Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.

And yet after centuries, the English never did assimilate you. Perhaps the lesson of history is that diversity can persist even in the face of opposition without exclusivity and ethnocentrism? I dunno, maybe ethnocentrism is what you guys think has kept you speaking Québécois.

Don't say that too hard. My Acadian ancestors would like to have a word with you...out back...just step over by this bayou...here hold this chicken...no reason (runs away).

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.

And yet after centuries, the English never did assimilate you. Perhaps the lesson of history is that diversity can persist even in the face of opposition without exclusivity and ethnocentrism? I dunno, maybe ethnocentrism is what you guys think has kept you speaking Québécois.

It'd actually be the Catholic Church. And the distinct legal code. And the distinct culture and history. And the fact that over a century we pretty much did nothing else but have babies like rabbits. And the hatred of the english which was much more prevalant prior to the Quiet Revolution.

Fact is, Trudeau's multiculturalism is the best strategy of assimilation that's been attempted as of yet. Which is sad because it gives the impression that we are ultra-nationnalists, and hate multiculturalism.

I'll admit that the defense of french is a bit over-zealous, and shouldn't come at the expense of any community inside Quebec. On the other side, when your born in a place which has only one official language, the intelligent thing to do is to learn that language, even if it's only to be able to obtain services there.

The argument of course would then be that everyone should learn English (ok a large portion of Vancouver might pipe up and say Chinese).

 Frazzled wrote:
The argument of course would then be that everyone should learn English (ok a large portion of Vancouver might pipe up and say Chinese).

Argument to which I agree entirely. The question is about access to 'entirely' english schooling, since it's been shown that it does have a huge incidence in someone adopting english as a primary language.

To most Quebecers, to be a Quebecer is to speak French, and to have spent one winter here.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The argument of course would then be that everyone should learn English (ok a large portion of Vancouver might pipe up and say Chinese).

Argument to which I agree entirely. The question is about access to 'entirely' english schooling, since it's been shown that it does have a huge incidence in someone adopting english as a primary language.

To most Quebecers, to be a Quebecer is to speak French, and to have spent one winter here.

Whats the issue you're referring to KO? Do the schools require French and English, French only or whats the situation? I'm not familiar with whats going on that you're referring to.

Law 101 forces access to english schools only for children of at least one english parent, in a household that is predominantly anglophone. English courses, as a secondary language, is mandatory every year after the 6th grade.

It's a hard law to apply, and has such it's pretty easily abused. I'm thinking that the 'erosion of minority english rights' mentionned before would have something to do with the PQ wanting to thighten those laws (not only for english, but also for religious schools).

Anyhow, there will always be a way around the application of those laws.

Does that mean all others have French as the primary language with English as an ESL? If so, is the ESL taught sufficiently that you can converse with native English speakers?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.

And yet after centuries, the English never did assimilate you. Perhaps the lesson of history is that diversity can persist even in the face of opposition without exclusivity and ethnocentrism? I dunno, maybe ethnocentrism is what you guys think has kept you speaking Québécois.

It'd actually be the Catholic Church. And the distinct legal code. And the distinct culture and history. And the fact that over a century we pretty much did nothing else but have babies like rabbits. And the hatred of the english which was much more prevalant prior to the Quiet Revolution.

Fact is, Trudeau's multiculturalism is the best strategy of assimilation that's been attempted as of yet. Which is sad because it gives the impression that we are ultra-nationnalists, and hate multiculturalism.

I'll admit that the defense of french is a bit over-zealous, and shouldn't come at the expense of any community inside Quebec. On the other side, when your born in a place which has only one official language, the intelligent thing to do is to learn that language, even if it's only to be able to obtain services there.

Agreed, of course seeing as this is Canada where there are two official languages . . . .

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
it gives the impression that we are ultra-nationnalists, and hate multiculturalism.

Yep, that is the impression I get. I know it's a basically different issue but this reminds me of the crypto-racism surrounding Spanish-language services in the US.

 Frazzled wrote:
Does that mean all others have French as the primary language with English as an ESL? If so, is the ESL taught sufficiently that you can converse with native English speakers?

40% of Quebecers are fluent in english, I don't know what's the pourcentage of people with an 'basic operationnal' english. Gotta say, I went to private school, our english classes were a lot better then those of my public system friends.

