Politics: Canada: Quebec LeDevoir blurb translated but important article (b)locked

I couldn't resist passing this infobit on to English-reading reffing minds, regarding opinion in Québec's leading thawtful newspaper, Le Devoir, in the French langwij, of course. I fuss that almost all the best stuff in Le Devoir are locked, as on a mental reservation, even Quécois/e are divided into two groups, those who can pay, and those who have the intellect to follow D'e perenigerations but are on Disablity and constantly cashed strap, don't own a credit card for an Internet transaction, and are keenly disappointed. Besides that, I can't fit my library in my tiny monk-like cell, so all my volumes for helping translate difficult words and idioms québcois are not at hand. For these purposes, I do find myself trying to check upon on my guesses of verb cases, grammatical niceties, etc, by referrencing Systran, a mecho-digital translator who renditions of French text can at times be amazingly coherent. I always have to fix up the Systran translation by improving it to get good English diction. Still I'm limited to blurbs and snippets only, due to time available to work around the info lockout imposed by locking articles against unpaying but not uncaring readers.

Here's the D infobit for today: "In Québec, the liberals of Paul Martin lost the Integrity battle: but elsewhere in Canada, in particular in Ontario, they are far from being in rout. Admittedly, by distributing billions thru-out Canada, by also inviting Conservative Members of the House of Commons to cross the Chamber to the government side, they will hardly have regilded their ethics."

By the way, English-writing intellectuals in Canada have a tendency to carry over in the name of La belle province, the accent mark (l'accent aigu [´] in the word "le Québec," even when composing an English text. This is just a very small Christian courtesy toward the French langwij, the difference between the national-majority English and the national-minority French, but majority in la belle province. I note that by trying consistently to remember to spell "Québec" more in the proper French manner; while at the same time, in my case, I continue my experiments in the orthography of English itself.

Lately, I've been getting more and more daring in trying to reform-spell (respell, for short) all those words containing the fiercely obsolescent "ght" when it begins with an "i," according to my more owlbirdbet formula -"ite." But even this is not real owlbirdbet yet, In strict owlbirdbet orthography, there's a separate character/letter for "i" in "bit" as compared to the "i" in "bite." So the ending -"ite" would actually be spelled -"it, and with no final "e." As in "bit. Whereas, "infobit" uses the short "i" sound in "bit," or in "fit." But compare "fit" for what I use in the intermediate transition experiment's rendition of "fight," often giving you the transitional form, "fite".

Of course, among the problems in such a transition is that -"ite" already is something of a semantic marker as well, not just an orthographic indicator. In the ending, especially when its optional for a given expression, -"ite" largely tends to signify a meaning of "lesser" in some sense or other, a diminutive. If I said "carpenter." you'd know ruffly what I meant, but if I said "carpenterite" or "carpentite," you mite (semantic alert!) tend to think of a carpenter who was just beginning to learn the skills which the name implies at the outset. Could I make it more accessible by re-constructing "carpentite" (in pure owlbirdbet "carpentit" which spelling would perhaps evoke a titillating sense of gender marker, but not necessarily). French, on the other hand, spells "charpentier," if I'm not mistaken; and easily adds a gender marker in "charpentière," if I recall correctly. And note the addition of the grave accent (l'accent grave).

Anyway, the Liberal government leaders are always trying to diminish both the Conservatives and the members of the Bloc Québecois which is now for many years a fully-legit Federal Party (click the blue headline to this blog entry for info on the Bloq, in English). Now, in the last few weeks's we have seen Prime Minister Paul Martin once again wave temptations in the faces of Parliament memembers of other parties, implying they have some great people within them; and on the other hand in election campaigns and meantime in the House of Commons, Martin constantly inflates the force of these two parties as wholly negative ones, monstrous entitites that represent the threat of national collapse if ever either one or both in coalition come into power. It's time to speak clearly on the Martin Strategy of Demonising his opposition which at its best undermines the necessary practice of civility in the Commons. More than that, it's time to speak clearly regarding the strategy of demonizing the Bloc Québecois as some kind of strange fly-by-nite non-community of political opinion, when in fact BQ political life includes an astute discourse of political reflection and philosophy. To be sure, the Bloc is a separatist party; they want a "sovereign" Québec." I've lived with this reality thru its many permutations for over 30 years. I don't agree with this priority policy of the Bloc, but it's perfectly normal in Canada. The party elects numerous Members of Parliament, and has done so for some time. On that one issue, why can't we all agree to disagree - until such a time as the separatists should perhaps, perhaps not gain the proper electoral backing within the Québec Assembly (not the Federal House of Commons), when the clear majority of Quebeckers / les Québecois/es mite vote for the provincial Parti Québecois (not the federal party, Bloq Québecois) in sufficient numbers to create certifiably the appropriate path to that province's separation from the Canadian federation, and what its terms would be, necessarily negotiated. Short of that, as long as so many Bloqistes sit in the Fed Parliament (tho none in the Senate, as far as I know, since that would necessitate a deserter arising from among the Liberal Senators, but really it's about time that happened, in the lite of the Abscam scandal.

I don't see Tory thinkers and the bloggers among them, debating the history of Conservitive and Bloq interaction, nor the possible terms of a formal Conservative/Bloq coalition in the House of Commons -- while, in the meantime, the two parties would campaign against each other, riding by riding (like Congressional districts) to see if a three-way vote split in any given riding/s in Québec would result in 3 or 4 Conservative wins, with Liberals coming in third in those ridings. Why? Because neither the Bloq Québecois nor the Liberals represent that francophone element in the Québec electorate that wants to prioritize the traditional values and definition of marriage, and the Consistent Ethic of Life tawt by the Roman Catholic Church, in Québec and elsewhere. This, make no doubt about it, remains the priority political stance of many Québecois, not the issue of separation. As to the RC's stance which many in Québec want to vote effectiveily for, I disagree strongly with some of that denomination's teechings under the system of that set of doctrines when urged as policy in terms of absolutes. But, shurely from the standpoint of the principle of public justice in the way the present electoral system demonizes, papably smothers and unjustly silences constituencies in an anti-plural voting and party system, demonizes the Bloq and the social-conservative Conservatives thereby to prevent a truer plurality of political visions from coming to expression, as better it mite were the Tories and Bloq able to campaign aggressively but politely in Québec on policy differences other than separatism. To the effect that a few seats mite be taken by the Conservatives, while the Bloq gets its majority of seats in the bellicose province where the Libs are most likely going down to defeat -- if not now, then in the dead of Winter 2006. The Lib gambit of demonizing the Bloq as "only-separatist" and of no other value to those it represents on the Federal level and certainly of no other value cross-Canada, this gambit of fear-mongering must be overcome. The Bloq will not destroy Canada, it may or may not assist a Québec separation which may or may not happen ever. We can't let the Martinites control the framework of debate in its entirety, thru its deep philosophical commitment to mendacity -- separatophobia, westophobia, and I think christianophobia deeply hidden in the Libs prevention of crucial issues of hi soshul significanss frum cumin' ta' 'spreshun politically in Canada. - Owlb

no link here yet