seabee

Furthermore, if they were to have "exclusively french" entertainers, people in the RoC would take pleasure in describing Québécois as racists, xenophobic. Québec-bashers always find a way to spiin things. Besides, MacCartney will attract tourists from the U.S. .You know, the country who waged one bloody revolution against Great Britain starting in 1776, and waged war against a british colony in 1812. So. should they boycott a british singer?

Why? It is their party and they decide how they will do it. Outsiders have no business deciding anything whatsoever for them. End of discussion.

McCartney will only be one more embassador of British culture to Québec. The first ones were many Scotts and some Irish as early as September 1759 who voluntarily helped the citizens of the devastaed city and of other surrouonding towns, The first marriages between Scotts (or Irish) militaries to Canadienne girls, with the blessing of their parents, took place in the following months or years. Accoring to genealogists, at least 10%, but more likely close to 20% of french-speaking Québécois are direct descendants of these people, who aften adapted their name to sound french, or occasionally take a completely new name. Today, one of the most prominent and rich family is the Simons family (pronounce à l'anglaise); they recently gave the population of the city, for the 400th anniversary, the magnificent "Fontaine de Tournay", which cost them hundred of thousands of dollars, and for which the entire population is gratefull. Most of the buildings in the upper town within the fortification is of british style, to replace the buildings that had been devasted during the siege of the city in 1759. Even before that, there has been some Scott and Irish (and Jewish and Italian) presence in the french colony of Canada. Nothing new. And McCartney was invited not because he is British, but because he was a Beattle.

It makes as much sense as Charles Aznavour being awarded the Order of Canada. link

I submit that the 1867 BNA act was not well designed for the 21st century, was not always respected by the federal government, at least not in its spirit, and was not significantly improved by the 1982 amendemnent. Perhaps it is time for all levels of government to sit down and have a long debate over it, and draw up a new Constitution, this time a real one, accepted by referendum by the population. However, considering that the various regions of the federal Dominion have grown further and further from each other over time, and that the constitutional amendment clauses make it nearly impossible to change the the constitutional acts, it is doubtfull this project would bring any concrete result. We are then in an impass. Time to think outside the box.

It sounds as if the "tribalist cheese-eating surrender monkeys" are taking over the "gencidal anglo-supremacists".

They have a list? in Québec?

Question: What do you men exactly by "... to set Quebec straight"? And what means are to be used to achieve this goal, whatever it means?

In Québec, religion has gone out the window some 40 years ago. Since then, at least half the churches have either been destroyed or sold for other uses such as cultural centers, condos, libraries, etc. Today a good proportion of the remaining churches are nearly abandonned. In some parishes, a priest comes only once or twice a month. The average age of priests, brothers and nuns is now well over 70. Marriage is seen as an obsolete religious sacrament, which is meaningless ot the yourger generations. Many married couples have divorced, and many non-married couples stay together for decades.

Wilber: Now you just have to convince some 7,000,000 people in Québec that you are right. In French, of course. Best of luck.

It may have been great pride and fun to conquer it. Now comes the time to pay the price. Conquering a people is the easy part; keeping it conquered is a never-ending time-, energy- and money-consuming task. Make sure you know what you ask for.

English is a mandatory subject in the entire french-speaking school system. All their students, whether immigrants or not learn french there, willy nilly.

I agree. In fact, I don't think that whatever Harper or Dion has said will influence the next votes as much as the CBC"s decision to cut out in the editing room everything that was in French, and even axcluding any reference to french-speaking presence at a recent award show. That has outraged a large portion of the french-speaking Québécois.

As far as I know, in the french-speaking media in Québec, Dion's statement were given the space of a sentence or two burried in an article, And on TV, I don't think a visual was even presented. Safe to say that his statement was met with indifference.

Don't forget that previously Dion has said that Law 101 was great, and that it was so good that it should be enshrined in the federal constitution.

What group next? Fatsos oops, I meant obese and overweight people. The health nazis rant is likely to go something like this. Fatsos sweat too much, they stink, their deodoriser contains xy chemicals that have been proven to cause asthma and allergic reactions, as insidious as second-hand smoke, etc... Don't laugh; one city, I think it is Halifax has banned people who wear perfumes and deodorisers from municipal building. Expect "sin taxes" on sugar and foods containing it, or equivalent. Salt might also be a target.

