ADQ out, Dumont out !

[KoZed]

I fully agree with you on this. I could say the same about the Netherlands where although not an official language, virtually everyone speaks English very fluently, and where it is not frowned upon not to speak Dutch (a expression I hate the most, as it stinks of ignorance of close-mindedness is "on né au Québec icitte, sti") . I'm actually ashamed that in this country most people don't speak both official languages (there's definitely a problem with the education system). I'm also very much ashamed - and even worried - to hear from the predominant francophone media comments such as Pierre Trudel's (used to host the morning show on CKAC until a couple years ago) where he said he was afraid about the Liberals plans to teach English from the first grade because he was afraid that his kids would get interested in the anglophone culture... when did it become a bad thing for kids to want to learn from different languages and cultures!?!

Personally, I read books in English, watch English TV, English movies, listen to English music, go on English websites and participate in forums in English. Why? Because the world is dominated by the English language and flooded with English "cultural products" (different from "real culture"); which is exactly why a relatively small nation like Quebec has to be so sensitive & careful when it comes to opening up to other languages and cultures; especially the English one. That's how the Quebec people resisted and overcame assimilation for 300 years, that's how it broke free of it's 2nd rate citizen status in the 60's and thrived to emancipate itself.

So the apparent close-mindedness you'll sometime perceive coming from francophone medias is a natural cultural self-preservation reflex. We're 7 millions surrounded on all sides by Anglophones. You can't reasonably expect francophone Quebecois to demonstrate the same level of comfort as an anglophone who's very own cultural existent isnt threatened of disappearing in the span of a generation.

The heart of the problem is that we live in a communication age, in which one's power will rely greatly on his knowledge and communication capabilities. For Quebecois, it does mean having to be able to be comfortable with English. But it has to be done in a way that never puts the perenity of Quebec's cultural survival at risk.

Same applies for every nation in the World, actually. It's actually happening, too. Quebec is a very standard case in that regard. I'm not just talking about Catalonia & such, but also about a worldwide trend of local customs/culture revival.

[JLP]

I could say the same about the Netherlands where although not an official language, virtually everyone speaks English very fluently, and where it is not frowned upon not to speak Dutch ...

If you're a tourist. There are however compulsory Dutch lessons for expats.

[CerebusClone]

Personally, I read books in English, watch English TV, English movies, listen to English music, go on English websites and participate in forums in English. Why? Because the world is dominated by the English language and flooded with English "cultural products" (different from "real culture"); which is exactly why a relatively small nation like Quebec has to be so sensitive & careful when it comes to opening up to other languages and cultures; especially the English one. That's how the Quebec people resisted and overcame assimilation for 300 years, that's how it broke free of it's 2nd rate citizen status in the 60's and thrived to emancipate itself.

So the apparent close-mindedness you'll sometime perceive coming from francophone medias is a natural cultural self-preservation reflex. We're 7 millions surrounded on all sides by Anglophones. You can't reasonably expect francophone Quebecois to demonstrate the same level of comfort as an anglophone who's very own cultural existent isnt threatened of disappearing in the span of a generation.

The heart of the problem is that we live in a communication age, in which one's power will rely greatly on his knowledge and communication capabilities. For Quebecois, it does mean having to be able to be comfortable with English. But it has to be done in a way that never puts the perenity of Quebec's cultural survival at risk.

Same applies for every nation in the World, actually. It's actually happening, too. Quebec is a very standard case in that regard. I'm not just talking about Catalonia & such, but also about a worldwide trend of local customs/culture revival.

On this I fully agree with you, I believe it is very important for Quebec to put all necessary efforts towards preserving and promoting the French language, starting with the education system where I believe all schools (public and private, French and English) should implement programs so that all students speak more-than-fluent French when they graduate (obvisouly francophones should master it even more). Actually to be more precise I think they should speak both French and English, rergarless of what school system they come from.

And to me even more precise I think this should be the case throughout Canada. As much as I a little ashamed when I see or hear things in this province, I'm equally ashamed to see that a television host like Leah Miller on So You Can Dance Canada can't do any better than a handful of French words such as Bonjour and Oui.

[simonus]

What is the bilinguality rate amongst anglophone Quebecers? I was under the impression that it was at least 75% and that much of the remaining 25% were either old (and would as such not present a continuing problem) or had received french education but had failed to grasp the language (I don't know if it is wise to view such people as problematic). Is willful ignorance of French actually a problem in the province?

[simonus]

<snip>

In response to the above debate, I'm in complete agreement with Joe. I find it horribly frustrating when people immigrate to Canada and make no effort to learn the language - French or English. I think it's irresponsible and degenerates society as a whole. I'm not talking about those recently arrived and just finding their way, I'm talking about the people who have been here a long while and haven't bothered to make an effort. Quite honestly, it's my opinion they can be sent back from whence they came unless they can make the effort to co-exist within our society.

Canada does its best - better than most nations - of showing acceptance for culture and language, so is it really unreasonable to ask immigrants to make that token effort to integrate at least linguistically here?

I am dubious as to what portion of the immigrant population remains ignorant of English or French. Moreover, I am dubious as to whether this is a real problem. The real problem, in my opinion, would be if the children of immigrants remained ignorant of French and English. I doubt this is the case. The inability of an immigrant to speak the local language is a one generation problem - if their children integrate linguistically, immigration has only a small long term effect on the language mix.

[JoeLassister]

I am dubious as to what portion of the immigrant population remains ignorant of English or French. Moreover, I am dubious as to whether this is a real problem. The real problem, in my opinion, would be if the children of immigrants remained ignorant of French and English. I doubt this is the case. The inability of an immigrant to speak the local language is a one generation problem - if their children integrate linguistically, immigration has only a small long term effect on the language mix.

Never been to West Island and Outremont...

[CerebusClone]

Never been to West Island and Outremont...

However these people usually speak at least English, and are fully functional members of this society. This is not exactly a case of an immigrant who comes here, and doesn’t bother to learn neither French nor English. For example my wife’s grandmother died last year, she was a 90+ year old immigrant from Italy, and only spoke Italian because she hardly ever left the house. In this case the right to vote wasn’t even an issue as she had no idea of what was happening in this province, and wasn’t interesting in voting anyway.

However I have a friend who came from the Maritimes when she was a late teenager; she’s been working here for a long time now, in bars on Crescent area for a long time, and now as a real agent in Westmount. She didn’t really speak French when she came here (problem with the education system), and never really needed to because of where she lived and worked; she picked up just enough to have what we call bartender’s French, basically the strict minimum to take your order, and give you the bill if you insist on speaking French. She’s worked here for at least 15 years, has paid her taxes, is very much aware of what’s happening in this society, she owns a car, attends concerts and special events, spends a lot of money in restaurants and shops… in other words she’s a fully functional member of this society and has made Quebec her home. Even though I doubt she would pass a French examination, does it sound like someone who should be refused the right to vote… or any other right granted to others just because they speak a language that she doesn’t.

[Zowpeb]

Hey, in an ideal world every immigrant would gladly and openly learn the language and become an active participant in the culture of their new home.

However, a big part of OUR culture is that people have the freedom of choice and opportunity. Limiting a persons right to vote because they don't act like you or speak like you is simply prejudiced. I'm shocked that this issue even gets any debate...I thought Canada had moved beyond this.

Immigrants play a valuable role in Canadian society and should be encouraged to adopt ONE of Canada's languages. As soon as an immigrant becomes a citizen of Canada they should be allowed to vote however they want.

I also agree that this issue is typically a single generation issue.

[Zowpeb]

If I may chime in:

1- To say that there would be some "taking away of rights" here isnt the correct phrasing. I'm certain that everybody would be grandfathered into such a new law, and it would apply only to new immigrants. Nobody's rights are taken away; they are just not given away under the same conditions anymore. Subtle but significant difference.

2- To my understanding, the project was to change the conditions under which citizen status is given to new immigrants. To suggest that a sovereign State doesnt have the right to define its own citizenship criteria is both naive and delusional.

3- To even remotely suggest that putting certain boundaries to voting rights has anything to do with Hitler is a slippery slope of its own. It is also nothing short of utterly idiotic; as well as completely disrespectful to everyone and anyone who suffered genocide under Nazi Germany. It is also a complete insult to intelligence itself. I'd expect someone who makes that kind of suggestion to not only retract himself asap, but to also apologize for even making such a slanderous, distasteful remark.

4- The right to vote is not absolute. Never was, never will be. There is already limits on the voting right as we speak. Are every self-proclaimed Democracy in the world akin to Nazism for restricting the right to vote to people over a certain age? Because the reasons given for not granting the right to vote to people under a certain age can be used and applied to people who recently arrived in a new country and dont speak the language and dont know anything about the country's history, culture, political issues, etc.

I know 14 yrs old teens who are more informed, more involved and more politicized than some of the immigrants I have met (and actually lived with). But as it is now, the 14 yrs old who already takes an active part in society's cultural, political and economical life isnt allowed to vote; but the immigrant who is centered solely and entirely on his own personal survival and largely ignores the rest of society is allowed to vote. So there is already completely arbitrary limits on who can vote in every democracy. This projects merely extends an already implied and widely accepted belief that if you're "underage" you dont have the aptitudes required to make a enlightened political decision and therefore are not "good enough" to partake in the electoral process even though you already pay taxes through your consumption of goods, services and by working.

