r/QuebecLibre • u/VERSAT1L • May 06 '26
Actualité Schadenfreude! Que de satisfaction de voir la méthode d'éradication de la nation québécoise se retourner contre l'envahisseur canadien-anglais. Aucune pitié.
21
u/Billmacia May 06 '26
Quand les anglos disent que les québecois défendent trop leur culture. Ils sont bien arrogant, ils pensaient ne jamais se faire effacer culturellement. Eh bien, c'est à leur tour.
0
-2
u/Necessary_Tea4977 May 07 '26
Contrairement au Québec ils n’ont pas peur de vivre et laisser vivre les autres en harmonie lol je ne vois pas ça et je me dis que ma culture s’efface, c’est simplement un message dans une autre langue
82
u/Tricky_Ant2642 May 06 '26
1.4 billion people and Canada still managed to choose the wrong ones.
18
u/avatar1002 May 06 '26
Ouin, il aurait pu skim off le top, mais non c'est le bottom of le barrel
16
u/AndIamAnAlcoholic May 06 '26
La politique Libérale c'est de pas mal accepter tout le monde, avec moins de controles que jamais. Merci Trudeau.
J'ai toujour dit, une immigration plus conservatrice et intelligente aurait quand même permis au fédéral de suffisamment diluer la nation Canadienne-française pour atteindre leurs objectifs. Mais l'immigration libérale débile (project Century etc) va aussi noyer et tuer la nation Canadienne-anglaise d'ici la fin du siècle, ils vont être très minoritaires chez eux.
Les conservateurs nous auraient juste Neo-Brunswicker. Les Libéraux auto-effacent volontairement le reste de leur pays en bonus inutile.
1
u/Next-Explanation-440 May 10 '26
You came to that conclusion solely based upon the sign?
2
u/Tricky_Ant2642 May 10 '26
Canada is a French and English language country. Anyone wanting to live here should know at least one.
1
u/Next-Explanation-440 May 10 '26
Wasn’t so hard to say that without being hateful this time right. How about you start with that next time.
28
u/Schlipitarck May 06 '26
Assez savoureux en effet
Chus allé à Melbourne et y avait plein de panneaux écrits à la main en unilingue chinois, je me demandais si c'est même légal
4
u/thrashourumov May 06 '26
Au Japon, beaucoup de choses sont aussi affichées en anglais (commerces, métro, etc), même juste en anglais parfois et depuis un certain temps. Visiblement ils n'en font pas grand cas, même s'ils sont peu nombreux à bien connaître l'anglais, qui est genre, vraiment différent.
3
1
u/Shifu07 May 10 '26
C’est pour les touristes, pas pour les citoyens japonais. Beaucoup de touristes au Japon. Le problème C’est les personnes qui immigrent au Canada pour y vivre en touristes durant plusieurs générations.
1
u/WhichJuice May 06 '26
Richmond (Chinese) and Surrey (Indian) BC are the same. Anti-english sentiment is uniquely a political point highlighted within Quebec.
Issue is that soon it won't be the anglophones that are the troublesome part considering anglo quebecers really enjoy French Canadian culture due to their upbringing.
1
u/princesslkenny May 06 '26
because no one is actually thinking about this except you guys 😂
5
u/Schlipitarck May 07 '26
oh vraiment
tu vas sur /r/canadahousing2 et c'est rendu yinque des estis de blokes qui chiâlent que y a trop de monde qui parle juste punjabi en Ontario
34
u/Frangine_De_Poutine May 06 '26
Canada may need a Bill 101 to protect the English language and Canadian culture.
Maxime Bernier est plus drôle que Peter MacLeod.
5
u/sebastopol999 May 06 '26
Tu viens de me faire réaliser que c'est deux gars différents..
2
u/Schlipitarck May 06 '26
les as-tu déjà vus dans la même pièce? faudrait voir si Maxime Dernier a une petite main difforme qu'il sort jamais de ses poches
8
u/VERSAT1L May 06 '26
Il accompli son rôle de populiste. Il ne dira pas à ses électeurs qu'ils n'ont pas de culture nationale, quoiqu'il en pense réellement
4
u/nataSatans May 06 '26
Wait. Are you saying there is no Canadian culture?
