PLQ & Jean charest, worst government ever...

[seabee]

The only answer to that is to teach those French Canadians the truth

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who is going to "teach those...", and in what language?

[Guest eureka]

Any language you choose provided that your government will let you choose what language you wish to use.

Therein lies the rub.

[August1991]

Any language you choose provided that your government will let you choose what language you wish to use.

It is not illegal to speak in English in Quebec.

Bill 101 has numerous provisions but in the case of language of instruction, it offers French-language instruction alone in State schools up to age 17. (There are exceptions so that the State also provides English-language instruction to some children.)

This is really no different from what is offered in Denmark, Taiwan or many other places, including other Canadian provinces.

The fight over Bill 101 is over and not worth fighting anymore. I find the provisions of the bill distasteful and unjustified, however, Quebequers have voted in several federalist and separatist governments that support the bill. That tells me that no one outside of Quebec has any business interfering with it.

The Bill is exceptionally popular in Quebec, and some have argued that it slowed the independance movement because it corrected, within Canada, many grievances.

Quebec's situation in North America is fundamental to any discussion about Bill 101. If I can make a comparison, a country's drivers can choose to drive on the left-hand side of the road or the right-hand side, but a country cannot have both kinds of drivers at the same time. Prior to Bill 101, the linguistic situation in Quebec was a mess.

Canada would be a divided and truncated nation that has shown it has no national identity or ethos. Quebec would be a state shunned by the modern world as an ethic ghetto - about the same creed would rule as fuelled Nazi Germany. The Allaire report is not even a starting point for talks. It is a demand that would, as you suggest, give Quebec all the tools of Sovereignty while retaining Canadian citizenship for Quebeckers.

No, Canada would not be a truncated or divided nation if Quebec became sovereign. There are many ways to organize Quebec autonomy within a Canadian confederation. There would be no border controls between Ontario/Quebec/NB - just as there are no border controls now between France and Germany. France and Germany share the same currency, treat foreign products in similar fashion, issue in effect a common visa to foreigners, sometimes share the same embassy building abroad. French and German citizens move as freely to work or own property as Ontario and Quebec "citizens" do now.

Sovereignty is a question of degree. At issue is what jurisdictions would leave Ottawa and go to Quebec.

I frankly thought the Allaire report was an absurd concoction that Bourassa permitted as a ploy. If I recall correctly, it maintained equalization payments but gave all taxing authority to Quebec.

What really bothers me about Quebec politics is it is dominated by a group of hard-core seperatists that would not be statisfied with anything less than the complete independence for Quebec.

I disagree. The hard-core separatists represent about 10% or so. The PQ and BQ draw their support from many, many types of people. As Bakunin notes, the PQ is a coalition. [imagine that the US occupied Canada and Harper, Layton, Martin formed a coalition to get rid of the Americans.]

How many Quebequers would vote for seperation if they knew that they would have to give up their Canadian citizenships? There can be no terms after a yes vote that includes Canadian citizenships for Quebec residents because Canada cannot afford to have its political process to be distorted by so many citizens living outside its borders.

In fact, it would be impossible to exclude people in Quebec from Canadian citizenship. At present, anyone born in Canada is ipso facto a Canadian citizen forever. There are 8 year old kids in India with Canadian passports because their mother flew into Toronto for the birth.

You cannot claim to be willing to compromise if you claim a document produced by the Quebec gov't is the 'minimum' terms. In my dictionary, compromise is a two way street where both sides have to be willing to move from their initial terms.

Sparhawk, that's a good point, I think. I find that some pequistes have an unrealistic view of what's involved. In particular, some people in Quebec tend to see life itself as one big union-management negotiation. It's tiresome, and certainly not the "English" way of doing things.

You have proven my point: seperatists are incapable of compromise and do not understand the realities of the Canadian position after a yes vote.

I suspect that Duceppe's experience in Ottawa has changed him. He has a much better idea of what the rest of Canada can or cannot do.

