Your thoughts on official unilingualism?

[Benz]

At some point all societies must allow the majority to dictate the rules to the minority.

No. The justice of your own country does not agree with you.

The hypocrisy comes from Quebec nationalists complaining about the English majority setting rules that affect Quebec while these nationalists expect minorities within Quebec to accept rules set by the majority. There is nothing inherently wrong with a federation where rules that are best set at a national level are set at a national level. The debate should only be about what powers are best handled by what level of government.

It's two different things. It's not normal that the english canada can set up the constitution that will be applied on all canadians. The constitution is too important to be dominated by only one nation at the expense of the others.

However, I agree with you regarding the distribution of the power to each level. Once we agree what powers will be in the hands of the federal, I have no problem with the fact that the english majority have a bigger say matching their proportion in that House of Common. I am federalist too.

400 years ago they were the same but they diverged because of different experiences. Cultures change and evolve and it makes no sense for a government to try to "preserve" a particular culture since that is a moving target.

Listen... it makes more sense than killing a culture by preventing them to have schools in their language. Assume what your predecessors did and stop doing the same mistake over and over. Who do you think you are to call who can preserve or not its culture while your nation is responsible for the cultural genocides that occured in your borders?

What does make sense is government that promotes social cohesion through a common language (without preventing other languages from being used as well).

Don't you realise how hypocrit this is? When you do it, it's ok. Once you have established your superiority, out of sudden, it is bad to protect one's culture that is victim of your past decisions. Regarding the culture and the language, mind your own business. We preserve it and you have no say. It's our decision and you must respect that.

The starting point is we have to dispense with the fictions that these native groups are/should be treated as nation-states. The are cultural groups. Nothing more.

The equal nation-to-nation nonsense is a political fiction.

Canada is the sovereign state. Natives are subordinate cultural "nations" with special status.

How conveniant. It suits so much the imperialism. That is exactly what they do not want anymore. For several thousands of years, they were free sovereign people, you put them into small reserves, call them indians despite they never put a foot in India and you expect that they must accept the fate that you decided? hmmmm! You can be sure that you will hear from them again and again.

[?Impact]

I am a convinced sovereignist...

I am federalist too.

I am confused. Perhaps we should have a different thread about aspirations about the future of Quebec and Canada because those two goals seem contradictory, but nothing is ever simple.

Your medias will only focus on the zealous one. At the very same time, the french in English Canada are fighting up to the supreme court to have schools in their language. That does not occupy much place in your medias. I guess this is not idiotic, right?

I agree the media coverage doesn't help. They often have their own agenda and will focus on isolated events. Yes, pastagate did escalate very high and regardless if it got "resolved" it clearly demonstrated the idiocy. Yes, the media may not have followed up but the real news was the idiocy and not the resolution. It didn't solve the basic problem with OQLF, a bunch of mostly useless civil servants trying to justify their existence. There was a flap earlier this year about "grilled cheese" at a Quebec city restaurant; could you tell me how you would order one? I wouldn't be surprised if "hotdog" is next on their agenda. Yes, they are English (or Italian) words but they are also international. This would be no different than someone wanting to rename poutine or tourtière.

[TimG]

No. The justice of your own country does not agree with you.

The Quebec legislature passed Bill 101. All people in Quebec must follow the law because that is what the majority decided. There is no difference between a majority of Canadians passing laws that affect Quebequers and Quebeqers passing laws that affect minorities in Quebec. The constitution only protects minorities from having their basic human rights infringed. It does not grant people a right to ignore laws passed by the majority and almost everyone accepts this is the way it should be. Whether you understand it out not, complaining about Canada passing laws that affect Quebec while expecting minorities to comply with Quebec laws is completely hypocritical.

Don't you realise how hypocrit this is? When you do it, it's ok.

I am confused. I have stated a number of times in this thread that I have no particular issue with Quebec's language laws other than they are sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes. That includes rules about attending French schools. The only difference is I justify it from the perspective of ensuring a common language rather than get into discussion of what a "culture" is and what it means to preserve something that is constantly changing.

How conveniant. It suits so much the imperialism. That is exactly what they do not want anymore. For several thousands of years, they were free sovereign people, you put them into small reserves, call them indians despite they never put a foot in India and you expect that they must accept the fate that you decided? hmmmm! You can be sure that you will hear from them again and again.

