Thursday, November 30, 2006

André Boisclair's ludicrous chorus

If you understand French, just look at this video that will show you why André Boisclair is definitely not made for politics, but rather for entertainment. I really wonder where on earth André Boisclair learned how to make a goddamned speech. Even a politician from a Third-World country speaks better than that as far as I know.

Aboriginals are not nations

We can learn in today's edition of the newspaper Le Devoir that a commission about the Aboriginals within the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) adopted a resolution that recognizes the Aboriginals as nations within the Canadian nation. Furthermore, we can also learn that the Aboriginals want their so-called "government" to be recognized equally with the federal and provincial government.

Now, I don't want to sound really rude, but even though Aboriginals are involved in the foundation of Canada, a part of their identity has actually crafted the Canadian cultural identity. That leads me to my central point. Do I recognize Aboriginals as "nations within the Canadian nation"? Obviously, the answer is a clearly no. There are certainly different ways to embrace their cultural (and ethnic) difference without looking like a clown.

It's so pathetic how Canadian politicians don't even dare to put their pants and stop using great words that are only meant to seduce some categories of voters that I don't need to name... Don't Quebeckers and Aboriginals see that they're being manipulated? I really doubt so.

A recognition of a civil group doesn't have to be made in a way that recognizes them as "nations within Canada", because no matter what we say, in a text of law, it's quite hard to take out the sense of any given word. As Norman Specter said it, an English dictionnary only contains one defition for the word "nation", while a French dictionnary has two: the translation of the English definition and an ambiguous sociological definition.

If a debate about the recognition of the Aboriginals, along with the "Québécois" (as Stephen Harper said it), "as nations within Canada", is totally a pure waste of time, what should be done? Well, many people might not agree with what it is being said in this column, but let's start with the Aboriginals.

A way to politely cuddle their cultural (and ethnic) difference might probably consists into inserting exclusive laws for the Aboriginals into our civil code. Evidently, these laws must aim to respect Aboriginals as they are. This means that even though Aboriginals are, above all, Canadian citizens, they can benefit from the right to live in their land with the way of life that they cherish.

In my opinion, the Aboriginals don't have access to enough resources for their living. More schools should be built in order to instruct them and the government probably needs to invest more money in order to give access to the Aboriginals to more access to federal and provincial services. Their education can certainly be made in English or French, but these languages must taught as second languages given the fact that Aboriginals have the right to preserve their culture. Furthermore, the almost-complete evacuation of Canadian's racism towards Aboriginals also makes it useless to recognize the Aboriginals as nation. Anyway, I'll eventually talk about why it's pointless to recognize Quebec as a nation in another column.

André Boisclair: A machine of idiocy

André Boisclair, the leader of the Parti Québécois.
Since about two days, all people in Quebec, if not in Canada from coast to coast, learned that the leader of the Parti Québécois (PQ) André Boisclair accepted to appear in a short spoof of Brokeback Mountain that will be aired on the MusiMax channel. This publicity stunt by André Boisclair doesn't reveal us that he has the guts to be a head of a government, but rather a machine of idiocy.

Normally, a politician is not supposed to make these kind of ludicrous things. André Boisclair shouldn't wonder why people will be scoffing at him after his sullied performance in this spoof that nobody would like to watch. As far as we know, a politician is supposed to be more serious than that and by doing such an odd thing, Boisclair is casting the opprobrium not only on himself, but also on those who are supporthing him and the Quebecker population.

Besides, it appears that Boisclair has so much difficulty to take a walk out of the 514 area (i.e. Montréal), just because he's gay. No wonder why Mario Dumont made a sharp joke about Boisclair's lack of knowledge about Quebec's regions! All in all, the leader of the PQ gave to himself a forum through the mainstream media in order to get a value in the public opinion. Speaking about Mario Dumont, he's one of the few politicians who dared to say that Boisclair has a lack of judgement.

André Boisclair should definitely think about looking for another job. As time goes by, we can clearly see that he's not going to win the next provincial election. As MisterP pointed it out, did André Boisclair have to accept to do anything just to show us that he's cool?

