Should seperatists be allowed second chances??


Jersay
#1
I was just wondering, as a former seperatist in Canada, but this could apply anywhere in the world where a seperatist movement is going on.

Does a seperatist deserve a second chance if he or she decides that seperatism isn't a good thing?? Especially if they were a young teenager when they were a seperatist (around 11-16).
 
FiveParadox
#2
Yes, Jersay; so long as one decides, in their heart, that they no longer endeavour for the separation of whatever that body may have been, then I think that anyone deserves a second chance. In the case of someone particularly young, they are prone to the sentiments of their parents and the influential media, so they cannot be blamed for their positions in relation to political issues, in my opinion.
 
I think not
#3
Everybody can change their opinions Jersay. Example, I'm sure within 3 or 4 years, you will drop this silly communist ideal.
 
Jersay
#4
My parents were ardent Federalists. I just got this feeling inside me for my personally to have Quebec seperate Canada.

Oopps .. I wasn't suppose to say I was a seperatist.

Typo about seperatists, and federalists.
 
Jersay
#5
Drop communism??

Maybe, maybe not, I think I will still support the NDP though. It is the party that holds close to my values.
 
FiveParadox
#6
You had exposed your sovereigntist past in another thread, Jersay.

Seriously though, I don't think it's a big deal ó it's the present that matters, right? For example, there are accusations that Her Excellency the Right Honourable MichaŽlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General, was at one time sovereigntist, or at the very least sympathetic to the sovereigntist cause. If Her Excellency isn't a showcase story of mainstream Canadians giving someone a second chance, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
Jersay
#7
Oh yeah, almost forgot.

Your right about Jean, but what about the big protests when she was selected. And if Harper was incharge at the time he would probably not have selected her. He would have probably selected Peyton Manning or someone.
 
FiveParadox
#8
I think that the appointment of Her Excellency was one of the best things that the previous Government of Canada had done. I know, for one, that I think that she has done far more for the unity of the country than the Prime Minister, at the time, had done.
 
Jersay
#9
Agreed.

But besides me, what about in other countries, should the same thing apply, or is it even allowed to apply.

If you live in a town in with a seperatist, in some of these deep rooted countries, could a seperatist be given a second chance?
 
Jersay
#10
Anyone else??
 
Semperfi_dani
#11
Of course anyone is entitled to change their political beliefs. I have done so myself. Noone should have to be "forgiven" for having beliefs, no matter how contriversial. You & anyone else has the right to view things differently.

Keep in mind the context of when you had those thoughts. There were alot of legitimate arguments for seperation. I mean, anyone can argue that the Constitution was created without cooperation, that the Meech Lake accord failed because the idea of "distinct society" and "special status" has a different context to English Canada than it does to French Canada".

Even in deep rooted areas, such as Ireland for example, as long as there is a spirit of cooperation, than seperatists can be forgiven. But convincing people who were maybe directly affected (ie people whose families were murdered) might be more difficult.

I think it depends if people are willing to look past it. Perhaps the biggest question that should be asked is why were things allowed to get so bad that people wanted to sepearte, and were prepared to go to any measure to do so? How can a country and its perfectly rational citizens allow misunderstandings grow so much as to create a legitimate movement?
 
Machjo
#12
Lack of a common language is bound to lead to misunderstandings.
 
Jersay
#13
Good points, and a very good point about Ireland.
 
Jersay
#14
Quote:

I think it depends if people are willing to look past it. Perhaps the biggest question that should be asked is why were things allowed to get so bad that people wanted to sepearte, and were prepared to go to any measure to do so? How can a country and its perfectly rational citizens allow misunderstandings grow so much as to create a legitimate movement?

It doesn't have to be language at all I find it has to do with political, maybe not at Canada-Quebec's case but in other cases. The minority that wants to seperate doesn't have enough political power.
 
Jersay
#15
Do people agree that its usually political for seperatism in most countries??
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Do people agree that its usually political for seperatism in most countries??

I would say ethno-political in some cases.

All ethno-linguistic groups want to feel equal (not just legally but in actual fact) to the larger groups. From that standpoint, the larger group has to find a solution to making the smaller group equal indeed, and again, not just legally equal on paper. I can see three major ways in which this can be done:

1. All to English. Bear in mind, however, that since English is a difficult language to learn, most of the non-native speakers shall have failed to learn it adequately even after nine years of study. This causes resentment, naturally as a new class of haves and have nots is born. One solution to this is economic (i.e., the native speakers of English the world over are expected to finance the financial burden for the rest of the world to learn THEIR language. In reality, however, the native speakers of English (and rightfully so) can legitimately argue that they're not the ones forcing the rest of the country/world/whatever to learn English. In the Canadian context, for instance, the English speakers can simply point the finger to the Quebec government and say that they are the ones forcing French Canadians to learn English. Despite this, however, the Quebecois might still feel envious of the English speakers' distinct advantage on the world stage.

