"the english are waking up!"

[g_bambino]

The english speaking people decided that it is unconstitutional. Here lies the whole problem. We did not fix those rules together.

There was nothing to fix. Freedom of expression has been a central tenet of democracy since at least early Athens, since democracy cannot function without as free dialogue as possible. It's an entrenched human right and is now part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It's been a part of the Canadian constitution for some 300 years. There wasn't even a questioning of it, by Lower Canada delegates, parliamentarians, or otherwise, at Confederation. It wasn't brought up, by Lesveque or anyone else, as a matter for discussion during the conferences on patriation. Apparently nobody saw freedom of expression as a matter that needed "fixing".

It has nothing to do with freedom of expression.

The use of language is intrinsically linked to matters of expression.

If you operate a small business in Saguenay and serve only in english, you are stupid and won't survive long. If you operate a big business in Montreal and have no french competitors and you don't serve in french, then you put the french people in a situation where they must adapt and use english.

It's a business owner's right to make bad business decisions.

Regardless, there's a discord in your comparison: If the small business owner in Saguenay would go under if he served the mostly Francophone Saguenay population only in English, how could the big company in Quebec be successful serving the mostly Francophone population of Quebec in the same way? The consequences would seem to be the same at either scale.

[ed.: +]

Edited October 1, 2012 by g_bambino

[Benz]

There wasn't even a questioning of it

Denying it won't make it desapear.

The use of language is intrinsically linked to matters of expression.

Having a business that doesn't speak the language of the people is not a right. Forget it!

It's a business owner's right to make bad business decisions.

Not if the impact is insignificant on its business and rather damageable on the society.

Regardless, there's a discord in your comparison: If the small business owner in Saguenay would go under if he served the mostly Francophone Saguenay population only in English, how could the big company in Quebec be successful serving the mostly Francophone population of Quebec in the same way? The consequences would seem to be the same at either scale.

[ed.: +]

No. because some big companies are in a strong positions. To them, the market in Québec is small and because the french can't compete the prices, those multinationales just don't care and serve in english. Alot of french can speak english so, they don't lose much. Well, we are talking about what was happening few decades ago because it is now illegal for a while.

Pierre MacDonald said the famous phrase: les grosses maudites anglaises de chez Eaton, and it became the key expression to identify the problem.

do you also swallow what Barbara Kay is saying?

Edited October 2, 2012 by Benz

[jbg]

Having a business that doesn't speak the language of the people is not a right. Forget it!

Are you saying that a business on Mott Street in Chinatown, New York must serve me in English? I have never understood that as a right; just good business practice that many don't adhere to.

[jacee]

Allow me to invite you to rethink about it. What if it is the other way around. What if the status quo is a cancer and you should focus on it before it gets too late? In your part of the country, you don't feel the urgence. Here, I can tell you that even if the sovereignty is not high in the current polls, it doesn't mean the people like the situation as is. On the contrary. Considering that TROC just don't care that Meech didn't pass, that Québec is isolated since 1981, that no solutions of whatsoever are offered... not as many people in Québec are defending the federalism as in 1995. Their hands are empty. No solution on the radar.

For instence, Legault, leader of the CAQ which got 27% in the last election, said that although he doesn't which a referendum in the next 10 years, if one referendum occurs, he won't fight along the federalists and won't defend the federalism. So it means only 31% of the people voted for a party that would defend the federalism no matter what.

If you wait until the next referendum, it will be too late.

It is a dilemma ... IF 'Canada' - ie, federal government - tried to revive Meech, or propose something like it, 'the west' would cry and whine and instigate trouble, insulting Quebeckers and strengthening opposition and sovereigntist feelings in Quebec.

Anglo Canada is not unitary, there is not one opinion, reaction or attitude about Quebec: westerners shoot from the lip from a distance, insulting Quebeckers and inciting anger against 'anglo' Canada, while Ontario and the Maritimes, Quebec's neighbours, try to do damage control.

I agree the current situation is "a cancer", and a LOT of Canadians have the goodwill to try to resolve the issue, but loud voices from the west will always feed the cancer and those voices are in power in Ottawa right now and louder than ever. There is no hope of resolution with western tories in power. Maybe after the next election ...

Sometimes I think, though, that the initiative should be addressed through the provincial premiers, NOT the federal government. The First Ministers Conference is a meeting of equals where alliances can be formed to address the whole issue of provincial powers.

They nourish hatred and nothing good can come out of this.

Absolutely ... the bigots who spew anger at Quebec -

like the columnist cited by Rocky Road here ...

