Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Horsefethers. The Quebec Act gave the residents of what had been New France the right to retain their language, culture, religion and system of civil law. The Quebec Act did not impose the French language, Catholic religion or Civil Code on the whole of Canada. The pathetic bleating that we woe Quebecers the right to use the French language wherever they roam is a myth. The often repeated and untrue mantra that the privileges accorded to the residents of the former New France made them second class citizens outside of Quebec is also a sad, sorry myth perpetuated by sovereignists.

Thank you for correcting me and reminding me that French language is imposed when it is used in a post office in Caraquet, in a public library in Sudbury, or as the medium of instruction in a school in Vancouver. That the Acadians, the descendants of the people who settled in the Windsor area in 1749 or the French-speaking Métis of Manitoba are in fact Quebecers. That Quebecers do not live outside Quebec, but just roam. That being permitted to use French is not a right, but only a privilege granted by the Conqueror and that the Conqueror can remove at any time.

In other words, thanks for showing that ignorance and bigotry have not disappeared in 2009.

Now, welcome to the REAL world, and the REAL 2009. Where French is used in a post office in Caraquet, in a public library in Sudbury, or as the medium of instruction in a school in Vancouver, as it should be. Where my full right as a CANADIAN are recognized in law. And when comments like yours are becoming the relic of the past that they should be.

Remember that on September 13, 2009, around 10 in the morning. Believe me, I will.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

I don't think that anyone has a problem with any language on signs anywhere including BC. They have a problem when only one language is allowed.

Except that some had a problem when businesses did not include English on their signs, enough that they wanted to mandate its presence.

Which looks a lot like Quebec current language laws.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

They should not, and you know that's my opinion on the topic.

Actually I didn't, and if I missed it my apologies.

WestViking · February 28, 2009

What part of occupation do you not understand? Quebec is an occupied colony. Sorry buddy but Canada still has the british monarch as Canada's sovereign and Quebec made a deal with the British Monarch in the Area of culture and autonomy. 1867 Canada has no International Law leg to stand on. So really, the rest of 1867 Canada should mind its own business and get its own history.

Quebec is one of Canada's ten provinces. It lost its colony status in 1867. End of story.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Quebec is one of Canada's ten provinces. It lost its colony status in 1867. End of story.

Indeed. Which means that Quebecers are Canadians. With full rights, linguistic and others, as Canadians. End of story.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Quebec is one of Canada's ten provinces. It lost its colony status in 1867. End of story.

Actually, Canada, and therefore Quebec, was still a Britsh colony until 1931.

WestViking · February 28, 2009

Thank you for correcting me and reminding me that French language is imposed when it is used in a post office in Caraquet, in a public library in Sudbury, or as the medium of instruction in a school in Vancouver. That the Acadians, the descendants of the people who settled in the Windsor area in 1749 or the French-speaking Métis of Manitoba are in fact Quebecers. That Quebecers do not live outside Quebec, but just roam. That being permitted to use French is not a right, but only a privilege granted by the Conqueror and that the Conqueror can remove at any time.
In other words, thanks for showing that ignorance and bigotry have not disappeared in 2009.

Now, welcome to the REAL world, and the REAL 2009. Where French is used in a post office in Caraquet, in a public library in Sudbury, or as the medium of instruction in a school in Vancouver, as it should be. Where my full right as a CANADIAN are recognized in law. And when comments like yours are becoming the relic of the past that they should be.

Remember that on September 13, 2009, around 10 in the morning. Believe me, I will.

Ignorance and bigotry? Give you head a shake. The Quebec Act has nothing to do with Pierre Trudeau's attempts to impose French on the common law provinces.

Wilber · February 28, 2009

Except that some had a problem when businesses did not include English on their signs, enough that they wanted to mandate its presence.
Which looks a lot like Quebec current language laws.

Except they were not proposed by the province. I doubt any municipality could make such a bylaw stick even if they wanted to.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Ignorance and bigotry? Give you head a shake. The Quebec Act has nothing to do with Pierre Trudeau's attempts to impose French on the common law provinces.

Doo't worry, I am giving my head a huge shake seeing how big of a hole you are digging for yourself. Feel free to whine about how equal language rights is an "imposition" of a Canadian language in Canada. I am fully Canadian, my language is fully Canadian and if you cannot accept that FACT, feel free to steer your drakkar back to the 18th century.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Except they were not proposed by the province. I doubt any municipality could make such a bylaw stick even if they wanted to.

Except that who proposes them does not make a difference. If it's a bad idea, it's still a bad idea.

WestViking · February 28, 2009

Indeed. Which means that Quebecers are Canadians. With full rights, linguistic and others, as Canadians. End of story.

The British North America Act included the Quebec Act. Quebec was a province within a self-governing Canada. French language rights were set out in the original BNA Act. If your proposition was correct, there would have been no need for Trudeau's Official Languages Act.

jbg · February 28, 2009

Doo't worry, I am giving my head a huge shake seeing how big of a hole you are digging for yourself. Feel free to whine about how equal language rights is an "imposition" of a Canadian language in Canada. I am fully Canadian, my language is fully Canadian and if you cannot accept that FACT, feel free to steer your drakkar back to the 18th century.

