|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 23, 2007 13:18:01 GMT -5
It's been over 20 years since I left UCE (United Canadian Emirates of equals except one, maybe, maybe more, maybe less, it's depends!)
Not much has changed.
The dollar has gone way up as has the economy.
Oil has propelled Alberta and replaced cod for Newfoundland.
The globe is warming and life in the frozen thawing North is good.
Toronto is exploding.
The Hab's haven't won since 1993 so not everything is good!
Canada is doing well. No forest fires, earthquakes,herds of immigrant alien/illegal or otherwise, floods or Hurricanes. There are only a token handful of Canadian soldiers trying to keep Sunnis and Sheites from killing eachother and themselves.
Looking at the real problems facing the rest of the world, Canada is like Shangrila.
Time to debate real life and death problems like language tests.
In perspective, things are going very well up there.
Keep up the good work, guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 23, 2007 13:18:26 GMT -5
Perhaps not officially Skilly, but it still does. Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on cultural and ethnic identity, has always been an anathema to Quebec. In fact, Bernard Landry recently denied that Quebec was multicultural. Instead, he calls it "intercultural" with the French language being predominant. I suspect the Innu feel the same way about their own society, but I hope they are, at least, candid enough not to claim its for secular reasons. What I find unappealing about Marois proposal is that it claims secularism yet it isn't. Quebec may claim it's a secular society but don't you dare propose in the National Assembly that wearing a cross is the same as wearing a yarmuk, veil etc...For example, the Quebec Council on the Status of Women proclaimed recently that in the name of a secular, egalitarian state, all public employees should remove their hijabs, yarmulkes and other religious symbols. The council made an exception, though, for the cross. Now, why is that? In Quebec, it seems secularism often extends only as far as the nearest crucifix. Jean Charest created a commission last February dealing with immigration and the Quebec identity. There was good cause. If Christianity is the exception to the rule, the target of the rule is more often than not Islam. Consider what happened in Herouxville. To be fair, it's not just in Quebec. However, a recent SES poll by the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy asked the question "Is it is reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities?" A whopping 77% of Quebecers said no as compared to 37% country wide. I wonder what francophone immigrants from North Africa think about that. Is mandatory catholicism next? Its entirely possible that Marois is not trying to build a better Quebec or protect its culture, but may be simply trying to cater to those 77% who think accommodating immigrants is wrong. No more, no less. If it is, it's pretty cynical and makes me glad I left. Excellent post, duster. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 23, 2007 13:31:00 GMT -5
I personally think that a strong partnership between provinces and or territories, without a strong central government that think it knows what's best for everyone, would be better, but I disgress.... So . . . you're voting for the Stephen Harper Conservatives in the next election? ;D So . . . sane. It's the implimentation that seems to be the problem, no? There are pockets of this in Texas North Alberta. Our own rednecks.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 23, 2007 19:15:22 GMT -5
Skilly, Why do you think that I didn't bother bringing Indian nationhood? The scale of importance is so large as to make it uncomparable. Heck if you want to go that far down in scale you might as well declare my love cave a nation and only blondes between 18 and 24 would get citizenship.  (Please not the above statement was a joke. No frying HA for jokes.) The question you danced around has not gone away is.... Quebec has neither negotiated nor declared independence to arbitrarily and unilaterally segregate citizens of the country. (In essance this bill would limit Canadian citizinship as to a second tier over Quebec citizenship.) Until such date that Quebec people have clearly voted for independent government or have negotiated the right, then they have no right to arbitrarily and unilaterally redefine and exclude citizens. True or false? P.S. Yes, the question is a trap. Yes, I have horns. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 23, 2007 19:19:09 GMT -5
For curiosity sake, Doc, what do you think of Preston Manning's thought that of course Quebec society is distinct -- all societies are. ...Do I smell a trap?  Franko is not allowed to have horns. LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 23, 2007 19:25:10 GMT -5
snif! snif!...Do I smell a trap? Franko is not allowed to have horns. LOL! If everyone were like me we'd be back in Eden . . . or om Utopia . . . or in HA's cave (if he shared) . . . or wherever. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 23, 2007 20:19:40 GMT -5
