Let's Talk About... NEPOTISM!
Only in le Culbec... A case of blatant nepotism raises a certain level of attention -at long last- to the pathetic skills of putting together laws -and wording them, more specifically- displayed by French-Canadian lawmakers... For, if one is to believe ad verbatim what follows, then, quite logically, one should not, ever, under any circumstance, support the candidacy of any would-be politician either? (To do so would be a crime! And, besides, aren't they all crooks themselves, anyway?)
Code Criminel
art . 125. Est coupable d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de cinq ans quiconque, selon le cas :
a) reçoit, convient de recevoir, donne ou obtient que soit donné, directement ou indirectement, une récompense, un avantage ou un bénéfice de quelque nature en considération de la collaboration, de l’aide ou de l’exercice d’influence pour obtenir la nomination d’une personne à une charge;
b) sollicite, recommande ou négocie de quelque manière une nomination à une charge ou une démission d’une charge en prévision d’une récompense, d’un avantage ou d’un bénéfice, direct ou indirect;
c) maintient, sans autorisation légitime, dont la preuve lui incombe, un établissement pour la conclusion ou la négociation de toutes affaires concernant :
(i) la nomination de personnes pour remplir des vacances,
(ii) la vente ou l’achat de charges,
(iii) les nominations à des charges ou les démissions de charges.
A crying shame that this text is never read before voting ballots
It is not read to newly-appointed executives -such as one JoAnne Hudon Duchesne- who would eventually find gainful employment for her son, daughter, daughter-in-law and sister-in-law when she became directrice générale par intérim of a well-known foundation, somewhere over there - up north! She even pushed it so far as interviewing one of those ''candidates'' herself...! Mere candidates, were they? Wasn't it a foregone conclusion to the process that they would get hired, all along? Hell, they even collected pay when they weren't even working anymore... imagine!
The question lies elsewhere though: while exercising one's voting rights, aren't we doing the exact same thing deemed as criminal in that Criminal Code...? Especially when we are party members... know the candidate we are voting for... champion everything that party and candidate represent, on our own time, in our private life? Aren't aiding (and abetting!) a nomination towards the obtainment of a specific post exactly what is said there...?!? That article (a) there needs some work! Hell, all of it needs some serious fine tuning dudes...! Because hat damn infinitesimal part of the FLAWED LAW THAT GOVERNS US ALL is but a SYMPTOM of just how pathetically flawed it all is...!!!
But hey - what else can't we expect from a ''pays'' that is, quite fundamentally, but an error of history spurred forth by the overzealous, overambitious and overjealous drive of a few envious Frenchmen at the sight of English, Spanish and Portuguese explorations and conquests throughout the seas, some four centuries ago? What else to expect from a bunch that cannot coherently word a simple question; even when they put together a tam of scribes to pen it, too? A (so-called) nation that can't get it done all by itself on virtually all levels without the help of a federal government they are continuously ungrateful to, no matter who comprises it! An inane bunch that can't figure out what they truly are all about, as they rely so heavily on all manners of influxes to simply regenerate their numbers; for, without immigration, how many would still be around? The general populace is equally contradictory towards all subjects of debate: be it that crowd-favorite queer host caught in a park recently, their resident non-dissident revolted against the unfair treatment his ethnicity is getting as totally justified backlash for the threat they pose and the man's very own incessant blabber or the couple of quacks who should have never been elected and become ministers of anything -Bolduc and Barrette- who managed to, in a very short timespan, make all the wrong moves, often frustrating the ones totally undeserving of such blows. Give these peeps a cause and they will split on it 50/50 every damn time - making it impossible to reach a satisfying resolution, let alone justice of any kind!
C'est ÇA - la Canada!
And now, there is this latest public target (oh, sorry to touch upon a sore spot, Target Canada!) one more to tar-and-feather for a while - until everyone there just forgets about it - outright!
It doesn't get any more pathetic than that; people, it cannot get any more...!
But I better tone it down: this isn't the lambasting blog, after all...
For we're supposed to be talkative here - yes - but nice - like this:
No, Jo-Anne Hudon Duchesne is not such a harpie, folks - she's just a product of her environment, a spawn of pourriture, part of a flawed system, rife with unclear, flawed laws that can easily be circumvented! And the problem lies as much there as it does with the population that basks in such a system: the peeps with two faces; the ever-changing moods that shift as often as the wind blows in a different direction!
