PLQ & Jean charest, worst government ever...

[Bakunin]

It has been 18 months since quebeckers turned their back at this government... 18months that the insatisfaction of the government is between 70%-80%.

Désormais, pas moins de 77% de la population, ce qui représente 81% des francophones, se dit «plutôt ou très insatisfait» du présent gouvernement du Québec. «C'est immense, c'est du jamais vu de mémoire de sondeur», lance Claude Gauthier, vice-président de CROP, qui vient de livrer à La Presse les résultats de sa plus récente enquête. Du 19 au 30 mai derniers, CROP a réalisé 988 entrevues, un coup de sonde précis à 3 points de pourcentage près.

Translation: 77% of the population (81% of the french) say thei are not satified or very not satisfied with the government. the vp say he never saw something similar.

On n'en comptait déjà que 31% en avril, on n'en trouve plus que 20% en mai, et seulement 17% de francophones. Pas moins de 46% des gens se disent «très insatisfaits», un élément éloquent, selon M. Gauthier, car les gens, spontanément, n'aiment pas se placer dans des positions extrêmes

Translation: 20% (17% french) say thei are satified or really satified

En revanche, la popularité de la souveraineté est clairement en hausse, passée à 52% quand CROP répartit ses 6% d'indécis selon leurs autres réponses au sondage. Depuis le référendum d'octobre 1995, c'est seulement la quatrième enquête mensuelle où la souveraineté obtient 50% et plus. Ce score représente une hausse de cinq points comparativement à avril. Le mois dernier, Léger Marketing avait estimé à 54% le vote en faveur de la souveraineté. M. Gauthier souligne toutefois que 59% des gens sont défavorables à un référendum «le plus tôt possible», scénario que privilégient toutefois 58% des électeurs péquistes.

Support for sovreignty is at 52%

---------------------------------------------

There are rumors that say the liberal party will wait that the next collective convention get signed this summer then they(influent liberals) would do some kind of political putsch to get charest out of the party and put Phillipe Couillard at the head of the party instead. Phillipe Couillard is the healthcare minister, he is the most popular liberal out there, a good man and he publicly fighted against jean charest on many government project. The rumor say we could go in election as soon as in 2006, soon after Phillipe Couillard become prime minister.

I think they really are in trouble, first there are no more credible Federalist defender in quebec, they are all dead(trudeau,ryan,bourassa), blamed by gomery(chretien and cie) or like charest just incompetent. Phillipe Couillard is problably the only liberal politician that can rebuild the party but he his not a die hard federalist, honestly i think he's not even a federalist :/ or he his not convinced and convincing at all. I also think he his not a natural leader, but we love him for his honesty.

Like evryone prolly know, i hate liberals but i must admit i like some of the PLQ members, Phillipe couillard is one of them. I think its very sad that the PLQ are doing a very bad job right now :/ , what is even worst is i think the pq would'nt and won't do a better job, maybe even worst. As for the ADQ, they just don't have what it takes to form a government.

For national unity, it seems nobody care about canada anymore. The soverignist are stronger than ever, the federalist dropped the towell, now their main argument is "at least wait till our debt get lower". Nobody want to modernize canada, at least in the 1990's both sides where trying to cooperate to make things better, now ppl just doesn't believe in a new canada, nobody want to participate and keep this country alive. Even a few english journalist that fighted hard for the federalist side in 1995 are dropping the towell and changing side. They are now also realizing that the meech accord wasn't bad after all. I think many ppl right now are realizing that the meech accord was not that bad at all to save a country.

I think its gonna get worst and worst, specially the fact that the liberal federal stay in power, unpopular like thei are right now in quebec just can't help.

It is very sad because since all hope are gone, hope for national unity just like the hope of a better government in quebec, anything could happend.. and i just feel like evrything is going to get worst and worst years after years... :/ bad decision are gonna be taken in the futur i feel it.

Perhaps our only hope reside in a nhl 2005-2006 season, if it can't keep us away from politics and distract us...

[August1991]

For everyone who reads this thread, Bakunin is generally right.

My own specific viewpoint?

Being PM of Quebec is difficult. Being a federalist PM in Quebec is even more difficult. The last elected examples were Bourassa and Lesage. Charest got a free chance. It hasn't worked.

Bakunin, I don't think Couillard can be a federalist leader in Quebec - he's a good mandarin - that's all. A technocrat. I have no idea who can replace Charest, if he can be replaced.

