I'd have the same reaction, if it was the 1700's.
It's only made so much more hypocritical by the mere fact that Marois and her cadre are some of the most fascist and ignorant bigots I've encountered in modern times.
Quebec Election Outcome............
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
It's only made so much more hypocritical by the mere fact that Marois and her cadre are some of the most fascist and ignorant bigots I've encountered in modern times.
What are your expectations towards immigrants in terms of the Canadian way of life at large?
I agree the PQ is hypocritical but I'm not sure it's for the same reasons. The day (in the campaign) I was sure I wouldn't vote for them was when they proposed their secularity charter. They want to ban all religious symbols from the public service while being tolerant towards Christian symbols. They want a secular society but don't want to remove the crucifix from the national assembly. To me that's hypocritical. If you're gonna go secular, you've got to go all the way. Zero tolerance means zero tolerance for everyone including Christians.
Another issue that renders them hypocritical in my view is the fact that they've never truly attempted to reform the voting system while it's been in their platform since 1976. They have a clear advantage in maintaining the status quo. For a party who wants to make Quebec a country, they have a strange love relationship with a system inherited by British rule. They've only removed the idea in the last platform.
In terms of language politics, I mostly agree with the idea that as a collectivity we have the right to choose laws that do hinder individual liberties for the sake of a common goal as a nation i.e protecting French in our case. I don't hold the principal of individual freedom as being supreme and when you think about it, our society doesn't really do so either. When you get arrested for crossing a red light, your individual freedom to use your judgement when it comes to crossing intersections IS being hindered by the police. But that's fine with most of us because we've agreed to give ourselves common laws that apply to all for the benefit and the safety of all. Our freedom is hindered everyday by the laws that our government stands for and some of them you won't agree with, others I won't agree with. But that's how it is and there has to be some form of common truce of ''DOs and DON'Ts'' between the population. The majority of Québecois do accept the principle of protecting our language through legal measures so and that's why language laws are here to stay, at least for a while. The question of course is where to draw the line...
''Ignorant'' and ''fascist'' aren't words I'd personally use to describe the PQ in general.
Last edited:
You're right,but as we see,some of them go overboard with the language law "l'office de la langue français" says that french must be "bigger than the other language on signs" and we have the freaks from the society st jean baptiste,who bitch about it if someone speak english.
I find funny when some of them go out and say "quebec français all the way,yes sir" :lol:
I don't buy beck pedal politicking.
The PQ have a long history of ignoring the First Nations.
There is absolutely no indication that they will do anything other than force First Nations to cede to PQ authority.
They're hypocritical, fascist bigots.
I would, with good reason.
I'm sure they've got lots to feel ashamed about when it comes to First Nations but the question was on immigrants!
And Stephen Harper is a bigot because I say so? Or Quebecers are xenophobic because a newspaper in Alberta says so?
Not convincing.
I know what your question was about, and I know about Marois back pedal, after she raised the ire of the First Nations in Quebec.
Nope, because the evidence, which is not just supplied by the new PQ leader and her cohorts, says so.
Frankly, I don't really care. I'm not worried about you.
Are you referring to the last campaign in particular or to the past in general? I would appreciate examples.
What exactly do you mean by ''back pedal'' politics?
And again, what are your expectations towards immigrants? Do you expect them to learn the local language?
What is the evidence?
Over all. Past and present attitudes and commentary.
I've seen no evidence that she has abandoned the long held attitude of the PQ.
That's when a politician speaks honestly, gets called on it and then back pedals.
This question is based on Marois' back pedaling.
Her bigoted and fascist language policy, is simply the forwarding of a long held position of the PQ and a specific portion of the populace.
Her original comment, was far more honest than her back pedaling. No one in the Native community has bought it, rightly so.
I have absolutely no doubt, in the next four years there will be ample examples of the Quebec gov't riding rough shod over Native rights and territory.
You're kidding right?
For what it's worth, she addressed First Nations in her victory speech, expressing her wish to have closer and more harmonious relationships and dialogue with them ''nation to nation''. At the very end of this video, towards 12:30.
Pauline Marois 2 discours victoire et attentat 4 septembre 2012 Radio Canada Histoire du Québec - YouTube
That being said, words are empty if actions don't support them.
How did she backpedal on that comment?
So if I agree with the law that requires immigrants to send their children to francophone schools, does that make me a bigot and a fascist?
Do the separatists have a monopoly riding rough shod with Native rights? Have federalist governments in Quebec been better? What about the federal government?
No. We clearly don't have the same opinion of the PQ and if we're gonna debate this you have to at least back up your accusations of bigotry and fascism with substantial claims. I think it's become much too easy to associate fascism or nazism with the PQ in the last weeks or so and I require at least some form of argumentation from those who say the party that's ruling my province right now is lead by xenophobic bigoted anglophobes.
