Talk:Money and ethnic votes

Untitled
"The anglophone media regarded Parizeau's speech as highly antisemitic, asserting that "money and ethnic vote" was an attempt to target Jews.[1]" This statement is exaggerated and inaccurate. The one "media" used as a source is a McGill student press article that reviews the issue and doesn't even have clear conclusions about anti-semitism. Having lived through the painful times of the 2nd referendum, I think it's fair to say that the "money" to which Parizeau referred was not just the No committee money, but also the uncontrolled spending by the feds or others to bus in vast numbers of "loving" Canadians to Montreal, and to throw as much cash as could help the No vote. The "ethnics" aren't just Jews; there are many more Italians, Anglos (of British background), Chinese and other strongly federalist-leaning minorities in the Montreal area. Maybe in Parizeau's head, it had more sinister overtones, but for most non-French-Canadian federalists in Montreal, hearing that fingered them equally. 4ravach (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Parizeau's statement was a correct analysis, anybody that can't see that are Bigots. Canada doesn't work.

Jacques Lariviere


 * I wouldn't say that they are bigots. Rather, that they were fooled by all the English media that do everything they can to portray Quebec nationalists as a bunch of evil nazis. As if they had any lessons to receive from the imperialists who built the Canadian nation. If all you had read all your life was Ontario's opinion of Quebec, and you knew nothing or very little of Quebec's history, you too would probably fall victim of this propaganda. The sponsorship scandal, which should really be called the anti-Quebec propaganda scandal, only reveals a small amount of the insane efforts done by Ottawa and the Liberal Party to undermine everything that Quebecers are doing to dig themselves out of the hole they were pushed into in 1840. Mathieugp 14:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a ruse, Mathieu. keep the English and French suspicious of each other and you can keep the people divided forever. There are a lot of people in both English and French Canada whose very good livelihoods depend on keeping English and French at each other's throats.

As for the English media portraying Quebec nationalists as evil nazis, the Quebec press is hardly guiltless. Remember how English journalists were supposed to be inciting the Mohawks at Oka? And Eric Lindros, for the love of all that's holy, was portrayed in the Quebec press as a hero to English Canada for defying the Nordiques (I read it in Le Journal de Montréal). I can assure you that wasn't true.

And here's my advice about how Quebec can obtain sovereignty &#8211; propose something practical. THat most likely means something gradual. Certainly many people outside Quebec support greater provincial powers. And more could be made of Jacques Parizeau's argument that the current arrangements frustrate both Canadian and Quebec nationalism. Speaking of insanity, hoping to survive success on a vote on a vaguely worded question by spending $17 billion to support Quebec bonds me semble un peu loufoque. Aussi l'idée que le Canada va accorder la moitié des voix au Québec.

Incidentally, I agree that Parizeau was misrepresented. The misunderstanding was understandable, but clearly the Englis press at least served mainly to muddy the issue. Also incidentally, I heard le vote ethnique. Trontonian 00:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just remembered I sent a letter to the Toronto Star pointing out how Mr. Parizeau's generalization was more defensible than some they'd been making and they had a shit fit. Their "ombud" published a column declaring I represented an extreme of political correctness (without of course stating what I had said or letting me reply). I have a PDF online with an article about this contretemps if you're interested. Trontonian 18:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * My aged memory failed me. The PDF doesn't include the observations to the Star about Mr. Parizeau's generalization. The Star had just published an editorial attacking Mr. Parizeau, and the next day had published some entirely indefensible accusations about people with disabilities. I pointed out that Mr. Parizeau was at least attempting to explain things. Well, I could ramble on and on (I'm ill and delirious at the moment, as I was yesterday when I made my previous observations), but you probably had enough of this long ago. Trontonian 20:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you are all missing the point. The question isn't really, whether he meant to single out jews in particular or not. The scandal was (and is) that he divided the voters (and the population) into "us" (i. e. the 'real' people of Quebec) and "them" (i. e. those pesky little foreigners who huddle aroung the Canadian flag), thus without any doubt implicitely denying the votes and opinions of the second group their legitimacy; and presenting them as a sort of Fifth Column. That is - if not racist - highly xenophobic and thus unacceptable in a civilised democracy. Otto von B. (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

