Honoring A Traitor, Jaques Parizeau

[Michael Hardner]

I am talking people new to this country that joined his party. Come to Canada and then join a separatist party.

Really, not too many did that as evidenced by his speech blaming this very group for losing.

[drummindiver]

I don't see why - it's Quebec announcing the state funeral and he wanted to keep the Quebec government intact as far as I know.

Maybe we should be happier that democracy works sometimes once in a while, I think. I don't know.

( Canadianism. )

The majority of Quebecers voted against separation.

By extrapolation, even if 100% of the tax dollars used are from Quebec (which, of course, they won't be) you are still using tax money for a state funeral for a politician whose sole purpose was to exclude voters from Canada, of which the majority did not approve.

We should be happy democracy works. How many times do we spend billions on this issue though?

[Michael Hardner]

The majority of Quebecers voted against separation.

Ok.

By extrapolation, even if 100% of the tax dollars used are from Quebec (which, of course, they won't be) you are still using tax money for a state funeral for a politician whose sole purpose was to exclude voters from Canada, of which the majority did not approve.

Ok.

We should be happy democracy works. How many times do we spend billions on this issue though?

I don't understand the question. How many times ? Once ?

In any case, the Province of Quebec will decide on the State Funeral question based on factors that they deem important to the question. The opinion of the RoC is barely interesting, and I expect even those who voted against separation see the significance of this man.

It's not that controversial.

[Big Guy]

I believe in the truth. Parizeau came within 54,000 votes of breaking up Canada. If 27,000 Canadians had voted Yes instead of No then we would not be living in a united Canada but in some fiasco of little states. I and my family certainly would not have spent the last 20 years in the comfort of this nation.

You make your bed then sleep in it.

Of course Parizeau was a traitor to Canada. He stated that he wanted to demolish it and did everything in his power to do just that.

Good riddance.

Want a legacy? Name a wastewater treatment plant after him.

[drummindiver]

Ok.

Ok.

I don't understand the question. How many times ? Once ?

In any case, the Province of Quebec will decide on the State Funeral question based on factors that they deem important to the question. The opinion of the RoC is barely interesting, and I expect even those who voted against separation see the significance of this man.

It's not that controversial.

Once? Twice in recent history.

When does it end?

How is our opinion barely interesting when we foot the majority of the bill?

Love the BBC. They call it the Neverendum Referendum. Kinda catchy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29077213

[Bryan]

Want a legacy? Name a wastewater treatment plant after him.

Awesome!

[drummindiver]

@ drummindiver: I think the state funeral is a Quebec "state" funeral rather than a federal one...You know they are a nation and all right? Better than those of us unfortunate enough to live in a mere province...

lol

Yes, I know.

Distinct society indeed!

[Michael Hardner]

When does it end?

How is our opinion barely interesting when we foot the majority of the bill?

1995 ?

Canada pays the majority of what bill exactly ?

[drummindiver]

1995 ?

Canada pays the majority of what bill exactly ?

Michael, don't be disingenous.

You think that this magically ended in 1995?

As for the bill, referendums are not free. Nor is the Distinct Society favours that have been given to Quebec to mollify them.

[drummindiver]

1995 ?

Canada pays the majority of what bill exactly ?

..and as if I forgot to mention state funerals for certain seperatists!

[Michael Hardner]

You think that this magically ended in 1995?

Your question was: "How many times do we spend billions on this issue though?"

The last time we spent anything, and I don't know how much, was 1995.

As for the bill, referendums are not free.

Yes, this is what we're talking about.

[Michael Hardner]

..and as if I forgot to mention state funerals for certain seperatists!

If you can give me the details of how much the Federal government will be spending on this, that would be a starting point.

[drummindiver]

Your question was: "How many times do we spend billions on this issue though?"

The last time we spent anything, and I don't know how much, was 1995.

That was my question, you are correct.

You said once, which isn't.

My further question, is do we keep footing the bill, as tax payers to the state, to organizations and events (referendums) whose sole purpose is the usurpation of said state?

You can see not only the hypocrisy, but the ludicrousness of this can't you?

Edited June 8, 2015 by drummindiver

[Michael Hardner]

That was my question, you are correct.

You said once, which isn't.

Right - it's two or three times.

My further question, is do we keep footing the bill, as tax payers to the state, to organizations and events (referendums) whose sole purpose is the usurpation of said state?

You can see not only the hypocrisy, but the ludicrousness of this can't you?

Be specific.

[cybercoma]

The alternative is bombs and guns, drummindiver.

[drummindiver]

Be specific.

I can't find a dollar amount for either the 1980 or the 1995 referendums.

[GostHacked]

Thanks Jacee for calling it what it is. It reflects the mean spirit of this forum.

It's not mean spirited. He was a traitor to Canada. But, out of curiosity, what label would you throw on Parizeau? A patriot?

[drummindiver]

The alternative is bombs and guns, drummindiver.

Really?

The majority of Quebecers do not want to separate, as they have democratically shown.

So we keep holding referendums ad infinitum until the very last separatist has gone to their separatist heaven?

