Dumont is going to split the vote!
- Thread starter J. Peterman
- Start date
Personally, I have problems with all politicians. They'll say one thing one day and once they get elected or things change in their parties favour, they will change their tune.
Remeber these events?:
Federal Liberals: We'll scrap the GST... we still have the GST after they formed the government over 3 times since the GST was introduced.
Federal Conservatives: Belinda Stronach was w*oring herself when she joined the liberals after being elected as a conservative. If she wants to be a liberal, she should give up her seat and run as a liberal... however, what did they say when 2 people who were elected as liberals joined their party after they formed the government? They basically said it wasn't the same and that these people had the right to change parties according to the current rules in place without resigning their seat.
Federal Conservatives about the appointing of senators... yet after they get elected, they appointed a senator from Montreal.
In regards to Dumont, even though some of his ideas some intriguing. I don't trust him. He seems like an opportunist who will say and do anything to get elected. He started out as a provincial liberal but then left to start his own party. He then campaigned for the sovereignty under the ADQ with the PQ. He is now saying that he won't do this again. He is also a 1 man party.
In regards to Charest, I'm tired of him blaming the PQ for the problems. He had 1 term to try to fix some of the problems and it doesn't seem as if anything is fixed to me. The taxes are still high and the medicare system is still not improved.
In regards to Boisclair, I don't like his party's agenda of another referendum. I also don't like his party's unionist views.
When the Quebec government is getting more money from the federal government than they are paying, how will Quebec improve with independance? I can see the "have" provinces like Ontario, BC, and Alberta gaining something by separating since they wouldn't have to pay equalization payments to poor provinces like Newfoundland, Quebec, etc. but how will a "have not" province like Quebec benefit from separating?
Quebec is already considered to be the highest taxed jurisdiction in all of North America.
Remeber these events?:
Federal Liberals: We'll scrap the GST... we still have the GST after they formed the government over 3 times since the GST was introduced.
Federal Conservatives: Belinda Stronach was w*oring herself when she joined the liberals after being elected as a conservative. If she wants to be a liberal, she should give up her seat and run as a liberal... however, what did they say when 2 people who were elected as liberals joined their party after they formed the government? They basically said it wasn't the same and that these people had the right to change parties according to the current rules in place without resigning their seat.
Federal Conservatives about the appointing of senators... yet after they get elected, they appointed a senator from Montreal.
In regards to Dumont, even though some of his ideas some intriguing. I don't trust him. He seems like an opportunist who will say and do anything to get elected. He started out as a provincial liberal but then left to start his own party. He then campaigned for the sovereignty under the ADQ with the PQ. He is now saying that he won't do this again. He is also a 1 man party.
In regards to Charest, I'm tired of him blaming the PQ for the problems. He had 1 term to try to fix some of the problems and it doesn't seem as if anything is fixed to me. The taxes are still high and the medicare system is still not improved.
In regards to Boisclair, I don't like his party's agenda of another referendum. I also don't like his party's unionist views.
When the Quebec government is getting more money from the federal government than they are paying, how will Quebec improve with independance? I can see the "have" provinces like Ontario, BC, and Alberta gaining something by separating since they wouldn't have to pay equalization payments to poor provinces like Newfoundland, Quebec, etc. but how will a "have not" province like Quebec benefit from separating?
Quebec is already considered to be the highest taxed jurisdiction in all of North America.
I don't dislike "I'll never apologize" because he's a gay ex(?) cokehead, I dislike him because he's a politician. Oh and Gonad has it right - these three zeroes are very reminiscent of those famous comedic legends of yesteryear. Whoever wins, Quebec loses.
Techman said:
Techman,
The % of bilinguism is far more higher in Quebec than anywhere else in the country.
I never said that french is a race but you did implied that FRENCH,white catholics,separatists were RACISTS.
As for the nation thing,all those Quebecois that I listed earlier on are living proof that you can be of any origins and still be quebecois AND separatist.I thought that by printinfg such a list I' ve made it clear.
There are no separatits parties in Alberta and BC but there is a movement,just like in Quebec before 1968.Give it time,it may come one day.
Vive L'alberta libre!!!
C'est vrai, mais au Québec, le pourcentage des anglophones qui sont bilingues est plus éléves que le pourcentage des francophones bilingues.
Cosmo said:There are no separatits parties in Alberta and BC but there is a movement,just like in Quebec before 1968.Give it time,it may come one day.
Vive L'alberta libre!!!
