The Journal on 'Untying the Knot'
Richard Wood
a four part series called Untying the Knot; ie, if Quebec decides
to separate, how would it be accomplished? It's written and
narrated by Montreal reporter Terrance McKenna. Might be worth
a watch.
--
Richard Wood : rw...@ccs.carleton.ca
Computing and Communications Services
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6
Thomas Hood
>Tonight The Journal (on CBC stations at about 10:20 pm) starts
The interesting segment of the first episode was the debate between Bernard
Landry and David Peterson on the prospects for a peaceful separation.
It showed very clearly how much better prepared the separatists are than
the federalists.
Landry argued cogently:
- that Quebec is a distinct society that considers itself separate
- that, consequently, the Gov't of Quebec ought to be sovereign
- that Quebec has already "paid the cost" of separation
- that delaying separation will just prolong an unworkable relationship
- that it is in Canada's best interests to negotiate amicably
Peterson argued:
- that the costs of separation have not been paid, because Canada will be
hostile to Quebec in the negotiations
- that Quebec can find a place in confederation
- that Canada can derive strength from its differences
Peterson got his ass kicked.
First of all, the argument that "Canada will be angry" is both irrelevant
and pathetic. The separatists do not expect that their enemies will LIKE
separation; they expect that they will be forced to surrender to it, and
that they must ultimately share Quebec's interest in a smooth transition.
Second, the arm-waving arguments about deriving strength from diversity
are easily contradicted by all the evidence of conflict within our
confederation.
Federalists must suffer the fact that no one has emerged who can replace
Trudeau in marshalling the arguments needed to combat the separatists.
The best they have is Brian Mulroney, but he can only marshal cliches.
The report on the constitutional conferences (due in two weeks) will
say that Canadians support a number of constitutional changes, including
some sort of "asymmetrical federalism": I.E., more power for the
Quebec National Assembly at the expense of Parliament. This appeasement
will do nothing to satisfy separatists, who are already smoking in
indignation over the vagueness and timidity of the concessions.
Someone in English Canada will have to realize, and soon, that we are
not only engaged in a debate over abstract principles of government.
We are engaged in a dispute with enemies of the Canadian state as
presently constituted. No amount of reform will satisfy them; they
must be defeated outright.
(to be continued...)
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Brian J Ross
>
>Peterson argued:
>- that the costs of separation have not been paid, because Canada will be
> hostile to Quebec in the negotiations
>
>and pathetic. The separatists do not expect that their enemies will LIKE
>separation; they expect that they will be forced to surrender to it, and
>that they must ultimately share Quebec's interest in a smooth transition.
If Quebec indeed votes to separate, I hope to God that TROC will live up
to its supposed self-image of fairness, compromise, and tolerance, and
negociate a civil, fair separation. However, the jingoism that many of
the federalists are bellowing forth -- "Canada will be angry" -- is very
disturbing and shameful, and certainly brushes against my sense of Canadian
identity. The worst piece of garbage I've heard yet was Chretien's discussing
the possible use of force to prevent separation. He better not even think it.
>Federalists must suffer the fact that no one has emerged who can replace
>Trudeau in marshalling the arguments needed to combat the separatists.
>The best they have is Brian Mulroney, but he can only marshal cliches.
Come on. Give Trudeau at least the credit he deserves for fanning the
current fire in the first place. His "combating the separatists" was
a short-lived, irrelevant victory. I can see the flames aflaming
already, from the rabid Trudeau-phrenics whose God I've just smeared. :-)
>We are engaged in a dispute with enemies of the Canadian state as
>presently constituted. No amount of reform will satisfy them; they
>must be defeated outright.
Stop the jingoism. If the people of Quebec decide to secede using democratic
methods, then so be it. TROC should then share with them the benevolence which
Quebec will have to give their minorities. I'm becoming increasingly
convinced that Canadians are anything but tolerant.
--
Brian Ross. Diet Pepsi rules.
b...@csr.uvic.ca
Gordon R. Strachan
>>Tonight The Journal (on CBC stations at about 10:20 pm) starts
>>a four part series called Untying the Knot.... Might be worth a watch.
>
>
>First of all, the argument that "Canada will be angry" is both irrelevant
>and pathetic. The separatists do not expect that their enemies will LIKE
>separation; they expect that they will be forced to surrender to it, and
>that they must ultimately share Quebec's interest in a smooth transition.
>
Well, I am not so sure that he got his ass kicked, it seemed to me that his
opponent never addressed a single one of his points. But, never mind that.
I don't think the the argumnt that "Canada will be angry" is irrelevant because
it seems that the seperatists are claiming that it will be easy to negotiate
with Canada and are using this claim to increase support for this cause.
There is hard core support for seperation in Quebec which would chose to
seperate no matter how rough it gets. But, there is also a soft vote there
which can be swung either way and, I think at least, they will decide the day.
It is important that these people understand exactly what Canada's response
will be before they make their decision. Therefore this arguement over
whether seperation will be easy or hard is paramount.
In my opinion anyone who thinks seperation talks will be easy and friendly is
either very foolish and doesn't understand the Canadian mood or is lying for
his own politcal ends. If Quebec decides to seperate they will suddenly be
outsides and the rest of Canada will be forced to take the position of
maximizing our own position. We will decide, as well as Quebec, what will
be discussed and if this includes borders then borders will be discussed.
Finally, there will be a lot of anger towards Quebec if this comes about and
don't be surprised if many people will want to screw Quebec, even if it
hurts us.
>Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Gordon
Jim Robinson
>In article <1992Feb19....@pandora.matrox.com> th...@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>rw...@superior.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:
>>>Tonight The Journal (on CBC stations at about 10:20 pm) starts
>>>a four part series called Untying the Knot.... Might be worth a watch.
>>
>>Peterson got his ass kicked.
>>
>>First of all, the argument that "Canada will be angry" is both irrelevant
>>and pathetic. The separatists do not expect that their enemies will LIKE
>>separation; they expect that they will be forced to surrender to it, and
>>that they must ultimately share Quebec's interest in a smooth transition.
>>
>
>Well, I am not so sure that he got his ass kicked, it seemed to me that his
>opponent never addressed a single one of his points. But, never mind that.
Bernard Landry did make one excellent point. He asked Peterson which side
he would be on on the day after separation - the "good" side or the "bad"
side. Peterson, who said he prides himself on being a rational person,
basically said he would be on the "good" side. I think that most people of
power and influence (politicians, business persons, bankers, etc) will be
on the rational side. They will try to make the best of a bad situation.
>In my opinion anyone who thinks seperation talks will be easy and friendly is
>either very foolish and doesn't understand the Canadian mood or is lying for
>his own politcal ends.
Not easy and not friendly; but also not the nightmare that some make them
out to be.
>If Quebec decides to seperate they will suddenly be
>outsides and the rest of Canada will be forced to take the position of
>maximizing our own position.
This goes without saying. I am sure both sides realize it.
>We will decide, as well as Quebec, what will
>be discussed and if this includes borders then borders will be discussed.
No argument.
>Finally, there will be a lot of anger towards Quebec if this comes about and
>don't be surprised if many people will want to screw Quebec, even if it
>hurts us.
Here I disagree. Yes, maybe there will be some people who feel anger at
Quebec for doing what it has been threatening to do for over 10 years.
Others will merely feel a sense of loss and a desire to get on and rebuild
the country. And, especially if the recession is still on, people will
certainly not be in the mood to hurt themselves.
Perhaps I am indeed missing something but Quebec has already had one
separation referendum, it has given a separatist party a generous share of
the vote for years, it has repeatedly threatened to separate should it not
get acceptable terms, its current "federalist" government is anything but,
and yet I am now supposed to feel hurt and anger when it finally carries
out what has been potentially in the cards for years now. I don't think so.
Sorrow, yes; anger, no.
BTW, did anyone besides me think it amazing when Pat Carney said that she
would see absolutely no problem with the current federal government,
*including* MPs and a PM from Quebec, negotiating separation on behalf of
Canada? This seemed like a totally bizarre statement as an incredible
conflict of interest would arise; for example, can you picture Benoit
Bouchard telling Quebec that Canada wishes to discuss borders? Given that
these are the same MPs who prevented Joe Clark from introducing legislation
for a national referendum I find it hard to believe that they would not
act in Quebec's interests in such important negotiations.
--
Jim Robinson
robi...@mdivax1.mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
Ken Warkentyne
> The report on the constitutional conferences (due in two weeks) will
> say that Canadians support a number of constitutional changes, including
> some sort of "asymmetrical federalism": I.E., more power for the
> Quebec National Assembly at the expense of Parliament. This appeasement
> will do nothing to satisfy separatists, who are already smoking in
> indignation over the vagueness and timidity of the concessions.
>
> Someone in English Canada will have to realize, and soon, that we are
> not only engaged in a debate over abstract principles of government.
> We are engaged in a dispute with enemies of the Canadian state as
> presently constituted. No amount of reform will satisfy them; they
> must be defeated outright.
Tom is right on the money. We in English Canada must define the
Federation that we want and that we hope offers a place for French
Quebeckers. Personally, I am not against declarations of "distinctness"
and I favour significant decentralization.
Having come to an agreement amongst ourselves, we can then ask Quebec to
accept our offer.
Attempting to co-opt the Pequistes has been a dismal failure, as Mulroney
should know from his experience with Lucien Bouchard. Further appeasement
it totally useless. We must make up our own minds first. How can
we negotiate when the Federalist side doesn't even know what it wants?
My greatest fear is that we will be unable to make up our minds.
--
Ken Warkentyne - war...@ltisun.epfl.ch
Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Frederic Plante
[...]
>
> Someone in English Canada will have to realize, and soon, that we are
> not only engaged in a debate over abstract principles of government.
> We are engaged in a dispute with enemies of the Canadian state as
> presently constituted. No amount of reform will satisfy them; they
> must be defeated outright.
What would you do? Kill us all? Put us all in jail?
Frederic Plante
Roger Leroux
>>Federalists must suffer the fact that no one has emerged who can replace
>>Trudeau in marshalling the arguments needed to combat the separatists.
>>The best they have is Brian Mulroney, but he can only marshal cliches.
>Come on. Give Trudeau at least the credit he deserves for fanning the
>current fire in the first place. His "combating the separatists" was
>a short-lived, irrelevant victory. I can see the flames aflaming
>already, from the rabid Trudeau-phrenics whose God I've just smeared. :-)
Ahem. Back in November, the Journal had a two-part series on the
repatriation of the constitution. At the end of the second segment, they
spoke with a number of prominent (at the time, and some still) politicians
and other public figures about the constitution, would they do it again,
and touched upon the Meech Lake fiasco. Trudeau pointed out, and rightly
so, that although Quebec did not sign the constitution, and were at the
time opposed to it, they were now "content" to accept the status quo
adn that the current raging flames didn't start until (to quote PET) "a
certain Prime Minister opened his mouth" about how Quebec had been
maltreated by TROC and that we *owed* them Meech Lake.
Of course, our constitution isn't worth tha paper it's written on with that
damn noitwithstanding clause.
Roger
--
Roger Leroux | "Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get." Me
rler...@sol.uvic.ca | "Everybody lies about sex." Lazarus Long
----------------------+ "Six of one, half a dozen of the other." Number 2.
rec.motorcycles DoD#43| Be seeing you...
Southiere Alain
>Ahem. Back in November, the Journal had a two-part series on the
>repatriation of the constitution. At the end of the second segment, they
>spoke with a number of prominent (at the time, and some still) politicians
>and other public figures about the constitution, would they do it again,
>and touched upon the Meech Lake fiasco. Trudeau pointed out, and rightly
>so, that although Quebec did not sign the constitution, and were at the
>time opposed to it, they were now "content" to accept the status quo
>adn that the current raging flames didn't start until (to quote PET) "a
>certain Prime Minister opened his mouth" about how Quebec had been
>maltreated by TROC and that we *owed* them Meech Lake.
Well, there's another good lie by Trudeau. Rene Levesque was ready to sign
the constitution. Hee even had the majority of the MPs on his side at the
time. But Trudeau didn't liked it and he sent Jean Chretien to arrange a
secret metteing of all the MPs except Levesque. At this metting, they all
signed the constitution in the back of Quebec. This is known as "La nuit de
longs couteaux" (the night of the long knives).
So, after this event, I consider Trudeau to be in very bad position to
complain about Quebec after what he did to us and to all Canada.
>Of course, our constitution isn't worth tha paper it's written on with that
>damn noitwithstanding clause.
For your information, Levesque was not in favor of this clause. It was
mainly the MPs from the West who wanted it. But now that their weapon has
turned against them, they want get rid of it. They wanted this clause, they'll
have to live with it.
>--
>Roger Leroux | "Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get." Me
>rler...@sol.uvic.ca | "Everybody lies about sex." Lazarus Long
>----------------------+ "Six of one, half a dozen of the other." Number 2.
>rec.motorcycles DoD#43| Be seeing you...
--
u1...@jsp.umontreal.ca | If you want to make an apple
_ | pie from scratch, you have
/\ | _ . _ (_ _ _|_ |_ . _ _ _ | to create the universe.
/--\ | (_| | | | _) (_) |_| |_ | | | (= | (= | - Carl Sagan
Ken Warkentyne
I hope that Tom is not including people like Fred Plante in the "enemies"
category. I do agree that there is a core of Pequistes who can be labeled
"enemies" of Canada, Lise Payette and Tonton come to mind. I'm not
sure about BouBou. :)
After all the discussion in the can.* groups, I have gained the impression
that if Frederic, Stephane, and some other French Quebeckers were to
sit down with myself, Tom, Gerald, and some others, we could come to
a mutually satisfactory agreement. Maybe we should do this anyway.
We'll hire Don Getty to keep Tom in line if he starts being difficult.
Then, if the Feds screw it up, we can all separate from them.
Marc Riese
Thomas Hood writes:
> ... Peterson argued:...
>- that Canada can derive strength from its differences
>the arm-waving arguments about deriving strength from diversity are easily
>contradicted by all the evidence of conflict within our confederation.
J'ai l'impression que les arbres cachent la foret a Thomas.
Dans le dossier economique de 1991 du journal "Le Monde" qu'est sorti
recemment (en format revue, je ne me rappelle plus le titre exacte),
j'ai lu qu'une division du Canada serait a l'encontre du mouvement
d'unification economique tel qu'en Europe. Je paraphrase:
Separer serait une action d'une sagesse douteuse dans un monde ou
seuls les grands acteurs ont de l'influence.
C'est-a-dire, les economistes de "Le Monde" voient qu'une separation
effacerait meme le peu d'influence qu'exercise actuellement le Canada.
Ceci me semble evident, mais il est interessant venant du pays qui
a traditionnellement incite' le Quebec a la separation.
Au sujet de l'economie apres une separation, quelqu'un m'a ecrit:
>Economiquement, il est certain qu'il y aura une pe'riode moins
>prospe`re apre`s l'inde'pendance, mais tout finira par se replacer.
Je trouve ceci naif, mais typique des gens qui veulent une separation,
qu'ils soit Quebecois ou non (comme Thomas?). La commerce internationale
ne joue pas par des regles justes et gentilles, comme decrites a l'ecole.
En tant que membre du G7, par exemple, le Canada profite d'une bonne position
pour se proteger contre les manoeuvres politiques des pays industriels.
Comment peut-on croire que, divise' en deux, le Canada se rejouirait
des memes rapports avec les grands? Quelle naivete'!
Si les individus sur les deux cotes aiment bien se hair, qui n'est pas le
cas pour moi en tout cas, qu'ils le fassent tranquillement.
Bien entendu, l'argent n'est que la facon de maintenir le genre de societe'
que nous voulons; mais sans l'argent, *tout* le reste va souffrir.
Il est noble mais innocent de croire le contraire.
L'economie n'a pas de place pour des emotions.
Marc Riese
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Suisse
Thomas Hood
>Landry argued:
>- that Quebec is a distinct society that considers itself separate
>- that, consequently, the Gov't of Quebec ought to be sovereign
>- that Quebec has already "paid the cost" of separation
>- that delaying separation will just prolong an unworkable relationship
>- that it is in Canada's best interests to negotiate amicably
If you examine Landry's argument, you will find that the separatist position
rests on a number of assumptions.
1) Quebecers are a people.
2) The Quebec people cannot be comfortable in Canada; Canada cannot work.
3) Quebec has already paid the full cost of separation.
Response:
1)
Quebec is indeed the province with a majority of French Canadians,
but it is not entirely one people. The English and aboriginals are
obviously distinct. English Quebecers may have noticed the unusual
chumminess of the Parti Quebecois towards the English community. It has
even been said by one of their number recently that "it is obvious from
the fact that they did not leave, that they are comfortable here, that
they are Quebecers; only they will have to realize that Quebec is French...".
English Quebec and the aboriginals have to be included in the definition
of Quebecois for the purpose of claiming the territory they live on
if Quebec separates. The inconvenient fact is that they define themselves
categorically as Canadians first, and with good reason.
