I can hit you, but you can’t hit me back

Like most people, I don’t have a whole lot of love for bullies.

Aside for disliking their cruel and often cowardly nature, I also detested their hypocrisy.

I still remember when I was in the 9th grade and this chump who used to sit behind me always making fun of me and sharing lots of laughs at my expense with the monkey sitting next to him.

One day I had enough, turned around and yelled at him, “Why don’t you shut your fucking mouth you piece of shit!

The classroom went dead silent.

His face washed over and shock…and then (unbelievably enough) he turned to the teacher, as if indicating to him that he had to “take care of me” for my foul language and aggression.

My teacher shook his head side-to-side in a no gesture at the bully and told him to suck it up. Our teacher had clearly heard the bully pestering me, but I guess he wanted me to take care of my own problem. Once I had, I was given free pass.

The PQ separatists are the 9th grade bully, constantly pestering federalists, Anglos and immigrants alike, but always in the same guarded way the high schooler does it – on guard.

For those of you readers who can’t read French, believe me, you’re missing out.

Most of what I read in the comments sections of Francophone news sites and blogs completely obliterates the argument that seps simply want out of Canada because they have their “own vision” of how things should be.

If you could read French, you would very clearly see that most seps hate “non pur-lainers” simply for the fact that they’re not part of the club.

They utterly despise Anglo-Canadians and have a deep-seeded resentment of immigrants.

From under-handed, under-the-breath jabs to very blatant attacks in the form of Bill 60, these bullies delight in any shot they can take…until the wind blows it back in their faces.

This glaring double-standard bubbled to the surface this week when the visiting German president, Joachim Gauck pronounced himself in favour of a unified Canada.

What’s Good For The Gander Ain’t Good For The Loonie

It was not even two weeks prior to Gauck’s comment that the PQ had sent a formal delegation to Scotland to “observe” the referendum.


Take a close look at what Alexandre Cloutier is holding in his left hand:

So, our separatist friends are free to invite themselves to a foreign country and deliberately choose a side and become actively involved in proclaiming what the outcome of the referendum should be, but a politician from Germany can’t make a 20-second expression of joy over Canada being united?

So far, the only bacon the PQ has been able to serve up on this one is that since Cloutier is not an elected LEADER, then it’s OK.

Welcome to the magical land discovered by late night talk show personality, Jonathan Stewart – Bullshit Mountain.

But to the PQ’s credit, it’s not just OK for them to interfere in the political squabbles of others.

In some cases, it’s perfectly admissible for foreign dignitaries to voice their opinions on Quebec’s status…so long as it’s in the separatists favor.

Je Me Souviens…

…or the time a rancid ball of dried-up foreskin (that’s borrowed…too rich to pass up) showed up on our doorstep to make the now infamous declaration of…

Yes, he may be from France, a country that is foreign to Quebec, but since he’s down with the separatists, an exception can be made for his “meddling”.

Besides, his declaration is only four words long, so all those separatists with a 3rd grade reading level can understand it.

And…and…it looks fucking awesome on a tshirt!

The End of Accountability

Just a week ago, a gang of angry, discouraged sepies who haven’t had sex in a very long time, decided to have a pow-wow to discuss why their movement is waning so quickly.

Of course, looking at the real reason, is too painful.

Forget about accepting that setting a highly-damaging culture of double-standards might be a huge root cause, they talked about how Quebec’s youth just requires more indoctrination than the previous generation.

The reason the sovereignist movement ended up on it’s ass (or as GrandpaParizeau calls it, a field of ruins), is because a minority of bullies picked on the wrong kid.


7 thoughts on “I can hit you, but you can’t hit me back

  1. Separatists welcome De Gaule’S declaration and condemn Gauck’s comment. Federalists welcome Gauck’s comment and condemn De Gaule’s declaration.

    You know, typical separatist culture of double standard…

    On my part, I wish separatists had not made a fuss over Gauck’s comment and had taken it for what it is : an insignificance. Gauck, speeking before federalist Philippe Couillard, said that he was happy that Canada remained united. How surprising. If Québec had left the canadian federation in 1995, he would have said that he was happy to see Québec joining the concert of nations. Insignificant diplomatic bla bla. I believe that he also later said that he was happy that the new pope was catholic.

