edhew@xenitec.uucp (Ed Hew) (07/27/89)
In article <3190@uwovax.uwo.ca> GERARD@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes: > >Canada is not doing too bad. This is probably because French is located >in the main in Quebec. Troubles only arise when you try to mix >languages. When we stop trying that, many troubles will go away. >Switzerland shows that one country can very well have several languages. >If you don't try to force mixing them. Comment: I really don't remember all this nonsense when I was growing up in the 50's and 60's, back when no one was advocating a completely bi-lingual (French and English) Canada, and a totally French-only Quebec. Did I miss something as a kid? --ed {edhew@xenitec.uucp} {edhew@egvideo.uucp until new maps hit}
rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (07/28/89)
In article <1989Jul27.092203.16418@xenitec.uucp> edhew@xenitec.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: >In article <3190@uwovax.uwo.ca> GERARD@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes: >>Troubles only arise when you try to mix languages. >>Switzerland shows that one country can very well have several languages. >>If you don't try to force mixing them. ^^^^^ You added an extra word to the last sentence fragment. >I really don't remember all this nonsense when I was growing up in >the 50's and 60's, back when no one was advocating a completely >bi-lingual (French and English) Canada, and a totally French-only >Quebec. >Did I miss something as a kid? The extra word ... > --ed {edhew@xenitec.uucp} Quebec is a vibrant province after the quiet revolution of the 60's. It has that spark of vitality and exuberance that produces lots of new ideas and great advancements - something that is waning in many other parts of the country. There may be more benefits than just political payoffs for locating a space agency in the province. In short, Quebec has that extra something that Gorbachev is trying to instill into his Russians. But lots of ideas, also produce lots of bad ideas. The problem is to temper and rechannel some of the bad ones and reinforce the good. The real trick with a teenager is to guide and direct without force, and preferably without seeming to tell them what to do, or appearing to stand in judgment. However, firmness and adherence to a basic set of rules of conduct that are recognized on both parts to be outside and above the petty squabbles and trials of strength, is mandatory to maintain respect and avoid hostility that produces long term scars. There are those that are promoting bad ideas, and they have been doing so for most of the formative years of the current Quebec generation. One is not going to reverse a lot of their effects overnight but the solution is to quietly oppose and overturn every bad one, and to reinforce and visibly applaud every good one. Quebec should be firmly and unemotionally blocked or disciplined when it oversteps the basic set of rules, and there is no reason to pussyfoot around or make excuses for them when they do so. But the rest of the country is presumably mature and self-confident enough to exercise patience and go about this in an adult fashion. Also, remember that not all francophones live in Quebec. While language is a nice visible weapon it is a mistake to assume that it can be used to line up the sides, or to fall for a Quebecer's claim he/she is fighting for French Canadian rights. Some of the most telling comments in this discussion have come from francophones that deserve every bit of support that can be mustered - in most cases they have already matured to the point where they can live with the rest of the country and preserve their culture at the same time, just like the Ukranians, Italians and all the rest. Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 4719 | !watmath!rwwetmore
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/28/89)
In article <28025@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: > ... > Quebec is a vibrant province after the quiet revolution of the 60's. It >has that spark of vitality and exuberance that produces lots of new ideas >and great advancements - something that is waning in many other parts of >the country. There may be more benefits than just political payoffs for >locating a space agency in the province. In short, Quebec has that extra >something that Gorbachev is trying to instill into his Russians. > But lots of ideas, also produce lots of bad ideas. The problem is to >temper and rechannel some of the bad ones and reinforce the good. The real >trick with a teenager is to guide and direct without force, and preferably >without seeming to tell them what to do, or appearing to stand in judgment. >However, firmness and adherence to a basic set of rules of conduct that are >recognized on both parts to be outside and above the petty squabbles and >trials of strength, is mandatory to maintain respect and avoid hostility >that produces long term scars. > > There are those that are promoting bad ideas, and they have been doing so >for most of the formative years of the current Quebec generation. One is >not going to reverse a lot of their effects overnight but the solution is >to quietly oppose and overturn every bad one, and to reinforce and visibly >applaud every good one. Quebec should be firmly and unemotionally blocked >or disciplined when it oversteps the basic set of rules, and there is no >reason to pussyfoot around or make excuses for them when they do so. But >the rest of the country is presumably mature and self-confident enough to >exercise patience and go about this in an adult fashion. Here's where you are wrong (IMHO). The Meech Lake Accord affects the whole country. It undermines women's rights, minority rights and Native Indian rights. It requires all 10 provinces to agree to future constitutional changes. Excuse me while I laugh. This is not realistic. This concern has been brought up by the N.W. Territories regarding whether they become a province or not. I also don't agree to the way the clause is currently (before Meech Lake), something like requiring 7 or 8 of the provinces must agree, and these provinces must comprise 70% (I'm guessing at the %) of the populations. What it essentially says is that Ontario and Quebec must agree. I OBJECT STRONGLY TO THIS!!!!!!! And Quebec is now being a cry-baby claiming they want more. Phooey! They don't appreciate what they have already. Or more, they realize that Mulroney is stupid enough to give them what they want. The only reason other parties supported Meech Lake (IMHO), is because they know they could never win an election without Quebec's support. Give each province equal voting power and this nonsense would quickly straighten out. I am so sick of this. I have a very good friend who voted for the P.C.'s in the last election. We debated the Free Trade Agreement time and time again. After the election, he had the nerve to tell me that he was disappointed in Mulroney. Mulroney didn't do what he said he was going to do. Is anyone surprised? Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!! > > Also, remember that not all francophones live in Quebec. While language >is a nice visible weapon it is a mistake to assume that it can be used to >line up the sides, or to fall for a Quebecer's claim he/she is fighting for >French Canadian rights. Some of the most telling comments in this >discussion have come from francophones that deserve every bit of support >that can be mustered - in most cases they have already matured to the point >where they can live with the rest of the country and preserve their culture >at the same time, just like the Ukranians, Italians and all the rest. > >Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth >University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca >Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} >(519) 885-1211 ext 4719 | !watmath!rwwetmore Elizabeth
durham@handel.mpr.ca (Paul Durham) (07/28/89)
In article <28025@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: > > Also, remember that not all francophones live in Quebec. While language >is a nice visible weapon it is a mistake to assume that it can be used to >line up the sides, or to fall for a Quebecer's claim he/she is fighting for >French Canadian rights. Some of the most telling comments in this >discussion have come from francophones that deserve every bit of support >that can be mustered - in most cases they have already matured to the point >where they can live with the rest of the country and preserve their culture >at the same time, just like the Ukranians, Italians and all the rest. > Yes, the Ukrainians have done a good job of getting along with the rest of the USSR ( there are even a few in the politburo ) and preserving their culture. But the Italians are the majority in their country - what are you talking about ?..... OH, you mean _Canadians_ of Ukrainian and Italian origin ! Well, Canada has two official languages, French and English, a fact which is known to every immigrant. That is, it is the responsibility of immigrants to fit in to one of the official language groups, although of course they are perfectly free to speak, eat, worship etc. as they please. The right of French-Canadians to their own language and institutions has been officially recognized since 1763. To compare the French-Canadian nation ( and I use this word without any connotation of sovereignty ) with immigrant groups shows a lack of understanding which is all too common among English-Canadians. P. Durham
rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (07/28/89)