Except it's Quebec that bans English on business and public signage, not Ontario that bans French on business and public signage. In fact, quite the contrary.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

The British North America Act included the Quebec Act. Quebec was a province within a self-governing Canada. French language rights were set out in the original BNA Act. If your proposition was correct, there would have been no need for Trudeau's Official Languages Act.

The BNA Act does not mention the Quebec Act, but that's a moot point.

The BNA Act did not properly protect the linguistic rights of Canadians, something that was thankfully corrected by the Official Language Act then by the Constitutional Act, 1982.. Note that things are not perfect, since the Givernment of Quebec is still able to treat English-speakers as second class inhabitant of their own province. And as you know, I don't like that one bit. On the other hand, if I were to accept your logic, I would have to point out that the issue of language of education and language of commerce was not covered by the BNA.

There were other things in ways in which the BNA failed to ensure the equality of Canadians. For example, it had no anti-discrimination provision. According to the British jurisprudence at the time, women were not persons from a legal point of view. Asian immigrants could not vote. This has changed. It's called evolution.

Edited February 28, 2009 by CANADIEN

WestViking · February 28, 2009

Doo't worry, I am giving my head a huge shake seeing how big of a hole you are digging for yourself. Feel free to whine about how equal language rights is an "imposition" of a Canadian language in Canada. I am fully Canadian, my language is fully Canadian and if you cannot accept that FACT, feel free to steer your drakkar back to the 18th century.

LOL Canadian English. Canadian French or both? There is no 'equal language right' and never has been. You are welcome to show me that statute that says otherwise.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

Except it's Quebec that bans English on business and public signage, not Ontario that bans French on business and public signage. In fact, quite the contrary.

Actually, English is not banned. It is severely, wrongly, and with no proper reason, limited. Which is why I think of Quebec language laws as horse manure.

As for Ontario, my province, I'll give it to its government. It took until 1982 before it accepted land transaction records or wills written in French, but accept them it did.

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

LOL Canadian English. Canadian French or both? There is no 'equal language right' and never has been. You are welcome to show me that statute that says otherwise.

Ever heard of the Official Language Act, or the Constitutional Act, 1982. Furthermore, logic dictates that, since French and English are Canadian languages, limitations to the right of Canadians to use them is a limitation of their rights as Canadians.

Edited February 28, 2009 by CANADIEN

Smallc · February 28, 2009

They have a problem when only one language is allowed.

I thought you were allowed to have other languages, as long as the French was first and bigger?

CANADIEN · February 28, 2009

I thought you were allowed to have other languages, as long as the French was first and bigger?

Now. At one point, things were that bad

Smallc · February 28, 2009

Now. At one point, things were that bad

Wow...well...at least the progress is in the right direction.

Wilber · February 28, 2009

Except that who proposes them does not make a difference. If it's a bad idea, it's still a bad idea.

It does make a difference but I agree with the second statement.

g_bambino · February 28, 2009

Sorry buddy but Canada still has the british monarch as Canada's sovereign...

Wrong.

g_bambino · February 28, 2009

Indeed. Which means that Quebecers are Canadians. With full rights, linguistic and others, as Canadians. End of story.

Indeed, indeed... But I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with a re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Are Quebecers not Canadians with full linguistic rights and others, as Canadians, because of the results of the battle?

g_bambino · February 28, 2009

Actually, English is not banned. It is severely, wrongly, and with no proper reason, limited.

I was going to correct that statement to which you responded, but... you responded. You're absolutely right: English is not banned, just relegated to an persistently inferior position.

whowhere · February 28, 2009

It'll be alright. The men in white coats will calm you down.
Then again, Travis was not calmed down (link).

Are you ok? You sure the white coats are not coming for you? One thing is certain, in a hundred years the sources of my information will still be cycling around and people in that day people will use their brain and 20/20 hindsite to see what went down and shake their head back and forth on you deluded people and think: idiots... To bad they were thrown into the furnace as describe by jesus and obliterated out of existence. I guess they reaped what they sowed. :blink:

whowhere · February 28, 2009

That being permitted to use French is not a right, but only a privilege granted by the Conqueror and that the Conqueror can remove at any time.

Oddly, France still exists and they were not conquered. A piece of France - Quebec and the people fell under British occupation not 1867 Canada, the British.

Supposedly Quebec voted to join 1867 Canada, how does that translate into be conquered? If Quebec's parliament voted to join 1867 Canada they actually entered into an abusive relationship. If Quebec's parliament had the ability without the vote of the Quebec people to join 1867 Canada then that means Quebec's parliament today without the vote of the people has the right to leave 1867 Canada.

Once Quebec's parliament passes this pursuit. all will be needed is for the British Monarch to sign of on it and/or the International Court to stamp its approval.

1604 Canada does not need this emotional and psychological abuse that is chronically coming and is way of life for 1867 Canada. The sooner 1604 Canada severs itself from 1867 Canada the better off they will be.