A Federalist Country Demands Parties In Several Provinces, Dump The BQ

[dumpthemonarchy]

If advocating for scession is treason, then shouldn't the UK have tried all of the Fathers of Confederation for treason?

I'm not a monarchist myself, but if you're going to accuse secessionists of treason, then it's not much of a stretch that you, dumpthemoranchy, are guilty of the same by trying to overthrow the soverign Head of State of Canada.

Sure, they could have tried them for treason, but Cdns could have fought and we would have had a civil war. The losers get their head chopped off.

What is this idea that things can never change? It was expected that colonies could make their own laws and become different people with different interests and goals.

Quebeckers can try to destroy Canada but they will have to pay a price in their attempt. The people in Canada are the de facto sovereign, not some abstract, legalistic "queen in right" or "crown" that few can articulate. The elected head of govt in the PM has all the power, the legal head of state in Buckingham Palace or Rideau Hall does not.

Yes, I'm in favour of overthrowing a concept few understand or care about. Simplifying our govt will make it better in my opinion.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Actually IMO this would have helped the BQ cause and probably made them more fiscally stable compared to most other political parties. They rely on a very small base of "loyal" supporters that would have grown and anger would have stirred even higher at the fact their party was trying to be disassembled to the point of having the tradional weak voters turning thier votes away from national parties and supporting the "Quebec cause" just because..

When you play with fire, be careful you don't burn yourself ..

Yes, cutting funding to all parties and hoping to squash the BQ was a clumsy bureaucratic solution to a political problem, a symptom of weak leadership and fear on the federalist side. Not in one person, but in the system itself.

Bureaucratic tinkering around the edges of a problem is a delaying tactic, not a strategic plan. We have no strategic plan against the separatist's constant demands and anger.

 

[ironsides]

Democracy means consent of the governed, the governed can decide on what they want and they try to be reasonable and as fair to as many as possible. A policy of separating from Canada does not have majority support in Quebec nor in Canada and the majority may forbid it and call it treason and destroy if they desire. Democracies have enemies.

It always made me laugh when my sister had a daycare and parents would pick up their kids, the parents would sometimes have talk to their kids for an hour to convince them to leave her house. The kids had great fun there. So my sister would tell me to leave when these parents came to pick up their kids because I would always be laughing at them over these endless discussions. When my father told us kids to leave, we had about ten seconds to move. So I see these parents as Canada and Quebec as the baby. The modern yuppie world is all about marketing and pleasing the customer, so we apply it to politics.

The bigger problem is I can understand sometimes why Quebec would want to separate. You have to ask, why do they want to leave such a rich and prosperous country? Because bland boring guys like Harper offer no genuine reason for Quebeckers to stay. Harper is no fun, and that, right wrong is how they see much of Canada. Canada to them is just a dull chequebook corporate state to milk. The political solution to separatism is crushing it or making it unpopular. Yet we do neither.

"I can understand sometimes why Quebec would want to separate. You have to ask, why do they want to leave such a rich and prosperous country?"

Could it be that the flame of independence still glimmers in their being. They still have to bare the memory that they are still a conquered people.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

"I can understand sometimes why Quebec would want to separate. You have to ask, why do they want to leave such a rich and prosperous country?"

Could it be that the flame of independence still glimmers in their being. They still have to bare the memory that they are still a conquered people.

I went to Quebec city and there is mute reference to 1759 and the defeat of French forces by English forces on the Plains of Abraham. But 1759 is not Canada as we know it, our Canada began in 1867 on July 1, and what occurred before is the foggy mist of history.

I doubt most Canadians today think "we" defeated French Canada at that battle. "English Canada" was more certain decades ago, but I think us "New Canadians" of today have another perspective. That is us "New Canadians" who are of European background and want to forget that European stuff and wars and battles. We want to move on to better times. They have to get the message that the independence dream is dead and that the Canadian state did not conquer them but they must live within it.

However, today we have a political problem that is more rooted in the present than the past because we do little to suppress/choke/suffocate/jail/persecute/prosecute/gag/knee/elbow/gouge/kick/stifle/strangle/gas/nuke Quebec separatism. It appears the yuppies will not apply these methods and don't seem to have any new persuasive ideas of their own.