[Riverwind]

In fact, it would be impossible to exclude people in Quebec from Canadian citizenship.  At present, anyone born in Canada is ipso facto a Canadian citizen forever.  There are 8 year old kids in India with Canadian passports because their mother flew into Toronto for the birth.

You are correct to say that it is impossible under the current constitution. If Quebec separates Canada will have to rewrite its constitution which means the provisions regarding citizenship could be radically altered. The new constitution could even have a provision that prohibits dual citizenships between Quebec and Canada but preserves dual citizenships with every other country.

You cannot launch a charter challenge against something that is written into the constitution and it is also unlikely that an appeal to the UN would criticize Canada from making such a move since many other countries have much tighter citizenship rules.

Obviously, the question becomes: what are the chances that Canada would do such a thing after a yes vote? I would say very likely because:

1) A democratic country cannot function if 25% of its citizens live and pay taxes in another country. The fact that all of those citizens would be entitled to vote and to claim social benefits without returning anything back to the country is extremely problematic. So for purely pragmatic reasons the citizenship issue must be addressed.

(aside: about 3-4% Canadians live abroad today - this percentage is not enough to disrupt the institutions of the county so the benefits of having citizens abroad outweigh the disadvantages).

2) People in English Canada get particularly outraged whenever a separatist suggests that Quebequers could keep their Canadian citizenship after a yes vote. It would be very difficult for any politician in Canada to agree to a deal that allowed Quebequers to keep their citizenships.

In short citizenship will be a very emotional and symbolic issue after a yes vote. Separatists can ignore it only at their peril.

I suspect a likely compromise would include something equivalent to the Hong Kong British passport as a short term solution that would require any Quebequer to relocate to Canada within a few years if they wished to regain full citizenship.

The citizenship is just one of many issues. I think separatists are doing Quebequers a huge disservice by dismissing many of the negative consequences of separations as scare tactics. Many of the negative consequences will come to pass because Canada will have to look after its own interest and those interests are very different than what the separatists would like Quebequers to believe.

[Bakunin]

As i see it, the bill 101 was 1 way out of many to organise our school system.

We all knew that we had to stop the assimilation going on in quebec, the bill 101 permited us to do so and it kept the fundamental right to the english community to keep their english school.

If it wasn't of that bill, there is no doubt montreal would be in majority english then it mean we would need to use english to work in montreal and the vicious circle would have destroyed the hearth of our culture. Montreal being the main center of quebec, assimilation was inevitable. from the conquest in 1760 to 1960, we didn't have a strong immigration, we didn't have that problem.

Its pretty hypocrit from english speakers to talk about this bill like if it was racist or too much radical. English province doesn't have that problem and when they had that problem, they did use alot more agressive bill to deal with it. When we colonize the west, the french and amerindian where assimilated by force in english, if it wasnt of that canada would be a different country right now. Just think of the deportation of acadia, if it wasn't of it, we would have another french province.

Just think about it, what would your provincial government would have done if only 25% of the immigrant would choose to learn english ? just imagine the ghettoïsation of those immigrant specially if the vast majority nearly all go in the same city. Worst what would you do if your population would have to learn french to have a job and go shopping and the newer generation would start to be tempted to give up on english and start to learn french instead because they have no futur ?? Once you think about it, then your welcome to tell us what we should have done.

[Cartman]

Eureka is right. The divorce is usually worse than the marriage.

I am really sick of all this separatist crap whether it comes from Quebec or Alberta.

[fellowtraveller]

There is only one possible course and that is a militayr response.

It's not often that I read something that actually makes me Laugh Out Loud, but that did it!

I've gone 180 degrees on Quebec separatism in the last few years - from being an opponent to believing that the Quebec assessment of the weakness of our federation may be entirely accurate.

It's hard to watch the ongoing, long term gong show in Ottawa and reach any other conclusion.

All the provinces have followed Quebecs lead , lined up and said: What is in it for me? Not what can we achieve together, but- what is in it for me? That is what Canada is about today - selfish, partisan people playing selfish , partisan games with no hope of change.