(Please not the above statement was a joke. No frying HA for jokes.) So you can call people nazis, but we can't fry you for a joke ? Talk about a double standard. Every province gets to set its own rules - the women's vote was given out province by province. No one is saying that Quebec's immigrants who don't get "Quebec citizenship" wouldn't be allowed to vote federally. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 23, 2007 20:37:38 GMT -5
It's been over 20 years since I left UCE (United Canadian Emirates of equals except one, maybe, maybe more, maybe less, it's depends!) Not much has changed. The dollar has gone way up as has the economy. Oil has propelled Alberta and replaced cod for Newfoundland. The globe is warming and life in the frozen thawing North is good. Toronto is exploding. Not sure what you mean by TO exploding. Right now the city is up to its eyeballs in debt (500 million last time I heard) & threatning to cut services & invoke special land transfer taxes & vehicle licensing taxes. It's becoming a very nasty fight. Maybe it's imploding. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 23, 2007 20:42:55 GMT -5
HA, you touch the subject of the ADQ and it is an interesting one because up until Marois's proposed bill, the ADQ had the lead in regards to Quebec identity and definition (the Liberals, as always, act like if they ignore it, it does not exist). The bill was, to Marois's own admittance, aimed at stealing the ball from the ADQ... Politics is politics. As Franko said a different wording on that bill wouldn't have open the door so wide for the hard federalists to wave the old scarecrows... but then again they would have found something else. Every steps taken towards defining the Quebec nation will be a fight and there are people ready for it on both sides. As far as polls go, the PQ took a huge dive with André Boisclair but it has been steadily climbing with Pauline Marois (that I personally don't like as she is too "old guard" for my liking). According to a september poll:Party Popularity: ADQ: 34 PQ: 30 Liberals: 24 Leader Popularity Marois: 35% Dumont: 29% Charest: 19% According to that same poll, 41% of the population would vote "YES" in a referendum. Not a majority I admit but a nice number to work with... (as a side note, I'd like to convey that this means your Nazi reference can be perceived as an insult by about 2.4 million separatists...) I don't know who told you that the PQ was dead and separatists gone with them but I would maybe question your source if I was you... That being said, I don't mind being the underdog, Chretien tought the separatist movement was dead and burried and that almost cost him the last referendum... So I have no problem with hard federalists going back to sleep and thinking that the Quebec identity question is of minor interest. Doc, If the bill did not take aim at Canadian citizens, even including people born in Quebec, there would not have been as much reaction. The exclusion of everyone who is not living in Quebec currently and controlling money to political parties takes a laser line to Parizeau's racist «l'argent puis des votes ethniques». There is no part of this bill that is not a method to manipulate and segragate those that can have an undesirable effect in a referendum. Look at the terms yourelf. Can you tell me what purpose it would serve to protect Quebecs language and culture by making unpteenth generation, French speaking, Quebec born people living in Ontario take a "French test"? How does a bill eliminating political contributions for those who don't have the "correct citizenship" to POLITICAL PARTIES a way to further the French language and protect the culture? Slapping the cloak of "protecting Quebec's identity" on this bill is ....umm... a nice spin. It would be more palatable and honest if the bill was named "Ensuring A Yes Vote". Finally.... I think you underestimate how people feel if someone arbitrarily and unilaterally wants to make them second class citizens. Try telling a 8th generation Quebecers who is living in Ontario that he is a second class citizen now unless he takes a test to affirm his "Quebec'ness". Try telling that to a 3rd generation ex-Greek/Jewish/Italian/Whatever family who has done everything possible to be part of the Quebec community but that is still not enough unless they takes a test to confirm their "Quebec'ness". Of course we wont discuss anyone else in Canada because they just don't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Oct 23, 2007 21:21:56 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean by TO exploding. Right now the city is up to its eyeballs in debt (500 million last time I heard) & threatning to cut services & invoke special land transfer taxes & vehicle licensing taxes. It's becoming a very nasty fight. Maybe it's imploding. Oh no. Not the center of the CBC Sports universe! Yup, doubling the land transfer tax is what they're after. This cannot be allowed to happen as it's only a matter of time before all of Ontario follows suit. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 23, 2007 21:25:55 GMT -5