In my opinion yes. Nowhere else in Canada does this happen. In fact in BC parents are encouraged to send their kids to French immersion schools instead of English only. Many of the native schools teach their own language as well as English and in some communities the local language is taught in regular schools to all students. Not only that but a business owner can have his signs in any language he wants. In Vancouver's Chinatown even the street signs are in Chinese.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course it doesn't happen anywhere else in Canada, Quebec is the only province with a majority of French speakers.
Would you accept a school for children of Chinese immigrants where only Chinese is taught and NOT English?
No but I have no objection to them teaching both. English is an official language in ALL of Canada so it has to be legal to conduct business in. I can't imagine why immigrants would not want their kids taught English otherwise why would they come here? But they could also teach legally French instead of English .
So basically you expect everyone in Canada to at least learn one of the official languages. Doesn't that hinder the rights of parents who would want to send their children to a school where let's say only Hebrew was taught? Yes it does. But as a collectivity we feel strongly that in order for an individual to function properly in society, one needs to know the language of the majority. While some very religious parents could want to send their child where none of the official languages is taught because they fear it would imperil the faith of their child, the surrounding collectivity would not accept this as we have certain standards when it comes to what a person needs to function properly in our society.
That being said, the problem with language laws in Quebec relies in the dual status of Quebec as a state within a state. Quebec's official language is French only while Canada's official languages are both English and French. I'll come back to that.
Now let's say Quebec was a country. Forget about how you don't want it to be a country. Let's just imagine history happened otherwise and Quebec was a country since at least more than a century. What would be your perception of our language laws would they be exactly as they are right now. Would they suddenly make more sense because we'd be a country and that English is no longer an official language in any way? Would you still think we are bigots and xenophobes for requiring immigrants to send their children to francophone schools? If you say yes, than you must apply your logic to all countries who expect the children of immigrants to be taught the local language of the majority. That would make a heck of a lot of people bigots and I don't think that would make any sense.
Are the French bigots for requiring French to be the language of education in France? I certainly don't think so.
As I already said, I don't think it makes sense to put a label of bigotry on the act of requiring the learning of the language of the majority when it comes to immigrants and where they'll be sending their kids to school. The problem in Quebec lies in its double status. From the Canadian point of view, English is as good as French and a child should be educated (at school) in either one of the languages. And of course, many immigrants do arrive in Quebec thinking that being in Canada, they can send their child to English school. It also makes sense to a certain extent to desire English over French because of our North American reality and because of the international status of the English language. But that's certainly not Quebec's point of view. As a provincial state, Quebec is legally NOT bilingual in the same way that the US, the UK, France are not bilingual. We expect children to go to French school in order for them to be able to function properly in Quebec's society and to fight the current of demographic marginalization to which we as francophones are necessarily subjected to in an overwhelmingly anglophone North American landscape.
In other words, Quebec chooses to act as if it was a country, considering we are a nation (even the federal government recognizes that fact). And that is what enrages most Canadians it seems to me. They disguise their rage as a plea for the defense of individual rights but in truth, what ignites their emotions is the fact that Quebec isn't afraid to overrule the fact that it's a part of Canada to defend its own interests as a nation. You can treat us as bigots all you want, to us it just makes sense that immigrants ought to send their children of French school for the better interest of Quebec as a collectivity.
Let's not forget that English IS taught as a second language and that English is ridiculously easy to learn considering the amount of anglophone cultural material to which we are all daily subjected to. So in the end, most children of immigrants end up knowing both French and English plus their parent's language, which hardly constitutes a disadvantage. Let's not forget also that the anglophone community in Quebec has its own school system and are exempt from the law requiring children to be sent to french school.
That's it that's all?
Labeling one as a bigot does save you the effort of actually coming up with arguments. Let's just say I'm unimpressed for the time being.
Last edited:
Last time I checked Quebec was still part of Canada and English is one of our Official languages. Therefor everyone must have the right to use it at school or their place of business. Your arguments are much the reason the rest of Canada can't wait for Quebec to leave.
The fact that you answered your own question aside. I already made my prediction that we'll see the PQ force their policies on the First Nations.
She said she wasn't talking about First Nations when she said it.
If I didn't know you better, I'd say yes.
I do know you better, so my opinion is, your belief on this issue, is misguided.
The Quebec gov't has made it an art form.
I never equated the PQ to Nazi's.
And since you weren't kidding, lookup Le Hir's comments regarding First Nations.
That sign Bullsh*t is absolutely ridiculous, if my name is "White" I would expect to be able to hang a sign that says "White", not "Blanc"!
Fair enough, but please do elaborate. Where are the flaws in my reasoning (in my long post addressed to Taxslave)?
Would you support a British law saying all British children without exception from 5 to 16 must be educated in an English school?
The laws don't apply to names like John or Mike. Silly that this needs to be pointed out.