We may have to force separation of Quebec if we are to establish a functional and fair country....

[Scott Mayers]

I'm fed up with our country's approach to identity issues and cannot see that we will ever be able to escape them if we don't encourage Quebec to simply separate. That one province has 'justified' the means of our government to constitutionalize our system as a theocratacy pretending to be a 'democracy'. The force of us to require recognizing Quebec as 'distinct' has been utilized to CONSERVE the specific actions generally referred to as 'multiculturalism' but hides that it is not actually universally applicable. 

The actual reasoning behind all of the quickly legislated accolades for 'minorities' since the introduction of the 1982 Constitution is due to recognizing that the traditonal cults that predominated the Canada's wealth cannot presist without being held liable to the faults of their racist and sexist ancestor's they owe their inheritance to. Without such protections, the cults of the strongest wealth here in Canada recognized that their liability would require them to LOSE their power. So, to save it and their unearned inheritance and associated heritage, they opted to steal the thunder from those they harmed by acting as though they are the repentent good guys while hideously transferring the debt to the society as a whole. To appeal to the racist and sexist issues, they choose to SPEAK FOR whole races and sexes as though all of us conform to THEM based upon external appearances! That is, for those like the Liberals who are predominantly representative of the traditonal stereotypical "Canadian" ancestry, in order to EVADE liability AND to also GAIN PERMANENT power into the future for them and ONLY their loved ones, they require pretending that the CAUSES of the abuses to others are based upon ONLY derogatory stereotypes about those who are genetically of European White and predominantly patriarchal (male) beliefs. 

The French Catholics and the Anglicans who CAUSED the racist and sexist history of problems cleverly noticed that since these PARTICULAR groups just happen to be 'patriarchal' (by nature of the established hisory of these religions) AND 'white', enables them to conveniently BROADEN their liable class to these larger more inclusive classes so that it HIDES their particular liability.

Thus, the con is that our constituitonal founders (1982 on) first wanted to remove was any potential possiblity of an actual LOGICAL 'right' of free speech of the American form. The American's First Amendment clause includes the sepation of church from state. But since the desire is to hide the faults are founded on religious 'cultural' beliefs, having a fair logical recognition of such separation of powers would prevent this con from being played out. 

Since the arguments for setting up special unfair provisions in the Constitution cannot favor the French Catholics or English Anglicans (and their 'friends' of similar shared beliefs), they needed a means to include those they also STILL actually disrespect but pretend to treat as 'equal' among the Segregationists, the "Indigenous". The proof of their bias is to declaring them as DISTINCT 'Nations'; They literally continue to think of the Aboriginals as DISTINCT genetic species in kind to their promotion of everyone else who equally disagrees with things like inter-specie relationships. That is, the function of enhancing 'distinction' is to BE racist and sexist but just in a different way.

The present paradigm is not to treat each other equally fair but to deceptively flip WHICH stereotypical class gets to be on top and which to the bottom. In this case, we are trading Patriarchalism for Matriarchalism and hideously staging the 'enemies' to be the scapegoated people who have neither wealth nor privilege. Thus, the very Caucasian stereotype of someone like Justin Trudeau, who inherited both the bilingualism of French and English AND the corresponding Catholicism, transfers his own degree of fault to those who are white and male who happen to NOT have the power to do anything about it for not being those who are actually privileged as he. 

Here's the math:

If one is inherently empowered due to their ancestor's Canadian heritage, they are most likely both White European AND Male. 

Therefore, it is technically true that White European males are more likely to be representative of the wealth here today. 

 

Analogous example: Hitler was an evil German leader in history. But if he had offspring who inherited some fortune based upon his rule, they can JUSTIFY the fault as based upon the LARGER inclusive classes, ....being European, White, and Male, all accidental physiological and environmental features that are technically true but not relevant to the flaws at isue. Then, to pretend to prove that you are not biased, young Hitler the Second, would argue in FAVOR for culturally segregated groups as a VIRTUE but that instead of annihilating their nemesis groups of the same fascist fervor, agree to strengthen them but as DISTINCT beings, distinct peoples,....distinct species. So he might be apologetic towards the Jews, for instance, but favor those in particular who embraced the same fervor by creating their own segregated community, such as Israel (Zionism == a National Socialism of Judeaism). Now, although an improvement in broadening ones' acceptance, young Hitler the Second might declare those NOT affliated with these cultish extremes as requiring to ACCEPT the debts of these groups' greivances. That is, if you are European, White, and Male, regardless of whether you particularly inherited any wealth OR 'heritage' or are even German for this example, the generalized burden gets passed onto you in spite of the lack of logical connection. AND furthermore, by making anyone who dares to speak against this 'apparent' DIVERSITY of formally decreed "OFFICIAL CULTURES", they are targeted as though they were directly part of the original Nazi regime. 

 

Since our formal Constitution LOCKS IN this very hideously racist, sexist, and pro-religious anti-intellectualism, we are DOOMED to be subject to the degrading of society into ISOLATED cults with a fermenting of hate as they continue to ENHANCE the arrogant rights of national socialist mentality! It is just as unlikely too that these strenthening collection of fascists will volunteer to INTEGRATE (It is odd and misleading for those associating German Nazi's use of the term "assimilation" when it is actually being expected that we 'assimilate' to one or other DISCRETE CULTS as defined by the 'official' arbitors of Multiculturalism. The actual flaw of German 'assimilation' was to segregate: those who are deemed 'non-German' are required to submit to being segregated and must later decide to either leave the German club, or be eliminated for violating tresspass. 

 

 

We thus need to separate Quebec given they will not change their bias. It is religious for those people and they will NOT give up their 'heritage' and you cannot backtrack to reconstitute something more universally fair without taking the factors that only hardened their resolve to be distinct. 

[Benz]

Geee! You are so mixed up and confused. I am a sovereignist so I could just say thanks for the support but, I'm not that only-self-interest oriented.