Every province gets to set its own rules - the women's vote was given out province by province. No one is saying that Quebec's immigrants who don't get "Quebec citizenship" wouldn't be allowed to vote federally. No, every province does not get to set it's own rules arbitrarily within the framework of Canada. That is why we had Meech Lake. That is why we have constitutional discussions. If Quebec wants to have the arbitrary right to set it's own "rules" on who it wants or doesn't want to have citizenship rights in Quebec even to the point of abrogating Canadian citizenship rights then it needs to hold a referendum to work outside the framework of Canada. Secondly... By limiting the right of citizenship to those deemed to be suitable for an outcome in a referendum renders that referendum moot. Thirdly..... Creating a law that will not stand up in to Canadian Consittutional court renders that law uselesss. If one wants to spend ten thousand dollar to buy add space for the NO vote and Quebec government sues that person but can not enforce it under the Canadian Constitution then it makes that law a joke. That person can do it again and again with complete disregard to Quebec's laws. Again, that is why we have constitutional discussions. Otherwise it's a free for all. Lastly..... Quebec's immigrants who don't get "Quebec citizenship" AND "votes". At least we are getting to the true heart of this legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 24, 2007 0:28:28 GMT -5
It's been over 20 years since I left UCE (United Canadian Emirates of equals except one, maybe, maybe more, maybe less, it's depends!) Not much has changed. The dollar has gone way up as has the economy. Oil has propelled Alberta and replaced cod for Newfoundland. The globe is warming and life in the frozen thawing North is good. Toronto is exploding. Not sure what you mean by TO exploding. Right now the city is up to its eyeballs in debt (500 million last time I heard) & threatning to cut services & invoke special land transfer taxes & vehicle licensing taxes. It's becoming a very nasty fight. Maybe it's imploding. It seems all is well in Canada. I get no news about Canada on TV or newspapers in California. I do read the Gazette on the internet. Don't get to Toronto often, every other year. It has spread west past Missisagua, north over the 401 and east past Whitby like a forest fire in Southern California. Had the pleasure of driving the 401 and Don Valley Parkway this summer. Toronto like a sanitized NYC without the vitality. It's growing like a fungus on Brittney Spears. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 24, 2007 6:53:24 GMT -5
The question you danced around has not gone away is.... Quebec has neither negotiated nor declared independence to arbitrarily and unilaterally segregate citizens of the country. (In essance this bill would limit Canadian citizinship as to a second tier over Quebec citizenship.) Not sure I understand why the comparison to the First Nations is not comparable. They are both considered nations inside of Canada, the both have cultural identity concerns, they both feel they need special consideration to recognize their differences within Canada, they both have not declared or negotiated independence from Canada, they both have voted on whether they are apart of Canada. But again. This redefinition and exculsion is not limited to Quebec. The First Nations exclude other Canadians. And this redefinition has more than cultural aspects to it. I'll give you a story, thats not really comparable in this sense of exclusion - but it most certainly is in terms of redefinition. Newfoundlanders have been leaving this province in droves for the past 15-20 years. It would probably be fair to say that there are more Newfoundlanders living out of the province then in it. Our government tried to figure out why our health costs were so high per capita compared to the rest of the country. It was always blamed on geography, but it was determined that Newfoundlanders living away were using their MCP cards in Ontario, Alberta, BC and it was being charged to Newfoundland. So the provincial government issued new MCP cards to only residents of Newfoundland, and indirectly arbitrarily and unilaterally determined who the citizens of this province were. Now health care is a basic right of all Canadians. So they were not excluded (since they can get MCP cards in Ontario, Alberta, etc) ... so in that regard it is not comparable ... but they were excluded from having this province pay for them. So Quebec, in "redefining" who she considers to be citizens could also be trying to get control of who she will support in financial terms. Not unfair in my mind. I still think that this citizenship will be defined in broader strokes before it is all said and done and Canadians living in Quebec will be considered as citizens .... but for the life of me I can not see why someone would have a problem with Quebec asking people living in it to learn french, and learn about the place. It's neither ... since you fail to recognize a comparable. Everything is not so black and white. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 24, 2007 6:59:58 GMT -5
Try telling a 8th generation Quebecers who is living in Ontario that he is a second class citizen now unless he takes a test to affirm his "Quebec'ness". Would an 8th generation Scot living in Canada automatically have Scottish citizenship? If so, I going back to claim what's mine. (PS. There is a province in Sweden thats the same as my last name ... so it is possible although not verified that I may be an umpteenth generation Swede ... do I have triple citizenship?) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 24, 2007 7:06:20 GMT -5