Jefffar wrote:
Agreed, of course seeing as this is Canada where there are two official languages . . . .

Well that's what you get for signing the Constitution behind our backs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
it gives the impression that we are ultra-nationnalists, and hate multiculturalism.

Yep, that is the impression I get. I know it's a basically different issue but this reminds me of the crypto-racism surrounding Spanish-language services in the US.

Unfortunately, in a lot of case, it's fairly similar. It's just that it spawns from about a century and a half of being on the defensive about our language. And that we've defined ourselves around that language. The US as a different kind of patriotism, it's particular history, and AMERICA #1!!!!!

TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!

Does it ever get cold under your bridge?

The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?

 AustonT wrote:

TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!

Does it ever get cold under your bridge?

The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?

One of our prime ministers managed to get pied in the face, security must be pretty lazy.

Pie is good.

Bush had a shoe thrown at him

A SHOE!!!

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!

Does it ever get cold under your bridge?

The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?

One of our prime ministers managed to get pied in the face, security must be pretty lazy.

And then proceded to deck the pie thrower, if I remember right (or was it strangled?) Anyway, Chrétien was, for all his many flaws, pretty cool.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!

Does it ever get cold under your bridge?

The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?

One of our prime ministers managed to get pied in the face, security must be pretty lazy.

And then proceded to deck the pie thrower, if I remember right (or was it strangled?) Anyway, Chrétien was, for all his many flaws, pretty cool.

Did he really do that?

That's all kinds of awesome!

 whembly wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!

Does it ever get cold under your bridge?

The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?

One of our prime ministers managed to get pied in the face, security must be pretty lazy.

And then proceded to deck the pie thrower, if I remember right (or was it strangled?) Anyway, Chrétien was, for all his many flaws, pretty cool.

Did he really do that?

That's all kinds of awesome!

Nah I'm mixing it up, it was Murdoch's wife who decked a pie thrower. Jean Chrétien dived in a protest and tried to strangle some hippie.

A Canadian sign of affection?

Thanks Manchu, I didn't know that one (or that the guy later became a member of Québec Solidaire).

 Jihadin wrote:
Here we go on another "guns are bad" thread

It obviously isn't, why are you trying to make it one? Surely there are more than enough cyclical (and entirely pointless) gun argument threads on these boards as it is.

I'm an admirer of Trudeau myself. It's hard for me to ignore what appears to be a recalcitrance that borders on outright pettiness characterizing the PQ. The sovereignty movement strikes me as an artifact of a pre-World War I mindset or an artifact of the kind of Parisian thinking Québécois claim to detest.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm an admirer of Trudeau myself. It's hard for me to ignore what appears to be a recalcitrance that borders on outright pettiness characterizing the PQ. The sovereignty movement strikes me as an artifact of a pre-World War I mindset or an artifact of the kind of Parisian thinking Québécois claim to detest.

That's easy to say for the guy who'se people got a fully fledged sovereign Nation in which his culture can effectively direct itself. In our case, the conquest and the mathematics of canadian population pretty much means that we'll forever be the ones expressing our opinions without actually getting our wishes.

Americans bitch about gerrymandering when it happens ; we are forever on the losing side of it.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's easy to say for the guy who'se people got a fully fledged sovereign Nation in which his culture can effectively direct itself.

As you can see from your computer screen, I am from Richmond -- the capital of the Confederacy. Despite a lot of earnest thinking about subsidiarity and sovereignty over the course of my life, I've come to realize that in modern times this kind of talk is just political smoke blowing through very foul winds -- provincialism (no pun intended, my friend), faux triumphalism, and racism to name the most obvious. I admit to not having read a huge amount on Canadian political history but what I have read gives me no reason to believe the PQ is any different. Can there really be a defense for something like Marois's Quebec Identity Act? I know that when it comes to US citizenship and Spanish speakers, there can be no defense for that backwards sentiment. As for being in the minority, that seems like a nationalist point of view as well. Is Quebec really disadvantaged compared to Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland? Honestly, the issue seems more than a bit overblown.

Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)

Canada can't stop it, in theory at least. If a population legally votes to be a distinct nation then there is provition under international law which allows them to do so. I don't know the exact ins and outs of it but the same question has been raised about Scottish independance and that was the answer.

Palindrome wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)

Canada can't stop it, in theory at least. If a population legally votes to be a distinct nation then there is provition under international law which allows them to do so. I don't know the exact ins and outs of it but the same question has been raised about Scottish independance and that was the answer.

Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!

 Manchu wrote:
As you can see from your computer screen, I am from Richmond -- the capital of the Confederacy. Despite a lot of earnest thinking about subsidiarity and sovereignty over the course of my life, I've come to realize that in modern times this kind of talk is just political smoke blowing through very foul winds -- provincialism (no pun intended, my friend), faux triumphalism, and racism to name the most obvious. I admit to not having read a huge amount on Canadian political history but what I have read gives me no reason to believe the PQ is any different. Can there really be a defense for something like Marois's Quebec Identity Act? I know that when it comes to US citizenship and Spanish speakers, there can be no defense for that backwards sentiment. As for being in the minority, that seems like a nationalist point of view as well. Is Quebec really disadvantaged compared to Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland? Honestly, the issue seems more than a bit overblown.

Can you truly say that a people that is different on every level that defines a people from those that decides, and wishes to govern itself, is doing it through pettiness? That any issue regarding the wish for a people to preserve itself is reductible to racism and provincialism? That a people doesn't have the right to wish to direct itself because 'the era for such struggle has passed'?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!

Actually, the Supreme Court have already declared that such a vote would be legal and binding. Although the level of clarity they impose on the question asked at the referendum is incredibly complicated to acheive, as in pretty much impossible.

And even if the CA were to send all of it's troops to occupy Québec, they couldn't even hold Montreal. Coupled with the fact that about 35% of the Canadian Army is Québécois. Problem there. And the Army Headquarters are located in Montreal. Whole lot of problems.

So they got you by the short hair eh?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)

The Canadian Forces don't really have the force to occupy a territory the size or 3 Frances, not even a city like Montreal.

As for reimbursement for the debt, it's good to keep in mind that we provide a metric crapton of hydro-electricity to the RoC.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As you can see from your computer screen, I am from Richmond -- the capital of the Confederacy. Despite a lot of earnest thinking about subsidiarity and sovereignty over the course of my life, I've come to realize that in modern times this kind of talk is just political smoke blowing through very foul winds -- provincialism (no pun intended, my friend), faux triumphalism, and racism to name the most obvious. I admit to not having read a huge amount on Canadian political history but what I have read gives me no reason to believe the PQ is any different. Can there really be a defense for something like Marois's Quebec Identity Act? I know that when it comes to US citizenship and Spanish speakers, there can be no defense for that backwards sentiment. As for being in the minority, that seems like a nationalist point of view as well. Is Quebec really disadvantaged compared to Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland? Honestly, the issue seems more than a bit overblown.

Can you truly say that a people that is different on every level that defines a people from those that decides, and wishes to govern itself, is doing it through pettiness? That any issue regarding the wish for a people to preserve itself is reductible to racism and provincialism? That a people doesn't have the right to wish to direct itself because 'the era for such struggle has passed'?

Further, and this has to be noted. IIRC Quebec was not voluntarily part of Canada (or it effectively was Canada before the British came). Again IIRC but Quebec was conquered by the British. Thats an excellent motivator for not joining with the Brits.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!

Actually, the Supreme Court have already declared that such a vote would be legal and binding. Although the level of clarity they impose on the question asked at the referendum is incredibly complicated to acheive, as in pretty much impossible.

And even if the CA were to send all of it's troops to occupy Québec, they couldn't even hold Montreal. Coupled with the fact that about 35% of the Canadian Army is Québécois. Problem there. And the Army Headquarters are located in Montreal. Whole lot of problems.

Thats a moot point if the government changes its mind and sends tanks. the military is an excellent motivator for a court to rethink its position.
The canadians would win. its descendants of Brits vs. descendants of French. The French haven't won a war since Napoleon and the rest of Canada will be motivated to get you back in line quickly before the Great Satan in the South opens and eye and smells weakness. Alternatively could just say good riddance. I've gotten a lot of that sentiment from Canucks.