Is Quebec Becoming The New Evil Empire?

[suds]

Up until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960's, the Catholic Church in Quebec controlled almost every facet of people's lives including schools and hospitals. It called into question the place of religion in society and Quebec began to secularize. On one hand, many believe that a secular Quebec requires the acknowledgement of religious plurality. That all faiths should be treated equally, and that consideration should be made for reasonable requests regarding religious practices. Others say that a secular state should never consider any person's religious convictions, and that religion be invisible in the public domain. That religion causes social divisions as well as devaluation of human rights, in particular the principle of gender equality. This idea of secularism also known as 'laicite' has been around in France since the middle ages. The important word with requests regarding religious faith is 'reasonable'.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/secularism-in-quebec

Edited November 25, 2025 by suds

[John Stone]

On 11/24/2025 at 1:32 PM, CdnFox said:

I don't know if you can call that fascism, but there is no doubt that there are fiercely nationalistic to the point of repressing freedoms

RE: fiercely nationalistic to the point of repressing freedoms

That is fascism, dude.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, John Stone said:

RE: fiercely nationalistic to the point of repressing freedoms

That is fascism, dude.

No that's not fascist. Stalin was fiercely nationalistic to the point of repressing freedoms, and yet communism isn't the same as facisim tho they share common ancestry.  For that matter biden repressed freedoms in the name of 'america' as well and he was pretty fierce about it 

You can't take one thing and claim 'that's facism'.  Fascism is an entire package, it's not one element. You can't claim someone is a nazi just because they don't like jewish people. You can't claim  chairman mao is a market capitalist just because he allowed some private ownership of business. 

A lot of people today seem to think that fascism is simply a synonym for authoritarianism because it's popular and it sounds cool and that's what the cool kids are saying. And calling people Nazis was starting to get old  

But no that's not what fascism is.

\ 

[John Stone]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No that's not fascist. Stalin was fiercely nationalistic to the point of repressing freedoms, and yet communism isn't the same as facisim tho they share common ancestry.  For that matter biden repressed freedoms in the name of 'america' as well and he was pretty fierce about it 

You can't take one thing and claim 'that's facism'.  Fascism is an entire package, it's not one element. You can't claim someone is a nazi just because they don't like jewish people. You can't claim  chairman mao is a market capitalist just because he allowed some private ownership of business. 

A lot of people today seem to think that fascism is simply a synonym for authoritarianism because it's popular and it sounds cool and that's what the cool kids are saying. And calling people Nazis was starting to get old  

But no that's not what fascism is.

\ 

RE: I don't know if you can call that fascism, but there is no doubt that there are fiercely nationalistic to the point of repressing freedoms. / CdnFox

Fascism uses NATIONALISM - it promotes it. 

It (fascism) uses nationalism as an argument to justify political actions to  repress / control / ...........or promote a specific diaspora within a society. 

Sorry dude, ur giving the Separatists a 'bye' - their stalking horse for power is 'protecting a culture'. 

The leadup to the 1995 Quebec referendum had quoted Premier Jacques Parizeau comment to a group of European diplomats that, if Quebeckers vote yes in the referendum, the provincial Europeans (non-franco) would be like lobsters in a pot. 

 

Edited November 26, 2025 by John Stone

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, John Stone said:

RE: I don't know if you can call that fascism, but there is no doubt that there are fiercely nationalistic to the point of repressing freedoms. / CdnFox

Fascism uses NATIONALISM - it promotes it. 

 

So does capitalism, So does communism, so does a monarchy so does an oligarchy.....   Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. 

That is NOT the defining nature of fascism. Nor is it remotely unique to it. 

5 minutes ago, John Stone said:

It (fascism) uses nationalism as an argument to justify political actions to  repress / control / ...........or promote a specific diaspora within a society. 

So do all the others i mentioned. 

6 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Sorry dude, ur giving the Separatists a 'bye' - their stalking horse for power is 'protecting a culture'. 

The leadup to the 1995 Quebec referendum had quoted Premier Jacques Parizeau comment to a group of European diplomats that, if Quebeckers vote yes in the referendum, the provincial Europeans (non-franco) would be like lobsters in a pot. 

Ok, you appear to have lost the script here.  Are you claiming that quebec in 1995 was fascist?

Look man. Virtually every single nation has leaders who are 'nationalistic' and promote nationalism.  That's kind of baked in.  And the MAJORITY will demand that people's rights be impacted "for the good of the country" at some point. 

Consider biden and his attempts at vax mandates - he literally demanded people set aside their rights 'for the good of the country'.   Now trump says that his actions forcing illegals to be thrown out are necessary 'for the good of the country'. 

That's not facism.  Its excessive authortarianism in both cases.  

We can go on but i think if you take a step back and think about it you'll realize i'm probably right here   Just because something is nationalistic (or patriotic as some would say) doesn't mean it's facism, and just because something is authoritarian doesn't make it fascism either

[John Stone]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So does capitalism, So does communism, so does a monarchy so does an oligarchy.....   Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. 

That is NOT the defining nature of fascism. Nor is it remotely unique to it. 

So do all the others i mentioned. 

Ok, you appear to have lost the script here.  Are you claiming that quebec in 1995 was fascist?

Look man. Virtually every single nation has leaders who are 'nationalistic' and promote nationalism.  That's kind of baked in.  And the MAJORITY will demand that people's rights be impacted "for the good of the country" at some point. 

Consider biden and his attempts at vax mandates - he literally demanded people set aside their rights 'for the good of the country'.   Now trump says that his actions forcing illegals to be thrown out are necessary 'for the good of the country'. 

That's not facism.  Its excessive authortarianism in both cases.  

We can go on but i think if you take a step back and think about it you'll realize i'm probably right here   Just because something is nationalistic (or patriotic as some would say) doesn't mean it's facism, and just because something is authoritarian doesn't make it fascism either

 

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So does capitalism, So does communism, so does a monarchy so does an oligarchy.....   Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. 

That is NOT the defining nature of fascism. Nor is it remotely unique to it. 

So do all the others i mentioned. 

Ok, you appear to have lost the script here.  Are you claiming that quebec in 1995 was fascist?

Look man. Virtually every single nation has leaders who are 'nationalistic' and promote nationalism.  That's kind of baked in.  And the MAJORITY will demand that people's rights be impacted "for the good of the country" at some point. 

Consider biden and his attempts at vax mandates - he literally demanded people set aside their rights 'for the good of the country'.   Now trump says that his actions forcing illegals to be thrown out are necessary 'for the good of the country'. 

That's not facism.  Its excessive authortarianism in both cases.  

We can go on but i think if you take a step back and think about it you'll realize i'm probably right here   Just because something is nationalistic (or patriotic as some would say) doesn't mean it's facism, and just because something is authoritarian doesn't make it fascism either

I think the jury is in on Trump. 

Actually Biden was considered hard political left - in any event - any initiative he attempted is a quantum degree less to what the Separatists are attempting............ and are empowered by the notwithstanding clause?

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

 

I think the jury is in on Trump. 

 

I think the jury of people who don't like trump is in. Perhaps not surprisingly the people who do like trump have come to a different verdict  

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

Actually Biden was considered hard political left - in any event - any initiative he attempted is a quantum degree less to what the Separatists are attempting............ and are empowered by the notwithstanding clause?

Biden wasn't actually considered hard left at all, in fact he was basically elected to be the neutral quiet guy who didn't do anything. Some people called it the potted plant campaign, "I will sit in the corner and do nothing of any particularly contentious nature". Which, after 4 years of trump, is largely what the public was looking for.

The problem is a lot of the people in his party were very strongly radically left, and as we now know Biden was already beginning to struggle with mental Clarity issues and was being driven by background forces as well as some of the more vocal people in the party. So I think he did what he was told and the people who told him things were in some part more radically left. 

And you can't compare Biden as president with Quebec separatists. Those are two radically different political environments that have almost nothing to do with each other and defy a direct comparison

[John Stone]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I think the jury of people who don't like trump is in. Perhaps not surprisingly the people who do like trump have come to a different verdict  

Biden wasn't actually considered hard left at all, in fact he was basically elected to be the neutral quiet guy who didn't do anything. Some people called it the potted plant campaign, "I will sit in the corner and do nothing of any particularly contentious nature". Which, after 4 years of trump, is largely what the public was looking for.

The problem is a lot of the people in his party were very strongly radically left, and as we now know Biden was already beginning to struggle with mental Clarity issues and was being driven by background forces as well as some of the more vocal people in the party. So I think he did what he was told and the people who told him things were in some part more radically left. 

And you can't compare Biden as president with Quebec separatists. Those are two radically different political environments that have almost nothing to do with each other and defy a direct comparison

 

RE: Consider biden and his attempts at vax mandates - he literally demanded people set aside their rights 'for the good of the country'. / 

.......... so why did you mention Biden's name - totally lost me there. 

No dude, ur trying to put lipstick on a pig - Separatists are def fascist. 

[Zeitgeist]

On 11/4/2025 at 2:35 PM, John Stone said:

Gentlemen, what is really hilarious is Canada's so-called Constitution - specifically Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any Constitution ruling upheld by our esteemed Superior Court by a bunch of hack politicians using the notwithstanding clause is not worth the paper it is written on. 

I believe Trudeau Snr. is responsible for that - Pierre sowed the wind with it and Canada is going to reap the whirlwind. 

Don’t forget that the Charter has no protection of property in it, unlike the US Constitution.  Thank the NDP for that.  On this basis alone Canada might be better off as part of the U.S., unless the Charter is revised.  

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, John Stone said:

 

RE: Consider biden and his attempts at vax mandates - he literally demanded people set aside their rights 'for the good of the country'. / 

.......... so why did you mention Biden's name - totally lost me there. 

 

That quote was not in the quote you quoted.  Did you get confused or something? I'm not sure what you're asking. 

In the reply you DIDN"T quote where i mentioned that i mentioned it because it was a relevant example. 

Please remember, i can't read your mind. If you don't clearly articulate your point and leave me trying to guess what you're talking about or what you're asking then you're not going to get a relevant answer. 

[John Stone]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That quote was not in the quote you quoted.  Did you get confused or something? I'm not sure what you're asking. 

In the reply you DIDN"T quote where i mentioned that i mentioned it because it was a relevant example. 

Please remember, i can't read your mind. If you don't clearly articulate your point and leave me trying to guess what you're talking about or what you're asking then you're not going to get a relevant answer. 

RE: / I think the jury of people who don't like trump is in. Perhaps not surprisingly the people who do like trump have come to a different verdict  

Biden wasn't actually considered hard left at all, in fact he was basically elected to be the neutral quiet guy who didn't do anything. Some people called it the potted plant campaign, "I will sit in the corner and do nothing of any particularly contentious nature". Which, after 4 years of trump, is largely what the public was looking for.

The problem is a lot of the people in his party were very strongly radically left, and as we now know Biden was already beginning to struggle with mental Clarity issues and was being driven by background forces as well as some of the more vocal people in the party. So I think he did what he was told and the people who told him things were in some part more radically left. / CdnFox?

And you can't compare Biden as president with Quebec separatists. Those are two radically different political environments that have almost nothing to do with each other and defy a direct comparison

Concur - one of us is confused. 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, John Stone said:

RE: / I think the jury of people who don't like trump is in. Perhaps not surprisingly the people who do like trump have come to a different verdict  

Biden wasn't actually considered hard left at all, in fact he was basically elected to be the neutral quiet guy who didn't do anything. Some people called it the potted plant campaign, "I will sit in the corner and do nothing of any particularly contentious nature". Which, after 4 years of trump, is largely what the public was looking for.

The problem is a lot of the people in his party were very strongly radically left, and as we now know Biden was already beginning to struggle with mental Clarity issues and was being driven by background forces as well as some of the more vocal people in the party. So I think he did what he was told and the people who told him things were in some part more radically left. / CdnFox?

And you can't compare Biden as president with Quebec separatists. Those are two radically different political environments that have almost nothing to do with each other and defy a direct comparison

Concur - one of us is confused. 

IF one of us is confused, the other is terrible at communicating  LOL

In any case looks like we're in agreement there then.