Antiochus

I would probably call bullshit here since most Quebecois have Irish or Native American ancestry. Finding a true ''pur laine'' Quebecois is actually harder than you might think.

Wrong again. The irony was that they needed Quebec at the time because they had to ensure the province would remain stable, as the rest of the American colonies were quickly moving away from the Empire. Had they been too harsh, they would even have lost Canada. It was not a decision coming from the deeps of their hearts, it was just the only politically sound option they had in order to ensure they would not loose the whole of North America. Look up the English governor Carlton, its all pretty well known history today. By the way, your welcome...

I recently joined this forum and threads like this make me want to leave. I'm not even Ontarian, and I feel offended by this thread.

I'm amazed at some peoples capacity to reduce a complex history of federal/provincial conflict to a cartoon, all the while representing an entire group as being bad. Its textbooks discriminatory and racist speech. In your way, you vindicate the entire dogma of the PQ. Congratulation, you dolt.

And Quebec has a higher rate of bilingualism than most of Canada. I think there is a fine line between assimilation and integration by the way and assimilation was the point since the Act of Union, changing only in the second half of the 20th century.

Not at all. The concept of race today is defined by blood, or by ethnicity. Nationhood as it is understood by cultural standards is based on language, culture and customs. Its something that can be joined, that you do not have to be born into to be a part of; which explains how people like PQ, QS or BLOC MPs and candidates being seen as nationalists Quebecois, while technically being immigrants or of immigrant or anglophone descent, such as Maka Kotto, Amir Khadir, Maria Mourani, Djemila Benhabib, Scott Mckay, Andrés Fontecilla, Will Prosper and the list goes on... As I do. I think a one of our journalist said it best when he said that the shooting left us with one death, but 8 million wounded... Well, off the bat I would have to say that I can't help but think that your vision of the "francophone media" is very skewed, as the reaction to the shooting and the analysis of its causes and ramifications varied drastically from one source to another, not to mention that most of our major media are widely seen as being federalist, or at least as supportive of federalist political parties, such as the medias under Quebecor Media (which includes the most read newspaper, the journal de Montreal, and the most watched News Stations, TVA) and Power Corporation (which includes the second most read newspaper, La Presse). On the other hand, if some medias were to be highly critical of the election coverage of the election by English media, I would not entirely disagree with it. While it would be absurd to lay the blame at the feet of such media organization, one can't help but to point out that many of those medias used fear-mongering as an electoral tactic. Calling the PQ voters Yahoos, insulting the PQ leader outright, claiming that any voters who support the PQ supports xenophobia (even though its reducing the whole campaign to a caricature) among others... Now, does this mean one can blame those medias for the shooting? Not really. But one could say that they fail at objectively informing their readers and create and environment where such horrible acts can more easily take root. To be fair, several francophone media are also outright opposed to the PQ, as said earlier, some of them can be pretty radical in their narrative (such as the famed trash radios of Quebec city), and they could also be considered as being more damaging to the public discourse than truly informative on the topic. As for considering the PQ as racist and xenophobic, I never said that it was faultless. I agree that the party adhered to bad policies that are, in essence, rooted in a form of nationalism that is synonymous with xenophobia. But I also said that such policies do not reach a consensus within the party itself, let alone the broader Quebec society (as this thread imply, in a very offensive way). The PQ always played in a dangerous territory, as the line between nationalism and racism is a fine one. I understand why it can be seen with suspicion, even animosity by anglophones and I even agree with some of the criticism that many aim its way, but I do have an issue with parts of the english media and with a huge part of the anglophone social media which often gains a platform on regular media website, for being very unfair in their analysis of Quebec's policy and, sometimes, just as racist and xenophobic as those they claim to condemn. It was especially scary in the facebook and twitter following of those media, such as when some people actually cheered and called for the murder of Pauline Marois. I know the same thing can be found anywhere, but do understand that just as the PQ's policy can sometime vindicate animosity, such narrative also vindicates the PQ, especially when it is encouraged as I have seen it on medias such as Sun News Network.

Yeah, Im going to say it: its absurd. The Montreal suburbs have their shares of anglophones, heck, they form a majority in many of them. While I do not doubt that racism exist everywhere, the greater Montreal area is actually not that bad a place.

