Anti-English discrimination in Quebec

[Segnosaur]

Well, maybe that's my problem... I think the principle of freedom is actually important.

Give me a break. We are free in this country. All of us.

Freedom is relative.

Someone living in Iran is freeER than someone who lives in Saudi Arabia. And someone who lives in Canada is freeER than someone who lives in Iran. On the other hand, someone who lives in the U.S. is freeER than someone who lives in Canada.

You might be happy with the level of freedom we have here in Canada. But why exactly are you assuming that everyone should automatically be totally happy with that level of freedom?

And minority group rights occasionally trump the rights of the individual as well as the rights of the majority.

Got an example of when that's happened?

But then, we're not necessarily a 'democracy' (depending on your particular definition.). We're a constitutional monarchy.

That's an incomplete definition. We are also a parliamentary democracy. In fact, from 1867 to 1982, that's mostly entirely what we were, changing only in gradual stages culminating in the Constitution Act, 1982. Up till then, parliament really was supreme. We still are a parliamentary democracy, albeit in limited form.

Not sure if that's exactly correct.

After all, even in Britain, there are limits on what government could do. (While they didn't have a written constitution, they had a series of precedents that their high courts would use as a basis for limiting government power.) Even though we didn't have a constitution until 1982, we were still covered under the same series of precedents.

First of all, while it is true that judges are un-elected, they get their jobs by being appointed by an elected parliament (so there is at least an indirect democracy going there.)

Secondly, the judges don't necessarily over-rule parliament on a whim (well, in theory they shouldn't.) Instead, they decide whether one set of laws passed by the government conflicts with another set of laws passed by the government.

Not quite. The Charter is not ordinary law. And it's the judiciary that is tasked with deciphering what the Charter means.

First of all, when I talked about the supreme court handling cases of conflicts in 'laws', I was using the term 'law' in a very broad sense. Yes, the constitution is not an 'ordinary' law (and it does in fact 'trump' everything else), but I don't think its outrageous to label it a 'law'.

Secondly, handling conflicts between 'ordinary' laws and the constitution is not the only thing they handle. For example, they also rule on things using (for example) native land claim treaties.

True, its unlikely to be used in most of the country. However, the fact that it exists at all should give us reasons to be worried. (How would you feel if the constitution contained a clause that said "The government reserves the right to engage in cannibalism if we get hungry"? Even if it never got used, I'd still rather it not be there.

Pathetic straw man.

Really? How do you feel about gay marriage?

Remember, there was talk that conservatives were planning on banning gay marriage at one point (and using the notwithstanding clause to do so). Heck, the Alberta government actually tried to use the notwithstanding clause to ban same-sex marriage (and it was only the ruling of the Supreme court that said the definition of marriage was a federal matter that prevented it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Alberta

Yeah, the 'law regarding cannibalism' was unrealistic, but like I said, I'd rather not have sections in the constitution that can lead to abuses, even if now those sections don't get used, because somewhere along the line the politics might change, and what seems like an impossibility now might become possible in the future.

Other countries seem to function well enough without having such a mechanism in their constitution. For example, I don't think the U.S. has anything similar in their constitution. Yet they've survived several hundred years as a functional democracy.

We aren't the USA. Nor should we strive to be.

I never said we should try to be like the U.S. I pointed out that they don't have a notwithstanding clause and they have survived. You know of any other countries with such a clause in their constitution?

And they do have something similar - it's just informal rather than formal. American courts show deference to Congress all the time.

Even if they defer some issues to Congress, they can still step in when significant abuses occur.

(It may have been necessary for a couple of years after the constitution was passed, in order to make sure existing laws didn't conflict with the constitution, but legislatures have had more than enough time to deal with such problems.)

It's there for when the interpretation of the court clashes irreparably with the democratic will of parliament.

And how can you tell when the 'will of parliment' is a decent law, or just some politically expedient abuse of power?

 

[Canadian712]

See how it would have been best for you to learn French at an early age?

