Jump to content

ADQ out, Dumont out !


JoeLassister

Recommended Posts

The best party won, and I'm actually glad that we will have a majority government again. A minority government is fine on a temporary basis, but eventually political games and the thirst for power takes over... as we can see in Ottawa, one party will do anything to keep the power while the others will do anything to take them down... all this regardless of what the population really wants.

But mostly I'm glad that Pauline Marois now has very limited power facing a majority government. I can't believe so many people would vote for a person who actually wants to privilege part of the Quebec population, and take away rights from others bases on something like language. That Bill 195 was an absolute disgrace, and I'm embarassed that something like this would make the news... and it's also exactly what people in Quebec have fought against over the last few decades to become equals with the rest of Canada, and now Marois would like to reverse this, and make others swear under oath to be assimilated and have the same rights as others.

Although not on the same magnitude, this is in the same line of thinking as Adolph Hitler, Pauline Marois basically wants to remove undesirables and people who are getting in her way to achieve her vision of the true Quebec nation. Of course some people will say that it's only the right the run for politics and make donations, but what was next? People wouldn't be allowed to work or have children until they passed a French exam? Marois digusts me...

Meanwhile our definition of a true disgrace is a hockey player who says "sloppy seconds" on television... or that it is typical for a francophone who act tough without being willing to drop the gloves. At least Avery doesn't even mean any of this, he's just acting like an idiot.. but Pauline Marois genuinely wants to take away rights (like to support a political party), and this is not only ok, but cherished by many...

Sorry... I just had to get this off my chest... go Habs go...

Edited by CerebusClone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a bit harsh comparing Marois one of history worst person dont you think?? lets not be stupid here. Mind you I dont like her a bit. she's just a little bourgeoise and seems disconnected at times.

It's not like Charest was close to Kennedy either. didn't like that he wanted to sell a beautyful mountain to his friends. didn,t like that he raised daycare from 5 to 7$ when he promised not to touch them.

However I must say that I'm leaning towards Charest a bit more nowadays. He at least has the stance of a prime minister.

Edited by marky_and_komi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But mostly I'm glad that Pauline Marois now has very limited power facing a majority government. I can't believe so many people would vote for a person who actually wants to privilege part of the Quebec population, and take away rights from others bases on something like language. That Bill 195 was an absolute disgrace, and I'm embarassed that something like this would make the news... and it's also exactly what people in Quebec have fought against over the last few decades to become equals with the rest of Canada, and now Marois would like to reverse this, and make others swear under oath to be assimilated and have the same rights as others.

Although not on the same magnitude, this is in the same line of thinking as Adolph Hitler, Pauline Marois basically wants to remove undesirables and people who are getting in her way to achieve her vision of the true Quebec nation. Of course some people will say that it's only the right the run for politics and make donations, but what was next? People wouldn't be allowed to work or have children until they passed a French exam? Marois digusts me...

Meanwhile our definition of a true disgrace is a hockey player who says "sloppy seconds" on television... or that it is typical for a francophone who act tough without being willing to drop the gloves. At least Avery doesn't even mean any of this, he's just acting like an idiot.. but Pauline Marois genuinely wants to take away rights (like to support a political party), and this is not only ok, but cherished by many...

Sorry... I just had to get this off my chest... go Habs go...

Well, you are against this Bill because you don't want the Québec to become a country. If you see it as a charte du Québec as a country, then it is 100% fair that people who don't qualify to these 5 statements to not have the right to be involved in the politic process, just as in every other contries :

1° détient la citoyenneté canadienne depuis au moins trois mois ;

2° est domiciliée au Québec ;

3° a résidé d'une manière effective sur le territoire du Québec pendant six mois, dont les trois mois précédant le dépôt de sa demande ;

4° a une connaissance appropriée de la langue française ;

5° a une connaissance appropriée du Québec et des responsabilités et avantages conférés par la citoyenneté.

I'm one of those who think that too many people live here and just don't give a ###### about where they live and know NOTHING of the history of this province and his basis . If these people don't want to do the steps to learn the language, the history and respect a minimum of the values and the principles current in this province, then maybe they don't deserve to be involved in such processes as politic.

this is in the same line of thinking as Adolph Hitler [...] People wouldn't be allowed to work or have children until they passed a French exam?

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a bit harsh comparing Marois one of history worst person dont you think?? lets not be stupid here. Mind you I dont like her a bit. she's just a little bourgeoise and seems disconnected at times.