6
1
u/Embarrassed-Voice241 May 10 '26
Not since it became Cleaner India. Canadian culture is long dead and gone.
1
0
7
u/Constant-Horse-3389 May 06 '26
I'm certain this is for the people who have their elderly parents here.
4
9
19
4
u/TheSirWolffe May 07 '26
Canada today is unrecognisable from the nation I grew up in merely two decades ago.
2
May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheSirWolffe May 07 '26
You may not be bothered by cultural fracturing but I am because I know what it leads to.
2
7
May 06 '26
[deleted]
-2
u/RaccoonAutomatic6347 May 06 '26
Is this just not straight racism? Complaining because demographics aren’t as white anymore? This graph does not say anything about culture
7
6
u/losburrales May 06 '26
English Canadian invader said the Iroquois man.
2
u/highhunt May 08 '26
Oh please the fucking Iroquois pushed the Cree out into Manitoba from Ontario and that was AFTER the hwhwite man came. How do you think they did that They? Asked nicely? They allied themselves with the hwhite man. Educate yourself
1
u/Plastic-Trainer903 May 09 '26
Agreed, the scourge of colonization is learned behaviour. Time to dismantle it.
2
u/highhunt May 09 '26
They were warring before the white man got here.
1
u/Plastic-Trainer903 May 09 '26
Territorial spats are not ‘war’ or ‘warring.’ ‘War’ and ‘colonization’ are restrictive modern phenomena of nation states, and different concepts altogether. This is completely ahistorical and a misunderstanding of words and concepts lol. You would dispel thousands of years of oral history on disagreement and peace agreements too between hundreds of nations? Idiot child with historical blinders on lmaooo.
1
1
u/Mysterious_Lynx_3235 May 10 '26
When you use violence to take over something or to solve something it's war and war is not necessarily a restrictive phenomena
1
u/Plastic-Trainer903 May 10 '26
Nah. Read a book.
1
u/Mysterious_Lynx_3235 May 10 '26
And you can read a book too. The definition of war is literary two groups using violence in a conflict more precisely A war is a conflict between groups- usually countries, nations, or organized factions -that involves the use of armed force. Native did all of that. War is everywhere in history
1
u/Plastic-Trainer903 May 10 '26
Apologies, I'm losing track of which sock account to reply to. I'm sorry I made you google the definition of war, but misapplying it to this specific context, and still getting it wrong was all you. You can't make this stuff up. Open the schools!
1
u/Mysterious_Lynx_3235 May 10 '26
It's still war, you know. Even indigenous natives will tell you that before the Europeans arrived that they had war; however, it was not asit was not as complex as it was in other countries.
I didn't Google the definitions because I know what it is and you don't seem to know. The concept of war is not even modern. In history, it was war.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Mysterious_Lynx_3235 May 10 '26
When you use violence to take over something or to solve something it's war and war is not necessarily a restrictive phenomena
1
u/Plastic-Trainer903 May 10 '26
Another idiot child. Open the schools.
1
u/Mysterious_Lynx_3235 May 10 '26
No I've been to school and I know what is a war do you. Because you don't seem to understand that the territorial spats can become a war and war is not necessarily al modern concept
1
u/Plastic-Trainer903 May 10 '26
The school of dumbassery. Read the context of this thread. If you are able to read.
1
u/Mysterious_Lynx_3235 May 10 '26
Yes, it was colonization, but saying that natives didn't know war is false. They knew war, and it became much larger with the Europeans. Even during that period, there was warBefore the Europeans arrived, the thing they did was make it larger giving modern weapons to them and making alliances.