In addition, there is the question of the French Canadians themselves, who
are divided on the question of loyalty. The claim that there are no longer
French Canadians, but only Quebecois, is a necessary one for the separatists,
but one that does not accord with the facts. Federalism is a deeply-rooted
instinct in Quebec, but is hidden from view at the present time for a
number of reasons.
It is the explicit aim of separatists to extinguish federalist leanings in
Quebec, and to create a new loyalty to the state of Quebec. Saying that
this has already occurred is a way of encouraging it to happen. It is also
a useful bargaining tactic.
2)
The claim that Canada cannot be made to work is false, as illustrated by
the mood in Quebec four years ago when some columnists were wondering
whether or not the P.Q. was obsolete. At that time, Canada seemed to
be working just fine, and nothing has changed since then, except that
Quebecois pride has been hurt. But the claim is not just false, it
is disingenuous, because separatism is the cause of the only unsolvable
conflict.
3)
In saying that Quebec has already paid the full cost of separation, the
separatists mean economic and administrative costs. Because of
separatist agitation, Quebec has paid a price for political uncertainty.
Because of nationalism, Quebec has paid for a somewhat redundant
administration, including separate income tax and pension systems, foreign
missions, etc.
While it is hard to judge how much more it will cost to administer a
fully separate Quebec, it is easier to see that political upheaval will
have further economic costs.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Thomas Hood
>Tonight The Journal (on CBC stations at about 10:20 pm) starts
>a four part series called Untying the Knot.... Might be worth a watch.
The second night dealt with the question of borders. The sneakiness
of the Parti Quebecois position was apparent.
Parizeau argued that the constitution forbids the alteration of the borders
of the Province of Quebec without the permission of its National Assembly.
And he says that after separation, the National Assembly would obviously
refuse alterations -- so Quebec must separate with all the territory of
the Province. Q.E.D.
Nice try, but since separation is itself an extra-constitutional procedure;
the new state will have to negotiate for land without the benefit of legal
precedents. I see no reason for Canada to be overly generous.
Another representative of the P.Q. argued that international law would
dictate that Quebec must separate with all the land of the current province.
He had to rely on the assumption that there is a "people of Quebec" which
includes the aboriginals and the English-speaking Quebecers, and that this
people is entitled to all the land it occupies. Unfortunately for him,
the aboriginals and other minorities do not consider themselves, primarily,
Quebecois. And with good reason.
One of the most interesting segments was Joe Clark answering the question
of what the federal government would do for those residents of Quebec who
wanted to remain Canadians. He said "the residents of Quebec are currently
Quebecers and Canadians, and in the event of separation, they would
continue to be Quebecers." This was a weasly way of washing his hands of
the problem, but that is what we must expect. In the process of separation,
Quebec minorities would lose all political influence in Ottawa. That's one
way for Joe to get rid of Brian Mulroney! :-)
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Francois Audet
>First of all, the argument that "Canada will be angry" is both irrelevant
>and pathetic. The separatists do not expect that their enemies will LIKE
>separation; they expect that they will be forced to surrender to it, and
>that they must ultimately share Quebec's interest in a smooth transition.
I'm glad and releived that someone finally sees this. There is hope
after all. I saw that "untying the knot" episode with Peterson and
Landry also, and was amazed by how behind Peterson was. If Quebec does
decide to secede, it will be in the best interest of both parties to
do it as cleanly as possible, and with the minimum amount of damage.
Peterson was arguing about non-constructive irrelevant facts.
Amazingly enough, the only ones who saw that are the Conservatives.
Jean Cretin's threat to bring the army in will surely not do any good.
>Someone in English Canada will have to realize, and soon, that we are
>not only engaged in a debate over abstract principles of government.
Yes. It looks as if english Canada does not take Quebec's aspiration
seriously, and that's why Quebec continues to be humiliated. Trdeau's
rapatriement was the first blow, and the failed Meach lake accord whas
the fatal one. Unfortunately, I think this one will be impossible to
forget. It shows how greatly the political directions of Quebec versus
englsih Canada are going.
>We are engaged in a dispute with enemies of the Canadian state as
>presently constituted. No amount of reform will satisfy them; they
>must be defeated outright.
No, no, no. You shouldn't see it this way. Quebec is not an enemy of
Canada, (no more than it is an enemy of the US). Quebec is just
realizing that it has nothing to do with Canada politically. We are
facing a dead-end.
--
Francois Audet
francoi...@software.mitel.com
Francois Audet
>The worst piece of garbage I've heard yet was Chretien's discussing
>the possible use of force to prevent separation. He better not even think it.
I would really not be surprised if he would. Do you know what
governement, and when, in the history of Canada got the highest
popularity rating? Yes, Trudeau's during the war measure act of 1970.
This is especially scary since it was later proved that the whole
affair was a scam to increase the popularity of the governement.
>Stop the jingoism. If the people of Quebec decide to secede using democratic
>methods, then so be it. TROC should then share with them the benevolence which
>Quebec will have to give their minorities. I'm becoming increasingly
>convinced that Canadians are anything but tolerant.
I am too. The declaration by Miss-I-don't-remember-her-name that "if
Quebec secedes, then english Canada should make shure that Quebec gets
into a 10-year Depression" was a really a good example of that. She
also said that "Parizeau and his bandits" should be thrown to jail.
She was the Woman of the Year according to the english version of the
Chatelaine magazine.
Sad.
--
Francois Audet
francoi...@software.mitel.com
Francois Audet
>
>Tom is right on the money. We in English Canada must define the
>Federation that we want and that we hope offers a place for French
>Quebeckers. Personally, I am not against declarations of "distinctness"
>and I favour significant decentralization.
>
>Having come to an agreement amongst ourselves, we can then ask Quebec to
>accept our offer.
It's getting late, and the provincial governments are not getting
their act together. No cooperation.
>Attempting to co-opt the Pequistes has been a dismal failure, as Mulroney
>should know from his experience with Lucien Bouchard. Further appeasement
>it totally useless. We must make up our own minds first. How can
>we negotiate when the Federalist side doesn't even know what it wants?
You shouldn't forget that after the Referendum, a lot of
independantists took "le beau risque" of beleiving the promise of a
renewed federalism. Obviously, it was a major lie by Trudeau. It got
these people pretty pissed-off.
>My greatest fear is that we will be unable to make up our minds.
And I think that's exactly what will happen.
--
Francois Audet
francoi...@software.mitel.com
Frederic Leymarie
Dans l'article <32...@disuns2.epfl.ch>, ri...@litsuns1.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
ecrit:
|> Thomas Hood writes:
|> > ... Peterson argued:...
|> >- that Canada can derive strength from its differences
|> >...
|> >the arm-waving arguments about deriving strength from diversity are easily
|> >contradicted by all the evidence of conflict within our confederation.
|> J'ai l'impression que les arbres cachent la foret a Thomas.
|> Dans le dossier economique de 1991 du journal "Le Monde" qu'est sorti
|> recemment (en format revue, je ne me rappelle plus le titre exacte),
|> j'ai lu qu'une division du Canada serait a l'encontre du mouvement
|> d'unification economique tel qu'en Europe. Je paraphrase:
|> Separer serait une action d'une sagesse douteuse dans un monde ou
|> seuls les grands acteurs ont de l'influence.
|> C'est-a-dire, les economistes de "Le Monde" voient qu'une separation
|> effacerait meme le peu d'influence qu'exerce actuellement le Canada.
|> Ceci me semble evident, mais il est interessant venant du pays qui
^^^^^^^^
|> a traditionnellement incite' le Quebec a la separation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Je ne crois pas que la France a ete un agent determinant dans la volonte d'une
partie des quebecois de vouloir obtenir la plus grande autonomie politique
possible face au reste du Canada (mis a part peut-etre "l'evenement de Gaulle").
Cela fait longtemps que ca dure (depuis 1760 je dirais) et ca va durer encore un
moment! ;-)
Et puis, qui nous parle d'une separation pure (et dure)? Au Quebec, que l'on se
tourne a gauche ou a droite on nous parle en fait d'une alliance economique
(renouvelee...). Ce que les independentistes veulent a mon sens c'est obtenir
le controle entier (ou quasi-entier) sur l'immigration et la langue (d'affichage,
de travail, d'education,...), et obtenir des leviers economiques en consequence
afin de supporter le developement d'un Quebec majoritairement francophone.
Mais quels sont ces leviers economiques? Est-ce que des leaders nationalistes
tels Parizeau ou Levesque ont promu une independence totale? Jamais de la vie!
Et de quoi nous parle un leader pseudo-nationaliste tel R. Bourassa? D'une
alliance economique renouvelee.
Que suggere ceux qui sont contre ces idees de "separation" (moi je dirai plutot
de "new deal")? Quoi d'autre sinon le statut-quo...
Mais la situation presente n'est-elle pas intenable et bien plus dommageable a
long terme pour le Canada tout entier? Cela fait si longtemps que nous canadiens
nous nous disputons et gaspillons tant d'energies sur de telles questions
(constitution, partage de pouvoirs) au lieu de nous concentrer entierement sur le
developpement (economique, sociale et culturel) de notre pays.
Comment peut-on croire que si l'on ne regle pas nos problemes maintenant le
Canada se portera mieux a l'avenir? Et regler nos problemes signifie que le
Quebec et le Canada doivent en venir a une entente. Le Quebec (politique) demande
une association renouvelee. Le reste du Canada a le choix: refuser toute entente,
ce qui nous menera probablement a une separation pure et simple ou alors
negocier (et accepter le fait qu'un "new deal" et necessaire et utile, un fait
que bien peu de canadiens, meme au Quebec, semble realiser il me semble).
|> Au sujet de l'economie apres une separation, quelqu'un m'a ecrit:
|> >Economiquement, il est certain qu'il y aura une pe'riode moins
|> >prospe`re apre`s l'inde'pendance, mais tout finira par se replacer.
|> Je trouve ceci naif, mais typique des gens qui veulent une separation,
|> qu'ils soit Quebecois ou non (comme Thomas?). La commerce internationale
|> ne joue pas par des regles justes et gentilles, comme decrites a l'ecole.
|> En tant que membre du G7, par exemple, le Canada profite d'une bonne position
|> pour se proteger contre les manoeuvres politiques des pays industriels.
|> Comment peut-on croire que, divise' en deux, le Canada se rejouirait
|> des memes rapports avec les grands? Quelle naivete'!
Encore une fois: pourquoi faut-il que l'on voit un nouveau rapport de force entre
le Quebec et le reste du Canada comme une "division". Si l'entente se fait a
l'amiable, pourquoi est-ce que le Canada perdrait ses atouts sur la scene
internationale? (et sa place dans le G7) Ce n'est que s'il n'y pas d'entente
entre les deux parties que le Canada perdra ses acquis sur la scene
internationale; et d'apres moi le Canada avec sa situation economique actuelle
est en train de perdre doucement sa force economique, et ce, je dirai, que cela
est du en bonne partie a nos imbroglios internes.
|> Si les individus sur les deux cotes aiment bien se hair, qui n'est pas le
|> cas pour moi en tout cas, qu'ils le fassent tranquillement.
Bien d'accord!
|> Bien entendu, l'argent n'est que la facon de maintenir le genre de societe'
|> que nous voulons; mais sans l'argent, *tout* le reste va souffrir.
|> Il est noble mais innocent de croire le contraire.
|> L'economie n'a pas de place pour des emotions.
Est-ce que l'on doit a tout prix mettre nos emotions au service de l'economique.
Si au moins l'economie etait une science exacte! (et meme la...)
Si au moins tous les canadiens realisaient la richesse de pouvoir joindre et
partager deux cultures, deux langues (ou plus). En Suisse, on a du comprendre ca
il y a bien longtemps, non?!
|> Marc Riese
|> Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
|> Suisse
A bon entendeur, Salut!
--
--
Frederic Leymarie -- ley...@mcrcim.mcgill.edu
McGill University, Electrical Eng. Dept., McRCIM, | Tel.: (514) 398-8204
3480 University St., Montreal, QC, CANADA, H3A 2A7. | FAX: (514) 398-7348
Thomas Hood
and covered the issue pretty well.
Legally speaking, the new state would be entitled to 0% of federal
assets, and responsible for 0% of its debt. Obviously, a settlement
would have to be negotiated.
For your consideration, here is a proposal for the canadian bargaining
position:
Canada should give the new state everything it would no longer need --
bridges, ports, and so on -- and a bill for 25% of the debt, payable in
American dollars.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Thomas Hood
The Montreal economist arguing the separatist side (someday I'll be able to
remember names...) said that Quebec should be considered to have less than
25% of Canada's population because 250,000 anglophones would leave the
province. How very, very clever.
Jacques Parizeau was also at his smugliest in the interviews. I wonder why.
Was it because he could not restrain his glee at finally being able
to make Canada squirm? Or is it a strategy to revolt English Canadians
so they will want to separate from him as quickly as possible? Perhaps
he thinks that people having conniption fits are impotent negotiators.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Darrell Raymond
> rw...@superior.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:
> >Tonight The Journal (on CBC stations at about 10:20 pm) starts
> >a four part series called Untying the Knot.... Might be worth a watch.
>
> The second night dealt with the question of borders. The sneakiness
> of the Parti Quebecois position was apparent.
My favorite line from this part was Parizeau's
You must not touch the borders, because when you touch the
borders...there is trouble.
Right on, Jacques!
geoff
>
>Here I disagree. Yes, maybe there will be some people who feel anger at
>Quebec for doing what it has been threatening to do for over 10 years.
>Others will merely feel a sense of loss and a desire to get on and rebuild
>the country. And, especially if the recession is still on, people will
>certainly not be in the mood to hurt themselves.
>
large number of those who would 'feel anger'. Let's just say that
it would more than ruin my day. We are the ones who will be isolated.
We will be the ones having to cross another country to get to our own.
A couple of friends from BC told me they 'felt sorry for you guys'.
We obviously have much more to lose.
Many maritimers would be angry at 1) the feds for not trying
hard enough to keep the country together and 2)successful
separatists treating maritime disassociation as an unfortunate side effect.
A question: would Quebec even be part of Canada today if it wasn't
geographically in the middle? Is the idea of a 'split'
country enough to scare people into keeping it together at
a higher cost, even compared to quantifiable economic
problems?
-Geoff Johnston
geoff
people for political reasons just doesn't hang well internationally.
Maybe we could make you watch videotapes of all the Nordique's
losses this year :).
-Geoff Johnston
Jim Robinson
>In article <rleroux1....@sol.UVic.CA> rler...@sol.UVic.CA (Roger Leroux) writes:
>
>>Of course, our constitution isn't worth tha paper it's written on with that
>>damn noitwithstanding clause.
>
> For your information, Levesque was not in favor of this clause. It was
>mainly the MPs from the West who wanted it. But now that their weapon has
>turned against them, they want get rid of it. They wanted this clause, they'll
>have to live with it.
How about asking the *people* of Canada (including Quebecers, of course)
whether they want it.
Frederic Plante
That's cruel! Wasn't that kind of torture forbidden by the Geneva convention?
Frederic Plante
John Stewart
>That's cruel! Wasn't that kind of torture forbidden by the Geneva convention?
Well yes, but I'm sure that we could use the Notwithstanding clause to
override the Geneva Convention! :-) :-)
--
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet Services and Unix Workstation Support
Internet: jste...@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Can...@algonquin.carleton.ca
Phonenet: (613) 788-2600x3707
"My Canada includes Quebec"
Denis Beauregard
>In article <1992Feb19....@pandora.matrox.com> th...@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas
>Hood) writes:
>[...]
>>
>> Someone in English Canada will have to realize, and soon, that we are
>> not only engaged in a debate over abstract principles of government.
>> We are engaged in a dispute with enemies of the Canadian state as
>> presently constituted. No amount of reform will satisfy them; they
>> must be defeated outright.
>
>What would you do? Kill us all? Put us all in jail?
prisonnier de leur indifference ou de (la morale m'empeche de parler).
En fait, en 1867, le Quebec avait initialement voter contre la
confederation. Le vote a probablement change par suite de menaces
(comme l'excommunication des contre). Et selon la loi, nous ne sommes
tenus aux engagements pris suite a des menaces.
De toutes facons, le devoir de tout prisonnier de guerre (puisqu'on
nous traite d'ennemis) est de s'evader, donc, dans notre cas, de s'evader
du Canada. CQFD.
Put us in jail would be impossible ... (but, if you can have an objective
opinion, you must have objective sources, not just bigot sources, thus
you don't need a translation anyway).
>
--
Denis Beauregard beau...@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Mes opinions sont personnelles, pas celles de mon employeur.
My opinions are mine, not those of my employer.
Looking for BEAUREGARD, JARRET, JAREST, VINCENT (I'm also on soc.roots)
Southiere Alain
>u1...@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Southiere Alain) writes:
>> For your information, Levesque was not in favor of this clause. It was
>>mainly the MPs from the West who wanted it. But now that their weapon has
>>turned against them, they want get rid of it. They wanted this clause, they'll
>>have to live with it.
