Quebec anglo students denounce discrimination

[Leafless]

QUEBEC - Anglophones at Quebec City's Laval University say they are victims of discrimination and the target of xenophobic messages.

The offices of the anglophone students' association have been vandalized several times over the past two years. Food and equipment have been stolen and stickers of "Vive le Quebec libre" have often been stuck on the door and the walls of their lounge.

The latest incident took place two weeks ago when their premises were broken into and comments such as, "Ici on parle en francais" ("Here we speak French") were written with black marker on the association's monthly newspaper, The Outrageous Escape.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...9ae&k=92680

This further proof that the federal government continues to ignore the rights of other non- French Canadians in Quebec.

It should be clear to the federal government at this time that Quebec has no desire to abide by Charter laws as it still refuses to sign the Constitution of Canada, which indicates Quebec is making a 'fool of Canadian laws' by abusing the 'notwithstanding clause' and the federal government lacks the incentive to amend the Constitution and to lay down the law and put Quebec in its place.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Leafless

[jbg]

It should be clear to the federal government at this time that Quebec has no desire to abide by Charter laws as it still refuses to sign the Constitution of Canada, which indicates Quebec is making a 'fool of Canadian laws' by abusing the 'notwithstanding clause' and the federal government lacks the incentive to amend the Constitution and to lay down the law and put Quebec in its place.

How about conditioning transfer payments on adherence to the Charter?

[RedDaVinci]

This really mucks up the perspective of things.

From the get-go, I knew the PQ were being fascistic, especially with bill 101. They forget that the French nation living here was originally conquered, then preserved. Then it grew... and grew... and was kicked around a bit more until Canada attempted suicide in the latter half of the 20th century and elected the PQ as a legitimate party. There is no Canada without Quebec.

There have been some terrorist actions taken against the federalists... but this is certainly a first for me. Considering it was a student office, it's not too farfetched to assume that the guilty party was an opposing, more clandestine, student group.

This is a sign that we're regressing back into that militant sovereignty mentality again. I pray it's just an isolated incident.

Edited November 11, 2007 by RedDaVinci

[guyser]

This further proof that the federal government continues to ignore the rights of other non- French Canadians in Quebec.

The feds should jump into the middle of a battle so epic that marshmallows were replaced by nerfballs so as not to have even a minor bruise? Wow...I think the feds are busy enough.

Perhaps , should you have read further in the article ,you would have found this.

"There are some people in Quebec City who don't like anglophones, not the majority, clearly, but we seem to be a prime target," said Dery.

"Now all of a sudden people are saying very clearly that these acts are wrong. It brings in a sense of acceptance from the francophones and make me feel more at home in my province, in my city," said Dery.

The spokesman for Laval University said the institution has launched an inquiry into the series of events

[g_bambino]

Quebec... still refuses to sign the Constitution of Canada, which indicates Quebec is making a 'fool of Canadian laws' by abusing the 'notwithstanding clause' and the federal government lacks the incentive to amend the Constitution and to lay down the law and put Quebec in its place.

I don't understand where this myth came from, and why it keeps perpetuating throughout this country. Quebec did "sign" the constitution; they did so in 1867, and never "signed-off" of it since. The patriation in '82 was merely a constitutional amendment - with nary little changing in the BNA Act - to which the Quebec premier at the time did not agree.

Thus, there's no need to amend the constitution now to allow the federal government to "put Quebec in its place." The law is there now; it's just nobody seems to have the guts to enforce it.

[Moxie]

I don't understand where this myth came from, and why it keeps perpetuating throughout this country. Quebec did "sign" the constitution; they did so in 1867, and never "signed-off" of it since. The patriation in '82 was merely a constitutional amendment - with nary little changing in the BNA Act - to which the Quebec premier at the time did not agree.

Thus, there's no need to amend the constitution now to allow the federal government to "put Quebec in its place." The law is there now; it's just nobody seems to have the guts to enforce it.

Quebec is the countries "Retarded Child" it's special, well the Politicians need their votes to lead as PM, it's changing though. Alberta is the new big ole dog on the block, Quebec is in for a rude awaking in the next couple of years. Canada is united on one thing, we are tired of the Retarded Child's temper tantrums.

[Leafless]

I don't understand where this myth came from, and why it keeps perpetuating throughout this country. Quebec did "sign" the constitution; they did so in 1867, and never "signed-off" of it since. The patriation in '82 was merely a constitutional amendment - with nary little changing in the BNA Act - to which the Quebec premier at the time did not agree.

