Talk:Bloc Québécois

In my opinion, the addition of remarks made in a 1997 election campaign is completely anecdotic (and is therefore bias-by-content). It defies all definition of "encyclopedic" - that is even before considering the fact that it takes up a third of an article on a topic that could see so much more relevant statements added to it. Tremblay 22:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is evidence of the political position of a prominent member of the party and an elected member of the Canadian House of Commons. In describing the Nazi party, we most certainly refer to the speeches, claims, policies etc. of its members. Angelique the brainwashed moron

Yes, it might be evidence of a person's political position. So why is it not in an article devoted to this person's political stance instead of being in an article about a political party? Tremblay 23:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in response to Angelique both on her user page and mine, if Suzanne Tremblay's comment is expounded on in such length in Bloc Québécois, then by extension we have to add long passages on every controversial comment ever made by any Canadian politician whatsoever. Canadian Alliance would have to include "back of the shop", "Asian invasion", "No more Prime Ministers from Quebec", etc. Progressive Conservative Party of Canada would have to include an extensive analysis of the long-term political fallout of "Tequila Sheila", "Sambo", "I don't speak Chinese or German, either", "Riel will hang...", "let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark", and on and so forth. Tremblay's comment is no more or less relevant than any of those. So, Angelique, tell me: why are you so much more offended by anti-English sentiment in the BQ than by anti-French sentiment in the Alliance? Bearcat 06:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is a copy of what I posted to Bearcat.

It's sometimes a matter of opinion, however I think you would agree that any such issue would have encyclopedic merit based on its national media coverage which in the Suzanne Tremblay racist statement issue, was not only substantial, but sustained. Publicity wise, it ranks second only to Paizeau's racism for which he resigned. And, by all means include any racist (or extreme right wing economic policies (please)) into the Canadian Alliance article. The collective thinking, or intolerate views of party members, is extremely relevant in writing an encyclopedic article. After all, a political party is created because its beliefs are different, therefore Wikipedia's job is to inform readers about what specific things make them different. Note, in the Bloc Quebecois case, that the leader only "distanced" himself from Ms. Tremblay, he did not condem her or discipline her. And, it is racism throughout the separatist movement, that scares English Quebeckers --- and Wall Street. Angelique 13:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And, Bearcat said: why are you so much more offended by anti-English sentiment in the BQ - "Sentiment" ! I am offended and disgusted by racism, and Ms. Tremblay's remarks were pure racism. Also, far too many articles in Wikipedia contain "some think that etc. etc." Giving exact, precise, substantiated examples of conduct, is far more encyclopedic than "some believe the party has racist etc.". Angelique 13:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And by the way, the "Riel will hang" matter you raised, relates to a deliberate misquoting a Prime Minister to make his words appear to say something completely different than the real words. Too, in dealing with racism, it is essential to spell it out so that readers can judge for themselves, in particular those from countries beyond Canada. As to how Wikipedia has dealt with racism, check out Henry Ford. And this is one businessman, not the Official Opposition Party of the GOvernment of Canada. Or, for lengthy views, maybe Mother Teresa. Angelique 13:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Still today, no one actually knows the problem you have with MacDonald's quote. Just that you continuously remove it. I'm not going to get involved in your new "forum on alleged racism".. but I'll point out that Henry Ford and Mother Teresa are articles about people not political parties, corporations or religious institutions. It supports the point I'd stated earlier: the Suzanne Tremblay event (which, from what I can tell, was mostly publicized in the "usual suspects" media) is relevant in her own article, possibly in Jean Charest's article, but it's not encyclopedic in the Bloc Québécois article. Tremblay 15:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First, go and see racism so you understand what you are talking about. Are you saying that Canadians are a race? If that is the case, the only racist person I know is you. Being a Canadian is something that every human can be by becoming a citizen of Canada. In order to feel Canadian, identify as Canadian though, a person needs to adopt the Canadian culture and values. One requirement for this is a knowledge of the English language in order to communicate with the other Canadians. This doesn't mean they should completely abandon their own language, but it means that they will not be using it in every aspect of their lives anymore. That's how a nation composed of individual from all over keeps its unity.