To believe that its appropriate for someone who has been a completely adapted part of society for 15, 16, 17 years to not be allowed to vote, but that someone who has only arrived here 3 months ago and still dont speak the language or know anything about the society that welcomed him can and should be allowed to vote; is to believe in irrationality, illogicality, absurdity and inequality.

5- That project will never happen. It was an electoral device cooked up by the PQ as a panic reaction to the ADQ's gains in the Montreal Belt area after the whole Herouxville Affair. Its a fairly simple electoral numbers game: 85% immigrants end up in Montreal, always in the same neighborhoods/ghettos. As sure as the night follows days, those ridings goes to the Liberals. Ridings like that who always vote the same, nobody gives a damn about them. Liberals dont need to do anything since the riding can be taken for granted; and the PQ dont need to do anything since they know immigrants never vote PQ. So when its election time, the PQ has almost nothing to lose by trying to make vote gains on the back of immigrants, especially when they realize that a third party -- the ADQ -- is eating up votes on national identity, the very ground that the PQ always owned.

That's only good for elections though. As soon as the PQ goes into referendum territory they have to drop that kind of dividing issue because they need to court the immigrants to get their vote for sovereignty; and on the other hand such project wouldnt have much use to sway nationalists: they are already nationalists and largely taken for granted by the PQ. So given that context: bam, project is gone because its a no-win issue for the PQ.

1. No one is talking about anything being grandfathered in. To assume this in the face of a prejudiced logic would be a mistake.

2. Canada is a sovereign state. Quebec is not. Quebec maintains a defined culture and nation within the state of Canada. To deny the right to vote to ANY citizen whether they are a new citizen or old citizen is simply the denial of an essential right in any free society. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing "sovereign" when I hear Quebec...separatists are just playing semantics now because "sovereign" doesn't have the negative connotation

3. I agree, the Hitler comparison was over the top...but limiting the rights of a large segment of society was front and centre in his ideology. When should someone suggest that they are moving down the slippery slope? When they get to the bottom? I fail to see what was slanderous or disrespectful about any of the comments made. Perhaps you could bluster some more in an attempt to deflect the conversation away from the fact that there ARE dots that can be connected between this legislation and moves made by Germany at that time.

4. The right to vote is not an "absolute right" but it IS essential for any country to be a free and open democracy.

Can you tell me how many "new" people in Canada get to vote? There are no immigrants who have been in Canada for 2-3 months and have the right to vote...and, if you can even find such an instance, then they would represent less then 0.1% of the voting population so why make it an issue? In fact, most immigrants I have known have taken years to get their citizenship.

This bill could certainly limit people who have been active members in Quebec, and Canada, for decades simply because they do not speak french well...and there are parts of Quebec where you don't need to know french. The border is not some line on the ground with magical properties.

5. Your comments show the bill was simply an opportunistic move to stoke nationalist fires. How anyone can take this party seriously with such extreme views is beyond me...this type of rhetoric makes the old Reform party look centrist.

[KoZed]

1. No one is talking about anything being grandfathered in. To assume this in the face of a prejudiced logic would be a mistake.

2. Canada is a sovereign state. Quebec is not. Quebec maintains a defined culture and nation within the state of Canada. To deny the right to vote to ANY citizen whether they are a new citizen or old citizen is simply the denial of an essential right in any free society. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing "sovereign" when I hear Quebec...separatists are just playing semantics now because "sovereign" doesn't have the negative connotation

3. I agree, the Hitler comparison was over the top...but limiting the rights of a large segment of society was front and centre in his ideology. When should someone suggest that they are moving down the slippery slope? When they get to the bottom? I fail to see what was slanderous or disrespectful about any of the comments made. Perhaps you could bluster some more in an attempt to deflect the conversation away from the fact that there ARE dots that can be connected between this legislation and moves made by Germany at that time.

4. The right to vote is not an "absolute right" but it IS essential for any country to be a free and open democracy.

Can you tell me how many "new" people in Canada get to vote? There are no immigrants who have been in Canada for 2-3 months and have the right to vote...and, if you can even find such an instance, then they would represent less then 0.1% of the voting population so why make it an issue? In fact, most immigrants I have known have taken years to get their citizenship.

This bill could certainly limit people who have been active members in Quebec, and Canada, for decades simply because they do not speak french well...and there are parts of Quebec where you don't need to know french. The border is not some line on the ground with magical properties.