Multiculturalism: Definitely, you have no clue of what you are talking about. The Canadian Multiculturalism is a political concept created by Trudeau and inspired of the British's one. It was his solution to screw Quebec nationalism and To marginalize it among all other immigrants' original cultures. Quebec nation is very opposed to that multiculturalism. Quebec rather stands for the 1960 commission Laurendeau-Dunton's conclusions vouching for a bi-culturalisms classifying canadians into 2 cultural groups, the french and the english canadians. The multiculturalism not only destroys those two identities by inviting the immigrants to not assimilate those canadian identities and rather keep their original one, it also wants to promote it. Instead of looking for a common ideal where we can all identify ourself, the multiculturalism rather promote divisions where every body can isolated themselves into ghettos. If you think getting rid of Quebec will solve that, you put your finger into your eye up to your elbow. On that matter, Quebec is your biggest ally. Actually, as far as I am concern, your only one.

In your second paragraph, you are confusing the recent woke-like methods and reasoning, which has nothing to do with Quebec. Quebec seams to be the least woke province so far.

It is a wonder where you were in the last 10 years. If there is one province that is protecting the principle of separation of churches from the state, it is Quebec. The secularism is a strong value and we are wrongly accused of racism by the simplistic weak minds that rather put religious claims above everything.

Regarding the natives, you got it all wrong also. I don't even know where to start. First of all, it is the White English people that decided the degree of perfection of the native individuals by a pure bureaucratic system. The federal determines your "indian" status percentage with a follow up registry of your lineage. This is so not native historical mindset at all. The natives were sovereign nations doing trades, treaties and relations with the European settlers before the british and the americans confined them into small reserves. The federal deal with them as individuals because it is easier to manipulate them and loot the resources. You are also mixing up about who claim what you call their "genetic species". Some natives are literaly assimilated to this Indian Act and they play the game. They are called fake indians by other natives that claim the minimum of respect of their sovereignty. They are playing your game, just as well as some immigrants are playing the multiculturalism game to erode our society into multiple ghettos. You are confusing the actors and who is doing what.

Quebec and the natives ARE NOT against the principle of treating everybody fair. The rules should be the same to everyone and neither Quebec, nor the natives are opposed to that. However, Quebec and the natives are nations and when the rules are set by the dominant without the concerns of those nations, it appears that sometimes the rules are NOT fair to everyone. So many rules are unfair, the only way to make sure they get solved, is to allow a say to these people as distinct nations. You are the very living proof for why it needs to be like that. Once everybody has a say on the rules, the rules can be applied equally on every one. What you denonce is not the will of Quebec and the natives, but rather the disciples of this multiculturalism concept mostly coming from your side of the fence, but also includes some individuals among Quebec and the natives.

You are identifying real issues and you are not wrong on how it works out but, you have it very wrong regarding who does what. You are having a blurred view of the big picture. I invite you to extend your observations, you will be surprise by what you will find.

[Scott Mayers]

11 hours ago, Benz said:

Geee! You are so mixed up and confused. I am a sovereignist so I could just say thanks for the support but, I'm not that only-self-interest oriented.

Multiculturalism: Definitely, you have no clue of what you are talking about. The Canadian Multiculturalism is a political concept created by Trudeau and inspired of the British's one. It was his solution to screw Quebec nationalism and To marginalize it among all other immigrants' original cultures. Quebec nation is very opposed to that multiculturalism. Quebec rather stands for the 1960 commission Laurendeau-Dunton's conclusions vouching for a bi-culturalisms classifying canadians into 2 cultural groups, the french and the english canadians. The multiculturalism not only destroys those two identities by inviting the immigrants to not assimilate those canadian identities and rather keep their original one, it also wants to promote it. Instead of looking for a common ideal where we can all identify ourself, the multiculturalism rather promote divisions where every body can isolated themselves into ghettos. If you think getting rid of Quebec will solve that, you put your finger into your eye up to your elbow. On that matter, Quebec is your biggest ally. Actually, as far as I am concern, your only one.

In your second paragraph, you are confusing the recent woke-like methods and reasoning, which has nothing to do with Quebec. Quebec seams to be the least woke province so far.

It is a wonder where you were in the last 10 years. If there is one province that is protecting the principle of separation of churches from the state, it is Quebec. The secularism is a strong value and we are wrongly accused of racism by the simplistic weak minds that rather put religious claims above everything.

Regarding the natives, you got it all wrong also. I don't even know where to start. First of all, it is the White English people that decided the degree of perfection of the native individuals by a pure bureaucratic system. The federal determines your "indian" status percentage with a follow up registry of your lineage. This is so not native historical mindset at all. The natives were sovereign nations doing trades, treaties and relations with the European settlers before the british and the americans confined them into small reserves. The federal deal with them as individuals because it is easier to manipulate them and loot the resources. You are also mixing up about who claim what you call their "genetic species". Some natives are literaly assimilated to this Indian Act and they play the game. They are called fake indians by other natives that claim the minimum of respect of their sovereignty. They are playing your game, just as well as some immigrants are playing the multiculturalism game to erode our society into multiple ghettos. You are confusing the actors and who is doing what.

Quebec and the natives ARE NOT against the principle of treating everybody fair. The rules should be the same to everyone and neither Quebec, nor the natives are opposed to that. However, Quebec and the natives are nations and when the rules are set by the dominant without the concerns of those nations, it appears that sometimes the rules are NOT fair to everyone. So many rules are unfair, the only way to make sure they get solved, is to allow a say to these people as distinct nations. You are the very living proof for why it needs to be like that. Once everybody has a say on the rules, the rules can be applied equally on every one. What you denonce is not the will of Quebec and the natives, but rather the disciples of this multiculturalism concept mostly coming from your side of the fence, but also includes some individuals among Quebec and the natives.

You are identifying real issues and you are not wrong on how it works out but, you have it very wrong regarding who does what. You are having a blurred view of the big picture. I invite you to extend your observations, you will be surprise by what you will find.