>How about asking the *people* of Canada (including Quebecers, of course)
>whether they want it.
That wouldn't be democraty as we know it in Canada. :-) Askint the people
what they want ? To do what ? To put the report on a shelf for centuries as
they always do ? Just a waste of money... Since when do politicians care
about the opinion of the population ? Except for a feew months beefore
elections...
Tony Buckland
>>In article <rleroux1....@sol.UVic.CA> rler...@sol.UVic.CA (Roger Leroux) writes:
>>>Of course, our constitution isn't worth tha paper it's written on with that
>>>damn noitwithstanding clause.
>> For your information, Levesque was not in favor of this clause. It was
>>mainly the MPs from the West who wanted it. But now that their weapon has
>>turned against them, they want get rid of it. They wanted this clause, they'll
>>have to live with it.
>How about asking the *people* of Canada (including Quebecers, of course)
>whether they want it.
Regardless of who wanted it put it, this individual among the people
of Canada doesn't want it. A constitution is supposed to tell
politicians what to do - i.e., what limits they may legislate
within - not ask them. Some of the triumphs of the U.S. Constitution
have been in the Supreme Court striking down laws passed by States
to attempt to continue to oppress some among their citizens in
accordance with local tradition or philosophy that conflicted with
the national constitution those States had agreed to live by.
Thomas Hood
>In article <1992Feb20.1...@IRO.UMontreal.CA> pla...@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante) wrote:
>> In article <1992Feb19....@pandora.matrox.com> th...@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas
>> Hood) writes:
>>> We are engaged in a dispute with enemies of the Canadian state as
>>> presently constituted. No amount of reform will satisfy them; they
>>> must be defeated outright.
>>
>> What would you do? Kill us all? Put us all in jail?
If the separatists lose another referendum, they are finished.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Jim Robinson
I disagree. If they lose they will blame it on the recession (and they may
even be right). Eventually the PQ will regain power (as they are presently
the only alternative to the Liberals), and they will start pushing for
independence (or s-a) again. Once in power they will be in a position to
virtually manufacture incidents which "prove" that Canada is still shafting
Quebec. Whether they will play "dirty" in this way or not, I do not know,
but it is a possibility. At any rate, when the time is right, there will be
yet another referendum.
How could it be otherwise when a separatist party consistently receives a
large share of the support of the Quebec people?
Thomas Hood
>>We are engaged in a dispute with enemies of the Canadian state as
>>presently constituted. No amount of reform will satisfy them; they
>>must be defeated outright.
>No, no, no. You shouldn't see it this way. Quebec is not an enemy of
>Canada, (no more than it is an enemy of the US).
That is not what I said, by the way.
>Quebec is just realizing that it has nothing to do with Canada politically.
>We are facing a dead-end.
If Quebec had "nothing" to do with Canada politically then there would
be no need for the "association" half of sovereignty-association. No need
to use the Canadian dollar. No need for a "superstructure". But all these
things are needed, and we have them now.
We are not facing a dead end, but a nationalist road block. The opinion
that we need a revolution in order to fly a Quebec flag in front of Complexe
Guy Favreau serves the interests of provincial politicians, and no one else.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Rheal Nadeau
th...@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
> If the separatists lose another referendum, they are finished.
Until the next incompetent politician decides it's in his own interest
to stir up trouble, the way dear Brian did with his proposed Meech Lake
accord.
There were always be tensions between different groups (and not just
between "French Quebec" and "English Canada"), and there will always be
opportunistic politicians willing to stir things up for their own
advantage (usually to distract attention from their own failings). It
is up to the rest of us to be suspicious of the claims of these
politicians.
The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau) | Bell-Northern Research
Internet: nad...@bnr.ca | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views | (613) 763-4266
Don Clayton
|> >Quebec is just realizing that it has nothing to do with Canada politically.
|> >We are facing a dead-end.
|>
|> If Quebec had "nothing" to do with Canada politically then there would
|> be no need for the "association" half of sovereignty-association. No need
|> to use the Canadian dollar. No need for a "superstructure". But all these
|> things are needed, and we have them now.
|>
|> We are not facing a dead end, but a nationalist road block. The opinion
|> that we need a revolution in order to fly a Quebec flag in front of Complexe
|> Guy Favreau serves the interests of provincial politicians, and no one else.
I agree 100%! What does the average citizen in Quebec gain from splitting
from Canada? This strikes me as purley as political move to gain power for
a few individuals.
Don
Are these the views of BNR? Hell no, BNR doesn't even understand what
the hell I'm talking about.
No more boy meets girl, boy looses girl, more like man just tries to
understand what the hell went wrong. - The Pursuit of Happiness (TPOH)
Francois Audet
>>If the separatists lose another referendum, they are finished.
>
>I disagree. If they lose they will blame it on the recession (and they may
>even be right). Eventually the PQ will regain power (as they are presently
>the only alternative to the Liberals), and they will start pushing for
>independence (or s-a) again. Once in power they will be in a position to
>virtually manufacture incidents which "prove" that Canada is still shafting
>Quebec. Whether they will play "dirty" in this way or not, I do not know,
>but it is a possibility. At any rate, when the time is right, there will be
>yet another referendum.
Instead of making ridiculous accusations like this, I'd like you to
name one "manufactured incident" that the PQ did to gain support.
I shall point to you that the feds on the other hands, did manufacture
major "incidents" to gain support. The first and greatest example of
this was the so-called Octobre 70 crisis, where it was later proved
that most of it was organized to boost trudeau's credibility. It
worked increadibly well since the imposition of the war measure act on
these dam quebecois enabled trudeau's government to get the highest
popularity ever for the federal governement.
>How could it be otherwise when a separatist party consistently receives a
>large share of the support of the Quebec people?
If the movement gets continuous supports, it means it is legetimate.
What is holding it is the fear of change (greatly enhanced by the
dirty games played by the federal government, before by Quebec's provincial
federalist parties, now by today's other provinces, and finally, by
the media).
--
Francois Audet
francoi...@software.mitel.com
Jim Robinson
>In article <1992Feb25....@mdivax1.uucp> robi...@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>>If the separatists lose another referendum, they are finished.
>>
>>I disagree. If they lose they will blame it on the recession (and they may
>>even be right). Eventually the PQ will regain power (as they are presently
>>the only alternative to the Liberals), and they will start pushing for
>>independence (or s-a) again. Once in power they will be in a position to
>>virtually manufacture incidents which "prove" that Canada is still shafting
>>Quebec. Whether they will play "dirty" in this way or not, I do not know,
>>but it is a possibility. At any rate, when the time is right, there will be
>>yet another referendum.
>
>Instead of making ridiculous accusations like this, I'd like you to
>name one "manufactured incident" that the PQ did to gain support.
Francois, I did *not* make an accusation. I said that it was a *future*
*possibility* and that I did not know whether it would actually occur.
Please do not put words in my mouth.
>I shall point to you that the feds on the other hands, did manufacture
>major "incidents" to gain support. The first and greatest example of
>this was the so-called Octobre 70 crisis, where it was later proved
>that most of it was organized to boost trudeau's credibility. It
>worked increadibly well since the imposition of the war measure act on
>these dam quebecois enabled trudeau's government to get the highest
>popularity ever for the federal governement.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above analysis of the October
Crisis I would say that it nonetheless supports my position (neat trick,
eh). There are *plenty* of examples to draw upon where a government
manufactured an incident. I would say that it is naive to believe that
*any* government, including a PQ government, is above this. It was not my
intent to claim that a PQ government would be any less virtuous than any
other government in Canada. But, if you think they will be any more
virtuous, then you are probably in for a rude shock.
>>How could it be otherwise when a separatist party consistently receives a
>>large share of the support of the Quebec people?
>
>If the movement gets continuous supports, it means it is legetimate.
Agreed. I never said otherwise.
>What is holding it is the fear of change (greatly enhanced by the
>dirty games played by the federal government, before by Quebec's provincial
>federalist parties, now by today's other provinces, and finally, by
>the media).
Again I agree. The federal government and some of the premiers are using
scare tactics on Quebec. I am not so sure whether the media is. But, I
do not understand the reference to "Quebec's provincial federalist
parties"; the Quebec Liberals are playing hard ball with anglophone
Canada over these negotiations and the Equality Party is a non-issue
judging by the amount of coverage it receives.
At any rate, the main thrust of what I was saying is that even if the
separatists lose the referendum (if there is one), they will *not*
disappear. Their support is simply too strong for this to happen. As well,
traditionally in Quebec support for federalism has been highest among
anglophones and older francophones; both groups are shrinking, due to
emigration and death respectively, resulting in an ever increasing support
for independence. I take it you do not disagree.
Francois Audet
>If Quebec had "nothing" to do with Canada politically then there would
>be no need for the "association" half of sovereignty-association. No need
>to use the Canadian dollar. No need for a "superstructure". But all these
>things are needed, and we have them now.
It is possible for countries to be economically linked together, while
still being sovereign. Total seperation is not feasible in today's
world market. Canada is greatly dependant on the US. There are a
number of "superstructure" to deal with issues of common interest. The
British Commonwealth, the GATT, the EEC, the Benelux, and quite a few
others. What is the big paranoia about sovereignty?
--
Francois Audet
francoi...@software.mitel.com
Francois Audet
>Until the next incompetent politician decides it's in his own interest
>to stir up trouble, the way dear Brian did with his proposed Meech Lake
>accord.
Major distorsion of facts. Meech lake was at first seen as the
ultimate panacea to cure Trudeau's desease by ALL provincial
governements, and the federal government. Every governement signed it.
A year later, 2 provincial governements decided NOT TO RESPECT the
engagement of their governement.
--
Francois Audet
francoi...@software.mitel.com
Mike Godfrey
Speaking of distortions ... Meech was sold as the "last chance so you'd
better all agree to it". Between the signing of it by the premiers and the
passage in the legisaltures, there were changes of government in several
provinces. Manitoba waffled until the last moment and then failed to get it
passed because of a procedural matter. Newfoundland decided that it did not
agree with the decision of the previous administration and sought -- well in
advance of the deadline -- to have its concerns addressed. Mulroney ignored
them until the last minute and then tried every kind of political blackmail
to get the dissenters to buckle under.
As Mulroney publicly bragged, he rolled the dice with the country's future.
Careful, honest, open negotiation is not his metier. Too bad, for all of us.
--
Mike Godfrey "Blimey, this redistribution of
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT wealth is trickier than I thought!"
mi...@turing.toronto.edu -- Dennis Moore
Francois Audet
>Francois, I did *not* make an accusation. I said that it was a *future*
>*possibility* and that I did not know whether it would actually occur.
>Please do not put words in my mouth.
OK. I retract what I've said. However, the way you said it. it looked
as if the PQ was manufacturing "incidents" to promote the sovereinist idea.
>manufactured an incident. I would say that it is naive to believe that
>*any* government, including a PQ government, is above this. It was not my
>intent to claim that a PQ government would be any less virtuous than any
>other government in Canada. But, if you think they will be any more
>virtuous, then you are probably in for a rude shock.
I can't predict for the possible future PQ government, but the last PQ
governement had a much "virtuous" history than Boubou's or Trudeau's
governments.
>Again I agree. The federal government and some of the premiers are using
>scare tactics on Quebec. I am not so sure whether the media is. But, I
>do not understand the reference to "Quebec's provincial federalist
>parties"; the Quebec Liberals are playing hard ball with anglophone
>Canada over these negotiations and the Equality Party is a non-issue
>judging by the amount of coverage it receives.
I was refering to the liberals in the "old days" (during the
referendum and before).
>At any rate, the main thrust of what I was saying is that even if the
>separatists lose the referendum (if there is one), they will *not*
>disappear. Their support is simply too strong for this to happen. As well,
>traditionally in Quebec support for federalism has been highest among
>anglophones and older francophones; both groups are shrinking, due to
>emigration and death respectively, resulting in an ever increasing support
>for independence.
Totally agree. This is why something has to be done. Quebec needs
much greater autonomy, and will not settle for anything less. Quebec
tried for numerous years to obtain that (ALL provincial parties tried,
even the "federalists"), with very little success. It seems that the
political aspirations of Quebec and TROC are diverging and are not
reconciable. Trudeau's coup-d'etat was the first blow, Meech was the
confirmation of all this.
--
Francois Audet
francoi...@software.mitel.com
Michael Burke
>separation referendum,
Some questions.
If Quebec separates, when will the referendums begin regarding (re) joining
Canada? Would such a situation be allowed to develop? Would such a process also
be a "best x out of y" contest?
Will a sovereign Quebec be as tolerant towards the rights/needs of the native
population as the rest of Canada has been towards Quebec? If the native
population officially requests the Canadian Government to protect them and
their land, what would Canada's response be?
Hopefully this is all just a case of idle speculation.
--
---
Michael Burke
Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484 Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!aimed!seachg!burke
Stephane Boucher
In article <1992Feb28....@seachg.uucp> bu...@seachg.uucp (Michael Burke) writes:
In article <1992Feb20....@mdivax1.uucp> robi...@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>Perhaps I am indeed missing something but Quebec has already had one
>separation referendum,
Some questions.
If Quebec separates, when will the referendums begin regarding (re) joining
Canada? Would such a situation be allowed to develop? Would such a process also
be a "best x out of y" contest?
Quebecl WILL NOT seperate.
Will a sovereign Quebec be as tolerant towards the rights/needs of the
native population as the rest of Canada has been towards Quebec?
Let me see ... If I say YES I will be flooded by flames by the likes of
______. If I say NO I will be flooded by congratulation for being right on
by the likes of ______. What would be the reaction if I answer MAYBE. What
do you think the answer is Michael? Also, did you volontarely keep the
choice MORE TOLERANT out of the question?
If the native
population officially requests the Canadian Government to protect them and
their land, what would Canada's response be?
This one is not for me to answer. Although I'm certain that
Canada will do what is best to do in that situation.
Hopefully this is all just a case of idle speculation.
Absolutely a case of idle speculation.
--
,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr.
s...@vlsi.polymtl.ca
s...@info.polymtl.ca
Thomas Hood
>Totally agree. This is why something has to be done. Quebec needs
>much greater autonomy, and will not settle for anything less. Quebec
>tried for numerous years to obtain that (ALL provincial parties tried,
>even the "federalists"), with very little success. It seems that the
>political aspirations of Quebec and TROC are diverging and are not
>reconciable. Trudeau's coup-d'etat was the first blow, Meech was the
>confirmation of all this.
You have not demonstrated that Quebec "needs" much greater autonomy.
All you have done is claim that Quebec "must have" greater autonomy,
which is to say that certain people "want" this.
When one tries to establish a basis for these desires, one finds
that Quebec wants it because:
1) Quebec has wanted it for a long time
2) Quebec wants it because it was traumatized as a child
3) Quebec really really wants it; see if it doesn't!
The problem is that these are not good answers.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Richard Griffith
>You have not demonstrated that Quebec "needs" much greater autonomy.
>All you have done is claim that Quebec "must have" greater autonomy,
>which is to say that certain people "want" this.
>When one tries to establish a basis for these desires, one finds
>that Quebec wants it because:
>1) Quebec has wanted it for a long time
>2) Quebec wants it because it was traumatized as a child
>3) Quebec really really wants it; see if it doesn't!
>The problem is that these are not good answers.
The first question is who is Quebec?
Is it all because the politicians in charge want more personal power and
are willing to whip the masses into a frenzy in order to fullfill their goal?
Things such as control of the environment, labour and other ``power politics''
tools really seem to be the large issue. The problem is that the world is
moving towards a global economy. People in power with control over these factors
are in a great position to make personal gain at a cost to the overall well
being of the region.
Yes, with control over langauge rights they can build a wall around Quebec.
This will benefit those with ability to take advantage of the langauge laws,
while costing the consumers who would be unable to benefit from the global
economy as well as weekening the internal structures through protectionism.
Yes, with control over the environment they can ``do it their way'' and
flood the land, cut the trees etc. This puts money in the hands of the
industrialists while consuming the resources.
Giving Quebec, or any province greater autonomy unbalances the playing field.
Any economist will tell you the more unbalanced the playing field the greater
the profit that can be extracted from the market. Barriers between provinces
should be lowered and not raised to strengthen Canada and the Francophone
Society.
--
"Personalize this message. Put your favorite quotation, quip or quibble here."
Robin Collins
>In article <1992Feb20....@mdivax1.uucp> robi...@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>If Quebec separates, when will the referendums begin regarding (re) joining
>Canada? Would such a situation be allowed to develop? Would such a process also
>be a "best x out of y" contest?
Excellent point, and one that is often not mentioned at all.
If Quebec was to separate, I would argue that immediately efforts
should begin to convince the people of the newly separate nation to
rejoin with Canada on the basis of a common constitution based on
principles of equality, fraternity and liberty.