Thirdly..... Creating a law that will not stand up in to Canadian Consittutional court renders that law uselesss. If one wants to spend ten thousand dollar to buy add space for the NO vote and Quebec government sues that person but can not enforce it under the Canadian Constitution then it makes that law a joke. That person can do it again and again with complete disregard to Quebec's laws. Again, that is why we have constitutional discussions. Otherwise it's a free for all. Ahhh but we also have Constitutional Amendments. And they are created to give provinces more powers. Newfoundland was brought into the Dominion with a constitutional amendment that gave her different powers than the other provinces. Also, what you state above is , if I am not mistaken, Quebec's arguement for having a Quebec Constitution ... a Quebec Constitution would be an amendment to the Canadian Constitution so no constitutional laws would be broken. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 24, 2007 7:28:38 GMT -5
But again. This redefinition and exculsion is not limited to Quebec. The First Nations exclude other Canadians. And this redefinition has more than cultural aspects to it. I'll give you a story, thats not really comparable in this sense of exclusion - but it most certainly is in terms of redefinition. Newfoundlanders have been leaving this province in droves for the past 15-20 years. It would probably be fair to say that there are more Newfoundlanders living out of the province then in it. Our government tried to figure out why our health costs were so high per capita compared to the rest of the country. It was always blamed on geography, but it was determined that Newfoundlanders living away were using their MCP cards in Ontario, Alberta, BC and it was being charged to Newfoundland. So the provincial government issued new MCP cards to only residents of Newfoundland, and indirectly arbitrarily and unilaterally determined who the citizens of this province were. Now health care is a basic right of all Canadians. So they were not excluded (since they can get MCP cards in Ontario, Alberta, etc) ... so in that regard it is not comparable ... but they were excluded from having this province pay for them. So Quebec, in "redefining" who she considers to be citizens could also be trying to get control of who she will support in financial terms. Not unfair in my mind. I really like this example Skilly. Taking corrective action by identifying actual resident citizens of the province and differentiating them from those living elsewhere in the country. If they didn't do this residents would continue to be reamed. However, like you said, it's not really comparable. This PQ legislation has too many side agendas to make it come across as sincere. Well, there's nothing wrong with it for sure Skilly. If I were immigrating to Quebec to start a new life, business, what have you, I'd make sure I was functional in the language first. If I didn't and just moved there based solely on "my right to do so" I would have no one to blame but myself if my business crashed and burned, and if I had to eventually leave the province. As an immigrant I should know that. It's just common dog so to speak. Again, the problems are the side agendas, which don't need reiterating. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 24, 2007 7:30:11 GMT -5
The exclusion of everyone who is not living in Quebec currently and controlling money to political parties takes a laser line to Parizeau's racist «l'argent puis des votes ethniques». As I said to DIS, I'm not naive enough to believe this bill is absolutely free of any political intent but by using Immigration Canada to boost immigration in the last few weeks leading to the referendum, in order to turn around a situation that was escaping them, the Liberals created this need. If the political implications of this is what get to you, well, blame the Liberals and their dishonest ways, not Quebec for making sure such manipulations won't happen again... Slapping the cloak of "protecting Quebec's identity" on this bill is ....umm... a nice spin. It's aimed at finding ways to include and integrate people that wants to be part of the Quebec society. Tell me HA, do you believe that a person without any bit of French can be a productive and well integrated member of the Quebec society? I think not. Just like I don't think a person without English can't be productive and integrated in Ontario. I think you underestimate how people feel if someone arbitrarily and unilaterally wants to make them second class citizens. "Second class citizen" is just a sexy marketing term. It's sensationalism... The bottom line is you need some degree of French to be well integrated in Quebec and we need to find ways to make that happen. Marois's bill is not the be-all, end-all of exactly how this will be done and just like most of what gets out of those "old guard" separatists, it should have been toned down and better worded but IMO, the fanatic outcries and largely exaggerated counter-reaction doesn't help in this debate either. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 24, 2007 9:35:16 GMT -5