You are logically missing the fact that 'Bi-culturalism" IS "Multiculturalism" by the definition of having MORE THAN ONE 'culture'. The problem for the Trudeau's invention of our constitution relates to the PANDERING of those in Quebec throwing a temper tantrum on why their own CHILDREN tend to INTEGRATE without force to adopt English and whatever FREE choices their children should DARE to choose voluntarily. 

Because the Trudeau-created Constitution 1982 could NOT have a logical respect for ONLY the two discrete cults, they too LOGICALLY recognized that they cannot be unhypocritical UNLESS they grant the APPEARANCE of supporting ALL cultures. Thus, the choice to use the term, "Multiculturalism" and their clear intent to NATIONALIZE the natives to think in the same isolated cultural terms.

Our own country's influence is also more powerful indirectly on the world stage as others are attempting to utilize this same type of arrogant 'culture-centred' thinking to JUSTIFY making laws concerning religion. 

I also recognize and agree to many of those in Quebec but am proposing the separation not out of disrespect for them but because the whole rest of society is FORCED to comply with the intolerant 'culture' laws being imposed just to SAVE the generic 'Trudeau' wish to conserve bI-lingual, bi-cultural background. 

What most here agree to is to SEGREGATE into their own cults as though we are genetically born to OWN some 'culture' of our parents. They INTENTIONALLY wrote our Constitution to prevent the American-style First Amendment rights by clevery PRECONDITIONING our rights as requiring to recognize the 'supremacy' of both traditional areas of teh French and English. BOTH are at fault and the only time you see resistance to 'cultural' impositions BY Quebec is where it AFFECTS them independently ....rather than defending ALL people in Canada now and into the future. 

We have an intolerant system based upon a real fraudulent means to PRETEND compassion for all people as individuals. The ONLY 'minority' of minimal concern should default to the independent individual apart from any religion or belief about what 'culture' means. There is no such thing as 'culture' apart from what CONTEMPORARY PEOPLE CREATE. But it is being diminished in favor of some MYTHICAL interpretation of past 'cultures' as being relevant. 

The contradictions you think appear in the Liberal's approach for supporting MORE THAN just the two is due to the clear bias it represents for merely HAVING a system defined by using ONLY TWO specific langauages. As a comparison, Apple Computer architecture was a proprietary language and 'culture' that evolved along-side the OPEN architecture of all other PCs. This is similar to what happens here. All that is necessary for a constitution is ONE language and we run into trouble when we require anything MORE than ONE. The best kind of example of the problem is what happens when some international effort to be inclusive of all countries to shared goals, like the space programs of NASA, confuses the Imperical measures with the Metric ones. Note that these act as distinct languages. When we mix them up as both 'official' we prove WHY we end up having planes crash for mistaking how much fuel to put into the tanks.

Imagine if we permitted people to select ONLY to use Imperical measures OR, exclusively, Metric, dependent upon one's own personal 'cultural' preference AND the potential fact that the system permitting this 'bicultural' choice of measure is an independent right of the individual's freedom. Obviously it would be a problem if the Metric 'cultured' person at an airport got to express his own bias next to another preferring Imperial 'culture' WITHOUT requiring an excessive need for a translater. The option is to REQUIRE all people learn BOTH languages. This is NOT able to be viably realistic let alone reasonably efficient. It also biases DEPENDENCE upon those inbetween doing the translating. 

Obviously, using the last example, if we then ENCOURAGED other 'cults' to impose distinctly separate rules for measuring, things get even worse. But the logical problem begins with expecting to conserve TWO languages. 

Note that this would be akin to having two or ,more distinct hardware chips in a computer that redundently make architectures that can operate on distinct machine languages. Because the hardware languages may not truly be logically essential, if you conserve a SPECIAL privilege to have ANY arbitrary second language, you OPEN the right of other designers of different languages to rightfully demand their architecture to be added also. There DOES happen to be some of this being done in architecture too. For instance, for emphasizing gaming,a chip can be designed to move to a faster chip when using graphics and thus we have those graphics cards that utilize this effectively. But they are NOT 'arbitrary' languages that those like French versus English are. In contrast, we ADD novel languages, like the jargon a profession might use on top of the prior 'official' languages. 

Our system thus cannot be repaired without deciding on ONE language. But since 'culture' is also the biword to permit RELIGION in politics, this is unlikely to happen WITHOUT completely segregating those systems. Our system is defined to SEGREGATE while trying to INTEGRATE simultaneously. This helps ONLY those with the luxury to be a part of both segregated cults, as those with bicultural backgrounds of the English and French have, including those catholic religions they share ("catholic" here means to include Anglican given it only trades particular roles of who gets to be the final arbitor as a 'pope' technically). 

[ExFlyer]

My head hurts! 

I read the original post and the response to a comment by the original poster.

I suspect you are non white, non catholic and non male and maybe non Canadian. I cannot make hide nor hair of your blathering even giving your the benefit of thinking your subject has something to do with Quebec separation. What is your point? What are your objections and to what?

Good luck straightening your thoughts out.

 

[Nationalist]

I like Quebec. It gives Canada a unique flavour...if you will. I like the native people too...for the same reason. 

However I am not a fan of multi-culturalism. It's fine for people to hang on to their cultural roots, but first and foremost, they must be CANADIAN!

Thus I think there should be only a Canadian flag in every classroom and the national anthem should be played every morning in schools. Our schools should focus on the beauty of Canada. The accomplishments of Canadians. The value of our abundant wide open spaces and natural resources. 

[ExFlyer]

41 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I like Quebec. It gives Canada a unique flavour...if you will. I like the native people too...for the same reason. 

However I am not a fan of multi-culturalism. It's fine for people to hang on to their cultural roots, but first and foremost, they must be CANADIAN!

Thus I think there should be only a Canadian flag in every classroom and the national anthem should be played every morning in schools. Our schools should focus on the beauty of Canada. The accomplishments of Canadians. The value of our abundant wide open spaces and natural resources. 