Just like there is a revivalist movement in South Carolina to secede from the US
(some of you who know a bit about history will recall that South Carolina was the first state to secede from the US prior to the US Civil War in 1861).A couple of hard core freaks does not make a movement. A movement= the confederacy and the confederate army. That was a movement.
Hello everyone,
Notwhistanding all the bitching, both in this thread and in the campaign itself,I truly feel that we are having a good thing going on.
I'm actually enjoying the campaing.Dumont and Boisclair are displaying an enthusiastm that Charest is unable to contain.
All 3 main parties are practically nose to nose and we're going straight ahead for a minority government,a first in over a century if I'm not mistaken.
Dumont is clearly the ''troublemaker'' here and both tennants of status quo(Libs and PQ) are fearing the unthinkable:
An ADQ win!!!
Rumors as it that PQ and Quebec solidaire would form an alliance to prevent ADQ from winning.Apearently the leftist can't stand the fact tha a right wing party could govern Quebec.
Francoise David is appearently waiting for Boisclair's phone call.
We'll wait and see....
Notwhistanding all the bitching, both in this thread and in the campaign itself,I truly feel that we are having a good thing going on.
I'm actually enjoying the campaing.Dumont and Boisclair are displaying an enthusiastm that Charest is unable to contain.
All 3 main parties are practically nose to nose and we're going straight ahead for a minority government,a first in over a century if I'm not mistaken.
Dumont is clearly the ''troublemaker'' here and both tennants of status quo(Libs and PQ) are fearing the unthinkable:
An ADQ win!!!
Rumors as it that PQ and Quebec solidaire would form an alliance to prevent ADQ from winning.Apearently the leftist can't stand the fact tha a right wing party could govern Quebec.
Francoise David is appearently waiting for Boisclair's phone call.
We'll wait and see....
sinbad said:
Absolutely not. And only through ignorance would anyone reach that conclusion. If it was a pejorative term in french, you'd find documented instance of it's usage in history/litterature/film/media/etc... Unless you can find such instances of this term being used in a pejorative fashion, your point is moot. And I haven't even brought up the idiotic "political correctness" angle yet...
And to translate "yeux bridés" to "slanted eyes" without taking into account the dfference in connotation is also wrong. "A knife isn't always a knife".
No, the embarassment lies entirely with the English Canadians who only manage to prove, yet again, that they don't have a clue about French Canadian language and culture and are too blinded by their obsession to bash the evil sepatratists to realize it. Again, they are the ones, thru sheer stupidity, who keep fueling the fire of a dying cause.
And I don't even like Boisclair and I'm not even a separatist...
Last edited:
No, the embarrassment still lies with Boisclair. All he had to do was explain the situation, clearly showing that it is not considered and was not meant to be a racial slur, and the problem would have vanished. Instead he went immediatly on the defensive and blamed others for not knowing the origin and meaning of the term in his eyes. He made a poor decision and now he's paying for it. There are many terms used in many languages that have become everyday expressions to those who use them but still remain insults to those they describe or portray. If the Asian community finds it to be an insult, and apparently they do, then an apology and explanation is warranted. It would have made him appear to be a better man if he could learn from his errors.
Maxima said:
To know if it is offensive to the people he is talking to, he should just ask the 2 people within the PQ and BQ (Mary Chiu - BQ candidate for Lasalle and Zhao Xin Wu - PQ candidate for Mount-Royal) what they think of his comments. They both say that Boisclair is not racist and it just showed a lack of judgment.
Regardless of the political stripes of the person saying it, the people who were offended by the comment would still be offended by the comment. It is not because Boisclair is the leader of the PQ that he is being singled out or attacked about it. Asians were offended when Prince Philip used the "slitty eye" comment after a trip that he had in China. If Harper, Duceppe, Layton, Dion, Charest, Dumont says it, it would still be covered to the same degree.
As stated previously, he should have just apologized to anyone who might have been offended by his remarks but that the term isn't offensive in Quebec as it is in English Canada (whether this is true or not is another issue). Doing this, the issue would just die down.
I don't think that Boisclair is a racist. I do think that he is ignorant... so maybe he won't be different from any other political leader
Last edited:
Maxima said:
I would find it odd but certainly not offensive. Note that if I were Boisclair, I probably would have apologized, not because what I said is wrong and offensive or racist, but strictly for damage control purposes. As far as I'm concerned, this political correctness nonsense has to stop. Note that both Dumont and Charest backed Boisclair on this issue. The only people shouting "outrage!" are English Canadians...