This is the alternative to the view that hatred should spring up between
the two states.
Perhaps the way to reconciliation will be through separation. Perhaps
we needn't bother with that step. It's up to the Quebec people to decide.
>
>Will a sovereign Quebec be as tolerant towards the rights/needs of the native
>population as the rest of Canada has been towards Quebec? If the native
>population officially requests the Canadian Government to protect them and
>their land, what would Canada's response be?
>
>Hopefully this is all just a case of idle speculation.
Also an excellent point.
Will the new separate Quebec be democratic?
Will it be exclusionary in its new constitution where francophones
have rights different from others?
If special status is wanted within the Canadian constitution, what
will be wanted for francophones/Quebecois within the Quebec
independent constitution? Will it be an ethnic or political model?
Frank.
hitchhiker
> In article <1992Feb28....@seachg.uucp> bu...@seachg.UUCP (Michael Bur
> >In article <1992Feb20....@mdivax1.uucp> robi...@mdd.comm.mot.com (J
> >
> >If Quebec separates, when will the referendums begin regarding (re) joining
>
> If Quebec was to separate, I would argue that immediately efforts
> should begin to convince the people of the newly separate nation to
> rejoin with Canada on the basis of a common constitution based on
> principles of equality, fraternity and liberty.
Sounds revolutionary and french to me!
> >
> >Will a sovereign Quebec be as tolerant towards the rights/needs of the nativ
> >population as the rest of Canada has been towards Quebec? If the native
Don't worry. The Mohawks have submachine guns! As for the rest, I'm sure
they're are unscrupulous arms dealers who will be willing to obey the laws
of supply and demand.
> Will the new separate Quebec be democratic?
Probably since the majority of people are French. Democracy means rule
by the people (majority). That's why Northern Ireland is "Democratic".
The Irish are outvoted by the descendants of English and Scottish settlers
who were sent there by Elizabeth I. The media would have us believe that
it's about Catholic/Protestant. Bull. Protestantism was brought by the
settlers.
To conclude, yes the new Quebec will be democratic. It remains to be seen
if it will be fair!!!
------
All irrational opinions expressed by Mr. Hitchhiker are his solely
and are shared by no other normal human being, including his
boss!
Robin Collins
>rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Feb28....@seachg.uucp> bu...@seachg.UUCP (Michael Bur
>> >In article <1992Feb20....@mdivax1.uucp> robi...@mdd.comm.mot.com (J
>> >
>> >If Quebec separates, when will the referendums begin regarding (re) joining
>>
>> If Quebec was to separate, I would argue that immediately efforts
>> should begin to convince the people of the newly separate nation to
>> rejoin with Canada on the basis of a common constitution based on
>> principles of equality, fraternity and liberty.
>
>Sounds revolutionary and french to me!
That it is.
>Probably since the majority of people are French. Democracy means rule
>by the people (majority). That's why Northern Ireland is "Democratic".
>The Irish are outvoted by the descendants of English and Scottish settlers
>who were sent there by Elizabeth I. The media would have us believe that
>it's about Catholic/Protestant. Bull. Protestantism was brought by the
>settlers.
>
>To conclude, yes the new Quebec will be democratic. It remains to be seen
>if it will be fair!!!
When I use the term DEMOCRATIC, I use it in the sense of being respectful
of the liberties of others. You are being too technical.
A majority decision that is wrong, is in my view, undemocratic.
Northern Ireland was NOT democratic. At the time of the VOTE (1922?) and
the division of Ireland, the majority (70 percent or so) voted to secede.
The British looked around and found where the 30 percent were strongest
- in the north - and drew a line, declaring it a separate state.
Perhaps a line should have been drawn in Derry too, so that it and
the Falls Road in Belfast could join the Republic?
So no, you are wrong, this was not even technically democratic.
In this era, a number of things have to happen for the reuinification to occur:
The Catholic church must be separated from the Republican secular government;
The rights of all peoples must be guaranteed, no matter what the religious
background; the British must get the hell out; the working class in the North
must fight alongside the working class in the Republic. The sectarian violence
must end.
You are also VERY wrong is suggesting that the "Irish were outvoted by
the descendants of the English and Scottish settlers." Excuse me, but these
people were was Irish as anyone else. Irish means living in Ireland.
If you persist in dividing these people on the grounds of their descendance,
you are perpetuating the problem.
Remember that some of the greatest of Irish patriots were English and Scottish
in background (Connolly was born Scottish, for example. This was never an issue.)
Frank.
...Jose
>You are also VERY wrong is suggesting that the "Irish were outvoted by
>the descendants of the English and Scottish settlers." Excuse me, but these
>people were was Irish as anyone else. Irish means living in Ireland.
>If you persist in dividing these people on the grounds of their descendance,
>you are perpetuating the problem.
Meanwhile, back in Canada....
It seems a common view among French Quebeckers is that English
Quebeckers are not *of* Quebec the way the they themselves are; ie.
there are the Quebecois and the Quebeckers, and never the twain shall
meet. I grew up in Montreal and the Townships.... branches of my
Father's family have lived in Quebec since the late 1700's (yes, and
I'm sure many of them were obnoxious Anglo/Scots chauvanists).... when
do we stop being outsiders?
Am I wrong? Do the Quebecois, in general, consider English
Quebeckers to be "native"?
....Ken
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
".sig quotes are dippy"|Kenneth C. Moyle ke...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
- Kenneth C. Moyle |Department of Biochemistry MOY...@MCMASTER.BITNET
|McMaster University ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!kenm
Michele A. Simond
> [...] .... when
>do we stop being outsiders?
Maybe when one decides to be part of it, or, as one of my
correspondants would probably say : "When one stops acting
like a tourist". A tourist does not have to accept, not even
acknowledge the fact that Quebec is a French speaking province
whose right to be so is enshrined in our constitution.
But when you live in Quebec, you cannot behave like a tourist
if you want to feel part of it. I am always amazed when I
hear people like Mordecai Richler, who have lived here for
so long, who don't speak a word of french and who claim
that French-speaking Quebeckers are paranoid. The saddest,
as my friend has reflected to me is that those tourists
have a strong impact on the public opinion of the rest of the
country.
> Am I wrong? Do the Quebecois, in general, consider English
>Quebeckers to be "native"?
The ones that are born here are, literally speaking, more native
than myself. And the ones that have adapted, that have accepted to
"pay the price", are, in my opinion, as native as any other.
In the end, the feeling of belonging, of being part of it, can
only come from one own's attitude. I wasn't born here, I still
have strong ties with Switzerland, I still hear people telling
me I am an outsider, but I know for sure that for me, home is here...
--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ...... B.P.: mic...@catnix.UUCP
Tel.: (514) 671-8820
Gerald Heckman
>ke...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) asks :
>> [...] .... when
>>do we stop being outsiders?
>
>Maybe when one decides to be part of it, or, as one of my
>correspondants would probably say : "When one stops acting
>like a tourist". A tourist does not have to accept, not even
>acknowledge the fact that Quebec is a French speaking province
>whose right to be so is enshrined in our constitution.
>But when you live in Quebec, you cannot behave like a tourist
>if you want to feel part of it. I am always amazed when I
>hear people like Mordecai Richler, who have lived here for
>so long, who don't speak a word of french and who claim
>that French-speaking Quebeckers are paranoid. The saddest,
>as my friend has reflected to me is that those tourists
>have a strong impact on the public opinion of the rest of the
>country.
Sorry to disagree with you here Michelle, but do "tourists"
send their children to French schools as Richler did ? As well,
Richler does speak French - he just prefers to conduct all
interviews, even on French TV, in English.
Of course Quebec has the right to be French, and Richler is not
denying this. Perhaps that is the paranoia he is refering to -
that people who desire to live in English in Quebec, as many
of their forefathers have done in Quebec before them, are seen
as threatening the French fact or being intolerant. The presence
of unilingual anglophones in Quebec should not be seen as an affront
to francophone Quebecers. Of course it is better to learn the language
of the majority, to better interact with fellow Quebecers. Those
who remain unilingual, either through what we may percieve to be
narrow-mindedness or for reasons which seem perfectly good to them,
should have the right to do so without being called "tourists"
in their own home.
>--
>Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ...... B.P.: mic...@catnix.UUCP
Gerald P Heckman
Universite de Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Jamie Andrews
>hear people like Mordecai Richler, who have lived here for
>so long, who don't speak a word of french and who claim
Have you actually read the Mordecai Richler article in the
New Yorker, or are you going on what you've read of it in the
nationalist press? Richler speaks good French and does so
often, as he points out in the article.
--Jamie.
ja...@cs.sfu.ca
"What minority is smaller, and weaker, than a minority of one?" -- S. Rushdie
Mike Godfrey
>the division of Ireland, the majority (70 percent or so) voted to secede.
>
>The British looked around and found where the 30 percent were strongest
>- in the north - and drew a line, declaring it a separate state.
>Perhaps a line should have been drawn in Derry too, so that it and
>the Falls Road in Belfast could join the Republic?
OK, but not the whole story. They eventually decided to draw the line
based on existing, traditional boundaries: They took the six counties of
the province of Ulster where the Protestants were in majority and declared
that Northern Ireland. (Note that the other three Ulster counties are
part of the Republic. The terms "Ulster" and "Northern Ireland" are not
interchangeable.)
The whole story of partition was one of political bungling, secret deals
and a distinct lack of fair play. Sound familiar?
The republican side wanted no partition. Eventually, they agreed to some
partition, but wanted the border decided on a town-by-town basis. This would
have resulted in some of the six counties becoming part of the republic, and
part of the remaining three becoming part of NI. However, the Tory British
government and its unionist allies managed to out manouever them and got the
current boundaries. Had the Liberals been in power at the time, it's very
likely things would have turned out differently -- they had a tradition of at
least listening to the non-unionist majority.
My own opinion is that had all of Ireland been cut loose as a single entity,
the two sides would have had to learn to live each other eventually, although
not without a good deal of pain -- recall that after the republic was cut
free, there was a great blooshed in the republic between those who wanted to
continue the fight for a whole Ireland and those who accepted the partition
as a compromise. The partition has allowed north and south the slack never
to have to learn to tolerate each other. It was a very bad mistake. Please
note that this is a distinct question from "What should happen to Northern
Ireland now?". The situation is much more complicated, and I see no easy
solution until people stop being paranoid and learn to respect each other's
right to be as they are.
For more information, read Robert Kee's "The Green Flag" [Penguin].
>So no, you are wrong, this was not even technically democratic.
Well, this does seem analogous to the Quebec/Native division. If a part of a
country wants to separate, but a chunk within that chunk doesn't want to go
along, it seems democratic to allow the smaller chunk to decide for itself.
In the particular case of Northern Ireland, I think it's proven to be a
mistake, but it still seems democratic to me. The political process involved
was decidedly unfair, but that's another issue.
>In this era, a number of things have to happen for the reuinification to occur:
>The Catholic church must be separated from the Republican secular government;
>The rights of all peoples must be guaranteed, no matter what the religious
>background; the British must get the hell out; the working class in the North
>must fight alongside the working class in the Republic. The sectarian violence
>must end.
Indeed.
>Remember that some of the greatest of Irish patriots were English and Scottish
>in background (Connolly was born Scottish, for example. This was never an issue.)
Indeed two of the greatest republican heroes were of English Protestant
descent: Wolfe Tone and Charles Parnell. Tone, at whose grave the IRA is
fond of laying wreaths, was a descendant of a member of Cromwell's army no
less.
--
Mike Godfrey "Either that wallpaper goes, or I do."
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT -- allegedly, the last words
mi...@turing.toronto.edu of Oscar Wilde
Stephane Boucher
In article <2...@catnix.UUCP> mic...@catnix.UUCP (Michele A. Simond) writes:
>... I am always amazed when I
>hear people like Mordecai Richler, who have lived here for
>so long, who don't speak a word of french and who claim
>that French-speaking Quebeckers are paranoid...
Have you actually read the Mordecai Richler article in the
New Yorker, or are you going on what you've read of it in the
nationalist press? Richler speaks good French and does so
often, as he points out in the article.
1) What do you refer to when you say "nationalist press"?
2) Have you actually read the Mordecai Richler article int the New Yorker,
or are you going on what you've read of it in the redneck press? (Should I
add a smiley?)
3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
--
, , ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
s...@vlsi.polymtl.ca |
s...@info.polymtl.ca | (514)340-5950
Peter Whittaker
>3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
>refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
Franchement! Tu t'insultes trop vite! Je peux parler (mais peut-etre
pas ecrire :->) francais assez bien pour communiquer la majorite de mes
idees, mais quand c'est bien important, je parles anglais, parce que
j'ai bien plus de pratique en anglais, et je suis plus conscient des
subtilites qui pourrait me tromper.
(Comme evidence: chez nous, on parle anglais et francais sans
preference pour l'un ou l'autre, mais quand c'est important - les
finances, les details de vacances, our les enguillades - ma femme parle
en francais et moi je parle en anglais. C'est pour avoir une meileure
communication!)
pww
Translation:
Right! You take insult too readily! I speak French very well (though
my written French might lack), well enoug to get most of my ideas
across, but when it is really important, I speak English because I know
the language and its pitfalls.
(Evidence: at home, we speak both languages, with no preference for one
over the other, but when it's really important - money, vacation plans,
arguments - my wife speaks French and I speak English. That way, we
aresure of what we are saying!)
Stephane Boucher
In article <SBO.92Ma...@walhalla.vlsi.polymtl.ca> s...@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
>refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
Right! You take insult too readily! I speak French very well (though
my written French might lack), well enoug to get most of my ideas
across, but when it is really important, I speak English because I know
the language and its pitfalls.
(Evidence: at home, we speak both languages, with no preference for one
over the other, but when it's really important - money, vacation plans,
arguments - my wife speaks French and I speak English. That way, we
aresure of what we are saying!)
The example you give is quite different. In your example, your wife and
yourself are resonnably bilingual, according to what you say. But viewers
of Radio-Canada are CERTAINLY NOT ALL BILINGUAL. And watching an interview
on TV sub-titled (is it the correct word?) is certainly more annoying than
listening to someone who has a sluggish French. Moreover, on the interview
on Radio-Canada a while back, Richler did not say very complicated things.
To me, someone who is able to communicate in French can certainly be
interviewed in French. From what people say (I have never heard him speak
French), Richler is able to communicate in French. Jamie Andrews says:
"Richler speaks good French and does so often, as he points out in the
article."
However, despite Jamie's comment to the effect that Richler can speak good
French, I doubt it. From vague memory of an interview on Radio-Canada, I
think Richler said that he was at most able to read some French. He also
said that he was too old to learn French. Maybe someone who saw the
interview on Radio-Canada can shed some light on this since its from vague
memory.
ART OLIN, TRIUMF INET 128.189.128.2
>correspondants would probably say : "When one stops acting
>But when you live in Quebec, you cannot behave like a tourist
>if you want to feel part of it. I am always amazed when I
>hear people like Mordecai Richler, who have lived here for
>so long, who don't speak a word of french and who claim
>that French-speaking Quebeckers are paranoid. The saddest,
>as my friend has reflected to me is that those tourists
>have a strong impact on the public opinion of the rest of the
>country.
>
>than myself. And the ones that have adapted, that have accepted to
>"pay the price", are, in my opinion, as native as any other.
>
Michelle, and the resonance outside Quebec is because it reminds us
that a part of what used to be our country expects us to immigrate if
we want to live there. Of course the same is true for Francophones
moving to Vancouver.
The attitude that you are stating, which has its origins in
the French Canadian nationalist movement, seems to me to be
held by a wide cross section of Quebec society. It wasn't always that
way. When I lived in Quebec in the 60's, people like Richler could be
Quebecers without kissing nationalist ass.
The conflict over the distinct society clause is right on this point.
Few people are opposed to the protection and preservation of French
culture and language in general, but the realization that they are the
enemy that it is to be protected from is another matter, so this is
somewhat downplayed outside of Quebec. In the main the DSC is just
recognition and acceptance of the existing state of affairs. But this
acceptance raises the question of whether we have moved from the
"two nation" model which has really stopped working to a two country
scheme.
-- Art
Dave Martindale
>refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
By the same reasoning, should I be insulted if you post something in
French? After all, it is the language of the majority here.
But here, we let the poster decide what language to post in. Why not
grant Mordecai Richler the choice of language to be interviewed in?
Even if he speaks functional French, perhaps he is more comfortable
expressing subtle ideas in English and letting an expert translate them,
rather than trying to find just the write French phrases. Maybe he
wanted you to understand what he *meant* rather than just hearing some
words that he said.
Gerald Olchowy
> In article <2...@catnix.UUCP> mic...@catnix.UUCP (Michele A. Simond) writes:
> >... I am always amazed when I
> >hear people like Mordecai Richler, who have lived here for
> >so long, who don't speak a word of french and who claim
> >that French-speaking Quebeckers are paranoid...