Okay, so I have some preliminary ideas,

1) Since we are a new country we should have a new language, but how? See 2.

2) Bilingual English/French education across Canada from grade 1.

 

[Machjo]

I went to Quebec city and there is mute reference to 1759 and the defeat of French forces by English forces on the Plains of Abraham. But 1759 is not Canada as we know it, our Canada began in 1867 on July 1, and what occurred before is the foggy mist of history. /quote]

The Plains of Abraham are just as big a deal, if not a gibber deal, for many French Canadians, including some outside of Quebec, than the founding of Canada!

I doubt most Canadians today think "we" defeated French Canada at that battle. "English Canada" was more certain decades ago, but I think us "New Canadians" of today have another perspective.

If you're referring to English-Canadians, you're probably right.

That is us "New Canadians" who are of European background and want to forget that European stuff and wars and battles. We want to move on to better times.

The whole European stuff is far from forgotten in Canada. I've met English-Canadians who still want to bring back 'Mapleleaf Forever' as the Canadian national Anthem, who still insist on singing God Save the Queen, and who'd bring back the Canadian Red Ensign in hardly a bat of an eye. And except for the most fair-minded of Canadians who want to see more recognition for Canada's Aboriginal languages, support for the current Eurocentric Official Languages policy is sky high!

They have to get the message that the independence dream is dead and that the Canadian state did not conquer them but they must live within it.

French-Canadians do not respond well to such paternalism.

However, today we have a political problem that is more rooted in the present than the past because we do little to suppress/choke/suffocate/jail/persecute/prosecute/gag/knee/elbow/gouge/kick/stifle/strangle/gas/nuke Quebec separatism. It appears the yuppies will not apply these methods and don't seem to have any new persuasive ideas of their own.

That depends on whom you ask. Most Quebecois would say it's a present problem rooted in the past. I, and a few others French-Canadians, both in and out of Quebec, would say it's a present and past problem rooted partly in the past, and partly in the current world order, causing many French-speaking Quebecers reacting uncritically in response to the threat of English by calling for a Fortress Quebec.

Okay, so I have some preliminary ideas,

1) Since we are a new country we should have a new language, but how?

This is not a new idea, but I do fully agree with the idea of a common second language for all Canadians, if that is indeed what you were getting at.

See 2.

2) Bilingual English/French education across Canada from grade 1.

Totally unrealistic. If you're referring to immersion programmes, they are extremely expensive, and you want to implement those nationwide? Good luck not busting the budget!

If you mwan just teaching French or English as second languges, two problems with that:

1. English is Germanic; French, Romance. They are therefore very different from one another and so difficult to learn for members of the other language community. StatsCan 2006 stands as testimony to that. Most Quebecers still don't know English today, in spite of compulsory English courses across Queebc. Most English-Canadians have failed to learn French too, even in Ottawa!

2. You're vision is still very Eurocentric. Today most public servants must know French and English. But if you think it's hard enough for an English-speaker to learn French or a French-speaker to learn English, try to imagine an Inuktitut-speaker trying to learn French and English. Looking at it that way, Official Bilingualism does in fact discriminate systematically against native speakers of Canada's Aboriginal languages. And then we wonder why their cultures are so marginalized.

Going back to the idea of a common second language, if that is indeed what you intened: That is a fine idea, as long as the language is systematically designed to be easy to learn. One example worth considering could be this or similar:

lernu!: Main Page

 

[Machjo]

"I can understand sometimes why Quebec would want to separate. You have to ask, why do they want to leave such a rich and prosperous country?"

Could it be that the flame of independence still glimmers in their being. They still have to bare the memory that they are still a conquered people.

The First Nations even more so.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I went to Quebec city and there is mute reference to 1759 and the defeat of French forces by English forces on the Plains of Abraham. But 1759 is not Canada as we know it, our Canada began in 1867 on July 1, and what occurred before is the foggy mist of history. /quote]

The Plains of Abraham are just as big a deal, if not a gibber deal, for many French Canadians, including some outside of Quebec, than the founding of Canada!

If you're referring to English-Canadians, you're probably right.

The whole European stuff is far from forgotten in Canada. I've met English-Canadians who still want to bring back 'Mapleleaf Forever' as the Canadian national Anthem, who still insist on singing God Save the Queen, and who'd bring back the Canadian Red Ensign in hardly a bat of an eye. And except for the most fair-minded of Canadians who want to see more recognition for Canada's Aboriginal languages, support for the current Eurocentric Official Languages policy is sky high!

French-Canadians do not respond well to such paternalism.

That depends on whom you ask. Most Quebecois would say it's a present problem rooted in the past. I, and a few others French-Canadians, both in and out of Quebec, would say it's a present and past problem rooted partly in the past, and partly in the current world order, causing many French-speaking Quebecers reacting uncritically in response to the threat of English by calling for a Fortress Quebec.

This is not a new idea, but I do fully agree with the idea of a common second language for all Canadians, if that is indeed what you were getting at.

Totally unrealistic. If you're referring to immersion programmes, they are extremely expensive, and you want to implement those nationwide? Good luck not busting the budget!

If you mwan just teaching French or English as second languges, two problems with that:

1. English is Germanic; French, Romance. They are therefore very different from one another and so difficult to learn for members of the other language community. StatsCan 2006 stands as testimony to that. Most Quebecers still don't know English today, in spite of compulsory English courses across Queebc. Most English-Canadians have failed to learn French too, even in Ottawa!

2. You're vision is still very Eurocentric. Today most public servants must know French and English. But if you think it's hard enough for an English-speaker to learn French or a French-speaker to learn English, try to imagine an Inuktitut-speaker trying to learn French and English. Looking at it that way, Official Bilingualism does in fact discriminate systematically against native speakers of Canada's Aboriginal languages. And then we wonder why their cultures are so marginalized.

Going back to the idea of a common second language, if that is indeed what you intened: That is a fine idea, as long as the language is systematically designed to be easy to learn. One example worth considering could be this or similar:

lernu!: Main Page

Canada has changed greatly since 1867 with more provinces, all English speaking. So I can see how Quebec feels left out as it has been static in a way. In BC there have been no battles at all, and Quebec is quite far away, in both time and space. Battling Quebec separatism has never been high on the agenda. It's Ontario's job anyway, and they won't do anything. Armchair central Cdn federalists versus armchair central Cdn separatists.

I would guess those who want to bring back the Maple Leaf Forever are pretty old, greatly outnumbered by younger people.

English and French I agree are totally different languages and blending them could be an impossible task. Bilingualism has by and large failed. It's a top down solution that many would resist, especially the Maple Leaf Forever crowd. Immersion is too much, yet teaching French to elementary school kids for a few hours per week like I got is a good idea.

 

[GreenFish66]

I think there's too many parties ..N.D.P has lost it's bite. They need to drop unions.Get back to representing the working public/the people! .N.D.P should merge with the greens.Both would get a great boost!...Become the N.D.G party..

Not sure what liberals are doing nowadays.Are they still relevant? ...NDP with out real change will loose #'s ..(with exceptions, due to displeasure with conservatives )

TheStar.com | Canada | Nova Scotia elects first NDP government east of Ontario

..I like the bloqs/Quebecs policies/platform.(more or less) .Wish they would become a Canadian party /A party with Canada..(The Canadien party?)

Some kinda reform is definetly needed ..Politics has gone stale in Canada ..The public seems to have little or no interest in Canadian politics/ leaders ..

Canadian politicians /parties seem to have little interest in Canadians interests..

There is a huge disconnect...

The public yell but are not heard...Politicians keep it in their circles but their games just make you dizzy till we all fall down...

Nothin ever seems to get done..Maybe that's the idea ...politicians nowadys seem to be short sited ..Only have their own interests in mind..Have no real vison of Canada or where We as Canadians should be going...Real Leadership and vision is needed..

2/3 parties would do ..N.D.G / Conservative/The Canadien Party .Green /Clean tech is the future..(had to get that in there)..Having said that ..Liberals have had most of the best leaders..( go figure)..

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/former-cdn-pm-jean-chretien-receives-order-merit-queen

Think Liberals lost their pull as we have seemed to drift away from our British roots..

I consider myself %100 percent Canadian (was born here) ...Also could say 100% Canadian /(North) American...

My family is from Scottland / U.S.A.../Germany / ...

However

When asked ..I don't say I am Canadian/American /Scottish/German ..Like some tend to do...

Canada is the place I call home ...I AM CANADIAN!;-):lol:

I am only 1 Canadian ...This is my opinion ...

 

[Machjo]

I would guess those who want to bring back the Maple Leaf Forever are pretty old, greatly outnumbered by younger people.

I've met a good handful in their early thirties, and this in Ottawa! Granted they are a minority, but it's a good indication that if we have that kind of minority crowd among 30-year-olds, we're likely to find an even larger minority among older folk. And if such a crowd exists, it's also likely we have quite a few who fall just short of the 'Britannia' standard. The worst part of all of this is that I found British Columbians to be less politically 'British' than many of their Ontario counterparts. Culturally, yes, they are just as British in many ways. Just visit downtown Victoria, BC. But in B.C., it doesn't seem to spill over into the political sphere quite as much. The Orangeist crowd is alive and well in Ontario!

English and French I agree are totally different languages and blending them could be an impossible task.

What exactly do you mean by blending them? If by blending them you mean creating a new language while borrowing extensively from English and French, it's been done many times already. While Esperanto borrows a handful of words from English and French, consider Interlingua, essentially based almost exclusively on English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese:

Union Mundial pro Interlingua | Interlingua, communication sin frontieras

Though I'd be open to adopting, revising, or even creating any new national auxiliary language that all Canadians, whether the First Nations of the 'Founding Nations' can agree to, if we had to choose one from among the already existing ones, I'd probably go for Esperanto myself, owing to its considerable ease of learning plus its already wide spread.

Bilingualism has by and large failed.

If by bilingualism, you're referring to English-French 'Official Bilingualism', indeed it has. We need look no further than the Federal government's own StatsCan for 2006 to see that. It has indeed failed miserably. Trudeau's biggest mistake was to ignore the fact that while it's easy to become bilingual if raised so, or having had the chance to live, work, study, etc. in a French-English environment, for the vast majority, that opportunity doesn't exist. The vast majority doesn't get that chance, and so is marginalized.

It's a top down solution that many would resist, especially the Maple Leaf Forever crowd.

Agreed. One possibility I've considered was a kind of truce between the right and the left. Many on the right want the voucher system so that they can home school their kids, etc. Many on the left are crying for justice for the Aboriginal Languages, equal opportunity for all. Well, maybe, just maybe, both sides could get their way. Imagine the following scenario:

We go to a voucher system, and each school would be free to choose among the following media of written and spoken instruction:

English, French, and the local Aboriginal language.

And the following signed media of instruction:

ASL, LSQ, and IS.

As for second-languages, each shool would be free to offer any second-language of its choice to fulfil high school graduation requirements. Should the conservatives not accept that, then we compromise on at least the following:

Schools are free to choose among the following second-languages to fulfil highschool graduation requirements:

English, French, the local Aboriginal languge, Esperanto, IS, ASL, LSQ, and languages of religions (e.g. Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, etc.).

As for packaging and labelling laws, we allow companies to package and label in as few or many languages as they wish as long as one of the following languages is included:

English, French, the local Aboriginal language, or Esperanto.

As people gradually discover that Esperanto is easier to learn, it would spread over time as a preferred second-language to fulfil second-language requirments for highschool graduation.

This way, both the right and the left might be somewhat happy.

Immersion is too much, yet teaching French to elementary school kids for a few hours per week like I got is a good idea.

And how effective is your French? Most people here in Ottawa are stumped if I try to communicate with them in French, even in the East end! Some can learn French that way, but statistics show clearly that most can't.

 

[Machjo]

I think there's too many parties ..N.D.P has lost it's bite. They need to drop unions.Get back to representing the working public/the people! .N.D.P should merge with the greens.Both would get a great boost!...Become the N.D.G party..

I could agree with the NDP dropping the unions. As for the NDP joining with the Greens, that would be a hard sell: The Federal Greens are the furthest right of all the left-leaning parties right now. They were sitting a tad to the right of the Liberal Party last election. The NDP right now is hard labourite left. Good luck merging them together. In fact, little known fact, the NDP was politically greener than the Greens last election. In fact, hard environmentalists would not have voted Green last election had they done their homework, but NDP instead. Moderate environmentalists would have been voting Green or Liberal (though the Greens were a tad greener than the liberals, but for a left-leaning party, still uite economically conservative, though civil libertarian).

Not sure what liberals are doing nowadays.Are they still relevant? ...NDP with out real change will loose #'s ..(with exceptions, due to displeasure with conservatives )

TheStar.com | Canada | Nova Scotia elects first NDP government east of Ontario

Dion himself was somewhat social democratic, like Trudeau. Iggy is almost as right as Harper, albeit with some class! As for the rest of the Liberal Party, if the party leader can swing from Social Democrat to hard right from one leader to the next, that suggests possible major divisions within the Liberal Party.

..I like the bloqs/Quebecs policies/platform.(more or less) .Wish they would become a Canadian party /A party with Canada..(The Canadien party?)

I find the Bloc too left for my taste, just slightly right of the NDP. And though I don't consider myself a federalist, I don't consider myself a sovereigntist either, so dwelling excessively on that, or having that as a reason for being, naturally turns me off somewhat, as if the leftism hadn't done that already.

I will grant the Bloc this though: they seem to have a more realistic appraisal of the ethnic divide in Canada than any other Federal Party other than the First Peoples National Party of Canada, though I suspect that even they oversimplify the solution. Would I vote Bloc? Hard to say; it would really depend on how the local candidate truly understood the root causes of the conflict and whether his solutions really hit at the root of the problem. But since I'm in Ontario, it really is a moot point.

Some kinda reform is definetly needed ..Politics has gone stale in Canada ..The public seems to have little or no interest in Canadian politics/ leaders ..

I think partisan politics has become a major source of this conflict. One possibility is to go for a no-party system:

Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian politicians /parties seem to have little interest in Canadians interests..

Once Parliament is divided into large blocks, it becomes easier for special interest groups to influence the block. Without parties, they'd have to run after each individual MP, making it harder for such groups to truly gain full control.



Nothin ever seems to get done..Maybe that's the idea ...politicians nowadys seem to be short sited ..Only have their own interests in mind..Have no real vison of Canada or where We as Canadians should be going...Real Leadership and vision is needed..

 

[Polygong]

Sure, they could have tried them for treason, but Cdns could have fought and we would have had a civil war. The losers get their head chopped off.

Not my point. The point is that how can you see Quebec secession from Canada as treasonous yet be for Canada's secession from Britain?

Quebeckers can try to destroy Canada

They do not seek to destroy Canada. They seek to be not a part of it anymore. They have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Canada continuing on happily after.

The people in Canada are the de facto sovereign, not some abstract, legalistic "queen in right" or "crown" that few can articulate. The elected head of govt in the PM has all the power, the legal head of state in Buckingham Palace or Rideau Hall does not.

Yes, I'm in favour of overthrowing a concept few understand or care about. Simplifying our govt will make it better in my opinion.

You are in favour of overthrowing our nation's Head of State. I can;t see how that is any less treasonous than a separtist movement.

Of course, I'm sure you intend to see happen by democratic means. The BQ also intends to further their own goal through the democratic process.

Almost every country has a highly secessionist region, I'm just glad that we live in one where secessionists do it through democracy and diplomacy rather than armed revolts and terrorism.

I'm sure of course you'll bring up the October crisis, but that was pretty marginal in the bigger picture.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

What exactly do you mean by blending them? If by blending them you mean creating a new language while borrowing extensively from English and French, it's been done many times already. While Esperanto borrows a handful of words from English and French, consider Interlingua, essentially based almost exclusively on English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese:

http://www.interlingua.com/And how effective is your French? Most people here in Ottawa are stumped if I try to communicate with them in French, even in the East end! Some can learn French that way, but statistics show clearly that most can't.

Blending languages is a tough process and not likely to happen. English is the language of the world right now and a dramatic new program like this has little support.

My French is lousy, but I could survive in Quebec with some French words as I have. Some have a knack for learning another language, some don't. Learn a new language, learn some history, it should simply be part of a Canadian's education.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Not my point. The point is that how can you see Quebec secession from Canada as treasonous yet be for Canada's secession from Britain?

They do not seek to destroy Canada. They seek to be not a part of it anymore. They have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Canada continuing on happily after.

You are in favour of overthrowing our nation's Head of State. I can;t see how that is any less treasonous than a separtist movement.

Of course, I'm sure you intend to see happen by democratic means. The BQ also intends to further their own goal through the democratic process.

Almost every country has a highly secessionist region, I'm just glad that we live in one where secessionists do it through democracy and diplomacy rather than armed revolts and terrorism.

I'm sure of course you'll bring up the October crisis, but that was pretty marginal in the bigger picture.

Canada has seceded from Britain, it's done, we are no longer a colony. The empire is over too.

If Quebec leaves Canada then Canada will likely be destroyed as our established political ideas will be up for discussion. For example, Ontario alone will have almost half the seats in Parliament. The constitution will suddenly be a rip roaring discussion, everything could be up for grabs.

The USA has no serious secessionist movement today, the last one was defeated about 150 years ago. I haven't heard of a secessionist movement in Poland, Japan, Australia, Finland, Denmark, or Portugal. So if other countries have secessionist movements, why should we?

The October Crisis, as modest as it was, seems to persist, but it was seen as a Quebec problem, not a national one.

And who has sung God Save The Queen lately? What's G/god? Who supports with a job description that talks about the "defender of the faith"? Not me. The modern world has moved beyond these dated beliefs.

 

[Machjo]

Blending languages is a tough process and not likely to happen. English is the language of the world right now and a dramatic new program like this has little support.

it's believed that while an estimated 25% of the world's population is learning English, an estimated 10% of the world's population (including native speaekers!) is truly functional in English! So it would be more accurate to say that it's the language of the world's elites and Anglos.

As for support, think again. In 1993, the Italian Minsitry of Public Instruction published this report:

http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf

UNESCO has expressed support for something like this too:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001240/124020e.pdf
E-Euroscola | Resolutions of Unesco for Esperanto

The UK has been involved in this since 2005:

Springboard... to Languages

Polish and Hungarian schools have been allowing it since 2000, and Croatian since 2001 I believe. nd starting this September, a school in Halifax will start experimenting with it in our very country.

The only reason it's seldom in the English-language news media is simply that education and second-language teaching policy are not exactly the most exciting issues to draw crowds to to raise ratings so they can sell their advertising slots at a higher price.

My French is lousy, but I could survive in Quebec with some French words as I have.

Find a job? Negotiate, write, or read a simple work contract, let alone a business one? Defend yourself in court? File a police report? Comunicate with the paramedics, doctors, nurses? Find work? To me, that's survival, since any of it can happen at any time. Anything below that, and you're going on luck. And even Canada's Official Languages Act won't help you in most of these cases.

Some have a knack for learning another language, some don't. Learn a new language, learn some history, it should simply be part of a Canadian's education.

Learning a language is useful only if one can learn if fluently. Below that, it could even be misleading in that it could give a false impression or confidence in your real language ability. If French is too difficult, why not go to an easier language?

The Italian Report linked to above is on the right track when it says (referring to Esperanto, albeit in an EU context):

The international language is at the base of a more appropriate conception of plurilingualism in the European Union and allows the elaboration of a new, more realistic language policy. It in fact:​

a​

​

) educates to the construction of peace, making concrete the conception of belonging to a single human family and a "world environment," rather than one geo-nationally determined and circumscribed. In a moment of resurgent nationalism, sometimes in aggravated forms, spreading a means of international comprehension which finds in the equal dignity of peoples and their linguistic expression one of its strong points, aims at overcoming narrow national viewpoints which remain tied to the concept of nation even when there is aperture to other countries' languages;​

b​

​

) contributes, in fact, to safeguard European and global linguistic and cultural diversity;
c) allows transnational cultural and commercial relations in a common language, without discrimination, which can be fully acquired within the time spent in mandatory education;​

d​

​

) facilitates, taught as Linguistic Orientation, the study and learning of national foreign languages;​

e​

​

) avoids the predominance of one or two "major" languages in the teaching of possible foreign languages;​

f​

​

) enriches metalinguistic reflection even in the native language;​

g​

​

) allows notable savings of time and money, both in teacher training and in student work, with additional advantages for other subjects such as learning ethnic foreign languages (A useful study would be one which examined the necessary cost, in time and money, for teaching and learning an ethnic foreign language compared to the international language).

All of the above, by the way, could apply just as easily in reference to relations between English, French, and Canada's Aboriginal languages (assuming we cared enough to put them on an equal footing via a pivot language such as Esperanto).

The Canadian government should look beyond Canadian Eurocentrism and instead incorporate its First Nations' languages on an equal footing via such a pivot language, putting all on an equal footing by requiring all Canadians to learn a common second language that is designed to be on average from 5 to 10 times easier to learn than any other language.​

 

[Machjo]

Canada has seceded from Britain, it's done, we are no longer a colony. The empire is over too.

But our minds continue to be colonized by European cultural ideals, as is witnessed though our worship of Official Bilingualism in total disregard for Canada's First Nations' languages.

If Quebec leaves Canada then Canada will likely be destroyed as our established political ideas will be up for discussion. For example, Ontario alone will have almost half the seats in Parliament. The constitution will suddenly be a rip roaring discussion, everything could be up for grabs.

Part of the reason Canada is in fact so fragile is owing to our complex multi-ethnic history. The First Nations were here first, followed by the addition of the French, and then the English. As a result, no one can really agree as to our common cultural identity. Those who follow a simple philosophy of majority rule would argue English all the way, along with a Royal history and a literary culture rooted in the UK. The French-speakers have a rich linguistic and cultural history going back to Moliere and beyond, but for whom Shakespeaere and the Queen are foreign concepts. Others aim at a 'power compromise', a compromise between the two most powerful groups, aiming at peace more than justice, thus accepting a French-English duality whie squashing the First Nations underfoot. Others argue that the First Nations' languages ought to be equal partners as a matter of principle, of justice, possibly through a pivot language as a matter of efficiency, etc. etc. etc.

So owing to our complex history, it's only natural that our cultural identity will be in question until we can develop a common cultural foundation we can all agree on, and that could only be done on a foundation of justice, not power politics. Unfortunately, our culture is in fact nothing more than a power-political cultural foundation based on a compromise between the two ethnic powerhouses.

The USA has no serious secessionist movement today, the last one was defeated about 150 years ago. I haven't heard of a secessionist movement in Poland, Japan, Australia, Finland, Denmark, or Portugal. So if other countries have secessionist movements, why should we?

No, but it's culture is currently being severely challenged too. As the Hispanic poluation grows, there is increasing debate about whether English should be the official language of the nation, or whether they should continue with their free choice of language. In fact, in many poorer towns in the South, you'd have a hard time functioning in English, as it would all be in Spanish.

The October Crisis, as modest as it was, seems to persist, but it was seen as a Quebec problem, not a national one.

Big mistake. It definitely had nationwide repercussions.

And who has sung God Save The Queen lately? What's G/god? Who supports with a job description that talks about the "defender of the faith"? Not me. The modern world has moved beyond these dated beliefs.

Nor me. Hey, I'm Franco-Ontarian, so the Queen is foreign to me in that respect. However, I'm just pointing out that I have met people who lament the drifting away from these institutions.

 

[Polygong]

Canada has seceded from Britain, it's done, we are no longer a colony. The empire is over too.