2. Multilingualism: This ould mean that all of Canada's indigenous languages are official. Expensive indeed, but certainly equal. So we end up with equality and a bust budget.

3. Esperantism: Not necessarily Esperanto, but any easy to learn second language. Inexpensive (sine it means only one language for the nation so no translation expenses for government, plus easy to learn so little investment of time and money in education too). And equal. All Canadians would be expected to master it as their second language. This woud mean that the government would hire whoever made the effort to learn their second language regardless of ethno-linguistic background. The military would likweise be unified uner one language. As would all Canadians at the grassroots form workers to tourists.

Without this sense of equality, some do come to believe that somehow separation could achieve this equality without having a clear notion of how this will occur. After all, even if Quebec does separate from Canada, it would still face the Englsih language all around it. Even Italy had to pass laws i 1993 to protect itself from the English language. It's already a sovereing nation. So sovereignty does not guarantee protection against foreign language hegemony in the new world order. Only sound education policy can do that.

Instead of separating from Canada, Quebec would be better off adopting the Italian education model. This involves giving students in school the option of whether or not to study English and at the same time actively promoting other foreing language options in its schools. The MEQ could really learn from its Italian counterpart here and thus eliminate the need to separate to protect its language and culture.
 
Jersay
#17
However, with that last choice that you asked with Quebec they want to keep the French language available and if you do what you have suggested, they will complain that English are trying to assimilate them.
 
Machjo
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

However, with that last choice that you asked with Quebec they want to keep the French language available and if you do what you have suggested, they will complain that English are trying to assimilate them.

Not really. French Canadian could still keep French at the provincial level, but the auxiliary language at the federal. Considering that worldwide French would be spoken more than Canada's auxiliary language, that language would actually present itself as less of a threat to the French language than would English. Add to that that part of the resentment can also come from people who should have been studying English for the last nine years and still can't use it. An easy-to-learn auxiliary language would be a welcome help for them, thus not making them feel shut out from the rest of Canada.

Add to that taht in the event that French Canada feels less threatened by English, then they might ease up a little on the indigenous people and allow them to develop their own languages (after all, the auxiliary language could then be used as a common second language for nationwide communication, thus allowing for more native language diversity without having Canada fall apart like a tower of babel.

Thus both languages could each serve their respective functions (the native language for identity, the auxiliary language for communication).
 
Jersay
#19
Maybe, I don't know about Quebec directly, but in other parts of Canada indigenous people are allowed to practice their languages?
 
Machjo
#20
Besides, let's face it. If you had to spend nine years of your life to learn English and still failed to learn it, and at the same time were aware of the great advantage English-speakers have in the world, you'd probably feel a little peeved too. And that emotion can translate itself irrationally into nationalism and sovereignism. Thus if we should eliminate the perceived need for soverignty in order to achieve linguistic equality, then that would go far in breaking down the walls which devide us.
 
Jersay
#21
AGreed.
 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Maybe, I don't know about Quebec directly, but in other parts of Canada indigenous people are allowed to practice their languages?

In some respects, Quebec does more to help native languages than does the rest of Canada. The problem, however, is that the provincial government is irrational. On the one hand, it requires the natives to learn French (for that distinct society stuff) and English (perceived as Quebec's language for international communication) and then throws money at the natives to elarn their native languages. Bad news though. When are they supposed to find the time to learn their native language, French and English all at once? Needless to say it's a tough balancing act. The reality is taht some natives only succeed in learning French; others English, very few both, and some their native languages. It really is a human juggling act.

In English Canada, French is out of the picture, so the natives only need to focus on their native languages and English (and even that can be tough for some).

Now if Canada had an easy-to-learn official auxiliary language, then all Canadians could learn that as their second language in school, and then spend the rest of their time developpng their native languages. So natives in Quebec, for instance, could simply learn their native language and Esperanto and (this would probably still be necessary at least during the transition period) either French or English as opposed to French AND English. French Canadians (even the linguistically challenged) could easily find work in toronto or even Vancouver using the auxiliary language. In like manner, an English Canadian could easily find work in Quebec city by likewise using the auxiliary language.

If we should take Esperanto, for instance, a child who should start learning it at the age of eight for only two hours a week ought to be fluent in the language by the age of ten or eleven for most. So even the slowest student ought to be able to master the language by the age of fifteen at the latest. Anything more than that, and he must have serious learning issues. Alot more democratic and just, don't you think? Besides, democracy is not for teh linguistic elites, but for everyone, by definition.
 
Jersay
#23
Agreed.
 