Did it ever occur to you that Quebecers were maybe hoping to build such a society for themselves and the next generations, using the language and culture that unites the majority of them? I think you should stop using words you do not understand and learn the meaning of the words culture, diversity and humanity. -- Mathieugp 14:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Quote from something called Wikipedia.org : Race - Race is a type of classification used to define groups of living things based on such elements as common descent, heredity, physical attributes, self-identification, and more rarely behavior and language.

Perhaps Mathieugp can explain which culture, diversity and humanity that his calling others at Wikipedia "hopeless, brainwashed morons," comes from? Angelique 14:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Certainly. The individuals that I called "brainwashed morons" where human beings self-identifying as Canadians, of the kind that believe all the anti-Quebec junk they read in the right-wing Ontarian press. The kind that denies that something like the people of Quebec event exists and that Quebecers have their own culture because they have their own social, political, cultural, economic, and national institutions, some which are older than the Canadian federal State itself. You could in fact self-identify as "Canadian" yourself and end up concluding the same by understanding politics and nationalism in the context of a prolonged domination by the imperialism of another nation.

Being a Canadian is certainly not belonging to a race. Being a Quebecer either. Being a "brainwashed moron", something that you have attributed to yourself on multiple occasions, is something you cannot think of as being inherent to a person's origin or nationality, unless you are a racist and intolerant being yourself. Ignorance and stupidity is in reality common to all humans whatever culture they belong to, whatever language they speak.

Please, learn the meaning of the words nation, nationality, culture, ethnicity, language, pluralism and humanism. You might also benifit from reading on moral absolutism, chauvinism and for the love of God start reading on philosophy, the truth, and ethics. -- Mathieugp 16:23, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re Suzanne Tremblay Stating facts is NPOV. Changing something to make it sound totally harmless is the hallmark of Mathieugp/Tremblay. Angelique 23:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angelique, I strongly suggest you peruse Wikipedia's guides to writing with a NPOV - it will cut down on your reverting-quota. In it you'll see that very debatable adjectives must be avoided (for example "major controversy" becomes "controversy"). Also, statements such as 'racist' and "really bad guy" must be avoided. Because if it is evident that a particular event was caracterized by quote-unquote pure racism, readers will be able to come to that conclusion without the slightest bit of difficulty. Furthermore, in your version it only states that some "racist statements" were made about Jean Charest; no details.

Here is the definition of anecdote for your benefit.

anecdote: a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident.

I stand by my earlier statement. Biographical incidents belong to biographical articles, otherwise it's not encyclopedic. What do you think about this? Tremblay who is still (hopelessly?) trying to have a discussion instead of a string of reverts.

---

Perhaps now that DW's new incarnation is gone we'll be able to discuss parts of this item.

I still think the Suzanne Tremblay anecdote should be kept on her own page. Otherwise it paves the way to the addition of all sorts of similar "subjective" anecdotes (i.e. Bloquiste Oswaldo Nunez being called an ungrateful immigrant for being a sovereigntist by Liberal minister Doug Young). Also, the general idea behind the Suzanne Tremblay anecdote is explained in an encyclopedic manner under "internal division". Any objections to removing the anecdote? Tremblay 00:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It should be moved under the "Internal division" heading - it seems very out of place currently.

In addition to the longstanding tension between those who define their nationalism ethnically vs. those who reject this view, there seems to be a new division arising between those who think sovereignty should/can be acheived and those who have given up hope (...which should be explored in the article). For example it should be noted that a number of sitting Bloc MPs have left the party for the Liberals in the last while, and several look set to do the same. -- stewacide 12:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

In the 1997 election, a controversy erupted when, at a Quebec rally, Bloc MP Suzanne Tremblay implied that Progressive Conservative Party of Canada leader Jean Charest was not a real francophone Québécois because his legal first name is "John".