>
> Have you actually read the Mordecai Richler article in the
> New Yorker, or are you going on what you've read of it in the
> nationalist press? Richler speaks good French and does so
> often, as he points out in the article.
>
>1) What do you refer to when you say "nationalist press"?
>
>2) Have you actually read the Mordecai Richler article int the New Yorker,
>or are you going on what you've read of it in the redneck press? (Should I
>add a smiley?)
>
>3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
>refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
>
I think Richler has said he can read French fluently, but that he
is uncomfortable speaking in French...anyways, isn't the whole point
of bilingualism is that people should not feel compelled to speak
a particular language, but should expect government services in
the language of their choice. Richler isn't the government...just
as it is a legitimate choice of a Quebec nationalist to speak in
French, it is a legitimate choice for Richler to speak in English
if he so chooses.
Gerald
Stephane Boucher
In article <SBO.92Ma...@walhalla.vlsi.polymtl.ca> s...@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
>refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
By the same reasoning, should I be insulted if you post something in
French? After all, it is the language of the majority here.
But here, we let the poster decide what language to post in. Why not
grant Mordecai Richler the choice of language to be interviewed in?
There is a difference between can.politics and Radio-Canada. The intended
audience is not the same. In can.politics the audience is mainly made up
off francophones and anglophones. On Radio-Canada the audience targeted is
made up of francophones.
Even if he speaks functional French, perhaps he is more comfortable
expressing subtle ideas in English and letting an expert translate them,
rather than trying to find just the write French phrases. Maybe he
wanted you to understand what he *meant* rather than just hearing some
words that he said.
Has I pointed out in another post, the kind of interview made on
Radio-Canada and CBC has nothing to do with subtility. Those programs are
aimed at a wide audience, and the content must remain simple and easy to
understand. Also, the use of sub-title for the unilingual francophones is
probably useless, as many will probably change the chanel rather than read
the interview. They will end up reading the paper, and the content will not
necessarely be what the interviewed, in this particular case M. Richler,
wanted to say.
Denis Beauregard
>>
>>3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
>>refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
>
>By the same reasoning, should I be insulted if you post something in
>French? After all, it is the language of the majority here.
Just like in another group I get a feedback just because I posted in
French.
In the Richler case, Radio-Canada is a spoken media. So, if he
can speak French and VOLUNTARY says NOT IN FRENCH, it is insulting
if he is enough fluent in French to understand it and write the thing
he has written (I read a summary of a book to come and, gosh, it is
very very unlikely to please to francophones). And if he doesn't
know enough French, why is he complaining? He missed so many things
that he could hardly speak about something he knows, but more about
what he feeled or read.
>But here, we let the poster decide what language to post in. Why not
>grant Mordecai Richler the choice of language to be interviewed in?
A matter of respect, I think. If you respect your listeners, you
will try to touch them. If you don't, well..., you don't, and should
not complain after that.
>
>Even if he speaks functional French, perhaps he is more comfortable
>expressing subtle ideas in English and letting an expert translate them,
>rather than trying to find just the write French phrases. Maybe he
>wanted you to understand what he *meant* rather than just hearing some
>words that he said.
Is he a lawyer, a politician or a writter? In the two first cases, there
is some reasons to avoid misinterpretation anyway. In the third, per se,
there is no such reason except if he want to fall in the other
categories. Of course, if he know he is very subtle and he knows
that he is using (for example) words with double meaning, I doubt
he should be listened to.
BTW, a translator like a reporter is not always an expert enough
to translate subtle ideas. So, here again, if this is done so that
the translator is to make a mistake and to be blamed, it is insulting.
--
Denis Beauregard beau...@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Mes opinions sont personnelles, pas celles de mon employeur.
My opinions are mine, not those of my employer.
Promoting use of QC as logical abbreviation for Quebec
gal...@ac.dal.ca
>>3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
>>refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
Depends. Did he ask to be interviewed? Or did RC ask him?
He seems to be making waves by doing the interview in english,
could be part of his point.
I didn't hear the interview, but if the point he's making is that
`Quebecois' treat anglos as second-class citizen, or `tourists',
forcing them to be assimilated to French in the same way `Quebecois'
refused to be themselves, then he's making a good point.
It's one thing for an anglo to have to know some French to get
around in Quebec, but it's another to force him to change altogether.
I wish a few members of this group would stop speaking for all of
Quebec, the anglos living there are just as much `Quebecois' as you are.
Most don't need to prove anything. Most haven't done anything against
you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Peter Galbraith [Phone: (902) 494-7007] | GAL...@AC.DAL.CA (InterNet)
Dept. of Oceanography, Dalhousie University | GALBRTH@DALAC (BitNet)
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1 | {uunet watmath}!dalcs!rhogee
Earl L Smith
>French? After all, it is the language of the majority here.
>But here, we let the poster decide what language to post in. Why not
>grant Mordecai Richler the choice of language to be interviewed in?
Not comparable. The charter of soc.culture.canada explicitly
permits posters to write in either French or English, because
soc.culture.canada is directed to all aspects of Canadian
culture.
Earl Smith _|\ |`'| /|_
els...@iastate.edu \ V V /
Dept. of Chemistry, Iowa State University >________<
On peut m'ecrire en francais si l'on veut. !
Jamie Andrews
> New Yorker, or are you going on what you've read of it in the
> nationalist press? Richler speaks good French and does so
> often, as he points out in the article.
>
>1) What do you refer to when you say "nationalist press"?
I was referring to where Michele apparently got her ideas,
because I don't think she could have gotten them from reading
the article or any *objective* account of it.
>2) Have you actually read the Mordecai Richler article int the New Yorker,
yes
>3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
>refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
Perhaps he doesn't speak good *enough* French to want to be
interviewed on TV about controversial subjects in that language.
Especially when people are trying to read more into his words in
his *native* language than he intended.
Sorry, but I just find the pillorying of Richler to be
myopic and abhorrent.
PANDA'S BEE
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I think the point about all this
arguing over which language to use, French or English, is that when
deciding which language to use, surely one should think first about
one's competence in the language, then the language the audience one is
to address uses, then also whether this audience will feel at all
OFFENDED by not using their language, and the reasons for language
choice go on and on.
Choice of language is not black and white!!! I'm sorry for not writing
this contribution in French but I wouldn't be able to write so fast and
as easily as in French as I do in English. Please don't prejudge people
so easily on their choice of language, there could be many reasons for
it, and it is too easy to condemn someone given hindsight of their
action.
Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte ..... et TOLERANCE !!!
Thomas Hood
> It seems a common view among French Quebeckers is that English
>Quebeckers are not *of* Quebec the way the they themselves are; ie.
>there are the Quebecois and the Quebeckers, and never the twain shall
>meet. I grew up in Montreal and the Townships.... branches of my
>Father's family have lived in Quebec since the late 1700's (yes, and
>I'm sure many of them were obnoxious Anglo/Scots chauvanists).... when
>do we stop being outsiders?
> Am I wrong? Do the Quebecois, in general, consider English
>Quebeckers to be "native"?
Whether or not they are "native" depends upon one's perspective. To the
French, the English will always be "outsiders". I would also agree that
they are not "Quebecois" because that term has been appropriated by Quebec
sovereigntists.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY
>In article <1992Mar09.1...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
> It seems a common view among French Quebeckers is that English
>Quebeckers are not *of* Quebec the way the they themselves are; ie.
>there are the Quebecois and the Quebeckers, and never the twain shall
>meet. I grew up in Montreal and the Townships.... branches of my
>Father's family have lived in Quebec since the late 1700's (yes, and
>I'm sure many of them were obnoxious Anglo/Scots chauvanists).... when
>do we stop being outsiders?
>
> Am I wrong? Do the Quebecois, in general, consider English
>Quebeckers to be "native"?
>
>
> ....Ken
No, you are not wrong. Being myself a French Quebecker, I always considered
English-speaking Quebeckers as Canadians, not Quebeckers.
The reason?? To be considered Quebecker, I believe, is to be PART of
Quebec society, and for that, be able to communicate in French...
If you don't know French, you cannot really know what's going on in Quebec.
The fact is that in Quebec, the English-speaking community is a society within
another society: they have their newspapers, their own schools they control,
their TV/radio stations... they *hardly* know what's going on in the
french-speaking community, they just have the often biased view of their
media (I always thought that Montreal's Gazette is at war with French-speaking
quebeckers).
Back in Quebec, I had an English-speaking neighbor (with Irish origin) married
to a French-speaking man. The language spoken at home is English 70% of the
time I would say. But she can speak French, she is part of the neighborhood,
and I consider her a Quebecker.
(Maybe it's because the English-speaking community is very small in Quebec
City).
Well, I don't consider English-speaking Quebeckers ennemies either. It's just
that they are proud of being Canadians, while my people is proud of being
Quebeckers... so maybe it depends on the way you describe yourself...
> - Kenneth C. Moyle |Department of Biochemistry MOY...@MCMASTER.BITNET
> |McMaster University ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!kenm
We are almost neighbors!
- Sylvain Chamberland Dept. of Biology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario
scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu
CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY
>In article <1992Mar14.2...@bwdls61.bnr.ca> p...@bnr.ca (Peter Whittaker) writes:
>
> In article <SBO.92Ma...@walhalla.vlsi.polymtl.ca> s...@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
> >3) If Mordecai Richler speaks good French, then he has insulted me by
> >refusing to speak French in an interview on Radio-Canada.
>
>
>French, I doubt it. From vague memory of an interview on Radio-Canada, I
>think Richler said that he was at most able to read some French. He also
>said that he was too old to learn French. Maybe someone who saw the
>interview on Radio-Canada can shed some light on this since its from vague
>memory.
You are right. I am positive about this. I indeed remember that Mr. Richler
said although he can read French, he cannot speak it well. And about being
too old to learn French, it's true too.
I'm positive about that...
Sylvain Chamberland scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu
Dept. of Biology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, On
"Je me souviens." ;-)
Gerald Heckman
>In article <1992Mar9.2...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> ke...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar09.1...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>
>> It seems a common view among French Quebeckers is that English
>>Quebeckers are not *of* Quebec the way the they themselves are; ie.
>>there are the Quebecois and the Quebeckers, and never the twain shall
>>meet. I grew up in Montreal and the Townships.... branches of my
>>Father's family have lived in Quebec since the late 1700's (yes, and
>>I'm sure many of them were obnoxious Anglo/Scots chauvanists).... when
>>do we stop being outsiders?
>>
>> Am I wrong? Do the Quebecois, in general, consider English
>>Quebeckers to be "native"?
>> ....Ken
>
>No, you are not wrong. Being myself a French Quebecker, I always considered
>English-speaking Quebeckers as Canadians, not Quebeckers.
>
>The reason?? To be considered Quebecker, I believe, is to be PART of
>Quebec society, and for that, be able to communicate in French...
>
>If you don't know French, you cannot really know what's going on in Quebec.
This is true. It was written on stone tablets which Camille Laurin
brought down from Mont Royal in 1977. Quebec has always been French, is
French, and will always be French. This is the first commandment.
>The fact is that in Quebec, the English-speaking community is a society within
>another society: they have their newspapers, their own schools they control,
>their TV/radio stations...
You mean English Quebec is a distinct society within Quebec ? With a right
to its language, culture, hell even to autodetermination if it wants...
Just playing devil's advocate here, but that's what what you're saying amounts
to.
>they *hardly* know what's going on in the
>french-speaking community, they just have the often biased view of their
>media (I always thought that Montreal's Gazette is at war with French-speaking
>quebeckers).
And I'd say you have a very biased view of English Quebecers. The same tired
old stereotype of the unilingual Westmount anglo, with a mustache and a square
head, reading the Gazette. Did you know more than 60 % of Quebec anglophones
know French ? Half of the people suscribing to the Gazette are francophone
Quebecers.
Of course, you wouldn't happen to have any proof to back up your statements
about the Gazette ?
>Back in Quebec, I had an English-speaking neighbor (with Irish origin) married
>to a French-speaking man. The language spoken at home is English 70% of the
>time I would say. But she can speak French, she is part of the neighborhood,
>and I consider her a Quebecker.
>(Maybe it's because the English-speaking community is very small in Quebec
>City).
English Quebecers are all right as long as you can't see or hear them being
"English" in public. As long as they're a small number and mix in well with
"la majorite". Is that what you're saying ?
>Well, I don't consider English-speaking Quebeckers ennemies either. It's just
>that they are proud of being Canadians, while my people is proud of being
>Quebeckers... so maybe it depends on the way you describe yourself...
"My people are Quebeckers" - your people are not. Toute une ouverture au
monde. Give them a chance to be Quebecers and anglophone at the same time,
and I bet you they'll be proud as hell to say they're Quebecers.
Gerald Heckman
Stephane Boucher
Stephane Boucher for PM of Quebec!!
Thanks but no thanks !!!
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I think the point about all this
arguing over which language to use, French or English, is that when
deciding which language to use, surely one should think first about
one's competence in the language, then the language the audience one is
to address uses, then also whether this audience will feel at all
OFFENDED by not using their language, and the reasons for language
choice go on and on.
Ok, let's recap once again:
A netter says that Mordecai Richler speaks good french, based on what
Richler says in his famous article.
I said, if he speaks good french then he has insulted me (Maybe I did put
too much by saying insulted. Maybe I should have said annoyed). Later I
explained that I did not believe Richler could speak good French. Therefore
I has not insulted (or annoyed) me.
However, I stand behind what I said: "Someone who speaks good french should
use French when adressing a francophone audience". What do you think would
happen if Chretien stopped using English (knowing that many jokes can be
made I will ask you to focus on serious answers). What do you think the
chance would be for a politician to get elected he did not speak in English
despite the fact that he could speak good English (note that there would be
an interpret, and when he would address the English population on CBC there
would always be sub-titles)?
can.politics adresses at least francophone and anglophone audiences, unlike
"La Societe Radio-Canada".
Choice of language is not black and white!!! I'm sorry for not writing
this contribution in French but I wouldn't be able to write so fast and
as easily as in French as I do in English.
Why are you sorry for not writting in French?
Please don't prejudge people so easily on their choice of language,
there could be many reasons for it, and it is too easy to condemn
someone given hindsight of their action.
Am I the targeted subject of the previous paragraph? If so please
eleborate.
Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte ..... et TOLERANCE !!!
Please eleborate your point concerning the above line, if any. I do not
wish to wrongly extrapolate.
A la prochaine,
Dave Till
>to a French-speaking man. The language spoken at home is English 70% of the
>time I would say. But she can speak French, she is part of the neighborhood,
>and I consider her a Quebecker.
A non-sarcastic question: are anglophones who speak fluent French accepted
as Quebeckers in francophone communities, even if the French they speak
is easily distinguishable from the locals'?
I have virtually no knowledge of Quebec, and I am curious as to whether
such a thing is possible.
(My curiosity is purely academic, by the way: I am not fluent in French.)
>Well, I don't consider English-speaking Quebeckers ennemies either. It's just
>that they are proud of being Canadians, while my people is proud of being
>Quebeckers... so maybe it depends on the way you describe yourself...
I think most people from Ontario (for instance) are proud to be Ontarians
as well as being proud Canadians. However, Ontario isn't usually
considered a distinct cultural entity, so no one talks much about "being
proud to be Ontarian".
--
--Dave Till, Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems, Sietec Open Systems Division,
2235 Sheppard Ave. E. #1800, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada, M2J 5B5.
tel: (416)496-8510, fax: (416)496-8524, email: da...@sni.CA or da...@snitor.uucp
"Gabba gabba hey gabba hey gabba hey." -- the Ramones, of course
Dave Till
>A non-sarcastic question: are anglophones who speak fluent French accepted
>as Quebeckers in francophone communities, even if the French they speak
>is easily distinguishable from the locals'?
Apologies: this should read "commonly accepted" instead of "accepted".
(I can't cancel my earlier article and correct it.)
Gary L Dare
>scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>
>>they just have the often biased view of their media (I always
>>thought that Montreal's Gazette is at war with French-speaking
>>quebeckers).
>
>Quebecers.
>
>Of course, you wouldn't happen to have any proof to back up your
>statements about the Gazette ?
Anecdotal evidence to support George here ... until UPI's online
Clarinet arrived at Columbia, I would try and get Canadians at my grad
residence to pull a copy of the paper off their Air Canada flight for
me. With Quebecois acquaintances, my hopes of getting a La Presse
for Pierre Foglia or Ron King (a GREAT hockey columnist) were quickly
dashed once they hand over a copy of the Gazette ... "Hey, that's
what I read!" )-;
One also has to realize that the modern Gazette is a different paper
from what it may have been (I've seen the Aislin cartoon collections
and I'm sure they're some kind of reflection of the written content);
the Gazette is now stocked with ex-Globe & Mail staffers under George
Webster who aren't going along with that paper's policy of becoming a
denatured version of The Wall Street Journal/NYT Business Times. Many
are also returnees from the pre-1980 exodus, for whom there is no place
like home (as one Gazette acquaintence from Columbia Journalism School
said; it was very competitive to move back, as her tuition bill attests;
to be fair, her parents took her out to Ontario).
gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare The number of Canadians who --
> g...@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU approve of Brian Mulroney: 11%*
> g...@cunixc.BITNET believe Elvis is alive: 15%
Robin Collins
>In article <1992Mar09.1...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>Northern Ireland was NOT democratic. At the time of the VOTE (1922?) and
>>the division of Ireland, the majority (70 percent or so) voted to secede.
