Talk:Michel Chartrand

Untitled

Yes, as 'Cube Jaune', I will say: 'this article seems to talk about a different man than Michel Chartrand'

I would say as 'Cube Jaune': I understand that this article presents facts. The problem with it, is that the choice of the facts presented depicted an image of Michel Chartrand wich is inacurate. Rather than to give a fair image, the -subset- of facts choosen for this article make Michel Chartrand appear a bit like a terrorist , althrough one could find 10 times mores or more facts showing clearly that this man as acted in all his actions with love and deep respect to the democratic process and also for non-violent principle as they have been stated by Martin Lutherking and Gandhi.

On the basis of that, I believe that other work is still needed on this article.

Louis-Alexandre

Our edit was deleted as follows:

• (cur) (last) 23:34, 20 Sep 2004 User:Cubejaune (More neutral description, previous was evident Propaganda)

We NEVER insert propaganda or unreserched information OF ANY KIND AT ANY TIME. From the User contributions, it appears that another "unknown" Wikipedia user created the User:Cubejaune idemntity for a specific purpose and this is a deliberate removal of facts that they did not like.

REFERENCE for our edit comes from the Government of Canada official archives (http://collections.ic.gc.ca/flag/html/ch7b.htm) and the Globe and Mail newspaper (/www.theglobeandmail.com/series/trudeau/jgray2_sep30.html)

JillandJack 17:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're saying that Michel Chartrand as a terrorist, and he's not. He made a lot for the quebec society and we cannot see it in your description. Do you realy think that the Globe and mail and the Government of Canada are neutral to Michel Chartrand. This biography page from the university of Sherbrooke seems to describe another man... [1] CubeJaune 07:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The information in this article was factual in all aspects but was removed twice. Following our reinstatement of the FACTS, an NPOV notice was inserted. One can only guess, because this was not accompanied by a note on the discussion page, that it must have been based upon the notion that the lack of other information makes it POV? Such being the possibility, we have corrected it with factual background and presented to the best of our ability in an NPOV manner. JillandJack 18:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources required, this close from flagging it as non-neutral

Weasel language ("As a member of the Quebec sovereignty movement, Chartrand staunchly supported the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) terrorists"), no sources, not one... This article is certainly not worth a B, as was granted by evaluators from two projects. The worst part is the inference that Chartrand was a terrorist by association because he spoke at a rally on the fifth anniversary of the War Measures Act. Gee, has this piece been written by revisionist historians who didn't bother to read the Macdonald and Keable commissions reports? Give me reasons not to flag this article as non-neutral. Bouchecl 05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Official History" is "Non-neutral"

No, it's "believed history" that is "non-neutral". For a non-politically correct overview: www.nosnowinmoscow.com

Trudeau was NDP, and ran for the NDP before he jumped to the Liberals. Those "reports" are thus self-serving manipulations of history by "commissions" appointed by an agent of the Marxist NDP who infiltrated the Liberals. What other conclusion, except one favorable to the NDP, would such "commissions" come to?

Moreover, both FLQ terrorist leaders come straight out of NDP'er Trudeau's pro-Communist magazine, Cité Libre. Trudeau ran for the NDP in 1963. He was NDP while publishing Cité Libre with fellow Communist Gérard Pelletier. See Louis Fournier, a leftist partisan journalist who documents the following in his history of the FLQ (bottom, p. 86) : http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/fournier_louis/FLQ_1982/FLQ.html

Pierre Vallières was not only straight from Cité Libre into the FLQ, but straight out of the NDP when he jumped to the terrorists. Read his autobiography of that period, he'll tell you.

Moreover, just to show you that "commissions" can be stacked this way, also see Louis Fournier, same history of the FLQ, and he will document that BOTH terrorist leaders, Vallières and Gagnon, were in the basement of Le Devoir chief editor, André Laurendeau's home launching an ultra-radical Marxist magazine, for which André Laurendeau's son wrote articles, along with a couple of La Presse journalists, under pseudonyms. This is around 1965, just before the two terrorists announce their FLQ leadership.

Put that on a timeline, and we have André Laurendeau sympathetic with an ultra-radical Marxist magazine, published out of his own basement by a couple of men about to announce their jump to the terrorists. Meanwhile, in 1963, André Laurendeau himself -- we are told -- has conveniently "suggested" to none other than exposed Soviet spy Lester B. Pearson, our de facto Prime Minister, a "royal commission" to examine "Québec's dissatisfaction" -- a "dissatisfaction" (if we look to the facts) contrived largely by Marxist-Communist agitators.

The Commission is launched -- purely coincidentally, if you are naive) precisely at the time the FLQ terrorists begin bombing, which helps to illustrate that very "dissatisfaction" which the "commission" is mandated to "resolve". How convenient for the Commission!

André Laurendeau will co-chair the "royal commission," called the Bi & Bi commission for short. And by 1965, that puts both FLQ terrorist leaders in immediate reach of Pearson via their good pal, Laurendeau. So, this raises obvious qustions as to how that apparent available channel between Canada's Prime Minister's Office and both terrorist leaders got set up. Moeove, Tudeau of NDP-Cite Libre, is a partisan of Laurendeau, and Trudeau's rag is where the terrorists come from.

So, what is going on when, by 1965, two writers for NDP'er Trudeau's "Cité Libre" "quit" the magazine to lead the FLQ terrorists? And, since when do radical Marxists get to "suggest" and then sit and lead a "royal commission," whose reports, by the way, the courts are required to "judicially notice" when interpreting the Constitution of Canada.

Laurendeau surely did not "suddenly" become a radical Marxist supporter overnight between 1963 when he "suggests" the commission as the FLQ starts bombing, and 1965, with the two Cite Libre man are in his basement, about to lead these same terrorists. (The question is why they were about to lead them, I won't go into it here.)

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism ran from 1963-69, by which time Trudeau, from whose magazine we get both major terrorist leaders, has now "quit" the NDP to become a Liberal" and he is now -- thanks to "The Big Switch" pulled by Soviet Pearson, Canada's second Communist Prime Minister.

But, Laurendeau dies in 1968 and his post is handed to Jean-Louis Gagnon. Who is Gagnon? About the most radical, dues-paying member of the Communist Party you could find: "The papers brought by Igor Gouzenko to the Canadians from the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa revealed that it was Jean-Louis Gagnon who had supplied Soviet Colonel Zabotin with the information that the exact date of D-Day was June 6, 1944." Source: http://nosnowinmoscow.com/videos/stang-part-3/

So, that's a "royal commission" in Canada, whose reports our judiciary is required to implement. Now, do you think our judiciary is not equally well handpicked? I care not for judges, commissions, and inquiries; I care for who comprises them, and who appointed them, and why.

I would therefore suggest that you leave this article up, and request sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.226.93 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)