If I were in Quebec today, I'd vote PQ, Bloc and 'Yes'.

[Guest eureka]

Good to see you back, Cartmann. Keep bringing a little common sense to the discussions.

[Guest eureka]

  It is not illegal to speak in English in Quebec.............    This is really no different from what is offered in Denmark, Taiwan or many other places, including other Canadian provinces.

Of course it is not illegal to speak English in Quebec. It is just illegal to use it in most forms of commercial enterprise or in communication between business and business in many instances; or between government and individual in most ways; or between employer and employee in many ways. It is illegal for any public display of English unless it is accompanied by a larger French display

What Denmark etc. have to do with this, I cannot imagine. They are sovereign countries with national languages who do NOT outlaw the use of English, BTW. There is Freedom of Choice everywhere but Quebec.

Prior to Bill 101, the linguistic situation in Quebec was a mess.

In what way was it a mess. There were two official languages and either could be used in any circumstance. The only thing wrong (for Francophones) was that, from their own choice and unwillingness to participate in the society, French did not present the opportunities that English did. Francophones could have corrected that by adopting a little entrepreneurial spirit instead of expropriating English business and institutions.

No, Canada would not be a truncated or divided nation if Quebec became sovereign. There are many ways to organize Quebec autonomy within a Canadian confederation. There would be no border controls between Ontario/Quebec/NB

It would be truncated and held to ransom in any "national" disagreement. Border controls and any other kind of interference would be at the whim of either whenever it appeared to be in its interest or politically expedient. The policies of the separate entities would not necessarily be coincident.

Would, for example, the proverbial "cornflakes" have to be shipped through Quebec direct to New Brunswick without the French side on the boxes since that is the way they would be packaged A shipment could not include Quebec points of purchase since they would contaminate the purity of the nation being in English only Do think that it would be convenient or cost effective to have separate labelling? There are a thousand ways that borders enter into it without explicit controls.

Sovereignty is a question of degree. At issue is what jurisdictions would leave Ottawa and go to Quebec.

Sovereignty is not a question of degree. Sovereignty is absolute. All jurisdictions would leave Ottawa for Quebec and any cession of sovereignty would be part of the negotiations. That would bring us back to the starting point of Quebec as it is with a fictional sovereignty: or Quebec as it wants to be with sovereignty and Canadian citizenship and benefits.

In fact, it would be impossible to exclude people in Quebec from Canadian citizenship. At present, anyone born in Canada is ipso facto a Canadian citizen forever. There are 8 year old kids in India with Canadian passports because their mother flew into Toronto for the birth.

It would not be impossible to exclude Quebeckers from Canadian citizenship. Quebeckers would have parted from Canada with the express desire of taking a new citizenship. A new Canadian Constitution would obviously limit Canadian citizenship to Canadians and with those countries where there is dual citizenship. The normal requirements for dual citizenship would not apply.

[Guest eureka]

You have a strange notion of what compromise is, Bakunin. A compromise is where two parties each gain from an agreement. No party will give up what it legitimately holds. Quebec's notion of compromise is to demand that it be given most of what it wants or it will destroy Canada.

Bill 101 was not about fixing the problem of schools. It was about pandering to the perception of radicals that there was a problem. The proportion of Anglophones in Quebec was declining - had been for a long time. Immigrant absorption did not completely compensate for that. The fundamental right of every community is to send their children to whatever school they wish: to have their children educated in whatever language they choose. The world has agreed on that.

Other provinces have not used "aggressive" legislation to enforce the use of English. The only laws I can think of, offhand, were the Manitoba and Ontario Schools Acts. Neither prevented Francophones from acquiring a French education and both were corrected. There is no other anti-French legislation.

There was no attempt to assimilate French Canadians when the West was colonized: none at all. There was only a minute French presence in the West, and like all small minorities everywhere in the world, the onus was on them to provide for their continuation.