The scenario suggests that English is not only regarded as a second-tier language, but that it is some kind of virus that can spread through the air from speaker ...

... yes they are anglos but they don't represent all anglo Canadians nor even anywhere near a majority.

And some Quebeckers respond by entrenching sovereigntist positions, as you did here ...

If you think Québec is like she describs... it only makes my point. Why don't you just kick Québec out of Canada and help the remaining anglos to relocate in Canada? If we are that dangerous. Get rid of us and save the linguistic virgins.

And the cancer grows ...

Edited October 2, 2012 by jacee

[Rocky Road]

The West is well aware of how the East has treated them,

that is why they are so unlikely to be forgiving to the dissenting views.

Saskatchewan is doing just fine, slow steady growth, lots of oil.

Alberta is doing fine also, lots of jobs, high growth.

And another thing, Alberta has some good social programs too,

the kind of thing people value.

Calgary just opened a new hospital, and it is staffed by a 1000 people.

http://www.fransaskois.sk.ca/

[g_bambino]

Denying it won't make it desapear.

Then why don't you share some of the knowledge upon which you base all your assertions? Point out one moment when a politician - from Quebec or anywhere else in Canada - involved in constitutional talks demanded that further limitations on freedom of expression be part of the reform.

Having a business that doesn't speak the language of the people is not a right.

Yes, it presently is.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:...

( freedom of... expression

Constitution Act 1982, Part I

3. Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of... expression...

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

39. In so far as this issue is concerned, the words "freedom of expression" in s. 2( of the Canadian Charter and s. 3 of the Quebec Charter should be given the same meaning. As indicated above, both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal held that freedom of expression includes the freedom to express oneself in the language of one's choice [italics mine]...

40. The conclusion of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal on this issue is correct. Language is so intimately related to the form and content of expression that there cannot be true freedom of expression by means of language if one is prohibited from using the language of one's choice. Language is not merely a means or medium of expression; it colours the content and meaning of expression. It is, as the preamble of the Charter of the French Language itself indicates, a means by which a people may express its cultural identity. It is also the means by which the individual expresses his or her personal identity and sense of individuality. That the concept of "expression" in s. 2( of the Canadian Charter and s. 3 of the Quebec Charter goes beyond mere content is indicated by the specific protection accorded to "freedom of thought, belief [and] opinion" in s. 2 and to "freedom of conscience" and "freedom of opinion" in s. 3. That suggests that "freedom of expression" is intended to extend to more than the content of expression in its narrow sense...

59. In our view, the commercial element does not have this effect. Given the earlier pronouncements of this Court to the effect that the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Charter should be given a large and liberal interpretation, there is no sound basis on which commercial expression can be excluded from the protection of s. 2( of the Charter [italics mine]. It is worth noting that the courts below applied a similar generous and broad interpretation to include commercial expression within the protection of freedom of expression contained in s. 3 of the Quebec Charter.

Ford v. Quebec

ome big companies are in a strong positions.

Only those that can successfully deal with their clientelle. Corporations don't move into other areas that majoritively speak other languages and operate in the language of the corporation's home country or region. Do most people who work at IKEA in Brazil speak Swedish only? Do most people who work at McDonald's in Japan speak English only? No? Guess why.

The same would apply for any company wishing to be successful in Quebec. Which is why the boogeyman of English domination via corporate expansion is a crock.

[ed.: italics]

Edited October 2, 2012 by g_bambino

[jacee]

The West is well aware of how the East has treated them,

that is why they are so unlikely to be forgiving to the dissenting views.

Saskatchewan is doing just fine, slow steady growth, lots of oil.

Alberta is doing fine also, lots of jobs, high growth.

And another thing, Alberta has some good social programs too,

the kind of thing people value.

Calgary just opened a new hospital, and it is staffed by a 1000 people.

http://www.fransaskois.sk.ca/

None of this explains or justifies the malicious behaviour of Albertans/'the west' toward Quebec, behaviour that is, imo, often responsible for inciting defenses of Quebeckers and arousing separatist feelings ... again.

[Rocky Road]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_alienation

"In Canadian politics, Western alienation is a concept that the Western provinces - British Columbia (B.C.), Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba - have been alienated, and in extreme cases excluded, from mainstream Canadian political affairs in favour of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Western alienation claims that these latter two are politically represented, and economically favoured, more significantly than the former, which has given rise to the sentiment of alienation among many western Canadians. This feeling is most pronounced in B.C. and Alberta."