Thus, there's no need to amend the constitution now to allow the federal government to "put Quebec in its place." The law is there now; it's just nobody seems to have the guts to enforce it.

What we are talking about bambino is the fact Quebec who did not sign the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' and that Quebec on December 21, 1989 the Premier of the Province of Quebec employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override freedom of expression (section 2b), and freedom of equality (section 15) and have been renewing this 'notwithstanding clause' every five years (with NO federal intervention) to enforce its oppressive language legislation in Bill-101 also known as 'Quebec's French Charter'.

August 22, 2000

They've been called the Two Solitudes. Federalist versus Separatist. English versus French. Worlds apart with no common ground between them.

http://www.geocities.com/segacs2/html/politics.html

[g_bambino]

What we are talking about bambino is the fact Quebec who did not sign the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' and that Quebec on December 21, 1989 the Premier of the Province of Quebec employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override freedom of expression (section 2b), and freedom of equality (section 15) and have been renewing this 'notwithstanding clause' every five years (with NO federal intervention) to enforce its oppressive language legislation in Bill-101 also known as 'Quebec's French Charter'.

Ah, yes, I do realise that's the jist of the conversation; I just don't think fostering myths about a constitution somehow forced on Quebec helps anyone; it seems to play up to the "Quebec was a victim" argument, which is patently false. As for the Charter: Quebec's "signature" was never required; again, why fool ourselves with yet another myth that the unanimous consent of all the provinces was necessary to enact the Charter? Before the patriation, the Supreme Court, I believe, only recommended to Trudeau that the input of the provinces be sought, not that he needed their unanimous consent.

The existence of the notwithstanding clause is the only remnant of parliamentary supremacy left in our constitutional framework; so I'm thankful for it. Is Quebec abusing it? From my standpoint, yes; but, then, the Quebec Crown is co-sovereign, and if the acts of the Quebec government have the support of the National Assembly, and aren't illegal, then, well, what can anyone else do?

[jbg]

The existence of the notwithstanding clause is the only remnant of parliamentary supremacy left in our constitutional framework; so I'm thankful for it. Is Quebec abusing it? From my standpoint, yes; but, then, the Quebec Crown is co-sovereign, and if the acts of the Quebec government have the support of the National Assembly, and aren't illegal, then, well, what can anyone else do?

I do not believe that the notwithstanding clause should apply to speech, religion or similar "fundamental freedoms", as imperfectly enumerated in the Charter. Those rights are at the core of what makes Canada different from Iran, and a legislative majority, in a majority government really one man, should not be able to legislate those away.

[Leafless]

The existence of the notwithstanding clause is the only remnant of parliamentary supremacy left in our constitutional framework; so I'm thankful for it. Is Quebec abusing it? From my standpoint, yes; but, then, the Quebec Crown is co-sovereign, and if the acts of the Quebec government have the support of the National Assembly, and aren't illegal, then, well, what can anyone else do?

The federal government is the power that extends the use of the 'notwithstanding clause' no one else.

The excuse Quebec has been giving since initiating the use of the 'notwithstanding clause' is that their (French) language is in peril.

What does this mean in real terms I do not know, as all statistics show French in Quebec is alive and well.

It is disturbing to note that the federal government allows Quebec continual renewal of the 'notwithstanding clause' to oppress and discriminate against non-French Canadians.

It is obvious federalism is not working in Canada for this type abuse and discrimination to continue and that the system is dysfunctional and caused by Canada's INABILITY, NOT to allow at the same time, two clashing political ideologies to dominate Canada's political fabric, thus nullifying Charter rights that are suppose to be applicable to all Canadians.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Leafless

[g_bambino]

I do not believe that the notwithstanding clause should apply to speech, religion or similar "fundamental freedoms", as imperfectly enumerated in the Charter. Those rights are at the core of what makes Canada different from Iran, and a legislative majority, in a majority government really one man, should not be able to legislate those away.

I disagree; the notwithstanding clause should be universally applicable or not at all, especially when the definition of "fundamental freedoms" is impossible to pin down; legislation should not be infinitely bound to one era's definition of "fundamental freedoms." Yes, we must be aware of abuses of power, but we have other structures within our constitutional framework to protect against that; we don't need a rigid, unmovable constitution to do so. I'd wager, actually, that where we see most collapse of government stability and eradication of what are presently, though vaguely, defined as "fundamental freedoms," is in those countries where they've attempted to codify everything into one written constitutional document. I think one of the main beauties of the Westminster system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy is its ability to flex to suit passing time and changing paradigms.

Edited November 12, 2007 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The federal government is the power that extends the use of the 'notwithstanding clause' no one else.

