Ms. Shashi Curl wisely chose to wait until the end of the election campaign to reveal her vision of raising the curtain on the English-language debate on September 9. Let me do the same without the distorted perspective of an election campaign. May we not have more for several years, because this is also the wish of Kickers and Canadians.
If I had given myself earlier a detailed analysis of the question of the opening of the debate, we would have talked about nothing more! However, there were issues to be brought up beyond influencing voting intentions—another inexhaustible topic of scholarly speculation—but the electoral context, the abstract, greed, and often anecdotal, gave way too much to this error.
However, from the start, she refused to direct a personal censure to Mrs. Curl. Instead, I referred to the revealing side of a charge intended to counter the spokesperson of current Quebec nationalism with the racism of his nation. The fee, backed by all required filters, was institutional. Madame Curl was once a journalist. no longer. She could not have asked such a question without seriously deviating from the ethics of this profession. The survey company is a commercial enterprise that is not bound by any code. This is not all about Ms. Curl or the bloc leader. It’s about how the Canadian nation and the nation of Quebec view each other.
What did the question reveal?
First, the deeply rooted bias in Canadian media culture, that Quebec’s institutions, political actors, and the bulk of the population they lead and choose, are racist. They are so by their gestures and refusal to acknowledge them. Thus, approval of Bill 21 is inherently “discriminatory”, along with “systemic” whose social sense has henceforth become intoxicated by the processes of political intent. Shouldn’t the question be explain why I support the legality of Bill 21 and Bill 96? And here the verdict was passed before the trial, and the accused was convicted even before speaking before a foreign court.
Going so far as to speak of a privileged society when, on June 16, the federal parliament widely adopted the idea of a state of Quebec, whose only official language is French, reveals a lack of knowledge of the subject. Or wanting to hide the fact that Trudeaus, O’Toole, and Singh voted for my proposal…because they had no choice.
On the evening of the debate, these leaders, by their silence, played a much more important role than Mrs. Curl’s. They were enslaved. They hardly noticed that it was just said in English that it was obvious to many Canadians and most of their institutions. Then they tried to catch up, and they saw Quebec punish them for this disdain. Developer.
What did they actually carry? Expressing a poorly documented, but widespread, perception that Quebecers are different, yes, but negative. It is natural for them to confront the leader of the bloc first and then the entire National Assembly, the Prime Minister, commentators and citizens with the fact that their laws, values and procedures for living in society are discriminatory and racist, unlike the overall Canadian culture which claims that religion is more equal than secularism, and French is so unimportant that it is not discussed during debate and that the Governor-General did not know a word about it.
Referendums, suggestions and desires, facade intentions have changed nothing in 50 years to two units, as long as they refuse to see each other as two entities that can be friends instead of one torn apart because of that it is not, it will not make the necessary dialogue to know what we can do together, in a voluntary way, more From the will of institutional and moral domination of one over the other.
Madame Curl’s letter does not intend to open such a dialogue. It exposes and articulates the same prejudices, the same disdain, the same certainty of moral superiority as the question which was not one and which no one found fault with in Canada, before or after reading it, to millions of listeners. She continued and added more and signed. Thus, I would have created the entire controversy from scratch rather than approving it, and Quebec followed me. And again this time, the entire Canadian nation watered with these waters will see nothing but confirmation of its moral superiority over the troublesome Quebec tribe.
In this, Mrs. Curl is not guilty of her own culture. She is a victim of that. Not a victim of me, or Mr. Legault or the late federal leaders who have been late covering themselves. It is the result of a lack of judgment, hindsight, and the nuances that confront her nation’s culture with our nation’s culture. Both countries deserve better. The hand remains extended to grasp, but the difference will remain until it is fully assumed.
– Yves Francois Blanchett, Quebecoa block leader
“Subtly charming problem solver. Extreme tv enthusiast. Web scholar. Evil beer expert. Music nerd. Food junkie.”