Canada is the sovereign state. That is a fact. It is not an opinion. Natives have rights with the sovereign state of Canada and any 'nations' that exist are subordinate to Canada. Again, this is a fact - not an opinion. There are people who insist on pretending that untrue things are true (like the Chinese that insist that Taiwan is not an independent sovereign state). My complaint is about people pretending that untrue things are true. Edited September 25, 2016 by TimG

[Benz]

I am confused. Perhaps we should have a different thread about aspirations about the future of Quebec and Canada because those two goals seem contradictory, but nothing is ever simple.

Yes, a different thread might be a good idea and yes, I understand it looks contradictory to your point of view. But it is not. The EU is the best example of it. 20 different nations trying to make a federation (more precisely a confederation) with sovereign nations willing to share some levels of their sovereignty for a common good without letting go their own sovereignty. They are trying to get along even if they are different nations. It is a major challenge and it is difficult for them. But they are trying. Guess what, it is exactly what the french wanted in 1867 and they never got it. They wanted a decentralised federation. They could have do their own things and share what they have in commons with their neighbors. But it is not what London has decided. Or should I say the crown, or that house of Lords, depending on what the british nation was about at that time. We finally ended up with a centralised federation. More conveniant to the english majority, but to the defense of the english speaking people, it was more conveniant to the cown and its long term goal. I cannot blame the people for a decision that was made by the elite ones. It would not be fair. It would be against my own principles. There is nothing incompatible with the sovereignty of a nation and the alliance it can have with other nations. Sovereignty of a nation is one thing. Alliance within one federation is another thing. Is it a team work or a total alpha male domination? Does it have to be that binary? After all, the english and french did not exist if you go back more than 2000 years ago. The human spicies is born on a different continent anyway. The only obstacle to a solution, is the conviction that you are right and the other ones are wrong.

I agree the media coverage doesn't help. They often have their own agenda and will focus on isolated events. Yes, pastagate did escalate very high and regardless if it got "resolved" it clearly demonstrated the idiocy. Yes, the media may not have followed up but the real news was the idiocy and not the resolution. It didn't solve the basic problem with OQLF, a bunch of mostly useless civil servants trying to justify their existence. There was a flap earlier this year about "grilled cheese" at a Quebec city restaurant; could you tell me how you would order one? I wouldn't be surprised if "hotdog" is next on their agenda. Yes, they are English (or Italian) words but they are also international. This would be no different than someone wanting to rename poutine or tourtière.

Look, on one end, you admit there is an exageration regarding the media exposure of a situation that got resolved easier than than it looks like. On the other end, you keep on thinking that somehow, it's a written convention or policy to have non sense consideration to something that common sense cannot fit in. Really? Listen, Bureaucrates are bureaucrates. Whether they are french, english or else, it doesn't change a thing. The ones trying to rule those language rules, are bureaucrates and they have a check list to fill. If there is a complaint, they have to process it. Most of the time, it ends up as the common sense would lead it. But by the time it is, the medias nourrish on the big fuzz it can creates in the mean time. Especially for the english community that does not give a f*** about the drama the french are living outisde Quebec. Where do you stand? As long as the final result is acceptable to us all, that is what matters to me. I do not give a **** about the millage the anti-french medias will do on the exploitation of that rule.

I admit it. Sometimes it is getting offroad. But the most important thing is, the politicians and the people here are making it go back on the road. It's something you should appreaciate. Unless it does not fit your agenda to bash the language rule. Where do you stand? Me? I am in the seat of the one who sees a tryout domination of a culture which I can only appreciate when it is not threatening mine.

I consume alot of english culture products. I have no problem with that. It becomes a problem for me when the english culture is trying to be imposed to me, which has been the situation so often until now. As long as the language rule is for the protection, I say bravo. But if that rule is overpassing its mandate, it is rather an insult to my intelligence. People are not stupid. We do not agree when they are doing too much. Otherwise they would not back down. Try to to see the big picture from our standing point for once. We need that rule, even if sometimes one zealous one is overpassing its mandate. Under no circumstances, this is making us haters of the english culture. What do you think you understand about the situation of the french people?