In article <1728@eric.mpr.ca> durham@handel.UUCP (Paul Durham) writes: >The right of French-Canadians to their own language and institutions has >been officially recognized since 1763. To compare the French-Canadian >nation ( and I use this word without any connotation of sovereignty ) with >immigrant groups shows a lack of understanding which is all too common >among English-Canadians. >P. Durham Would you be happy if I added another minority culture to the list, ie one that also shares the same rights to preeminence as the French. This group also has shown itself quite mature about living with the rest of the country including all the more recent arrivals such as Ukranians, Italians, Chinese, East Indians and many more. In fact they just finished a recent 'cultural festival' in Cambridge though sadly the local newspaper showed its lack of cultural sensitivity by referring to the participants as men in skirts. To make the above claim about the 'French-Canadian nation' and use it as a justification for current persecution by Quebec of its minority cultures shows a lack of more than understanding, no? Perhaps you could clarify for me how the rights of French-Canadians to their own institutions, grants them the right to abolish such rights for others. But perhaps the lack of understanding of those rights to which you allude is to be found amongst many Canadians, of all race, colour, language or other ethnic origin, and not merely English-Canadians, a rather diminishing minority any more in spite of England's supposed domination of this country. -Michel J. Tremblay) writes: >However after the british occupation of our country (+- eastern Canada) >things got bad for the French Canadians: seizure of land and goods, >political prisonners, restricted civil rights, imposition of a foreign >judiciary system, cutoff of relations with France, etc. Now which of M. Durham or M. Tremblay is confused about the resolution of the French and Indian wars in 1763. >For all these reasons, a lots of Que'bequois and French Canadians are not >proud of been Canadians and dont want to be Canadians. Luckily lots is not a majority, no matter how bad a name the vocal few might give their countrymen. But unfortuantely, the bad feelings a few can stir up can still poison the atmosphere for any mature cooperative relationship. More especially so in a peer conscious group such as adolescents which have not the depth of experience to recognize and temper such emotional outbursts. >For us, going back to our country mean Independence of Que'bec, unless >Canada acknowledge the fact that we are not just 'yet an other culture' >in the English-speaking Canadian melting-pot but a Distinct Society with >more constitutional power. Perhaps the raw attempt to gain political power through blackmail voiced by such statements is a measure of the true understanding about what the 'cultural' concerns are all about. Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 4719 | !watmath!rwwetmore
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/28/89)
In article <1728@eric.mpr.ca> durham@handel.UUCP (Paul Durham) writes: >In article <28025@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: >> >> Also, remember that not all francophones live in Quebec. While language >> ... >OH, you mean _Canadians_ of Ukrainian and Italian origin ! Well, Canada has >two official languages, French and English, a fact which is known to every >immigrant. That is, it is the responsibility of immigrants to fit in to >one of the official language groups, although of course they are perfectly >free to speak, eat, worship etc. as they please. > >The right of French-Canadians to their own language and institutions has >been officially recognized since 1763. To compare the French-Canadian >nation ( and I use this word without any connotation of sovereignty ) with >immigrant groups shows a lack of understanding which is all too common >among English-Canadians. > > >P. Durham > Federal Canada has two official languages. Provincial Canada does not and I think that is part of the problem. I grew up in the only French/English bilingual province, New Brunswick, (I'm not sure if Manitoba has become French/English bilingual but I don't think so yet). In Moncton, the French High School used to use English text books. This is terrible and the problem was fixed. But that didn't take the resentment away right away. There is still some tension between both the French and the English, but as more and more of high school graduates are bilingual, the tension is lessening. It was nice living in Montreal for 6 years. Many children spoke three languages. French, English, Greek or French, English, Italian or French, English, Persian, etc., etc. When Levesque went to the people of the province with the referendum to separate from Canada, the people said no. Before the vote, both French and English speaking people were calling in to radio programs commenting on how upset they were with Levesque. At one time, French speaking people in Quebec were concerned about the province becoming uni-lingual English. Many businesses conducted work in English. I think it was very natural for Quebec to try to preserve the French language and I'm glad they did. Quebec is not a bilingual province and neither is Ontario. I have lived in Toronto for 8 years now. I experienced culture shock when I first moved here because most signs (except federal jurisdictions, the airport, etc.) were uni-lingual English. I did not like it. In the past 8 years, bilingual street signs have sprung up, English/Greek, English/Chinese, English/Italian, etc. Toronto is trying to respect the multi-cultural environment. As more and more Asians immigrate to Canada from China and Hong Kong, the number of Chinese speaking people may out-number French speaking people. Quebec, French Quebec wants the constitution to state that it is a distinct society. What about the french in Manitoba, in New Brunswick, in Yarmouth Nova Scotia? Why should French Quebec be a distinct society? Because they were one of the first peoples in Canada? What about the Native Indians? They are not receiving the tolerance that they deserve. Their rights are not enshrined in our constitution. I've mentioned this several times now and most people seem to have ignored it. We should be ashamed at how we have treated the Native Indians. They were abused by the French and the English. Our society seems to abuse first and ask questions second. What about our environment? We can't blame it all on the Americans. Are we willing to reduce our standard of living, to not buy environmentally harmful products, to recycle more, etc., etc. This discussion is a very complex one. Canada is a distinct society. The people in Canada are special. All cultures, minorities and majorities should be respected. But in my opinion, we must WANT to be Canadian. Otherwise, we cannot survive as a nation. Elizabeth
tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") (07/29/89)
ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >And Quebec is now being a cry-baby claiming they want more. ... >They don't appreciate what they have already. ... Are most provinces not exactly like this? >Other parties supported Meech Lake ... because they know they could never win >an election without Quebec's support. So you want to trade Quebec for the Eastern seaboard. Great. >Give each province equal voting power and this nonsense would quickly >straighten out. I am so sick of this. I think Elizabeth's ideas of "power" and "representation" are very strange. Her solution is a bigger problem than she seeks to resolve. It's more of what she hates. I, a person who happens to be living in Ontario this year, would have a tenth the representation of someone living in PEI? I am not a province, or a power block. Realistically her solution will never come about, but I wonder at the things she perceives as problems, and the things she perceives as solutions. There's an inherent tribalist tendency in the line of thought. Tribalist shifts are not solutions for tribalist-induced problems; various divisions, based on languistic or provincial or other boundaries, are precisely the source of what ails the country. If we could magically remove the subjectivity and regionalism and such, we'd be much much better off. But Elizabeth is instead suggesting an inequitable shift to even more of what ails us, on the basis of artificial divisions which serve us poorly as it is. It's like diving further into a sewer in hopes that things get better somewhere down there. Provincial boundaries are historical accidents, not divisions dictated by some wise political god. If PEI and NS and NB and NF want to join into a single much larger province, they could conceivably do so, and it might save them all grief and worry and rivalry. What Elizabeth seems to be implying is that systematic machinations of *groups* are at the root the problem, and that it's a question of disproportionate power among them. But then she suggests a solution based squarely on *groups*, and extraordinarily disproportionate power (I guess she thinks provinces are the best "groupings" of Canada to even out the power among). Elizabeth proposes a fix on the basis that the solution is to eliminate some problems she sees now. Michael Tremblay proposes his solution on the basis of problems he sees 200 years ago. Fixing the problems that we perceive as large isn't a reliable path to significantly fewer problems; any honest solution will have to aim at the real root. Of course it's impossible to solve the problems completely (politicos never seem to admit it, but it's a truism, isn't it.) But there are solutions that are problems in disguise, and solutions that trade one bad problem for another, and neither of these make sense as a viable solution.
clewis@eci386.uucp (Chris Lewis) (07/29/89)
In article <1728@eric.mpr.ca> durham@handel.UUCP (Paul Durham) writes: >OH, you mean _Canadians_ of Ukrainian and Italian origin ! Well, Canada has >two official languages, French and English, a fact which is known to every >immigrant. That is, it is the responsibility of immigrants to fit in to >one of the official language groups, although of course they are perfectly >free to speak, eat, worship etc. as they please. Except in Quebec. With or without Meech. [You carefully omitted more obvious exceptions like "be educated", and "do business" didn't you?] >The right of French-Canadians to their own language and institutions has >been officially recognized since 1763. (Arguably) Applying only in Quebec (w.r.t. institutions). Regardless, nothing in the BNA allowed or required French-Canadians in Quebec to suppress all other cultures. >To compare the French-Canadian >nation ( and I use this word without any connotation of sovereignty ) with >immigrant groups shows a lack of understanding which is all too common >among English-Canadians. Funny, the same attitude is common in many of the immigrant groups too. Why it should matter one fly's ass where your G^nth-grand-parents were born or what tribe/race/minority/linguistic group they belonged to is still beyond me. -- Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc. UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!eci386!clewis Phone: (416)-595-5425
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (07/30/89)
In article <89Jul28.133422edt.10420@neat.cs.toronto.edu> tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") writes: >ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: >>And Quebec is now being a cry-baby claiming they want more. ... >>They don't appreciate what they have already. ... >Are most provinces not exactly like this? Many provinces complain about different things. However, because Ontario and Quebec have the majority of the M.P.'s, and the election cannot be won without them, their complaining is listened to a lot more. My complaint regarding Quebec, in this specific conversation topic, is that they have received a lot. As an example, they have received the contract to build the airplanes, that the West wanted. Re the trains, services will be severely cut or elimated in the east and the west. It has been completely removed from Newfoundland and P.E.I. However, the lines will be upgraded between Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Is this fair? Roads are subsidized, therefore, cars, buses, transporting goods, etc. are being subsidized. What's wrong with subsidizing trains? Trains are less harmful to the environment. I believe that the East and the West have a more legitimate complaint. >>Other parties supported Meech Lake ... because they know they could never win >>an election without Quebec's support. >So you want to trade Quebec for the Eastern seaboard. Great. >>Give each province equal voting power and this nonsense would quickly >>straighten out. I am so sick of this. >I think Elizabeth's ideas of "power" and "representation" are very strange. >Her solution is a bigger problem than she seeks to resolve. It's more of >what she hates. Timothy has emailed me about this a couple of times. It is interesting that people are satisfied with an unsatisfactory, unfair, resentment causing status quo, to such an extent that they can't come up with an alternate solution. I am expressing an opinion. The last time I looked, we were still allowed to do this. People usually complain about someone else, but seldom offer an alternative. I didn't say that equal representation from each province was the only way but it is one way, it is a suggestion. I don't sit around and just belly-ache. Another suggestion, is to have equal representation from the West, Central and East. Others are suggesting a triple E Senate, an elected Senate. I have doubts about how effective the triple E Senate would be. If laws could not be passed without the agreement of Parliament AND the Senate, that would certainly be an improvement, IF the Senate were elected by the people. OK Timothy, now you come up with a suggestion! The status quo is not acceptable, so what do you suggest? What does anybody suggest? Elizabeth
jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/31/89)
In article <1989Jul28.011505.25990@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes: . . > >Here's where you are wrong (IMHO). The Meech Lake Accord affects the >whole country. It undermines women's rights, minority rights and >Native Indian rights. As I understand it the undermining of women's (and, presumably other groups) rights is supposed to be the result of the supremacy of the distinct society clause over the Charter of Rights. If so, then it is indeed *only* in Quebec that these groups will have their rights undermined. (If true, it is rather ironic that Quebec feminists supported ML, much to the consternation of their non-Quebec compatriots.) J.B. Robinson --
glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) (07/31/89)
In article <1728@eric.mpr.ca> durham@handel.UUCP (Paul Durham) writes: >That is, it is the responsibility of immigrants to fit in to >one of the official language groups, No problem there. > although of course they are perfectly >free to speak, eat, worship etc. as they please. Not in Quebec, not on signs anyways. -- Godfrey Lee P.O. Box 9707 Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Dr. VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3802 FAX: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!glee CANADA K1G 3Z4