I don't think francophone Québécois conveys the correct meaning either, since someone of (for example) Hatian heritage whose first language is French and who lives in Quebec could correctly be called a francophone Québécois - but that's clearly not what Suzanne Tremblay meant (Charest in fact is clearly both a francophone and a resident of Quebec). What I'm trying to indicate is that she was refering to his not being of Québécois ethnicity (not simply of Quebec civil nationality). -- stewacide 06:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About the Québécois

As we try to explain often times, there is no Québécois "ethnicity". Québécois is French for Quebecer. The Quebecois identity is the de-ethnicization of French Canada. It is equivalent to "American" or "Canadian", but in French. Since only Canadian born francophone and catholic people could fit in the definition of a French Canadian (Canadien-français), the term, and most importantly the ideology of survival behind it, was abandonned along with the Church every Sunday. This occured in the 1960s. This new national identity is pretty established nowadays. For example, after Ottawa voted against a Bloc Quebecois motion recognizing that Quebec was a nation, the National Assembly of Quebec voted a motion reaffirming that Quebec is a nation. It was adopted unanimously, with Jean Charest being the Premier of the Government.

It is no different, than in the 1960s, British Canadians massively beginning to identify to Canada, to identify as Canadians first, including others, all the while not rejecting their language and their faith. Not only people of British descent are Canadians. However, culturally, people who self-identify as Canadians tend to be anglophones (whatever their ethnic background or their mother tongue) and people who self-identify as Québécois tend to be francophones (whatever their ethnic background or their mother tongue). This cultural reality changes nothing to the fact that from a stricly legal or civil standpoint, all these people are Canadians and all those Canadian citizens residing in Quebec are treated as regular Quebecers. Nationality and citizenship are not the same, although in a typical Nation-State, they overlap almost perfectly. What makes Quebec special is that, here, we live in a place where there are two competing nationalisms.

Miss Suzanne Tremblay was in fact echoing an old 70s sentence which is "Il est plus Elliot que Trudeau" (he is more Elliot than Trudeau). This referred to the fact that despite Mister Trudeau being born in Quebec, he chose to be English Canadian (culturally speaking) unlike the majority of the people of his generation and the following generations. He rejected the Quebecois identity and Quebec nationalism (in fact, all nationalisms according to him) and even changed his name from Pierre Trudeau to Pierre Elliot Trudeau, to convince himself and others of his belief. A lot of Quebec nationalists considered Trudeau a puppet used to appeal to Quebecers because of his French background. They claimed that if Trudeau had been a "John Brown", his saying that Quebecers spoke lousy French, were a brainless people etc. would have surely passed as being racist instead of making a lot of them feel ashamed of their identity.

When Miss Suzanne Tremblay said that we should not forget that Jean Charest was in fact "John" Charest, she was referring to that. What she said was juged stupid and disrespectful by most Quebecers, including the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. We are not in the 70s anymore. Trudeau, Levesque, and Bourgault are all dead.

Today, there are thousands and thousands of Razik, Diouf, Nguyen, Arshadi, Mohamed, Toussaint, Wong, etc. who self-identity as Quebecois in spite of them not directly descending from the "coureurs des bois canadiens" of New France. This is a new socio-cultural reality, something thought impossible in the pea soup and church time of Trudeau's youth. This new reality is a direct result of the 1977 Bill 101 and the battle of Rene Levesque to give immigration powers to Quebec in 1982. -- Mathieugp 15:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't deny that there is a new inclusive definition of Québécois, but that doesn't change the fact that many still subscribe to the pure laine ethnic definition (especially within the hardcore of the sepratist movement). It's also questionable whether many more "modern" nationalists are only playing lipservice to it (e.g. Bouchard's infamous comments about the Québécois "white race", Parizeau's comments about the "ethnic vote", etc.).

It's not as if all Quebeckers woke up one morning converted to this new way of thinking! In fact, I think it's very questionable to what extent this new definition extends beyond the urban centres and the children of Bill 101 (unless you seriously beleive that Jacques Six-Pack rural Quebecker really considers some Francophone Chinese from Montreal a Québécois in the same sense as himself). -- stewacide 16:36, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)