    De Gaule’s declaration is different, it is significant in the sense that it disrupts the established order. You can agree or disagree with him, his declaration is significant. Gauck’s is insignificant, trivial and of little interest.

    • Tell you the truth Michel, I don’t give a rat’s ass either way. Both men’s comments are insignificant to me, whether they are for my side or not, because they are not part of this country. That’s not the point here. You know what the point is, and you danced around it.

      Your argument that De Gaule’s proclamation is somehow ‘disruptive’ is laughable.

      Seeing the reaction just to Gauck’s comments could only lead me to imagine what would happen if a pro-federalist party formed in Montreal, with the goal of separating from Quebec, and hosted a visit from David Cameron, who would pronounce, “Vive un Montreal libre et fort au seine du Canada!!”

      Also, your boy PKP still can’t explain how he can exhalt Gauck on one hand, only after returning from Scotland where he interfered with the interests and desires of another nation.

      • “Also, your boy PKP still can’t explain how he can exhalt Gauck on one hand, only after returning from Scotland where he interfered with the interests and desires of another nation.”

        As I said, I wish he had not made a fuss over it.

  2. Congratulations, M. Patrice. You do not change. You are still consistent in defending what logically indefensible. And really nice of you to deflect the discussion to the supporting argument, the de Gaulle’s* speech while the main premise is that PQ members criticizing President Gauck after they themselves go to the United Kingdom and directly interfere with the internal affairs of that sovereign country.

    *Instead of de Gaule, but hey what do I know, you are the francophone one.

    • Hi Troy,

      I wrote : ” I wish separatists had not made a fuss over Gauck’s comment” and I repeated : “As I said, I wish he had not made a fuss over it.” Is this defending what is logically indefensible? : ) Perhaps I should have added “they bark up the wrong tree again” or something to make what I think of this clearer…

      I also noted that Gauck’s comment was insignificant diplomatic bla bla. And I gave an example of what is not insignificant diplomatic bla bla : de Gaule’s speech.

  3. When it comes to De Gaulle’s speech, I’m always amazed that the supposedly anti-colonial separatists celebrate a man who authorized torture and military force to (unsuccessfully) crush an independence movement in Algeria. A decade before he declared “Vive le Québec libre!”, the general had intoned “Vive l’Algérie française!” Just as he felt a racial affinity for the pieds noirs, his attraction to Quebec obviously lay in the ethnic solidarity between the two societies: both Catholic, white and French-speaking.

    Contrast this with his comments about Arab Algerians: “Nous sommes quand même avant tout un peuple européen de race blanche, de culture grecque et latine, et de religion chrétienne. Essayez d’intégrer de l’huile et du vinaigre. Agitez la bouteille. Au bout d’un moment, ils se sépareront de nouveau. Les Arabes sont les Arabes, les Français sont les Français.”

    Or the Africans: “Vous savez, cela suffit comme cela avec vos nègres. Vous me gagnez à la main, alors on ne voit plus qu’eux: il y a des nègres à l’Élysée tous les jours, vous me les faites recevoir, vous me les faites inviter à déjeuner. Je suis entouré de nègres, ici. […] Et puis tout cela n’a aucune espèce d’intérêt! Foutez-moi la paix avec vos nègres….”

    The manifest hypocrisy of Quebecois nationalists underscores the fact that separatism is rooted not in anti-colonialism but in French imperialism. Witness the enthusiasm with which the PQ adopted the neo-colonial logic of the hijab ban in their Charter of Values, or look at the zeal of nationalists in joining with the neo-imperialist aims of the Francophonie, eager to place – as Jean Chrétien put it – “un flag sur l’hood” of their diplomatic limousines. What a sham that Pierre Vallières, Pierre Falardeau and their acolytes think of themselves as waging some kind of liberation struggle!

    • Pierre Falardeau came from money and he knew as well as anyone what was really up. This is why I will never stop reiterating that the sovereignist movement has nothing to do with “just being different” or “having a different idea of how to run the show.”

      Most separatists just detest Auslanders. Those that don’t, simply have been indoctrinated to believe that the British and ONLY the British are capable of the acts and sentiments you outlined in your comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s