You're assuming i chose which language of instruction i chose, instead of my parents.

We made alot of pressure to ensure our rights are protected. It's a constant battle.

Stop acting like Quebec is the victim of big bad Ottawa. Every province would like some more powers and more money for their health care, education and the like. Quebec is one of the best treated provinces in Canada. This is typical separatist jargon.

 

[D'rok]

Freedom is relative.

Someone living in Iran is freeER than someone who lives in Saudi Arabia. And someone who lives in Canada is freeER than someone who lives in Iran. On the other hand, someone who lives in the U.S. is freeER than someone who lives in Canada.

You might be happy with the level of freedom we have here in Canada. But why exactly are you assuming that everyone should automatically be totally happy with that level of freedom?

Got an example of when that's happened?


Not sure if that's exactly correct.

After all, even in Britain, there are limits on what government could do. (While they didn't have a written constitution, they had a series of precedents that their high courts would use as a basis for limiting government power.) Even though we didn't have a constitution until 1982, we were still covered under the same series of precedents.


First of all, when I talked about the supreme court handling cases of conflicts in 'laws', I was using the term 'law' in a very broad sense. Yes, the constitution is not an 'ordinary' law (and it does in fact 'trump' everything else), but I don't think its outrageous to label it a 'law'.

Secondly, handling conflicts between 'ordinary' laws and the constitution is not the only thing they handle. For example, they also rule on things using (for example) native land claim treaties.


Really? How do you feel about gay marriage?

Remember, there was talk that conservatives were planning on banning gay marriage at one point (and using the notwithstanding clause to do so). Heck, the Alberta government actually tried to use the notwithstanding clause to ban same-sex marriage (and it was only the ruling of the Supreme court that said the definition of marriage was a federal matter that prevented it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Alberta

Yeah, the 'law regarding cannibalism' was unrealistic, but like I said, I'd rather not have sections in the constitution that can lead to abuses, even if now those sections don't get used, because somewhere along the line the politics might change, and what seems like an impossibility now might become possible in the future.


I never said we should try to be like the U.S. I pointed out that they don't have a notwithstanding clause and they have survived. You know of any other countries with such a clause in their constitution?


Even if they defer some issues to Congress, they can still step in when significant abuses occur.


And how can you tell when the 'will of parliment' is a decent law, or just some politically expedient abuse of power?

Complete derail.

Even if you start a new thread, I'm not remotely interested in discussing this with you.

Enjoy Harper's Canada while it lasts.

 

[Architect]

You're assuming i chose which language of instruction i chose, instead of my parents.



Stop acting like Quebec is the victim of big bad Ottawa. Every province would like some more powers and more money for their health care, education and the like. Quebec is one of the best treated provinces in Canada. This is typical separatist jargon.

Showing your colours, now, methinks.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Showing your colours, now, methinks.

His colours were pretty evident early on. He really does seem to be of one mind with the Belleville flag-stompers. If the status quo in Québec is so onerous, leave first chance you get. You'd be doing yourself and the province a favour. I'm sure you'd fit right in in Deadmonton.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You're assuming i chose which language of instruction i chose, instead of my parents.

Poor, poor victim! Everything's someone else's fault. And now you're stuck with it and it can never change, because, well life is like that. Once someone's made a decision, they're stuck with it for life.

You'd have gone over real good at Le Chat Noir, smoking Disques Bleu and arguing Sartre versus Kierkegard 'til dawn.

Stop acting like Quebec is the victim of big bad Ottawa. Every province would like some more powers and more money for their health care, education and the like. Quebec is one of the best treated provinces in Canada. This is typical separatist jargon.

And yours is typical francophobic nonsense.
"One of the best treated"...? Out of ten. That's a pretty short list. So, would you say they were second-to-best treated after Ontario? What about all those subsidies, pro-rata, thrown into the (Atlantic) Maritime provinces. And all those special developmental funds for the oil and energy programs in Alberta. Not to mention the Innuit. (Hey, I said don't mention them, 'kay?) So do they come in third? Fourth? And by what criteria? Grants? Social Services paid for by the federal government (careful, now, people are going to have actual real facts if you go that way)? And have you weighted your statistics by pro-rating against the population of the province in question and/or its area?

Every neo-con wants to take away someone elses largesse. Blaming it on language (and misconstruing ones language with "race" as you've done repeatedly) makes it rather obvious where you're coming from.

Oh, and since you're still in CEGEP, could you drop into the computer lab and have one of the geeks show you how to quote properly? Most of the rest of us have figured out that the "Quote" button at the bottom of a post allows you to quote that post AND SHOW WHO YOU'RE QUOTING.

 

[Architect]

His colours were pretty evident early on. He really does seem to be of one mind with the Belleville flag-stompers. If the status quo in Québec is so onerous, leave first chance you get. You'd be doing yourself and the province a favour. I'm sure you'd fit right in in Deadmonton.

What I find particularly interesting is that he's not responded to any substantive points about the desirability to protect French-Canadian culture in the face of an overwhelming Anglophone hegemony or indeed the rights of the overwhelmingly French majority to implement laws to this effect.

As you say, this isn't about having to speak French but a much broader gripe at the temerity of those local yokels insisting on their own culture.

Why am I also minded of tourists talking VERY LOUDLY AND S-L-O-W-L-Y at foreigners when abroad, then complaining that they don't speak English?

 

[Corsair 115]

Poor, poor victim! Everything's someone else's fault.

And what did Jacques Parizeau famously blame for the loss of the 1995 independence referendum? Money and the ethnic vote.

Let's be fair here. The province of Quebec also plays the victim card, and sometimes blames others for its problems.

There's plenty of stupidity to go around.

 

[fitzgibbon]

And what did Jacques Parizeau famously blame for the loss of the 1995 independence referendum? Money and the ethnic vote.

Let's be fair here. The province of Quebec also plays the victim card, and sometimes blames others for its problems.

There's plenty of stupidity to go around.

I see your Parizeau and raise you one Belleville flag-stomper!

 

[Foolmewunz]

And what did Jacques Parizeau famously blame for the loss of the 1995 independence referendum? Money and the ethnic vote.

Let's be fair here. The province of Quebec also plays the victim card, and sometimes blames others for its problems.

There's plenty of stupidity to go around.

Citing one infamously dense person to support someone else is not that solid an argument. I'm sure there's a fallacy name for this, just can't put my finger on it.

 

[blobru]

Citing one infamously dense person to support someone else is not that solid an argument. I'm sure there's a fallacy name for this, just can't put my finger on it.

Tu quoque^WP -- (latin term, not french tu quoques: "you give away"[?? -- not sure] misspelt).

 

[MikeMangum]

These laws are there to protect french so that french in Quebec does not have the same fate it had in Louisiana. Demographics clearly indicate that it is french that is loosing ground not english.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, considering that I'm not Canadian, but I don't understand why a language needs to be protected by a government.

 

[Canadian712]

"One of the best treated"...? Out of ten. That's a pretty short list. So, would you say they were second-to-best treated after Ontario? What about all those subsidies, pro-rata, thrown into the (Atlantic) Maritime provinces. And all those special developmental funds for the oil and energy programs in Alberta. Not to mention the Innuit. (Hey, I said don't mention them, 'kay?) So do they come in third? Fourth? And by what criteria? Grants? Social Services paid for by the federal government (careful, now, people are going to have actual real facts if you go that way)? And have you weighted your statistics by pro-rating against the population of the province in question and/or its area?

What I was referring to were the policies that seem to constantly benefit Quebec. The fact that the Bloc Quebecois exists speaks volumes. Quebec also gets the most cash in equalization payments(even though it only constitutes 25% of the population, in contrast to Ontario which has a much bigger population and receives much less). This means that Quebec also has a relatively good education(except for all the anti-English laws), health care and welfare compared to the rest of Canada. Quebec also has the second highest GDP after Ontario and so if anybody is the victim here, it is Yukon, as well as Nunavut. Not so sure about federal services, but I don't think it's to the point that a province should be willing to separate.

What I find particularly interesting is that he's not responded to any substantive points about the desirability to protect French-Canadian culture in the face of an overwhelming Anglophone hegemony or indeed the rights of the overwhelmingly French majority to implement laws to this effect.

No one, under any circumstances, has the right to pass such discriminatory laws restricting one's freedom of choice and expression. Likewise, I'd be against the English controlling all aspect of a predominately French population. The BNA Act of 1867m in which this Dominion was founded on, ensures that English and French have equal rights in all provinces, INCLUDING Quebec. Bill 101 was/is not needed to protect the French culture and most Francophones tend to agree, which is why most of them want to send their children to English public schools. Bottom line is that such laws have no place in a democratic society like Canada and should be abolished.

As you say, this isn't about having to speak French but a much broader gripe at the temerity of those local yokels insisting on their own culture.

It's about freedom of choice and expression.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Learn to Quote and Multi-Quote, please.

If you want to reply to a single post, hit the QUOTE button on the right.

If you want to reply to multiple posts, hit the " button on each of them, and then QUOTE on the last of the bunch.

That way people can see who you're responding to, as it will include their/our names.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Learn to Quote and Multi-Quote, please.

If you want to reply to a single post, hit the QUOTE button on the right.

If you want to reply to multiple posts, hit the " button on each of them, and then QUOTE on the last of the bunch.

That way people can see who you're responding to, as it will include their/our names.

Certainly explains why he has problems learning French. Might even explain why he'd vote Harper

 

[Foolmewunz]

Certainly explains why he has problems learning French. Might even explain why he'd vote Harper

Well, the difficulty with French part I can fathom, but mein gott, man - Vote Harper???!!! Say it isn't so! Won't someone think of the children?

 

[Architect]

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, considering that I'm not Canadian, but I don't understand why a language needs to be protected by a government.

Then I suggest that you look into the recent history of the Welsh and Scottish Gaelic languages, or indeed the many other regional languages that are close to turning up their toes in the face of an overwhelming English hegemony.

 

[Architect]

No one, under any circumstances, has the right to pass such discriminatory laws restricting one's freedom of choice and expression. Likewise, I'd be against the English controlling all aspect of a predominately French population. The BNA Act of 1867m in which this Dominion was founded on, ensures that English and French have equal rights in all provinces, INCLUDING Quebec. Bill 101 was/is not needed to protect the French culture and most Francophones tend to agree, which is why most of them want to send their children to English public schools. Bottom line is that such laws have no place in a democratic society like Canada and should be abolished.

It's about freedom of choice and expression.

With respect, that is a very partisan and simplistic view. You have very deliberately avoided actually addressing the pressure which minority languages and cultures face in the face of a pervasive and powerful anglophone hegemony; if we look at examples elsewhere we can see what happens if steps are not taken to protect language use.

You're objecting because you don't speak French for reasons which, given you live in a Francophone state, have been strangely glossed over. You do come across like the Daily Mail, complaining about the Welsh insisting that those dealing with the public in Welsh-speaking areas actually speak the languge.

Frankly, I'm not sympathetic. And as for your comemnt about Francophones agreeing, I have to ask for specific evidence. It is equally likely that English language schools are popular because adults want their children to be bilingual which, being bilingual myself, seems a perfectly reasonable position.

 

[Stacko]

After following this thread, I have to admit I had a good chuckle when I saw this headline on the CBC.

Quebec language law 'a mess': opposition

 

[Jorghnassen]

Bonjour tout le monde. Lire ce genre de discussion me fait toujours perdre quelques points de Q.I., en particulier des trucs comme les commentaires accompagnant des articles de la CBC.

I'm really getting a hang of writing sentences made entirely of words that don't require diacritics. Being lazy with Ubuntu takes some effort.