>>
>>The British looked around and found where the 30 percent were strongest
>>- in the north - and drew a line, declaring it a separate state.
>>Perhaps a line should have been drawn in Derry too, so that it and
>>the Falls Road in Belfast could join the Republic?
>
>OK, but not the whole story. They eventually decided to draw the line
>based on existing, traditional boundaries: They took the six counties of
>the province of Ulster where the Protestants were in majority and declared
>that Northern Ireland. (Note that the other three Ulster counties are
>part of the Republic. The terms "Ulster" and "Northern Ireland" are not
>interchangeable.)
I don't mean to square off to prove who knows more Irish history (I assume
you know at least a little, from your postings).
But there is never a whole story. We can only try to do our best.
>
>The republican side wanted no partition. Eventually, they agreed to some
>partition, but wanted the border decided on a town-by-town basis. This would
>have resulted in some of the six counties becoming part of the republic, and
>part of the remaining three becoming part of NI. However, the Tory British
>government and its unionist allies managed to out manouever them and got the
>current boundaries. Had the Liberals been in power at the time, it's very
>likely things would have turned out differently -- they had a tradition of at
>least listening to the non-unionist majority.
Let's be upfront here. It is a fact, and an unfortunate fact, that Michael
Collins (The Big Fellow) signed the bloody partition and was executed
shortly afterwards by that portion of the republican forces that opposed
the partition. Let's not forget that there was a civil war that followed
the vote for independence and the British took advantage of the split.
But there was a serious split. The republican forces were not united.
Collins, great man that he was, had made a serious mistake
that the Irish are now paying for.
>
>For more information, read Robert Kee's "The Green Flag" [Penguin].
>
Read also:
Ireland, Her Own by T.A. Jackson.
The Irish by O'Faolain.
The Life and Times of James Connolly.
and Brendan Behan's books on his life in the IRA and out of it.
>>So no, you are wrong, this was not even technically democratic.
>
>Well, this does seem analogous to the Quebec/Native division. If a part of a
>country wants to separate, but a chunk within that chunk doesn't want to go
>along, it seems democratic to allow the smaller chunk to decide for itself.
I agree that the North of Ireland should have had the right afterwards to
secede from Ireland, if it so desired. I certainly would not condone
such division, of course. (Or Quebec from Canada, or the Cree from Quebec, etc.)
I think the difference is that the vote was FOR secession from Britain and
the British imposed the division of Ireland upon the Irish.
Now the Irish must reverse that themselves.
But I am sure that revisionists will continue to suggest that the
Irish in the North freely decided to remain with Britain.
I return to my analogy. Why did the British not permit Belfast or Derry's
republican forces to remain with the Republic if the partition was really
democratic?
I think I agree with your seeming desire that the animosity be
resolved and this past mythical moment be moved over so that reconciliation
can finally occur.
Frank
Robin Collins
but can read french well.
This according to Between the Lines debate last week.
Frank.
Robin Collins
Well it looks to me like Thomas is trying to stir up a little chauvinism here.
A little incitement perhaps, this day?
There may be some Quebecois who don't consider english-speakers in Quebec
as part of Quebec. I suspect they are a chauvinist minority. Certainly
arguing that *to the french, the english will always be outsiders* is to
stereotype like crazy. This is, of course nonsense. Only if chauvinism
becomes rampant will this kind of ethnic separation come about. There is nothing
inherently anti-english about french-speakers, of course.
Quebecois refers to anyone who lives in Quebec or calls Quebec his/her home.
It cannot be misappropriated. It is a definition of citizenship only.
Frank.
Robin Collins
>>... I am always amazed when I
>>hear people like Mordecai Richler, who have lived here for
>>so long, who don't speak a word of french and who claim
>>that French-speaking Quebeckers are paranoid...
>
> Have you actually read the Mordecai Richler article in the
>New Yorker, or are you going on what you've read of it in the
>nationalist press? Richler speaks good French and does so
>often, as he points out in the article.
Richler commented on the show Between the Lines last week that
he speaks embarrassingly poor french, but can read it well.
So I suspect he did not intend to insult when he speaks in english
(similar to myself).
Frank
Robin Collins
>In article <1992Mar9.2...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> ke...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar09.1...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>
>
>No, you are not wrong. Being myself a French Quebecker, I always considered
>English-speaking Quebeckers as Canadians, not Quebeckers.
Well, then you do not understand what nationhood implies yet.
Nationhood is for anyone within the nation. It is not contingent on their
race, language or country of origin. Ironic that the original canadiens
were Quebecois, and now you push those Quebecois who speak english into
the little category of Canadian, because of the language they use. How
insulting.
This is provincialism and racism. This is narrow nationalism and something
that is dangerous and offensive.
>The reason?? To be considered Quebecker, I believe, is to be PART of
>Quebec society, and for that, be able to communicate in French...
Is that so?
That certainly isn't how the french revolutionaries saw it (Rousseau,
1789, Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and all that.)
Citizenship was based upon living within the boundaries of the country. Period.
Thomas Paine was welcomed as a frenchman into the National Assembly, despite
the fact that he didn't speak french and was born in the US.
But then, HALF of the population didn't speak french in France. Yes, HALF.
I would hope that one day those progressive ideals (and not the backward
linguistic ones) become the ideals of Quebec (AND Canada.)
>
>If you don't know French, you cannot really know what's going on in Quebec.
You certainly wouldn't know everything that was going on. If you don't know
Greek, you would miss some of the life of Montreal too.
>
>The fact is that in Quebec, the English-speaking community is a society within
>another society: they have their newspapers, their own schools they control,
>their TV/radio stations... they *hardly* know what's going on in the
>french-speaking community, they just have the often biased view of their
>media (I always thought that Montreal's Gazette is at war with French-speaking
>quebeckers).
>
We know what *THEY* have. The debate is about what they have had taken away
(right to post signs.)
>Back in Quebec, I had an English-speaking neighbor (with Irish origin) married
>to a French-speaking man. The language spoken at home is English 70% of the
>time I would say. But she can speak French, she is part of the neighborhood,
>and I consider her a Quebecker.
How kind of you. What is the percentage cutoff point, by the way.
60% french-speaking...50 percent? Or do you do blood tests?
Do you realize that your views are exceedingly (EXCEEDINGLY) racist?
>
>Well, I don't consider English-speaking Quebeckers enemies either. It's just
>that they are proud of being Canadians, while my people is proud of being
>Quebeckers... so maybe it depends on the way you describe yourself...
>
How kind.
There are anglophones (probably most of them in fact) that happen to be proud
of being Quebecois. If you don't understand that, then there is a major
problem here.
Your people include the anglopones of Quebec.
Don't turn your back on your people, Sylvain.
Salut!
Frank
CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY
>In article <1992Mar18.0...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar9.2...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> ke...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar09.1...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>>
>This is true. It was written on stone tablets which Camille Laurin
>brought down from Mont Royal in 1977. Quebec has always been French, is
>French, and will always be French. This is the first commandment.
Let me remind you that the province of Quebec was created by English-Canadians
to separate Anglophones from French-speaking people...
So English-speaking people originally wanted it that way...
>>The fact is that in Quebec, the English-speaking community is a society within
>>another society: they have their newspapers, their own schools they control,
>>their TV/radio stations...
>
>You mean English Quebec is a distinct society within Quebec ? With a right
>to its language, culture, hell even to autodetermination if it wants...
>Just playing devil's advocate here, but that's what what you're saying amounts
>to.
I knew somebody would say that. I personnaly think that the term "distinct
society" came from a madman's mind. The federal government as well as Quebec
government did not chose their words properly. I indeed think that English
Quebec is a distinct society, as well as "les bleuets" in Quebec are, or
"les beaucerons", or people of France's "Midi"...
If you want Quebec anglophones to separate, you must allow French Canadians
outside Quebec too. It works both ways, for TROC too...
>And I'd say you have a very biased view of English Quebecers. The same tired
>old stereotype of the unilingual Westmount anglo, with a mustache and a square
>head, reading the Gazette. Did you know more than 60 % of Quebec anglophones
>know French ? Half of the people suscribing to the Gazette are francophone
>Quebecers.
So how do you explain that there is still French Quebeckers forced to work
in English in Quebec? (statistics are saying it. Not me. No, I don't have
the references. Ask any Quebec PQ MP, I guess they will be very happy to
furnish them!!! ;-) )
How would you feel if you were forced to work in French in you own province??
(I am not speaking to you necessarly here, Gerald, for I guess you know some
French from previous messages)
>Of course, you wouldn't happen to have any proof to back up your statements
>about the Gazette ?
No, I don't. And I thought it was clear from the words I chose that they were
FEELINGS, not STATEMENTS. I said, "I always thought". Maybe the correct word
was "felt".
And just what does mean your "Of course"???
Do you imply that I happen to be someone not to be trusted????
I did not insult anyone, don't insult me.
>
>>Back in Quebec, I had an English-speaking neighbor (with Irish origin) married
>>to a French-speaking man. The language spoken at home is English 70% of the
>>time I would say. But she can speak French, she is part of the neighborhood,
>>and I consider her a Quebecker.
>>(Maybe it's because the English-speaking community is very small in Quebec
>>City).
>
>English Quebecers are all right as long as you can't see or hear them being
>"English" in public. As long as they're a small number and mix in well with
>"la majorite". Is that what you're saying ?
I must have added that when she speaks to her children in public, she does so
in *English*. And it does not bother me. I consider her a Quebecker because
she can speak to me in my own language, the language of the majority in Quebec.
As I am writing in English right now, and speaking in English to everyone
here where I study.
The small-number-factor forced her to be able to speak French, because it's
very difficult to function in English in Quebec City.
I don't care about the number of English-speaking people. What I care about
is being forced to speak a minority language in my own province.
(of course, I exclude government jobs. They have to be able to answer in
English)
Again, how most Canadians would feel if they were forced to speak French in
their own province???
>>Well, I don't consider English-speaking Quebeckers ennemies either. It's just
>>that they are proud of being Canadians, while my people is proud of being
>>Quebeckers... so maybe it depends on the way you describe yourself...
>
>"My people are Quebeckers" - your people are not. Toute une ouverture au
>monde. Give them a chance to be Quebecers and anglophone at the same time,
>and I bet you they'll be proud as hell to say they're Quebecers.
OK, let's extend on the definition of "Quebecker" or "Canadian". Your answer
made me think a little more about it.
To be considered a "xxxxxxxx"an, you have to share some common ideas,
common values, but most of all, the sames goals, the same ideals.
Canadians want a centralized government. Quebeckers want a strong provincial
government. They don't share the same ideals or goals in numerous other
examples...
At this point, I believe you have to decide if you are Canadian or Quebecker.
I decided: I am Quebecker, not Canadian.
English-speaking people in Quebec think themselves of Canadians...
>Gerald Heckman
>Universite de Waterloo,
>Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Funny! We are in the same university!
Sylvain
Nick Fitzpatrick
>In article <1992Mar18.1...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> hec...@kingcong.UWaterloo.ca (Gerald Heckman) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar18.0...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>This is true. It was written on stone tablets which Camille Laurin
>>brought down from Mont Royal in 1977. Quebec has always been French, is
>>French, and will always be French. This is the first commandment.
>
>Let me remind you that the province of Quebec was created by English-Canadians
>to separate Anglophones from French-speaking people...
>So English-speaking people originally wanted it that way...
>
so much against English-Canada, why don't you leave Ontario, go home to Quebec
and get ready to vote.
>>>The fact is that in Quebec, the English-speaking community is a society
>>>within another society: they have their newspapers, their own schools they
>>>control, their TV/radio stations...
>>
>>You mean English Quebec is a distinct society within Quebec ? With a right
>>to its language, culture, hell even to autodetermination if it wants...
>>Just playing devil's advocate here, but that's what what you're saying amounts
>>to.
>
>I knew somebody would say that. I personnaly think that the term "distinct
>society" came from a madman's mind. The federal government as well as Quebec
>government did not chose their words properly. I indeed think that English
>Quebec is a distinct society, as well as "les bleuets" in Quebec are, or
>"les beaucerons", or people of France's "Midi"...
>
>If you want Quebec anglophones to separate, you must allow French Canadians
>outside Quebec too. It works both ways, for TROC too...
But of course, you are right, however apart from the Acadians, which other
group would possibly consider it. After all the region of Ontario
that is more French (the North) has been relying on money from the south
for years.
>
>>And I'd say you have a very biased view of English Quebecers. The same tired
>>old stereotype of the unilingual Westmount anglo, with a mustache and a square
>>head, reading the Gazette. Did you know more than 60 % of Quebec anglophones
>>know French ? Half of the people suscribing to the Gazette are francophone
>>Quebecers.
>
>So how do you explain that there is still French Quebeckers forced to work
>in English in Quebec? (statistics are saying it. Not me. No, I don't have
>the references. Ask any Quebec PQ MP, I guess they will be very happy to
>furnish them!!! ;-) )
>
>How would you feel if you were forced to work in French in you own province??
>(I am not speaking to you necessarly here, Gerald, for I guess you know some
>French from previous messages)
Gee, as I am an English Quebecker, I know if I go home, I WILL be forced to
work in French in my own Province!
>
>>
>>>Back in Quebec, I had an English-speaking neighbor (with Irish origin) married
>>>to a French-speaking man. The language spoken at home is English 70% of the
>>>time I would say. But she can speak French, she is part of the neighborhood,
>>>and I consider her a Quebecker.
>>>(Maybe it's because the English-speaking community is very small in Quebec
>>>City).
>>
>>English Quebecers are all right as long as you can't see or hear them being
>>"English" in public. As long as they're a small number and mix in well with
>>"la majorite". Is that what you're saying ?
>
>I must have added that when she speaks to her children in public, she does so
>in *English*. And it does not bother me. I consider her a Quebecker because
>she can speak to me in my own language, the language of the majority in Quebec.
>As I am writing in English right now, and speaking in English to everyone
>here where I study.
If you consider a person only a Quebecker if they can speak French, then you
are a racist (and you can go back home to Quebec and stop sponging off the
resources of English-Canada)
>
>>>Well, I don't consider English-speaking Quebeckers ennemies either. It's just
>>>that they are proud of being Canadians, while my people is proud of being
>>>Quebeckers... so maybe it depends on the way you describe yourself...
>>
>>"My people are Quebeckers" - your people are not. Toute une ouverture au
>>monde. Give them a chance to be Quebecers and anglophone at the same time,
>>and I bet you they'll be proud as hell to say they're Quebecers.
>
>OK, let's extend on the definition of "Quebecker" or "Canadian". Your answer
>made me think a little more about it.
>
>To be considered a "xxxxxxxx"an, you have to share some common ideas,
>common values, but most of all, the sames goals, the same ideals.
>
>Canadians want a centralized government. Quebeckers want a strong provincial
>government. They don't share the same ideals or goals in numerous other
>examples...
>
>At this point, I believe you have to decide if you are Canadian or Quebecker.
>I decided: I am Quebecker, not Canadian.
>
>English-speaking people in Quebec think themselves of Canadians...
>
Wrong, Wrong Wrong, I am a Canadian, I am a Quebecker, I am English. I have
no probelm with all this. I also want a strong central government, not
unlike some prominent francophones (Trudeau, Chretein) (Yeah, I know
they have been disowned by the separatists because they are not politically
correct this week, but they are still Quebeckers)
>>Gerald Heckman
>>Universite de Waterloo,
>>Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
>Funny! We are in the same university!
>
>Sylvain
>Dept. of Biology
>University of Waterloo
>
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Civil Engineering
University of Waterloo
CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY
>In article <1992Mar18.0...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar9.2...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> ke...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar09.1...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>>
>>
>>No, you are not wrong. Being myself a French Quebecker, I always considered
>>English-speaking Quebeckers as Canadians, not Quebeckers.
>
>Well, then you do not understand what nationhood implies yet.
>Nationhood is for anyone within the nation. It is not contingent on their
>race, language or country of origin. Ironic that the original canadiens
>were Quebecois, and now you push those Quebecois who speak english into
>the little category of Canadian, because of the language they use. How
>insulting.
Well, about insulting, I am personnally insulted when I am classed as
being Canadian... ;-)
>This is provincialism and racism. This is narrow nationalism and something
>that is dangerous and offensive.
Wait a minute. Racism is a word "employe a toutes les sauces" nowadays.
Racism imply believing in the superiority of one's race on another.
We are of the same race, aren't we?
I don't consider myself superior to English-speaking.