5. Your comments show the bill was simply an opportunistic move to stoke nationalist fires. How anyone can take this party seriously with such extreme views is beyond me...this type of rhetoric makes the old Reform party look centrist.

1- Yes it's an assumption, but it's a reasonable one anyway.

2- The bill would be impossible to put in practice under the Canadian Constitution, so it can only be done in a Sovereign Quebec. And "sovereignist" isnt semantic. It's the most accurate word possible because that's the real objective. Not separation. Separation is just a transitional state. Separatist is a completely Rest-of-Canada-centric term because for them the only end they see is separation. For sovereignist, sovereignty is the real end. All starts with separation, the real goal comes after. Its as if you'd want to get out of a marriage to go on with your life and to be a "celibate", but your wife says she's sick of hearing you use the word "celibate" and calls you "divorcee". Its not semantics, its just a point of view.

3- The real slippery slope is that dots can be connected to Nazi Germany from about any current Government on the planet if you want to make such a far-fetched comparison based on the restriction of any rights. You could take the same dots and connect them between the Conservatives who dont want the gays to have the same rights to marry and connect them to Nazi Germany. Ain't any authority applying some rules derisively called "Nazi" or "Fascist". But to try to imply it seriously is such an exaggerated, clichéd, desperate attempt at trying to make sovereignists guilty by association that RBO already made fun of that 20 years ago in a controversial sketch. 20 years later the attempt at any association is still just as ridiculous. The real intention of Nazi Germany was to conquer all of Europe by force and to use genocide to eliminate Jews, Bohemians, Gays, etc and impose their racial superiority. How anyone could even remotely try to establish a link between a violent regime who sought world domination through mass-genocide and military victory; and a small peaceful nation who's only goal is to protect its vulnerable culture by requiring people to learn a little before they can vote, such person is harboring some serious, serious bad faith.

Ironically, a more appropriate comparison would actually be Israel. A small nation fighting for its survival, surrounded on all sides by a different religion/culture who bitterly have to endure their existence and wouldnt hesitate to wipe it off the face of the Earth for the sakes of uniformity and homogeneity across the continent. See how "little dots" can lead just about anywhere?

4- Never said any differently. Actually never implied the opposite either. Just making it clear that people who get all up in arms about the issue forget that other citizens already have that right denied to them and everybody accepts the fact as normal.

5- Project much?

Worst of all, I'm not even a freaking sovereignist and even I can see those nuances.

[Zowpeb]

1- Yes it's an assumption, but it's a reasonable one anyway.

2- The bill would be impossible to put in practice under the Canadian Constitution, so it can only be done in a Sovereign Quebec. And "sovereignist" isnt semantic. It's the most accurate word possible because that's the real objective. Not separation. Separation is just a transitional state. Separatist is a completely Rest-of-Canada-centric term because for them the only end they see is separation. For sovereignist, sovereignty is the real end. All starts with separation, the real goal comes after. Its as if you'd want to get out of a marriage to go on with your life and to be a "celibate", but your wife says she's sick of hearing you use the word "celibate" and calls you "divorcee". Its not semantics, its just a point of view.

3- The real slippery slope is that dots can be connected to Nazi Germany from about any current Government on the planet if you want to make such a far-fetched comparison based on the restriction of any rights. You could take the same dots and connect them between the Conservatives who dont want the gays to have the same rights to marry and connect them to Nazi Germany. Ain't any authority applying some rules derisively called "Nazi" or "Fascist". But to try to imply it seriously is such an exaggerated, clichéd, desperate attempt at trying to make sovereignists guilty by association that RBO already made fun of that 20 years ago in a controversial sketch. 20 years later the attempt at any association is still just as ridiculous. The real intention of Nazi Germany was to conquer all of Europe by force and to use genocide to eliminate Jews, Bohemians, Gays, etc and impose their racial superiority. How anyone could even remotely try to establish a link between a violent regime who sought world domination through mass-genocide and military victory; and a small peaceful nation who's only goal is to protect its vulnerable culture by requiring people to learn a little before they can vote, such person is harboring some serious, serious bad faith.

Ironically, a more appropriate comparison would actually be Israel. A small nation fighting for its survival, surrounded on all sides by a different religion/culture who bitterly have to endure their existence and wouldnt hesitate to wipe it off the face of the Earth for the sakes of uniformity and homogeneity across the continent. See how "little dots" can lead just about anywhere?

4- Never said any differently. Actually never implied the opposite either. Just making it clear that people who get all up in arms about the issue forget that other citizens already have that right denied to them and everybody accepts the fact as normal.