[Bakunin]

Thats what i say, Couillard can't be a federalist leader... he never defended federalism... As for his ideology, it seems like its the opposite of Jean Charest... He looks like a right wing pequiste.

There was an article of JF lisée that was making sense, some high placed liberal want to get jean charest out of the party after the collective convention. They want to put Couillard at the head of the party and quickly make election before the pq get organized. But since things are getting worst and worst, i guess they don't even have a chance to win the election anyway.

[Guest eureka]

So Couillard would be another Bourassa who, as was repeatedly noted, wnated to stay in Canada so long as Canada paid the bills.

[Bakunin]

So Couillard would be another Bourassa who, as was repeatedly noted, wnated to stay in Canada so long as Canada paid the bills.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He is prolly not the bourrassa style but he is clearly not the kind of guy that would make speechs about federalism like chretiens a charest. My impression is that he would just try to ignore the question.

But on the other hand, i think the liberal federal would not be happy to see him prime minister because they wouldnt have control on him like they have on charest.

[August1991]

Couillard as PM?

But on the other hand, i think the liberal federal would not be happy to see him prime minister because they wouldnt have control on him like they have on charest.

True.

I don't think Couillard would have the ability to put together a union deal. But God knows. Maybe he could. Who would negotiate best with ROC? Couillard, Landry or Charest? Dunno.

[Bakunin]

Couillard as PM?

But on the other hand, i think the liberal federal would not be happy to see him prime minister because they wouldnt have control on him like they have on charest.

True.

I don't think Couillard would have the ability to put together a union deal. But God knows. Maybe he could. Who would negotiate best with ROC? Couillard, Landry or Charest? Dunno.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He is the kind of guy who negociate evrything in private. But the union deal, you mean association or partnership or whatever the negociation is called after canada split up ? I think the best guy we could have to negociate is yves séguin

[Guest eureka]

You still think there would be negotiations if the separatists of Quebec tried to break up the country!

What naivete you people have. There is only one possible course and that is a militayr response. Try thinking about it for a change outside of your coloured box. Look at a map and consider what Canada would be. Think of East and West Pakistan for one geopolitical comparison.

Someday, this idiocy has to stop so that Canada can get on with its future development. The Quebec "situation" has been a huge drag on Canada for thirty years: economically, socially, and politically.

Perhaps we should get on with the partition of Quebec now and see how the "Sovereigntist" rump would like what they have left.

[Bakunin]

You still think there would be negotiations if the separatists of Quebec tried to break up the country!

What naivete you people have. There is only one possible course and that is a militayr response. Try thinking about it for a change outside of your coloured box. Look at a map and consider what Canada would be. Think of East and West Pakistan for one geopolitical comparison.

Someday, this idiocy has to stop so that Canada can get on with its future development. The Quebec "situation" has been a huge drag on Canada for thirty years: economically, socially, and politically.

Perhaps we should get on with the partition of Quebec now and see how the "Sovereigntist" rump would like what they have left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lol that would be fun a 3rd world war with broken submarine, crashing helicopters, ww2 trucs and jeeps that would make a good movie, a comedy perhaps.

[Riverwind]

Perhaps we should get on with the partition of Quebec now and see how the "Sovereigntist" rump would like what they have left.

Eureka, these kinds of comments feed right into separatist propaganda.

That said, I find it very frustrating that the political culture of Quebec seems to severely underestimate the complexity of negotiating a deal after a yes vote. I don't understand why separatists believe Quebequers could make a the completely irrational and emotional decision to break up the country and then turn around and be able have rational business like discussions about a union with Canada afterwards. Separatists will most likely find themselves faced with an angry and emotional Canadian electorate - not exactly an environment condusive to smooth negotiatons.

[Bakunin]

Perhaps we should get on with the partition of Quebec now and see how the "Sovereigntist" rump would like what they have left.

Eureka, these kinds of comments feed right into separatist propaganda.

That said, I find it very frustrating that the political culture of Quebec seems to severely underestimate the complexity of negotiating a deal after a yes vote. I don't understand why separatists believe Quebequers could make a the completely irrational and emotional decision to break up the country and then turn around and be able have rational business like discussions about a union with Canada afterwards. Separatists will most likely find themselves faced with an angry and emotional Canadian electorate - not exactly an environment condusive to smooth negotiatons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

business is business my friend.