Machjo
#24
Yet another advantage with an auxiliary language. Some refugees cannot be sent back for very legitimate reasons (minority realigions, etc, lives at risk, etc.) Now if Canada should have an official Auxlang (short hand for auxiliary language), then instead of this refugee being on social assistance for nine years trying to learn English, he could be on social assistance for one year learning the auxlang (auxlangs are literally designed to be easy to learn). This would mean Big Time tax savings right there. Tourists likewise could then have the option of studying our auxlang for a year before comming to Canada and thus enjoy conversations with real Canadians while on the trip rather than just rushing through with their cameras and tourguide serving as interpreter every step of the way. Thus making tourism a more culturally enriching experience. The Canadian military could be fully linguistically united, with little money and time spent to achieve this. During peace keeping missions, locals in areas who'd like to communicate with soldiers quickly and who have the resources to do so would generally find the auxlang much easier to elarn than either English or French. The UN would save a bundle on on translation costs with an Auxlang likewise.
 
Machjo
#25
Not to mention air traffic control. While that is a political issue likewise, more importantly it's also a public safety issue. Research has found that for the last thirty years the single greates cause of civilian air crashes has in fact been miscommunication between pilot and controller. Again, and easy-to-learn second language could solve the political language problem (i.e. native speakers of English getting all the pilot and controller jobs at everyone else's tax and other expenses), the safety issue (a mastered second language rather than franglais, Chinglish, Spanglish, Ingrish, Deutschglish, etc.) and obviously save lives and money.
 
Machjo
#26
For crying out loud, I learnt Esperanto in less than a hundred hours of self study with a grammar (20$) and a dictionary (20$). 100 hours+40$CAN per person to unite French and English Canada. Come on, this is a fiscal conservative's orgasm compared to the current language education policy.

Not to mention money saved from government translation costs between French and English, and then money saved in the private sector from big companies too. What more can a fiscal conservative or any federalist ask for?
 
Jersay
#27
But that makes the conservatives and federalist happy. What about hard-core seperatists?

And what about other countries that don't have the same kind of budget as Canada or America or another rich nation.
 
Machjo
#28
quote="Jersay"But that makes the conservatives and federalist happy. What about hard-core seperatists?

I think sovereignists would be happy likewise since this would mean that, even if Quebec should separate from Canada politically, it would thus have a more efficient alternative to English in its communication with Canada. This would also increase their respect for Canada since such a policy reduces the threat of English language hegemony in Quebec itself, thus reducing the chances of bill 101 growing significantly more teeth anytime soon. This protects English-speakers in Quebec to some extent. Add to that that I'm sure there are a few fiscal conservatives in the sovereignist camp likewise who'd recognise the economic savings this could bring to government and business in Quebec-Canada relations (after all even a sovereign Quebec would still need to be able to communicate with its neighbours, no?).

Now while such a policy would not guarantee the end of the sovereignist movement, I'd suspect that it would have a moderating effect on it none-the-less. Granted, it would have a moderating effect on the federalist camp likewise. Since all sides could suddenly communicate with one another, both sides would naturally influence the thoughts of the other too.

Just look at Canadian Content. How many unilingual french-speaking Quebecois are here discussing with us right now? 0! That's how many! 0! And how many unilingual English-speakers here frequent french language forums from Quebec? 0 likewise. A BIG Z-E-R-O! An auxlang would bring about pan-canadian internet forums within a generation. Naturally the topics discussed would become a synthesis of what is currently being discussed on Englsih and French forums in isolation one from the other as if from two opposite sides of our world, or dare I say two worlds.


And what about other countries that don't have the same kind of budget as Canada or America or another rich nation.

It would be a relief. Are you aware of how much time and money the Chinese must spend to learn English? Some have learnt it for 10 years and still can't speak it. I've met Chinese friends who'd studied Esperanto for 2 years and speak it as if it were their native language.

Believe me, an auxlang would bring fiscal conservatives the world over to the biggest orgasmic experience ever.
 
Machjo
#29
Oh, while fiscal conservatives would love this, as would federalists looking for a unifying identity for Canada and sovereignists looking for an alternative to English in international relations, the moderate left would likewise benefit from this in that it provides more equality among all groups (after all, if any idiot can learn this language, highly paid translators hired by transcanadian companies are suddenly out of a job while any high school grad is suddenly free to travel anywhere in Canada to find a job; the great language equalizer if you will).

So, fiscal conservatives would win as would federalists, soveregnists, the moderate left, maybe even the far left, and religionists who want an opportunity to preach Canada-wide without being stopped by the language barrier. Who would really lose other than language experts (teachers, translators, interpreters, etc.)?
 
FiveParadox
#30
Anyone wanting to speak the language of their choice? :P
 

Similar Threads

22
Where should pets be allowed?
by CBC News | Sep 9th, 2008
13
No Homeless Allowed
by kashmyre | Dec 29th, 2006
48
Support for Seperatists down
by Jersay | Jun 30th, 2006
no new posts