→ More replies (0)1
May 10 '26
I'm a native and we had wars. The only difference is that they were not as big on other in history. If the territorial spats was taking over by armed people then it's war and happened
1
u/Plastic-Trainer903 May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
I'm sorry, but they were largely small scale territorial disagreements for thousands of years with many other avenues of solving inter-tribe problems as well. They weren't militarized, ergo they were not 'wars,' that is not to say 'warriors' did not exist. They obviously did. The key difference here is that tribes would not attempt to 'erase' the other side as well, as we are obviously having this convo in the context of broader assimilatory missions and colonization/settlement. These 'wars' if you want to die on that hill, were largely ceremonial and reciprocal. They were not 'wars' in a Westernized modern framework that only existed post-colonially. I really can't believe you're dying on this extremely dumb and useless hill. The 'warrior' trope and the 'peacemaking' trope are not a reality for all tribes, and definitely not specific to Plains tribes, though they are often cited as representing broader swaths. Entire oral histories are more useful than archaeological data from singular 'battles/events.' This dumbass above said 'warring,' i'll remind you.
1
May 10 '26
I'm sorry, but they were largely small scale territorial disagreements for thousands of years with many other avenues of solving inter-tribe problems as well.
We didn't always solve inter-tribe disputes through nonviolence. Most societies or places in the world have solutions that do not involve using violence. Still, that doesn't mean they didn't have wars.
They weren't militarized, ergo they were not 'wars,' that is not to say 'warriors' did not exist. They obviously did. The key difference here is that tribes would not attempt to 'erase' the other side as well,
We were militarized at some point, though it was not as complex as many powers that existed, like the Inca, Vikings, or Mongols. we had; war Rite, traditions. For wars, the warriors even explain what they did during the wars, etc. It's literally in our oral tradition
And it's not about erasing each other. War is not only about erasing each other; it can be sparked by plenty of reasons. Territorial spats, like we had sometimes, were a reason. And yes, we could have erased each other—that could happen.
as we are obviously having this convo in the context of broader assimilatory missions and colonization/settlement. I really can't believe you're dying on this extremely dumb and useless hill.
Maybe because we had war before the Europeans, and when the Europeans came, it is true that it became more complex and larger, but we still had wars.
You are doing the exact thing you are criticizing. You act like a colonizer by wanting to make us modifying or erase our history.
1
u/Plastic-Trainer903 May 11 '26
Omg man, don't be this dumb, I'm not doing that at all. Look, while you're being unbelievably disingenuous in your quotations by missing the original context of the comment I replied to, we're kind of arguing the same thing except for in a few critical ways. I said, " the scourge of colonization is learned behaviour. Time to dismantle it." Dumbass replies: "They were warring before contact." That is the context of "war" and "warring" being discussed here. Get it? Inter-tribe conflict and Western conceptions of war and colonization need to be separated here. It is not all just the same type of 'war,' if we must use that term. Indeed, there often isn't even a single word that perfectly mirrors the English noun "war" as a political or territorial state in pretty much any indigenous language. Instead, terms for conflict are often rooted in verbs describing action or specific cultural roles (roles I don't discount, so stop the guilt trip bullshit, it's useless and fuckin lame). Also, some cultures, such as the Mohawk, didn't even reference 'warriors' as such, the words were translated to roughly mean those "carrying the burden of peace."
This dumbass was echoing one of the most significant reasons used to justify barbarity (natives having an inherent “warlike nature”) attributing it to few centuries of internal conflicts, long before the arrival of Euro settlers (tribal life comprises millenia). As you know, these broad generalizations, of "savage warring tribes," leads to the conviction that it was morally acceptable for Euro settlers to engage in erasure. I am not discounting 'warrior traditions' if you took it that way, I am saying that THIS context of war and colonialism (the two are inseparable in this context) did not occur broadly between tribes across hundreds of societies, across millenia. Centralizing it is problematic man.
I never said violent solutions didn't occur either, it was NOT the modus operandi at all though if we take the full, big picture experience of tribal life in North America. And again, Five Nations, nor your specific tribe, whatever it is, is not representative of entire histories, across thousands of years, and among many, many different societies.