The cow won't stop to make millk after a separation. I doubt canada would want to stop free trade with quebec, specially ontario that export more stuff in quebec than import.I doubt canada would close its border to quebec and isolate the atlantics. Europe is a good sample of partnership, almost all sovreign european country decided to build a partnership with each others. Common money, bank, free trade soon an army and constitution and etc.. It doesn't mean they agree on evrything like we saw last week, but at least their is a partnership. The only country in the world that doesn't have some kind of partnership with other country is north korea...

It doesnt has to be a painfull separation. It can be productive for both it just have to be handled the right way. Its similar to a couple that break up but stay friend or at least civilized. (ps: i know august you don't like it when we compare it to a couple but its an overall picture ;P ).

[Guest eureka]

Actually, they do not feed into Separatist propaganda. I know from first hand experience how terrified the Quebec governments were of the 11th. Province Movement.

I did not belong to that movement although the leaders were my colleagues in the struggle before 1980. I made the mistake of believing that justice and the end of the Separatists could be brought about through the Courts and through political action.

I was wrong. I know though, as few do, how close to a violent reaction against the separatists and the French supremacists we came several times.

The separatists laugh at the Canadian response. Pierre Bourgeault once said to me of Bill 22: "We never thought we would get away with it. We didn't know you English were such cowards."

[Riverwind]

It doesnt has to be a painfull separation. It can be productive for both it just have to be handled the right way. Its similar to a couple that break up but stay friend or at least civilized. (ps: i know august you don't like it when we compare it to a couple but its an overall picture ;P ).

I have seen couples promise to be reasonable work things out when they first decide to split only to have it turn nasty because each person is absolutely convinced that their demands are reasonable and it is the other one who is the problem. That is what will happen if Quebec tries to sepearate because separatists, by definition, are people who are unwilling to compromise. If they were people capable of compromise then they would be willing to work things out within the context of the federal system. Federalists, reacting to what they see as rediculous demands from the separatists, will respond by being equally uncompromising. A disaster for all concerned.

[August1991]

He is the kind of guy who negociate evrything in private. But the union deal, you mean association or partnership or whatever the negociation is called after canada split up ? I think the best guy we could have to negociate is yves séguin

By union deal, I meant negotiating with the FTQ, CSQ, CEQ and so on. Charest can't do it. I wonder how Couillard would manage.

As to Séguin, I agree with you completely. Another person is Serge Ménard.

You still think there would be negotiations if the separatists of Quebec tried to break up the country!

What naivete you people have. There is only one possible course and that is a militayr response. Try thinking about it for a change outside of your coloured box. Look at a map and consider what Canada would be. Think of East and West Pakistan for one geopolitical comparison.

Someday, this idiocy has to stop so that Canada can get on with its future development. The Quebec "situation" has been a huge drag on Canada for thirty years: economically, socially, and politically.

Perhaps we should get on with the partition of Quebec now and see how the "Sovereigntist" rump would like what they have left.

eureka, I quote you at length because I disagree so strongly. What you say is European in viewpoint. Partition, Threats, Wars, Mass Murder.

Canadian history is rather filled with compromise, accomodation and peaceful resolution. In our own Canadian way, we will resolve this problem as civilized people. The French arrived 400 years ago, the English 250 years ago, and many others since. The people here, before the French arrived, have seen many changes to the place. No doubt there will be many more changes in the future.

The CBC and the Liberal Party of Canada say that Canada was born in 1867. Wrong.

[Bakunin]

It doesnt has to be a painfull separation. It can be productive for both it just have to be handled the right way. Its similar to a couple that break up but stay friend or at least civilized. (ps: i know august you don't like it when we compare it to a couple but its an overall picture ;P ).

