Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Maurice Strong Will Be Pleased | Main | An Ounce Of Sweat »

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Michaelle Jean: A question of semantics

I'm struggling with what to call Michaelle Jean, if only because there are so many shades of meaning: defector, traitor, spy, double agent.

It might be one of those things where we won't really know until well after the damage is done.

[Extended entry at Angry in the Great White North]

Posted by Steve Janke on August 25, 2005 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Michaelle Jean: A question of semantics:


Obviously most of the same words could be applied to Alberta separatists, perhaps more accurately than to someone who has made a public statement of her loyalty to Canada.

Posted by: Loyalist | 2005-08-25 12:33:53 PM

Oh, Loyalist, your reasoning is just so central Canuckistanian to be too funny for real laughter. Ha.

I am an Alberta separatist coz of ineffective ethical thinkers like Canuckistanian loyalists. A person of contrary goals would decline the GG offer IF they had proper ethics but this is NOT to be expected from a liberal, CBJihadist, Leftist or one from Quebexico. Instead of Ms. Jean having accomplishments that are self-evident, we must produce our own self-style accomplishments to find out WHO she is and WHAT she has done. The results are astonishingly thin and what we do find is astonishingly alarming.

Ms. Jean makes a cute statement about her "loyalty" to Canuckistan while toasting murderers by stating that one "takes" while in her adult years and the "Loyalists" and libs cannot stop smiling.

That liberals, "Loyalists" and the Left Asleep can bend over + backwards to rationalize the appointment of *anyone* is what drives me to ban the Canadian anthem from my home, all flags and symbols of the farce called CONfederation.

Call me a "traitor" for realizing the game is FOR Quebexico and Upper Canada? Please DO!!! I'll wear it proudly!

Posted by: wharold | 2005-08-25 12:56:12 PM

How about a French, anti-capitalist intellectual with revolutionary sympathies? The perfect embodiment of Canadian tradition? Or of the CBC and the Quebecois intelligentsia?

I would also note Michaelle Jean is a now French citizen. Does she still support independence for Martinique and thus secession from France? Is she a separatist with respect to both her citizenships? Has she no loyalty?


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-08-25 1:27:02 PM

Should have added "anti-American" and noted that CBC embodiment in minus the "French".


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-08-25 1:33:11 PM

She might also be an agent of influence for the French government. What does she do if when GG a "yes" vote wins a referendum, Quebec unilaterally declares independence, and France rapidly recognizes that independence?


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-08-25 1:48:08 PM

I wish someone who objects to this appointment would come up with some credible arguments.

If you expect me to take your concerns and objections seriously you need something beyond hyperbole. Defector, traitor, spy and double agent are just so silly, defect to whom, with what? She has no power, no access to any secret information and she serves at the pleasure of the PM. Any "Vive le Quebec libre! moments will see her backing her bags sharpish.

Her dual citizenship doesn't bother me. It was 1952 before we had a GG that was even a Canadian Citizen. When they were done they all went back to a foreign country to resume their lives. They had no loyalty to this country and no one expected them to issue pap filled statements to the contrary. Did that make them traitors, spies and double agents?

Also, since 1959, we seem to have alternated between French and English GG's, so this one was going to be French. If Harper had won the election, the next GG would have still been French, so this is not startling, or unexpected.

The truth is she is a muddy headed liberal intellectual, way to fond of sitting around smoking Gitanes, drinking cheap red wine and having deep meaningful discussions about the nature of violence. We can and should criticize Martin for picking a pretentious boho twit to be Canada's head of state, but all this overblown rhetoric just undermines your position and make you look kinda stupid.

Mont D. Law

Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-08-25 2:14:43 PM

MontdLaw is right.

Why should we object to this appointment? Conservatives should be happy: instead of a wine cellar full of cdn wine, it'll get converted into a weapon's cache.

And I really like the respectful "Don Johnson in Miami Vice" look that GG's hubby brings to Rideau Hall.

And she has spoken, like Gilles Duceppe, she has enormous respect for Canada.