I agree with you.

I think multiculturalism is great. But as you say Canadian first and foremost. In the US, everyone is an American first, then whatever your background is.

Quebec does have a very integral place of Canada but I do believe it is over represented.

[Nationalist]

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I agree with you.

I think multiculturalism is great. But as you say Canadian first and foremost. In the US, everyone is an American first, then whatever your background is.

Quebec does have a very integral place of Canada but I do believe it is over represented.

Which is exactly why we need a national leader with a backbone. If Quebec wants to separate or segregate itself from the rest of Canada, fine. Here's the rules:

1. You will require your own currency.

2. You will require your own military.

3. You will NOT have autonomy over the St. Lawrence Seaway.

4. You will NOT receive any funding from Canada. Loans...perhaps. Handouts...certainly not.

5. You will deal with your own Native Relations.

6. Your population will require passports to leave Quebec.

7. We will grant the current population of Quebec a 1 year allowance to relocate to Canada. After that, your population will require a Visa to travel and will traverse proper channels for migration.

8. The Ottawa River is Canadian.

9. Trade between Quebec and Canada will be encouraged with a comfortable tariff system in place.

10. Canada will bypass Quebec with pipelines to our Maritime provinces.

Have a nice day and enjoy...

 

Oh and...please rename The Montreal Canadians? "Habs" seems appropriate...

Edited April 26, 2022 by Nationalist

[Benz]

11 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

You are logically missing the fact that 'Bi-culturalism" IS "Multiculturalism" by the definition of having MORE THAN ONE 'culture'.

The problem for the Trudeau's invention of our constitution relates to the PANDERING of those in Quebec throwing a temper tantrum on why their own CHILDREN tend to INTEGRATE without force to adopt English and whatever FREE choices their children should DARE to choose voluntarily. 

Because the Trudeau-created Constitution 1982 could NOT have a logical respect for ONLY the two discrete cults, they too LOGICALLY recognized that they cannot be unhypocritical UNLESS they grant the APPEARANCE of supporting ALL cultures. Thus, the choice to use the term, "Multiculturalism" and their clear intent to NATIONALIZE the natives to think in the same isolated cultural terms.

Our own country's influence is also more powerful indirectly on the world stage as others are attempting to utilize this same type of arrogant 'culture-centred' thinking to JUSTIFY making laws concerning religion. 

I also recognize and agree to many of those in Quebec but am proposing the separation not out of disrespect for them but because the whole rest of society is FORCED to comply with the intolerant 'culture' laws being imposed just to SAVE the generic 'Trudeau' wish to conserve bI-lingual, bi-cultural background. 

What most here agree to is to SEGREGATE into their own cults as though we are genetically born to OWN some 'culture' of our parents. They INTENTIONALLY wrote our Constitution to prevent the American-style First Amendment rights by clevery PRECONDITIONING our rights as requiring to recognize the 'supremacy' of both traditional areas of teh French and English. BOTH are at fault and the only time you see resistance to 'cultural' impositions BY Quebec is where it AFFECTS them independently ....rather than defending ALL people in Canada now and into the future. 

We have an intolerant system based upon a real fraudulent means to PRETEND compassion for all people as individuals. The ONLY 'minority' of minimal concern should default to the independent individual apart from any religion or belief about what 'culture' means. There is no such thing as 'culture' apart from what CONTEMPORARY PEOPLE CREATE. But it is being diminished in favor of some MYTHICAL interpretation of past 'cultures' as being relevant. 

The contradictions you think appear in the Liberal's approach for supporting MORE THAN just the two is due to the clear bias it represents for merely HAVING a system defined by using ONLY TWO specific langauages. As a comparison, Apple Computer architecture was a proprietary language and 'culture' that evolved along-side the OPEN architecture of all other PCs. This is similar to what happens here. All that is necessary for a constitution is ONE language and we run into trouble when we require anything MORE than ONE. The best kind of example of the problem is what happens when some international effort to be inclusive of all countries to shared goals, like the space programs of NASA, confuses the Imperical measures with the Metric ones. Note that these act as distinct languages. When we mix them up as both 'official' we prove WHY we end up having planes crash for mistaking how much fuel to put into the tanks.

Imagine if we permitted people to select ONLY to use Imperical measures OR, exclusively, Metric, dependent upon one's own personal 'cultural' preference AND the potential fact that the system permitting this 'bicultural' choice of measure is an independent right of the individual's freedom. Obviously it would be a problem if the Metric 'cultured' person at an airport got to express his own bias next to another preferring Imperial 'culture' WITHOUT requiring an excessive need for a translater. The option is to REQUIRE all people learn BOTH languages. This is NOT able to be viably realistic let alone reasonably efficient. It also biases DEPENDENCE upon those inbetween doing the translating. 

Obviously, using the last example, if we then ENCOURAGED other 'cults' to impose distinctly separate rules for measuring, things get even worse. But the logical problem begins with expecting to conserve TWO languages. 

Note that this would be akin to having two or ,more distinct hardware chips in a computer that redundently make architectures that can operate on distinct machine languages. Because the hardware languages may not truly be logically essential, if you conserve a SPECIAL privilege to have ANY arbitrary second language, you OPEN the right of other designers of different languages to rightfully demand their architecture to be added also. There DOES happen to be some of this being done in architecture too. For instance, for emphasizing gaming,a chip can be designed to move to a faster chip when using graphics and thus we have those graphics cards that utilize this effectively. But they are NOT 'arbitrary' languages that those like French versus English are. In contrast, we ADD novel languages, like the jargon a profession might use on top of the prior 'official' languages. 

Our system thus cannot be repaired without deciding on ONE language. But since 'culture' is also the biword to permit RELIGION in politics, this is unlikely to happen WITHOUT completely segregating those systems. Our system is defined to SEGREGATE while trying to INTEGRATE simultaneously. This helps ONLY those with the luxury to be a part of both segregated cults, as those with bicultural backgrounds of the English and French have, including those catholic religions they share ("catholic" here means to include Anglican given it only trades particular roles of who gets to be the final arbitor as a 'pope' technically). 

