dre@myrias.UUCP (Duane Eitzen) (12/21/88)
The language laws of Quebec brought an interesting question to mind: Why are Quebec and the other provinces in the same country? Possible answers: Common belief in multiculturalism The new language laws seem to contradict this. Many Quebecois have clearly stated this wish to assimilate immigrants into the french speaking culture. Defence Defence is now international (i.e. NATO) unlike when Canada was formed. I see no need (now) for nationhood based on defence concerns. Economics Unlike when the country was formed, international trade seems to work rather well, and will be getting much much better. Certainly no nationhood is required to share access to our markets. 1992 sounds alot like what Quebec wants: remove economic boundries but maintain seperate cultures, seperate laws etc. In fact, Quebec seems to want things it couldn't get as an independant nation in 1992: such as complete control over immigration. Hockey Well ... ok. History and Nostalgia I believe that we MUST be able to justify the way we do things based on the current situation. I accept that there are people who disagree. If trying to stuff Quebec and the rest of Canada in to a harmonous nation is so difficult and painfull (and unsuccessful after over one hundred years) why do we try? I am not trying to be rhetorical, I would be very happy if a Quebecois presented good reason for wanting Quebec to be in a union with the rest of Canada. dre.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/21/88)
I think it is history, and the belief that sundering the country would be a bad precedent, aside from the fact that it would split the maritimes from the rest. The real reason is, of course, the battle on the Plains of Abraham. But I tell you that today I feel that a province that would be willing to use the abominable notwithstanding clause to dictate signs doesn't sound like it should be in Canada. If most Quebecois support this sort of thing, then they simply don't have the same vision of a free nation that I, and many others have. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
riehm@maccs.McMaster.CA (Carl Riehm) (12/24/88)
In article <727@myrias.UUCP> dre@myrias.UUCP (Duane Eitzen) writes: >If trying to stuff Quebec and the rest of Canada in to a harmonous >nation is so difficult and painfull (and unsuccessful after over >one hundred years) why do we try? Can anyone seriously think that Quebec could become independent without a civil war of some kind? It is a mistake for Canadians to think that we are so dull or enlightened that we are incapable of bloodshed. We are in this together and we have to try to make it work if only because the alternatives are even worse.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (12/25/88)
In article <1742@maccs.McMaster.CA> riehm@maccs.UUCP (Carl Riehm) writes: >In article <727@myrias.UUCP> dre@myrias.UUCP (Duane Eitzen) writes: >>If trying to stuff Quebec and the rest of Canada in to a harmonous >>nation is so difficult and painfull (and unsuccessful after over >>one hundred years) why do we try? > >Can anyone seriously think that Quebec could become independent without >a civil war of some kind? It is a mistake for Canadians to think that we Why not? They don't want us! We don't want them! Seems like there would be a race to see whether they could seceed faster than we could kick them out :-) -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) (12/25/88)
In article <2063@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: > >They don't want us! > >We don't want them! > >Seems like there would be a race to see whether they could seceed faster >than we could kick them out :-) > >-- >Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532 I hope you had intended smiley's at the end of each of the above statements. If so, they're not particularly funny, and if not, well, it makes me sad to see that being Canadian (whatever it means) means so little to you (or to Quebecois who may actually share the sentiments). As depressing and annoying as the language issue currently is, nationhood is measured in timescales that transcend little hills and valleys like this. In the nation that I understand Canada to be, Quebec is exactly as important a part as any other socio-geographic area in Canada you'd care to mention. In the long run (i.e., in the geologic time I referred to earlier), the fundamental split in Canada that must be resolved is not primarily linguistic; it is over the extent to which big dollars will be allowed to change our values. There are some that argue that "Free Trade" is a back-door way for Quebec to separate, but that's another issue. I mean something more basic and much less devious that we're all going to have to work out, regardless of language. -- Eugene Fiume Dynamic Graphics Project University of Toronto elf@dgp.toronto.edu
charlesv@auvax.UUCP (Charles van Duren) (12/27/88)
In article <2063@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: > In article <1742@maccs.McMaster.CA> riehm@maccs.UUCP (Carl Riehm) writes: > >In article <727@myrias.UUCP> dre@myrias.UUCP (Duane Eitzen) writes: > > > >Can anyone seriously think that Quebec could become independent without > >a civil war of some kind? It is a mistake for Canadians to think that we > > > Why not? > > They don't want us! > > We don't want them! > What's the next line in this argument? Oh yeah? Says who? Says me! Wanna make something of it? Who are "they?". Who are "us?". This is exactly the kind of simple-minded attitude that exacerbates the whole language (rights) situation. "Us" includes French linguistic minorities in most other provinces who have a direct interest in the outcome. "Them" includes an English speaking minority with an even greater interest. Canada does not separate that easily into two unilingual or uni-cultural units. That's what the whole problem is all about. Recognizing Quebec as a distinct society ignores this aspect of the problem. Unfortunately, in many parts of Canada, tolerance of the linguistic rights of French minorities is as great as that demonstrated by the Quebec National Assembly for those of Quebec's English-speaking minority. This is generally manifested in funding for education, etc. It has to be recognized that the French-English problem did not start with Trudeau and official bilingualism, nor did it start with the P.Q. and modern assertions of Quebec separatism. This is true in the same sense that the "troubles" in Northern Ireland did not start in the early '70s, and will not be solved by the simple expedient of unification. Canada is a political entity, built on compromise and accomodation. Bourassa's catering to narrow political interests in Quebec is reprehensible. So, however, is the attitude in Alberta for instance, that a large cultural group such as the Ukranians gets no special rights, so why should a tiny (30,000) group like the French? If "them" and "us" were easily identifiable the problem might not exist. Trying to reduce the problem in order to make it go away is a simplistic attitude that has no place in this discussion. Charles van Duren TIP Project, Athabasca University alberta!auvax!charlesv > -- > Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (12/28/88)
In article <823@auvax.UUCP> charlesv@auvax.UUCP writes: >............................................................Unfortunately, >in many parts of Canada, tolerance of the linguistic rights of French >minorities is as great as that demonstrated by the Quebec National Assembly for >those of Quebec's English-speaking minority. This is generally manifested in >funding for education, etc. >. >. >.................................. Bourassa's catering to narrow political >interests in Quebec is reprehensible. So, however, is the attitude in Alberta >for instance, that a large cultural group such as the Ukranians gets no special >rights, so why should a tiny (30,000) group like the French? This is hardly a fair comparison. Allowing bilingual signs is a passive act. The government does not have to lift a finger or spend a penny in order for this right to be "permitted". And, even more importantly, we are talking about what virtually any other democratic nation would call a *fundamental* right. On the other hand, funding for eductaion, etc requires money. You are now asking people to divert money that is badly needed for underfunded and overcrowded hospitals and universities so that what is often no more than 5% of the population may be able to enjoy part of their existence in their mother tongue. It is true that Quebec Anglos do have their own institutions. However, in my mind this is not even close to being a substitute for as precious a right as freedom of expression; a right enjoyed by every minority group in every part of the country except Quebec. J.B. Robinson
charlesv@auvax.UUCP (Charles van Duren) (01/05/89)
In article <4399@hcr.UUCP>, jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > In article <823@auvax.UUCP> charlesv@auvax.UUCP writes: > >............................................................Unfortunately, > >in many parts of Canada, tolerance of the linguistic rights of French > >minorities is as great as that demonstrated by the Quebec National Assembly for > >those of Quebec's English-speaking minority. This is generally manifested in > >funding for education, etc. > >. > >. > >.................................. Bourassa's catering to narrow political > >interests in Quebec is reprehensible. So, however, is the attitude in Alberta > >for instance, that a large cultural group such as the Ukranians gets no special > >rights, so why should a tiny (30,000) group like the French? > > This is hardly a fair comparison. Allowing bilingual signs is a > passive act. The government does not have to lift a finger or spend > a penny in order for this right to be "permitted". And, even more > importantly, we are talking about what virtually any other > democratic nation would call a *fundamental* right. > Fundamental rights are not only so by virtue of being defined in law. I was talking about attitudes to minority fundamental rights. What's the difference between the torching of the Alliance Quebec headquarters and the death threats against Athabasca-Lac La Biche MLA Leo Piquette for asserting his right to speak in French in the Alberta Legislature (on a matter of French-language education in Alberta)? Laws providing for minority language rights mean very little if those who assert those rights get fire-bombed or threatened with death. Adequate funding for facilities for minority language groups does not follow directly from laws guaranteeing those rights. A necessary factor is the public acceptance of those rights. The exercising of a *fundamental* right is very different from having such a right guaranteed. The point is that laws by themselves guarantee very little. What is the use of allowing bilingual signs if they provoke vandalism and arson? If you guarantee the right, but cannot guarantee that it may be exercised freely or safely, what have you guaranteed? Bill 101 could not guarantee the existence of French culture in Quebec, regardless of some Quebecois sentiment. Neither can the Supreme Court decision guarantee that minority language rights can be exercised. That is the issue. Charles van Duren /* Home of the largest, cleanest kraft TIP Project, Athabasca University /* mill in the world (proposed) that will Athabasca, Alberta /* absolutely NOT pollute! (Don Getty) > J.B. Robinson