That is a point I didn't consider.

[jbg]

I disagree; the notwithstanding clause should be universally applicable or not at all, especially when the definition of "fundamental freedoms" is impossible to pin down; legislation should not be infinitely bound to one era's definition of "fundamental freedoms."

Perhaps I should have capitalized the term "Fundamental Freedoms" but I am referring to the enumerated ones at the beginning of the Charter, from memory, freedom of speech, press, religion, and peaceable assembly.

That is a point I didn't consider.

I'm not sure I understand it. Could you or someone explain?

[fellowtraveller]

They've been called the Two Solitudes. Federalist versus Separatist. English versus French. Worlds apart with no common ground between them.

I do not agree that the two solitudes means federalist vs separatist. It does mean Englsh vs French, which is not the same as federalist vs separatist.

[M.Dancer]

I do not agree that the two solitudes means federalist vs separatist. It does mean Englsh vs French, which is not the same as federalist vs separatist.

Or more accurately Quebecois vs Federalist....if we see les vendus as included in l'autre solitude

[mikedavid00]

The feds should jump into the middle of a battle so epic that marshmallows were replaced by nerfballs so as not to have even a minor bruise? Wow...I think the feds are busy enough.

Perhaps , should you have read further in the article ,you would have found this.

I have to question the Journalism with this kind of blatant editorializing:

"Jonathan Tremblay, (right) and Michael Dery (left) are holding copies of their association's newspaper marked with xenophobic comments such as "In Quebec we speak French"."

The above is editorializing and opinion, not an unbiased news story.

The statement is also false. That is not a Xenephobic statement.

[Leafless]

I do not agree that the two solitudes means federalist vs separatist. It does mean Englsh vs French, which is not the same as federalist vs separatist.

Federalist vs. separatist? Quebecois vs. federalist?

I always assumed it was Canadians that the country consisted of and if you refine that on the basis (culture) and in the case of Canada's perpetual conflict, language, it is indeed majority English Canadians vs. minority French Canadians.

This of course is what I have always said, brings us back to the continuation, of the 'War on the Plains of Abraham'.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Leafless

[Duke33]

I have to question the Journalism with this kind of blatant editorializing:

"Jonathan Tremblay, (right) and Michael Dery (left) are holding copies of their association's newspaper marked with xenophobic comments such as "In Quebec we speak French"."

The above is editorializing and opinion, not an unbiased news story.

The statement is also false. That is not a Xenephobic statement.

Speak white isn't xenophobic?

[Oleg Bach]

Speak white isn't xenophobic?

Oh dear - sticking a country in the middle of a country was a silly idea - who thought of this whole Quebec thing to begin with..a corridor should be driven along the St. Lawerence river and Quebec should be sent packing. That way Canada would finally be a united nation - a real country..as far as speaking French if your English speaking - or English if your French speaking...why not just have everyone shut up and only speak when they are spoken too. The average French Canadian does not like us...no matter how hard we try to comply to soothing the embarrassment that is the defeat on the Plains of Abraham...

.we can never make it up to them that England was the daddy nation and France was to busy looking for snails and mushrooms in some dank and dark wood..to to mention using pigs as beasts of sniffing burden. No matter how we love them they will never love us - I say we disolve this usless courtship that has it's roots in the most base kind of pandering known to man...kiss Quebec good by and have BB Kings' "Thrill is Gone" playing as background to this kiss off - besides ever notice how thin and cruel their lips are - there was never a chance for romance...not with them. Quebec was a mistake.

[Big Blue Machine]

I've always thought of Quebec as the most racist province in Canada.

[Duke33]

I've always thought of Quebec as the most racist province in Canada.

That is a very stupid statement. There are 3 english universities in Quebec, 3 english hospitals, more than 4 english colleges. We never abolished english education. Most of other provinces in Canada abolished french education in the past century. So, in terms of racist, I would say that is rest of Canada is way more racist.

[Big Blue Machine]

Look at all the minority discrimination in Quebec.

[Duke33]

Look at all the minority discrimination in Quebec.

What about all the french discrimination in Canada? Just take a look on this forum, you will find many examples.

What are the minorities discriminations in Quebec?

Edited November 25, 2007 by Duke33

[jbg]

Most of other provinces in Canada abolished french education in the past century.

I know that AB and NL offer French immersion, and I'd be shocked if those were the only ones.

[Duke33]

I know that AB and NL offer French immersion, and I'd be shocked if those were the only ones.

It's not a different system, it's immersion. In Quebec, there is the english and the french system.