Québec votes to leave well enough alone

Yesterday, as Walt et tout le monde predicted, the voters of Québec turfed out the Parti Québecois of Pauline Marois, and gave the Liberals, led by Philippe Couillard, a solid majority in the province's Assemblée Nationale. Lifetime pct .990.

Mme Marois lost her own riding. Her star candidate, Pierre-Karl Péladeau, whose ill-judged remarks about building a "country" for his children contributed to the defeat, won his seat and may be a contender for the PQ leadership, now that Mme Marois has stepped down. The more moderate Coalition Avenir Québec held its own, while Québec Solidaire (the most leftish separatists) increased their representation by 50% -- from two seats to three.

What does all this mean? The first clue may be seen in the half-cent rise in the value of the Canadian dollar on the foreign exchange markets this morning. Québec is not going to separate. Canada is not going to break up. The rest of the world (to the extent that it cares at all) is reassured.

Canadians, including most Québecers, were never in serious doubt. The Québecois like talking about "sovereignty" -- not as strong a word as "independence" -- but when it comes down to giving up the beaverbuck, massive federal subsidies and their Canadian passports, common sense always prevails. Referenda on separation were lost in 1980 and 1995, so the issue was due to come around again, but that didn't mean the idea would fly.

This year's election was not a referendum as such, but "a referendum on a referendum". Not even the PQ's proposal to have a real referendum "when the time is right" found favour with the voters. It seems they would prefer to talking about it to doing it.

Does that mean separatism is dead? No. There will always be those in Québec who, in their wild, romantic dreams, would like to secede from Canada, just as there are closet Confederates throughout the southern USA or "splittists" in western China. But those who hold onto visions of a state of their own are getting fewer...and older.

The separatist movement in Québec was born in the hippy-dippy 60s. (The PQ itself was founded by René Levesque and others in 1970.) Polling and yesterday's results show that today's true believers are mostly over-55s, outside of Montréal. The younger generation is more interested in putting food on the table than in whether or not the packaging is in French. Pro-soverignty sentiment is not dead, but it's dying, along with the aging baby boomers who espoused it.

Does yesterday's vote signify a rejection of the PQ's proposed Charter of Québec Values? Although the anglophone media and "progressive thinkers" might wish it so, Walt thinks otherwise. When Mme Marois called the election, the Charter was supposed to be the ballot question. At the beginning of the campaign it was assumed that the PQ would win, because of majority support for the Charter in all of Québec except the parts of Montréal with large immigrant populations. It only remained to be seen whether the PQ would get a majority or not.

The now-ex-premier's big mistake was introducing P-K Péladeau as her star candidate. The idea seemed to be to bolster the PQ's shaky reputation for economic competence, and show that an independent Québec could be successful and prosperous, just like M Péladeau. Unfortunately for Mme Marois, M Péladeau took it all too seriously, and started talking about sovereignty and the R-word ("referendum"). He even spoke of a "country" for his children, while giving the now-infamous fist-pump -- a truly cringeworth moment.

A video clip that went viral showed Mme Marois literally shoving M Péladeau to the side of the platform, but the genie was out of the bottle, and the voters saw a future that they didn't like. It was all over at that very moment, with only the magnitude of the Liberal victory to be determined.

La Belle Province and all of Canada can breathe a sigh of relief. For another generation or so, Québecers (and the rest of Canada) can continue to argue about sovereignty and bilingualism and multiculturalism, but nothing will change. The Montréal Canadiens will remain Canada's team, and you'll still be able to order a hamburger -- not "un hambourgeois" -- most anywhere in what will still be a province of Canada. Une province pas comme les autres, to be sure, but a part of Canada all the same.

Against Islamization, the French send in La Marine!

If Pauline Marois were honest [What? An honest politician?! Ed.], she'd admit that the appeal of the Charter of Québec Values to the pure laine Québecois -- outside of Montréal's West Island -- is its promise to put a brake on the Islamization of la Belle Province.

If enacted (as now seems doubtful) it would proscribe the wearing of religious headgear and other symbols. That would include the Sikhs' turbans and the Jews' kippas, but the main target would appear to be the hijab/niqab/burqa worn by Muslim women. (See "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?" -- one of Walt's most-read posts.)

Although it's not politically correct to say so, les Québecois are sick, sore and tired of accommodating themselves and their distinct society to the foreign beliefs and practices being imported into their province by the tidal wave of Muslim refugees and immigrants who live large off benefits provided by the state, but refuse to integrate themselves into the host society.

