Thursday, May 3, 2007

Monsieur Duceppe: Ridicule/Mr. Duceppe: Ridiculous

(Updated below) (Update II)

Talk about attempting to milk as much controversy as possible from a non-event.

Whether Shane Doan said what he is alleged to have said, or not, remains to be established in court.

It certainly not has any place in the debates of the House of Commons.

But of course, Gilles Duceppe is doing all he can to foster as much controversy as he can about this, in a blatant attempt to outrage les Québécois que nous sommes.

After all, the PQ got trounced in our last provincial elections and the whole idea of a referendum on Québec's sovereignty is not only on a back burner, it appears to be on life-support.

In addition, Monsieur Duceppe's mendacity is plainly there for all to see, thanks to his very own words:

"(...) (Doan) says he told Joseph: "Four French referees in Montreal, Cuje, figure it out." And Joseph has backed up his story. But Duceppe called even that comment unacceptable. He said his party is right to demand answers from Hockey Canada. "That's what you call racial profiling," Duceppe said."
It looks as if the BQ leader has never played a single minute of hockey (let alone any team sport) in his parochial, little life.

I have played hockey (for a long time) - "heat-of-the-moment" curses, cusses and slurs are time-a-dozen during a game, especially in a hotly disputed one. By Mr. Duceppe's ludicrous reasonning, I have therefore been often guilty of profiling when I called English-speaking adversairies "Bloke!" ou "Tête Carrée!".

And what did it make me when I shouted slurs, cusses and curses at opposing players who were French-speaking players - like moi? Was I still profiling, Monsieur Duceppe?

Am I proud for having said such idiotic things during all those games of hockey, soccer, etc., that I have played? Of course not - besides, I never meant a single one of such silly, infantile words. They are (and were always) meant to throw the other players off their games (or to express outrage at bad referees). And Mr. Duceppe? Such things are done not just in hockey, but in virtually every team sport!

You, as well as all those who have gotten onto their high horses on this non-issue, are revealing yourselves as the intellectual sloths that you truly are.

Either that or you are disingenuous hypocrites.

Such simpleton, asinine and insipid rationalizations (which come right out of the book of "Demagogues for idiots") that you and others like you are throwing at us constitute nauseating noises that are insulting to everyone else's intelligence.

Monsieur Duceppe - shame on you. Resign or learn to control those bouts of intellectual sloth-driven hyperbole of yours.

Vous êtes ridicule, Monsieur Duceppe, et vous faites honte à tous les Québécois raisonnables.


Update: 05/05/2007 - I knew Duceppe's hypocritical hyperbole was a calculated attempt at rekindling the séparatiste passions in Québec - and then some. Of course, PQ leader Boisclair is not amused. Therefore, Monsieur Duceppe denies everything.

Meanwhile on Parliament Hill, M.P.'s have finally returned their attention to more serious business ... yeah, right.


Update II: 05/09/2007 - Boisclair is now out ... will Duceppe step in? The PQ keeps on using its leaders as sacrificial lambs on the Holy Altar of Séparatisme.

6 comments:

  1. I've been on record since the mid-90s as saying separatism is dead. The 19th century romanticism does not resonate with the new generation of Quebecers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with this assessment, although it should be 19th and 20th century romanticism and struggle, respectively - the main reason why the (first) referendum of 1980 went some 60% against it was because la société Québécoise was already well on its way in affirming itself ... without being sovereign.

    Hence, from a separatist outlook (which I am not), 1980 was already too little, too late.

    But if such a first referendum had been held in, say 1975, then I suspect things would have turned out quite differently ... considering how we Québécois were still being treated more or less as second class citizens at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Romanticism was a movement restricted to the 19th. Quebec brought it to the 20th so I will condede there But it was outdated. It was more part of the independence wave we saw in the post WW era - ie Algeria from France and other African nations seeking independence. Very few had the romantic flavour we saw, say, with Italy or Germany in the 19th. Henri-Bourassa was drawn to the happenings in these countries as they struggled to unify - but his was a pan-Canadian vision with two components to Canada. This seemed pretty rational. There's nothing rational in the modern separatist. You can't break a country without a tangetn and cohesive plan in place. It's not eneough to say "let's give it a try" anymore. On a financial/economic level Quebec is simply not ready. I'm not saying that it can't but they have not addressed the realities of hard economics enough. ie currency, passports etc. Myabe they have but refused to tell hte population appealing to the heart and emotion instead.

    That's an interesting point you make. Would Pre-PQ in 1976 have been easier for Queebcers to leave the Federation? I still say no. They were first nder control of the Church and then Duplesis. I don't know if the Quiet Revolution was enough to catapult them. Not even with the FLQ. I have my suspicion that much of it is just theory.

    French-Canadians weren't the only ones to be treated as such. The province's third solitude; the Italians as well as the Chinese (among others) were repeatedly screwed. Not that the seps. talk about this. French-Canada must accept part of the blame for this given, as I have mentione, how they were led. Nor were they nearly living in squalor as they make it sound. This revisionist nonsense of them presently living like Palestinians by hardcore seps. is absurd. Quebec is clearly 'maitres chez nous' and confident enough to take on the world. Which made the Shane Doan thing so stupid.

    In light of this, I would argue that it would never have separated. Quebecois nationalism is nowhere near as mature as those we find in Basques and other regions they tend to comapre themselves to.

    Sorry for my delay and length.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mentarch responds:

    (Heh - I like lenghty comments!)

    While I disagree with you on some points, we two are basically in agreement with the principle that a) the séparatisme québécois has an immature streak to it; and b) it may indeed be dead for good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In a long-winded manner, yes. I suppose we are! It will be interesting to see where the ADQ takes it all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Heh ;-)

    Yes - I am also curious what the ADQ means *exactly* with their "autonomisme" ...

    I suspect it may turn out to be nothing more than sparkling powder thrown about to entrance the soveregnists.

    But - as you say - we shall see ...

    ReplyDelete

Please feel free to comment on APOV. However, remember to keep in check your tone and respect for all here. Let rational, reasoning, enthousiastic and passionate conversations and discussions rule first and foremost in our participatory democracy, so as to facilitate the free exchange of reality-based facts and ideas. In between, do not forget to have fun and enjoy yourselves ... in other words: keep on rockin'! - Mentarch