I have seen couples promise to be reasonable work things out when they first decide to split only to have it turn nasty because each person is absolutely convinced that their demands are reasonable and it is the other one who is the problem. That is what will happen if Quebec tries to sepearate because separatists, by definition, are people who are unwilling to compromise. If they were people capable of compromise then they would be willing to work things out within the context of the federal system. Federalists, reacting to what they see as rediculous demands from the separatists, will respond by being equally uncompromising. A disaster for all concerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question, on both side there are people that are unwilling to compromise. Both of em have been fighting for a long time. On the other hand there are many people that are willing to compromise. René Levesque did with the 1982 constitution but it kinda turned really bad for quebec, Pierre trudeau didnt want to compromise. then pierre marc johnson (2nd pq leader) did with some kind of "affirmative" proposition, and then Robert bourassa did with Brian murloney wich didnt work out "Meech" and then "charlotown". Because that didnt work, the bloc quebecois was created. Then the liberal came back to power with chretien that didnt want to compromise. The pq came back to power with parizeau that didnt want to compromise. and the 2nd referendum was lost. After that we are still waiting and nothing is changing. Why because the liberal doesnt want to compromise. Jean charest wich is not a sovreignist is requesting an "asymetrical federalism" wich is pretty much near the status quo but a bit more respect to the provincial juridiction. What happend ? english media get angry at him and the federal liberal refuse. There is no more hope... personally im a confederalist. I can't accept the status quo, if i was prime minister of quebec, i would say to the federal government to open the constitution and adopt the "allaire report" wich would make quebec alot more self-managed wich was what nationalist federalist wanted (a compromise to stay in canada and have our autonomy). The report say if the federal refuse to do it then we do another referendum on sovreignty wich combined to the federal refusal would be pretty much sure to be won.

So in conclusion, what is happening is that compromise between the 2 part have been tryed specially in the 1990's. A good part of the population has lost faith in compromise because to have a compromise we need a federal government that want to compromise in ottawa and a provincial government in quebec that want to do compromise. This is in good part why i hate so much the liberal, because they are blocking the path torward a compromise. Having harper at ottawa would help, even if he his an old reformer member,he seems more open to compromise than the liberal, specially right now that their is a provincial government that would be ready to make compromise.

[Riverwind]

There is no more hope... personally im a confederalist. I can't accept the status quo, if i was prime minister of quebec, i would say to the federal government to open the constitution and adopt the "allaire report" wich would make quebec alot more self-managed wich was what nationalist federalist wanted (a compromise to stay in canada and have our autonomy). The report say if the federal refuse to do it then we do another referendum on sovreignty wich combined to the federal refusal would be pretty much sure to be won.

I opposed Meech and Charlottetown but my views have changed since then - I think a lot of English Canadians have had a similar conversion. If a Quebec federalist that advocated some variant of the "Allaire" report came on the scene then a deal may be possible provided it put a permanent end to all discussions of sovereignty.

But I am afraid that any such attempt would be undermined by the radical separatists that will be not satisfied with anything but a seperate seat for Quebec at the UN. That is why it is not possible for English Canada to propose a compromise at this time - it must come from federalists in Quebec and there must be some room to negotiate the details. Tabling the Allaire report and saying take it or leave it would get us no where.

[Bakunin]

Any form of compromise would not be welcome by both radical side, not only the hard line sovreignist. Don't forget that.

Tabling the Allaire report and saying take it or leave it would get us no where.

your prolly true but for me that report would be the minimum requirement i could accept. if its not going to be considered then i guess it doesnt worth to compromise. just like the meech accord, i guess alot of people would accept it right now, that could be a solution but the charlotown accord was a big joke and it didnt even pass. If ever the liberal get kicked out soon and phillipe couillard remplace charest in power we never know what could happend.

But right now one thing is sure, the pq is about 20% in advance from the liberal in the polls and they clearly said that there will be a referendum in the first part of the mandat as soon as possible. and right now they would win at 52-54%.

[Riverwind]

your prolly true but for me that report would be the minimum requirement i could accept. if its not going to be considered then i guess it doesnt worth to compromise.

You cannot claim to be willing to compromise if you claim a document produced by the Quebec gov't is the 'minimum' terms. In my dictionary, compromise is a two way street where both sides have to be willing to move from their initial terms. Saying that your original position represents 'minimum' requirements is simply a fancy way of saying 'we are not interested in compromise'.

You have proven my point: seperatists are incapable of compromise and do not understand the realities of the Canadian position after a yes vote. How many Quebequers would vote for seperation if they knew that they would have to give up their Canadian citizenships? There can be no terms after a yes vote that includes Canadian citizenships for Quebec residents because Canada cannot afford to have its political process to be distorted by so many citizens living outside its borders. This is not hardline or punative - it is common sense from the perspective of Canadians. There will be hundreds of other similar issues which is why it will be near impossible to have a 'friendly' seperation.