It really makes me laugh when I hear André Boisclair saying that he already sees himself as Quebec's next Premier and also the first president of the "Republic of Quebec". If there will be a leadership race in the PQ, I hope that a vast majority of its supporters will think twice before they massively choose a new leader...

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Defending Michael Chong

The author of this column is certainly not a warm supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada led by Stephen Harper. Nonetheless, in the House of Commons, when 266 votes vs 16 approved the motion that recognizes "Québécois" as a nation "within an united Canada", Michael Chong, the former Intergovernmental Affairs minister, did the right thing by repudiating this weird motion that wouldn't make Quebeckers' house more beautiful.

Michael Chong, who is now replaced by Peter Van Loan, is certainly one of the rare MPs who gave his opinion. Is he right when he says that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's motion about Quebec is an "ethnic recognition"? The answer is yes. However, what many people don't know is that Stephen Harper, although he says that he's not racist, has a "nativism" (an expression that belongs to Larry Zolf) that is rooted deeply into his individual mentality.

Besides, Chong is probably one of the few MPs on the Parliament Hill who saw that this useless semantic debate started by the Bloc Québécois (BQ) is just a pure manipulation of Quebecker voters. In fact, as far as Chong probably knows, the BQ didn't dare to use the word "country" in its orginal motion. In fact, a nation, in its modern sense, is a political unit of citizens who, besides sharing a common culture and history, inhabits in a country that is controlled by a sovereign central government that maintains the law and order. Is Quebec a nation? If Quebeckers want Quebec to be a nation, they just have to separate.

Therefore, Chong definitely knows that a nation is the community of people who inhabits in a country. Furthermore, Stephen Harper, who is now playing the separatists' game, probably used the term "Québécois" to subtlely trap the BQ and the separatists. In English, the word "Québécois" is normally used by English-speaking Canadians to refer to the French Canadians living in Quebec.

After all, a little bit of historical education can make us learn that in the 1960s, French-speaking Quebeckers gradually stopped to refer to themselves by using the word French Canadians. However, one can really wonder why the BQ, the Quebecker separatist federal party, and the Parti Québécois (PQ), one of Quebec's provincial party, both supported this motion, albeit with reluctance...

Now, let's get back to the Quebec nation thing. As opposed to the BQ and the Quebecker separatists, Michael Chong also saw that the motion doesn't define what on earth a Quebecker, or rather a "Québécois", is. Chong also added that ethnic-based nationalism is something that shouldn't be tolerated. Hats off to Michael Chong! Canada finally has a MP who dares to talk openly about ethnic-based nationalism.

However, what many people don't know is that ethnic-based nationalism is well tolerated in Canada. Very strange, indeed for a country that pretends to be so open-minded in an immigration brochure that can be found in Canadian ambassies... Obviously, ethnic-based nationalism is being talked about in the Canadian mainstream media since a few years ago. This column aims to defend a MP who took his courage with both of his hands and exposed two taboos: recognizing "Québécois" as a nation "within an united Canada" (even though Quebeckers don't have a central government!) and ethnic-based nationalism. Two thumbs up for Chong!

PS: Did you know that Transportation minister Lawrence Cannon contradicted himself by accusing the members of the BQ of being ethnic nationalists after he said that ethnic minorities and anglophones are not Quebeckers? Cannon is not better than some separatists as far as we know...

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Gilles Duceppe's imaginary nation

Is the recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada useful? The fact is that many French-speaking Quebeckers are just getting excited over a piece of paper that wouldn't make their house more beautiful. However, Gilles Duceppe and his separatist followers are just so used to receive a negative answer from the federal government that they just got trapped by Stephen Harper's move. This move in question said that "Quebec is not a nation", but rather something like the "Québécois are forming a nation within an united Canada".

In their first motion, the Bloc Québécois (BQ) asked the Canadian government to recognize Quebec as a nation. However, even though both the BQ's original motion and that of Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper are just so useless, the advantage of Harper's move is that it clearly divided the separatists from the BQ and the Parti Québécois (PQ). No wonder why the leader of the PQ André Boisclair didn't like the motion. That tells you how pathetic the BQ is to the Parliament...