It's not like Charest was close to Kennedy either. didn't like that he wanted to sell a beautyful mountain to his friends. didn,t like that he raised daycare from 5 to 7$ when he promised not to touch them.

However I must say that I'm leaning towards Charest a bit more nowadays. He at least has the stance of a prime minister.

I'm not exactly comparing Marois to Hiltler... however I do see some similarity in some of their line of thinking... such as wanting to take away rights to a subgroup of people that don't fit her vision of the nation. Hitler was a disgusting human being who took this same principle to a whole new level...

Well, you are against this Bill because you don't want the Québec to become a country. If you see it as a charte du Québec as a country, then it is 100% fair that people who don't qualify to these 5 statements to not have the right to be involved in the politic process, just as in every other contries :

Actually I'm not necessarily against the principle of separation, I just won't even consider it as long as this movement is lead by people like Pauline Marois or even by others that I might respect (ex. Bernard Landry, I disagree a lot with his ideas and his vision, but I have a lot of respect for him) that as far as I can tell only want to separate based on language and feelings. If a party comes up with a strong plan and a feasibility analysis, if they would convince me that it is the best thing to do for the population of this province based on several key factors (ex. economics, flexibility for legislation ... ), then of course I will listen carefully.

By the way, many people were against this Bill, including Bernard Landry. I mean isn't that the same kind of BS that people in Quebec fought very hard against? Things like forcing francophones to abandon their values and language for the right to work and have some wealth? It was wrong for Canada to do this, people have worked hard to fix this, and now Marois wants to send us back a few decades?

I can’t even imagine the huge scandal it would create if Harper came up with some draft legislation along those lines, like taking away rights and citizenship to people in Quebec who didn’t speak satisfactory English… after all this is officially a bilingual country with a very strong anglo majority. If Bill 195 makes sense, wouldn’t it also make sense for Canada to force everyone to speak English? What a perfect scenario, Canada forces everyone to speak English while Quebec forces everyone to speak French! It’s all good and fair…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm one of those who think that too many people live here and just don't give a ###### about where they live and know NOTHING of the history of this province and his basis . If these people don't want to do the steps to learn the language, the history and respect a minimum of the values and the principles current in this province, then maybe they don't deserve to be involved in such processes as politic.

:rolleyes:

The Adolf Hitler comparison by Cerebus was a little over the top but I think that this line of thinking is a very slippery slope...

I could only imagine the outrage if english Canada made the same argument about those in Quebec who want to separate from the entirety of Canada. After all if they don't want to adopt the language and respect the minimum of the values and principles of Canada why should we let them vote? Right?

To exclude the voice of any part of our society is simply wrong. There is no justification for it...whether it be their stupidity, values, principles, etc. Democracy and liberal ideals are based on giving a voice to all...French and English Canadians have died fighting to protect the ideals, freedoms and rights we currently enjoy. The opposing view does seem more aligned with the Nazi movement then the one currently enjoyed here today.

Where does this line of thinking end? If you don't like the way an immigrant drives then maybe we don't let them have drivers licenses. If you think women belong in the home then why let them vote? That's basically what you're implying.

If people live in Quebec they have a right to vote and speak on any subject that impacts them. Whatever happened to the liberal ideals that made me proud of my french heritage? Instead I get people telling me it's about language, letter sizes, isolationism, etc...bah. That is not the heritage I think of when I think of Quebec and french history...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Adolf Hitler comparison by Cerebus was a little over the top but I think that this line of thinking is a very slippery slope...

I could only imagine the outrage if english Canada made the same argument about those in Quebec who want to separate from the entirety of Canada. After all if they don't want to adopt the language and respect the minimum of the values and principles of Canada why should we let them vote? Right?

To exclude the voice of any part of our society is simply wrong. There is no justification for it...whether it be their stupidity, values, principles, etc. Democracy and liberal ideals are based on giving a voice to all...French and English Canadians have died fighting to protect the ideals, freedoms and rights we currently enjoy. The opposing view does seem more aligned with the Nazi movement then the one currently enjoyed here today.

Where does this line of thinking end? If you don't like the way an immigrant drives then maybe we don't let them have drivers licenses. If you think women belong in the home then why let them vote? That's basically what you're implying.

If people live in Quebec they have a right to vote and speak on any subject that impacts them. Whatever happened to the liberal ideals that made me proud of my french heritage? Instead I get people telling me it's about language, letter sizes, isolationism, etc...bah. That is not the heritage I think of when I think of Quebec and french history...