Incidentally, Montreal was once a city with a majority population. At that time, it alternated between Francophone and Anglophone mayore. Since 1914, when the French became the majority, there has never been an Anglophone mayor.

Just 30 years ago, the Anglohone population of Quebec was around 18%: now it is around 8%. Why do you think that 10% of the Quebec population who were English speaking left the province? Many taking their businesses with them.

There was never a need for French to learn English in order to work or shop. There was only a reluctance of the French to build the means of living in their own culture. The French could as easily have started businesses as the English. They chose not to in order to keep their isolation from the heathen culture.

There would not have been another French province had the deportations from Acadia not taken place. There would, instead, have been the necessity of assimilation of the French in Canada who were, in fact, a relatively small number.

[Bakunin]

You have a strange notion of what compromise is, Bakunin. A compromise is where two parties each gain from an agreement. No party will give up what it legitimately holds. Quebec's notion of compromise is to demand that it be given most of what it wants or it will destroy Canada.

Bill 101 was not about fixing the problem of schools. It was about pandering to the perception of radicals that there was a problem.  The proportion of Anglophones in Quebec was declining - had been for a long time. Immigrant absorption did not completely compensate for that. The fundamental right of every community is to send their children to whatever school they wish: to have their children educated in whatever language they choose. The world has agreed on that.

Other provinces have not used "aggressive" legislation to enforce the use of English. The only laws I can think of, offhand, were the Manitoba and Ontario Schools Acts. Neither prevented Francophones from acquiring a French education and both were corrected. There is no other anti-French legislation.

There was no attempt to assimilate French Canadians when the West was colonized: none at all. There was only a minute French presence in the West, and like all small minorities everywhere in the world, the onus was on them to provide for their continuation.

Incidentally, Montreal was once a city with a majority population. At that time, it alternated between Francophone and Anglophone mayore. Since 1914, when the French became the majority, there has never been an Anglophone mayor.

Just 30 years ago, the Anglohone population of Quebec was around 18%: now it is around 8%. Why do you think that 10% of the Quebec population who were English speaking left the province? Many taking their businesses with them.

There was never a need for French to learn English in order to work or shop. There was only a reluctance of the French to build the means of living in their own culture. The French could as easily have started businesses as the English. They chose not to in order to keep their isolation from the heathen culture.

There would not have been another French province had the deportations from Acadia not taken place. There would, instead, have been the necessity of assimilation of the French in Canada who were, in fact, a relatively small number.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, ive never seen a reply with so many lies and incoherance... it desnt even worth replying so instead ill copy and past this text...

---------------------

Is the British Minority of Quebec Mistreated?

Are French -Speaking Quebecers so intransigent and intolerant that they persecute the British of Quebec (English, Scottish and Irish)? Supporters of the Equality Party and of Alliance Quebec affirm, to whoever will listen to them, that we oppress them, that we limit their freedoms. Are we truly despotic? Oppressors? At another time we will demonstrate that our openmindnessess has been so generous that the anglophone minority of Quebec is one of the best treated minorities in the world.

Quebecers of British origins (English, Scottish and Irish) are about 7% of the population of Quebec. What place do they occupy in the public institutions? Is their language banished from the National Assembly? Do the courts ban the use of English? Have French Quebecers refused to finance the schools, the colleges and the English speaking universities? Have they limited the freedom of expression of their anglophone compatriots? Have they been submitted to economic slavery and servitude? These are the questions that I seek to answer here.

The Parliament

In the domain of political institutions, Anglophones possess privileges that Acadians and Francophones from outside of Quebec would wish to have? (Sic) In the National Assembly, the English language is used to print, publish, adopt and sanction proposed bills, laws, regulations and acts of a similar nature.

English is used in the debates of the Assembly and in the Commissions and committees of the Parliament. 22% of the members of the National Assembly are anglophones. Their language is used in a large number of municipalities and school boards. 79 health and social establishments of Quebec are require to furnish their services in English. Nearly half of the delegations and offices of Quebec established abroad are in English-speaking countries. No anglophone province of this bilingual Canada respects its French minority to this degree.