Besides the fact that the BQ is just a party that is meant to block the function of the Canadian Parliament, in a manner of speaking, we can also see, with his original motion, that Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the BQ, exactly knows what is the real definition of the word nation whether it's in English or in French. Moreover, Gilles Duceppe and André Boisclair don't want to admit that they've been manipulating Quebeckers by altering the definition of the word "nation".

French-speaking Quebecker social scientists can say whatever they want about the definition of the word nation. This week, we saw that Boisclair and Duceppe are aware that a nation is a civil community of people who, besides sharing a common culture and history, inhabits in a country that is defined by borders and controlled by a central government that affirms its sovereignty by making on its own the laws.

Such an odd move from Gilles Duceppe illustrate such a bad intention. Gilles Duceppe said that as long as he's alive, he wants to advocate democracy. However, is it democratic to propose a motion in the House of Commons that recognizes "Quebec as a nation"? Asking the question is like answering to it. It's like asking the permission to the Canadian government to separate without making any referendum! Gilles Duceppe should know that a majority of Quebeckers refused to separate from Canada twice.

The only way for him to know if Quebeckers want to separate from Canada is to organize a referendum, because that should give him an idea how much people like separatism. Besides, Duceppe should know that most members of ethnic minorities don't have any emotional belonging to Quebec. Only 8% of New Quebeckers want separation.

One day, Gilles Duceppe said that Quebec is a nation. The other day, he clumsily conceals his refusal to vote for Stephen Harper's motion that says that "Quebeckers are forming a nation within Canada". A few minutes later, he says that he'll support this motion, because apparently, Duceppe and the separatists don't want to lose their face.

This is so ludicrous...

Now, let's call a cat a cat. If Gilles Duceppe and the separatists want Quebec to become a nation, all they have to do is to make a referendum and separate. However, I doubt that they'll manage to convince a clear majority of Quebeckers...

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Hats off to Mario Dumont!

Five days ago, the leader of the Action Démocratique du Québec (ADQ) Mario Dumont declared that some accommodation granted to religious minorities lack a “big common sense”. While the Parti Québécois’s (PQ) leader André Boisclair clumsily demolished Dumont, Quebec’s premier Jean Charest, and leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec (LPQ), said that we must take the time to think about this very not-so-complex debate. Thanks to his intellectual sincerity, Mario Dumont proved one thing: Jean Charest and André Boisclair are both unable to bring forward questions that matter to us.

Boisclair dared to say that Dumont is “bold” enough to defend Quebec’s identity. Furthermore, when his concerns were voiced, the PQ’s leader also stated that Mario Dumont released his point of view about “reasonable accommodation” to make some “easy political gains”. Really? If Mario Dumont is “worser than the oldest American conservative Republican”, how should André Boisclair label himself? As a smart diplomat? Nothing came from André Boisclair although he voiced an empty opinion, as usual.

After his laughable and dim proposal to “dust the Quebecker Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, the leader of the PQ asked Jean Charest to hold a debate at the National Assembly. With such an evasive and insignificant answer to the events that all Quebec is facing, it’s easy to see that André Boisclair is not only distorting the gist of Dumont’s remark, but he’s also trying to make some pathetic political gains among “ethnic votes”. Is it in the interest of Boisclair to talk thoroughly about religious accommodation? Maybe. Maybe not.

Nonetheless, just like any soft and weak-minded politicians, André Boisclair wants to stay in the politically correct zone (just like Jean Charest) and some remarks about religious accommodation will obviously tarnish the PQ’s image. Why? Well, the PQ, a party that wants the separation of Quebec from Canada, is still dragging the image of an ethnic political party because of Jacques Parizeau... Moreover, many members of ethnic communities would have mindlessly interpreted any remarks about religious accommodation from Boisclair as sheer racism.