It ends at the politic limits earlier mentionned. It's common that immigrants are allowed to work, own a driver license, rent an appartment, etc but not to vote, just because they are not citizen of the given country. I'm not implying anything else, stop puting word in my mouth. Women-Men equality is one of the MAJOR principles included in the Bill anyway...

And this bill would MAYBE be adopted in case the Québec ever becomes a country...

Edited by JoeLassister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you are against this Bill because you don't want the Québec to become a country. If you see it as a charte du Québec as a country, then it is 100% fair that people who don't qualify to these 5 statements to not have the right to be involved in the politic process, just as in every other contries :

4° a une connaissance appropriée de la langue française ;

5° a une connaissance appropriée du Québec et des responsabilités et avantages conférés par la citoyenneté.

I'm one of those who think that too many people live here and just don't give a ###### about where they live and know NOTHING of the history of this province and his basis . If these people don't want to do the steps to learn the language, the history and respect a minimum of the values and the principles current in this province, then maybe they don't deserve to be involved in such processes as politic.

:rolleyes:

The problem with these two clauses is that they are ridiculously vague. Appropriate knowledge of French and What it means to be a Quebec Citizen...by who's standards? The vagueness of those clauses allows a ruling party, mostly likely the PQ if this law is enacted, to arbitrarily reject anyone they deem not to have an appropriate level of these two things. This leaves way too much to opinion and leaves the door open to political favoritism.

Let's say someone wants to run for office in the Westmount riding, where the large majority of residents are Anglophone. Someone who speaks French as well as Steven Harper or Jack Layton may be rejected. To me, their French isn't perfectly fluent, but its usable. The PQ may not agree, especially if they see the potential official to be a political threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with these two clauses is that they are ridiculously vague. Appropriate knowledge of French and What it means to be a Quebec Citizen...by who's standards? The vagueness of those clauses allows a ruling party, mostly likely the PQ if this law is enacted, to arbitrarily reject anyone they deem not to have an appropriate level of these two things. This leaves way too much to opinion and leaves the door open to political favoritism.

Let's say someone wants to run for office in the Westmount riding, where the large majority of residents are Anglophone. Someone who speaks French as well as Steven Harper or Jack Layton may be rejected. To me, their French isn't perfectly fluent, but its usable. The PQ may not agree, especially if they see the potential official to be a political threat.

Sure they would agree. Harper and Layton' french is fine. You just don't understand what it is to NOT BEING ABLE to communicate with a guy in a restaurant without pointing out the meal you want on the board...

If you speak french like Harper or Layton, this is a proof that you actually care about it. Unfortunately, a large % of immigrants in Québec just don't care at all. And I mean, at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they would agree. Harper and Layton' french is fine. You just don't understand what it is to NOT BEING ABLE to communicate with a guy in a restaurant without pointing out the meal you want on the board...

If you speak french like Harper or Layton, this is a proof that you actually care about it. Unfortunately, a large % of immigrants in Québec just don't care at all. And I mean, at all.

It's a fairly common problem in several countries, not just in this province. Also this is more like a minor inconvenience in a few depanneurs and restaurants in Montreal, and not exactlty a terrible calamity inflicted on the population.

Marois didn't come up with this Bill because she has trouble being served in a few establishments, she wanted to eliminate people who are in her way to vision of the Quebec nation so that she could eventually hope to barely squeeze in a YES vote at an upcoming referendum. She wanted to prevent some of the weatlhy anglophones to fund the Liberals, and take out a significant chunk of NO votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fairly common problem in several countries, not just in this province. Also this is more like a minor inconvenience in a few depanneurs and restaurants in Montreal, and not exactlty a terrible calamity inflicted on the population.

Marois didn't come up with this Bill because she has trouble being served in a few establishments, she wanted to eliminate people who are in her way to vision of the Quebec nation so that she could eventually hope to barely squeeze in a YES vote at an upcoming referendum. She wanted to prevent some of the weatlhy anglophones to fund the Liberals, and take out a significant chunk of NO votes.

No. She knows it will never be adopted before Québec becomes a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. She knows it will never be adopted before Québec becomes a country.

And it's because of ideas like that that it will probably never happen... honestly I think that a strong party will a great leader could probably fairly easily get Quebec to seperate by uniting both francophones and anglophones together towards common goals for seperation instead of waging war against the English language (regardless of whether it is truly the case or not, that is the general feeling).

