it's been doing since it's origins. Splitting the country
> or devoiding the Federal Government of any meaningful levers, as being claimed
> by secessionists, of course, will never happen, if it's what you mean.
> Adapting to the times to address the changing needs of Canadians, that it
> will, as it's always done.

Oh yeah. That's why we've got the biggest national debt in the
industrialized world!

You really should wash your brain only once a week, you'd make some
sense!


> Quebecois's standard of living is a strong preference of theirs and, in turn,
> it has a very big influence on what political orientation they chose for
> themselves. You can trip on the flowers of the carpet as much as you want,
> nothing will change that. If you can't show them that they'll be as well off
> or better off after your secession, they won't go for it. Mark my words!

Mark mine: we'll win the next referendum, despite your faith in
Quebecois' cowardice!

> :>> What do the secessionists have to offer? A new type of society,
> :>> some kind of a radical social-democracy?
> :>
> :>A radical social-democracy is a contradiction of terms.
> 
> Excuse me, mister erudite. Should you show as much dedication in the
> development of your so-called reasoning, maybe more of us would understand
> what it is that you want!!!

Oh, did I touch a nerve, here? You made a mistake and you're all flushed
up? Don't worry, I won't correct you no more. In fact, I'll stop writing
to you altogether. That way you won't have anyone to contradict you.

> :>Of course you KNOW what Quebecois want. You've got a special antenna
> :>that feeds you their thought.
> 
> Geeze, don't you go out from time to time?

Yes, I do. More often than you, it seems.

Goodbye. I can't say it was a pleasure, more like a waste of time. Happy
parading!

_____________________________

�lie Charest
turgon@mlink.net

"Keyboard not detected. Press F1 to continue." Windows 95
http://www.mlink.net/~turgon/demons.html