Posted by: QuebecHarpermaniac | 2005-08-25 2:29:58 PM

Actually ebt, I'm an Albertan. I just don't subscribe to the same twisted view of Canadian history as you do. You accuse Ontario of being self-interested and thinking the world revolves around it, but at the same time say that all of Canadian history has been the history of Alberta being screwed over. How does this make sense? Who does the world revolve around now?

Nothing genuine about me? What have I said that was less than genuine?

Posted by: Loyalist | 2005-08-25 2:33:21 PM

Why should we object to this appointment? Conservatives should be happy: instead of a wine cellar full of cdn wine, it'll get converted into a weapon's cache.

This is what I mean. Does anyone here really believe that this woman is going to turn the wine cellar in Rideau hall into a weapons cache? Does anyone here believe that objections along this line make conservatives look anything other than ridiculous? Real arguments are the way to go people, this sort of thing undermines everything the CPC is trying to accomplish.

Mont D. Law

Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-08-25 2:50:19 PM

A bit ridiculous, I concur, mdlaw. It would almost be like suggesting that the Liberals could cozy up to the mafia and have them launder taxpayer money. Ludicrous! Real arguments, people!

Posted by: Ham | 2005-08-25 3:01:14 PM

Quebec may have no objective basis for dissatisfaction with Canada, however, that's not the issue. The issue is the right of a 'people' to national self-determination. The American and French revolutions proclaimed this principle. It matters not how a people have been treated. It matters only that they are a 'people' who wish to determine their own direction whether good or bad.

It makes little sense that after a century of maintaining power based on the single principle of unity, that the Libs would invest in a GG that inspires separatists. The '95 referendum was won by the Anglo/Vismin vote. Since that time the PQ has invested in a program of assimilating/moving Vismins out of Quebec. Look at the out-migration stats. Unlike Toronto and Vancouver, where rapid replacement, or white flight prevails, in large part because of vismin immigration, Montreal is seeing an influx of Quebecers and an exodus of anglos and vismins. Martin is appealing to the vismins in the province to choose Canada in the next referendum because it means the salvation of the Liberal Party.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-08-25 3:16:24 PM

A bit ridiculous, I concur, mdlaw. It would almost be like suggesting that the Liberals could cozy up to the mafia and have them launder taxpayer money. Ludicrous! Real arguments, people!

But this is not a real argument either, just more pumped up bullshit. There has been no credible charge that the Mafia was involved in Adscam. No charges coming from anywhere but well, here, or places like it.

Many supporters of the CPC seem to think that an election win will just fall into their laps. But think about it. The liberals have been exposed as corrupt, dishonest thieves, publicly and repeatedly over the past ten years and they are still the government and still leading in the polls.

Hysterical, unfounded statements like Michelle Jean is a treasonous, traitor, spy and the liberals are using the mafia to launder money are not going to help conservative win elections. In fact it will contribute to continuing the loosing streak.

Mont D. Law

Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-08-25 3:47:19 PM

Over the last few weeks, there has been much discussion why Ms. Jean is not qualified to be GG. Let's turn it around and discuss why she IS qualified. Once we are clear on her impeccable credentials, we should, as reasonable people, put aside trifling considerations such as single, dual or triple citizenship and past or present embrace of Quebec separatists.

I'll start - word out of the PMO is that PMPM is in love with her.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-08-25 4:27:17 PM

How about"a widely admired Canadian"? After all, wasn't that what the Globe and Mail called her? And we know that if it's in the G&M, it's gotta be true.
Gawd! I just have to do something with my sarcasm genes!

Posted by: old squid | 2005-08-25 4:32:07 PM


I would respond to your comments if there were any substance in them at all. Unfortunately, they're pure bluster and cheap shots at my character (liar, criminal) or resort to gay bashing as you have in an earlier thread. I can only attempt to summarize your views into more concise statements that actually, you know, say something. I don't think I was that far off.

This kind of debate seems all too common, as montdlaw has quite reasonably pointed out. Outrageous statements are thrown around as if they were fact. Jean may not be the best choice. That's a matter of opinion. One thing is certain, though. She's not going to usurp the government or sell us up the creek to France. She doesn't want to, and she doesn't have the power to if she did.