"Second class citizen" is just a sexy marketing term. It's sensationalism... The bottom line is you need some degree of French to be well integrated in Quebec and we need to find ways to make that happen. Marois's bill is not the be-all, end-all of exactly how this will be done and just like most of what gets out of those "old guard" separatists, it should have been toned down and better worded but IMO, the fanatic outcries and largely exaggerated counter-reaction doesn't help in this debate either. Counter reaction? No kidding! LOL! Doc, I think that there ARE ways to achieve the both unity and do everything possible to help Quebec preserve it's culture. Watch this space for a long post about unity, inclusion and cultural preservation from a sappy, die hard, silly federalist who just wont let go of his dream for a united Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 24, 2007 9:49:48 GMT -5
.... but for the life of me I can not see why someone would have a problem with Quebec asking people living in it to learn french, and learn about the place.  From now on, I'm going to call you Terrier! Or Mister Slippery! LOL! Who said anything about not learning French? Who? The issue is this legislation and nothing more. You bring up Quebecs "right" as a "nation" and since you are talking about provincial rights, I bring it into a constitutional debate. Now you are turning away from that and turning it into a debate about culture. You are doing this because you KNOW that twists and turns confuse old people like me! LOL! Anywho...I got to do the work thingy......mehh |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 24, 2007 11:08:13 GMT -5
.... but for the life of me I can not see why someone would have a problem with Quebec asking people living in it to learn french, and learn about the place. From now on, I'm going to call you Terrier! Or Mister Slippery! LOL! Who said anything about not learning French? Who? The issue is this legislation and nothing more. You bring up Quebecs "right" as a "nation" and since you are talking about provincial rights, I bring it into a constitutional debate. Now you are turning away from that and turning it into a debate about culture. You are doing this because you KNOW that twists and turns confuse old people like me! LOL! Anywho...I got to do the work thingy......mehh And this, IMO, is what frustrates the people of Quebec. People can not seem to grasp that provincial rights, culture, language, and integration into a society are all intertwined. You can not cherry pick one without considering the other. It's any province's right to protect its culture (Newfoundland high school students do a course on Newfoundland culture, as I am sure Quebec students do ... the fishery is apart of Newfoundland's culture which is why it is constitutionally mandated that GOC protect it differently than other provinces ...etc), its history, and yes its language, to ensure that they have a fully ingegrated society. (If I can use one sentence and touch on all those points, surely they are all related). There are no twists and turns on this road .... just little truck stops that some drivers get off to look for directions ... when all they have to do is drive straight and we all get to the same destination. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 24, 2007 18:39:22 GMT -5
And this, IMO, is what frustrates the people of Quebec. People can not seem to grasp that provincial rights, culture, language, and integration into a society are all intertwined. You can not cherry pick one without considering the other. Thank you Skilly. I think you're making my point far better than I could. Besides, I'm a Nazi, so I really shouldn't be allowed to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 25, 2007 0:02:53 GMT -5
And this, IMO, is what frustrates the people of Quebec. People can not seem to grasp that provincial rights, culture, language, and integration into a society are all intertwined. You can not cherry pick one without considering the other. Thank you Skilly. I think you're making my point far better than I could. Besides, I'm a Nazi, so I really shouldn't be allowed to speak. Are we done with the victim routine? I wrote it so if you want to take issue, take it up with me in pm. And this, IMO, is what frustrates the people of Quebec. People can not seem to grasp that provincial rights, culture, language, and integration into a society are all intertwined. You can not cherry pick one without considering the other.. While language and culture is a concern for all Quebecers, there is obviously a majority that don't think the route lies in exclusion and unilateralism. It's any province's right to protect its culture (Newfoundland high school students do a course on Newfoundland culture, as I am sure Quebec students do ... the fishery is apart of Newfoundland's culture which is why it is constitutionally mandated that GOC protect it differently than other provinces ...etc), its history, and yes its language, to ensure that they have a fully ingegrated society. (If I can use one sentence and touch on all those points, surely they are all related). "Fully integrate". The integrate is reasonable and laudable goal. "Fully" part can take an increadable wide range of interpretations and implementation which is subject to a point of view. There are no twists and turns on this road .... just little truck stops that some drivers get off to look for directions ... when all they have to do is drive straight and we all get to the same destination. No road is straight and those "truck stops" give pause for trust and understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 25, 2007 6:08:31 GMT -5