If there is a 'yes' vote, I predict that negotiations will break down pretty quickly and the Quebequer gov't will attempt a UDI and to then repudiate its responsibility for the nation debt. The Canadian dollar will go into a tail spin, wiping out the savings of most Quebequers. Emotions will flare, people will demand the partition of Quebec and Quebec may find it unable to exercise control over places like Hull that are so closely tied to the Ontario economy. It will be be one step away from civil war.

[Bakunin]

You cannot claim to be willing to compromise if you claim a document produced by the Quebec gov't is the 'minimum' terms. In my dictionary, compromise is a two way street where both sides have to be willing to move from their initial terms. Saying that your original position represents 'minimum' requirements is simply a fancy way of saying 'we are not interested in compromise'.

No, it is a compromise, just like meech is. In other word, while federalism and sovreignty aren't compromise, confederalism or an autonomous quebec inside canada is a compromise. The allaire report wich clarify the provincial and federal juridiction is a beginning toward a confederation or an autonomous state.

You have proven my point: seperatists are incapable of compromise and do not understand the realities of the Canadian position after a yes vote. How many Quebequers would vote for seperation if they knew that they would have to give up their Canadian citizenships? There can be no terms after a yes vote that includes Canadian citizenships for Quebec residents because Canada cannot afford to have its political process to be distorted by so many citizens living outside its borders. This is not hardline or punative - it is common sense from the perspective of Canadians. There will be hundreds of other similar issues which is why it will be near impossible to have a 'friendly' seperation.

From what ive heard there is nothing about canadian citizenship. What is proposed as an initial partnership is free circulation of goods, people and using the same money. As for the share of the debt and infrastructure what is propose is to use the vienna accord proposition, there is also a few other popular method that have already been discussed.

[Guest eureka]

You get much closer, Sparhawk, in the last post. Negotiations on Quebec's terms are an impossibility. Too, Quebec has no leverage and will, as the much smaller and less powerful entity, be a supplicant. Any negotiation could only leave Quebec in a feeble condition.

This notion of compromise needs a lot more thought than it has been given by the "compromisers." Compromise contains the word "promise." What promise does Quebec independence contain for either Canada or Quebec? It gives only a much lesser future for both.

Canada would be a divided and truncated nation that has shown it has no national identity or ethos. Quebec would be a state shunned by the modern world as an ethic ghetto - about the same creed would rule as fuelled Nazi Germany. The Allaire report is not even a starting point for talks. It is a demand that would, as you suggest, give Quebec all the tools of Sovereignty while retaining Canadian citizenship for Quebeckers.

Such a base woud mean that Quebeckers would enjoy all the privileges of Canada with none of the costs or responsibilities. It would not have all the rights, though, since its "citizens" would still be diminished by its language laws. It would deprive Francophones of their freedom to choose, for only one example, the schooling of their children - a right that is guaranteed by the International Covenant on Social, Political and Economic Rights. Quebec and Canada are in serious breach of that Covenant through Quebec's laws.

It would lead to the expulsion or exodus of most of the rest of the Anglophones in Quebec: at least of those few left that are young enough to move. Fifty per cent or so have already left Quebec due to its political aims and its Language Laws. Many of those left because, as I have implied in earlier posts, they could not reconcile themselves to the necessity of physical force to "cure" the "Quebec Disease."

Quebec has, already, greater powers and autonomy than just about any region of any country in the world. When are people going to wake up to the reality of the demands.

Meech and Charlottetown were both designed, not to reach a compromise but to give Quebec what it wanted and to remake Canada as a federation of semi-independent states. That was the political vision of the time. In Clark's milder terms, a "Community of Communities" each sovereign.

The ignorance of Canadians as to what both meant is stunning: particularly Charlottetown. Charlottetown was not all that dissinilar to Meech but incorporated the aim of such projects as "discovering the national identity and culture" of English Canada. Not Quebec, mind you. Quebec's identity was said to be clear as the home of an exclusively French society immersed in the navel gazing xenophobia that is its distinguishing feature.

Interestingly, Meech is being realised through the "back door." Justice Dickson, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said that the SCC interprets the Constitution as though the Distinct Society Clause were in it.

The clause is not in the Constitution and every decision of the SCC with respect to Quebec's language laws is immoral and unconstitutional.

That clause, placed in section. 25 where Quebec and the Meechers want it, would enable Quebec to enforce its oppressive and unnatural laws.