The general paranoia around here is incredible, and not just from ebt (Although with his reactionary statements and violent outbursts he embodies the worst of it). Do you really think that some shadowy board of Liberals is sitting around twirling their mustachos and plotting how to keep Alberta's beef out of the US or how to convince the nation that global warming is real as to impose restrictions on Alberta's oil business? Get real. Don't look for a conspiracy. Look for a better solution.

Posted by: Loyalist | 2005-08-25 4:48:29 PM

She's unqualified for the Job...so was Clarkson. The first duty of the GG is as agent of the Queen in overseeing the working of Parliamnet and to make rulings on parliamentary propriety, convention, confidence and refuse ascent to bills that are in breech of both parliamentary and constitutional convention....this is what the letters patent direct of this vice regal office.

Jean hasn't the experience or understanding of parliamentary propriety, processes or convention to do the job.....but that's exactly why Dithers picked her...she's a patronage rubber stamp and a procedurally dense one at that.....and he thinks he may snag some soft nationalist votes in Montreal with this shallow symbolism.

Far as I can see Vanier was the last real GG of Canada.

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-08-25 5:00:40 PM

Canadians were not allowd to have a born Canadian until 1952, however it became moot when it was known that the GG's power had been stripped of her in a series of meetings in 1926 and 1930 finalized in 1942 when the PM took complete control of the powers of the GG. She can only hire personal staff, and run up her travelling budget if she likes the way the present one loves to do.

The PM is an ultimate Dictator with both the powers of the seat of Gov't AND the Crown. Thats why Manning wanted to strip the powers of the PM's office the only national leader to agree to do so, none of the Progrssive Conservatives , as they are Librano$ lite.

An easy cooberation of the facts mentioned above can be found in the Globel Canadian Almanac, under Gov't of Canada, "the Governor General" on page 132-133 of the 1998 Edition (Most probably in latest editions as well )which
have not been changed in the past 24 hours.

Herr Chretien decided that "born" Canadians, after 85years of being exempt from the office, were again exempt when he put in an Immigrant albiet a "Canadian Citizen by naturalization," but not "born", then Herr Martin decides that a Canadian born is not qualified for the "no power" job either , one where the GG gets to buy all kinds of nice new expensive clothes for herself and her family, (can't have the family dressed with commoners clothes can we?, we are "REGALS"?) and even though thats really all the meaningful work that she will have to do is go out shopping and travelling alot on the tax payers credit card, no "born" Canadian deserves that right to blow money on themeselvess, twice in a row. What have successive Fuherors got against "born" Canadians?

Martin is a disgrace and an embarrasment to born Canadians, and he will definitely suffer in the ballot boxes over this, as well as others that the citizenry find repulive about this man. Taking tax payer money for grants for his shipping fleet while making sure that he gets the tax breaks for his co. registering them in a foreign tax friendly country, money has turned this man mad, it was Politics that turned the Herr Chretien mad, in my opinion, but the moral of the story is that Canada is being led by a succession of madmen which tells me a lot about the poplutlion that put them in there. No wonder the West want out, it is the only way we can kill the Cancerous Tumor in Central Kanada, that is spreading in all direcions, kill the cancer tumor in Ottawa, and we stop the spread. Eventually Ontario will thank us for bailing them out of the Dictatorship through the back door.

Stephen Parksville BC ww 2 vet.

Posted by: stephenmichaud | 2005-08-25 5:30:40 PM

Yes she "signs' all bills from the House and the Senate, with the permssion of the Cabinet, who is also the Prime Minister, as he controls Cabinet, and as for any weight she can pull for the Armed forces, look at all the new gear and help the present GG has done for the Military, (please enlighten me I forgot already)the "dis" armed forces are run by the boys in the back room that the Fueror gives a gentle wink to all they advise, it fits the mold of keeping only a big enough military to stem a revolution, one that can be controlled and not used against the Gov't. The Furehors private army, along with the RCMP and CSIS, this guy has more body guards both from within and without that makes Saddams personal army look like a boy scout regiment.

Thats the way I see it.

Stephen Parkville BC ww 2 vet.

Posted by: stephenmichaud | 2005-08-25 6:37:27 PM

Guys, the problem isn't Jean; it's Martin.

