if you don't happen to take part in that system of illusions and self-deception, what you say is incomprehensible
Libellés : québécophobie
Before saying a word, I’d like to express some severe personal discomfort, because anything I say will be abstract and dry and restrained. The crimes against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and elsewhere, particularly Lebanon, are so shocking that the only emotionally valid reaction is rage and a call for extreme actions. But that does not help the victims. And, in fact, it’s likely to harm them. We have to face the reality that our actions have consequences, and they have to be adapted to real-world circumstances, difficult as it may be to stay calm in the face of shameful crimes in which we are directly and crucially implicated.
[...] Bostonians could read in the Boston Globe a few days ago that at the Taba Conference in January 2001—now quoting—“Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted ideas floated by President Bill Clinton that would have produced a Palestinian state in 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of Gaza,” but these forthcoming gestures failed. The evil Palestinians refused Israel’s generous offers, keeping to their time-honored insistence on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory and proving they’re not partners for negotiation.
Well, there’s one fragment of truth in this conventional fabrication: there was a conference in Taba. And, in fact, it did come close to a possible settlement, but the rest is pure invention. In particular, the conference was terminated abruptly by Prime Minister Barak. The truth is completely unacceptable, so the facts are either suppressed, as they generally are, or, as in this case, just inverted. And we can expect a good deal more of that. Actually, the truth about the Taba Conference merits attention. That week, in one week in January 2001, that was the one moment in thirty years when the United States and Israel abandoned the rejectionist stance that they have maintained in virtual isolation until the present.
Not Through Annapolis: Noam Chomsky Says Path to Mideast Peace Lies in Popular Organizing Against U.S.-Israeli “Rejectionism”, Democracy Now, 27 novembre 2007
Vidéo [flux Real Video]
Frédéric Lacroix et Patrick Sabourin dans un document intitulé
Libellés : colonialisme, québec
Daryl Bradford Smith interviewé sur Chanel Islam International
Libellés : zionisme
Almost daily the title and framing of news articles puts on clear display the internalized bias of propaganda system journalism. A nice illustration is the September 22, 2007 article in the New York Times by Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger, “Raid on Syria Fuels Debate on Weapons.” The continuation page headline is “Israeli Raid Renews Debate on Nuclear Arms and Syria.” Then in a box we see this thought: “Washington worries, Is Damascus trying to build or buy an arsenal?” Now if Syria had bombed Israel to knock out some of its threatening weaponry, it is obvious that the Times headline would be much larger and the focus would be on the bombing attack itself, not on any “debate” that might ensue about nuclear arms. This would be considered an act of war and very bad business and deserving of retaliatory action (which would surely ensue). There would be no box that says, “Damascus worries, Is Israel trying to build an arsenal?” And there would be an indignant editorial denouncing Syrian aggression violating the UN charter.
What this reflects is the New York Times’s journalistic principles. That is, Israel has a right to an arsenal, whereas any Syrian arsenal and any Syrian effort that might enable it to defend itself is highly debatable. Furthermore, Israel shares aggression rights with the United States, so that if it attacks Syria that is not in itself bad or even problematic, whereas if Syria or Iran or any non-ally bombs another country, aids dissident or resistance movements like Hezbollah, or intervenes anywhere outside their own territory, this is very bad business. These principles are so well internalized that people like Mazzetti and Sanger probably don’t even realize that they are pretty brazen propagandists.
More Nuggets From A Nut House, Edward S. Herman, novembre 2007
Libellés : herman, propagande
Mia Farrow à TLMEP: "Ne parlons pas de l'Irak... Utilisons le prisme du Rwanda et non celui de l'Irak et alors notre responsabilité morale devient claire". Le prisme du général Dallaire ? Notre responsabilité morale ?
Libellés : propagande
Ah il est pratique le Zylag. Sur le TLMEP de Lisée:
Le fou du roi avait commencé à déstabiliser M. Lisée avec des blagues idiotes sans rapport avec le sujet. Patrick Huard, tendu comme une corde de piano, s'apprêtait à le charger avec la même agressivité qui avait désarçonné Gérald Larose dans l'affaire du manuel scolaire sur la souveraineté. Vous vous souvenez ? «Moé, je veux pas que ma fille lise ça, OK-là !» avait clamé M. Huard, en substance.
[...] Angélique Kidjo, chanteuse internationale, venue du Bénin et vivant aux États-Unis, est allée insuffler aux Québécois un peu de son enthousiasme extraordinaire, et c'est sous les applaudissements qu'elle a enlevé le morceau. Le fou du roi s'est tu. Huard ravala sa bile. Le roi, dont les yeux deviennent de plus en plus petits au fur et à mesure que l'émission avance, changea de sujet.
Ce que Martineau a véhiculé comme lieux communs en si peu de temps (!) : Le Pen est presque négationniste, s'afficher avec lui c'est donner prise à l'accusation d'antisémitisme, il n'est pas bien de rencontrer le président d'Iran, on oblige les Iraniennes à se voiler, en démocratie on peut critiquer, en Iran on ne peut pas, le président de l'Iran veut annihiler Israël... etc. Enfin, tous les clichés de la pensée unique au sujet de laquelle il affirme qu'elle n'existe pas.
Libellés : québec, richard martineau
[...] the current revival of French-Canadian ethnic nationalism.