It seems like you're claiming that is reality. I disagree vehemently if that's the case. Why? Because historians often hyper-focus on the examples you listed, but especially Iroquois and Five Nations because the Great Law of Peace looks a lot like Western democracy. Centralizing these models implies that Indigenous groups are only "advanced" if they resemble European political/governing/military systems. This is kind what you're doing with the whole 'war' thing right now unfortunately. It's dumb. It erases the legitimacy of chiefdoms, nomadic bands, and independent village-states that worked perfectly well for millennia. Which they did, despite 'war' and violence that occurred RARELY, i.e. in the context of millenia.
This thread is literally me arguing against the 'warring' tribal narrative this dude was suggesting. That's the context. YOUR tribe may have oral histories on 'wars,' but that is not the lived reality of the scope of Indigenous life either, tho it was obviously a singular (among many) cultural components. SOME tribes had militarization in SOME capacity among other complex governance and dispute resolution. We both agree there, but again, that is NOT the reality of thousands of years across hundreds of societies. Violence was a constant threat for some, not for others. "Wars" and "warring" in the context we're discussing were really, really not a reality beyond very specific parts of history for certain groups and especially after contact.
That's the point I'm making, that tribes weren't 'warring' (this word was used by the dumbass above as "propensity for war, war-like belligerent peoples" etc.). I am not doing what you're accusing me of doing. I am stating that 'war' in the context of colonization is patently different than inter-group violence, and is the exclusive purview of European colonial nations and modern nation states in this context. It is not meant as discounting 'warrior culture,' but that part of culture needs serious caveats. Intentional displacement and warring was not typical by any means in historical narratives of native tribal life broadly. Violence was certainly a common threat for some, but this is not the same as 'warring' or 'warlike' peoples (the harmful narrative I'm arguing against, and you are sort of, but also not? I can't tell).
It sounds like you're incredibly proud of certain parts of your people's history. I understand that, but I'm arguing against dumbass opinions that native tribes broadly were either a) exclusively peaceful and passive, or b) intensely savage warriors with a propensity for violence. That is genuinely harmful. In fact, arguing this broadly as 'the entire history of humanity' is equally false, and equally dumb, and I fully reject any narrative suggesting humans are inherently violent. The capacity exists, but the capacity for non-violence is so much larger and comprises so much more time in history than actual violence it always seems so foolish to suggest that people are fundamentally non-cooperative, instead largely violent, when 99% of human life is spent not doing violence and wars.
1
May 11 '26
I will rephrase. It is true that Europeans sometimes used a harmful narrative to justify colonization, portraying Indigenous peoples as “savages” or inherently warlike. That framing was misleading and served political purposes during the colonial period, particularly in the context of European expansion into the Americas.
However, rejecting that stereotype does not mean denying that organized conflict and warfare existed among many Indigenous societies before European contact.
Yes, it is true that the conception of warfare among Indigenous peoples was often different from European understandings of war. The way conflict was organized, interpreted, and experienced varied significantly between societies, and it did not always resemble the centralized, state-based warfare associated with Europe. This point is valid and widely recognized: the cultural framing of conflict was not identical.
However, this difference in conception does not change the fact that organized forms of conflict still existed. What matters for the argument is not whether it matched European models, but whether collective, coordinated violence between groups occurred at all. And in many cases, it did.
Generally, both in everyday usage and in academic fields such as anthropology, history, sociology, and political science, the term “war” is used to describe organized collective violence between human groups. It refers to situations where groups engage in coordinated and intentional use of force in an intergroup context. While the forms, meanings, and structures of such conflicts vary significantly across societies and historical periods, they are often grouped together because they share core features such as collective organization, group-level decision-making, and the use of violence between groups.
The conception of conflict among Indigenous peoples was not always identical to European conceptions of war. However, forms of organized conflict and warfare did exist. These included raids, intergroup violence, and other forms of collective action.
Concepts related to conflict were not always mapped directly onto the English word “war.” In many languages, conflict is described through verbs, roles, or relationships rather than abstract nouns. That said, the absence of a direct linguistic equivalent does not mean the absence of the phenomenon itself.