Well, if done at the point of a sword, I believe you just described the Spanish inquisition... So, yes, it can be...

You are playing a dangerous game. Those pieces of papers are not something to be taken lightly. Within our system, the sovereignty lies in the hands of the parliament, which is why the referendum mostly had a consultative role that would simply have given the provincial government the popular mandate to take a decision. As there are no-such entities that have such sovereignty within the provinces (municipalities have no independent powers that provinces can't legally take back), what you describe here is technically untrue.

Well, there are certain persons that work within the media that have made the argument that the coverage of the campaign within parts of the English-canadian media dealt in fear-mongering, and to an extent, this is not entirely wrong. One could make an argument that such a coverage would create a political climate where such acts are more plausible; though this is an argument that has no value if you do not take several other factors into account, considering that this cannot be the single source of tensions that could have lead to such a tragic act. Yet, those who actually blame such media coverage for the murder are even fewer and most of the medias right now seem to adhere to the idea that the shooter was suffering from some sort of mental illness. This is why I claimed that saying that the "French Media" blamed the "English Media" is an exaggeration. The phenomenon certainly exists within the media and there is a valid point to be made that the demonizing of a political party can foster an environment where attacks against that party would be more common. But as I said, to say that the blame should lay at the feet of something as vague and diverse as the "English Media" is quite absurd.

This is an exaggeration... One would say that some people with the french media are laying the blame on the anglophone media. By and large, the medias, both french and english, are trying to calm things down.

That is factually wrong if you take into consideration the Act of Union of 1840... It was clearly attempted to assimilate the francophones, but it was almost impossible due to several factors, including the demographics of the province and the fact that most institutions that would have had to be taken over by the English to ensure assimilation were in the hands of the catholic (read-very french) clergy.

Its a pretty bad book and a poor thesis for a political philosophy. Its heroes are closer to demi-gods than humans, so imbued with a perfect ethical belief system implying that only people who believe in government interventionism will try and take advantage of the situation given to them; as if it took an big government to allow corruption, patronage and unhealthy monopolies...

Right, the conservatives just did a national add mocking Chrétien's facial disability... But that was not immature... noooooooo...

Please, Canada is more than willing to deal with various regime that would fit the same totalitarian bill.

The main problem here is the differing meaning of the word "nation" in both French and English...

A symbolic gesture with little real practical value. While Israel can certainly bomb Iranian installation, recent conflicts in Lebanon have clearly showed the limits of Israel's military capabilities when subjected to asymmetrical warfare, which would undeniably come out a a prolonged conflict. Canada has no interests in getting in that particular mess. It should go back to its old position; a neutral vantage point from which it can uses its resources to mediate. We do not have the power or the clout to really matter that much as a belligerent force and it affects our standings with the people favorable to the other side.

It probably would, but the fact of the matter is that if I wished to have access to all services given under provincial authority in any of those provinces in French, I would have a few problems. And please do not only quote a fragment of a sentence when answering...

I find it ironic that you accuse the people of Quebec of using too broad a brush while visualizing the rest of Canada while doing the exact same while describing them. As for the argument itself, I would say that the main problem is that you forget to mention that Provinces don't really interact much on those issues and the reason why Quebec often believes its opposition is with the rest of Canada is based on the fact that its battles are fought between the provincial and federal government. As the federal government does have power over all of Canada, its by no means surprising that the conflict might be roughly defined as a problem between Quebec and Canada, rather than a conflict between many different provinces.

Sorry, but Quebec is a french-speaking province and the various services offered by the provincial authority are delivered in the province's official language, just like any other provinces in Canada. As for the "Patois", one would be quick to point out that slang also exists in other languages and that the Canadian vernacular is somewhat distinct from what purist would call classical (British) English, yet it does not make the language you speak any more inferior than the one I speak.

You would be right... As of the murder itself, it caused more of a panic than an awakening. My English friends are pretty scared that this terrorist act will reopen old wounds between the two communities while francophones, such as myself, are mostly under shock. We are not used to violence in the political discourse. I know some people might want to point out the events of 1970, but those things are more an exception to the rule than anything else. A journalist in one of our newspaper said it best; 1 killed, 8 millions wounded...