The Judicial system

In the judicial field, the English language may be used in all matters brought before or issued by the Courts as well as in all matters of procedure that emanate from the Courts. At the request of one of the parties, any judgement rendered by a judicial tribunal and any decision rendered by a quasi-judicial body will be translated into English and the Public Administration will assume all necessary costs. No anglophone province of this bilingual Canada respects its French minority to this degree.

Education

In the field of education, the anglophone minority of Quebec has access to English language courses from primary school to university. Its schools may be attended by children whose father or mother have received their primary education English in Canada; other categories of children, as defined in bill 86, also have access to these schools. The teaching is governed by anglophone institutions. This is done in 306 elementary schools as well as 66 schools designed as bilingual. Anglophones also have 7 English cegeps as well as 2 bilingual cegeps. There schools and cegeps are all financed by the Government of Quebec. No anglophone province of this bilingual Canada respects its French minority to this degree.

In the field of universities, three anglophone institutions are generously financed by the Government of Quebec (McGill, Concordia and Bishop). In these three institutions is found 29% of the student population of the province; one fifth of these are francophones. These institutions grant 48% of all of the Arts' doctorates of the province. Anglophones also control several centres of excellence renowned throughout the world: Saidye Bronfman, Centaur, McCord Museum; these have the support of the francophone majority. No anglophone province of this bilingual Canada respects its French minority to this degree.

Communications

In the field of communications, 30 regular channels in English are offered on the cable, three television stations as well as three channels accessible through pay-tv. Anglophones have 11 radio stations with a market share of 36%, three daily newspapers with a 30% share of readership and 18 weeklies. Furthermore nearly 50% of Quebecers go to English movies and more than 30% of video-cassettes rented are in English. No anglophone province of this bilingual Canada respects its French minority to this degree.

Economic Affairs

In business, 31% of all enterprises were owned by anglophones in 1987. 26.3% of managers were of English mother tongue and the communications between management and subordinate are in the language of the manager [Paul BELAND, Indicateurs de la situation linguistique au Quebec, Conseil de la langue française, 1992, p.51]. 45% of anglophones in Quebec work primarily in the English language [at least 50% of their time or more]. 195 head office of companies, and 55 research centres, function essentially in English

In 1989, 41.3% of Montrealers used computer programmes in English and 21.1% worked with French and English programmes; The computer user manuals are in English for 41.5% of French speaking users in Montreal; in the rest of the province, the proportion is 25%. Circulars distributed throughout the province are bilingual. Henceforth [bill 86], English will also be used on signs and in the names of companies. No anglophone province of this bilingual Canada respects its French minority to this degree.

The life of francophones in the anglophone provinces

In practice, the English provinces are far less generous toward the french and acadian minorities than the Francophones of Quebec are toward their compatriots of British origin. In their parliaments and courts, the use of French is very rare and in some of the provinces it is nearly forbidden. On the contrary, the other provinces take a parsimonious and stingy attitude. Yet, in signing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, they undertook to guarantee to the French communities the control of their schools.

Ever since, a war of attrition has been waged. The governments of the anglophone provinces delay, equivocate, hesitate, procrastinate and play cat and mouse games. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Victor Goldbloom "found that no progress had been achieved in the last year to grant control over its schools to the francophone minorities and this despite the decision of the Supreme Court confirming the rights of francophone parents. He even notes that the province of Manitoba is retreating [La Presse, May 27, 1993].

In British Columbia, in 1993, the Government of Mike Harcourt expressed the intent to authorise in the future the establishment of one French language school board.

In Alberta, in 1992, the government folded the parliamentary session without having voted its legislation to grant control of the schools to francophones. Yet, in 1925, the teaching of French as a mother tongue had been "authorised by a regulation of the Department of Public Instruction and regulated by a specific and detailed programme similar to the one governing the teaching in the English Language". 68 years later, Franco-Albertans must still live on hope.