It would also give such this large-scale venture a much better chance of success by not freaking out weatlhy people currently in this province who would think seriously about leaving (I know I would), and potential future investors. Again it doesn't matter whether it would be justified or not, what matters is the image this country and its leaders would project... and the terms "Bloc", "Parti Quebecois", and "seperatists" don't project a very positive image outside of its current supporters, to the point where Sony even include them as terrorist villains in one of their games.

Edited by CerebusClone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4° a une connaissance appropriée de la langue française ;

5° a une connaissance appropriée du Québec et des responsabilités et avantages conférés par la citoyenneté.

I'm one of those who think that too many people live here and just don't give a ###### about where they live and know NOTHING of the history of this province and his basis . If these people don't want to do the steps to learn the language, the history and respect a minimum of the values and the principles current in this province, then maybe they don't deserve to be involved in such processes as politic.

:rolleyes:

I am the grandchild of immigrants. When they came, they did not know English or French. In time they learned enough of both to get around, but would they have passed a language test at the polls? I'm not sure, they certainly wouldn't pass a civics test. Were they affected by the decisions made by the Quebec government? Absolutely! They also paid their taxes, obeyed the law, and helped develop Northern Quebec. Their raised children who were bilingual and loved Quebec as their homeland. Why not just let them vote? Why subject them to a test to see if they are good enough?

This smacks of the old writing tests and poll taxes levied on black Americans in the Southern United States. A voting test can easily be levied disproportionately on a suspect class to limit their voting power. I'm not sure I want my right to vote determined according to a polling officer's opinion of my knowledge of Quebec history or civics. Do I have to know about Rene Levesque? What about Admiral Wolfe? What if I don't know about the Jesuit Missionaries of Old France? Is there a right answer on the merits of the War Measures Act? Of the FLQ? What if I think Quebec is just another Canadian province? What if I think Quebec is a totally separate country?

Can I get away with being able to read the Journal de Montreal or do I have to be able to pass a dictée transcribing Victor Hugo? If it's just the Journal, can I get away with the sports page or do I need to be able to digest Op-Eds? Do I have to know plus-que-parfait, or will the subjunctive be sufficient? What about passé simple?

Do they give the same test in Verdun as they do in Cote-St-Luc, DDO, and TMR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It ends at the politic limits earlier mentionned. It's common that immigrants are allowed to work, own a driver license, rent an appartment, etc but not to vote, just because they are not citizen of the given country. I'm not implying anything else, stop puting word in my mouth. Women-Men equality is one of the MAJOR principles included in the Bill anyway...

And this bill would MAYBE be adopted in case the Québec ever becomes a country...

RIIIGHHHTT...because history has obviously proven that once people in power start taking rights away from people they always stop with that first subtle change...lol

I find the entire thought of limiting a persons vote because they don't share a common language or the values of a Quebec citizenship, as defined by someone else setting the standard of how you should think, to be a completely disgusting concept.

You fail to completely understand my analogy of limiting other rights from other segments of society. I did not put words in your mouth...I used similar types of changes that could be justified using the same logic as not allowing people to vote. If you disagree with them then you should disagree with the others...the arguments for and against are the same in each case. You should, using the same logic as you're defending, be able to agree/understand/justify how blacks were not allowed to vote, how women were not allowed to vote, etc...I'm not saying you do think that, just that the same logic can apply to these types of changes.

You may not realise it but you are a facist. Any other basic rights you want to see removed? If you believed in the ideals of a free society then you could not possibly defend any policy that removes the right to vote from a citizen (of which many immigrants are CITIZENS with current voting rights).

BTW, here's the first line Wikipedia has on Facism: "Fascism is an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology, which is primarily concerned with notions of decline or decadence, and which seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity."

BTW, I've been in numerous restaurants and other public places with no way to communicate...but I've never wanted to completely shut people out of their rights as a result. In fact, I've spoken english in restaurants throughout Quebec, to people I could clearly see understood me and refused to acknowledge what I was saying, while they smirked at me like obnoxious jackholes. And I speak enough french to get by since it was my fathers first language and my heritage. I've had servers in Quebec insult me in french thinking I don't know what they're saying...but I suppose, in your mind, it was my fault for "pointing at an item on the menu" or reading it in english when I just don't know the words in french.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Thanks Kozed for being able to illustrate my thoughts in a proper english, something I can't do. You have the right understanding.

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.