The Canadian federation is bilingual; but each province has its own linguistic policy. Quebec is officially French and the rest of Canada's provinces are English, with only one province which is officially bilingual: New Brunswick. Depends on where you are really. Since all of Canada's public service must be offered in both languages and the proportion of people in Quebec that are bilingual is higher than anywhere else to the country, its obvious that francophones get an easier access to certain jobs. But about the law itself, I would like to point out that the law was bashed all across the board in the Quebec Media cycle. Do not associate this proposal (which as yet to see the light of day) to the whole province or even with the whole party which proposed it; it started a violent debate and its clear that it was noting but an attempt to charm the more conservative and nationalistic part of the electorate. The law would never pass, neither under Quebec's own Charter of freedoms and rights or under the Canadian Supreme Court. It was an ugly electoral ploy.

As a francophone from Quebec, I would like to point out that threads like this are really not helping and are vindicating much of the PQ's thesis. For starters, many here imply that Pauline Marois believes in the existence of a Québécois "race", that is absurd. Like most nationalists in the province, she certainly believes in the existence of a separate people, who's language and culture entitles them to a distinct nationhood, but I have yet to find a single occurrence of her talking about the francophones of Quebec as a distinct "race"; heck, the term "race" is completely outdated in the current political and scientific lexicon. Also, people need to put the PQ's victory into context. For starters, the nationalistic and (sometimes, yes) borderline xenophobic political narrative that often permeates the PQ's message was either absent, or highly criticized when it surfaced. The PQ won a plurality because it was up against the most unpopular and allegedly corrupted government in living memory, not to mention that this same government had been in power for nearly a decade, further motivating much of the electorate to strategically vote for the PQ as a way to get the PLQ out of power. While the fear of a referendum was often brought up by the PQ opponent as an argument against it, it was not really that big a part of the PQ's political message during the campaign, a truth further demonstrated by the fact that support for Quebec independence is actually quite low; lower than the percentage of people who voted for the PQ or other nationalistic political forces during the election. Now, does the PQ have some ethnocentric tendencies? Yes Did its support for the creation of a separate citizenship open possibilities for a mean to create a gap between certain citizens and their rights based on their language? Tragically, yes, it did. But the fact of the matter is that the idea was criticized by pretty much all major medias and analysts in Quebec; the PQ had to backtrack on several aspects of the law and before long, they even stopped talking about it, noting that this transparent attempt to charm the more nationalistic electorate while opening a possible conflict with Ottawa that could be exploited later had backfired and convinced several of its followers to vote for other nationalistic parties who were not dabbling in such xenophobic policies, such as Québec Solidaire, Option Nationale and even the Coalition pour l'Avenir du Québec. The thing is, the PQ should have crushed the Liberals. The party in power had been ripped apart by its poor leadership during the student loans crisis and was being humiliated by a daily showcase of its own mire during the airing of a a provincial commission charged to examine the charges of corruptions in the construction industry. But the PQ lead a very poor campaign; it was seen as clumsy, its leaders performed quite poorly during the debates and it failed to do anything except just being the most likely party to finally replace a government who's days were clearly behind it. Now, the attempted murder on Marois is a tragedy, a horror which is guaranteed to open a lot of old wounds. What's worst is that it was followed by a wave of approval on the social networks; hate mongering of the worst kind and open calls to murder that are being peddled gleefully in a way that is incredibly destructive. It vindicates the worst of anti-Canadian sentiments found in Quebec, which further feeds the anti-Quebec narrative that can be found in the other provinces. It is a mess, and mess which will take years to be cleaned up. In the end, the election is very poorly analyzed by the Canadian media, who seems to forget that Quebec is a complex society. After all, nationalism is but one of the many facets of the province's political landscape and it must not be overestimated. After all, the same population which allowed the PQ to win a minority gave its trust to the New Democratic Party, a federalist party. What do those two events events have in common? Well, both parties are seen as occupying a portion of the left of the political spectrum. As such, a vote for the PQ might not be about separatism or about linguistic tensions, but the fact that the population of Quebec tend to favor the left. As such, stating that the PQ's Pyrrhic victory is a demonstration of the populations adherence to its more nationalistic and sometimes xenophobic values might be a mistake. There were a lot more issues at had in Tuesday's election.