In 1993, the Romanow government of Saskatchewan adopted bill 39 to put the administration of their schools in the hands of francophones. The regulations have not been published, the government policies have not been elaborated and the financing has not been settled between Regina and Ottawa.

In Manitoba, the Filmon government has proposed to grant the administration of their schools to the Franco-Manitobans who will signify their intent to belong to the new francophone school district.

In 1993, Franco-Ontarians continue to be subjected to the elastic clause of "where numbers warrants it".

In Prince Edward Island, the government has not moved yet and the 7,000 francophone acadians have only two French schools in the entire island.

In 1986, the Government of Nova School [sic read Nova Scotia] voted a law for the creation of French school councils; however, they are still wondering, in 1993, if they should establish such councils.

In Newfoundland, the Wells government has established a school law that conforms to the requirement of the Charter, but a ministerial committee has been studying for year the applicability of such a measure.

Conclusion

In Quebec, French has rights. French speaking Quebecers are equitable, and honest but they intend to protect their culture, their language and their collective future.

[Guest eureka]

Quebecers of British origins (English, Scottish and Irish) are about 7% of the population of Quebec. What place do they occupy in the public institutions? Is their language banished from the National Assembly? Do the courts ban the use of English? Have French Quebecers refused to finance the schools, the colleges and the English speaking universities? Have they limited the freedom of expression of their anglophone compatriots? Have they been submitted to economic slavery and servitude? These are the questions that I seek to answer here.

Could you possibly point out the "lies and incoherence" instead of posting a PQ propaganda sheet.I will deal only, for the moment, with the one paragraph since I do not have the time that a committee of xenophobes selected and paid to work full time on this PR(?) has.

1. Quebeckers of British and Irish origin are more than 30% of the population of Quebec. Most of them are Francophones.

2. The 7%, as I have written several times, was far more than 7% until most were expelled by language laws.

3. Their language cannot be "banished" from the National Assembly. That is one more aim of "Sovereignty." At this time, Quebec does not have the power to do so. If it did, then the whole language regime would topple like a pack of cards since it would be an act of sedition. It did try to remove simultaneous translation though. I don't know whether that has been restored

4. The same applies to the Courts. There, though, it might be worth noting that law enforcement documents, parking tickets for example, are in French only.

5. Has Quebec refused to finance the English colleges and universities? No, it has continued financing those institutions since it has no choice but to do so. Of course, your propagandists fail to note that the institutions were built without government assistance from money raised solely in the Anglophone community. The government is the beneficiary of that money. The same applies to hospitals.

Quebec has imposed language restrictions on those institutions, though. Restrictions that have often endangered the lives of Anglophones.

As a side note, the PQ government some 30 years ago, stopped funding of Jewish schools until they converted from English language instruction to predominantly French instruction.

6. Have they limited the Freedom of expression of their anglophone compatriots?

Surely there has been a lot of tongue biting in Quebec. Could anyone really be so obtuse as to consider this as seriousl. The Freedom of expresion of Anglophones has been limited to the point that it is considered a comtaninant to the air of Quebec. I have given enough examples of that and could give a hundred more.

7. Have they been subjected to economic servitude and slavery? The answer is obviously no. It is no because there would be a hundred thousand dead oppressors if it were tried.

There has been confiscation of Anglophone assets and forced conversion of English businesses to French. There have been hundreds of thousands of Anglophones deprived of employment and the jobs made conditional on French fluency - more bluntly put, English jobs have been taken away and given to French even in businesses that are owned by English speaking people.

If you support the purveyors of that Goebellian propaganda, then you should get an education or be thoroughly embarrassed about the misplacing of your humanity.

I should add that, if there is any fact(?) in that government release that you would like me to respond to, then I will do so. There is scarcely a word of truth in it. Even where there is actual fact such as in the number of head offices, it avoids the true condition of more than 40% of Head Offices having left Quebec following the language laws.