Libellés : québécophobie
Waterboarding and Torture, Keith Olbermann, 8 novembre
Sometimes, as was the case with its complicity in “Ballistic Missile Defence” and the Iraq war, the Liberal government was actually successful in manipulating the compliant corporate media, various naive peace groups and many members of the public, into believing that Canada is not involved in these unpopular U.S.-led programs, even though it was and is deeply complicit.
Je crois que ça y est, la cité s'est illuminée. Il est trop tard. Le texte de Lysiane Gagnon, "N’y aurait-il pas lieu de leur faire porter un signe qui marquerait leur exclusion de la communauté ? Disons une feuille d’érable rouge cousue sur le manteau ?", dans le contexte, ouvre l'accès à un palier de cette cité où circulent un grand nombre de nos 'concitoyens', mais qu'on ne pouvait mentionner sans se faire traiter de parano, de jaloux, de villageois; ce palier est donc ouvert et bien éclairé. La réplique de Jean-François Lisée est sans appel, pourtant à la défense d'un projet de loi mal foutu, mais pas raciste pour deux sous. Un cœur s'élève pour nous bien faire comprendre: nous serons racistes tant que nous seront provinciaux. Je pense à ce professeur de cinéma à Concordia qui ouvre son cour chaque année en avertissant qu' "ici, ils sont très racistes, vous aurez de la difficulté à travailler à des productions québécoises si vous ne parlez pas le français."
Libellés : colonialisme, indépendance, québécophobie
J'en ai appris l'existence par La Presse de ce matin. Combien d'argent dépensé pour cette institution ennemie; combien pour leurs hôpitaux ?
Just over a week ago, as things seemed to be simmering in the wake of Hérouxville headlines, Parti Québecois leader Pauline Marois dropped Bill 195 into the National Assembly-a bill proposing that Quebec issue its own citizenship. Not to supersede Canadian citizenship, just to complement it in order to unify Francophones and Anglophones. To establish a clearly defined "we".
That and it would require all new Quebeckers to learn French within three years of immigration or suffer the consequences.
Quebec citizenship as described in Bill 195 would by its very nature create two tiers of Quebec immigrants. There would be the loyal patriotes, those who fell in line with Quebec language, culture and broader identity, and then there would be those who failed to assimilate. The former group would be entitled to full social benefits and respect, while the latter would be barred from holding public office at any level, raising funds for political parties or petitioning the National Assembly for redress of a grievance. PQ language critic Pierre Curzi stated recently in a radio interview with shock-jockey Gilles Proulx that a sovereign Quebec could and would strip unilingual Anglophones (specifically West Islanders) of their voting rights, but has since retracted his comments. In other countries, similar policies have also been known as "apartheid," but Marois (doubtless concerned with the term coming across as a little un-sexy) has gone with the name "identity act" instead.
But I'm not here to talk about neo-fascism. I've chosen to speak instead on the content of Bill 195. Clearly, this bill is geared towards assimilating foreign nationals into Quebec culture, but setting these kinds of standards and imposing consequences for failure to adhere to them does indeed beg the question: Would many Quebeckers even qualify for Quebec citizenship?
Foremost, citizenship would require Quebeckers to have solid working knowledge of French. Already the alarm bells are ringing. Though it's unclear how many Quebec adults are functionally illiterate, most surveys and studies place the figure between 20 and 25 per cent. This means that one of every four or five Quebeckers cannot read or write beyond an eighth grade level. Even for the lucky three-quarters, the language being spoken here is a distant, bastardized cousin of its European ancestor. Would Marois insist that immigrants learn local idioms such as "icitte" or "m'ah-te dire," use personal pronouns such as "moé" and "twoié," or refer to automobiles as "chars" or "minounes"? There are a few mentions in Bill 195 of revitalizing the promotion of strong spoken and written French in the Quebec curriculum, which would be commendable if it weren't for the fact that Pierre Elliott Trudeau has been touting the necessity of "re-learning French" since the late 1960s. But of course, Quebeckers took all that with a grain of salt because Trudeau was a traitor and a deserter.
There's also this stretch of Bill 195 (one of my personal favourites), about how Quebec citizens must pledge allegiance to the Quebec constitution, which doesn't exist yet, but will soon in order to free us from the shackles of the imperialistic Canadian Charter that has been keeping us down for a quarter-century. Interesting indeed, given that Quebec's provincial government has never recognized Canada's 1982 Constitution Act but still blissfully enjoys all the rights and freedoms it provides. So much for practicing what you preach.
Regarding Bill 195's provisions for the teaching of Quebec history and culture, I doubt the majority of native Quebeckers know in what year the Battle of the Plains of Abraham took place, where the first French settlement was located or who the first provincial premier was. As for Quebec culture, just read up on Céline Dion, Les Boys and Le Bonhomme Carnaval and you'll have all your bases covered.
Bill 101 has inadvertently cheated a generation of Francophone kids from a place in an increasingly globalized job market that values bilingualism and has little to no use for folks who can't speak their mother tongue properly. The sad truth, and what Marois fails to realize, is that Quebeckers need to fulfill the requirements of Bill 195 more than immigrants do.
Quebec's apartheid politics, Ben Lemieux, The McGill Tribune, 30 octobre 2007
Libellés : colonialisme, mcgill, québécophobie, racisme
 Moi
|  Les Lumières | |
 La Patrie
|  La Santé
| |
 |