[jacee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_alienation

"In Canadian politics, Western alienation is a concept that the Western provinces - British Columbia (B.C.), Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba - have been alienated, and in extreme cases excluded, from mainstream Canadian political affairs in favour of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Western alienation claims that these latter two are politically represented, and economically favoured, more significantly than the former, which has given rise to the sentiment of alienation among many western Canadians. This feeling is most pronounced in B.C. and Alberta."

A BC'r family member once expressed this 'alienation' by saying "Why should Quebec have more reps in parliament than we do?"

I replied "Because Quebec has a much larger population than BC." (Duh)

The anti-Quebec rhetoric from the west is vicious and ignorant of the facts.

Edited October 3, 2012 by jacee

[bleeding heart]

Whatever value the term "Western alienation" might once have had, the notion, considering the contemporary political context, has reached a point of diminishing returns.

[Rocky Road]

Whatever value the term "Western alienation" might once have had, the notion, considering the contemporary political context, has reached a point of diminishing returns.

A term gladly put into the past.

[Benz]

It is a dilemma ... IF 'Canada' - ie, federal government - tried to revive Meech, or propose something like it, 'the west' would cry and whine and instigate trouble, insulting Quebeckers and strengthening opposition and sovereigntist feelings in Quebec.

I'm not the kind of guy that will shut up just because someone else may whine and insult me. I won't accept to be a second class citizen to please someone angry for no legitimated reason.

Anglo Canada is not unitary, there is not one opinion, reaction or attitude about Quebec: westerners shoot from the lip from a distance, insulting Quebeckers and inciting anger against 'anglo' Canada, while Ontario and the Maritimes, Quebec's neighbours, try to do damage control.

Although the anti-Quebec expression may be spectacular in the west, don't do the mistake to beleive the Ontario and maritimes are free of such thing. They whine louder, but they are not alone.

I agree the current situation is "a cancer", and a LOT of Canadians have the goodwill to try to resolve the issue, but loud voices from the west will always feed the cancer and those voices are in power in Ottawa right now and louder than ever. There is no hope of resolution with western tories in power. Maybe after the next election ...

There was no hope with the liberals either. The actions they took against Quebec hurt even more than the loudmouth words of the torries. The hope was Layton and the NDP.

Sometimes I think, though, that the initiative should be addressed through the provincial premiers, NOT the federal government. The First Ministers Conference is a meeting of equals where alliances can be formed to address the whole issue of provincial powers.

The provinces haven't been very strong so far. They are quick to give up to the federal's will. Federal/provincial... it's not important. When it will come from the people, then and only then it will make the difference. Politicians will follow.

Absolutely ... the bigots who spew anger at Quebec -

like the columnist cited by Rocky Road here ...

... yes they are anglos but they don't represent all anglo Canadians nor even anywhere near a majority.

And some Quebeckers respond by entrenching sovereigntist positions, as you did here ...

And the cancer grows ...

You need more white blood cells like you.

[Benz]

Then why don't you share some of the knowledge upon which you base all your assertions? Point out one moment when a politician - from Quebec or anywhere else in Canada - involved in constitutional talks demanded that further limitations on freedom of expression be part of the reform.

What? Why don't you just answer instead.

Yes, it presently is.

No. You totally failed. Everyone has the freedom of expression. A chinese can hold a chinese restaurant and speak its language. That is freedom of expression. What the business owner can't do, is not serve me in french. There is no such right allowing someone to not serve french people in the only place of north america that is french.

Only those that can successfully deal with their clientelle. Corporations don't move into other areas that majoritively speak other languages and operate in the language of the corporation's home country or region.

Yeah and only honest people can be multimillionnaire.

Do most people who work at IKEA in Brazil speak Swedish only? Do most people who work at McDonald's in Japan speak English only? No? Guess why.

Since when fallacies are a point?

The same would apply for any company wishing to be successful in Quebec. Which is why the boogeyman of English domination via corporate expansion is a crock.

How the hell will you do convince me that what happened, never happened?

[g_bambino]

What? Why don't you just answer instead.

In other words: It never happened. Thank you.

No.

Yes. And I gave you a detailed explanation as to why that is the case, even with referecne to Quebec law and Quebec court rulings.

Your greivances are mostly imagined. But you do hold on to them.

[Wild Bill]

A BC'r family member once expressed this 'alienation' by saying "Why should Quebec have more reps in parliament than we do?"

I replied "Because Quebec has a much larger population than BC." (Duh)

The anti-Quebec rhetoric from the west is vicious and ignorant of the facts.

Yep! And I'm sure if guys like you keep scolding them and tell them they are vicious, ignorant idiots they will all change their minds!