However, it becomes very easy to tell that at the next election, the PQ might inevitably lose ridings that are viewed as Quebec’s regions, which are the PQ’s ground base. Attempts are made by Boisclair to open his party to ethnic minorities. However there’s one big problem for the PQ. This problem can be explained like this: it’s almost impossible for André Boisclair to juggle simultaneously with the desire to defend the ethnic communities and the willingness to defend the political values that most French-speaking Quebeckers living outside Montreal care about.

As for the LPQ, it has always taken for granted ethnic votes. Not only, will a remark about religious accommodation by Jean Charest be perceived as an act of racism, but this fear goes further: Charest doesn’t want to alienate influential voters and ethnic votes always gave a chance for the LPQ to seize a parliamentary majority at the National Assembly. For Quebeckers, the message was quite clear: the LPQ and the PQ both wants power. This probably explains why Charest and Boisclair are so irrelevant and that they can’t handle a question that Quebeckers presently see as the centre of public attention.

By robotically omitting to authoritatively deal with the issue of religious accommodation, not only do Charest and Boisclair ludicrously think about the next provincial election, but they’re also forgetting that as politicians, they must do their best to take in consideration all the opinions that shape the ideologically pluralistic political landscape of Quebec. As for Jean Charest, the leader of the LPQ, by refusing to talk about religious accommodation, he looks like a soft leader who is walking on a minefield!

This week allowed us to see that as opposed to Jean Charest and André Boisclair, Mario Dumont is able to tackle tough questions like a real head of state without saying anything racist at all. Whether Jean Charest and André Boisclair appreciates it or not, since the opinion of the ADQ’s leader was thrown in Quebec’s political sphere, it will become hard for them to ridiculously reject most Quebeckers’ opinion about this issue that involves a handful of people who wants to defend secularism and those who advocate religious accommodation.

Even though I don’t always agree with Mario Dumont, this time, I take my hat off to him, because he really showed us what Charest and Boisclair are: soft opportunists who want power without thinking about the biggest social interests of Quebec’s population. If Mario Dumont was repudiated by Quebecker voters because of the program that he presented in 2003, the next election will certainly give him the chance to show us that he really represent the ordinary Quebeckers, but it would be so much better if Dumont favours a secular law that is inspired from the French.

Friday, November 17, 2006

The Multiculturalism Act's backlash

It appears that for the eulogists of the Multiculturalism Act, which came into effect in 1971, criticizing the Canadian doctrine of multiculturalism rationally with nuances is something racist. Really? Did you know that racism is actually a theory of hatred that advocates the superiority of an ethnic group or a nation? To be very honest with you, the Multiculturalism Act has a backlash on the Canadian society, because it depends on stereotypes and “[it ensures] that ethnic groups will preserve their distinctiveness in a gentle and insidious form of cultural apartheid”, according to Canadian writer Neil Bissoondath. This man also adds that multiculturalism leads “an already divided society down the path to further social divisiveness.”

My doubts about the Multiculturalism Act started to grow when I started to keep both of my eyes on what’s going on in Canadian politics in high school. Unfortunately, the size of my doubts about multiculturalism doubled because of the behaviour of most New Canadians that I know, the 17 terrorists who were arrested in Toronto and most of all, the so-called “reasonable accommodation”. Honestly, I never needed the Multiculturalism Act to learn how to be a proud and committed Canadian. Even though I’d like to live in a Canadian melting pot, I really doubt that the New Canadians of my generation would like to do it.

Multiculturalism, this sacred cow from Liberals, creates a narrow mentality of ghetto into every ethnic layers of the Canadian society. In fact, the problem is that most people from ethnic minorities and immigrants just identify themselves to their ancestral culture. I’m not saying that they don’t have the right to keep their heritage, but as a result of such an obsessive attachment to their ancestral culture, not only do New Canadians exclude themselves, but they also display a sickening disdain towards Canadian mainstream culture and values. New Canadians have the right to be proud of their homeland, but their allegiance towards Canada must be more important.

