Victor Schukov

All

Wherefore art thou, Quebec messiah?

Not since the Rhinoceros Party has there been a Quebec political cabal displaying such Lilliputian absurdities as the PQ.

One of my favourite hoof-in-mouth proclamations is when they referred to naïve voters as “lobsters in a pot.” Second prize goes to blaming their last referendum loss on “money and ethnics.” (Like that’s supposed to be a bad thing.)

Here’s the latest knee-slapper from that O.-Anglo-Corral keeper M. Jean-Francois Lisee: “If we see English dwindling, we’ll take measures to reinforce it.” (Punch “LOL” all over this one.) That’s like a guy repeatedly stabbing you in the back, twisting the knife, and ensuring you that he will call a doctor if you take a turn for the worst. Yikes. Kind of insulting our intelligence, don’t you think?

So, we lobsters don’t trust the party that spends $20,000 to flog a candied nationalistic song while taking Lachine Hospital out of the super-hospital equation.

The seldom Right nor Honourable Minister of Buttering Up the Lobsters recently spoke in Fortress Westmount, magnanimously blaming urban sprawl and not “anglophones” for the spread of (the) English (virus) on Montreal Island. Wow, at how many levels can you see the arrogance and condescension?

The petty party of perennial poppycock has incubated an impressively embarrassing list of real-life baloney. For instance, the undemocratic Bill 101 and its travelling companion the oblique Notwithstanding Clause: a licence to harass non-dyed-in-the-wool in (a legally) officially bilingual Canada along with a stay-out-of-jail-free card with which to overrule both the Quebec and Canadian Charter of Rights. Even totalitarian states don’t have language police.

Countless Gazette letters show that readers “get it.” They collectively rail against the travesties. But why is nothing done about all this nonsense? Like all civil crusades, a charismatic leader is required. A leader of a specific cause is a specialist of that cause, like Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela or Lech Walesa, etc.

So where is our champion? Doesn’t anyone out there want to become historically famous?

“WANTED: A supremely immoveable protest leader. Must be dogmatic enough to actually irritate the PQ and insult their intelligence, to talk down to them, to be not so much defensive as completely offensive. The tit-for-tat messiah will need to challenge their unity-busting, socially destructive agenda. But gleefully ram it down their collective gullets with common sense, bilingualism, unity and democracy. Someone who is a Quebecer. Someone ‘with no doubts.’ (Whatever the hell that means.) Someone who will rudely remind the revisionists of history that those they haven’t managed to scare away are the vital remainders of those who contributed to this great Canadian province and continue to put every effort into educating their kids in both official languages. (Like civilized folk do.) Someone to lead a series of growing marches of hundreds of thousands of people until the majority of Quebecers (regardless of race or language) get what they want: societal equilibrium, job stability, proper health service and to enjoy harmonious, normal lives. The successful candidate must not be a politician, because such generalists try to appeal to everyone and satisfy very few.”

Collectively, we are complaining, intelligent sheep. We need someone with the brains and the gall equal to the task of dealing with a bloc-head party. We need a real leader.

Where are you?

4 comments

  1. By the Ling Master

    I vote for Chris Nilan. He has the added advantage of being from the U.S., where people don’t put up with this kind of stuff.

  2. Mr. Schukov refers to “the undemocratic Bill 101″. However, there is nothing “undemocratic” about it as it was voted into law by a clear majority of duly elected representatives to Quebec’s National Assembly. So, too, have all the amendments subsequent to its passage in 1977.

    The author would be on firmer ground by referring to Bill 101 as “human rights violating” which it clearly is on numerous fronts. Individual rights and freedoms can be at odds with the democratic will of the people. That’s why the first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to “free and democratic societies; two values — freedom and democracy — often compete with each other. Indeed, charters and bills of rights are created precisely to guard against the tyranny of the majority.

    It is also important to point out that the central government’s representative in Quebec City — the Lieutenant-Governor, who signature is required for any bill to become law — is affixed to Bill 101 and all its amendments. Sadly, a promise of Confederation — one that is part and parcel of the deal that became the nation of Canada — was that any provincial legislation that violated the rights of its minorities or individuals would be vetoed by the central government. The withholding of the Lieutenant-Governor’s signature from such legislation is one manifestation of this veto power, one that the federal government has never seen fit to use since the country’s inception.

    So if there is anything distastefully “undemocratic” about Bill 101 it is, equally, if not more, undemocratic on the part of the federal government than on the part of the P.Q.

  3. Bill 101 is is indeed undemocratic and so it has been ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada an illegal piece of legislation.

    To say that a Bill passed by the elite of the province, a very tiny bourgeois minority (who happen to be elected officials), a protectionist rabble with hidden and not so hidden agendas is democratic is to flatly deny the democratic process. If the implementation of Bill 101, so controversial, was democratic then why not put it to a referendum which would be closer to an act of democracy that the fiat-style, almost proclamation way of implementing a Bill that no citizen has ever voted upon.

    Equally undemocratic is the unwillingness of the federal government and the Supreme Court to give anything more than lip-service to the issue of Bill 101. This leads thinking Canadians to deduce that there is more to Bill 101 than meets the eye. The silence of the federal government resounds across Canada in a very awry cry for justice, not just democracy.

    Until Bill 101 is abolished there is no hope for Quebec, no hope for the survival of the French language and no hope for an end to economic and social instability. Is it perhaps time to consider that the PQ is trying to provoke social unrest with their zeal in protecting and trying to strengthen Bill 101 at a time when it is less popular than ever?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>