The PQ, the NDP and Resistance -

The PQ, the NDP and Resistance


The Gazette’s Don Macpherson (or D Mac, as I never call him) has a nice read today about the connections between the Parti Québécois and the Reseau Résistance du Québecois, a proto-separatist group that does things like protest the Queen and Paul McCartney and such.

Anyway, the RRQ recently sent out a series of letter to contributors to the Liberal Party of Quebec—specifically, those who contributed the maximum amount ($3000). The letter is printed à-la-FLQ Manifesto, gun slinging Patriote watermark and all, and contains some threatening language.

I’ll let Don tell the rest:

It informs you that your name and address have been posted on a website identifying you as someone who last year contributed the legal maximum of $3,000 to the Quebec Liberal Party.

It declares you “a target” for anybody who wants the Charest government either to hold a public inquiry into the construction industry and political financing or resign.

It is only when the government has done so that the website will be closed and “you will find peace again.”


Don also talks about how the RRQ always seems to be doing the PQ’s dirty work. “To my knowledge, the only mainstream parties in Canada willing to associate with extremists such as the RRQ are the PQ and its federal ally, the Bloc Québécois.”

I would humbly add another name to that list: the New Democratic Party. Tom Mulcair, the NDP’s lone MP in Quebec, made a lot of noise denouncing Bill 103, the language law that ‘fixes’ Quebec’s law on English schooling. Like the PQ and Bloc, Mulcair claimed the law allowed backdoor access to English school for those who could pay for private school for a few years. And, like the PQ and the Bloc, the NDP was a sponsor of an anti-Bill 103 concert this fall—along with the RRQ. (See bottom right of the poster, below)

Strange bedfellows, eh?

Filed under:

The PQ, the NDP and Resistance

  1. First of all, thugs, really disgusting that they are welcomed by mainstream parties.
    Secondly, only in Quebec could a rock concert be thrown over a language law (particularly when the theme for the rock concert is "No choice in how you speak!")
    "Je deteste la nouvele loi!"
    "J'ai une idee! Nous devons monte un spectacle du rock!"

  2. The whole language thing is so romanticized it makes me want to puke.

    Your language isn't for sale? Great, neither are other peoples' freedoms!

  3. Sometime, only sometimes mind you, I often wonder what Canada would be like had the English taken Lord Durham's advice.

    • Lord Durham's advice was so over-the-top pandering to the racist House of Lords that even the House of Lords didn't believe he meant a word of it. Unlike Harper, Durham didn't get away with advocating for everything he professed not to believe in just a few months earlier. Which is unfortunate, because the British Parliament didn't grant his recommendations in total. And if they had done so, the French-Canadians would have been laughing so long at duping the Lords and the Family Compact they'd never want to give up their place in Canada. I doubt it would change today's language laws, but the idea of separatists would never have happened.

  4. Union thugs are card-carrying members of the NDP, and if you speak out against the agenda of the union bosses during a member's meeting you'll find your tires slashed. It's the socialist way.

    • Nice stereotype…just like saying all right-wingers are fascist McCarthyites.

      • Philanthropist doesn't know much abotu anything, not sure how he got his user name….

        He should be called "harperthropist"

      • Folk like him need it to be kept simple. With us or against us etc.
        Nuance and degrees of difference causes them genuine pain.

      • Except to this group they'd be McCartneyites.

  5. I really question the legality of this. From the DGEQ website:

    "Ces renseignements sont accessibles sur support papier. Cependant, lorsque ces données sont consultées par l'entremise du site Web du Directeur général des élections, l'adresse des donateurs est omise, conformément à l'article 488, 2e alinéa, de la Loi électorale."

    The law prohibits the DGEQ from posting the addresses of the donors (only the names are published on the DGEQ website, according to the law) then I don't see why a private individual or an organization like RRQ would be allowed to publish the addresses. If there is a flaw in the law it should be fixed in which case it would be a nice gesture if Pauline Marois tabled an amendment. I will not hold my breath.

    Charest should definitely set up a very large commission of enquiry into the construction industry in Quebec, and let the chips fall. And they would fall widely.

  6. In fact the Loi électorale stipulates this (Article 488)

    488. En ce qui a trait à l'information du public, il doit notamment:
    1° donner à quiconque en fait la demande des avis et des renseignements relatifs à l'application de la présente loi;
    2° rendre accessibles au public les renseignements, rapports ou documents relatifs à la présente loi en omettant, s'ils sont rendus accessibles sur un site Internet, l'adresse des électeurs qui ont versé une contribution; toutefois, une copie sur support papier comportant les adresses de ces électeurs doit alors être accessible;

    I read from this that posting the addresses of donors on 'an' internet site is illegal. The SQ has to do something!

  7. Looks like the RRQ hired Tom "I know where you live" Flanagan to do their PR.

  8. "But yesterday the Reseau issued a statement saying the Liberals are trying to "demonize" them, insisting nothing in their campaign incites violence."

    Really? After reading this in the last paragraph of their letter, it is hard to believe.

    "J'espère que notre missive vous aura permis de comprendre qu'en devenant un généreux donateur du PLQ vous
    êtes devenu une cible pour tous les citoyens désireux que le gouvernement Charest respecte enfin la démocratie
    en instituant une commission d'enquête ou en déclenchant une campagne électorale."

    • However despicable and pathetic it may be it's true that there is no violence threat.

      Being a target doesn't mean violence although I guess you could argue it's a violence laded term.

  9. Now, I agree that the RRQ are a bunch of reactionaries (there are groups like them exist in english Canada by the way) but trying to link Thomas Mulcair with the RRQ is pushing it. Really, I understand that M. Patriquin has issues with the way Mulcair acted during the Quebec corruption controversy but this is a bit ridiculous. Come on.

  10. This is disgusting intimidation. For the sake of these people, and also for the sake of the bullying A-holes who sent out these threatening mailings, there had better be no harm to come to any of these named victims.

    And "doing the PQ's ugly dirty work" is exactly what's going on, here. Why would a violence-espousing gang of separatist kooks suddenly care so much about a public inquiry into the construction industry? Seems a tad… off-message for them.

  11. Guilt by association, I guess it works both for the RRQ and low-level hacks.

  12. … not that quebec is any more prone to this sort of thing than any other province….

  13. Martin,
    You would "humbly add another name to the list"? Funny how that person just happens to be the same guy who showed you up to be shoddy researcher and a second rate journalist a couple of weeks ago. Wankers like you are the reason my family doesn't buy MacLean's anymore. Go find a job more suited to your moral character, like hitman or lobbyist.

    • Harsh but true…

      RRQ represents what is the worst in Quebec politics. They usurp regularly the image of the 1837-38 Patriots, which they are not by miles. However, to establish guilt by association on one event is pretty lame.

      No good people, Thomas Mulcair don't have a patriot hat and pipes…

    • But you still read the online version?

      • It's freeeeeee!

  14. Quebec separatists and their "artist" cheerleading squad are idiots. If Quebec wants to remain French in character, they should have babies. But no – that would go against their ideology that the nuclear family is just a patriarchal system of oppression against women. So they bring in immigrants and force them to go to french school.