Should we redraw Quebec's borders along linguistic lines?

[Machjo]

English is a plastic and fluid laguage, ever changing that is defined by usage. If English speakers invent or borrow a word or expression, it is officially English and not "slang". The experts on the English language such as Oxford University or Merriam-Webster are mere chronicallers who collect new words and expressions, constantly. In 2014, there were 1,025,109 known English words and that number grows every year. We do not have an Academy of English, telling us what is English... how to speak ... what to think. Ironically, the lingua franca of the planet is currently English. French is just too limiting, constricted, controlled to have led to the explosion of creativity of the English speaking world over the last few centuries. French tongues and minds are constrained in an Académie française straight jacket.

Not entirely accurate. unofficial French exists too, just like unofficial English. However, the Academie allows for the existence of an official French. I remember participating at a small conference in China. One speaker was Cameroonian, one Australian, one Pakistani, and me as the token Canadian. The rest were Chinese.

Interpretation completely broke down since the Chinese-English interpreter had learnt only US and UK English. She could undertand my English since Canadian is somewhat close to these other two, and she got some of the Australian, but was at a complete loss otherwise.

Ironically, a Chinese Esperanto-speaking friend of mine and I jumped in to save the day. Esperanto like French has a standard international form. One big difference between Esperanto and French is that Esperanto is multiple times easier to learn. But one similarity is that they both benefit from a language accademy that ensure the existence of an international norm. English has no international norm. In fact, according to one study, 15% of fatal air crashes are caused by linguistic misunderstandings.

So the existence of a standardized international variety of a language is not a disadvantage at all. On the contrary, it's an advantage to international communication.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Should we allow all majority-French-speaking municipalities outside of Quebec to hold a referendum to join Quebec and if it votes to join and Quebec wants it, Quebec can take it?

Of course we'd do the same for majority-English-speaking municipalities too.

In all cases though, the municipality could also vote for a conditional transfer. For example, a majority-French-speaking municipality coudl vote to join Quebec on condition that Bill 101 will not touch the public schools and private businesses in that municipality. Again, it would up to Quebec whether it accepts that municipality under those conditions.

Your thoughts on this?

We should require that a ten-foot (3 m) circle around every Francophone is Quebec.

 

[Machjo]

Sorry but I don't follow you

A municipality can hve its own laws separate from the rest of a state. Take Hong Kong as an extreme example. Norway allows special laws for municipalities according to demographics. consider Alsace and Lorraine between France and Germany. Even Canada's own boundaries have shifted many times throughout our history. Let's not pretend that Canada is somehow an exception to the international rule. Canada's history is no different on that front, so who says that we can't reqrite borders as circumstances dictate. France's borders are not the same as those of the province of Gaul, are they?

We should require that a ten-foot (3 m) circle around every Francophone is Quebec.

A mobile border. Interesting.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Are you suggesting that modern France and Gaul are the same country?

 

[Machjo]

It's interesting. We English speakers are used to hearing our language spoken by poeple from all over he World. In a big city like Vancouver, Toronto, New York, we are quite likely to hear it spoken badly, perhaps very badly, most of the time by non-native speakers. We also shorten and truncate the language amongst ourselves to the point that one word spoken can convey a whole sentence' worth of information, if taken in the right context.

French is nothing like that. Make a grammatic error and they look at you as if you are a Martian babbling pure gibberish. Conjugate a verb incorrectly and you get a blank stare, as if the word came out of the mouth on your second head. Francophones are very intolerant of poorly spoken French. I guess that they hear so little of it spoken by outsiders as the world is not beating a path to their doorstep to learn French. Perhaps, the intolerance is why the world is not beating a path to their doorstep.

You exaggerate, but there is some truth to that. I speak French with a slight English accent, so when I'm speaking to a stranger in Quebec who knows English, he'll sometimes switch to English. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I do find it strange none-the-less.

Are you suggesting that modern France and Gaul are the same country?

No. I'm saying that national borders have always changed. So who are we to pretend that history is now frozen in time?

Even the US' own borders have changed many times, and even its present borders are quite recent in historical terms, are they not?

We only need to go back a few generations to see major changes to the US', Canada's, and Quebec's borders. We're states are little baby states in historical terms, with their history still being written every day.

I think the problem is people have a habit of thinking that the world as they know it today is how it was since time immemorial.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No. I'm saying that national borders have always changed. So who are we to pretend that history is now frozen in time?

Even the US' own borders have changed many times, and even its present borders are quite recent in historical terms, are they not?

We only need to go back a few generations to see major changes to the US', Canada's, and Quebec's borders. We're states are little baby states in historical terms, with their history still being written every day.

I think the problem is people have a habit of thinking that the world as they know it today is how it was since time immemorial.

Yes, that's what I thought. You think Gaul and modern France are the same nation. Why else would you offer them as an example of national borders changing?

 

[Queb]

A municipality can hve its own laws separate from the rest of a state.

No

Municipalities can not make laws. They can put in place rules and these must comply with the laws of Quebec. Municipalities are creatures of government. As the SAAQ office or a school.

 

[Machjo]

Yes, that's what I thought. You think Gaul and modern France are the same nation. Why else would you offer them as an example of national borders changing?

Are the thirteen colonies and the US the same nation? What about Texas? Was it not a part of Mexico?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Are the thirteen colonies and the US the same nation? What about Texas? Was it not a part of Mexico?

What do those have to do with Gaul and France?

 

[Machjo]

No

Municipalities can not make laws. They can put in place rules and these must comply with the laws of Quebec. Municipalities are creatures of government. As the SAAQ office or a school.

Municipalities can also change hands. In fact, Hong Kong changed hands as recently as in 1997. So there are international precedents. Even New France and Quebec have radically different borders. Do you consider New France to be a part of your national history? I'm of New-French origin myself, but on the Ontario side? What happened there?

What do those have to do with Gaul and France?

What is now France was geographically a part of Gaul. In other words, borders have forever been changing. So why do people now say that borders can't change? Has history frozen in time?

Quebe and Ontario were themselves born out of New France.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What is now France was geographically a part of Gaul. In other words, borders have forever been changing. So why do people now say that borders can't change? Has history frozen in time?

Why did you offer it as an example of national borders changing? First, modern France and Gaul are in no way the same nation, and second, Gaul was never a nation at all. It was a label slapped on a region by the Romans.

 

[Machjo]

Why did you offer it as an example of national borders changing? First, modern France and Gaul are in no way the same nation, and second, Gaul was never a nation at all. It was a label slapped on a region by the Romans.

Fine, let's take Alsace and Lorraine. How many times did they hange hands between France and Germany?

What about New France becoming Otario and Quebec more or less. What about the thirteen colonies? How many times did they change change borders as they expanded? Texas? Mexico? Yes, some states' borders have been stable for centuries, but most have changed even in the last hundred years. Consider the 1800's, not long ago, and the world map would be unrecognizable today. The Otoman Empire, anyone?

 

[Queb]

Municipalities can also change hands. In fact, Hong Kong changed hands as recently as in 1997.

Hong Kong is not a municipality. It's a territory. and.... it's not in Quebec.

Even New France and Quebec have radically different borders. Do you consider New France to be a part of your national history? I'm of New-French origin myself, but on the Ontario side? What happened there?

After war.

Fine, let's take Alsace and Lorraine. How many times did they hange hands between France and Germany?

After wars

What about New France becoming Otario and Quebec more or less.

It was a lot bigger than that

- Québec
- Ontario
- Western canada
- Everything west of Mississippi
- All eastern provinces including NFL

What about the thirteen colonies? How many times did they change change borders as they expanded? Texas? Mexico? Yes, some states' borders have been stable for centuries, but most have changed even in the last hundred years. Consider the 1800's, not long ago, and the world map would be unrecognizable today. The Otoman Empire, anyone?

There is only 2 ways to change border:

1- you have the agreement of the concerned state
2- you force it by war.