If Quebec leaves Canada then Canada will likely be destroyed as our established political ideas will be up for discussion. For example, Ontario alone will have almost half the seats in Parliament. The constitution will suddenly be a rip roaring discussion, everything could be up for grabs.

The USA has no serious secessionist movement today, the last one was defeated about 150 years ago. I haven't heard of a secessionist movement in Poland, Japan, Australia, Finland, Denmark, or Portugal. So if other countries have secessionist movements, why should we?

The October Crisis, as modest as it was, seems to persist, but it was seen as a Quebec problem, not a national one.

And who has sung God Save The Queen lately? What's G/god? Who supports with a job description that talks about the "defender of the faith"? Not me. The modern world has moved beyond these dated beliefs.

Again, you've dodged my points completely.

I'm not advocating the monarchy, I'm saying that the change of moving Canada from colony to nation, as well as the eventual abandonment of the monarchy were/is brought about by democratic means, and the secessionist movement of Quebec is no less legitimate in that context.

I never once said that every country has a secessionist movement, but many do. Many of those have gross amounts of violence associated with them. Ours is a country born of diplomacy and democracy, that's the very foundation of Canada, so it's perfectly fitting that we deal with Quebec separatism in that way.

And no... Quebec leaving does not mean the end of Canada. Not by a longshot. And even if it did, that's not Quebec attempting to destroy it, that's the rest of Canada failing to keep it together.

 

[Machjo]

Also, it's natural that geographically larger countries or countries that are ethnically quite heterogeneous are more likely than smaller homogeneous countries to have secessionist movements.

That's just to be expected.

Of course it can be overcome to some degree, as has occured in Indonesia. Sure they've got problems, but remember, unlike Canada with its two ethnic groups, Indonesia has well over a hundred ethnic groups, all roughly equal in size, with no clear majority. It had solved its problem by developing Bahasa Indonesia, no more than a regional pidgin a few generations ago, developed by the government. But unlike Canada, where the First Nations could essentially be forcefully marginalized, leaving us with only two ethnic groups to really contend with, Indonesia had no choice but to create a common culture if it was to maintain any semblance of unity wahtever. Considering their divisions, they're still doing well in spite of violence on occasion. How well do we think Canada woudl have managed with that kind of division? We're having a hard time with two.

 

[Machjo]

And no... Quebec leaving does not mean the end of Canada. Not by a longshot. And even if it did, that's not Quebec attempting to destroy it, that's the rest of Canada failing to keep it together.

That's a valid point. And let's consider that, for the most part, BC and NB are more united than Ontario and Quebec. Looking at it that way, Quebec secession would likely leave us with a more solidly united rest of Canada.

 

[Machjo]

Now that I think about it, there probably would be an advantage to not having any one majority ethnic group in a federation, along with a national auxiliary language and culture, in that no one group would need fear the hegemonic power of the culture of the other.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Again, you've dodged my points completely.

I'm not advocating the monarchy, I'm saying that the change of moving Canada from colony to nation, as well as the eventual abandonment of the monarchy were/is brought about by democratic means, and the secessionist movement of Quebec is no less legitimate in that context.

I never once said that every country has a secessionist movement, but many do. Many of those have gross amounts of violence associated with them. Ours is a country born of diplomacy and democracy, that's the very foundation of Canada, so it's perfectly fitting that we deal with Quebec separatism in that way.

And no... Quebec leaving does not mean the end of Canada. Not by a longshot. And even if it did, that's not Quebec attempting to destroy it, that's the rest of Canada failing to keep it together.

Oh I see, you see democracy as more important than Canada. I see Canada as more important and potentially vulnerable. Live in an Asian country for a while and you will realize how important your own country is, a place you call home, a place you understand, you speak the language, where people expect don't you to be gone in a year or two. Oh yeah, the outside world can be hostile, them and us is present out there, more so than in Canada.

Yes, we have a fundamental difference in viewpoints born of experience. I see the BQ as a danger, some posters have mentioned there is rage in the Quebec against Canada. So I don't want to give separatism a chance to pop. The yuppie armchair central Cdn federalists are willing to take this chance.