Well, as soon Québec becomes a country, if it ever happens, I think this Bill would be a good basis of what the constitution would look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as soon Québec becomes a country, if it ever happens, I think this Bill would be a good basis of what the constitution would look like.

It'll never come to be. It would also lose almost all its relevance since then the Quebec government would have complete authority over immigration; as opposed to now where immigration is split between Federal (who takes care of political refugees & "emergency" cases) and the provincial government takes care of the rest, which gives parallel bureaucracies that are completely messed-up, churn out byzantine laws & programs and that are counter-productive & mutually detrimental. No wonder most immigrants are all confused and lost when they arrive here, it's like they're being told they're in three different places at the same time. They're in Canada but they're also in Quebec which is different from the rest of Canada but they're also in Montreal which is different than the rest of Quebec...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I didn't say that at all. What I compared to a Hitler-like line of thinking was the idea of eliminating a certain subgroup of society to achieve Marois' vision of the Quebec nation. While the analogy is a little out there, which I did on purpose, I do believe that Hitler took a similar basic idea to a disgusting extreme.

As for this being idiotic and an insult to intelligence, you have the right to feel like this... I feel the same about someone who constantly calls people idiots whenever they have a different opinion, regardless of the subject. I also feel the same about people who feel like we should never touch a touchy, sensitive subject because it might shock or disturb some people; on the contrary I think it is important to remember such atrocities in the pursuit of constantly bettering ourselves, and avoiding mistakes in the future. In my opinion that Bill 195 would have been a big mistake, and who knows maybe the first step towards something worse (and no, I'm not referring to a genocide, not even close).

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.

I don't think anyone is arguing that someone who arrived here only a few months ago should have the right to vote. However it would make no sense to prevent someone who's lived in Quebec for several years (ex. let's say 10 or 15), is contributing so society, pays their taxes ... from voting based only on how well they master the French language. It is quite easy for people to live primarily in English in some parts of this province - also depending on their type of work (i.e. dealing almost exclusively with people from the US of all over the World) - to the point where some anglophones who did learn some French hardly have the opportunity to practice it, and most importantly for others (let's say an American)

This is something that the Parti Quebecois doesn't seem to realize, they are alienating a lot of anglophones who feel completely excluded from their vision and their plan, like they are only parasites to their definition of the true québécois. Not speaking a specific language doesn't make you lesser of a person, it doesn't make you opinions count any less, and it shouldn't prevent you from obtaining the right to vote. A person can live in Quebec, contribute as much as anyone else, and understand/apply this nation's values as well as any francophone even though they don't speak French (or little).

Language is not a value, but only a mean of communication. You can dislike that someone who's been somewhere for several years did not bother to learn the language of the majority (I too think these people are idiots), however it is wrong to prevent them rights based on this, especially in a context like ours where that language is used only by a minority of people on the entire continent, and also where you can easily go through your everyday routine by speaking English (i.e. you can get all your local/provincial news in English... so presuming that an anglophone cannot understand the reality/culture of this province is kinda flawed).

Edited by CerebusClone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that at all. What I compared to a Hitler-like line of thinking was the idea of eliminating a certain subgroup of society to achieve Marois' vision of the Quebec nation. While the analogy is a little out there, which I did on purpose, I do believe that Hitler took a similar basic idea to a disgusting extreme.

As for this being idiotic and an insult to intelligence, you have the right to feel like this... I feel the same about someone who constantly calls people idiots whenever they have a different opinion, regardless of the subject. I also feel the same about people who feel like we should never touch a touchy, sensitive subject because it might shock or disturb some people; on the contrary I think it is important to remember such atrocities in the pursuit of constantly bettering ourselves, and avoiding mistakes in the future. In my opinion that Bill 195 would have been a big mistake, and who knows maybe the first step towards something worse (and no, I'm not referring to a genocide, not even close).

I don't think anyone is arguing that someone who arrived here only a few months ago should have the right to vote. However it would make no sense to prevent someone who's lived in Quebec for several years (ex. let's say 10 or 15), is contributing so society, pays their taxes ... from voting based only on how well they master the French language. It is quite easy for people to live primarily in English in some parts of this province - also depending on their type of work (i.e. dealing almost exclusively with people from the US of all over the World) - to the point where some anglophones who did learn some French hardly have the opportunity to practice it, and most importantly for others (let's say an American)

This is something that the Parti Quebecois doesn't seem to realize, they are alienating a lot of anglophones who feel completely excluded from their vision and their plan, like they are only parasites to their definition of the true québécois. Not speaking a specific language doesn't make you lesser of a person, it doesn't make you opinions count any less, and it shouldn't prevent you from obtaining the right to vote. A person can live in Quebec, contribute as much as anyone else, and understand/apply this nation's values as well as any francophone even though they don't speak French (or little).