[Benz]

The Quebec legislature passed Bill 101. All people in Quebec must follow the law because that is what the majority decided. There is no difference between a majority of Canadians passing laws that affect Quebequers and Quebeqers passing laws that affect minorities in Quebec. The constitution only protects minorities from having their basic human rights infringed. It does not grant people a right to ignore laws passed by the majority and almost everyone accepts this is the way it should be. Whether you understand it out not, complaining about Canada passing laws that affect Quebec while expecting minorities to comply with Quebec laws is completely hypocritical.

Quebec is not a minority of a greater nation, Quebec is a nation. Beside the natives, how many other nations are there in Quebec? You are trying to deny the existence of the quebec nation. Plain and simple. It is your condition to consider our laws as hypocritical. but whether you like it or not, Quebec is, and always been a nation. The incoming immigrants that choose to come live in Quebec or english canada, are not nations. They are migrants. They choose to fit into a new nation.

I am confused. I have stated a number of times in this thread that I have no particular issue with Quebec's language laws other than they are sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes. That includes rules about attending French schools. The only difference is I justify it from the perspective of ensuring a common language rather than get into discussion of what a "culture" is and what it means to preserve something that is constantly changing.

What are the source of those changes? Do you think the english language has been a natural course in north america? It is the result of the imperialism. It's ok, what has been done, has been done. Is it necessary to continue into this course? Can't the english language live among the people with other languages? I am ok with the idea that english became the common language, as long as it does not become a threat of the existence of my language. There are plently of room with all those languages in the world. They are an asset to the humanity. Pas un boulet!

Canada is the sovereign state. That is a fact. It is not an opinion. Natives have rights with the sovereign state of Canada and any 'nations' that exist are subordinate to Canada. Again, this is a fact - not an opinion. There are people who insist on pretending that untrue things are true (like the Chinese that insist that Taiwan is not an independent sovereign state). My complaint is about people pretending that untrue things are true.

It's the result of the british empire victory. That is the fact. Not opinion. So the point is, what is important to you? The continuation of the british empire agenda? Or the will of the human beings? The british beat them more than a century ago. Ok, so what? They still exist! What do they have to do to gain your respect? They have to fight you like the old time back when people were making wars? Is that what they need to do? Take weapons and fight you? Only them you will respect the sovereignty of people that have been sovereign for centuries before your ancestors kick their ancestors assess with technological advances? Aren't we more further than that into our human relations?

Yes, it is a fact that the english people has forced the natives to be a second class citizens that most follow the rules established by the winners of a war. That's what you want things to be, right? You want them to accept that fate and become a subnation of YOUR nation concept. That's what make sense to you.

[TimG]

Quebec is not a minority of a greater nation, Quebec is a nation.

Irrelevant semantics. Nations, as you define them, don't make laws. States make laws. States often have a majority which comes from one cultural 'nation' and many minorities which belong to other cultural 'nations'. In a democratic state the majority decides what the rules are (subject to limits specified in the constitution) and the minorities are expected to follow. If Quebequers expect laws passed in the *province* of Quebec to apply to minorities (which have a right to vote for the government) then Quebequers have no business complaining about laws passed by the *state* of Canada which do not violate the constitution.

It's the result of the british empire victory. That is the fact.

So what? Every country in the world was created by war and conquest where the strong conquered the weak. This includes Quebec which was created as part of an expanding the French empire. But history has no relevance when it comes to deciding who is the sovereign state today. Canada is that sovereign state and only laws passed by the government of Canada or one of the provinces are enforced within its borders. The only legal rights that Natives have are those encoded in Canadian law (which includes the constitution). So no matter what the natives may want to believe they do not represent sovereign states.

Now if you want make it clear where are talking about cultural groups then a 'nation' to 'nation' relationship can exist where one 'nation' is the non-native majority.

Edited September 25, 2016 by TimG

[Machjo]

The Quebec legislature passed Bill 101. All people in Quebec must follow the law because that is what the majority decided. There is no difference between a majority of Canadians passing laws that affect Quebequers and Quebeqers passing laws that affect minorities in Quebec. The constitution only protects minorities from having their basic human rights infringed. It does not grant people a right to ignore laws passed by the majority and almost everyone accepts this is the way it should be. Whether you understand it out not, complaining about Canada passing laws that affect Quebec while expecting minorities to comply with Quebec laws is completely hypocritical.

I am confused. I have stated a number of times in this thread that I have no particular issue with Quebec's language laws other than they are sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes. That includes rules about attending French schools. The only difference is I justify it from the perspective of ensuring a common language rather than get into discussion of what a "culture" is and what it means to preserve something that is constantly changing.