"Fully integrate". The integrate is reasonable and laudable goal. "Fully" part can take an increadable wide range of interpretations and implementation which is subject to a point of view. Very true. And is one area where problems may lie ... when I say "fully integrated" I mean a society that is productive, and the citizentry are understanding, tolerant, and sympathetic to the various cultural facets of its society. I choose all three words because even though they each have a different connotation they also leave out a very needed fourth word. Quebecers (again this is only my opinion) I feel, do not doubt the sincerity of English Canada when we say we understand their issues, that we live in a tolerant multicultural society, and we sympathize with their plight. But IMO thats the easy part. The hard part is to allow action to occur to remedy the situation. Understanding without action, tolerance without action, sympathy without action .... is nothing at all. Its words. We say we live in a bilingual country. Yet only 20% (at most) of the population speak that second language at a level above middle school. I wonder how other "bilingual" countries compare. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 25, 2007 6:36:07 GMT -5
Besides, I'm a Nazi, so I really shouldn't be allowed to speak. You care too much to be a Nazi, PTH. Salut! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 25, 2007 6:55:35 GMT -5
We say we live in a bilingual country. Yet only 20% (at most) of the population speak that second language at a level above middle school. I wonder how other "bilingual" countries compare. Let's not forget that those other "bilingual countries" are just, shall we say, a "tad smaller" than Canada . . . and that a second language is more necessary to day-to-day living. 20%? Perhaps. But we're trying! |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 25, 2007 7:27:56 GMT -5
Quebecers (again this is only my opinion) I feel, do not doubt the sincerity of English Canada when we say we understand their issues, that we live in a tolerant multicultural society, and we sympathize with their plight. But IMO thats the easy part. The hard part is to allow action to occur to remedy the situation. Understanding without action, tolerance without action, sympathy without action .... is nothing at all. Its words. ...the very same outcries (and probably even worst) happenned with the Bill 101. The very same types of accusations presently launched by HA were fusing left and right and now this law is seen by most as a model of how to promote and protect a certain language and culture while being tolerant and understanding of the bilingual nature of this country. 2 out of 3 provincial parties have nation definition projects in their program, the definition of the Quebec identity will happen and it will have legal and social implications just like the Bill 101. And all the way through the process the hard federalists will try to shoot it down, call us racists and tear their robes in indignation... it's the nature of the beast: they want nothing to get done, they like their Canada stuck in the seventies Trudeauism of "...you're all the same, you all need the same things, and we'll tell you what it is...". |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 25, 2007 7:37:39 GMT -5
We say we live in a bilingual country. Yet only 20% (at most) of the population speak that second language at a level above middle school. I wonder how other "bilingual" countries compare. Let's not forget that those other "bilingual countries" are just, shall we say, a "tad smaller" than Canada . . . and that a second language is more necessary to day-to-day living. 20%? Perhaps. But we're trying! It's a good point, Franko. I was going to cite Switzerland as a country where people can speak up to as many as four languages or dialects and no one really cares. But, like you're saying, it's more a case of day-to-day living. Depending what end of the country you live in you could speak a combination of German, French, Italian. And having driven through Switzerland I can personally tell you that they are an outstanding, very proud people. We might be able to say the same thing if we use Quebec as a central point though. I'm going out on a limb a bit here but I suspect there are differing dialects amongst our French-speaking peoples as well. My mother was Acadian (Nova Scotia) and she sounded different than someone from, say, Quebec City. I imagine the same can be said of Jakitar French as well. But, I've never met a French Newfoundlander. I always thought I was 'alright' when trying to understand French, but when I was living in PEI I was introduced to some folks from Îles de la Madeleine. Oh man ... quite the experience and I even struggled when we broke into English. But, the important part is that down east no one really cared. We didn't drink the same brands of beer, granted, but it was all good. Now if we put some distance from Quebec, say, France, the attitude actually changes a bit. While we were overseas I tried to conversing in French quite a bit. For the most part people appreciated the effort and lead me along not really caring if how I stumbled. However, there were others who would immediately break into English because they felt I was bastardizing their language too much (knew that by the looks they gave me). And as I was saying earlier in the thread, we have differring attitudes here in this country too. And like you point out, as the distances increase the more attitudes change. Good point, Franko. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 25, 2007 8:24:39 GMT -5