Look the definition of racism in the dictionary. Maybe a better word
is prejudice.
>>Back in Quebec, I had an English-speaking neighbor (with Irish origin) married
>>to a French-speaking man. The language spoken at home is English 70% of the
>>time I would say. But she can speak French, she is part of the neighborhood,
>>and I consider her a Quebecker.
>
> How kind of you. What is the percentage cutoff point, by the way.
>60% french-speaking...50 percent? Or do you do blood tests?
>Do you realize that your views are exceedingly (EXCEEDINGLY) racist?
Again, racist??? Look in the dictionary.
And your sarcastic remarks (How kind of you!) could be spared. All they can do
is to widen the gap you want to fill...
>There are anglophones (probably most of them in fact) that happen to be proud
>of being Quebecois. If you don't understand that, then there is a major
>problem here.
>Your people include the anglopones of Quebec.
>Don't turn your back on your people, Sylvain.
Speaking of back... a common feeling in Quebec (read: "my feeling...") I think
is that Quebeckers were considered second-rate citizens by canadians, including
most of all Quebec anglophones... so it's a common belief that anglophone
turned their back on their cocitizens...
(For example, again, the question of language at work, the fact that all
the good jobs - engineers, lawers etc. - were filled by anglophones...)
It's not a reason to do the same, but the result is "mefiance".
We learned to check our back...
Sylvain.
P.S. Again, sarcastic remarks won't help. They have the opposite effect.
CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY
>I have been watching this debate for a while, and I wonder Sylvain, if you are
>so much against English-Canada, why don't you leave Ontario, go home to Quebec
>and get ready to vote.
No, I am not against English-Canada. Actually, since I have been there, I found
that the people here is very friendly, not very different from where I come.
But I think that Quebeckers should go their own way.
When a MP is elected, he will do all he can to help his own. So I personnally
think that Quebec is not served well enough in this country.
The funniest thing is that I think that if the situation was reversed (75%
french- 25% English-speaking Canada) French-speaking people would act the
same way.
I am just tired of all those fights about the constitution, and I think the
easiest way would be Quebec's separation. Yes, it's the easy way, the way
*out*, but I'm fed up of seeing that there is still people in Canada being
fed up of the French on their cereal boxes.
>But of course, you are right, however apart from the Acadians, which other
>group would possibly consider it. After all the region of Ontario
>that is more French (the North) has been relying on money from the south
>for years.
As would say Frank, this is a VERY RACIST statement... ;-)
>>How would you feel if you were forced to work in French in you own province??
>>(I am not speaking to you necessarly here, Gerald, for I guess you know some
>>French from previous messages)
>
>Gee, as I am an English Quebecker, I know if I go home, I WILL be forced to
>work in French in my own Province!
I wrote that French is the language of the majority in Quebec...
Here in Ontario, I'm speaking English. And it's fine with me. I am the
minority here, you are in Quebec...
>If you consider a person only a Quebecker if they can speak French, then you
>are a racist (and you can go back home to Quebec and stop sponging off the
>resources of English-Canada)
Sponging off the resources of English-Canada... are you talking of me being
a student in Ontario?
Because there is many foreign students "sponging off the resources of English-
Canada" here too...
And there are "TROCians" studying in Quebec too...
If you're talking of Quebec, you don't think much of your own province you're
proud of being part of... ;-)
>Wrong, Wrong Wrong, I am a Canadian, I am a Quebecker, I am English. I have
>no probelm with all this. I also want a strong central government, not
>unlike some prominent francophones (Trudeau, Chretein) (Yeah, I know
I have.
I am Quebecker, and I don't feel like Canadian. Sorry, it's the way I feel,
I cannot do anything about that!!
Sylvain.
P.S. Sometimes I think "What bloody mess our English and French ancestors
put us in..."
I just hope we all still can be friends after this, separation or not.
Gerald Heckman
>In article <1992Mar18.1...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> hec...@kingcong.UWaterloo.ca (Gerald Heckman) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar18.0...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
[...]
>>And I'd say you have a very biased view of English Quebecers. The same tired
>>old stereotype of the unilingual Westmount anglo, with a mustache and a square
>>head, reading the Gazette. Did you know more than 60 % of Quebec anglophones
>>know French ? Half of the people suscribing to the Gazette are francophone
>>Quebecers.
>So how do you explain that there is still French Quebeckers forced to work
>in English in Quebec? (statistics are saying it. Not me. No, I don't have
>the references. Ask any Quebec PQ MP, I guess they will be very happy to
>furnish them!!! ;-) )
How are they forced ? Are they whipped ? Isn't there a law in Quebec
that garantees the right to French in the workplace - you know, la
Charte de la Langue Francaise ? And how can you say many people are forced
to work in English when you don't have any references to prove it ?
Have you ever asked your MP for such information ? Do you know if any
comprehensive study has been made of the situation of language of work in
Quebec since the Gendron report ? Or do you just accept this on faith ?
>How would you feel if you were forced to work in French in you own province??
>(I am not speaking to you necessarly here, Gerald, for I guess you know some
>French from previous messages)
Being from Quebec, I probably wouldn't find it surprising to work in French.
I understand the reason behind your question though. And if you were to
convince me that there was a serious problem in this regard today,
I would agree this question is valid.
>>Of course, you wouldn't happen to have any proof to back up your statements
>>about the Gazette ?
>No, I don't. And I thought it was clear from the words I chose that they were
>FEELINGS, not STATEMENTS. I said, "I always thought". Maybe the correct word
>was "felt".
>And just what does mean your "Of course"???
>Do you imply that I happen to be someone not to be trusted????
No. I was implying that I didn't think you would have such proof.
>I did not insult anyone, don't insult me.
I didn't :-), honest.
[...]
>>>Well, I don't consider English-speaking Quebeckers ennemies either. It's just
>>>that they are proud of being Canadians, while my people is proud of being
>>>Quebeckers... so maybe it depends on the way you describe yourself...
>>
>>"My people are Quebeckers" - your people are not. Toute une ouverture au
>>monde. Give them a chance to be Quebecers and anglophone at the same time,
>>and I bet you they'll be proud as hell to say they're Quebecers.
>
>OK, let's extend on the definition of "Quebecker" or "Canadian". Your answer
>made me think a little more about it.
>
>To be considered a "xxxxxxxx"an, you have to share some common ideas,
>common values, but most of all, the sames goals, the same ideals.
>
>Canadians want a centralized government. Quebeckers want a strong provincial
>government. They don't share the same ideals or goals in numerous other
>examples...
And if you had read the Dion article, you would have seen that there is
considerable doubt as to whether or not Quebecers really do support
decentralization. I hope your "numerous other examples" (should I ask
my MP for those too ?) are more convincing.
[...]
>>Gerald Heckman
>>Universite de Waterloo,
>>Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
>Funny! We are in the same university!
Funny ! We are also from the same province, and from the same city !
Maybe I even met you before - probably spoke to you in French, too.
Amazing how many things we can have in common isn't it ? Amazing how
many similarities we share. Hell, maybe we even root for the same
hockey team ...
>Sylvain
>Dept. of Biology
>University of Waterloo
- Gerald
Jamie Andrews
>
>A netter says that Mordecai Richler speaks good french, based on what
>Richler says in his famous article.
>
>use French when adressing a francophone audience".
[English translation follows]
Non, Stephane, t'as oublie le premier commentaire.
Michele: "Je suis insultee par les quebecois anglos qui, comme
Mordecai Richler, n'apprennent jamais le francais."
Moi: "Au contraire, Richler parle bien le francais."
Toi: "Alors pourquoi n'a-t-il parle francais au spectacle de
Radio-Canada? Honteux."
Ca veut dire qu'il n'y a que deux possibilites: ou il ne
parle pas le francais, ou il le parle assez bien d'etre "grille"
(? - "questionne tres durement") aux sujets de la politique sur
le tele national. Si tu et Michele sont d'accord, vous dites
ensemble que toutes les Anglo-Quebecois doivent apprendre le
francais jusqu'a ce niveau. Je rejet cet avis.
[English translation]
No, Stephane, you forgot the first comment.
Michele: "I am insulted by English Quebeckers who, like
Mordecai Richler, never learn French."
Me: "Au contraire, Richler speaks French well." [*]
You: "Then why didn't he speak French on the show on CBC?
Shameful."
This means that there are only two possibilities: either
he doesn't speak French, or he speaks it well enough to be
"grilled" on political subjects on national television. If you
and Michele are in agreement, you are saying together that all
Anglo Quebeckers should learn French up to this level. I reject
this opinion.
[*] "Au contraire" is English too, y'know!
Tom Gray
>>
>>Let me remind you that the province of Quebec was created by English-Canadians
>>to separate Anglophones from French-speaking people...
>>So English-speaking people originally wanted it that way...
This is truley remarkable.
The framers of the 1867 constitution recognized the rights of cultural diversity
and created the provincial governments to protect local cultures. They created
the province of Quebec with a French speaking majority to allow the French
culture there to flourish.
Now this was not some far sighted act but it was TO SEPARATE ANGLOPHONES
FROM FRENCH SPEAKING PEOPLE! Is there anything that was done to allow
a peaceful accomodation of two cultures living within the same border
or is it always some illegitimate attempt at domination by the English.
I'm reminded of Gary Larson's cartoon representing hell. A new
entrant is allowed to choose between two doors labelled
"Damned if you do" and "Damned if you don't".
--
i.sinature
Stephane Boucher
And I'd say you have a very biased view of English Quebecers. The same tired
old stereotype of the unilingual Westmount anglo, with a mustache and a square
head, reading the Gazette. Did you know more than 60 % of Quebec anglophones
know French ? Half of the people suscribing to the Gazette are francophone
Quebecers.
Looks like you have intersting data. Would you happen to have the number of
anglophones subscribing to La Presse, Le Devoir, Le Journal de Montreal?
Of course, you wouldn't happen to have any proof to back up your statements
about the Gazette ?
The Gazette is certainly not biased (unlike "Le Devoir" which certainly
resembles a nazy paper) since YOU quoted The Gazette when you had a hard
time with Pierre :-) (BTW, when you did your research regarding your debate
with Pierre, did you find anything in the Frenchie papers).
Jim Robinson
>In article <1992Mar19....@watserv1.waterloo.edu> scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>I must have added that when she speaks to her children in public, she does so
>>in *English*. And it does not bother me. I consider her a Quebecker because
>>she can speak to me in my own language, the language of the majority in Quebec.
>>As I am writing in English right now, and speaking in English to everyone
>>here where I study.
>
>If you consider a person only a Quebecker if they can speak French, then you
>are a racist (and you can go back home to Quebec and stop sponging off the
>resources of English-Canada)
A generally accepted definition of racism is discrimination on the basis of
race. Another one is a belief in the superiority of one race over others.
Since there is no intrinsic link between race and language I totally fail
to see how Sylvain is being racist. Indeed, I would go so far as to say
that calling the above racism is an, undoubtedly unintentional, insult to
real victims of racism.
In other words, whatever discrimination on the basis of language may be, it
is certainly not discrimination on the basis of race. Consider that by
Sylvain's reasoning a black French speaking Haitian immigrant is indeed a
Quebecer.
--
Jim Robinson
robi...@mdivax1.mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
Stephane Boucher
The REAL problem is that in every province the legislature is referred to
as the "provincial" legislature, except in Quebec. There it is referred
to as the "National Assembly". That is the crux of the fight over the
constitution. Polls have indicated that people in English Canada are
most interested in Federal Politics, while in Quebec they are most
interested in "Provincial (National?)" politics.
So what? Regardless of the results, don't the Quebecois have the freedom to
chose what they want? Isn't Canada a free country?
The solution: Bring the Quebecois out of isolation and into the mainstream.
It's shocking how many people in Quebec only travel between Montreal and
Quebec. As well, orientate the people in that province to the "outside"
world. People are comfortable with mythology (eg. the Afrikaaners and
how THEY built South Africa, the British and how Britania still rules the
waves, the Japanese and how they never did atrocities during the second
world war.) The ideas and attitudes which are self-perpertuated in
that province must be challenged. The French media, which is abuzz with
self-indulgence, must "open up" and present new ideas, thoughts and opinions.
Then we can get on with the constitution and on with our lives!!!!
In other words you are saying: "Let's help the Quebecois get ride of this
tribal instinct, Let's save the Quebecois, lets show them how to function
in a society"?
CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY
>he doesn't speak French, or he speaks it well enough to be
>"grilled" on political subjects on national television. If you
>and Michele are in agreement, you are saying together that all
>Anglo Quebeckers should learn French up to this level. I reject
>this opinion.
But I personnally think it would sure ease the relations between the two
groups in Quebec... I personnally believe that the "antisemitism"
in Quebec Richler is speaking about is due to the fact that most of the
Jews were English-speaking... (and in fact, that there is no real
antisemitism).
But that's my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up...
>[*] "Au contraire" is English too, y'know!
But it came from French. I did not know English language has taken so much
French expressions as French did with English...
- Sylvain.
hitchhiker
> In article <1992Mar19....@watserv1.waterloo.edu> ni...@sunburn.waterlo
> >I have been watching this debate for a while, and I wonder Sylvain, if you a
> >so much against English-Canada, why don't you leave Ontario, go home to Queb
> >and get ready to vote.
>
> No, I am not against English-Canada. Actually, since I have been there, I fou
> that the people here is very friendly, not very different from where I come.
>
> But I think that Quebeckers should go their own way.
>
> When a MP is elected, he will do all he can to help his own. So I personnally
> think that Quebec is not served well enough in this country.
> The funniest thing is that I think that if the situation was reversed (75%
> french- 25% English-speaking Canada) French-speaking people would act the
> same way.
>
> I am just tired of all those fights about the constitution, and I think the
> easiest way would be Quebec's separation. Yes, it's the easy way, the way
> *out*, but I'm fed up of seeing that there is still people in Canada being
> fed up of the French on their cereal boxes.
But they're tired of hearing about Quebec's dignity being trampled on,
and all the rest of that crap. Catch 22, eh?
The REAL problem is that in every province the legislature is referred to
as the "provincial" legislature, except in Quebec. There it is referred
to as the "National Assembly". That is the crux of the fight over the
constitution. Polls have indicated that people in English Canada are
most interested in Federal Politics, while in Quebec they are most
interested in "Provincial (National?)" politics.
The solution: Bring the Quebecois out of isolation and into the mainstream.
It's shocking how many people in Quebec only travel between Montreal and
Quebec. As well, orientate the people in that province to the "outside"
world. People are comfortable with mythology (eg. the Afrikaaners and
how THEY built South Africa, the British and how Britania still rules the
waves, the Japanese and how they never did atrocities during the second
world war.) The ideas and attitudes which are self-perpertuated in
that province must be challenged. The French media, which is abuzz with
self-indulgence, must "open up" and present new ideas, thoughts and opinions.
Then we can get on with the constitution and on with our lives!!!!
--- (hitchhiker) a user of skyview, running waffle 1.64
E-mail: hi...@skyview.bison.mb.ca
Compu Team Systems BBS
Robin Collins
>In article <1992Mar18.2...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar18.0...@watserv1.waterloo.edu> scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar9.2...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> ke...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Mar09.1...@bmerh2.bnr.ca> rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>>>
>>>
>
>>This is provincialism and racism. This is narrow nationalism and something
>>that is dangerous and offensive.
>
>Wait a minute. Racism is a word "employe a toutes les sauces" nowadays.
>Racism imply believing in the superiority of one's race on another.
>We are of the same race, aren't we?
The term racism is accepted to include prejudice based on ethnicity,
skin colour, *race* (an unscientific term), language, even religion (example
Jewish/Muslim antagonism that is termed racist.)
There are a series of terms used, including racism, nativism, racialism,etc.
There is no such thing as a race, according to science, so how can we
be of the same *race*?
>I don't consider myself superior to English-speaking.
I didn't say you did .
>
>Look the definition of racism in the dictionary. Maybe a better word
>is prejudice.
No, I think racism as a word is just fine.
Even if the term was not good enough, why raise the issue as if
linguistic prejudice was more palatable than racism based on skin colour?
(I know you will now deny it; but you don't seem so virulent about
opposed linguistic prejudice against minorities in Quebec.)
>Again, racist??? Look in the dictionary.
>
Check out the UN Convention on the Elimination of ALL Forms of Racial
Discrimination (adopted in 1965)
>>There are anglophones (probably most of them in fact) that happen to be proud
>>of being Quebecois. If you don't understand that, then there is a major
>>problem here.
>>Your people include the anglopones of Quebec.
>>Don't turn your back on your people, Sylvain.
>
>Speaking of back... a common feeling in Quebec (read: "my feeling...") I think
>is that Quebeckers were considered second-rate citizens by canadians, including
>most of all Quebec anglophones... so it's a common belief that anglophone
>turned their back on their cocitizens...
>(For example, again, the question of language at work, the fact that all
>the good jobs - engineers, lawers etc. - were filled by anglophones...)