Smokers have known for decades that if you stop smoking, you get fat. So after a lot of propaganda, the percentage of smokers have drastically gone down, and obesity is now an epidemic. And it costs a fortune to the health system. Who profits? The pharmaco-medical complex. First, patches, pills and what not to stop smoking; none works at more than 20% efficiency, so you have to try them all. Next, as you get fat, all sorts of diets, pills, etc., whose benefits are at best temporary. Then you develop high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, all of which require medicaments and regular visits to your m.d. for renewals. fpr which he gets paid. The pharmaco-medical complex makes billions a year out of the anti-smoking propaganda. Far more than it used to make before, since smoking causes no lifelong problems, but rather short-lived serious problems, frequently mortal, which are just a one shot money-making opportunity, while high blood pressure, diabetes or cholesterol bring small revenues every year, but for several decades. Also, as smoking has decreased, smog has increased and is a serious health problem; you certainly can't blame smokers for that. Asthma has risen, especially juvenile asthma. Could it be that lung cancer is caused by something other than smoking? And road-rage has appeared.

It seems that everybody on this forum takes for granted that the English, solely by virtue of being English, have an innate right to do whatever they want to non-English people,including perpetrating genocides. This is a very supremacist ideology.

More important to France, however, were the Antilles, with the islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, which produced a lot of sugar at very low prices because of slaves. At the time, sugar was almost as important a commodity as gas is today. The profits from the Antilles were enormous, whereas Canada was seen as a colony that cost more than it produced, a net loss. It is said that Mme de Pompadour, the French king's mistress, said, upon learning that Canada has surrendered at Montréal on September 8, 1760; "At last, the King will be able to rest". At best, France's support to its colony was no more than lukewarm. I dont't believe that the English respected very much the Catholic church. But Mgr Briand had negociated an understanding with general Murray that the Catholic church would preach submission the the King of England, in return for a guarantee that the Catholic Church would be allowed to remain. This deal was too good to be refused; the Brits would need very few military to keep the Canadiens into submission, as the Catholic Church would do it for them. This,however, inflammed the colonists in the British Colonists in America, who were resolutely "anti-papist", which was the initial spark for the separatist movement that eventually led to the creation of the U.S. of A.

Totally false. The French made a strategic retreat to their côte de Beauport camp. They did not surrender in any way or manner.

From a Québec perspective, I would like to add, like Québécois, the Scott were also victims of persecutions from the English, and that many Scotts emigrated to France following Ye Aulde Alliance, became french citizens, some of which emigrated to the french colony of Canada, part of Nouvelle-France. Immediately after the battle of the Heights of Abraham Martin (nicknamed in period documents as "l'Écossais", the Scott, established in Quebec circa 1617, the occupying army in the city was mostly made up of Irish an Scott soldiers, the officiers being for the most part English, but with a few Scotts, including Murray. And within hours, the Scotts, mostly Highlanders became very friendly with the citizens, and vice versa, to the point that by October 1759, the de facto governor, general Murray, had to explicitely forbid marriages between the military and canadian girls. Some even deserted to marry. After the 1760 capitulation of Canada, the Highlander regiment was dissolved, and many Scotts married canadian girls, And there many important Scott people in the history of the Québécois. Malcolm Fraser was probably the most important of them. To this day, in Québec, the province, there are many Québécois families with family names which are distinctly Scott, such as Handfield.

Ontario and Quebec did not "come back together", or whatever, in 1867. Québec, as a province did not exist when the BNA act was proclaimed. Only three provinces joined the process; Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the province of Canada, which included both what is now known as Ontario and Québec. Québec, as a separate entity, had no voice in the matter. However, it accepted article 6 (from memory) which partitioned Québec from Ontario, maybe as a first step to independance.

You conveniently omit Wolfe's defeat on 31 July 1759. We should have Montcalm's Day. Also, months after the battle on the Heights of Abraham, whereby Wolfe died to conquer ... a 2 km by 3 1/2 km neglected field, nothing more, there was the battle of Sainte-Foy, in which the English "got the butts handed to them". We should have Lévis' day.

My question has not been answered. Can a unilingual francophone be hired to be a policeman?

Can a unilingual francophone be hired to be a policeman? If not, this indicates that language requirements are jobs requirement, related ot a skill in communication that is learned, not a birth characteristic. Describing the fact that unilingual anglophones are discriminated is inaccurate,as the job requirements deal with learned skills, not "racial", "ethnic" or any other genetic or cultural features. What is good for one group of Canadian citizens is just as good for any other group of Canadian citizens.