"the english are waking up!"

CANADIEN · September 8, 2012

Hey, they were my co-workers and my friends. Their families had been Quebecois for generations. There were at least 6 of them who told me about this!

They had no reason to lie to me. Frankly, I find your implication insulting to them!

I don't care if you think it BS. I knew them much better than I know you and have much more faith in their word!

I think that what he calls bs is the notion of pur-laine, not the veracity of your friends comments.

Any person who has ancestors who was living in New France has a more than 50% chance of having a First Nation ancestor. And more than a few pur-laine families have Irish blood from the 19th century.

Those who were tormenting your friends thought they were pur-laine, but if by that they meant a ahem pure French ancestry, they were wrong.

jbg · September 8, 2012

You are Quebec first until you need something from Canada then suddenly people who are Quebec first suddenly become Patriotic Canadians.

I think Pierre Elliot Trudeau exemplified that beautifully. He was a separatist until he wasn't a separatist. After all "why have only Quebec when you can have Canada?" (I couldn't find his exact quote)

Signals.Cpl · September 8, 2012

Wrong again. The irony was that they needed Quebec at the time because they had to ensure the province would remain stable, as the rest of the American colonies were quickly moving away from the Empire. Had they been too harsh, they would even have lost Canada. It was not a decision coming from the deeps of their hearts, it was just the only politically sound option they had in order to ensure they would not loose the whole of North America. Look up the English governor Carlton, its all pretty well known history today.

By the way, your welcome...

The American Colonies in 1760 were most definitely not moving away from the British Empire, they started to drift away from the Empire for various reasons in the subsequent decade and a half when the British kept a large force in North American even after the Major threat of the French was removed amongst other things. One of the reasons that led to the Empire and the 13 Colonies to drift Apart was the view that Quebec was getting some form of Preferential treatment. In effect the British bought Quebec's loyalty by letting them live as they had before with minimal interference thereby buying their loyalty in the following wars that would hit the continent.

TheNewTeddy · September 9, 2012

Wrong again. The irony was that they needed Quebec at the time because they had to ensure the province would remain stable, as the rest of the American colonies were quickly moving away from the Empire. Had they been too harsh, they would even have lost Canada. It was not a decision coming from the deeps of their hearts, it was just the only politically sound option they had in order to ensure they would not loose the whole of North America. Look up the English governor Carlton, its all pretty well known history today.

By the way, your welcome...

This is correct and accurate.

TheNewTeddy · September 9, 2012

This deserves a proper response.

I beleive very little things can be done to make it right. I beleive english and french people can live together in the same country in a very natural way if they respect's each other identity. I beleive the silent majority is very open to solve this historical fight that extremists like to burn.

Look...

Québec is a nation. Different language, culture, politics, social choices... etc!

For the people of Québec, their nation is Québec and Canada is just a union of nations. For the people outside Québec, Canada is their nation and the provinces are just smaller administration of the main nation.

How can we adapt this? If we don't, the logical outcome for Québec is to leave. If the canadians would like to find a way to make Québec glad to stay in, what could be done? WE DO NOT ASK MONEY. We just want this thing to be fair.

We want the federal to be decentralised. If you don't, ok. at least, allow a province to be able to Opt Out with full compensation. It must be in the constitution. So the federal can no longer blackmail anyone.

The senate as is doesn't make sense at all. The leader of the federal government can choose the senate members? That's probably the worst senate in the world. The regions should choose their senate. Or the provinces if it make more sense to you.

Judges at the supreme court. Not an easy one. Judges interprete the constitution and it is not rare that a judge from Quebec won't interprete it differently from an english unilingual one coming from Red Deer. The tradition so far is that 3 are coming from Québec, 3 from Ontario, 2 from the west and 1 from the atlnatic. I'm ok with that but, it is important that all of them are bilinguals. Every one should be able to speak one of the two official languages and uderstood without translators. To be judge of the supreme court, you must be have experience (not necesarly profionnal, can be social) in both cultures.

House of Common. If those requierements above are met, the HC can stay as is. If Québec's representation fall to 15%, the only 15% of the seats will belong to Québec. I'm totally fine with this. Sometimes you see some Québécois claiming to have more representativities to the HC. It's just because we do not have a say to the constitution and they think they can try to balance it this way. I don't agree. It's a wrong fight.

Finally, the Québec nation must be recognized into the constitution. So any future federal government will be forbidden to take away some rights to Québec just pretending that it is just a province like the others. I think the natives should be in the constitution too.