PROBLEMS with article- what was the exact day and location of this event? Who was in the audience, ect.. EXTERNAL LINKS copy link to a full transcript of the speech and possibly a translation into English? Links to audio/video clips of the speech- are these provided in the article "The Parizeau Affair"--Blkshrt 19:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sources?
We really should have some sources for some of the assertions made in the article. - 31 december 2005


 * I agree. There are a lot of stats and some of the assertions will be contested eventually if they are not properly sourced. -- Mathieugp 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic remark
I don't have a reference for this, but I have heard that "Par l'argent" was supposed to be a reference to the Montreal Jewish community.


 * Yes. There was something published to that effet in a paper column. Maybe in the Montreal Gazette or any of the other English language newspapers continually defamating the sovereigntists. The money more accurately refers to the illegal expenditures of the No side during the 1995 referendum. See Option Canada, Committee to Register Voters Outside Quebec, Canadian Unity Council, 1995 Quebec referendum (section on spending limits) and Sponsorship scandal. -- Mathieugp 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with the Jewish community. Parizeau is an expert in state finances, and was perfectly aware of the expenditures on the NO side. Money came from various sources, both political and "commercial". Hugo Dufort 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A bunch of journalists wrote that he was essentially citing Jews as the cause. Also, after the referendum, there was a pretty big move of Montreal Jewry moving to Toronto and Ottawa. 67.193.131.167 (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence: Samantha Lapedus called Parizeau's speech antisemitic, saying "money and ethnic vote" was an attempt to target Jews. as the cited article by Samantha Lapedus didn't clearly indicate this. She was reporting on general accusations of antisemitism which had been made towards the sovereignty movement, and her article didn't have any clear conclusion in this regard. The related sentence which mentioned Parizeau's speech was Some sovereigntists admit that Jacques Parizeau's referendum-night comment, partially blaming the "ethnic vote" for the defeat of the "Yes" side, was directed particularly at Montreal's Jewish community. -- she didn't make a clear point though about antisemitism. In particular, she cited Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Canadian Jewish Congress (Quebec) who nuanced what was really anti-semitic with what is not.

So I know that antisemitic accusations were made at the time about Parizeau's speech, but I don't know how to phrase it in the current article in an accurate and sourced way without doing original research myself. Which is why I have erred for now on the side of just excluding this (false) sentence, in the meantime that somebody can find a better way to truthfully write about it and *properly source* it.

Moreover, as a NPOV, I think that a mention of antisemitic accusations should be accompanied to a source explaining the other side which explained better what Parizeau was referring to by "money" and "ethnic vote" (as already hinted at by Mathieugp and Hugo Dufort above) -- he was not targeting the Jews in particular, and I am sure it was explained in lengths in many media sources (in French in particular).

Simon Lacoste-Julien (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

POV
Recent partisan edits by User:Soul scanner made an already unreferenced and poorly written article even worst. I think it is time to source everything and rewrite the article in a truly NPOV fashion. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. -- Mathieugp 20:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You will note that I sourced the additions; to tell you the truth, I think we should get rid of the interpretation and let the quote stand for itself

Reverted to old intro
Rewritten Intro was too long, was poorly written, and poorly referenced. Context can be gained by following links added below.

Shouldn't be moved
I think this statement is notable enough to have its own article. --soulscanner (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the support to merge this article seems to be non-existent, I think it's time to remove the Merger template. Sima Yi (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sponsorship Scandal
The monies of the sponsorship scandal were distributed *after* the referendum. The sponsorship money was meant to prevent further sovereignty referendums from succeeding. This is totally different from the large amount of money that was spent on the "No" campaign during the 1995 referendum. I'm removing the reference in this article 142.73.67.1 (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Quebec referendum, 1995
Considering the article is 1/3 transcript, 1/3 a translation, and 1/3 information that can easily fit in Quebec referendum, 1995, I would propose it be merged in there. Knoper (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)