[Fletch 27]

Really Jacee? Try living next door to them. You and your far-reaching rose-coloured Binoculars.....

A BC'r family member once expressed this 'alienation' by saying "Why should Quebec have more reps in parliament than we do?"

I replied "Because Quebec has a much larger population than BC." (Duh)

The anti-Quebec rhetoric from the west is vicious and ignorant of the facts.

[Wild Bill]

A BC'r family member once expressed this 'alienation' by saying "Why should Quebec have more reps in parliament than we do?"

I replied "Because Quebec has a much larger population than BC." (Duh)

The anti-Quebec rhetoric from the west is vicious and ignorant of the facts.

Once again, we see the need for a true Upper House Senate based on regional representation, to offset the House of Commons which runs on rep by population.

[Benz]

Once again, we see the need for a true Upper House Senate based on regional representation, to offset the House of Commons which runs on rep by population.

Obviously, it's no with the Conservatives, the Libs or the NDPers you'll get that. Nor with you actual provincial leaders... as a matter of fact... every one want it, but as soon as one gets closer to the power, the idea vanishes in the shadow.

How do you explain that?

[Wild Bill]

Obviously, it's no with the Conservatives, the Libs or the NDPers you'll get that. Nor with you actual provincial leaders... as a matter of fact... every one want it, but as soon as one gets closer to the power, the idea vanishes in the shadow.

How do you explain that?

Well Benz, perhaps I am the wrong person to answer this. You see, I don't believe that ANY politician or political party truly cares about giving the people the best possible and most fair government!

Deep down in their hearts, their own positions come first.

A Senate that is Triple E, that is - Elected, Equal and Effective, would give more protection to smaller provinces against the ones with the higher populations but it would also mean more problems for a ruling party to ram through whatever it wanted.

If Canada had had a proper Senate, the Liberals could never have imposed their National Energy Policy. Much if not most of western alienation would never have been born! The Tories would not be enjoying such a firm hold on all those western seats. Likely all parties would have better representation across the nation.

I'm surprised to hear a Quebecois like yourself be so trusting of the PeQuistes, after Parizeau's famous "lobsters in the pot" observation. When a political leader actually admits to such blatant manipulation how could any follower trust him?

[Benz]

Well Benz, perhaps I am the wrong person to answer this. You see, I don't believe that ANY politician or political party truly cares about giving the people the best possible and most fair government!

Deep down in their hearts, their own positions come first.

A Senate that is Triple E, that is - Elected, Equal and Effective, would give more protection to smaller provinces against the ones with the higher populations but it would also mean more problems for a ruling party to ram through whatever it wanted.

If Canada had had a proper Senate, the Liberals could never have imposed their National Energy Policy. Much if not most of western alienation would never have been born! The Tories would not be enjoying such a firm hold on all those western seats. Likely all parties would have better representation across the nation.

The actual senate is probably the best example of what a senate should not be. Members chosen by the prime minister. It destroys the very legitimity and the purpose of a senate. This is in the top 5 of things the english canadians should be ashamed of.

I'm surprised to hear a Quebecois like yourself be so trusting of the PeQuistes, after Parizeau's famous "lobsters in the pot" observation. When a political leader actually admits to such blatant manipulation how could any follower trust him?

Very easy my friend. Even his lobster's trap is better than status quo.

The way Parizeau built the question, two consequences were possible.

One is the lobster in the pot. It means that if the english canada refuses to negociate the partnership offer, Parizeau was legitimated to declare independence. It's funny to see english canadians being outraged by this while the very first condition to allow Parizeau doing so, is refusing to negociate with us.

The other one is, if the english canada wants to negociate the offer, Parizeau is forced to negociate as well.

Parizeau beleived that the english canada would never accept to negociate, as usual. But what would happen if on the contrary, the english canada would want to negociate? Would Parizeau have tried to avoid negociation and go for unilateral independence? The people could stop him throught the Superior court. The way the question was built, he did not have that much power. Neverthenless, it is still a gray area.

If there is one point I blame the PQ for, is this one. If they are real sovereignists, they should not be afraid to talk about federalism. They should talk about what kind of partnership we want. They should make the position clears regarding what is acceptable and what is not. Then when the time of a referendum comes, no one will be able to accuse the PQ of hidden intentions. But the PQ is afraid of that. They are afraid that Canada will say no in advance and this would make the people say no because of that. I do not agree with them. I think the people are smarter than that. The people have the last word anyway, whether the PQ like it or not. The people must figure this out by themselve. I admit that my opinion is not very popular among independentists.

[Rocky Road]

http://www.francocentre.com/