Jean was selected because she was the perfect politically correct candidate: a minority, francophone, activist, someone who had to struggle, and who could be appointed without much criticism.

But Martin made two mistakes. First, he didn't check her background as thoroughly as he should have. Her separatist leanings were far from unknown, but he overlooked them. He figured no one would dare criticise the perfect candidate.

But now that he's been proven wrong, he has made his second mistake. He won't back down for fear of losing face. To admit he made an error would be fatal to his minority government (I suspect even if he had a majority, he would have acted similarly). It would give his critics more than enough ammunition to threaten his narrow hold on power. He's trying to get her to deny her past, but it's not working. Fool.

People like me and Wharold (loved your post!) should be grateful to Martin. In a single act, he has legitimized separatism as a force in politics. It is now acceptable to advocate secession. Thanks Paul - never would have suspected you could be such a big help.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-08-25 6:46:22 PM

It is my opinion that we have in Canada currently two separatist parties. One represents Quebec and the other runs the country. If we believe that our PM is a separatist then almost everything he and Mr. Chretien have done makes perfect sense.

Posted by: truthsayer | 2005-08-25 8:30:11 PM

Madame Jean is simply a mainstream Canadian journalist.

Posted by: Matthew Vadum | 2005-08-25 10:03:13 PM

Unfortunately true.

Posted by: EBD | 2005-08-25 10:57:18 PM

Quick question to anyone who feels Jean's French citizenry means nothing. Will it still mean nothing when the uber politically correct Libs pick a person who carries a Libyan or Iranian or Eygptian passport?? It may seem cute that a French citizen is the head of our armed forces but what about an Iranian?? Still Cute??

I don't think so. And the rest of the world (mainly the US) will not be amused in the least. Have we no national concern in the way the world views us?? Or do we honestly think we are viewed as kindly, accepting and blah, blah, blah....we aren't - we are rapidly being viewed as a third rate banana republic...

Posted by: Irish | 2005-08-26 7:52:56 AM

montdlaw, who pissed in your corn flakes? After you un-bunch your panties, read my comment with the dripping sarcasm it contains. Obviously you've got yourself all worked up over people villifying your precious PM and his party of thieves.

If the Liberal clothes fit, then wear them. Are you one of those Liberal-in-CPC-clothing that whispers concerns about the 'hidden agenda' and then shouts from the mountain tops in protest to any supposition about Liberal misbehaviour? There is proof about Liberal misbehavious, mdlaw. Maybe not proof in regards to my sarcastic insertion, but proof that either they're too stupid to manage our money or too smart to get caught in their deceit.

You know, maybe you are right. Let's all just sit around and bellyache to ourselves. Let's not say anything about what may or may not be going on. Let's not float any balloons or test any theories. After all, if we do something, then something may happen. And nobody wants that. Let's just sit around and whine, "Man, we've tried nothin' and now we're all out of ideas!" - the mdlaw way.

Posted by: Ham | 2005-08-26 8:38:48 AM

Ham, 8:38:48 AM

Posted by: EBD | 2005-08-27 3:49:55 AM

This "How could you like an Iranian GG commanding out troops" is just silly. Can the GG command the troops to attack Ottawa, jail the government of the day, or order up detailed information on the state of the armed forces? No it is ceremonial job. Would it be appropriate for a Muslim to be appointed GG, well I guess that would depend on the Muslim wouldn't it. A Lebanese from Ottawa would likely be okay, Mohammad Atta, not so much.

And Ham, you should be cognizant of the following.

Criticism of how I prepare my breakfast cereal, the state of my underwear, the mocking of my political positions, with out having any idea what those positions are: these are in fact insults not arguments.

My post, more clearly expressed then your sarcasm, noted the futility of making these hysterical claims and the impact it would have on the future election prospects of the CPC. I in no way suggested that Liberal criminality should be ignored I in no way suggested we should not float theories etc. I simply suggested that floating a theory that Martin had been taken over by parasitic aliens in high school is not going to do much for the CPC's chances in an election..

Mont D. Law

Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-08-27 9:05:00 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.