Language is not a value, but only a mean of communication. You can dislike that someone who's been somewhere for several years did not bother to learn the language of the majority (I too think these people are idiots), however it is wrong to prevent them rights based on this, especially in a context like ours where that language is used only by a minority of people on the entire continent, and also where you can easily go through your everyday routine by speaking English (i.e. you can get all your local/provincial news in English... so presuming that an anglophone cannot understand the reality/culture of this province is kinda flawed).

You seems to think that every anglophones (immigrants or long time Quebecers) only speak english and don't care about trying to learn french or learn the "moeurs" [ed: way of life] of the "majority". This is not the case. I work in a billingual business, people speak "franglais" everytime, some of them only speak english, but understand 90% of what french people say. At least 4 of them I know are immigrants, arrived in the late 80's (40-45 years old people), and were not speaking french when they came. Lot of them never speak french, be it at work or at home, but are able to, because they decided they would learn it for all sorts of reasons.

You also seem to think that the Bill would exclude everybody who don't speak a proper french. This is not the case. It would exclude those who don't give a damn, don't want to do the steps to learn, don't give a damn about mixing with other Quebecers outside of Montreal West.

Learn a language, EDIT: at least the basis, IS NOT A BIG DEAL, be invloved and care about your society IS NOT A BIG DEAL. And for those who don't want to : Ottawa is 1h30 away from here. You can vote in Ottawa too, Libs are there as well...

Edited by JoeLassister
translation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seems to think that every anglophones (immigrants or long time Quebecers) only speak english and don't care about trying to learn french or learn the "moeurs" [ed: way of life] of the "majority". This is not the case. I work in a billingual business, people speak "franglais" everytime, some of them only speak english, but understand 90% of what french people say. At least 4 of them I know are immigrants, arrived in the late 80's (40-45 years old people), and were not speaking french when they came. Lot of them never speak french, be it at work or at home, but are able to, because they decided they would learn it for all sorts of reasons.

You also seem to think that the Bill would exclude everybody who don't speak a proper french. This is not the case. It would exclude those who don't give a damn, don't want to do the steps to learn, don't give a damn about mixing with other Quebecers outside of Montreal West.

Learn a language, EDIT: at least the basis, IS NOT A BIG DEAL, be invloved and care about your society IS NOT A BIG DEAL. And for those who don't want to : Ottawa is 1h30 away from here. You can vote in Ottawa too, Libs are there as well...

If someone doesn't give a damn about learning French, that's their right. And it doesn't mean they can't be involved in society, as I mentioned such a person can still contribute, work, pay taxes, and be fully aware about what's happening in this province as there is a fully functional English community where you can get all the news and information you need, not to mention you you can have access to all the products ans services you can hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone doesn't give a damn about learning French, that's their right. And it doesn't mean they can't be involved in society, as I mentioned such a person can still contribute, work, pay taxes, and be fully aware about what's happening in this province as there is a fully functional English community where you can get all the news and information you need, not to mention you you can have access to all the products ans services you can hope for.

Exactly. That's his right. He also has the right to live in a country that he is not citizen of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a seperatist, in fact, I think the idea is a little sad. When you consider that European countries like Swizerland exist with four major languages and cultures, it's kind of embarassing that we here in Canada can't have the tolerance and acceptance for making two work. However...

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?

That said, I have to wonder about the immigration rules which direct people to a place where intolerance exists - even in the small form it does now. English is pretty well understood around the globe and has become the de facto international language. Why on Earth would immigrants be directed to Quebec where the resemblance to even traditional French is becoming smaller and smaller (and for those who disbelieve, go check out the French forum here). If it's the government of Canada sending people to Quebec, it seems rather poorly conceived. If it's the government of Quebec accepting these immigrants (particularly from anywhere other than Europe), then what the hell are they thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a seperatist, in fact, I think the idea is a little sad. When you consider that European countries like Swizerland exist with four major languages and cultures, it's kind of embarassing that we here in Canada can't have the tolerance and acceptance for making two work. However...

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!?!

I was going to add more, but Dexter is starting (I absolutely LOVE this show)... so maybe we can continue tomorrow... ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...