And here's another correct analysis of this by Vincent Marrisal:
And here, obviously this anti-racism add was racist
Last edited:
Maxima said:
Obviously it also depends on the context. As it stands, it's overblown, much ado about nothing nonsense based on political correctness, which has long left the realm of reason and logic to enter that of petty political bikering.
And here's just one more proof of this:
And for the record, Mr Niemi reacted to the english translation of "slanted eyes" that appeared in The Gazette, and NOT to the original comments in French.
Ergo, it's all political BS...
Furthermore, Mr. Niemi claims that Shirley Bishop, the director of communications of the PQ, called him to ask that he do not denounce Boisclair's remarks publicly. Well, oddly enough, it turns out that it's Mr. Niemi who called Miss Bishop, and aggressively demanded that Boisclair retract his statement.
Last edited:
Maxima, I agree with you that a politician, regardless of intent, should know better than to use words that could easily be misconstrued and blown out of proportion.
And in my world, one or two people don't qualify as "a bunch". Get back to me with poll results wich show that a non negligible percentage of Asians are offended by the term "yeux bridés" in the context it was used.
And in my world, one or two people don't qualify as "a bunch".
Get back to me with poll results wich show that a non negligible percentage of Asians are offended by the term "yeux bridés" in the context it was used.
Last edited:
Maxima said:
By the original comments in french or by the english translation? If it's by the english translation, then your point is moot for reasons already given.
No it was not. It wasn't me who extrapolated one person to "a bunch", "a bunch" still being meanningless. And if such a poll existed and showed that 2 or 3 % of Asians are offended by the FRENCH words "yeux bridés", then I'd argue that it was simply a knee-jerk reaction based on a direct translation from the english.
Fair enough but I'd argue that, especially in view of the context and the apparent lack of historical proof that shows that this expression was/is often used by french canadians to portray Asians in a derogatory and offensive manner, they really need to get a thicker skin...
Apple and oranges. The stigma attached to the word "negro" is real and heavily documented historically. No one can reasonnably argue that it not pejorative, offensive, and demeaning.
That said, I have better things to do, and I'm done with this silliness.
The #1 would not happen because it's not even gramatically correct!Maxima said:
It would be "Allons chercher des votes chez les gens aux yeux bridés." And even then, the sentence would not "sound right" because too general: Natives have "yeux bridés" aussi. He would have said "Allons chercher des votes chez les Asiatiques." And no matter, there's still no racism connotation anywhere in these sentences, in French.#2 would be "Mes amis aux yeux bridés, votez pour moi." Again no traces of racism. Even better, it's a sign of appreciation to some specific peoples, as you specifically include this group in your friends.
Maxima, your Asian friends are probably English-speaking, right?
Also, Maxima, your quotes from France are peoples suggesting these expression should not be used and THEY AGREE they are used by most without and racist intention. So what! I didn't know SOME Asian peoples were offended by these expression, same as Boisclair didn't know. We're not talking about laws here, we're talking about common sense. You can't hold somebody responsible for something he didn't know! And even then, is this "accomodements raisonnables" again? Why would I change my way of talking if my ways aren't intended to offend anybody? Those peoples feeling offended should respect me enough to believe my explanation when I tell them I don't speak that way to offend them! If they don't, it only prove they are not willing to live in peace with me and a sign they're ready to turn any insignifiant details into usless and unwarranted outrage.
See, the way they react, that's how you create racism, not how you promote integration. And I insist on "integration", not assimilation. The way these peoples, and you, are reacting is racism. How? You refuse to accept the different connotation of certain expressions in different language. When you want to call racism in all you see you don't like, it also work the other way around...
JustBob, I agree with you 100% up to now!
Last edited:
No traces of racism??? Describing a group of people, any group of people, by a physical characteristic is, if not outright racist, in extremely poor taste. You may as well say 'my yellow friends' or 'my dark skinned friends'.
A sign of appreciation? Who needs the appreciation of someone who seperates his friends into groups by their nationality or race? My friends are my friends, period. I don't separate them into groups by height, weight, race, sex, creed or color.
I don't think that it is a small percentage of Asians that were offended or somewhat offended by Boisclair's comments. However, since a large percentage of Asians in Quebec are federalists (this is a fact) and English is probably their second language after their native language (this might not be 100% true), I guess that because they were offended that it doesn't count.
Similar threads
