Quebec Election Outcome............
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
I remember reading a story a while back (quite a while back, and I don't remember all of
the details, & it might have even been here on the Forum but I'm not sure. Anyway...) and
it was about some guy who opened a bar (an Old English Pub) in Quebec someplace, and
had purchased (& had shipped over) a large selection of authentic and antique signage from
Pubs in England to decorate his bar with.
Someone eventually bitched that the signage wasn't in French, or not also in French with the
French being larger that the other language, etc...
Can't remember if there where fines involved also, but the guy had the choice of removing
them all or redoing all the signs somehow (authentic & antique = impossible) in both
languages with French being larger than the English, etc...
One of those "Give your head a shake!" stories.
That indeed, was a little hyperbole, but good to point it out now or it will be next! :smile:
Only could be thought up by someone with the I.Q. of a fence post! :smile:
That's true... I just programmed an application to automatically translate your names. Wouldn't want the language police busting in my home because of too much English on my screen.
You now appear to me as ''Chien d'Érable''!
Taxslave is now ''Esclave des Taxes''
CDNBear is ''L'Ours Canadien''
Ron in Regina is ''Ron à Regina''
I don't know what JLM means but I didn't take any chances and it's now ''MLJ''
I admit that there has been some ridiculous abuse. While I support language laws in principle, common sense needs to be preserved.
The irony is that here I am defending the PQ and language laws while I didn't vote for them last Tuesday. I actually question the necessity of toughening the language laws and as I already explained, I don't agree with their approach to secularity. It's the demonization of the PQ that I'm arguing against.
Quebec is not a country. English and French are the official languages of the nation. Chosing what language you wish to speak, should be a personal choice, not forced, with threats of being barred from office or public service.
In England? Of course I would.
But this is Canada.
+500
Goober is a term usually used to describe someone that is not too bright. I think our Goober uses it as camouflage cause he really does not fit the definition.
So we're back to what I pinpointed as being the main problem with this language issue, that is, Quebec's dual status as a state within a state. Or if you prefer, Quebec's status as a nation. A nation that's part of a nation is bound to create hierarchical tensions and this is exactly what we're dealing with. This conflict is not about individual rights. It's a tug-a-war of national egos.
Because you'd support a British law stating all children from 5 to 16 must go to an English school, you necessarily agree with the principal that it's OK for the state (as representative of the collectivity) to impose certain choices on its citizens and hinder their individual liberties (at least on that issue). That being said, England is pretty much only English, so the issue becomes very simple and isn't a source of conflict. Mind you, perhaps things aren't that simple... Welsh comes to mind.
Here in Canada there are two official languages so you apply the same logic and say that all children must be educated (at school) in either one of the languages and you focus on one's freedom to choose between English or French. Yet this ''freedom'' is actually very limited. In the end you've only got two choices and that's only one more choice than a single one, which is no choice at all. Basically, we're still hindering the rights of everyone to truly choose the language of scholar education for their children. We all wouldn't tolerate that a community of muslims send their kids to a school where only Arab is taught. My point here is that when Quebec is being accused of hindering individual rights on this issue, the accusation is borderline hypocritical because basically, we're all doing the same thing! We're all applying the common sense logic of ''When In Rome, live like the Romans''. The source of conflict lies in the fact that Quebec is ready to overrule Canadian policy when it comes to language. I stand by my opinion that in the end, that is what truly enrages the rest of Canada. It is too much of a reminder of how the concept of Canadian nationalism hasn't worked completely.
As I already said, if Quebec already was a country, there wouldn't be an issue. Suddenly, we'd be like England. But we're part of Canada and that's what makes it all so complicated. Quebec is officially French while Canada is officially bilingual. So who's authority overrules the other? Most of you will say Canada's of course. Canada is a country while Quebec is just a province. But most people in Quebec will say Quebec comes first because their national identity is tied to Quebec first, and then possibly, Canada. Again, national egos collide.
ROCers can keep on yapping about how their ancestors beat ours 250 years ago, we'll just keep on yapping about how we don't give a ****. As a linguistic minority within Canada, we won't passively wait for our numbers to decline (proportionally speaking) as we gradually lose our influence, which is already happening anyway. It's cute and touching to say Canada is bilingual, but the hard fact remains that francophones represent only about 20-25% of the whole Canadian demography. In a context of clear anglophone numerical superiority (considering our not so subtle neighbour to the south), the risk is simply too real to gradually be swallowed up by the larger context. Language is the backbone of culture and Quebecers know that well. I'm sure First Nations are very aware of this too. So we've taken measures in our own hands to protect it and have given ourselves French as the sole official language of Quebec. We've acted upon this idea and our language laws are the result, for better or for worse.
You've often warned me about the fact that many First Nations in Quebec would be ready to take up arms if they felt their sovereignty would be threatened by Quebec becoming a country. It seems rather clear to me that you think it would be their full right to do so and to a certain extent I actually agree with you. But if you accuse my people of non violently defending our own sovereignty as a nation in the face of what I consider as Canadian interference in our own affairs, than you can expect me to brush off that accusation as I'd brush off a fly. All we're doing is using our own democracy to make the choices that seem best for ourselves. We're not perfect and sometimes are overzealous. But we're also not foolish enough to shut up and smile as the rest of Canada attempts to dictate the choices we need to take for ourselves.
Your comparison of Quebec and First Nations is wrong. While First Nations have always enjoyed being separate nations within a Nation, Quebec has never had that "honour". Quebec IS just a province. the same as any other. While the feds have made the statement that Quebec is a "distinct society" they have not stated that Quebec is a "nation within a nation" as you so incorrectly state.
Hmmm... Seems to be one of those words that are simply hard to translate without losing some of its particular essence. For example, the word ''flabbergasted'' is pretty hard to translate. We often use it in a ''frenchified'' way as in, ''Je suis complètement flabbergasté!''
A peanut in French is ''arachide'' but to tell the truth, we use the English word as much as the French.
I appreciate the fact that you're being civil. Please... Let's try to keep that way.
First of all, I agree that Quebec's situation is not at all similar to the First Nations. That being said, while you can't compare apples to oranges, both are fruits.
As far as I know the fed did say Quebec constituted a nation ''within a united Canada''. Canada is a nation. Quebec is a nation. Quebec is a part of Canada. Nation within a nation.
You may disagree with my interpretation, but the fact that we're arguing about it is proof enough of how unclear it all is and how it's a fertile ground for nationalistic clashes.
Folks in Quebec have it pretty good. They remind me of the proverbial dog that chases a car without any intention of ever catching it.
Putting words into the feds mouths is not a difference of interpretation, it's an out right change in what was said. It's only the separatists that keep harping on this "nation" crap. Quebec was NEVER an Independent nation. It was a French colony and then a British Colony that the Brits graciously allowed to continue with their existing form of laws. The Feds have bent over backwards to placate Quebec and to make them feel that they are "part of the family" and have an equal say in what happens with the country. They have done this from basically day 1. The Quebecois, on the other hand, have acted like spoiled, unappreciative children. It's past time to start putting that child in his place.
You want civil, then don't slap me in the face with the first reply.
There was nothing ''gracious'' about about the way the Brits acted following the conquest. It was a calculated and strategical move to let the French Canadians keep their civil laws and religion because if they had done otherwise, they would have have to deal with violent opposition from the people at large. They also wanted to make sure French Canadians wouldn't side with the Americans in their efforts towards independence. They chose peace for their own interest and that meant compromise. It wasn't out of some form of benevolence of any kind.
I express my appreciation for the civilness of your post and you call that a slap in the face. What can I even respond to that?!