Code Criminel
art . 125. Est coupable d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de cinq ans quiconque, selon le cas :
a) reçoit, convient de recevoir, donne ou obtient que soit donné, directement ou indirectement, une récompense, un avantage ou un bénéfice de quelque nature en considération de la collaboration, de l’aide ou de l’exercice d’influence pour obtenir la nomination d’une personne à une charge;
b) sollicite, recommande ou négocie de quelque manière une nomination à une charge ou une démission d’une charge en prévision d’une récompense, d’un avantage ou d’un bénéfice, direct ou indirect;
c) maintient, sans autorisation légitime, dont la preuve lui incombe, un établissement pour la conclusion ou la négociation de toutes affaires concernant :
(i) la nomination de personnes pour remplir des vacances,
(ii) la vente ou l’achat de charges,
(iii) les nominations à des charges ou les démissions de charges.
A crying shame that this text is never read before voting ballots
It is not read to newly-appointed executives -such as one JoAnne Hudon Duchesne- who would eventually find gainful employment for her son, daughter, daughter-in-law and sister-in-law when she became directrice générale par intérim of a well-known foundation, somewhere over there - up north! She even pushed it so far as interviewing one of those ''candidates'' herself...! Mere candidates, were they? Wasn't it a foregone conclusion to the process that they would get hired, all along? Hell, they even collected pay when they weren't even working anymore... imagine!
The question lies elsewhere though: while exercising one's voting rights, aren't we doing the exact same thing deemed as criminal in that Criminal Code...? Especially when we are party members... know the candidate we are voting for... champion everything that party and candidate represent, on our own time, in our private life? Aren't aiding (and abetting!) a nomination towards the obtainment of a specific post exactly what is said there...?!? That article (a) there needs some work! Hell, all of it needs some serious fine tuning dudes...! Because hat damn infinitesimal part of the FLAWED LAW THAT GOVERNS US ALL is but a SYMPTOM of just how pathetically flawed it all is...!!!
But hey - what else can't we expect from a ''pays'' that is, quite fundamentally, but an error of history spurred forth by the overzealous, overambitious and overjealous drive of a few envious Frenchmen at the sight of English, Spanish and Portuguese explorations and conquests throughout the seas, some four centuries ago? What else to expect from a bunch that cannot coherently word a simple question; even when they put together a tam of scribes to pen it, too? A (so-called) nation that can't get it done all by itself on virtually all levels without the help of a federal government they are continuously ungrateful to, no matter who comprises it! An inane bunch that can't figure out what they truly are all about, as they rely so heavily on all manners of influxes to simply regenerate their numbers; for, without immigration, how many would still be around? The general populace is equally contradictory towards all subjects of debate: be it that crowd-favorite queer host caught in a park recently, their resident non-dissident revolted against the unfair treatment his ethnicity is getting as totally justified backlash for the threat they pose and the man's very own incessant blabber or the couple of quacks who should have never been elected and become ministers of anything -Bolduc and Barrette- who managed to, in a very short timespan, make all the wrong moves, often frustrating the ones totally undeserving of such blows. Give these peeps a cause and they will split on it 50/50 every damn time - making it impossible to reach a satisfying resolution, let alone justice of any kind!
C'est ÇA - la Canada!
And now, there is this latest public target (oh, sorry to touch upon a sore spot, Target Canada!) one more to tar-and-feather for a while - until everyone there just forgets about it - outright!
It doesn't get any more pathetic than that; people, it cannot get any more...!
But I better tone it down: this isn't the lambasting blog, after all...
For we're supposed to be talkative here - yes - but nice - like this:
No, Jo-Anne Hudon Duchesne is not such a harpie, folks - she's just a product of her environment, a spawn of pourriture, part of a flawed system, rife with unclear, flawed laws that can easily be circumvented! And the problem lies as much there as it does with the population that basks in such a system: the peeps with two faces; the ever-changing moods that shift as often as the wind blows in a different direction!
Labels: loquacious lethargic simulcast, Luminous Pundit Blogger Moi, simulpost
posted by Luminous (\ô/) Luciano™ at 1:44 PM
0 comments