The people of Québec are not alone in their resentment of Islamization and forced multiculturalism. Walt suspects that the majority of Canadians (outside of Toronto and Vancouver) would support some changes to the Canadian Charter of Rights to give a few rights to the majority, for a change. And the citizens of France -- the cradle of liberty, equality and fraternity -- have just given a ringing endorsement to the policies of Marine Le Pen's Front National (= National Front) which advocates controlling imports of foreign goods, leaving the Eurozone, dismantling the European Union, and -- especially -- stopping immigration. Completely.

In local elections held in March, the FN stunned France by winning several significant mayoralties. Pundits now predict that Mme Le Pen may match the achievement of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, by getting into the second round of France's presidential election due in 2017.

What's the secret of Marine Le Pen's success? According to The Economist, a large segment of the electorate -- especially the native French working class -- is taken with her frankness, and the way she "attacks politicians from the mainstream parties as an out-of-touch metropolitan elite with no notion of how to reverse their country's economic, political and cultural decline." [My emphasis. Walt]

Of course this has the socialists and secular humanists who run France (Allo, M Hollande!) and the lamestream media all bent out of shape. In the same editorial, The Economist whines that the FN "offers only a nasty and negative set of policies suffused with xenophobic, anti-Muslim and illiberal instincts." Maybe so, but those "instincts" would seem to accord perfectly with those of the majority of the French people.

There's a lesson there -- even The Economist admits it -- for the leaders of the ABC countries (America, Britain and Canada), who should realize that "populist parties are on the march across Europe"!

With the proposed Charter of Québec Values, the Parti Québecois seemed to have learned from the example of France. But then Mme Marois introduced issues of separation from Canada and economic management, which did not play so well in the Saguenay. Now the PQ is going to lose. (Lifetime pct .987)

What lessons do we learn from this, boys and girls? The Economist warns that "if Europe's leaders cannot reconnect with their citizens, Ms Le Pen's success will be just the start". Indeed. If you want to get elected or re-elected, don't listen to the lamestream media and the metropolitan elites -- listen to the people!

Further reading: If you read French and are opposed to the New World Order, check out Le citoyen engagé - Portail de l'éveil citoyen contre le NOM.

Elections coming up in Québec and Afghanistan -- who cares?

In the first week of April two "states" are holding elections of some interest to Walt, if not TROTW (The Rest of the World). I put "states" in quotes because we're talking about Québec -- actually a province of Canada, whether it* likes it or not -- and Afghanistan, an occupied territory of the Paranoid States of America.

The idea that there might be an election, no matter how flawed, in the Armpit of the Middle East is being hailed as a great triumph for the USA and its "coalition of the willing". The Afghan people will be free to vote for a replace for outgoing president Mohammad Krazai, we are told. That means there's at least a modicum of peace and stability in the almost-failed state. Yeah, sure. Walt is listening to a radio (!) report from the sandpit right now. Gunfire is clearly audible in the background.

The shooting is probably being done by the Taliban. Yes, they are still there, in spite the lost of 1000s of lives and billions of dollars over a dozen years, trying to run them out of Dodge. Latest realistic estimates put the numbers of Taliban higher than ever, and now they are threatening to kill anyone and everyone who dares to participate in the putative election. Their attack on the Serena Hotel a few days ago shows that they can do it, too... with impunity.

Meanwhile, there will be a free and fair provincial election in Québec. It will be as honest and democratic as such things ever get in la Belle Province, which is to say about as honest and democratic as an election in Chicago. The outcome is, however, of interest to the governments of Canada and (believe it or not) the UK, Russia and China, because of the spectre of separation.

That's right, messieurs/dames, the Québécois are having one of their periodic dithers about whether or not to remain a part of Canada. The real countries mentioned above are interested because they are all trying to figure out what to do about separatist movement in their own nations. The Scots want to separate from Britain. The Chechens and others want to separate from Russia. And Uighurs and Tibetans quite understandably want out of China.

The Québec election wasn't supposed to be about separation. The Parti Québécois, which has had a minority government for the last couple of years, decided to ride a wave of popular support following its introduction of a new Charter of Québec Values, so called a snap election. They looked set to win a majority because the people of Québec, outside of Montréal, really dislike the Islamization of their society.