5- Project much?

Worst of all, I'm not even a freaking sovereignist and even I can see those nuances.

I don't really think you can make reasonable assumptions with people who want to restrict the freedoms of a segment of their society...and I'm not talking about immigrants who have yet to become citizens since they haven't gained the right to vote as yet...

Sovereigntist is the current "spin" being used by separatists...I hear what you're saying. I don't even really disagree. However, the term was not really used in this manner till recently. In the end, nuance or not, and as you stated, sovreignty requires separating from Canada. Perhaps it is just a viewpoint from the other side but Quebec "sovereigntists" are separatists. Quebec IS a nation already. The whole bloody world knows it...everyone's just sick of hearing about it.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that restricting a part of society's right to vote because they are different isn't fascist? Weren't Nazi's fascist? This wasn't my argument, and I wouldn't have gone there, but it's clear that there is SOME similarity, and therefore, since this would be the first significant "move" down that path, you could make SOME argument that it is a slippery slope. Without the cliche. There has been some arguments made that the rise of Naziism in Germany got it's rise from political propoganda that Jews held more money, businesses, land, etc then German citizens. Hey, I'm not saying that the french are going that far...hence my agreement that it's an over the top comparison. However, to say that the legislation suggested does not come from a fascist viewpoint is simply incorrect.

The Israel comparison simply can't be made because Quebec is NOT surrounded by people who are out to wipe them off the face of the earth. In fact, Quebec get's more federal money to support their programs then any other province. It has language protection laws. It is recognized a French province. Canada is a bilingual country to appease Quebec. There are more federal government contracts awarded to Quebec then elsewhere. How much did Quebec get in transfers recently? Didn't the feds just bail out a company in Quebec city while the auto sector burns in Ontario? Most PM's have been from Quebec. There is no question that Canada recognizes the nation of Quebec.

I'm not "projecting" at all...my views are not extremist...I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who would say I'm "stoking national fires" or promoting "extreme" views. I'm saying that all citizens should have the right to vote, not just the ones who happen to act and speak like I do...

[CerebusClone]

3- The real slippery slope is that dots can be connected to Nazi Germany from about any current Government on the planet if you want to make such a far-fetched comparison based on the restriction of any rights. You could take the same dots and connect them between the Conservatives who dont want the gays to have the same rights to marry and connect them to Nazi Germany. Ain't any authority applying some rules derisively called "Nazi" or "Fascist". But to try to imply it seriously is such an exaggerated, clichéd, desperate attempt at trying to make sovereignists guilty by association that RBO already made fun of that 20 years ago in a controversial sketch. 20 years later the attempt at any association is still just as ridiculous. The real intention of Nazi Germany was to conquer all of Europe by force and to use genocide to eliminate Jews, Bohemians, Gays, etc and impose their racial superiority. How anyone could even remotely try to establish a link between a violent regime who sought world domination through mass-genocide and military victory; and a small peaceful nation who's only goal is to protect its vulnerable culture by requiring people to learn a little before they can vote, such person is harboring some serious, serious bad faith.

Just a few corrections here:

What I said was about Pauline Marois, not sovereigntists. I have nothing about the movement or the idea of Quebec becoming a country (although I won't even consider the way it has been presented and proposed so far). I have sovereigntists in my family, and we have some very interesting, educated, and friendly discussions about the subject. However I despise Pauline Marois, and I would be very scared if she became the leader of my country to the point I would seriously consider moving elsewhere. Although I disagreed with them on several issues, I had a lot of respect for some of the previous PQ leaders, for example Bernard Landry.

Also if you read my initial post carefully, I didn't connect those dots for wanting immigrants to learn a little of Quebec before they become citizens, but more with the underlying idea of wanting to remove some undesirables (i.e people who finance the Liberals and/or people who usually are against separation) in order to achieve her own vision of the Quebec nation. If you are going to prevent a anglophone from voting just because he doesn't speak French well enough, why not do the same with some dumb francophone who never passed the 8th grade, doesn't speak a word of English (besides yes, no and toaster), doesn't know much about history of Quebec let alone the rest of the world, and therefore can't be expected to vote intelligently and knowledgeably? Isn't that why Bill 195 would prevent someone from voting, because they can't possibly know enough about what's happening here to make an educated vote?

Finally I wouldn't say this implication was serious. I obviously would never put Marois and Hitler in the same category, and do not believe she would ever do anything even remotely as horrible as what happened during the Nazi movement. I do however believe that Marois is a close-minded, ultra-conservative bigot who makes Harper look like Jack Layton on some issues.