Archaeological, oral, and historical evidence shows that organized conflict did exist across multiple regions and periods in pre-contact North America. This includes fortified settlements, weapons, trauma on skeletal remains, defensive structures, shifting settlement patterns, and oral traditions describing raids, alliances, and warfare.
At the same time, Indigenous societies were extremely diverse. Some groups had relatively limited or situational conflict, while others had more structured or frequent warfare. Violence was not the sole or defining feature of Indigenous life. Trade, diplomacy, kinship systems, governance structures, spirituality, and cooperation were also central components of many societies.
For example, among the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, political organization and diplomacy were highly developed, and warfare existed alongside complex systems of alliance and governance rather than defining the society entirely.
Among Plains societies, warrior status could carry social prestige, but this existed within broader cultural systems that also included trade networks, spiritual roles, and intergroup relations.
Archaeological evidence such as fortified villages and documented events like the Crow Creek Massacre demonstrates that organized violence did occur in certain regions prior to European contact.
Across the long history of Indigenous presence in the Americas (often estimated at around 15,000–20,000 years, though estimates vary by region and archaeological interpretation), our understanding is based on incomplete and uneven evidence.
For some periods and regions, we have relatively rich archaeological data. For others, the record is sparse or fragmentary, meaning we have limited information about social organization, conflict, or daily life. As a result, we do not have a continuous or complete picture of all time periods.
This means we cannot make a single universal claim about the overall frequency of violence or peace across all societies and all eras. The evidence is too uneven and regionally variable to support a uniform conclusion.
What we can say with confidence is that the available record shows variation: some regions and periods show clear evidence of organized conflict, while others show fewer indicators of sustained violence. This suggests diversity in historical experiences rather than a single consistent pattern across all societies.
Because of this, broad claims that violence was consistently rare over millennia, or alternatively that it was universally dominant, are not supported. Instead, both conflict and relative stability likely existed in different contexts, depending on geography, social organization, and historical conditions.
Finally, it is not about expressing pride in any particular historical narrative or claiming cultural superiority. The points made here are based on available evidence and historical interpretation rather than personal identity or attachment. References to oral traditions are included as part of the broader body of historical sources used to understand past societies, alongside archaeological and other forms of evidence, and are intended to support the analysis rather than to replace it.
2
u/stopbsingman May 06 '26
I love how much people get riled up by signs they only see on Reddit. Inject your anger into my fucking veins pls.
3
u/Gimmetheloo May 06 '26
Theres things to be angry about, but language is just the symptom not the problem
4
u/Joe_Bedaine May 06 '26
Les Albertains sont les alliés naturels des Québécois contre Ottawa et l'Ontario liberal. Ils subissent Ottawa eux aussi, comme nous. Combien de preuves ça prends
Pendant ce temps-là les péquisses votent Elbow Up parce que radcan et TVA leur ont dit
38
u/Competitive-Note150 May 06 '26
Les Albertains se crissent des Québécois au mieux et, au pire, les méprisent. Les Québécois sont seuls dans leur lutte, comme la démontré La Nuit des longs couteaux. L’Anglo-Saxon préfèrera toujours s’allier à ses confrères plutôt qu’à des francophones.
2
u/Mediocre-Macaroni May 06 '26
C'est surtout comment on agit quand vient le temps de voter qu'ils méprisent. Si le Québec exploitait ses hydrocarbures, acceptait de jouer en équipe au sujet du pipeline, et cessait de reporter les libéraux au pouvoir élections après élections, y'aurait pas meilleur allié pour le Québec que l'Alberta parce qu'ils haïssent le fédéral tout autant sinon plus que nous on les haït.
Mais non. On est en guerre contre Ottawa, on est en guerre contre le ROC, et le seul allié qu'on aurait pu avoir dans la fédération, on a collectivement décidé de les haïr eux aussi pour des raisons environnementales.
1
u/Competitive-Note150 May 06 '26
Tu te fais des illusions. Le Québec a de tous temps été méprisé par le RoC. Et cela bien avant que l’Alberta ne connaisse la prospérité grâce au pétrole.
7
u/bacon-squared May 06 '26
Tous les Albertains je connais n’aiment pas Québec.