 

Whether you like it or not, the english, the french and the natives are different cultures and there is nothing wrong with a country having different cultures. We are not the only one in this world. You really need to read about the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, I think it will interest you. What they called Bi-culturalism has nothing to do with the Trudeau's Multiculturalism. Alot of people are confused by the name and think that Multiculturalism only means having people coming from many cultures. The capital M on that word is important because it is a name given to a doctrine and not a common name. Bi-culturalism and Multiculturalism are names of a very different point of view of how the politics and the interactions should works between the Canadian cultures. One is not a smaller number of the other. It is way more elaborated than that. It is important you understand both concepts.

You are talking about culture imposition. Perhaps you need an intensive reminder of your own history. The British and then the English Canada have banned french language from public schools in many places in order to do cultural genocides and for the natives as well. IF, and I mean IF because maybe I translate your thoughts wrong, you think this should continue until the genocide is completed, I recommend that we shot a bullet between your eyes. If you do not want to learn anything about the natives and the french language, it is your right and I respect that. Get off your mind that cultural genocide of the natives and the french is something you will be free to do if Quebec gets separated. Like I said, maybe I get you wrong and you were only talking about the federal's bilingualism. Well, perhaps you should travel a little and realize that there are several countries in this world that are in the same situation, or have way more than 2 languages and no one suffer from it. If you do, the problem might lies between your 2 ears. Few states in USA use sporadically spannish languages for their hispanic population and no one ever died or suffered from that. Look, it is only 2 languages. Take a breath and move on.

The word culture is vague and can be used in some many different contexts and understandings. So when we have discussions about culture, we spend more time trying to figure out what we mean by culture than go thru the subject it self.

The reason why both languages are required for the constitution is because, the language is more than just a syntax. It is a driver for the culture and its understanding. When a phrase is written in a foreign language to you, although you know the basic of that language, it is possible that you understand wrong what the person wrote really meant. By having the law or rule in both languages, it forces the legislation to write it in a very clear way that can be understood well by both cultures. It's the conclusion that all countries in the world having the same situation came up with. It's no big deal, there is no issue with that. You are trying to make up a problem that doesn't exist.

Maybe your example of metric vs imperial system is not exposing the whole complexity of that doctrine but, I understand what you mean and I agree with you. The Multiculturalism doctrine does indeed creates alot of problems like that. One good example of it is the possibility of a religious community in the area to use public money to have religious public schools. That doesn't fit at all with the concept of secularism. If religious people want to use a private religious school, this is legitimate and allowed but, public religious school, it really doesn't make any sense. Still, the Multiculturalism not only allow it, it promotes it. In the biculturalism concept, no such thing is allowed. I totally disagree that the rules could be different from one person to another. The rules must be the same to every one. What I am saying is, the cultural dominant group should not set alone the rules that are applied to every one, including those of the other founding cultures. Which are the natives and the french.

The most funny part of your intervention is that you blame the use of culture to introduce religion in politic. It is in fact very English Canadian to do that. Quebec has the opposite value and rather not accept that the religion as any say in politic and the rules of the society. Yet, you blame Quebec for that and want to separate Quebec. Don't you realize the irony of what you are saying? 

 

[Benz]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I agree with you.

I think multiculturalism is great. But as you say Canadian first and foremost. In the US, everyone is an American first, then whatever your background is.

Quebec does have a very integral place of Canada but I do believe it is over represented.

Do not confuse Trudeau's Multiculturalism doctrine with having people from multiple different cultural origins. It is not the same at all.

It is important to understand the difference between the individual's culture and the nation's culture. They are not the same. What you like to eat, it is individual, not national. Even though in the popular language we name it national because it is widely used by the people, it is still an individual thing. In Quebec, we say that Poutine is a national food typical from Quebec. But it doesn't mean you need to love eating poutine to be a Québécois. Some people don't like it is just fine. I go to Cabane à Sucre only once a year, while I am eating lebanese food almost once a week. It doesn't mean that I am 52 times more lebanese than Québécois.

National culture values would be like the quality between men and women, children's rights, everything that is in the constitution, forbidden force mariage, stuff like that. Basically, everything that is related to an interaction between minimum two individuals or an individual and the state.  Individual culture values is what belongs only to you. What you like to eat, read, see, sing, listen, etc...

The problem with the Multiculturalism's Trudeau version is that one individual, or a community, can decide to subtract themselves from our rules and setup their own rules. The stronger that community gets, the more they can do such abstractions and get tolerated. We are not talking about choosing a type of food. We are talking about avoid wearing an helmet because of religious beliefs or forcing your daughter to marry a man of your choice because your culture always did that. Although the last one is illegal, it is tolerated and happens very often.

This my objection to Multiculturalism. I do not mind at all that immigrants preserve their individual cultural origins but, regarding the national cultural values, they need to comply. They need to become Canadians.

That said, although Quebec's culture and English Canadian's culture are 80% similar, I expect that the English Canadians respect that 20% difference and do not try to force us being like you for the our remaining differences. That was what the biculturalism is all about.

[ExFlyer]

28 minutes ago, Benz said:

Do not confuse Trudeau's Multiculturalism doctrine with having people from multiple different cultural origins. It is not the same at all.

It is important to understand the difference between the individual's culture and the nation's culture. .......

......

That said, although Quebec's culture and English Canadian's culture are 80% similar, I expect that the English Canadians respect that 20% difference and do not try to force us being like you for the our remaining differences. That was what the biculturalism is all about.

I confuse nothing.

My point on multiculturalism  (as opposed to just Quebec and the rest of Canada) is that it is great. By calling Canada bi-cultural you are only recognizing Quebec and the rest of Canada at the dismissal of all other cultures.

