seabee

And what we hear from Mr. Charest, his ministers and the rest of the liberals is that the federal government is not paying its fair share, etc.. Did the last provincial election change anything?

How odd! this is exactly what Québécois think of the ROC.

And the federal government would also partition New-Brunswick so that its francophone Acadian minority would be added to partitioned Québec. If Québec is divisible so are.... And there is this three square-block in Baconsfield which is mostly francophone which then would have to be partitioned off, too, except for those two houses that..... And then, there is this person who wanted to vote one way with his head, but the other with his heart. Off to the partitioning block we go.

Why? It has been 137 years since some people started trying to make the experiment work, and it still does not work. A reality check is in order. Isn't it time to try something else?

English is a compulsory subject in all french-speaking public school in Québec, and has been for decades.

Wrong indeed. The First Nations had been here for millenia.The latest finds show Native presence around Lac Mégantic some 12,000 years ago, shortly after the glaciers started receding. However, it is unquestionable that the French started permanently settling in America at the beginning of the 17th century, first in the French colony of Acadia in 1604, and later in the French colony of Canada in 1608 (not 1603 as is claimed in the link offered below. These two colonies, later joined by Louisiana, formed what was called Nouvelle-France. The descendant of the French settlers in Canada were called Canadien or Canadians by both the French and the English, and of course by the Canadien themselves. By the time of the 1756-1760 Conquest, the Canadiens, descendant of the French settlers, had been in Canada for about a century and a half. The present Dominion of Canada is only 137 years old. If the French and the Canadian were not there at the time of the Conquest, who or what was conquered? You should read up Marcel Trudel's "Histoire de la Nouvelle-France", published by Fides, in four (or more) volumes from 1963 to 1983. And the fouth book only reaches until 1663. The second book received Canada's Governor General's award in 1967. Nobody denies the Conquest. In fact, the Conquest is the root of present problems. It was a violent, brutal event that led to the death of about 1/6 of the canadien population and dispossessed the survivours forcing them to find refuge outside the occupied, ethnically cleansed towns and turn to survival agriculture. It led to two centuries of poverty and dispossession, in conditions bordering on slavery. As for the link, after just a quick glance, one can spot a few factual errors, and a closer search confirms there serious omissions.

Canada Outside Québec can certainly eventually vote Québec out of the Dominion. All it has to do is form a provincial political party which will include such an idea in its platform, get it elected in its own province, convince people in other provinces to do the same, have a federal party that could approve the idea and defend it in the commons (the Conservatives, who got not one elected MP in Québec could fit the bill), hold referendums in each and all provinces (with the possible exception of Québec), win these referendums in all provinces, convince the Commons tha the Constitution should be changed, open negociations with Québec (the Constitution cannot be changed on such important matters without the unanimous consent of all provinces), and have a federation-wide referendum to ratify the results of these negociations. This is a process similar to what has been done in Québec. COQ should then be able to kick Québec out within two to three generations, four top. But then, what about the anglophone minority in Québec? Will you abandon them, in the same way as Québec nationalist are accused of doing to francophones outside Québec? First, the choice of terms is deliberately condescending and infantilizing, as is often the case with people who plan hate crimes. Then, it is taken for granted that there is nothing to complain about, which, of course, is false. If Québec were always getting its way, there would be no independantist party in Québec. Asking (“shrieking”) for equality? what nerve; “ bad white nigger, bad, bad. You’re inferior, accept it”. Is that the point being made? Using public sympathy/shame is part of what any political party, at whatever level, uses to get elected; it is not at all a Québec only thing. Québec is drastically different from COQ by its history, its culture, its language, its cinema, its music, its television, its education system, its health-care system, its retirement plan, etc.... It wants these differences to be legally recognized and respected. COQ’s refusal to legally recognize these differences is interpreted as having a hidden agenda to abolish these differences by means of a cultural genocide, such as assimilation, or possibly worse. After all, English presence in Canada started with violent conquests, followed by attempted assimilation. However, imposed assimilation seldom works, and often turns against the assimilator, as shown in Canada by the First Nation, the Acadians, the Métis and the Québécois. The conquered, of course, have never been and are still not able to trust English-Canada. You never get a second chance to make a good first impression. You blew it!