Now if we put some distance from Quebec, say, France, the attitude actually changes a bit. While we were overseas I tried to conversing in French quite a bit. For the most part people appreciated the effort and lead me along not really caring if how I stumbled. However, there were others who would immediately break into English because they felt I was bastardizing their language too much (knew that by the looks they gave me). My sister-in-law's partner (ain't that a mouthful?) taught French in Manitoba for years. A couple of years back they did a European tour. the had a B&B booked in Belgium and when they drove up there were no adults around; only children. "The partner" spoke [her version of] French to the two young misses -- both stared at her and broke out laughing. One turned to the otehr and said [in French] "I think she thinks she's speaking French!". Perfectly understood; not so perfectly spoken, I guess. But that's neither here nor there. Quebec continues to try to define herself as a people with a history of their own -- subjugated and conquered, yet trying to find her past. Is it really globalization vrs tribalism, unity in uniqueness vrs uniformity and sameness? Is there no middle ground, or is it all muddle ground? Get the politicians out of it. Have Skilly, HA, Dis, PTH, Doc, LG and I in a room for reasonable discussion -- if that's possible with this issue. If HA gets out of hand bring in Wanda to tone him down. Gotta tell yo, though . . . I love the passion! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 25, 2007 8:29:39 GMT -5
fwiw, seems BC [the province, that is] has led the way in constitutionification: NP article; starts The Parti Quebecois's latest push for a Quebec constitution may be more of a political ploy than anything else, experts say, but it's legal under the 1982 Canadian Constitution.
Most Canadians remember the titanic struggles over the federal Constitution during the past quarter-century, from Pierre Trudeau and Rene Levesque to the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. But provincial constitutions?
They're legal under Canada's political system as well, but rare.Something to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 25, 2007 8:47:14 GMT -5
We say we live in a bilingual country. Yet only 20% (at most) of the population speak that second language at a level above middle school. I wonder how other "bilingual" countries compare. Let's not forget that those other "bilingual countries" are just, shall we say, a "tad smaller" than Canada . . . and that a second language is more necessary to day-to-day living. 20%? Perhaps. But we're trying! Wouldn't this be an arguement in Quebec's favour? Canada is the largest official multiligual/bilingual nation in the world, and as such we really have no comparison ... but also we should be at the forefront showing how to protect that distinction. I did some googling and I was surprised to see that when compared to other countries Canada's 20% (roughly 6.7 million - last census - people speak french as a first language in Canada) first language french speaking population compares pretty good when compared to other multilingual regions. In terms of population and population proportion the closest comparison would be the city of Miami and Switzerland. Miami - which has three official languages is comprised of 67% Spanish speakers, 25% English and 5% French Creole. (As compared to Canada with 75% English and 20% French). Miami has a population of 5 million and Canada 35 million. Switzerland's cantons all recognize at least two languages and some recognize three. The official Confederation languages are German (63%), French (20%) and Italian (7%). However, Romansh although not a Confederation language is also recognized even though it has less than one percent of the people. Canada may be big, but our french speaking population is not spread throughout the country like other countries. How do other places do a better job at protecting this identity than the world leader of multicuturalism / biggest multilingual nation in the world that Canada is supposed to be? If we have such a hard time protecting this identity and are going to use "size" and "day to day dealings" as the excuses, than maybe the size should be reduced - if you look at the arguement from the other side. OFF TOPIC: It is interesting to note that the US does not have any official language. They have tried to get English recognized as their official language, but as of yet it has not been officially recognized. However, the US does have official bilingual cities and three official bilingual states (Louisiana, Hawaii, and New Mexico) |
|