Quebec is a province like any other. Sure it "stands out" in some unique ways, but so does BC and Newfoundland.

Tilter · September 9, 2012

Geez don't pop a blood vessel!

Kids educated in both languages have more opportunities, like becoming Prime Minister.

If you can't learn to read your drivers license in French ... who cares? Only the cop has to read it.

Who ever promised you you could get through life in one language?

Don't like it? Don't go.

Actually I have two languages, one of which is French.

If you can't learn to read your drivers license in French ... who cares? Only the cop has to read it.

Try explaining that to a cop in Georgia or Tennessee or better yet Arkansas.

My son was "arrested" that is stopped from driving, in Quebec by one of those polite :blink: Surete jerks who could not be convinced that the old Ontario "365" forms was used as a temporary licence as well as a learner's permit, all of which was explained on the form but, because the Officer couldn't read English or even understand the form even when it was explained to him in French.

Is it any wonder that a Arkansas State trooper might find it hard to realize that a licence used universally in Canada (all Canada) and legally in the States, can be printed TOTALLY in French (that is the French that is used as French used in Quebec).

Smallc · September 9, 2012

The official language of Quebec is French...deal with it.

jbg · September 9, 2012

The American Colonies in 1760 were most definitely not moving away from the British Empire, they started to drift away from the Empire for various reasons in the subsequent decade and a half when the British kept a large force in North American even after the Major threat of the French was removed amongst other things.

I could be wrong but I believe that as early as 1755 there were some taxes that raised vigorous opposition in Boston. The 13 colonies were more prosperous than Britain almost from the inception and had little interest in funding a European war that only tangentially involved colonists.

Benz · September 9, 2012

Let's substitute the word English and the word French, and we get the argument repeated ad nauseam by those who think that there should not be Franch schools in Ontario. "This occurs at the expense of taxpayers... Pay yourself for your French schools... If you don't like it, go back to Quebec". Nice to see you use the same argument as them (back letter on the language of education).

English people of Quebec have public english schools and we don't tell them to move elsewhere. I explained you the reasons, if you are not capable to match them, don't waste your time repeating yourself. Go back to ym post, sort it out, do your homework and take your time to answer something relevent this time.

What I understand is that they were Québécois, and that the constitution was, and is, as much the business of the federal government as of the provincial governments.

For the nth time. We never gave the autority to Ottawa to decide for us and we never will. Our home state is Québec. Not the federal. Those mps were not legitimated to take decisions for us regarding the constitution. Their mandate was limited to what happens in the house of commons. It's like that. If you don't understand, too bad for you.

The objective is clear... that English should be heard as little as possible and seen as little as possible.

Cry me a river. The rule doesn't that english must be one fifth. You are just silly.

Care to show me where I stated that Quebec having a say in the Constitution is a bad idea? The exact words. I dare you. Go ahead, make my day.

Care to show me when you said something that could show otherwise? I explained the reasons why, you spit on every single one of them.

Do you actually read what you write before posting it? I thought I was bad in that regard, typos and all. But frankly... There has been postings after postings by me over the years on this site stating loud and proud that my identity as a French-speaking Canadian is different and that I will not accept anything less than the rights that go with it, and that means that I consider myself no different than the others, that I have no consideration for my culture, that I have accepted that I am insignificant?

Elegant slamon to avoid my point. You are playing the federal's game. You are a french-canadian as long as this definition is limited to one individual. French-canadians as one nation distinct from english, you deny it totally. You accept to be drowned into the majority. If not, it's about time you define your views about it instead of miserably trying to demonize me.

I will spare you a full expression of the contempt and disgust I feel towards you right now. Not because the words I'd choose would have me banned. Just because there are no words either in English or French that would fit the bill.
Don't bother responding. You're on ignore.

You looked for it. You constantly tell me what the anti-Quebec bigots barf on us. I returned you your own medicine.

Benz · September 9, 2012

Interesting. I'm curious, Benz Are you of the "pur laine" yourself?

First of all, unlike what alot of anglos say, the expression Pure Laine has nothing pejorative toward the non Pure Laines. It only refers to those who have roots back to the time of New France. It's not different from Afro-American to express those with roots back to Africa. To answer your question, yes I am a pure laine.

You know, I did not get the idea of the separatiste movement being racist from outside observation. I got it from some Quebecers! I used to work for an American company who had a sales office in Pointe Claire, ...

I can see where this is heading.