Yes, from cover to cover. It is very interesting reading, well written by renowned scholars, but in easily readable language. The price is $34.95.

Just for your information, there is a very interesting book showing how different perspectives of events leads to different opinions. It is called "Si je me souviens bien/As I recall", authored by John Meisel, Guy Rocher, and Arthur Silver, published by the IRPP in 1999, simultaneously in French and in English. It looks at some 30 historical events in Canada. For each event, the first part is a bare-bone factual description of the event, in the most neutral terms possible, the second and third parts are about how one side of the linguistic divide saw it, described it and reacted to it, and then the other side. Canada does not have a history, it has at least two. Two those who promote canadian unity, a simple question. In 1759, at the Plains of Abraham, did we win or did we lose?

eureka Jul 12 2004, 11:40 PM What is the difference between a “French Canadian” and a “Québécois”? Does a “Québécois” become a “French Canadian” when he leaves Québec? Let’s not forget that most francophones who have left Lower Canada and/or Québec, especially during the 1820-1920 period did so to go to the United States, not to what has now become the Dominion of Canada. Doesn’t the present Québec government have the same responabilities, whatever they be, to Franco-Americans as to Franco-Canadians? When the resident of one province, whatever his or her language, leaves that province to move to another province, all legal ties with the original province are terminated. The provincial government has no further responsability towards that person. Conversely, this person no longer has to pay taxes to that province. Provinces have no legal right to grant a provincial citizenship to its residents. Provinces may not set “embassies” in other provinces, or states for that matter. At best, they way set up some kind of cultural agency, with absolutely no right over anyone. At present, the rate of assimilation in Canada outside Québec and the contiguous (Acadian) northern part of New-Brunswick is well over 50%. And there is nothing the provincial government of Québec can legally do about it, except maybe give a subvention to some francophone groups, at the risk of being accused by the host province of political inerference. Only the “federal” (or is it “confederal”? Let’s settle for “Dominion”) government can do somethiing about it. On the other hand, should Québec become independant, it will legaly entitled to grant full citizenship and establish embassies and consulates to protect the rights of its citizens who might chose to move out. It will then be in a better position to protect “French Canadians in Canada or the U.S., though not retroactively, obviously. If after Québec’s independance there is a swift “assimilation of those in provinces other than Quebec.”, it will entirely be the Dominion’s responsability, as it is already.

takeanumber Jul 4 2004, 04:06 PM takeanumber Jul 4 2004, 12:58 In these quotes, one can only assume that “we” refers to Canada outiste Québec (COQ), or English-Canada, or anglophone Canada, whatever. “We’ll let”, “allow”, “divie up”, all indicate that COQ, the cultural inheritors of their conquests in Nouvelle-France, consider the descendants of the french colonists, the Acadians and the Canadiens, as obligated to submit to COQ, and that COQ has a right to life and death over them; the conquered have no rights. Québécois, Acadians and French-canadians should be grateful the COQers lets them, allows them to breathe. Pierre Valières was right four decades ago when he described french-canadians as “Nègres blancs d’Amérique” (white niggers of America). Let’s not forget the Natives who, by law, are still not “allowed” to sign a legally valid contract. There seems to be an anglo-supremacist undercurrent in COQ. Or is it just the impression given by a few retrograde marginal people? We’ll “let” you decide.

Assuming this to be exact, them the federal government or any of its agency should give any support, financial or otherwise, to any group in Québec that claims to defend the right of Québec's (non-existent, according to the UN) anglophone minority. When it supports, say, Alliance Quebec, it ignores or rejects the UN's opinion. By the same token, any Québec anglophone rights group acknowledges the province of Québec to be a near-independant state. Or is it just that Canada is just a land of confusion? Why? Has Canada outside Québec (COQ) rejected democracy? Even mild nationalists know that historically, English presencce in present-day Canada can only be accounted for by one and only one factor, violence. You know, conquests of the Acadians and of the Canadians (now mostly called Québécois). This not an equivocation either.