There was certainly (and still is certainly) racism practiced against
the Quebecois. Please do not interpret my hatred of racism practiced
within Quebec as support for racism against the Quebecois.
I am being consistent here.
Frank.
Nick Fitzpatrick
>In article <1992Mar19....@watserv1.waterloo.edu> ni...@sunburn.waterloo.edu (Nick Fitzpatrick) writes:
>]]Let me remind you that the province of Quebec was created by English-Canadians
>]]to separate Anglophones from French-speaking people...
>]]So English-speaking people originally wanted it that way...
>]]
>]I have been watching this debate for a while, and I wonder Sylvain, if you are
>]so much against English-Canada, why don't you leave Ontario, go home to Quebec
>]and get ready to vote.
>
>Province of Quebec was created by english Canada. Couldn't we reply
>that anglo-quebecois against language laws should leave Quebec? :-)
>
>Francois Audet
Interesting editing Francois, it almost appears to change the context of
my response, however that was not your point . . .
As the last poll I saw, most francophones were against the language laws,
then Quebec would be a pretty empty place!
And you really expect anglophones to support legislation that, time and
time again, is proven in courts of law, contravenes basic human rights?
Nick Fitzpatrick
CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY
>>>that is dangerous and offensive.
>>
>>Wait a minute. Racism is a word "employe a toutes les sauces" nowadays.
>>Racism imply believing in the superiority of one's race on another.
>>We are of the same race, aren't we?
>
> The term racism is accepted to include prejudice based on ethnicity,
>skin colour, *race* (an unscientific term), language, even religion (example
>Jewish/Muslim antagonism that is termed racist.)
>There are a series of terms used, including racism, nativism, racialism,etc.
>
>There is no such thing as a race, according to science, so how can we
>be of the same *race*?
I always thought there was 3 races. The Blacks, the Asians, The Caucasians.
We are both Caucasians. The definition in the dictionary should maybe
change.
(No, wait, I don't know your race, it's just a guess, but actually,
*I don't care*. I have and had black and asian friends as well as
caucasians)
It's funny. Last year, I was the one speaking of racism in such circumstances.
(In that case, racism of anglophones against francophones). In both cases
(me last year and you right now) the term racism was incorrectly used
according to the dictionaries.
Now about UN's definition, it's interesting. I shall look that.
>>Look the definition of racism in the dictionary. Maybe a better word
>>is prejudice.
>
> No, I think racism as a word is just fine.
>Even if the term was not good enough, why raise the issue as if
>linguistic prejudice was more palatable than racism based on skin colour?
>(I know you will now deny it; but you don't seem so virulent about
>opposed linguistic prejudice against minorities in Quebec.)
Very good point. Indeed, the color of the skin and the religion should
be considered similar in defining a term.
The reason I am not so virulent against linguistic "racism" ;-)
against minorities is that I use to believe that the language law
is required to preserve our language.
No, I don't find it good! (Levesque did not agree with the sign law)
But many french quebeckers consider it *necessary*. English does not need
to be protected. French do. Quebec teens listen to 75-80% of English
music. I find this alarming.
We FEAR for our language, Frank. And the language is our SOUL.
We needed these laws because we did not think Canada could protect us.
When we will be more confident in our chances, we will drop these
anti-rights laws. Until then, TROC should try to appease our fears...
instead of worsening them by anti-French statements and acts...
(I know this is difficult! this is a matter of being more reasonable,
as would say my father! He used to say to me "be more reasonable" about
my "fights" with my brother...)
>There was certainly (and still is certainly) racism practiced against
>the Quebecois. Please do not interpret my hatred of racism practiced
>within Quebec as support for racism against the Quebecois.
>I am being consistent here.
I am glad to see that. But you should see also our needs for preserving
our identity.
And about this racism in Quebec, TROCians often forget that apart from
the language laws, they are in a very good position: 3 anglophone
universities, TV and radio stations, suppose-to-be service in English
by provincial government, english hospitals...
How many of these do my French-Canadians fellows have access to?
I have an example. In Quebec City where I think there is less than 2%
of English Quebeckers, the Bell operators always answer in both language.
At least, the computerized system for calling cards is bilingual.
Why is it unilingual here in Ontario?
In Toronto and Kitchener-Waterloo.
Last month I tried to use a 3rd number (my parents') to phone somewhere.
It meant somebody had to be home. My mother thought I was calling her.
(At first) The operator realized that and said me so: my mother does not
understand English. So they had to get a bilingual operator. It turned
out my mother realized what I was trying to do and kept saying "yes"
helplessly... anyway, the line was cut before my mother could speak
to the bilingual operator...
In Quebec City, I have the feeling that all the operators are bilingual...
(You could tell me Frank, you've been there you said)
(I had a friend working there in the summer, and she had to be bilingual)
It's just a thought, but maybe "les apparences sont trompeuses".
(the looks may induce in error; very bad translation...)
Maybe it looks like anglophone have less rights in Quebec while in fact
they have more...
Sylvain.
Evan Leibovitch
scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>I personnally believe that the "antisemitism"
>in Quebec Richler is speaking about is due to the fact that most of the
>Jews were English-speaking
Ah, so it's OK to write editorials in Le Devoir calling to deny civil
rights to Jews. It's OK for French clubs and stores to not allow Jews
because...
...they speak English!
I certainly hope, for the sake of Quebec society (within or without
Canada) that Sylvain's attitude is not widespread. Justifying the hatred
expressed towards Jews in Quebec, by the language they speak, is
cowardly and reprehensible.
>.. (and in fact, that there is no real
>antisemitism).
This statement is antisemitic in itself, because it is made under either
one of two conditions:
1) Sylvain is aware of injustice against Jews, but believes it is
either justified or excusable for whatever reasons.
2) Sylvain is unaware of injustice against Jews, but will not believe
the first-hand accounts of Jews who have suffered from them.
>But that's my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up...
I suspect that Sylvain, like so many others in this group, are willing
to criticize Richler based on the Quebec media's interpretation of his
words, rather than on the words themselves. If you had read even small
excerpts from his writings (such as appeared this past weekend in The
Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen and other papers), you would have read
specific evidence of antisemitism in Quebec. Antisemitism which was
extended, Sylvain, even to Jews with a perfect command of French.
(Indeed, there are many francophone Jews, and a sizable Jewish
population in France.)
Last week, in a separate post replying to a legitimate question about "what
makes Richler tick?", I attempted to document the attempts the Jewish
society has made to blend into Quebec (like starting French in Grade 1
in private Jewish schools). I also documented how none of these
attempts really helped prevent the attacks (verbal, physical and legal),
even though Jews were fighting the Westmount Anglo elite as much as the
francophones.
In Sylvain's posting, I now see a first-hand example of what prevented
the Quebec francophones from working together with Jews to fight
opression. If I'm the only one who sees an almost frightening
narrow-mindedness in that post, perhaps it's because I'm a walking
contradiction to his opinions.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Jean Marc Pigeon
>The framers of the 1867 constitution recognized the rights of cultural diversity
>and created the provincial governments to protect local cultures. They created
>the province of Quebec with a French speaking majority to allow the French
>culture there to flourish.
Sic! How generous they were! but according my reading of history,
the population ratio was such, it was not possible to overide the
"french fact" (at least at that time.... :-}} )
A bientot
--
Jean-Marc Pigeon j...@comback.uucp
Pierrefonds, Quebec, Canada, Terra j...@sobeco.com
Michele A. Simond
to be translated, but this time I feel much more
comfortable to write in French.
ev...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>In article <1992Mar20....@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
> scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>
>>I personnally believe that the "antisemitism"
>>in Quebec Richler is speaking about is due to the fact that most of the
>>Jews were English-speaking
>
>Ah, so it's OK to write editorials in Le Devoir calling to deny civil
>rights to Jews. It's OK for French clubs and stores to not allow Jews
>because...
>
>...they speak English!
Pour commencer, il est necessaire de reaffirmer avec insistance
qu'il n'y a pas plus de sentiment ou d'attitude antisemite au
Quebec qu'ailleurs au Canada et dans le monde entier. L'antisemitisme
n'est meme pas une invention du 20e siecle, ni meme du christianisme
(les Babyloniens ont sans doute ete parmi les premiers a pratiquer
les pogroms contre le peuple juif).
Je ne crois pas, monsieur Leibovitch, que Sylvain Chamberland
disait que Le Devoir avait eu raison de publier les articles de
Lionel Groulx. Cette histoire, ancienne, est bien malheureuse
et bien regrettable, comme le sont toutes les histoires de
pogroms, d'holocauste, d'antisemitisme, de racisme, de xenophobie
et autres. Mais il faut faire attention : les erreurs de nos peres
sont leurs erreurs, pas les notres. Et il devient trop facile de
ressortir des cadavres quand ils peuvent servir a justifier une
opinion ou une peur, au lieu de mettre sur la table les vrais
problemes. Et si l'on veut vraiment parler de certaines attitudes
antisemites au Quebec, alors que l'on parle des malheureux
evenements qui se sont deroules a Outremont il y a un an ou
deux. Mais que l'on n'oublie pas non plus de parler des
attitudes semblables et pires aussi qui existent ailleurs au
pays. (Je ne sais pas pourquoi, mais ca me fait penser aux
histoires avec les autochtones ou la aussi le Quebec est
mis au pilori, alors que l'ensemble des Premieres nations
du Canada n'est pas dans une position beaucoup plus enviable.)
Contrairement a Sylvain, je ne crois pas que l'antisemitisme
dont parle monsieur Richler venait essentiellement de ce que
les juifs de Montreal etaient anglophones. C'etait d'abord et
avant tout une attitude de la toute puissante Eglise catholique
quebecoise de l'epoque qui tenait pour damnes et damnables tout
ceux qui n'etaient pas catholiques romains. Bien des juifs
(anglophones et francophones) ont ete ostracises a cette epoque.
Mais aussi bien des protestants francophones. Ma famille, par
exemple, est protestante. Quand nous sommes arrives a Montreal
au printemps 1960, apres un hiver a Val-David, il a fallu a
mon pere la recommandation d'un cure plus ouvert que les autres
et d'un professeur catholique de ses amis, pour pouvoir aller
enseigner l'education physique au seminaire de Valleyfield.
Et il avait ordre de ne pas parler d'autre chose que de sport
aux "jeunes ames" qui lui etaient confiees; et les premiers
temps, ses cours etaient toujours surveilles par quelque jeune
abbe qui faisait ensuite rapport a ses superieurs.
Et ma soeur et moi avons souvent du abandonner avec regret de
nouvelles amities, parce que bon nombre de parents interdisaient
a leurs enfants de jouer avec nous, de peur que nous "les
entrainions en enfer avec nous". D'autres amis de notre famille
qui sont arrives plus tot que nous au Quebec (vers 1952) ont
du se convertir au catholicisme et changer de quartier pour avoir
la paix (ils se faisaient jeter des tomates et des ordures a la
figure, et leurs voisins changeaient de trottoir quand ils les
croisaient sur la rue). Heureusement, les choses ont change
quand l'Eglise a perdu son pouvoir dans les affaires gouvernemen-
tales et que les ecoles ont ete remises aux laiques.
Il reste encore quelques poches de resistance, des gens eleves
avec l'idee que tout ce qui n'est pas catholique et francophone
est "dangereux et menacant" pour les quebecois; des gens pour
dire, comme a mon ex-mari au moment de notre divorce "Tu vois,
si t'avais marie une bonne quebecoise catholique, tu n'en
serais pas la". Mais ce genre de choses-la est de plus en
plus rare.
>I suspect that Sylvain, like so many others in this group, are willing
>to criticize Richler based on the Quebec media's interpretation of his
>words, rather than on the words themselves. [...]
Mais les mots que dit monsieur Richler sont dangereux, parce
que, comme l'a si bien ecrit Alain (the vacuum cleaner) dans
sa lettre a Mordecai Richler, "ils font naitre la peur et la
mefiance". Mais de quoi monsieur Richler a-t-il peur? Quelles
que puissent etre les attitudes antisemites de certains Quebecois,
la societe quebecoise n'est pas plus antisemite que les autres
societes et certainement beaucoup moins que la France. On ne voit
pas ici de synagogues brulees, de cimetieres juifs vandalises, de
rabins battus ou assassines... Comme Alain le soulignait encore,
les juifs du Quebec ne sont pas victimes de plus de haine que
les autres groupes sociaux de la province. Nous avons tous le
droit de donner notre opinion, monsieur Richler compris, le droit
de dire qu'il y a des choses inquietantes qui se passent et de
suggerer des choix meilleurs. Mais en mettant tous les Quebecois
francophones dans le meme panier, en nous peignant tous sous les
memes traits, en nous jugeant tous coupables sans autre forme de
proces, monsieur Richler depasse les bornes et tombe dans le
meme panneau que bien d'autres avant lui : l'extremisme. Et
c'est vraiment regrettable. Ou s'en va-t-on si meme les gens
eduques et intelligents perdent les pedales et disent n'importe
quoi pour attiser un feu qui brule deja assez fort, merci.
--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ...... B.P.: mic...@catnix.UUCP
Tel.: (514) 671-8820
Your favourite tourist guide... :-}}}
Thomas Hood
>Well it looks to me like Thomas is trying to stir up a little chauvinism here.
>A little incitement perhaps, this day?
No, Frank.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Francois Audet
Sylvain:
]]to separate Anglophones from French-speaking people...
]]So English-speaking people originally wanted it that way...
]]
]I have been watching this debate for a while, and I wonder Sylvain, if you are
]so much against English-Canada, why don't you leave Ontario, go home to Quebec
]and get ready to vote.
I see, he hates english canadians because he mentions that the
Province of Quebec was created by english Canada. Couldn't we reply
that anglo-quebecois against language laws should leave Quebec? :-)
--
Francois Audet
Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
Internet: Francoi...@software.Mitel.COM
Dave Till
>>I think most people from Ontario (for instance) are proud to be Ontarians
>>as well as being proud Canadians. However, Ontario isn't usually
>>considered a distinct cultural entity, so no one talks much about "being
>>proud to be Ontarian".
>
>But I bet Ontarians describe themselves first as Canadians.
>French-speaking Quebeckers describe themselves as Quebeckers.
>
>Maybe it's a question of first loyalty...
It could be. It also occurs to me that Ontario is such a large province
that people think of themselves as being from a region or city of
Ontario, rather than being from the whole province. I think of myself
as being from Toronto rather than Ontario. (To a Torontonian, I qualify
this: I point out that I am from Don Mills, since the suburbs are different
from downtown. To people outside of Toronto, this distinction is
unimportant or insignificant.)
Do people from Quebec think of themselves as being from Quebec, or do they
think of themselves as being from Montreal, Quebec City, etc., first?
(After all, Quebec is rather large, too.)
--
--Dave Till, Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems, Sietec Open Systems Division,
2235 Sheppard Ave. E. #1800, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada, M2J 5B5.
tel: (416)496-8510, fax: (416)496-8524, email: da...@sni.CA or da...@snitor.uucp
"Gabba gabba hey gabba hey gabba hey." -- the Ramones, of course
James Davis Nicoll
>>
>>There is no such thing as a race, according to science, so how can we
>>be of the same *race*?
>
>I always thought there was 3 races. The Blacks, the Asians, The Caucasians.
>We are both Caucasians. The definition in the dictionary should maybe
>change.
There are two broad tendencies wry 'race': lumpers and splitters.
Lumpers put the varieties of humans together in a few groups (As few as
one) and splitters make very fine distinctions, sometimes on criteria
which are difficult for others to see. You're using lumper 'races',
while other people may be using splitter races (eg: British vs
Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, etc).
James Nicoll
Robin Collins
>rob...@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>>Well it looks to me like Thomas is trying to stir up a little chauvinism here.
>>A little incitement perhaps, this day?
>
>No, Frank.
>
Thank the lordy for that.
Frank.
Nick Fitzpatrick
>>In article <1992Mar20....@watserv1.waterloo.edu> scha...@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>>
>>>But I personnally think it would sure ease the relations between the two
>>>groups in Quebec... I personnally believe that the "antisemitism"
>>>in Quebec Richler is speaking about is due to the fact that most of the
>>>Jews were English-speaking... (and in fact, that there is no real
>>>antisemitism).
>>
>
>is most of the time something like "anglophobia".
>Anglophones were not very gentle with francophones not so long ago...
>I think that the fact that Jews in Quebec speak (most of them) English
>does not help them, as the fact that Blacks in Montreal who can't speak
>French (most of them)...
>
>- Sylvain.
So lets get this straight, your opinion is :
"We don't discriminate against Jews and Blacks because of their race, we
discriminate against them because of the language they speak"
If this is true, then not much further away is
"we discriminate against them because they smell funny"
therefore, perhaps there is less difference between prejudice, and
racism, than some others would claim . . . .
(Gee, I always got the impression, especially when I am in
St. Henri, that most of the blacks were speaking French!)
Nick