Canada is the sovereign state. That is a fact. It is not an opinion. Natives have rights with the sovereign state of Canada and any 'nations' that exist are subordinate to Canada. Again, this is a fact - not an opinion. There are people who insist on pretending that untrue things are true (like the Chinese that insist that Taiwan is not an independent sovereign state). My complaint is about people pretending that untrue things are true.

Actually, many Taiwanese still look forward to reunification, but under the government of Taiwan which they regard to be the legitimate government of China.

[TimG]

Actually, many Taiwanese still look forward to reunification, but under the government of Taiwan which they regard to be the legitimate government of China.

Does not change the fact that Taiwan is an independent sovereign state today.

[Machjo]

Does not change the fact that Taiwan is an independent sovereign state today.

Even legally and officially Taiwan recognised one indivisible China with the government in Taibei its legitimate government.

[TimG]

Even legally and officially Taiwan recognised one indivisible China with the government in Taibei its legitimate government.

There is no body with the power to decide who is a sovereign state. Sovereignty is determined by an ability to exert exclusive control over a territory. The government in Taiwan has the exclusive ability to create and enforce laws on the island of Taiwan. Therefore it is a sovereign state no matter what silly things Beijing claims. Edited September 25, 2016 by TimG

[Machjo]

There is no body with the power to decide who is a sovereign state. Sovereignty is determined by an ability to exert exclusive control over a territory. The government in Taiwan has the exclusive ability to create and enforce laws on the island of Taiwan. Therefore it is a sovereign state no matter what silly things Beijing claims.

You didn't read what I typed. Taiwanese law recognizes that Taiwan is a province of China and that the government in Taipei is the rightful government of China presently forced into exile by the Communist-Party-backed illegitimate rebel government in Beijing.

Mainland law recognizes Taiwan as a province of China too, but presently ruled by an illegitimate renegade government in Taipei and that the government in Beijing is the rightful government of China.

Si both governments recognise one single China. They just don't recognise each others' governments as legitimate.

Taiwan is sovereign in practical terms but not ideologically. Ideologically it aspires to an eventual reunification of China with annihilation of the government in Beijing and the repatriation of the Taipei government to Beijing.

[TimG]

Taiwan is sovereign in practical terms but not ideologically.

Not sure what your point is. The current government of Taiwan would like to dispense with that fiction but can't because China would throw a fit. The number of Taiwanese that actually believe that the Taiwanese government should take over running China can likely be counted on 1 hand.

[Machjo]

Not sure what your point is. The current government of Taiwan would like to dispense with that fiction but can't because China would throw a fit. The number of Taiwanese that actually believe that the Taiwanese government should take over running China can likely be counted on 1 hand.

How many Taiwanese have you met?

I've not met many myself, but have met a few in Hong Kong.

The one's I'd met definitely considered themselves to be Chinese and definitely held a low opinion of the government in Beijing.

I've even met some mainland Chinese (i.e. not Taiwanese) on the mainland itself who also considered Taipei the legitimate government of China.

[TimG]

How many Taiwanese have you met?

The Taiwanese recently elected pro-independence parties to congress and a pro-independence president. Even if you could show that the minority who voted against them held the views you claim those views would still be a fiction that does not change the de-facto reality today.

[Benz]

Irrelevant semantics. Nations, as you define them, don't make laws. States make laws. States often have a majority which comes from one cultural 'nation' and many minorities which belong to other cultural 'nations'. In a democratic state the majority decides what the rules are ...

The way you describ it, the state owns the nation(s). That's not republican for sure. You do not look very familiar with the Années Lumières and the concept of sovereignty of the people to the people. I bet you think it is totally normal to have a crown like the current british queen. Obviously, you and I have a total opposite position regarding the role and the importance of a nation. For me, the state belongs to the nation, not the other way around. So, if we desagree on that basis, it is normal afterward that we can't agree on how the country should function.

So what? Every country in the world was created by war and conquest where the strong conquered the weak. This includes Quebec which was created as part of an expanding the French empire. But history has no relevance when it comes to deciding who is the sovereign state today. Canada is that sovereign state and only laws passed by the government of Canada or one of the provinces are enforced within its borders. The only legal rights that Natives have are those encoded in Canadian law (which includes the constitution). So no matter what the natives may want to believe they do not represent sovereign states.