In addition, Canada, as a while (except Quebec) has developed a unique culture and those that come should adapt. By all means, keeping their own culture should be done but, to try and kowtow to all cutures should be abandoned. Respect them and celebrate but, become Canadian.

I exclude Quebec because Quebec has gone to great lengths to impose its culture on anyone living there, even by making laws to enforce someones vision of what Quebec should be.

Edited April 26, 2022 by ExFlyer

[Scott Mayers]

17 hours ago, Benz said:

 

Whether you like it or not, the english, the french and the natives are different cultures and there is nothing wrong with a country having different cultures. We are not the only one in this world. You really need to read about the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, I think it will interest you. What they called Bi-culturalism has nothing to do with the Trudeau's Multiculturalism. Alot of people are confused by the name and think that Multiculturalism only means having people coming from many cultures. The capital M on that word is important because it is a name given to a doctrine and not a common name. Bi-culturalism and Multiculturalism are names of a very different point of view of how the politics and the interactions should works between the Canadian cultures. One is not a smaller number of the other. It is way more elaborated than that. It is important you understand both concepts.

You are talking about culture imposition. Perhaps you need an intensive reminder of your own history. The British and then the English Canada have banned french language from public schools in many places in order to do cultural genocides and for the natives as well. IF, and I mean IF because maybe I translate your thoughts wrong, you think this should continue until the genocide is completed, I recommend that we shot a bullet between your eyes. If you do not want to learn anything about the natives and the french language, it is your right and I respect that. Get off your mind that cultural genocide of the natives and the french is something you will be free to do if Quebec gets separated. Like I said, maybe I get you wrong and you were only talking about the federal's bilingualism. Well, perhaps you should travel a little and realize that there are several countries in this world that are in the same situation, or have way more than 2 languages and no one suffer from it. If you do, the problem might lies between your 2 ears. Few states in USA use sporadically spannish languages for their hispanic population and no one ever died or suffered from that. Look, it is only 2 languages. Take a breath and move on.

The word culture is vague and can be used in some many different contexts and understandings. So when we have discussions about culture, we spend more time trying to figure out what we mean by culture than go thru the subject it self.

The reason why both languages are required for the constitution is because, the language is more than just a syntax. It is a driver for the culture and its understanding. When a phrase is written in a foreign language to you, although you know the basic of that language, it is possible that you understand wrong what the person wrote really meant. By having the law or rule in both languages, it forces the legislation to write it in a very clear way that can be understood well by both cultures. It's the conclusion that all countries in the world having the same situation came up with. It's no big deal, there is no issue with that. You are trying to make up a problem that doesn't exist.

Maybe your example of metric vs imperial system is not exposing the whole complexity of that doctrine but, I understand what you mean and I agree with you. The Multiculturalism doctrine does indeed creates alot of problems like that. One good example of it is the possibility of a religious community in the area to use public money to have religious public schools. That doesn't fit at all with the concept of secularism. If religious people want to use a private religious school, this is legitimate and allowed but, public religious school, it really doesn't make any sense. Still, the Multiculturalism not only allow it, it promotes it. In the biculturalism concept, no such thing is allowed. I totally disagree that the rules could be different from one person to another. The rules must be the same to every one. What I am saying is, the cultural dominant group should not set alone the rules that are applied to every one, including those of the other founding cultures. Which are the natives and the french.

The most funny part of your intervention is that you blame the use of culture to introduce religion in politic. It is in fact very English Canadian to do that. Quebec has the opposite value and rather not accept that the religion as any say in politic and the rules of the society. Yet, you blame Quebec for that and want to separate Quebec. Don't you realize the irony of what you are saying? 

 

I already clarified that I AM NOT AGAINST QUEBEC. I appreciate their anti-religious stance where it exists too. I was arguing that given people will fight tooth and nail to KEEP their 'cults' where they exist, Quebec will always be USED to defend Multiculturalism™ and GIVEN 'culture' should NOT be something GOVERNMENTS representing all people, should have a right to conserve and promote in a 'free speech' society, we need to get rid of the powers of government to culture. "Religion" is actually the intent given when a politician is religious, they could suddenly opt to behave in some arbitrary way based upon their power to BE 'religious'. Note that religion IS the MAJOR component of any 'culture' that is particularly being protected here. How can any further abuse OF 'cultural genocide' exist if our governments were not permitted to make laws that FAVOR the SPECIFIC cults that the Catholic powers protected under the constitution into perpetuity are EMPOWERED to arbitrate over? 

Note that the Muliculturalists are also promoting DEAD cultures based solely on one's genetic coincidence to those ancestors who had some specific 'culture'. That is, this system PROMOTES the religiousity and Nationalism of specific people. And this is done ONLY to conserve the right of the Catholic/Anglican families of ancestrally established power to CONTROL what happens politically. The promotion of Native tribes to EMBRACE old stereotypes (the 'culture') occurs by favoring those Natives who follow suit and in turn PENALIZES those INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL's right to create their own 'culture'. We have laws that favor granting a genetic persons' ancestry as though the GENES pass on the living behaviors of ancestors. YET, no one seems to notice that you can't promote ONLY the 'positive' stereotypes let alone IMPOSE someone to ACCEPT such racist ideals. 

 

I also know the politics well. Our Constition was intentionally written to BIAS favor to SPECIAL 'superior' catholic or the general religiously devout people, as they think of themselves and their cults. I favor the right of the individual to CHOOSE their 'culture' without being forcefed to embrace what others think that they SHOULD embrace. This is like allowing government to dictate what the citizens should be allowed to wear regardless of whether that is relevant OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT! 

 

AS to language, the means to LOCK IN a perpetuous means to manipulate others is to advance segregate language rights to those most privileged. Our system favors unfairly those who have BOTH English and French when the ONLY reason ANY country has ONE language is due to its assurance that the wording is uniform in meaning. [Note that the Muslims justified their own use of requiring everyone to read only the Arabic regardless of which Native language you hold for the same reason: uniformity of the 'official' language assures that one doesn't intentionally alter the meanings when translating. It doesn't mean that one cannot speak their own language but that their 'constitution' for the religion is an EXAMPLE of how the collection of people from all different languages use a single OFFICIAL language. 

If you are not aware, linguists have discovered long ago that language shapes culture and perception along with trouble in translating things properly from language to language formally while maintaining the identical meaning. But this should still be irrelevant given the point about how it unfairly favors those who have the unnecessary redundancy of learning distinct languages. That belief is a private 'cultural' belief itself and IMPOSES it upon us all to accept them BY DEFAULT regardless. Two or more "OFFICIAL" languages is PROOF of unfair bias to one or both cults, not the people of this country regardless of beliefs ('official' is only for LEGAL clarity, not something that prevents people from speaking their own language.)

[Scott Mayers]

On 4/26/2022 at 6:00 AM, ExFlyer said:

My head hurts! 

I read the original post and the response to a comment by the original poster.

I suspect you are non white, non catholic and non male and maybe non Canadian. I cannot make hide nor hair of your blathering even giving your the benefit of thinking your subject has something to do with Quebec separation. What is your point? What are your objections and to what?

Good luck straightening your thoughts out.

 

You're way off. I'm white and male. I'm non-religious (athiest) and have a background in logic. If you're confused about the way you cannot understand, own it; Telling me that I'm unclear is gaslighting bullshit. Your head is hurting? Its' called "THINKING". 

[ExFlyer]

18 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You're way off. I'm white and male. I'm non-religious (athiest) and have a background in logic. If you're confused about the way you cannot understand, own it; Telling me that I'm unclear is gaslighting bullshit. Your head is hurting? Its' called "THINKING". 

My head hurts by the length of your diatribes. They are tiresome to read and just as tiresome to understand.

Gaslighting? Hardly.

I think and I think your babbling is not worth trying to understand. When two or more people are confused by your rambling, maybe you need to rethink your logic

[Scott Mayers]

15 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

My head hurts by the length of your diatribes. They are tiresome to read and just as tiresome to understand.

Gaslighting? Hardly.

I think and I think your babbling is not worth trying to understand. When two or more people are confused by your rambling, maybe you need to rethink your logic

I'm not a fan of Twitter and I go into more depths just to BE more clear. You can't express complex concerns in just a Tweet. Thus I come to forums that permit the depth but still have many like you who don't appreciate it (??!!) Politics is not just some topic to treat as though we are discussing our favorite music; And, voicing ones' unqualified opinions without defense is more insulting to me. I think this goes without saying. How do you alter opinions without investing the depth needed when or where needed? 

[ExFlyer]

34 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm not a fan of Twitter and I go into more depths just to BE more clear. You can't express complex concerns in just a Tweet. Thus I come to forums that permit the depth but still have many like you who don't appreciate it (??!!) Politics is not just some topic to treat as though we are discussing our favorite music; And, voicing ones' unqualified opinions without defense is more insulting to me. I think this goes without saying. How do you alter opinions without investing the depth needed when or where needed? 

Fair enough but realize this is a forum and it is actually possible to say what needs to be said in less than 10 paragraphs. I suspect most do not go much past the first 2 paragraphs.

I did read all yours that is why I was confused and my head hurt. All over the place.

As for your comment about tweets, you have been here for a while so you must understand that a great many people here get all their info/politics/facts?/news  from tweets.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by ExFlyer

[Benz]

23 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I confuse nothing.

My point on multiculturalism  (as opposed to just Quebec and the rest of Canada) is that it is great. By calling Canada bi-cultural you are only recognizing Quebec and the rest of Canada at the dismissal of all other cultures.

In addition, Canada, as a while (except Quebec) has developed a unique culture and those that come should adapt. By all means, keeping their own culture should be done but, to try and kowtow to all cutures should be abandoned. Respect them and celebrate but, become Canadian.

I exclude Quebec because Quebec has gone to great lengths to impose its culture on anyone living there, even by making laws to enforce someones vision of what Quebec should be.

Then I guess you still do not understand what the Multiculturalism is about. Being Canadian does not mean much, it becomes just a civic nation where the only thing we have in common is the location within the borders.

That is why I took the time to explain to you the difference between an individual's culture and a national's culture. I do not think you understood my point. I see you agree with me that immigrants still need to become Canadian and I see nothing wrong with individuals keeping their original cultures as long as it concerns only their private life. But the Multiculturalism goes further than that and it touches our fundamental values and this where I do not agree with it.

Most of the time, the conflicts that can occur from another culture and our culture, regards the religion. One example among others, the helmet you need to wear when you are driving a motorcycle. In the English Canada, it seems to be accepted by a small majority, that one individual can subtract itself from the rule and not wear the helmet if its religion says no. I am pretty sure Scott Mayers is on my side on that one and it is a big no. Whatever what your original culture or religion says, you need to comply to our rules because security prevails over beliefs or traditions. At least, it is a fundamental Quebec value. Maybe you do not agree and feel ok about it. Then it is a debate between you, Scott and other English Canadians.

In my vision of what Canada should be, my nation (Québec) decides how it works in Québec and your nation (English Canada) decides how it works outside Québec, because it is a civil law matter. If it was a criminal matter, then it would be the same rule for every Canadians but, both nations need to agree on the rules. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. The English Canadians give themselves the exclusive right to decides how it works and even if the we have our own civil laws, the constitution is above it and it has been settled only by the English Canada. That is why in Quebec, after the decision of the Supreme Court, we need to accept religious weapons in our public schools and managed the security with public money. Which is still very outrageous for us and totally unacceptable.

Multiculturalism allows and/or tolerates immigrants to use the rules of where they come from and apply that here in Canada. We also have a good example of that with the Sharia law that has been authorized in Ontario. Sometimes I shake my head and clamp my arm, wondering how the heck did you end up with a situation like that. This is so unacceptable in Québec, it is over my dead body. Although a small majority of English Canadians are ok with that, I know alot of Canadians are not ok with it and Scott Mayers is not alone.

 

 

[ExFlyer]

5 minutes ago, Benz said:

Then I guess you still... and on

and on

and on

"my vision of what Canada should be, my nation (Québec) decides how it works in Québec and your nation (English Canada) decides how it works outside Québec"

and on

and on

 

 

OK, whatever you said.

Edited April 27, 2022 by ExFlyer

[Benz]

9 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I already clarified that I AM NOT AGAINST QUEBEC. I appreciate their anti-religious stance where it exists too. I was arguing that given people will fight tooth and nail to KEEP their 'cults' where they exist, Quebec will always be USED to defend Multiculturalism™ and GIVEN 'culture' should NOT be something GOVERNMENTS representing all people, should have a right to conserve and promote in a 'free speech' society, we need to get rid of the powers of government to culture. "Religion" is actually the intent given when a politician is religious, they could suddenly opt to behave in some arbitrary way based upon their power to BE 'religious'. Note that religion IS the MAJOR component of any 'culture' that is particularly being protected here. How can any further abuse OF 'cultural genocide' exist if our governments were not permitted to make laws that FAVOR the SPECIFIC cults that the Catholic powers protected under the constitution into perpetuity are EMPOWERED to arbitrate over? 

Note that the Muliculturalists are also promoting DEAD cultures based solely on one's genetic coincidence to those ancestors who had some specific 'culture'. That is, this system PROMOTES the religiousity and Nationalism of specific people. And this is done ONLY to conserve the right of the Catholic/Anglican families of ancestrally established power to CONTROL what happens politically. The promotion of Native tribes to EMBRACE old stereotypes (the 'culture') occurs by favoring those Natives who follow suit and in turn PENALIZES those INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL's right to create their own 'culture'. We have laws that favor granting a genetic persons' ancestry as though the GENES pass on the living behaviors of ancestors. YET, no one seems to notice that you can't promote ONLY the 'positive' stereotypes let alone IMPOSE someone to ACCEPT such racist ideals. 

 

I also know the politics well. Our Constition was intentionally written to BIAS favor to SPECIAL 'superior' catholic or the general religiously devout people, as they think of themselves and their cults. I favor the right of the individual to CHOOSE their 'culture' without being forcefed to embrace what others think that they SHOULD embrace. This is like allowing government to dictate what the citizens should be allowed to wear regardless of whether that is relevant OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT! 

 

AS to language, the means to LOCK IN a perpetuous means to manipulate others is to advance segregate language rights to those most privileged. Our system favors unfairly those who have BOTH English and French when the ONLY reason ANY country has ONE language is due to its assurance that the wording is uniform in meaning. [Note that the Muslims justified their own use of requiring everyone to read only the Arabic regardless of which Native language you hold for the same reason: uniformity of the 'official' language assures that one doesn't intentionally alter the meanings when translating. It doesn't mean that one cannot speak their own language but that their 'constitution' for the religion is an EXAMPLE of how the collection of people from all different languages use a single OFFICIAL language. 

If you are not aware, linguists have discovered long ago that language shapes culture and perception along with trouble in translating things properly from language to language formally while maintaining the identical meaning. But this should still be irrelevant given the point about how it unfairly favors those who have the unnecessary redundancy of learning distinct languages. That belief is a private 'cultural' belief itself and IMPOSES it upon us all to accept them BY DEFAULT regardless. 

Look, I told you and you are wrong regarding the purpose of Multiculturalism. It is used to screw Quebec that is strongly against it. I never heard or read anyone saying that they need it to please Quebec or keep us in. Guys like you are just starting to realize what we have been telling you for the last 41 years. I am glad that you open your eyes on the negative effects of it but, clearly, pushing Quebec out of Canada will not help you fight back Multiculturalism. On the contrary, you would lose your biggest ally.

You are doing alot of free statements that are not backed up at all. Several countries are using more than one official laguages and ALL of them see that as an advantage, not an inconvenience. If it bothers you personally, then there is only one thing remaining to do. We will remove English from official language and you will need to learn French. Then you will be satisfied. Even if you get rid of Quebec, there are still french speaking people in Canada and they won't give up.

The advantage you are talking about for bilingual people, are for federal jobs and even then, it happens often that the federal fails to comply. It is totally normal that the bilingual people have an advantage. What is not normal is, English Canadians do not have proper or decent level of teaching french in schools. English Quebec schools teach French very well and the kids are perfect bilingual. I have some English friends living in NB and they are mad at their government that is not doing the necessary measures to help their kids learn french. It gives an advantage to the french for bilingual jobs, but ut is not the fault of the french. It is because of stubborn english politicians that hate french and think about their own hatred. There are so many other countries having more than one, or more than 2 languages in the world. It is very common to see people speaking 2, or 3, or more languages. Plus, scientific studies are saying it is good for the brain to be able to speak more than one language. We are no longer in the colonialist times where the dominant needs to culturally genocide the conquered ones. You are not helping yourself with such a narrowed vision of your own personal culture.

There are only positive points of becoming bilingual or trilingual or more. I never heard of someone saying, "ah sh!t, since I learn this new language, my life is a nightmare". On the contrary.

Quote

Two or more "OFFICIAL" languages is PROOF of unfair bias to one or both cults, not the people of this country regardless of beliefs ('official' is only for LEGAL clarity, not something that prevents people from speaking their own language.)

This is total non sense. You are alone in your corner. The rest of the world is saying the exact opposite.

[ztalbot2000]

I agree with the majority of your topic and specifically the headline. I really wish I, not being a Quebec resident, could vote for the Block. The Block say they are not interested in being a Federalist Party. They are only out for the interests of Quebecers but they hold most of the power over the country. The fact is, if they did have candidates outside Quebec they would become a majority forcing them to break away from Canada and off of the teat of the Canadian taxpayer. This they cannot afford to do as they cry for being a have not province and they do everything possible to maintain that status. I'm reminded of this every time I pay for hospital parking.