[KoZed]

I don't really think you can make reasonable assumptions with people who want to restrict the freedoms of a segment of their society...and I'm not talking about immigrants who have yet to become citizens since they haven't gained the right to vote as yet...

There's no reason to believe otherwise either. Looking back at similar bills (Bill 101 for example) people were grandfathered in and it only applied to new students.

Sovereigntist is the current "spin" being used by separatists...I hear what you're saying. I don't even really disagree. However, the term was not really used in this manner till recently. In the end, nuance or not, and as you stated, sovreignty requires separating from Canada. Perhaps it is just a viewpoint from the other side but Quebec "sovereigntists" are separatists. Quebec IS a nation already. The whole bloody world knows it...everyone's just sick of hearing about it.

You say "Sovereignist" is a spin, but so was "Separatist" back in the late 70's/80's. It was Trudeau's spin on the self-described "Independentists" because "Separation" had a much more negative connotation than "Independence". Its politics, its manipulation of words to influence public opinion. I preferer "Sovereignist" because its the more accurate word to describe the objective of the people who support independance.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that restricting a part of society's right to vote because they are different isn't fascist? Weren't Nazi's fascist? This wasn't my argument, and I wouldn't have gone there, but it's clear that there is SOME similarity, and therefore, since this would be the first significant "move" down that path, you could make SOME argument that it is a slippery slope. Without the cliche. There has been some arguments made that the rise of Naziism in Germany got it's rise from political propoganda that Jews held more money, businesses, land, etc then German citizens. Hey, I'm not saying that the french are going that far...hence my agreement that it's an over the top comparison. However, to say that the legislation suggested does not come from a fascist viewpoint is simply incorrect.

So, by your logic, every democracy in the world is facist for restricting a part of society's (people under a certain age) the right to vote, right? Or is it only fascism if its immigrants, but not 17 yrs old?

See what I mean?

The Israel comparison simply can't be made because Quebec is NOT surrounded by people who are out to wipe them off the face of the earth. In fact, Quebec get's more federal money to support their programs then any other province. It has language protection laws. It is recognized a French province. Canada is a bilingual country to appease Quebec. There are more federal government contracts awarded to Quebec then elsewhere. How much did Quebec get in transfers recently? Didn't the feds just bail out a company in Quebec city while the auto sector burns in Ontario? Most PM's have been from Quebec. There is no question that Canada recognizes the nation of Quebec.

Fine, remove "out to wipe them"... and the rest is still all true so the comparison still stands.

Language protection laws came from the Quebec Government, not the Federal Government. "Linguistic minorities" protection law came from the Federal Government to protect the Anglo minority in Quebec more than the French minority in the rest of Canada, because the law was made in such a way (where the numbers require it) that it was left in the hands of the various provincial governments to decide what was those "number requirements". Saying that "Canada is a bilingual country" is stretching it a bit. You won't get served in French in a McDo in downtown Regina. You probably were refering to "Official bilinguism in the Federal services", yes, that was indeed done to appease Quebec, and still many times the Federal Government was brought to the Supreme Court because it wasnt giving the French services they were supposed to.

As for receiving more federal money than any province. Not entirely tell the whole story. For starters, you're talking about the perequation itself. That's one thing, and yes, Quebec receives more in total than any other province, but the least per inhabitant except for Saskatchewan. On the other hand, however, Quebec receives less in Federal programs than it pays in Federal taxes since, well, ever. Since 82, Quebec has paid in average about 25% of all Federal taxes, yet received in average about 18% of all Federal expenses.

On top of that, Quebec has always argued against most of the Federal programs because they are not Federal jurisdictions, which are for the most part "social" programs like education, health care, etc. Why then is the Federal spending money in fields that are supposed to be, per the Constitution, provincial domains? Because social programs are where people are the weakest and poorest of all, and so its easier to make them dependant on you and then create an insidious form of blackmail. "We're taking your money, and we'll give it back to you if you give us your allegiance". The Federal is simply trying to out-bid the provincial government, and to do that it gives the provincial government less and less in Federal transfers than it should; all the while spending more and more in fields that are of provincial responsability in the first place.

I'm not "projecting" at all...my views are not extremist...I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who would say I'm "stoking national fires" or promoting "extreme" views. I'm saying that all citizens should have the right to vote, not just the ones who happen to act and speak like I do...

You said the PQ were "stocking national fires" by having "extreme views". To see that in such a situation is to be so far removed from the center of the real climate of the debate, that the extremism perceived is reflecting of one's own proximity to an extreme position. That's what I meant by projection.