Now if you want make it clear where are talking about cultural groups then a 'nation' to 'nation' relationship can exist where one 'nation' is the non-native majority.

Everything you say is irrelevent. Because your understanding is that the state is the sovereign body, not the people. There is a state, called Canada, which is the outcome of the UK's disposal of the north american possessions and you think that specific state is the sovereign of all people under its territory. There is no way you and I can agree on that. You will always be in conflict with any nations that are not your's. Québec, natives, name it.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Benz

[TimG]

The way you describ it, the state owns the nation(s).

The state is the vehicle. The nations are the passengers. In a democracy the majority decides where the vehicle goes (subject to limits of the constitution) and the minorities have to go along. So technically the state is 'owned' by the people and the constitution represents a compromise between the peoples on how the state should be run. In Canada's case that compromise includes a federal system that gives significant powers to the province of Quebec which allows the francophone minority to make their own decisions about where the vehicle goes within the context of powers that have been granted to provinces. But within in the areas granted to the federal government the Quebec nation must go along with what the majority says.

I do not think it is helpful to confuse the vehicle used to exercise sovereignty with the people using the vehicle because without the vehicle people have no sovereignty.

You will always be in conflict with any nations that are not your's. Québec, natives, name it.

That is why it is important to separate the state from the nation. You obviously do not feel that you are part of the 'English-Canadian' nation and I don't expect you to. But we both share an interest in the Canadian 'state' which is distinct from the 'English-Canadian' nation. We should be able to exchange ideas on how to manage the 'state' of Canada without getting distracted with discussions of nations. We both seem to agree that some powers should be federal and some provincial and at both levels the majority decides (subject to limits of the constitution). Edited September 26, 2016 by TimG

[Benz]

The state is the vehicle. The nations are the passengers. In a democracy the majority decides where the vehicle goes (subject to limits of the constitution) and the minorities have to go along. So technically the state is 'owned' by the people and the constitution represents a compromise between the peoples on how the state should be run. In Canada's case that compromise includes a federal system that gives significant powers to the province of Quebec which allows the francophone minority to make their own decisions about where the vehicle goes within the context of powers that have been granted to provinces. But within in the areas granted to the federal government the Quebec nation must go along with what the majority says.

I do not think it is helpful to confuse the vehicle used to exercise sovereignty with the people using the vehicle because without the vehicle people have no sovereignty.

That is why it is important to separate the state from the nation. You obviously do not feel that you are part of the 'English-Canadian' nation and I don't expect you to. But we both share an interest in the Canadian 'state' which is distinct from the 'English-Canadian' nation. We should be able to exchange ideas on how to manage the 'state' of Canada without getting distracted with discussions of nations. We both seem to agree that some powers should be federal and some provincial and at both levels the majority decides (subject to limits of the constitution).

We agree on the roles played by the federal and the provincial. I do not know if we agree about what powers go to whom, but I have a feeling that we are very different about that.

Where we strongly desagree, is about the constitution. The reason we cannot agree about it, it is mostly explained by your understanding of the state vs the nations. If there is one thing that it is not acceptable to have the majority ruling the others, it's the constitution.

As I told you before, if the English canadians are ruling the country at the House of Common because they outnumber the others, I am ok with that. However, it is out of question that the constitution is set by the biggest nation without a say from the others. If you can't understand that, you definitly do not know how to keep this country united.

[taxme]

ok then. So let's get rid of english. Because I will not let that happen while I am alive. What are you going to do? Are you going to do a R.H. Bain of yourself?

You are too hard on your predecessors. They did ban french in many provinces and they manage to genocide that culture. However, it is true that they failed in Québec. You seems to forget that they tried very hard in the past. Thet did try to erase the french culture for several years. They tried but they failed. At the rebellions of 1837, the french were forbidden to have a french journal. The only one french journal was named Le Canadien. But eh, despite all the oppression, the french managed to survive. It's because they survive that now Canada has to offer minimum of respect to what is left of the french outside Québec. Very interesting how those very tiny communities survival are making you feel like a major fail of Canada's imperialism.

Stayed? Stayed? The english canada is more english than it ever was. When Manitoba was founded, the french were already there. At the creation of Canada, the french were 35% of the population. The english had to ban french from public schools to destroy that culture. You have a huge problem with the reality and your own history my friend.