Unfortunately for Québec Premier Pauline Marois, the prospect of a big win went to her head. She brought in a "star candidate", Pierre-Karl Péladeau, owner of the Québecor media conglomerate. M Péladeau's presence on the platform was meant to show the people that Québec is... or could be... an economic powerhouse on its own, and that's exactly what P-K said, with emphasis on the "I-word" -- Independence. Mme Marois had no choice but to say that, yes, her government would hold yet another referendum, when the time was right... whenever that might be.

The I-word and the R-word, combined in the same speeches, have scared the bejazus out of the naturally conservative Québécois, who are loath to give up things Canadian -- like Canadian passports, Canadian pensions and Canadian dollars. Look for the opposition Liberals to be returned to power and the debate over separatism to be ended... until next time.

As for Afghanistan, it doesn't matter who wins. The pitiful country, awash in opium, will continue to be plagued by corruption and violence. At some point it will officially be declared a "failed state". Perhaps some Western governments will at last admit that the mission to save the Afghans from themselves was a failure. But Walt wouldn't bet on it.

Lifetime pct .986.

* Interpret "it" either way, as you please.

Survey says... lots of Canucks biased against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc

Whoda thunk it? Canadians, always so smug about being tolerant and inclusive, celebrating diversity and all that BS, secretly dislike certain minority groups. That would include those they can recognize by their religious headgear and facial shrubbery.

After the Parti Québecois got the "conversation" started by proposing a Charter of Québec Values, it was inevitable that the public opinion pollsters would ask people -- in both la Belle Province and TROC -- how they felt about the accommodation of religious and ethnic minority cultures. That's what the fuss is all about -- whether it's time for the multiculti tail to stop wagging the Québec and/or Canadian dogs.

Today's National Post reports the results of a Forum poll on multiculturalism. The results may be dismaying to the "progressive thinkers" who dominate Canadian media and politics, but should hardly come as a surprise to anyone who listens to the conversations at Tim Horton's.

Turns out that about half of Bloc Québecois and Parti Québecois supporters think that Muslims and Jews have too much influence in their province, while nearly a third of British Columbians think the same of "Sikhs and Asians". [Aren't Sikhs Asians? Or do they mean Chinese? I'm confused! Ed.]

That sentiment is particularly pronounced in Québec -- exactly what Pauline Marois is counting on -- but the rest of Canada (TROC) isn't far behind, with about a third of Canadians saying Muslims have too much influence in their home provinces. Hey, Steve Harper! Hey, Jason Kenney! Are you listening? See? It's not just a few rednecks in Mississauga or Surrey.

Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff told the Post, “If the Charter of Quebec Values is an example of the Parti Québecois practising dog whistle politics...it appears there are plenty of ears tuned to that particular frequency for the message to fall on.”

Speaking of Jews, while less than a fifth of Canadians say that Jews have too much influence, about 32% of Quebeckers think they are too powerful. Canada's largest and strongest community of orthodox Jews is to be found in Montréal. Not long ago a Jewish school in that city was successful in getting the neighbouring YMCA to paint over its windows so the innocent Jewish kids would be spared the sight of scantily clad goyim playing basketball.

In Ontario, it's the francophones -- French speakers, to non-Canadian readers -- who are on the merdeux end of the stick, with 26% of respondents saying the Frenchies [Good job on avoiding the other "Fr" word. Ed] are too powerful. You certainly don't hear the language of Molière much in places like Kingston and Kitchener.

The poll was conducted by Interactive Voice Response on September 16th and 17th among a randomly selected sample of 1527 Canadians 18 years of age and older. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3%, 19 times out of 20. Walt guesses you could call the poll a cross section of Canadian public opinion. No hyphen.

Québec premier denounces multicult, hijabs and too much "accommodation"

Pauline Marois, the first female premier of Québec, has spoken out strongly against bending over backwards to accommodate the beliefs and practices of immigrants who refuse to assimilate into the culture of their adopted countries. In an interview with Le Devoir, she called out multiculturalism for violence and "bomb-throwing" in the UK. That kind of thing, she said, is reason enough to push ahead with her government's planned "Charte des valeurs québécoises" ("Charter of Quebec Values").

Mme Marois told the Montréal newspaper that secularism measures contemplated by the Charter will be phased in over a few years. The measures include a ban on the wearing of religious costumes or symbols -- such as yarmulkes, hijabs or large crosses -- by staff working in any "public workplace". That would include government offices, schools and hospitals. The usual suspects are of course outraged by enforced secularism, which they call racist, discriminatory, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, yada yada yada.

The premier conceded that the French model of secularism "isn’t perfect", Le Devoir reported, but she said that "in England, they’re knocking each other over the head and throwing bombs because of multiculturalism and nobody knowing any more who they are in that society."