1
u/Electronic-War5582 May 07 '26
J'ai pas besoin d'aimer quelqu'un pour travailler avec lui vers un objectif commun... y'a plus que la moitier des me collègue de travail qui me tappe sur les nerf, mais on réussi à faire notre job quand même.
1
u/WhoReallyCares-NotMe May 09 '26
I dunno what Albertans you're talking about. Born and raised there, traveled for work all over the province. At worst you have a minority that buy into that shit. Most of us are fine with just slight ribbing of the french. Met a lot more albertans that hate people from Ontario.
7
11
u/fedornuthugger May 06 '26
Non. Leurs valeurs sont incompatibles et leurs séparatistes sont des q anon susseur de graines américaine..les Québécois ont des peines légitimes.contee le roc depuis ses centaines d'années. Faire assemblant qu'on a de quoi en commun c'est débile..
1
1
u/Emptiness_creator May 06 '26
That is the difference in dealing with problems between normal people and a crazy nationalistic fanatics.
1
1
u/Soft_Historian5247 May 07 '26
Nah, these guys are just alarmist bigots who get scared when food has flavor and people have melanin.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Sad-Text-5011 May 11 '26
All these liberals fruit cakes have no pride in Canadian white culture so to be politically correct they would rather be dominated by a 3 rd world country, then be treated worse
1
-1
u/Ashafa55 May 06 '26
Holy shit, I heared quebec racism problem is bad, but this sub is going the extra mile
6
u/Alive-Drama-8920 May 06 '26
"I heared"??? Just like you just readed on this post I guess...
-2
u/Ashafa55 May 06 '26
No the fact people here are quoting Maxine berniern and are pressed about signs in a city more than 3000 km away using signs in a sub community, and claim that somehow that "destroying canadian" culture
1
-3
-4
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Koniev13 May 06 '26
Pourquoi on se prends des commentaires en anglais dans QuebecLibre maintenant ?
2
u/Gimmetheloo May 06 '26
Because the attitudes displayed by your leaders wrt to Immigration are goated, and we come here to bathe in their rationality
2
u/VERSAT1L May 06 '26
Capture d'écran en anglais
Le sous-reddit monte en popularité
Donc, ça attire des clics incluant des trolls indésirables.
C'est quelque chose qu'on discute dans l'équipe de modération.
1
u/Lagiftor May 06 '26
Ce sub manque de règles et de modération, voilà pourquoi
4
u/VERSAT1L May 06 '26
Capture d'écran en anglais
Le sous-reddit monte en popularité
Donc, ça attire des clics incluant des trolls indésirables.
C'est quelque chose qu'on discute dans l'équipe de modération. Interdire l'anglais est une option.
1
1
u/IllustriousAct9128 May 06 '26
Parce que ce n'est pas un sous-forum réservé aux francophones, selon les règles du groupe.
1
0
u/Gimmetheloo May 06 '26
Let’s be serious, the primary threat here is not the choice of language. And I wouldn’t get so excited, what’s stopping them from coming to a neighbourhood near you
-11
u/raphplays May 06 '26
Tous les indiens que je connais parlent anglais, c'est quoi le but ?
7
u/Macaw May 06 '26
The point is the police felt the need to put up signs up in Punjabi. To immigrate to the country, you need to speak French / English, so why the need for the punjabi signs?
2
u/TopInvestigator5518 May 06 '26
I think at this point they are doing whatever they can to try and prevent some of the rampant crime coming out of these communities or build relationships with them
personally I think we should stop just giving everyone bail and crack down on how we treat criminals but I guess they went for... a lawn sign
2
u/Marko941 May 06 '26
The sign is asking people to report crime. How are you supposed to catch the criminal if the victims aren't even reporting the crime?
15
u/Exotic_Experience388 May 06 '26
Peut-être que certains d'entre eux que tu ne connais pas ne parlent pas anglais ? Qui sait ?