You are such an hypocrit. That pityful mindset is a heritage of the former british empire colonizing worlds and destroying cultures. Get over it. You are thinking like a loser. It's time to move on and accept that you cannot destroy everyone. Québec is already more bilingual than any other province. We have more bilingual people than the self-claimed bilingual NB. If you think that having bilingual street names in Ontario is enough to say that it's a bilingual province, then you are living in an alternate reality. It does not work that way.

That is because in your mindset, a good canadian, is an english canadian. You believe that french are not canadians. They do not deserves the same respect. You do not want to share the country with them. You want a total domination. Therefore, allowing french to be served in their language is a failure for you. That is exactly what you choose to be. The loser that can't stand the fact that you are too weak to fight the french and get rid of them. That's also why you hate your fellows that now accept that they must respect the presence of the french like brothers of the same family. You never accepted the french in the family. The job is not done yet and you need to get rid of the french once and for all. So you can finally get rid of the language you consider dying and useless.

Yes, the french are not superior than other language. It's you, that is inferior to all existing humans on earth. An inferiority that you choose to be. Afflicted by your own decision to be that loser.

Let me know whenever you decide to be more open-minded redirect your critizism into a constructive opinion.

The french had the opportunity to show to the rest of Canada that they would declare Quebec to be a bilingual province. That was all that was needed to preserve their french language and culture. But instead of going that route they decided that bilingualism was not good enough for them and they decided that making Quebec a unilingual province would be better for them instead. And so they did what they say the British did to them. It was pay back time. So, they decided to say to the Anglophones in Quebec that their language was not welcome in Quebec anymore, and have made many attempts to try and get rid of the English language. In my opinion the french are not good Canadians because if they were they would declare their province a bilingual one. They obviously do not want to share their province with the rest of Canada. Just try and get a job with the municipal or provincial governments if you are an Anglophone. An Anglophone does not stand a chance in hell for employment with those governments. It is the french that do not want to be a part of the Canadian family, and their actions show it. The anglophones have done enough of their share to make the french feel at home, and all they get from Quebec is grief and separatism.

For decades now their licence plates have written on them " Je me Souviens" or I remember. That is suppose to be a reminder to all french so-called Canadians that they are never to forget what the English did to them in the past. Always there to rub it in. And I will never forget as an ex-Montrealer as to what they did to me. They treated the English language as some kind of foreign language, and our federal politicians allowed this to happen. Not one Anglophone politician has ever spoke out about this. The french even get to run and rule Ottawa and Canada. What a deal, eh?

[TimG]

As I told you before, if the English canadians are ruling the country at the House of Common because they outnumber the others, I am ok with that. However, it is out of question that the constitution is set by the biggest nation without a say from the others. If you can't understand that, you definitly do not know how to keep this country united.

Vetos for very subgroup are generally a bad idea because it opens the door to extortion. i.e. Quebec might not care about a change that the rest of the country wants but chooses to block it in order to extort concessions on other matters. IOW giving Quebec a legal veto over constitutional changes requires that we trust that Quebec politicians are always willing to act in good faith. History tells us that we cannot assume that. I realize that by not having veto we are expecting Quebec to trust the rest of Canada to act in good faith and not seek to overrule the objections of Quebec on issues of particular relevance to Quebec. However, there is no middle ground compromise and we must put the power on one side or the other. From a game theory perspective, the 7/50 rule is much more likely to encourage the good faith compromise needed to make changes than any rule that gives everyone a veto.

[Machjo]

The French age of enlightenemnt might not be a good idea, Benz. Consider how the Basques, the Bretons, the Occitannais, etc. have been oppressed since. Even at the time of Georges Pompidou in the 70's, he took an extremely negative view of France's indigenous languages other than French. Schools in Breton put up sings saying: No spitting or talking Breton.

Only in more recent years has the French government toned down its attacks, but even then it had little to do with Republicanism. It had to do with EU human rights laws and EU criticism of France.

[Machjo]

Taxme, don't confuse the official language of government administration with the legal impositio of the official language on businesses.

I agree Bill 101 goes way too far. But to make Quebec bilingual would be even worse. Here's why:

Under QUebec's official unilingualism, any person who knows French can access employment in the government of Quebec, whether he is unilingual Frech, a French-LSQ bilingual, a French-Innu bilingual, a French-Arabic bilingual, etc.