Poor Len Canayen says... Wow! Someone noticed!

Mme Marois also said that wearing a hijab can be seen as a "form of submission", and that she feared daycare workers, teachers, and others in positions of authority could (by wearing religious attire) incite impressionable children to practise religion.

Len thinks this would be offensive to Catholics if there were any religious teaching in "Catholic" schools, but that seems not to be the case any more. No, not even in Québec. There are (practically) no more religious sisters and brothers. The dire dearth of vocations is one of the poisoned fruits of Vatican II.

However, in the so-called "public" schools there are lots of religious... religious Muslims, that is. Perhaps it is the Muslims and Jews -- not Christians -- who are the real targets of the Charter. We shall have to study the wording very carefully when it is published later this month.

A draft version leaked in the media reportedly proposed a ban on religious clothing for public servants. Polls suggest the idea of restricting religious garb is quite popular in Quebec, and the second-place PQ has seen a bump in the latest polling.

PQ not so PC as TROC?

Too many abbreviations? Walt will provide a glossary. Let's start with "PQ". Before two-letter abbreviations for states and provinces were standardised, "PQ" was the commonly accepted shorthand for "Province of Quebec" or "Province du Québec" to be more PC -- note the accent. Today the correct form is "QC", while "PQ" refers to the Parti Québecois, the quasi-separatist political party which misgoverns la Belle Province.

The PQ, as well as being committed to (one day) seceding from The Rest Of Canada (TROC), is of a decidedly pinkish hue, thus resolutely secular humanist in its values. After the Roman Catholic Church turned its back on its own dogmas in the 1960s, that's pretty much how the majority of  Québecois think things should be.

Religion now has no place in public life, and no religion or creed should receive any special consideration or accommodation. That's politically correct (PC) thinking in Québec and TROC. Or at least it was, until a few years ago, when Muslims started demanding the "right" to pray in the streets, have Islamic religious instruction in public schools, and force their womenfolk to cover all or parts of their bodies against the gaze of infidels. See "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?".

Of course what's fair for the followers of the Prophet must also be fair for the Jews, Sikhs...just about everyone except Christians. Freedom of religion, dontcha know! It's PC! And so Canadians are treated to the spectacle of turban-clad Mounties, looking like extras in Carry On Up The Khyber. Walt is waiting for a Sikh to bring a human rights complaint (or a lawsuit, if in the USA) to force the NHL to let him wear a turban instead of a helmet.

Soccer, of course, is a different story. Soccer players don't wear helmets because -- let's be real -- how can you hurt your head playing a slow sissy game like "football"? Well, OK, you could get beaned by a viciously kicked ball, but wearing anything on your head is still not done... unless you're a Sikh. Along with his holy drawers and kirpan, a Sikh should be able to wear his turban, they say, because it's part of his religion. And anyone who objects is a racist bigot!

So what, said the Québec Soccer Federation? A few weeks back the QSF passed a bylaw forbidding the wearing of turbans or anything else while playing the beautiful game. Accusations of religious discrimination and being less-than-PC immediately emanated from the lamestream media and swivel-eyed loons of the human rights industry. To which Pauline Marois, the PQ premier of Québec replied, so what?! This is Québec and we'll follow our own customs and values.

A couple of weeks later, following condemnation from the Canadian Soccer Federation and a statement from the international governing body (FIFA) that it didn't care one way or the other, the QSF backed down. But there remains in QC the very strong sentiment that accommodation of religious and ethnic minorities has gone too far.

Having determined the direction from which the political wind is blowing, the Québec Minister of Citizenship, Bernard Drainville, has announced that he's pushing ahead with a long-promised "Charter of Values" which (he thinks) will resolve the problem of religious accommodation, once and for all. He pointed to a public opinion poll that asked whether Québecois think religious accommodation is still an important problem. Two-thirds of the 1506 respondents polled said yes.

When asked whether doing away with "unreasonable accommodations" would promote a more integrated society, 70%. Said M Drainville, "We do want this debate to be about what unites us, not what divides us. What unites us. And I do think equality between men and women, between all citizens notwithstanding origin, religion, mother tongue -- I do think these are important values if we want to build in Québec a united society."

A united society... Wouldn't that be something... If putting an end to extreme political correctness in Québec works, perhaps TROC could try it! And if it works in Canada -- as if! -- perhaps the other half of North America could have a go. We could even give the principle a name... something like "majority rule"!