French Debate Part I (Radio Canada)

[August1991]

Mulcair was surprisingly good. (His French has a peculiar style. If he becomes PM, Quebec comedians will have fun... )

Trudeau Jnr was surprisingly bad. (His French is similar to someone who lives in English. But then, his English sounds like someone who lives in French. For someone who has had such an education, I am surprised how light he is.)

Duceppe spoke well but the language of a Quebec now disappearing. (I can't recall him using the word sovereignty although he did say that the next referendum should ask: "Do you want Quebec to be an independent country?")

Harper was at least comprehensible and may have kept his 5 or 6 seats in Quebec. (In his place, I would have repeated several times, regardless of the question: "Je ne hausserai pas vos impôts.")

May was irritating and incomprehensible. (The next French debate on TVA wisely excludes her.)

=====

In the analysis after the debate, I liked Daniel Lessard's comparison to hockey: the best attack was Duceppe, the best player was Mulcair but the best defence was Harper. Apparently, in hockey, the best defence wins the game.

Edited September 25, 2015 by August1991

[Derek 2.0]

May was irritating and incomprehensible. (The next French debate on TVA wisely excludes her.)

Is that confirmed? I have't watched tonight's debate yet (recorded it), partially because I find May so bloody shrill and grating........I might just watch for Duceppe though, though I disagree with his politics, I think he's both a good debater and an interesting politician.

[Bryan]

Is that confirmed?

Yes. I can confirm that May is irritating and incomprehensible. In any language.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes. I can confirm that May is irritating and incomprehensible. In any language.

I meant that she won't be in the next debate.......no confirmation on May's personal traits needed

[Canada_First]

I meant that she won't be in the next debate.......no confirmation on May's personal traits needed

yes confirmed. Just the other 4.

[Canada_First]

May was hard to listen to in French. Painful.

Accurate summary August.

[-1=e^ipi]

At least Duceppe brought up the issue of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is our enemy not our friend and we should impose sanctions on them for supporting genocide against apostates and gay people.

[Canada_First]

At least Duceppe brought up the issue of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is our enemy not our friend and we should impose sanctions on them for supporting genocide against apostates and gay people.

I agree. We shouldn't be cozy with these maniacs.

[Big Guy]

I do not speak or read French. I do understand that during a translation, nuances and idioms and ... can be mis-translated, especially in real time. For that reason I do not watch these debates because political speech is very nuanced. For those who speak both languages and watch these debates - how accurate is the real time translation?

[Bryan]

Anyone know a site that has a translated version of the full debate? All I can find are snippets or commentary, not the whole thing.

[BC_chick]

I only got to watch about 15 minutes which was disappointing because I was really looking forward to watching it.

First, the positioning. It was ridiculous to put Mulcair in the middle, he was totally the main focus. Harper should have been centre, with the two main contenders on each side, then May and Duceppe on the two ends. For argument's sake I thought maybe Mulcair was centre because he has the most seats in Quebec, but then why have May to one side. I did not like the arrangement at all.

Harper's French has improved but both him and May sounded very Anglo. Still, they managed to pull it off so I have nothing but respect for them for doing so. It's difficult speaking on important issues in a language that is not native.

Trudeau was way better in French than English IMO. There is something very irritating about his voice in English which I didn't find in French. Mulcair was fantastic, as mixed as I am about him as a leader, he did carry himself very well. He seemed very much like a prime-minster. Duceppe was Duceppe, nothing much worth noting since he doesn't matter to me.

During the 15 minutes I watched, the niqab issue was discussed and even though I think niqabs should be banned everywhere - not just in ceremonies - I liked the way Mulcair responded.

Not that he changed my mind, but I liked the way he answered. I'll leave it at that though since there is already a thread on it.

Edited September 25, 2015 by BC_chick

[Canada_First]

If I have time I'll watch a dubbed version and post on accuracy.

CPAC should have a dubbed version.

BC chick, the podium positions are determined by draw. Nobody placed anyone anywhere.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Canada_First

[eyeball]

Maybe it's just my tinnitus but between the translators and everyone hollering I find it just about impossible to follow what's being said. I do not understand why they don't completely mute out the person being translated. I also struggle with this when politicians switch back and forth between English and French, it's an unnecessary PITA. Mute or use CC.

[Big Guy]

I have just finished reading an interesting analysis of that debate from an impartial communications expert. She feels that the concept of political debates is evolving and the current trend from the "back room boys" in the war room is to negate the ability for an opponent from presenting a "sound bite".

It appears that the communications guys continue to believe that it is the sound bites ( usually prepared and coached as to how and when to insert them into the debate) that designate the winners and losers. So the new tactic is to talk over, interrupt or out shout others as a tactic to get your sound bite out and negate others.

Debates work very well when there are intelligent people who respect each other and are prepared to accept a winner or loser as the one who best presents their case. That does not exist in our political debates - this is a war. We have devolved to a point where the "honourable members" elected to represent their constituents actually dislike each other.

Those who organize and facilitate political debates have to change the rules and process to force the participants into allowing each the equal opportunity to present their platforms and criticize those they oppose. If not, then be ready for more escalated screaming, overtalking, interruptions, and a lot more noise in future "debates".

BTW - This relates to both American and Canadian politics.

[bush_cheney2004]

BTW - This relates to both American and Canadian politics.

OK, but this is what you get for importing "American style" political debates on television and radio.

Edited September 25, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Debates work very well when there are intelligent people who respect each other and are prepared to accept a winner or loser as the one who best presents their case. That does not exist in our political debates - this is a war. We have devolved to a point where the "honourable members" elected to represent their constituents actually dislike each other.

I think it's deeper than that. The rabid partisanship in places like this suggests even constituents can barely stand each other. I notice the little political coffee klatches around here are almost exclusively populated by like-minded individuals who largely agree with one another. Maybe Canada's divisiveness is just more apparent in a small town.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

We are teetering into scattered thread drift here. I do not have the energy to delete or move posts into a new thread.

More than half of the posts so far bring up great issues that are only peripherally related to the OP and deserve proper attention in their own light. I demand that you guys start a new thread. Perhaps title it: "Logistics and Presentation of Leader debates" or something like that. Perhaps start a 3rd thread too.

Thanks!

[August1991]

During the 15 minutes I watched, the niqab issue was discussed and even though I think niqabs should be banned everywhere - not just in ceremonies - I liked the way Mulcair responded.

Not that he changed my mind, but I liked the way he answered. I'll leave it at that though since there is already a thread on it.

In writing my OP above, I chose to write about language/accent/style. I deliberately ignored topics/substance. Nevertheless, I must admit, I missed the significance of this one.

Duceppe and Harper are riding a wave. The Niqab issue is becoming a wedge issue in Quebec, and it may become a wedge issue in English Canada.

According to Francine Pelletier, Jean-François Lisée once claimed that Quebec and the ROC were fundamentally different. Really?

=======

The next TVA debate will be interesting.

Edited October 1, 2015 by August1991

[cybercoma]

At least Duceppe brought up the issue of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is our enemy not our friend and we should impose sanctions on them for supporting genocide against apostates and gay people.

sanctions? How are we going to make money in arms deals if we sanction them?