Under federal official bilingualism, only the Anglo-French bilingual can access federal employment. A person can be quadrilingual, but if he does not know English and French specifically, he's out of luck.

In that sense, official unilingualism is more just and equitable than official bilingualism. In that same sense, gatineau's policy of official unilingualism is more inclusive than Ottawa's policy of practical bilingualism.

[Benz]

The French age of enlightenemnt might not be a good idea, Benz. Consider how the Basques, the Bretons, the Occitannais, etc. have been oppressed since. Even at the time of Georges Pompidou in the 70's, he took an extremely negative view of France's indigenous languages other than French. Schools in Breton put up sings saying: No spitting or talking Breton.

Only in more recent years has the French government toned down its attacks, but even then it had little to do with Republicanism. It had to do with EU human rights laws and EU criticism of France.

What you are saying is like blaming the concept of federalism to explain the cultural genocide of the natives and some french communities. If I tell you exactely what I think about your reasonning, I would probably get banned. lolll Seriously Machjo.

[Machjo]

I'm not necessarily criticising the age of enlightenment, but rather what appeared to be your rationale against monarchy. I was just pointing out that neither side is perfect.

[Machjo]

And on the point about federalism, though it is true that we can't blame federalism per se for the oppression of indigenous and French people, we can blame official bilingualism to a degree. Like I said, the excesses of Bill 101 aside, Quebec's policy of official unilingualism is preferable to the federral policy of official bilingualism.

[Benz]

The french had the opportunity to show to the rest of Canada that they would declare Quebec to be a bilingual province. That was all that was needed to preserve their french language and culture. But instead of going that route they decided that bilingualism was not good enough for them and they decided that making Quebec a unilingual province would be better for them instead. And so they did what they say the British did to them. It was pay back time. So, they decided to say to the Anglophones in Quebec that their language was not welcome in Quebec anymore, and have made many attempts to try and get rid of the English language.

Ahhh, the good old Goebbels technique. Lie, lie, something will remain. Québec DID NOT declare itself unilingual. Québec declared french the official language. It is not the same at all. English people still can have english services from the Québec state, they still can have schools in english, they have more universities than they need and they have more hospitals than they need too. There is nothing in our laws saying that english is banned. Meanwhile, some french in your "bilingual" province have to use the Supreme Court to send their children into french schools. YOU ARE PATHETIC!!!!!!!

The situation of Québec is a bit comparable to Finland. A land that has been for so long under the possession of Sweden. Despite the language in Finland is Finnish, the swedes have the same rights the anglos have here in Québec. They can continue to have schools and services in their language. Like here, they still can feel home in a land where they are the minority. Stop your bullshit and move on.

In my opinion the french are not good Canadians because if they were they would declare their province a bilingual one. They obviously do not want to share their province with the rest of Canada. Just try and get a job with the municipal or provincial governments if you are an Anglophone. An Anglophone does not stand a chance in hell for employment with those governments. It is the french that do not want to be a part of the Canadian family, and their actions show it. The anglophones have done enough of their share to make the french feel at home, and all they get from Quebec is grief and separatism.

I dare you to prove it. The anglos can get a job at the government like any other citizens here. You need a psychiatric consultation. You are imagining things.

For decades now their licence plates have written on them " Je me Souviens" or I remember. That is suppose to be a reminder to all french so-called Canadians that they are never to forget what the English did to them in the past. Always there to rub it in. And I will never forget as an ex-Montrealer as to what they did to me. They treated the English language as some kind of foreign language, and our federal politicians allowed this to happen. Not one Anglophone politician has ever spoke out about this. The french even get to run and rule Ottawa and Canada. What a deal, eh?

Taxme, you are so hypocrite. Tell me that french does not look foreign to you. Explain me in french how familiar you are with that language. English looks like is a foreign language for me. But unlike you, I am not afraid of foreigners. I learned english because I want to and if I could, I would learn many other languages as well. I know a bit of spannish. But what english has here that the others do not, is that they can have public schools in english. Not bad for a foreign language, isn't it? It's because although it looks foreign to us, it is not. We respect our anglos and let them have the place they deserve. Not bad for a society that is supposed to entertain hatred to their persecutors.

What is going on in your head has nothing to do with the reality.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Benz