[Guest eureka]

BTW, there are not 22% of the members of the Legislature who are Anglophone. That is an outrageous lie.

It might be instructive to note that at Confederation, 20% of the ridings were to be Anglophone in representation in perpetuity.

That agreement has not been lived up to, while in the Parliament of Canada, similar guarantees to Francophones have been scrupulously observed in spite of the fact that the Francophone population is disproportionately represented.

[Bakunin]

Lie #1

The fundamental right of every community is to send their children to whatever school they wish: to have their children educated in whatever language they choose.The world has agreed on that.

Evryone can send their children to whatever school they choose but that school must exist. In quebec their are far more infrastructure for the english comunity than anywhere else in canada.... As for the language they choose, its is limited evrywhere in europe and california where they face the same problem as us. As for the rest of the usa and canada, well why limit a choice when they already don't have the choice because their are not enough infrastructure... 2 schools for 7000 students isnt there a problem ?

Lie #2

Other provinces have not used "aggressive" legislation to enforce the use of English. The only laws I can think of, offhand, were the Manitoba and Ontario Schools Acts. Neither prevented Francophones from acquiring a French education and both were corrected. There is no other anti-French legislation.

What about agressive law againt north amerindian ? as for the act you said they where one of many tools to keep the french from being use anywhere else than quebec.

Lie #3

There was no attempt to assimilate French Canadians when the West was colonized: none at all. There was only a minute French presence in the West, and like all small minorities everywhere in the world, the onus was on them to provide for their continuation.

wrong again....

http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/ollo/even/Franco2005/lg_e.asp

-----------------

im just halfway to your first message... there is no way im gonna finish the work for what its worth... looks like your born as a racist anti-french and you can't get out of it...

[Guest eureka]

Lie #1

Of course there is "more infrastructure" for the English community of Quebec. Why would there not be? The English of Quebec formed a large proportion of the Quebec populatio. Nowhere in Canada did the French have significant proportions.

elesewhere in Canada, provision for French schooling is made as far as possible - disproportionately to tax returns.

In California and Europe, they do not face "the same problems as us" (Whoever us may be). And in Canada and Europe, schooling in other languages is not prohibited. I believe that Libya may have a similar prohibition but nowhere else in the world is the right of Freedom of Choice in education restricted..

Infrastructure has nothing to do with it. And, the infrastructure in Quebec was provided by the English community for itself. That was long before the Governments of Quebec thought it necessary to provide infrastructure for either English or French.

As I said, the international community has decreed that Freedom of Choice in education is a universal right.

Lie #2

Aggressive laws against "North Amerindians" is not in the least relevant to the discussion of Quebec's language laws. Whatever happened there - and it was not what you seem to imply - in no way kept French from being used :anywhere else than Quebec.

For "Lie #3, please provide me with what you think was a lie. I will explain it to you. Don't give so much credence to Belanger who was merely spouting the revised version of history according to the Quebec schoolbooks.

For instance, at the time of Riel. there were 5000 French speaking Metis and 4000 English speaking Metis in Western Canada. The Metis were not a French speaking community as Belanger and the ilk would have you believe.

At the time of the Manitoba Schools Act, the French were only the fourth in size and were quite few in number. The Government of Manitoba decided it could not fund a separate system for French without the others so it funded none. It did not prohibit French schooling. I happen to think that was wrong given the nature of Canada and so does modern Canada and the wrong was corrected long ago.

Will that do for now. If you have some specific points, please let me know. I am not going to spend my time taking Belanger apart. I have done that in the past to smarter men than Belanger. It is amusing to note that Belanger, like Quebec history texts, ralks of the West without recognising the greatest explorer of them all, Thompson who explored more of the West than the others put together. Quebec does not like to be reminded of that uncomfortable truth.

Then confine your accusations of racism to racist commentary not to factual exposition of the situation.

Lie #3

[Guest eureka]

I should, of course, have said Gareau and not Belanger. Further, the implication is that 500,000 to 1,000,000 French Canadians were driven from the land by the "English." That is not true. The agricultural depression of 1873; overpopulation of small and poor farming areas and other factors were responsible.