In a country that gives them the assurance that their own ancestral identity equally takes part to the elaboration of Canada’s identity next to the REAL national identity of Canada, most immigrants and ethnic minorities, because of their huge pride and impression of belonging to their ethnic community, often consider the Canadian culture as one that is inferior to their ancestral culture. Thus, most immigrants and ethnic minorities don’t feel right at home in Canada and above all, they don’t feel accepted by English and French Canadians as brothers and that explains why they staunchly reject the Canadian mainstream culture and values.

The real things got to be said about multiculturalism: this political doctrine conceived by former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau is a real threat to the national unity. How is it possible to mould a coherent unity with an internal policy that excessively insists on ethnic distinction, eh? Here’s how the Canadian society is divided: the English and French Canadians who consider themselves as “real Canadians”, a few member of ethnic minorities who view themselves as “real Canadians”, the rest of the members of ethnic minorities who live apart from the Canadian way of life, the Quebecker separatists and the Aboriginals.

The problem with this ludicrous mosaic of culture is that it divides the society more than we really think. Most English and French Canadians are viscerally convinced that ethnic minorities are not “real Canadians”. Furthermore, multiculturalism just creates a society in which everybody culturally has nothing in common. Besides, the government should worry about our educational system. Is it meant to create citizens (who are loyal to Canada and united with a national culture and values) or just a bunch of polarized ethnic tribes that commonly share a citizenship and a passport? Seriously, I really doubt that Canadian politicians will dare to announce the abolition of the Multiculturalism Act in their platform, because they certainly don’t want to brand themselves as racist and alienate influential voters by poking around in the country's ethnic entrails.

I don’t mean to be rude, but it is not racist to criticize multiculturalism, as an internal policy. Multiculturalism, as an internal policy, has done nothing to give to ethnic minorities “a place in the Canadian sun”, as Larry Zolf said it. It is a concept that encourages immigrants to stay in their psychological ghettoes and it does little to integrate ethnic groups into the Canadian way of life. The fact is that multiculturalism is a myth that pits new comers against the Canadian society. It gives them the odd feeling that they can reproduce their homeland on Canadian soil.

This myth also prevents an effective integration and a progressive assimilation of the second-generation New Canadians. Ethnic minorities, through a real integration and a progressive assimilation into a Canadian melting pot, will find peace for themselves and their children by not feeling marginalized at all.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

A pathetic poll on multiculturalism

Ok, I'm not supposed to write anything in my blog since I'm on a break, but let me share a very interesting thing with you. It's not the first time that I see an English Canadian newspaper make a poll about Canadians' opinion about multiculturalism. We can see that the majority of Canadians want the "immigrants and ethnic minorities to blend into the Canadian society". However, the problem is that there's lack of nuances in this survey.

If you responded by stating that "immigrants and ethnic minorities [should] blend into the Canadian society", the pollsters will think that you're upholding that immigrants and ethnic minorities don't have the right to keep their ancestral culture. It looks like pollsters nowadays don't even know how to make a poll. Americans want immigrants and ethnic minorities to blend into American society. Does it make Americans racist and oppressive? Definitely not.

Anyway, Friday, I'll write a blog entry about why I'm against the Multiculturalism Act and I'm also going to talk about its backlash on the Canadian society. Leave your comment on my blog on Friday. I just can't wait to have your opinion on the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Related link:
Here's the stupid poll that I was talking about

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Just a few words before my break

Hello, I just want to let you know that I am nominated for the "Best Blog" and "Best New Blog" in the Canadian Blog Awards. The votes for the first round will begin on the 15th of November. Be there. Obviously, I'll try to improve my blog as much as I can.

Canadian Blog Awards
By the way, here's a very interesting link about a conference in Montreal held by the Shiite muslim elite of North America. Those who are there are trying to find a way to help Muslim to integrate in the Canadian and US society. Wow, good luck. Now, I'm going back to my work.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Remembrance Day

November 11, 2006: Remembrance Day...