I'm not trying to be flippant, CC, with your remark, but it is you that has pointed out Quebec holds RoC at end of a barrel of a gun demanding, and getting, more than their fair share.

[GostHacked]

So advocating to split up Canada is fine, taking it to a vote and losing is fine, taking it to a vote that "we" almost lose isn't ok ?

You're pretty clearly setting up the rules so that you START with Parizeau=traitor, Grey=patriot then moving backwards to decide what the rules should be to defining those terms.

Anyone who advocates for the break up of Canada is a traitor. We need more unity across the nation instead of this divisive mentality via geographical/provincial areas.

[cybercoma]

Really?

The majority of Quebecers do not want to separate, as they have democratically shown.

So we keep holding referendums ad infinitum until the very last separatist has gone to their separatist heaven?

I'm not trying to be flippant, CC, with your remark, but it is you that has pointed out Quebec holds RoC at end of a barrel of a gun demanding, and getting, more than their fair share.

They get exactly their fair share as negotiated within our federalist system.

As for referendums, we will have as many as Quebec decides to have. If they want independence then it is their right to seek it. At least they've done so democratically thus far. As I said, the alternative, which we've seen around the world, is bloodshed. Yet, people like you get into dramatic hysterics about Parizeau being a traitor and all this other nonsense, when he operated in peaceful and democratic terms.

[drummindiver]

They get exactly their fair share as negotiated within our federalist system.

As for referendums, we will have as many as Quebec decides to have. If they want independence then it is their right to seek it. At least they've done so democratically thus far. As I said, the alternative, which we've seen around the world, is bloodshed. Yet, people like you get into dramatic hysterics about Parizeau being a traitor and all this other nonsense, when he operated in peaceful and democratic terms.

Wrong.

Which we pay for.

Trying to break apart our country is, in fact, being a traitor. It's the actual definition.

traitor

/ˈtreɪtə/

noun

1.

a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc

Derived Forms

traitorous, adjective

traitorously, adverb

traitorship, noun

traitress, noun:feminine

Word Origin

C13: from Old French traitour, from Latin trāditor traditor

Ironic etymology is french?

[PIK]

Just heard on the radio, Giles Duceppe is coming back to lead the bloc.

[Michael Hardner]

Anyone who advocates for the break up of Canada is a traitor. We need more unity across the nation instead of this divisive mentality via geographical/provincial areas.

I think a traitor 'betrays'. You can say that a separatist is disloyal and therefore satisfies a lesser-used definition but ... so what ? What do you want to do with that label ? They are advocating for their own nation, why not ?

[GostHacked]

I think a traitor 'betrays'. You can say that a separatist is disloyal and therefore satisfies a lesser-used definition but ... so what ? What do you want to do with that label ? They are advocating for their own nation, why not ?

Well in this case, let's do that for Ontario? Screw the rest of Canada, let's go it alone. I am now calling for a separatist movement in Ontario. How well do you think that would be received? Let's even go as far as breaking all of Canada up. Any problem there?

Edited June 9, 2015 by GostHacked

[Rue]

Dag nab it I agree with Big Guy and will come to his defence-fair is fair.

Mr. Harder the reference to "ethnic vote" most certainly meant immigrants, and existing Quebecers Parizeau did not consider "purelaines". Big Guy was right. Mr.Parizeau in many speeches questioned whether immigrants who spoke French but did not come from France or Belgium were capable of being Quebecers.

Mr.Parizeau spoke with a fake Parisien accent in French and a pronounced and affected attempt at an English one when speaking English.His accents in both languages were widely disrespected by blue collar, working class French Quebecers as elitist.

He was no Rene Levesque. He had no grass roots connection to the people.He detested people of the working class, and was openly bigoted against Italians, Irish, Greeks, Chinese, Vietnamese,Haitiens, Africans, Arabs,to name a few.

You would know that had you read some of his articles or listened to his speeches or comments on t.v.In fact Levesque openly feuded with him. Levesque was trying to recruit anyone who spoke French or willing to speak French, Parizeau pursued an agenda where true Quebecers could only be "purelaines", i.e., white and from France or Belgium..

Let's not play semantics. What made Parizeau unpopular not just to non seperatists but seperatists was his bigotry and when he used the word ethnic make no mistake it was a blast at anyone non white or not from France or Belgium by ancestry.

He also sneered at Franco Canadians from outside Quebec accusing them of having ruined French culture.

This was not a nice man.

Look I do not like seperatists-but I have no hesitation in saying Rene Levesque, Bouchard and Duceppes showed inclusivity and respect to all minorities. Not Parizeau.

Parizeau reflected the extreme right wing of the separatist movement. He was an academic whose economic views came from a text book not real life. Parizeau wanted big government and regulation based on Mussolini's theories. He liked Franco and Mussolini and probably Hitler's economic policies.

Most people just found him an affected fart-bag.

So the semantics over what he meant was well known. When the referendum was lost everyone knew who he was targeting-pretending it was not immigrants is ridiculous. Mon dis ethnic of course includes them.

So he is not someone to remember with respect.He did not build a vision, he broke one down.

By the way when Parizeau retired in France, he was openly ridiculed by the French press as a pompous hot air balloon.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Rue