Talk:Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!

The Notwithstanding Clause

"Published in 1992, just after Quebec used the "notwithstanding clause" of the Canadian Charter of Rights to override the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to strike down the province's law that outdoor signs must be predominantly in French." I've deleted reference to the clause as it was used over two years prior to the book's publication (and 21 months before the New Yorker piece). Victoriagirl 16:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is correct that the book was published "in reaction to Quebec's use of the "notwithstanding clause" of the Canadian Charter of Rights to override the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to strike down the province's law that outdoor signs must be predominantly in French." In fact, I'm not certain that the book was even written in reaction to the use, but was motivated more by the situation in general. Granted, it has been some time since I've read the book. Would anyone be able to provide a source? Victoriagirl 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the book was received in Quebec

Vigile.net - Mordecai Richler - Contains alot of newspaper articles, some in English, some in French on Richler

It is not possible to discuss this book without discussing Esther Delisle's research on anti-semitism in French Canada, which Richler used extensively. On the controversy around Esther Delisle and Richler, the best thing to read is La controverse Delisle-Richler Le discours sur l'antisémitisme au Québec et l'orthodoxie néo-libérale au Canada by Gary Caldwell https://www.agora.qc.ca/liens/gcaldwell.html . Unfortunately, I am not aware of an English translation. -- Mathieugp 16:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this article grows in length, and in doing so becomes more comprehensive, it should very definitely include an overview of Richler's use of Deslisle's book. As it is, the article is actually getting shorter and, as a result, less comprehensive. A shame, really, as Richler's treatment of the topic was as detailed as it was controversial. He was most certainly a complex individual, never shying away from expressing an opinion (nor do the folks behind vigel.net, who gave the title "Le salisseur-en-chef" to their collection of articles on Richler). Justice simply cannot be done in what is currently a 121 word article. Victoriagirl 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid justice will never be completely be done. "Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose" - Beaumarchais

Richler wrote things that are demonstrably false. You can read this on the subject: https://www.vigile.net/ds-societe/docs2/01-7-25-conlogue-francophobie.html Nevertheless, millions of people read it and because Richler is a well-known and respected author, most people probably believed it. I am afraid he simply was not aware that by his actions he participated to the campaign of denigration that adversairies to Quebec's independence movement, who control the major federal political parties and own most of Canada's media, finance and organize privately. This is what the Salissage index at Vigile.net is covering here: https://www.vigile.net/ds-souv/index-salissage.html -- Mathieugp 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Conlogue writes of two (and only two) Richler statements that can be considered "demonstrably false". The first seems to be based on a 129 year-old espionage report (one cannot be certain, as he fails to record his source). If so, Richler passes this information along, apparently unaware that it has been discredited. As a historian, he was a very fine novelist. The second statement, that concerning "the Parti Québécois's theme song", is one for which Richler apologizes and corrects in the very book under discussion. As it isn't relative to this article, I won't comment on Conlogue's misleading and inaccurate survey of Richler's fiction. It is, however, important to note that Conlogue himself is discredited in Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! (pages 259-60). Victoriagirl 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence supports your claim that Conlogue did a "misleading and inaccurate survey of Richler's fiction"? And what arguments does Richler use to discredit Conlogue in Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!? -- Mathieugp 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"His most infamous accusation -- demonstrably false -- was that the Parti Québécois's theme song was inspired by the melody of a Nazi anthem."

The quote from the source you supply is actually technically incorrect...In the book, he refutes this statement that he put in a previous work, and apologizes for cribbing from an unreliable source.Habsfan

|t 00:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure Conlogue implied that it was from Oh Canada! Oh Quebec!. I did imply it though by what I wrote and that was a factual mistake on my part if your assertion is true. I'll take your word for it. -- Mathieugp 12:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you find a copy of the book, he writes about it when describing meeting Levesque at Harvard University, and that Levesque was very peeved at him for making the accusation. Then he describes the accusation indepth, and how it was stupid for him to trust a questionable source without researching it himself.

But don't worry about it...you're not responsible for what sources say.Habsfan

|t 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. He should have researched the history of anti-semitism in Canada himself then instead on relying on Delisle's work. According to historian Gérard Bouchard, Delisle's book contains 58 references to articles in L'Action nationale, only 14 of which are accurate. Then there is 44 other references, 21 of which cannot be found. See https://www.vigile.net/ds-actu/docs3/03-5-1-1.html#ldgb -- Mathieugp 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I find the time for it, I'll translate Gary Caldwell's article to English and post it here. -- Mathieugp 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read here https://agora.qc.ca/liens/gacaldwell.html that Gary Caldwell first published his article on the Delisle-Richler controversy in English in the Literary Review of Canada. If I can find a copy of it, it will save me a lot of translation time (from English to French to English, pointless!). -- Mathieugp 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to Mein Kampf

While outrageous, a comparison to Mein Kampf was indeed made by Daniel Latouche in the pages of Le Devoir. The inclusion of this important referenced fact is not unencyclopedic as has been claimed. As the edit summary does not address the reasons behind the deletion of the remainder of the paragraph - which have nothing to do with Latouche or Mein Kampf - I have restored the entire paragraph. Victoriagirl 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Talk:Mordecai Richler.--Lance ^talk 12:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that these additions were initially made to advance the proposition that Quebec bashing exists, which is a matter of debate, and were never subjected to any, or any reasonable, scrutiny. It is time to do so.--Lance ^talk 12:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it incorrect and inappropriate to assume the motives of another user, and note that the term Quebec bashing does not appear in the paragraph under discussion. Furthermore, the information contained is correct, verifiable and, in the opinion of this editor, balanced.

I must add that the above is the third explanation provided for the deletion of this paragraph. In the most recent edit summary, the paragraph is described as a "cut and paste from Mordecai Richler". While I recognize the paragraph in question is largely a reworking of one once found in the controversy section of Mordecai Richler, I note that the the other reworked paragraph remains in place.

Furthermore, as Lance has now deleted these paragraphs from the Richler article, the information is no longer contained elsewhere.

As it stands, we are left with a bizarre entry in which the reception to Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! is lacking - yet there is contained a paragraph dealing with the reaction to this very same reception.

I am restoring the paragraph and encourage further discussion as to how it might be improved. Victoriagirl 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To allow such an assertion to be in the article without comment from either the Quebec Jewish community or, if it exists, the Quebec gentile community, leaves the article factually misleading: Richler's book is not comparable to Hitler's, and obviously not neutral, as it lacks appropriate reaction. Until the article is balanced and factually accurate I'm attaching a dispute tag.--Lance ^talk 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize my own view, that the reactions provided by the Pierrette Venne and Daniel Latouche were so obviously ridiculous that they require no comment, is not one necessarily shared by others - and remind myself that I am familiar with the work and its author and have been a student of Canadian history and politics. So, while I don't agree that facts can be called into question due to lack of comment from this or that community, I think a bit of context concerning Latouche's comparison might improve the entry somewhat. That said, I believe the article is balanced and accurate in its depiction of the reaction from the media. What it lacks is a proper description of what the book is about - something now covered in two sentences (one of which is the publisher's blurb!). In this way, it is like every other entry in Wiki: a work in progress. Victoriagirl 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]