What a sick country we would have.

[Riverwind]

Interestingly, Meech is being realised through the "back door." Justice Dickson, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said that the SCC interprets the Constitution as though the Distinct Society Clause were in it.

The fight over Bill 101 is over and not worth fighting anymore. I find the provisions of the bill distasteful and unjustified, however, Quebequers have voted in several federalist and separatist governments that support the bill. That tells me that no one outside of Quebec has any business interfering with it.

I am very glad that the Supreme Court of Canada is reading 'distinct society' into the constitution because that simply demonstrates how flexible and accomodating the Canada federation is - even without any further constitutional changes. This a cold hard fact that seperatists try to deny since it undermines their message of fear.

What really bothers me about Quebec politics is it is dominated by a group of hard-core seperatists that would not be statisfied with anything less than the complete independence for Quebec. Even though this group of people makes up no more than 30% of the population of Quebec they manage to poison the political debate and make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with the other 70% of Quebequers that are willing to find a reasonable compromise within the country.

My original message is that if these seperatists will be in for a nasty surpise if they think that they can poison the political discussion with uncompromising, ethnocentric rhetoric for 30 years and expect that poison to disappear the day after getting 50%+1 in a referendum. We have a saying in English: "what goes around comes around" or "you reap what you sow".

Of course, it does take two to tangle and there are elements in English Canada which have contributed to poisoned environment by over reacting to politics in Quebec or insisting on principals like 10-equal provinces. However, these people are a disappearing force in Canadian politics. As a result, I feel the main block to any resolution between Quebec and Canada today are those hard line separatists. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea what we can do about that problem.

[Guest eureka]

The fight against Bill 101 is not over: not by a long way. It is, as we speak, going once more to the United Nations over the latest blasphemy of the Supreme Court. It has been there before and the United Nations condemned Canada for its inaction in nullifying or disallowing the Bill.

The UN ruled that the English in Quebec are not a minority but a part of the Canadian majority. The French of Quebec were not a majority but a part of the Canadian minority.

Bill 101 is all about the attempt to create a national majority where none exists. The Canadian government reaction so far has been to allow this to happen in order to maintain the political base of the majority parties in Quebec.

If you think the loss of rights as Canadians by Quebeckers and more severely by English speaking Quebeckers, is acceptable, I suggest you rethink your position. This is the most shameful example of the flouting of the Rule of Law and the subversion of democracy that has occurred in any modern nation other than the Fascist regimes.

I find it hard to understand that you would treat the use of the "Distinct Society" fiction as fact with such equanimity. It is unconstitutional and racist. It requires that Quebc laws be given the seal of legality no matter how unjust or illegal they may be.

It is not acceptable.

Separation is another, though related, issue. The factors involved in negotiation if any were to rake place, would take ten years to resolve. Then, they would produce a result that would make Quebeckers rebel when they discovered how much they had lost.

[Riverwind]

If you think the loss of rights as Canadians by Quebeckers and more severely by English speaking Quebeckers, is acceptable, I suggest you rethink your position. This is the most shameful example of the flouting of the Rule of Law and the subversion of democracy that has occurred in any modern nation other than the Fascist regimes.

You exaggerate the wrong inflicted by Bill 101 - which I do agree is wrong. My position is that there are battles worth fighting and battles that are not worth fighting and Bill 101 is one that we should definitely forget about.

Even if it was possible to 'win' the Bill 101 battle it would be a pyrrhic victory since it would just alienate a lot of French Canadians that honestly believe the law is necessary to preserve their language in North America.

[seabee]

Even though he has just received a 76,2% confidence vote, Bernard Landry has just resigned as leader of the PQ, considering this result as not strong enough. He also resigns as MNA from Verchères.

[Guest eureka]

The only answer to that is to teach those French Canadians the truth that the only protection they have ever had for their language is the tolerance of English Canadians. That could wear thin.

If you want to discuss the specifics of Bill 101 and the harm it has done to Canada and to Quebec, I will be happy to do so, though it should not be necessary since wrongs are meant to be righted not accepted. I have clause by clause analyses of it and the summary of legal challenges.

Apart from all that, it is simply an unjust law and cannot be allowed to stand whayever the consequences.

It was an English judge, of course, who said, with the mob at the door: "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." That is the position I take and, I think, Canadians will soon disperse the mob when they are awakened to the reality.