The PQ wasnt "stocking national fires" by having "extremist views", or else it wouldnt even have presented the project in the first place because in Quebec to gain the most votes you have to appeal to the center and that's what the PQ aimed at with that project. That's not "extreme", that's the complete opposite! And it wasnt "stocking national fires" it was actually jumping on the nationalist bandwagon (and I assume you meant national as in Quebec nation, not Canadian nation... because it was a provincial election and partys couldnt care less about the rest of the country).

And I'm here defending the f*cking PQ. That old bunch of Montreal-centric leftist hippies that I can't stand. That shows you just how far away off base your point of view comes from. It's not a knock on your values or way of thinking, it's a comment on your remoteness from the core and heart of the debate itself. I'd have the same problem trying to discuss the immigration issues in Toronto or BC. Just another example that supports my own personnal political preference: a real Confederation!

Now I'm stopping here because I got home from work almost 2 hours ago and jumped right on the cpu and my head frigging hurts and I'm hungry as Hell.

[BTH]

In response to the above debate, I'm in complete agreement with Joe. I find it horribly frustrating when people immigrate to Canada and make no effort to learn the language - French or English. I think it's irresponsible and degenerates society as a whole. I'm not talking about those recently arrived and just finding their way, I'm talking about the people who have been here a long while and haven't bothered to make an effort. Quite honestly, it's my opinion they can be sent back from whence they came unless they can make the effort to co-exist within our society.

I'm speechless; I thought this was coming from Saku Koivu's number one fan!

(sorry to interrupt the hardcore debate, I couldn't resist)

[Colin]

I'm speechless; I thought this was coming from Saku Koivu's number one fan!

(sorry to interrupt the hardcore debate, I couldn't resist)

Ask his wife if he speaks French.

LOL

[Zowpeb]

My replies in bold below.

There's no reason to believe otherwise either. Looking back at similar bills (Bill 101 for example) people were grandfathered in and it only applied to new students.

It's rather pointless for us to debate human nature...but I tell you what, you go ahead and let someone push forward a bill that restricts some of your current rights and see if you think that's acceptable and "all they'll do".

You say "Sovereignist" is a spin, but so was "Separatist" back in the late 70's/80's. It was Trudeau's spin on the self-described "Independentists" because "Separation" had a much more negative connotation than "Independence". Its politics, its manipulation of words to influence public opinion. I preferer "Sovereignist" because its the more accurate word to describe the objective of the people who support independance.

I don't disagree that the objective for the Separatist movement is Sovereignty. However, I think it would be naive to think that it's not a political spin to try and re-invent the movement and keep the uninformed voter from realising that it means wholly separating from Canada...a fact that still hasn't dawned on many of those same voters who think real sovereignty could have been acheived otherwise (ie. keeping the monetary system, military bases/equipment and other types of federal government infrastructure, etc). The fact remains that for them to acheive their goal they need to separate. Sure it's semantics and opinion but that's really what spin is all about isn't it?

So, by your logic, every democracy in the world is facist for restricting a part of society's (people under a certain age) the right to vote, right? Or is it only fascism if its immigrants, but not 17 yrs old?

See what I mean?

The primary difference is a simple one...you want to REMOVE the rights of immigrated citizens. A teenager has never held the right to vote in a Confederated Canada. Clearly, an age limit was set since most teenagers are clearly influenced by their parents choices and their votes would simply become proxy votes for mom and dad. At some level a line is made but it's a difficult one given the varying rates of maturity for each child/teen. You want to talk about ridiculous comparisons with Colin but you think this is a valid one?

Fine, remove "out to wipe them"... and the rest is still all true so the comparison still stands.

Still don't see it at all. Can you name some ways that the rest of Canada has placed Quebec in the position of being "surrounded on all sides" by people out to "remove them", or some other nonsense...it's laughable.

Language protection laws came from the Quebec Government, not the Federal Government. "Linguistic minorities" protection law came from the Federal Government to protect the Anglo minority in Quebec more than the French minority in the rest of Canada, because the law was made in such a way (where the numbers require it) that it was left in the hands of the various provincial governments to decide what was those "number requirements". Saying that "Canada is a bilingual country" is stretching it a bit. You won't get served in French in a McDo in downtown Regina. You probably were refering to "Official bilinguism in the Federal services", yes, that was indeed done to appease Quebec, and still many times the Federal Government was brought to the Supreme Court because it wasnt giving the French services they were supposed to.

