seabee

On the other hand, Lapointe Senator Jean Lapointe has had a very long career in Québec as an entertainer, stand-up comic, singer, actor (won a few awards), and is respected by all in Québec, no matter what political alliegance. This new article may very well add more fuel to a debate sparked by a rather ill-worded statement by Tremblay, grossly distorted by some media, and which has brought the topic of Québec independance back from the backburner to the forefront.

Just an update: He certainly does not "disavow independance", as federalist spin-doctors would have it.

To go back to the original subject for a while, here is a letter in today's Ottawa Citizen: source: Ottawa Citizen

Both Tremblay and Lepage call for an updated thinking of the independance movement; it might be more helpfull than hurtfull for it. Neither reneges their indendantist thinking; they just think the population does.

Someone once said that the difference between a terrorist and a soldier is that a soldier is a terrorist with a very, very big budget. State terrorism is also terrorism.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to the 20 april 1760 battle of Sainte-Foy.

In Québec, the English Canadian population is less than 10% of the population, yet it has a complete education system from pre-school to post-doctoral universities. The Non-English Canadians in Québec must stand up for their rights as the majority and stop letting English Canadians walk all over them. English Canadians in Québec are generally richer than 95% of non-English Canadians in Québec; they can afford their own private school system.

Reviving this thread because of these new facts is indeed a very good idea. Societies change, but at different rates, for all sorts of internal reasons. Imposing change from the outside is not the way to go. We may not agree with other's way, but then again they may not agree with ours. Does that give us the right to militarily impose ours on theirs?

Any "rogue nation" is only happy to see that the U.S. has chosen to send so much of its military forces outside of its own territory; it makes it easier to perpetrate "terrorist" activities right inside the U.S. Sending U.S. troops in Afghatnistan or anywhere else certainly does not deter "rogue countries" from attacking the U.S.

daddyhominum makes very interesting point. The part about the "supremacy of God" in the 1982 constitution has always been a time bomb.

All countries in America, from Argentina to the arctic circle, were once colonies of European monarchies. All of them dumped the Monarchical system. Except for one, Canada, still stuck sowhere in the 18th century. Methinks I see a trend.

In Québec, history is more than an academic discipline, it is an industry. The greatest hits on Québec TV and on the movie screen had a very strong historic connotations. Some historians are stopped in the street by ordinary people for autographs. Major historical events like "La grande Paix de Montréal, 1701" attracted about 100,000 people; Les Fêtes de la Nouvelle-France, held each year at the end of august in Québec City usually attracts half-a-million people over a four- or five day event. Granted that the individual Québécois does not "remember" events that happened before they were born, but yes, the average Québécois knows his history quite well, and is always willing to learn more. It is not as if the Québécois had no roots.

Sad indeed that Québécois are not bloodthirsty warmongerers. Perhaps it is because they were conquered by such people two and a half centuries ago.

Any country that needs a "national unity" agency of any kind is definitely not a nation (except in the very bureaucratic sense of the word), just a country. Maybe Lucien Bouchard was right; Canada is not a nation!

Senator Hervieux-Payette was on a phone-in show on SRC yesterday in Québec. All callers approved of her move, without exception. Some went as far as thanking her for saying outloud what many people think but are afraid to express.

... and after hearing Harper, the phrase " genocidal anglosupremacist warmongers" comes to mind. Name calling is not an efficient way of solving conflicts.

Would anyone be willing to take an oath to the effect that it is a Canadian value to "promote the Interests of the British Empire"? Yet, it is what the 1867 Constitutional act says, in its preamble, that is why Canada was created. Trying to define "Canadian values" should prove as easy as nailing jell-o to the wall.

I wonder: If a child who belongs to no organised religion, nor his parents, were to wear a kirpan to school because it is his families belief he must carry a symbol that he will protect his security if attacked by somebody who wears a kirpan for religious reasons, and if this child were forbidden to do so, could he make a court case that he is discriminated against for not belonging to an organised religion? Just wondering.

Being a touch masochistic, let me start with saying that I agree with the interpretation of the Charter of Rights the SCC has come up with. What I disagree with is that Charter, which has led the judges into this legally inevitable interpretation. The problem is not the judges, it is: how do we go about changing the Charter, now that it is part of the Consitution? Clearly, it goes much too far. Would it be illegal to take a photo of kirpan-wearing kid, add the text: "this child carries a concealed object that is shaped like a knife and can be used as one", and then post it all over the school?

This patient was not refused treatment; she was just redirected to where she would get better care. And waiting time is a sad fact of health care. Moreover, while working in a second clinic, the doctor had responsability only to the patients of that particular clinic, not to those of the other clinic. She should have been expelled, by security guards if necessary, for trying to disrupt the activities of that clinic. There is no language issue there. Just a troublemaker, possibly an anglosupremacist who believes that an Anglo patient deserves to jump the queue over "frogs".

Roman cathollic priests in Québec have published an open letter in La Presse directed at the Church, opposing its stand angainst homosexuality and same sex marriage. La Presse

If a "French" (I take it you mean french-speaking or francophone, as French means being a citizen of France) resident of Québec goes to Ontario and gets a bilingual job there, it is because this person is bilingual, i.e. has spent the time and energy to learn a second language. And if an english-speaking person from Ottawa does not get the billingual job, it is because this person is not bilingual, i.e. has not spent the time and energy to satisfy the job requirements. No discrimination here.

The Constitution has not been modified as it clearly states that Canada is (still) a Dominion, whose head of state is the monarch of England. The catch word, of course, is "allowing". It presumes that "they" must submit, on the ground that might makes right, on the grounds of a violent conquest. This presumes that one group of "Canadians" are, by patrimonial right, the conquerors, and that another group, the original pre-1759 Canadiens are, because of their heritage, the conquered and hence must submit to the "superior race" (Lord Durham's words). Conquering is the easy part; keeping it conquered, that is the problem, even nearly two and a half centuries later.

And Canada, of course, is not a nation: its people certainly do not come from a common descent, have different languages, conflicting histories, and is legally multi-cultural. It barely qualifies as a country. Being legally a Dominion, it is essentially an autonomous British colony.

To denominate is not synonymous with to dominate. It can happen that two nations (group of human beings) inhabit the same territory. And also that the most violent, agressive, racist of these two nations dominates the other.