...They told me that growing up they often endured "put downs" from other Quebecers, for not being of the pure wool! Even though we were not talking first generation but great great grandparents!.

I don't beleive them. Unless they were just not lucky and felt on some bad ass. No nation is perfect and I can find racists among Pure Laines. But it is impossible that they only found people like that. Unless they did not encounter alot of Pure laine and were just not lucky. If they are from Pointe-Claire, the West Island, they were in the part of Québec where the smallest ratio of french people is.

Whatever. You or I are not going to solve this problem here on this board, Benz. I recognize that Quebec will do whatever it wants. I just question the problems that Quebec will have to face that go along with separation. Frankly, from your posts I got the impression you think it will all be so easy and painless. I don't believe that for a minute. I think you are thinking only with your heart and are ignoring the real world difficulties involved.

1) You underestimate the problems the Québécois are having in the federal system.

2) alot of new independent countries got their independence not painfully.

I don't think a minute that english Canada will use military forces against us and I know we won't do anything that would justify one to take military actions too.

I think those difficulties will be far greater for Quebec than you imagine!

They will be easier than you have been told. Neverthenless, difficulties are not an obstacle. They are a challenge.

Also, if Quebec chooses that path I don't believe TROC will lift a finger to help you! If there is a finger, it will be an extended middle one!
And that will be a pity, for both of us.

We won't need your help. We are doing fine despite an unjust federal system. we will do much better without it.

I will tell you what is gonna happen on your side. When Québec will be out of reach, alot of people in Canada will turn against the usual anti-Quebec bigots and say "look at what you have done!". When Quebec won't be there anymore for the traditionnal "let's all blame Quebec", what do you think will happen? What do you think will happen to the prime minister of Canada when Québec will say yes to sovereignty? Oh some will say "they can go to hell", but some others will be more lucid and will know who are to blame. You are gonna be more divided than you can imagine. Alot of Canadians won't take shit from the anti-Quebec people anymore.

Because even after a winning yes, our door will still be open for those who are ready to build a real union, a real confederation like it was suppose to be in 1867. But if not, then it will be total independence of Québec. If something goes wrong in an independent Québec, at least this time it will be our mistake. Not because we have been back stabed by Ottawa.

CANADIEN · September 9, 2012

I could be wrong but I believe that as early as 1755 there were some taxes that raised vigorous opposition in Boston. The 13 colonies were more prosperous than Britain almost from the inception and had little interest in funding a European war that only tangentially involved colonists.

When French and Aboriginal raidders were attacking frontier settlements almost at will in 1755 and 1756, the colonials felt pretty much involved, believe me. To the British, New France was a French colony to be conquered; to the colonial, it was a threat.

As for the grumblings about the Crown in the colonies, they were indeed already there before 1760, and were nothing new. Commerce laws that favoured British traders at the expense of the colonials, the way the British Government had eneded any illusion of Massachusets, autonomy in the 1680's, the way colonial troops were treated by their British commanders, provided the breeding ground for what would happen later.

CANADIEN · September 9, 2012

Try explaining that to a cop in Georgia or Tennessee or better yet Arkansas.

My son was "arrested" that is stopped from driving, in Quebec by one of those polite Surete jerks who could not be convinced that the old Ontario "365" forms was used as a temporary licence as well as a learner's permit, all of which was explained on the form but, because the Officer couldn't read English or even understand the form even when it was explained to him in French.

Is it any wonder that a Arkansas State trooper might find it hard to realize that a licence used universally in Canada (all Canada) and legally in the States, can be printed TOTALLY in French (that is the French that is used as French used in Quebec).

Wbhat language a driver's licence anywhere in the world is printed is not, and should not, be dictated by whether or not a cop in Tennessee can read it.

BTW, thanks for providing n argument as to why all driver's licences in Canada should have English and French on them.

Edited September 9, 2012 by CANADIEN

CANADIEN · September 9, 2012

(tounge in cheek... to some extent)

What is a Franco-Ontarian, an Acadian, or a Franco-Colombian to do? To some, we should keep our language to ourselves, pay twice for an education in French we already pay with our taxes, and avoid offending others by trying to obtain government services in the Canadian language of our choice. Ideally, we should "become" Canadians by assimilating, or at least go back to Québec (even those of us for whom going back to Qubec means going there a second time on vacation).