You've missed my point. Canada ALLOWED Quebec to impose fairly severe language laws which force independent businesses/people to put up signage a certain way. I see chinese, vietnemse, greek, italian signs everywhere in Toronto...many with no english. I don't see what the issue was other then to curb peoples rights. Really, they were likely hoping the feds would step in and stop the nonsense which would only enflame the separatist movement. Canada is OFFICIALLY a bilingual country...sure you can't get served in French in many provinces. Let's be honest, you can't expect EVERYONE in the retail/service industry, across Canada(in provinces thousands of kilometers away from Quebec), you meet to be fluently bilingual. It's why most wouldn't think of complaining they can't get served in english in Quebec...hell, I don't even complain when I KNOW the guy behind the counter speaks english and simply refuses to use it with me...lol

As for receiving more federal money than any province. Not entirely tell the whole story. For starters, you're talking about the perequation itself. That's one thing, and yes, Quebec receives more in total than any other province, but the least per inhabitant except for Saskatchewan. On the other hand, however, Quebec receives less in Federal programs than it pays in Federal taxes since, well, ever. Since 82, Quebec has paid in average about 25% of all Federal taxes, yet received in average about 18% of all Federal expenses.

Uh, Quebec receives 60% of all equalization money. Probably pays about 20% into the equalization pot...guessing a little on the 20%. Ontario alone pays 40% and Alberta is the other big contributor. I'm not talking about federal taxes/expenses, though I question your numbers...I'm just too lazy to search them out. I suspect you ignore equalization payments/transfers and ignore how many gov't contracts are awarded to Quebec based companies. Quebec receives 2.5 - 3 times more then it pays into equalization.

On top of that, Quebec has always argued against most of the Federal programs because they are not Federal jurisdictions, which are for the most part "social" programs like education, health care, etc. Why then is the Federal spending money in fields that are supposed to be, per the Constitution, provincial domains? Because social programs are where people are the weakest and poorest of all, and so its easier to make them dependant on you and then create an insidious form of blackmail. "We're taking your money, and we'll give it back to you if you give us your allegiance". The Federal is simply trying to out-bid the provincial government, and to do that it gives the provincial government less and less in Federal transfers than it should; all the while spending more and more in fields that are of provincial responsability in the first place.

The Feds do not run education and health care. Your province runs it. Quebec will receive over $8 billion of the $14 billion equalization money pot. I don't see any blackmail there...I see money being simply thrown at Quebec out of a fear of separation. Frankly, it pisses me off to hear someone say that Quebec receives less then it should. How can Quebec, which has businesses being awarded contracts to provide no service, receives WAY more in transfer payments then any other province, provides services no other province can afford, etc...sounds to me like every other province is being screwed to prop up daycare and culture programs in Quebec.

For the record, there is an undertone I do agree with. I do believe that every level of government is involved in ways they shouldn't be...but the feds are pretty decentralized overall. I guess you didn't agree with federal money being spent on Quebec's "culture" and were glad to see the Conservatives cut that money back to where it was when they took power?

You said the PQ were "stocking national fires" by having "extreme views". To see that in such a situation is to be so far removed from the centre of the real climate of the debate, that the extremism perceived is reflecting of one's own proximity to an extreme position. That's what I meant by projection.

So in your mind, I'm a polar opposite of the centre and PQ in this debate? Get out of Quebec much?

The PQ wasnt "stocking national fires" by having "extremist views", or else it wouldnt even have presented the project in the first place because in Quebec to gain the most votes you have to appeal to the centre and that's what the PQ aimed at with that project. That's not "extreme", that's the complete opposite! And it wasnt "stocking national fires" it was actually jumping on the nationalist bandwagon (and I assume you meant national as in Quebec nation, not Canadian nation... because it was a provincial election and partys couldnt care less about the rest of the country).

You don't think limiting the rights of citizens, to have a say in democracy, is extremist? Well, that's your opinion...suffice to say I whole heartedly disagree. Hey, we only fought wars over this kind of thing...

They were stoking national fires because they want the Feds and the rest of Canada to step in and comment/act. Then they can point and jump and scream "see, they don't get Quebec" "wah, we should be our own country". It's all about optics and perception. They're playing political games with peoples rights and freedoms. You even justify it by saying "you can't legitimately discuss it because you're not from here and don't understand our issues."

And I'm here defending the f*cking PQ. That old bunch of Montreal-centric leftist hippies that I can't stand. That shows you just how far away off base your point of view comes from. It's not a knock on your values or way of thinking, it's a comment on your remoteness from the core and heart of the debate itself. I'd have the same problem trying to discuss the immigration issues in Toronto or BC. Just another example that supports my own personnal political preference: a real Confederation!

Now I'm stopping here because I got home from work almost 2 hours ago and jumped right on the cpu and my head frigging hurts and I'm hungry as Hell.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Zowpeb