In the same period, 2 million English Canadians left Canada for the US. There were probably almost as many Anglophones who left Quebec for Southern opportunities as there were Francophones. It would account for the precipitous decline in the population of English speakers in Quebec in those years - proportionate to the French.

M. Gareau is not very good at disguising reality. He makes a few dozen villages and a few hundred settlers appear to be a flood of French speakers colonizing the West. The fact is that they were a fraction of the English and others. Nowhere in the West was there at any time a significant French presence.

That may be unfortunate. Had there been what Gareau seems to think, we would not today have Quebec pretending to be the French state that it is not. Had the French actually spread across Canada in numbers, there would have been a genuine duality of English and French as there was in Quebec before many of the English were driven out.

Something that Gareau may be unaware of in his dream past is that the French Church in Quebec was not at all concerned about the language of the West: or its cultural affinity. Somewhere, I have a piece taken from one of the Quebec Bishops of the 19th, century. In it, he exhorts French Canadians to actually colonize the West and not to worry about language.

He stresses the only important goal is to make of the West a Catholic dominion: to overpower other faiths in numbers of Catholics.

He was, apparently, not very successful in persuading the faithful to go.

[Cartman]

I still think that Quebec should be more afraid of globalization than Canadian society. Separation does not equal saving Quebec culture.

[August1991]

I still think that Quebec should be more afraid of globalization than Canadian society.  Separation does not equal saving Quebec culture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cartman, we (existential question ahead) are all a minority of 1 (one person) facing an enormous outside world of billions. To deal or manage or arrange (left wing word usage) with this seemingly hopeless feat or task, there are typically two views:

1) I need good friends to help me or 2) David Ricardo.

Cartman, I suspect that you have never heard of David Ricardo.

[Cartman]

One positive effect of globalization appears to be greater communication and integration of people. Of course, this takes a lot of time. I suspect that some day there will be few differences between people and "culture" will be something studied by historians. I am not convinced that this is a bad thing as "preserving culture" seems to be a good way to exclude.

The only Ricardo I know is a British economist. I have never read his work only a few second hand sources on him some time ago. I believe Marx drew upon his work in Das Kapital.

[Guest eureka]

I agree with you, Cartman. A French Quebec will be a quaint historical study in not too many tears without a strong Canada to protect it. I also agree with your longer term prediction for all cultures. The tendency to fragmentation of all past societies will be reversed under the pressures of modernism.

I am afraid, August, that I miss your point about Ricardo.

[Bakunin]

Many people underestimate how much important a culture is.

Just look at the united states, without the movies and the music, there is no american way of live. No american way of live, no massive immigration, no massive exportation of culture, no international visibility, no money and a poor america.

The united states didn't underestimate their culture and thats in part how they became such a powerfull country and builded up a massive economy.

Do you guys know that ? in the french community, quebec musical culture is very very strong, at least as much as France wich is about 7 times more populate...

Our movie industry is also becoming strong, we are one of the few country where people actually go see their local movies as strongly as they go see americans bloc busters, i don't know if you guys heard about "Les invasions barbares", the year it was releashed, it has been the most rewarded movie in France "les césares" ( the french oscars), it has also won 1 oscars for the best foreign language movie and was nominated for his scenario. Since that movie, we are pumping lots of great movies.

What you prolly see in the futur is one global culture or a culture like the american one that would conquer the world. I don't think it will happend in our lifetime, i think its the opposite, we will start to consume more european and asian culture and less american culture. Why ? because we will get tired of it thats all, for sample you guys know what is a manga ? those japanese comic book, they are becoming more and more popular evry day.

I don't think that focusing on having strong and personalized culture is cutting us from the rest of the world, no its not, its opening the world on our culture. Its selling our way of living to the rest of the world. It doesn't mean we can't open ourselve to the rest of the world, it mean that we are bringing something personalized and unique to this world.