In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Au champ d'honneur
French adaptation of In Flanders Fields by Jean Parizeau

Au champ d'honneur les coquelicots
Sont parsemés de lot en lot
Auprès des croix. Et dans l'espace
Les alouettes devenues lasses
Mêlent leurs chants au sifflement
Des obusiers.
Nous sommes morts
Nous qui songions la veille encore
À nos parents, à nos amis,
C'est nous qui reposons ici
Au champ d'honneur
À vous jeunes désabusés
À vous de porter l'oriflamme
Et de garder au fond de l'âme
Le goût de vivre en liberté
Acceptez le défi, si non
Les coquelicots se faneront
Au champ d'honneur

Friday, November 3, 2006

The myth about Canada's neutrality

Some of those who left a comment on my previous blog entry believed that Canada is a peacekeeping nation. In fact, according to them, going at war is apparently something new for this country. Evidently, Canada is certainly a nation that pursues peacekeeping objectives since the end of the 1950s when Lester B. Pearson, the minister of External Affairs (the former name of the Foreign Affairs Ministry) back then, proposed to reform the United Nations (UN). However, in its short History of foreign policies, Canada often had so much difficulty to conceal its lack of neutrality. In fact, talking about Canada’s neutrality is like talking about a myth.

Everything began in 1931. As a British colony, Canada participated to the First World War (1914-1919) and afterwards, Canada will become a member of the League of Nations, the ancestor of the United Nations (UN). In addition to that, the Statute of Westminster in 1931 is a turning point in the History of Canadian politics: Canada is now a country that can take its own decision in terms of foreign policy. When Canada was a dominion from 1867 to 1931, it was at war as soon as the British declared war to another country.

However, the Statute of Westminster gave an autonomy that Canada needed: this country got a complete control over its domestic and external policy, even though "a procedure to amend the British North America Act in Canada had still to be devised and appeals of Supreme Court decisions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain continued until 1949", according to Canadian historian Ramsay Cook.

In the turmoil of the Second World War (1939-1945), Canada’s Prime Minister Mackenzie King will see the necessity to mobilize Canadian troops right before Poland was invaded by Germany. On the 1st of September 1939, Canada will fully flex its military muscle. In addition to the full mobilization of Canada’s army, a conscription law will take effect after the fall of France in 1940 and it forces every men who are physically in good shape to serve in the army.

Obviously, Canada wasn’t going in Europe or in Asia to give flowers to the German, the Italian or the Japanese soldiers. The objective of the Canadian involvement in the Second World War was to help the Allies against Adolf Hitler and also to support Great Britain. Moreover, Canada believed that it must stand up for “freedom”. All in all, the Second World War wasn’t a peacekeeping mission, but rather a mission that was meant to deliver some European and Asian countries and restore democracy in European countries by killing enemies and therefore, encountering human resistance during a major conflict that tore the whole world.

The Korean War (1950-1953) is also another example about Canada’s international political partisanship. According to the official discourse, Canada, along with the other members of the UN’s forces, was to secure the 38th parallel which is the dividing borderline between North and South Korea. However, the real objective of this war consisted into repelling North Korean soldiers and Red China’s army out of South Korea to “contain” communism, because Western countries didn’t want this appalling ideology to spread in South Korea. In short, the Korean War is an ideological war because this country wasn’t a “neutral” country like Austria, Switzerland, Egypt or India, but rather a country that was working hand-in-hand with the capitalist countries to counter the Soviets’ threatening political evangelism.

Actually, the last global conflict in which Canada participated was the Gulf War in 1991 and the war in Afghanistan is a combat done by a group of troops. Saying that Canada has always been a peacekeeping nation is a complete joke that is meant to stress to the so-called moral superiority of Canadians. All in all, it’s important to know that even though Canada did peacekeeping mission in Cyprus and Haiti for example, making war is definitely not something new in the short History of Canadian foreign policy. Do you have an opinion about my column? Well, speak up your mind while I’m gladly waiting for your comment. By the way, never am I suggesting in my column that Canada should be an imperialist country. In fact, Canada must only take part to missions that are approved by the UN.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

About This Blog

Lorem Ipsum


  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by 2008

Back to TOP