And for some, we should get into a frenzy everytime we heard someone in Québec has the auacity to speak English at the water cooler, applaud when an inspector approaches a commercial sign armed with a measuring tape, and find absolutely normal that the education rights we have fought for and won be denied to others. Most importantly, to these people we should acknowledge that we are utterly assimilated, be content to be used as props when it suits their interests, ignored when it suits their interests, betrayed when it suits their interests (like when lawyers for the Quebec Government were arguing AGAINST the rights of Francophone minorities to manage their own schools). Or failing that, we should just go back to the loving arms of Mother Québec.

Oh well, I guess that to please all those people we should just protest, in English only, every time someone in Québec enters a government office and starts speaking English, applaud every time someone elsewhere in Canada complains that people enter post offices and start speaking French, do our outmost to be assimilated while atoning for the fact we already are assimilated, be silent - by speaking English and french at the same time. More importantly, and that would truly please all those people, we should just go back to Québec.

Nah, I'd rather take what those people say as what it is - ignorant ramblings.

g_bambino · September 9, 2012

[A]llow a province to be able to Opt Out with full compensation.

Opt out of what, exactly? Just the Employment Insurance programme, or the Canada Pension Plan? Or the military and citizenship laws and more, as well? If provinces can opt out of programmes that are legally within the purvue of the federal government, why bother with a federation? This "opt out" business just seems like a poorly disguised vehicle for quiet exit from Canada.

[T]he Québec nation must be recognized into the constitution. So any future federal government will be forbidden to take away some rights to Québec just pretending that it is just a province like the others.

The federal government cannot take away provinces' rights. You don't understand the constitution at all.

cybercoma · September 9, 2012

Opt out of what, exactly? Just the Employment Insurance programme, or the Canada Pension Plan? Or the military and citizenship laws and more, as well? If provinces can opt out of programmes that are legally within the purvue of the federal government, why bother with a federation? This "opt out" business just seems like a poorly disguised vehicle for quiet exit from Canada.

The federal government cannot take away provinces' rights. You don't understand the constitution at all.

The federal government has worked its way into the provincial jurisdictions via equalization, tax credits, and health/social transfers, as well as EI and CPP. I don't really see a problem with saying, "Healthcare is our jurisdiction. We don't want your money and the strings that are attached to it." Of course, it would be supremely stupid for a premier to go that route, since he/she would have to go back to the sick in their province and tell them they turned down money from the feds in favour of principle. I don't think it would fly. It's like "sorry you're sick and dying, but it's not their place to give us money and tell us how to run our hospitals."

g_bambino · September 9, 2012

The federal government has worked its way into the provincial jurisdictions via equalization, tax credits, and health/social transfers, as well as EI and CPP.

I know some past federal governments have tried to extend their power/influence into what are areas under provincial control. However, the constitution is quite clear about the divisions. Health Care, for example, everyone knows is a provincial matter. When past federal goverments tried to exercise more control over it, they had to seek the approval of the provinces first. That seemed to me to always be the case with similar matters; an agreement was reached between the two or more govermnents, never the federal government forcing a provincial government to act in one way or another on a provincial issue, since that would be unconstitutional.

cybercoma · September 9, 2012

I know some past federal governments have tried to extend their power/influence into what are areas under provincial control. However, the constitution is quite clear about the divisions. Health Care, for example, everyone knows is a provincial matter. When past federal goverments tried to exercise more control over it, they had to seek the approval of the provinces first. That seemed to me to always be the case with similar matters; an agreement was reached between the two or more govermnents, never the federal government forcing a provincial government to act in one way or another on a provincial issue, since that would be unconstitutional.

Of course they did, but as the Conservatives argued for the Wheat Board Act, past governments should not be able to tie the hands of future democratically elected governments through legislation. If a province wants to "opt out," I'm not sure I see any reason why they shouldn't be able to. I think it would be insanely stupid and would makes standards drastically uneven across the country if that happened, which isn't in anyone's best interests, but I really can't see a reason constitutionally or ethically why they shouldn't be able to opt out.

g_bambino · September 9, 2012

Of course they did, but as the Conservatives argued for the Wheat Board Act, past governments should not be able to tie the hands of future democratically elected governments through legislation.

It's a centuries old principle that the act of one parliament cannot bind the actions of a future parliament; parliament always is the supreme law-maker. Were there any federal-provincial agreements that bound a province indefinitely? I can't imagine there ever would be.

waldo · September 9, 2012

I think Pierre Elliot Trudeau exemplified that beautifully. He was a separatist until he wasn't a separatist. After all "why have only Quebec when you can have Canada?" (I couldn't find his exact quote)

huh! You can make up quotes or you can read a real one:

Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau commenting on the question of Quebec separation

: "I am trying to put Quebec in its place — and the place of Quebec is in Canada"

Rocky Road · September 9, 2012

http://blogues.journaldemontreal.com/bock-cote/general/alerte-quebecois-dangereux/

Can anybody give me the gist of this article?

I think it is about the rise of radical seperatists in Quebec.

Benz · September 9, 2012

and find absolutely normal that the education rights we have fought for and won be denied to others.

This is where you become totally épais. The english people have the priviledge to get public education in their language in Quebec, no matter how many they are. Unlike outside Québec, the french people get it only if the numbers, according to the english decisionners, decide it is justified. What the hell are you trying to prove when you B.S.

Most importantly, to these people we should acknowledge that we are utterly assimilated, be content to be used as props when it suits their interests, ignored when it suits their interests, betrayed when it suits their interests (like when lawyers for the Quebec Government were arguing AGAINST the rights of Francophone minorities to manage their own schools).

What the f--- are you talking about?

Or failing that, we should just go back to the loving arms of Mother Québec.

I dare you to quote someone important stating this beside those who say it with irony.

Cesse de te lamenter comme un désespéré. Tu dis n'importe quoi. you should rather care about you credibility or what's left of it.

Benz · September 9, 2012

Opt out of what, exactly? Just the Employment Insurance programme, or the Canada Pension Plan? Or the military and citizenship laws and more, as well? If provinces can opt out of programmes that are legally within the purvue of the federal government, why bother with a federation? This "opt out" business just seems like a poorly disguised vehicle for quiet exit from Canada.

The federal government cannot take away provinces' rights. You don't understand the constitution at all.

Either you reduce the coverage of programs the federal can touch, to what it is suppose to be, or you allow opt out.

I do understand the constitution, you don't. The constitution that we did not sign, allows the federal to put his nose in domains it should not. It might sounds ok to you, it is not at all for us.

The Opt Out is a compromise. The federal can still put its nose in provincial domains, and the provinces that rather want to manage the money themselve, can do so. You don't want that flexibility? Ok then, the federal will not have the right to collect more money from the people than what it needs, according to our version of what concerns the federal.

I know what will be your next question. A clueless guy like you will ask me again, over and over because you have the memory of a red fish, what programs are you talking about?

So I give you one. Education. Remember the millenium sponsorship? Or the actual REEE Régime Enregistré Épargne Étude! This is intrusion.

September 9, 2012

http://blogues.journaldemontreal.com/bock-cote/general/alerte-quebecois-dangereux/

Can anybody give me the gist of this article?

I think it is about the rise of radical seperatists in Quebec.

Surely it goes hand and hand with these guys:

Ahh the MPQ....Defending the virtues of Québécois with toy guns....That about sums up the whole debate.....

Benz · September 9, 2012

http://blogues.journaldemontreal.com/bock-cote/general/alerte-quebecois-dangereux/

Can anybody give me the gist of this article?

I think it is about the rise of radical seperatists in Quebec.

No, it's the other way around. He is making fun of the english canadian's radicalism.

Bock-Côté is a right wing sovereignist. Most of sovereignists are left wing so, he kind of feel alone in his corner sometimes.

In this article, he explains that alot of english canadians are now entering into a schysophrenia just because the PQ took the power, even if only 32% of the people voted for them and they got only 54 seats out of 125. It's the Quebecophobia that is wakening again.

At the end he is asking this:

Le Canada anglais est-il capable de sortir de son hostilité extrême envers le nationalisme québécois et de discuter raisonnablement, à la manière d’un Norman Spector, interlocuteur exemplaire dans le dialogue Canada-Québec?

Use google translator!

Rocky Road · September 9, 2012

No, it's the other way around. He is making fun of the english canadian's radicalism.

Bock-Côté is a right wing sovereignist. Most of sovereignists are left wing so, he kind of feel alone in his corner sometimes.

In this article, he explains that alot of english canadians are now entering into a schysophrenia just because the PQ took the power, even if only 32% of the people voted for them and they got only 54 seats out of 125. It's the Quebecophobia that is wakening again.

At the end he is asking this:

Le Canada anglais est-il capable de sortir de son hostilité extrême envers le nationalisme québécois et de discuter raisonnablement, à la manière d’un Norman Spector, interlocuteur exemplaire dans le dialogue Canada-Québec?

Use google translator!

I can understand un petit peux.

Merci beaucoup.

Ok thanks, I guess some people are overreacting, eh?