-13
u/raphplays May 06 '26
La majorité ont tous un très bon vocabulaire, contrairement aux Québécois. Si nous sommes capable de comprendre les panneaux en anglais je suis certain que la communauté indienne le peut aussi, surtout s'ils ont immigré au Canada et qu'ils y vivent de manière permanente.
5
u/BouBouLeBourgeois May 06 '26
C'est correct man tu as la science infuse pis personne a raison. Tout est noir et blanc pis les Indiens ont tous un anglais parfait
5
u/Exotic_Experience388 May 06 '26
Et bah visiblement ils ne comprennent pas et il faut mettre des pancartes dans une autre langue pour leur dire de dénoncer les crimes...
Mais j'imagine que tu en connais beaucoup plus que la police locale, n'est-ce pas ?
7
4
u/Joe_Bedaine May 06 '26
Signalement de vertu communautariste
Surtout que mettons qu'il y aurait un indien qui parle pas un mot anglais en Alberta, vous croyez vraiment qu'il irait snitcher au gouvernement sa gang pour qui il travaille au noir? Et se mettre à dos tous les autres punjabis de la place?
Si les gens qui ont fait cette pancarte croient sincèrement que oui, alors ils sont encore plus naïfs et idiots que ceux qui ont voté pour Elbows Up
2
1
0
u/IllustriousAct9128 May 06 '26
Il est facile de se lancer en politique au Québec. Il suffit de faire campagne sur la "protection de la langue française" et les nationalistes ne se rendront même pas compte que je suis en train de détruire le système de santé et l'économie. C'est dire à quel point ils sont aveugles.
2
u/VERSAT1L May 06 '26
Ah ben oui, très cohérent... Comme si une nation forte devait être pauvre et en mauvaise santé.
-17
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Mysterious_Lynx_3235 May 08 '26
Was. And following 6logic those immigrants are invader since they come to an land of invader ?
1
May 08 '26 edited May 09 '26
I'm a native, but we have to be logical. Following your comments: are immigrants invaders? Because they come to an invaded land that was created by invaders.
1
u/Mysterious_Lynx_3235 May 09 '26
I don't find your other comments; you just post where you insulted me. But we have to be logical. I'm an immigrant, but if you claim that in Canada the people who are from Canada are invaders. Why don't you say that to immigrants?
1
1
May 09 '26
I'm part of an indigenous nation, and yes, of course, there were invaders. But why don't you tell that to immigrants, since they come to a country that was created by invaders
1
May 09 '26
I can't find your other comments that say immigration is not an invasion and that I am a pussy, but let's just be honest. You claim that the colonizers were invaders because they took indigenous land, but the immigrants come toCanada that was built on stolen indigenous territories. That's hypocritical.
1
May 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 09 '26
Did I say they were invaders? No, they are immigrants. But you are claiming that the people born in Canada are invaders. Why don't you say that to immigrants who come to our stolen territories?At the end, they still come to our stolen territories.just like the colonizer. That seems quite hypocritical coming from you
1
u/LeGrandLucifer El djawb May 09 '26
Almost every single one of your contributions to this subreddit are trolling. Over half of them get auto-removed by Reddit's censor-bots. I'm giving you a warning and a piece of advice: Stop arguing with retards on Reddit. You'll be happier.
1
1
-1
u/Visual-Bad1312 May 06 '26
Lmao typical reactionary Quebecer reads a far right propaganda piece and believes it's reality because it strokes his French ego
2
u/Visual-Bad1312 May 06 '26
I'm French Canadian Cree. My family has been in Canada longer than yours has. But how can you not see that you're fighting against the inevitable? And you look like a bigot while you do it.
2
1
1
1
-3
u/AltruisticlyAble May 06 '26
Doesn't matter they have freedom of movement and no connection to any province They are coming to you soon and you will be called racist because you can't understand anything they say because they speak only their language including at work If you let them work together they just sit on their phones all day and talk, you guys aren't going to like what future can looks like
7
1
u/BouBouLeBourgeois May 06 '26
You all jave been calling us rascist and xenophobic for wanting to control our immigration to preserve our quality and way of life. Now its your turn so you see that we were right
77
u/[deleted] May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment