• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Anti-English discrimination in Quebec

So, Canadian172, now that you've returned to the fray are you finally going to get around to addressing any of the points put to you previously? Let's start with post 214 concerning the rapidly declining use of Dutch/Flemish in Brussels. Then 216 would be quite nice - you seem to be deftly ignoring that, thank you veyr much.
 
Segnosaur said:
And how can you tell when the 'will of parliment' is a decent law, or just some politically expedient abuse of power?
Click to expand...

Interesting point, I guess when they wrote the notwithstanding clause they should have included some mechanism where by invoking the clause has some sort of time limit after which it has to be renewed or it stops having effect.

Wait, I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere before…



Also, how can you tell when the decision of a group of judges is the proper ruling or just some act of politically motivated judicial activism?
 
Speaking as someone who was born in Toronto and has lived in Ontario his entire life. I love that part of our culture is french. It makes us unique. Quebec laws help keep it that way.

I visited Quebec several times in my life, never had a problem, though the drivers in Montréal are as bad as the ones in Brampton.

My daughter is studying accounting and french in University to keep her options open. ( I hear Agence du revenu du Canada /Revenue Canada pays well.)

I think we would all be better served if the seperatists and the anglophones stopped whining.

I'm sorry Pardalis, but I'd much rather eat poutine from Harveys, than a Big Mac or a Whopper.

VoiVod is much better to listen to than Leonard Cohon and I can think of inferior beers to Labbats 50, Moosehead being one of them.

I'd take Patrick Roy over Curtis Joseph too. :)
 
Architect said:
So, Canadian172, now that you've returned to the fray are you finally going to get around to addressing any of the points put to you previously? Let's start with post 214 concerning the rapidly declining use of Dutch/Flemish in Brussels. Then 216 would be quite nice - you seem to be deftly ignoring that, thank you veyr much.
Click to expand...

Ah well, it appears it was just another hit and run post from our resident anglo.
 
Sorry I've been away from some time, I had been debating on other sites and had completely forgotten about this one. Regarding post 214, the Danish language has been completely banned from civil administration, which ironically, is now banned in the Quebec civil administration (Bill 101 states that all internal communications with the government must be in French). Obviously the Danish language diminished when there were no legal incentives for that language to flourish. Canada never banned French in the federal government, and Quebec was created as a bilingual province during Confederation.

Outside Montreal, the province of Quebec has been predominantly French for most of its existence since Confederation and the reason the English dominated Montreal is because the Roman Catholic Church taught young French Canadians that they were destined to be a farmer population, have many children and avoid all contact with the English. The Anglos had no competition in Montreal and therefore took over all industries in the city. Soon afterwards, the French became the majority in Montreal again because businesses needed to being them in from the rural areas for industrial work.

Where am I going with this? The rise and fall of the English in Montreal was not some sinister Canadian scheme to destroy French in Quebec or in Canada. Bill 101 is unjustifiable in a modern, democratic society. It was shut down by the Canadian Court twice as well as receiving an official condemnation from the UN in 1993 regarding its sign laws. No democratic country on earth that I know of prohibits other signs from being displayed (I don't consider "marked predominance" to be a freedom of expression). Canadians outside Quebec have the freedom to send their children to English or French schools, whereas in Quebec it depends on family history. What kind of a "democratic right" is that? Zbigniew Brezinski actually compared the language laws of Quebec to the South African apartheid
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg6n6657_8gfjsb8&pli=1

To conclude for today, Bill 101 does not belong in Canadian society.
 
Architect said:
You don't apepar to have addressed the substance of posts 214 or 216.
Click to expand...

Yes I did. Read my post more carefully. I said that the reason the Danish language vanished was because it was banned as an official language in public offices by French rulers. There were no legal incentives for that language to flourish in society. It's quite simple, really. French was never banned in Canada as an official language nor were Quebec francophones systematically discriminated against by the state apparatus.
 
Architect said:
You do realise that the Scandanavian languages are, to a large extent (and excluding Icelandic) mutually intelliglble, don't you? And you acknowledge that Danish is used by the media, the courts, the government, and so in said country?



And yet to have wholly failed to respond to the points made about Scottish Gaelic and Welsh, likewise other posters point to the Native American languages which are close to extintion in the face of overwhelming anglo pressure.

I think it's your "real world" comment which is most telling, however, especially in conjunction with your comments about provinces. It's quite clear that you do have aproblem with these damned pesky Quebecois having the temerity to hold on to their language and culture.

To be frank, I seriousy doubt just how much of an effort you made to learn their language and I've yet to hear a good reason why you find it so hard to learn another tongue. It must be easy, after all 90% of Danes managed to become bilingual in English......
Click to expand...

Regarding Scandinavian languages, Norway feels that the Norwegian language is in danger and passed their own "white paper". However, their laws do not prohibit people from attending schools of any language, does not prohibit other languages from being used on commercial signs (no signs have to bigger or smaller than the other) and does not fine people for failing to comply with strict language laws. Fundamental freedoms have not been suspended. This is the same for other countries such as Sweden, They made Swedish the "common language" in the country, and yet fundamental freedoms are not suspended.

Sadly, Quebec has chosen to take the ethnic cleansing route in order to achieve this goal and Marois' and her friends' new round of fascist hate speech at the PQ convention last weekend does not help give Quebec's "cultural mission" a good impression in Canada and around the globe.
 
Canadian712 said:
Yes I did. Read my post more carefully. I said that the reason the Danish language vanished was because it was banned as an official language in public offices by French rulers.
Click to expand...

So just to be quite clear here, you're saying that the use of Danish in Belgium has declined because it was banned by the French rulers?
 
Architect said:
So just to be quite clear here, you're saying that the use of Danish in Belgium has declined because it was banned by the French rulers?
Click to expand...

The banishing of the language most certainly played a big role in its disappearance. When a language is banned, most people either adopt to the "legal languages" or they simply leave. It's the same reason why the use of English has declined in Quebec for the past 35 years. Huge exodus, massive school closures, low immigration level from Anglophone countries, destruction of our then impressive network of health institutions(there is not one single "English" health institute left) etc...

Bill 101 was also condemned at the United Nations in 1993 and as a result, Canada got the blame for it. Quebec embarrassed Canada in front of the world and continues to do so with their constant crackdown on English.
 
I see. What is your source for the use of Danish in Brussels? I'd like to read it over.
 
Cleon said:
The more you use ridiculous, over-the-top rhetoric like this, the less seriously you will be taken.
Click to expand...

Nearly 300 000 Anglophones have left since the 70s, over 100 English schools have closed and are continuing to close, there are no more "English" health institutions--they are either bilingual or French only, 0.8% of Anglophones are currently employed in civil service, virtually no Anglophone works for any major Crown corporation in Quebec, the promotion of one people over the other (as was admitted by the Conseil de Patronat in the 1970s (Reed Scowen "Time to Say Goodbye", page 44) ), constant harassment by the language cops in English towns etc... And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If you have a more "moderate" definition for this, I'd like to hear it and keep in mind that this law was denounced by the UN and numerous aspects of it were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
I see. What is your source for the use of Danish in Brussels? I'd like to read it over.
Click to expand...

M source is post 214. Pardalis posted a link describing that under French control, the Danish language was banned from administrative office. If the French rulers would not have banned the language in government offices, we can be sure that the Danish language would not have suffered the same fate.
 
I've looked at that link but can't find the item you refer to regarding the banning and subsequent decline of Danish in Brussels. Can you please be specific?
 
Canadian712 said:
Where am I going with this? The rise and fall of the English in Montreal was not some sinister Canadian scheme to destroy French in Quebec or in Canada.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, Québécois trying to preserve French is just like the South African apartheid and fascist hate-speech and ethnic cleansing!

:newlol :newlol
 
Morrigan said:
On the other hand, Québécois trying to preserve French is just like the South African apartheid and fascist hate-speech and ethnic cleansing!

:newlol :newlol
Click to expand...

"Protecting the French language" is just a euphemism for the cleansing of the English minority. When a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes truth. "Preservation of the white race" was also euphemism used for racial segregation in the US and "Mexicans are stealing all our jobs" is becoming a euphemism for rising xenophobia within hard-core Republicans.

Funny you mention apartheid in S. Africa because Bill 101 is very comparable to it. Section 73 of Bill 101 states:
73. The following children, at the request of one of their parents, may receive instruction in English:
1) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and received elementary instruction in English in Canada, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received in Canada;
2) a child whose father or mother is a Canadian citizen and who has received or is receiving elementary or secondary instruction in English in Canada, and the brothers and sisters of that child, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary or secondary instruction received by the child in Canada;
3) a child whose father and mother are not Canadian citizens, but whose father or mother received elementary instruction in English in Québec, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received in Québec;
4) a child who, in his last year in school in Québec before 26 August 1977, was receiving instruction in English in a public kindergarten class or in an elementary or secondary school, and the brothers and sisters of that child;
5) a child whose father or mother was residing in Québec on 26 August 1977 and had received elementary instruction in English outside Québec, provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of the elementary instruction he or she received outside Québec.

Now, read the statutes from South Africa under apartheid
“native” means-
( a ) any member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa…; and
( b ) any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph ( a ); and
( c ) any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph ( b ); and
( d ) any other person, one or more than one of whose ancestors is or was a native…

In both cases, individuals are segregated into separate and distinct civil rights categories by virtue of who their parents are and what their classification is. for more info: http://www.whycanadamustend.com/Chapter 2.htm

Bill 101 has been compared to the South African apartheid by Freedom House
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg6n6657_8gfjsb8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom