|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 25, 2007 8:51:21 GMT -5
But provincial constitutions? They're legal under Canada's political system as well, but rare. [/i] Something to think about. [/quote] Exactly ... they have to be. Newfoundland does not have its own constitution, but we entered Canada under a Constitutional amendment. And it laid out who was responsible for what and gave Newfoundland (at the time) different powers than other provinces (some which I am sure we have to this very day). It was in essence a psuedo-provincial Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 25, 2007 10:54:49 GMT -5
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. Good research Skilly. I was only talking off the top of head earlier. One more thing about Switzerland too; the people are super and their attitude is relaxed. But, they'll defend their way of life to the end. And everyone is on line with it as well. Actually, only so much can be blamed on geography ... or everything can be blamed on geography; it simply depends on your point of view. Here's what I mean. I have a French friend who retired from the service just after I did. He was born in Quebec and finally planted his roots in the Edmonton area. He had served twice with the 1 Brigade in Alberta and it was during his second tour where he decided he was staying where he was. There was no way he was going back to Quebec. Life was that good. Yet, I have English friends who were posted to CFB Valcartier after passing their French courses. Believe it or not, Anglophones represent about 25% of 5 Brigade and almost all of them to a man said they enjoyed their stay with 5 Brigade. Some even asked to be extended there as well. One in particular worked for me as a private in the regiment here in Kingston, married a French girl and is now a junior warrant officer in that brigade. He's originally from Newfoundland and he told me he isn't leaving Valcartier. Life is that good. So what is the problem here? I know of some Quebecers who have no inkling of leaving their borders to see the rest of Canada. Yet, I also have some western-based friends who refuse to visit Quebec. Both sides are content to remain where they are and b*tch and gripe about what's wrong with the other. The problems were and remains today, politics and fear. And all this started well before Trudeau. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Oct 25, 2007 11:25:43 GMT -5
I know of some Quebecers who have no inkling of leaving their borders to see the rest of Canada. Yet, I also have some western-based friends who refuse to visit Quebec. Both sides are content to remain where they are and pregnant doggy and gripe about what's wrong with the other. Cheers. I'd be curious to know but I would bet that a big percentage of separatist have never step foot in the rest of the country and vice versa, a big percentage of federalist have never step foot in La belle Province. Yet, everybody has an opinion....unfortunately, that opinion is too often based on newspaper headlines instead of personnal experience. And we all know what newspapers can do; the exact same quote can be made to sound like a compliment or an insult depending on who writes about it. And the "mass" of the population believe what they read.... I am glad I got to live in both Quebec and Ontario |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 25, 2007 16:50:59 GMT -5
Is it really globalization vrs tribalism, unity in uniqueness vrs uniformity and sameness? Is there no middle ground... Is there? There is increasing inherent polarization underlying the entire matter and the solution appears to be inelastic and ultimately, permanently divisive. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 25, 2007 18:12:55 GMT -5
...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...". Sighing in the language of the oppressed has already been done before and at one time, it had legitimacy. Bill 101, draconian in it's scope and implementation has served Quebec for 30 years yet it has not "rallied" the majority of Quebecers to the sovereignist dream solution. When the PQ was in power, most Quebec people got tired of the daily alarms of " they are oppressing us, we need to seperate" when all they wanted was to go about their lives was good government, peace and prosperity. They are just as tired of the message now. Call it progress. Maybe, just maybe, it's not us "old, stuck in the seventies" Federalist who are the problem. Maybe, just maybe it's the hard line sovereignist messengers and their message who are stuck in 1977.  And as for that bill? Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 25, 2007 18:37:56 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. "FWIW" is correct Franko. While the act of creating a Quebec Constitution may be legal, it can not abrogate or derogate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association. A citizens "Freedom of association" would be totally gutted by the restrictions placed by this legislation. DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."Quebec Citizens Act" by it's nature disqualifies anyone who is Canadian citizen from excercizing their rights to participate in the provincial legislative assembly . The legislative wording is trying to skirt this language but it's usurping the intent. Unless a gutted version of that legislation is passed, a it stands, it will be easily challanged in court. Of course, this would give the PQ another 10 years of "see how they, THEY, the outsiders oppress us". As usual, the PQ is trying to drive a wedge by whatever means possible between the people of Quebec and the rest of Canadians. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 25, 2007 19:05:20 GMT -5
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."Quebec Citizens Act" by it's nature disqualifies anyone who is not a "Quebec Citizen". The legislative wording is trying to skirt this language but it's usurping the intent. Unless a gutted version of that legislation is passed, a it stands, it will be easily challanged in court. Of course, this would give the PQ another 10 years of "see how they, THEY, the outsiders oppress us". As usual, the PQ is trying to drive a wedge by whatever means possible between the people of Quebec and the rest of Canadians. BUt if you notice it does not say, you have the right to vote for the member you want to. In other words, just because you live in one area of the province does not mean you canmove to another and vote there. During one federal election (hmmm must have been the one that Chretien won last - 2000?) I was working in Port Hope Simpson, residing in Goose Bay, and on the Voter's List in St. John's East. When I went to the polling station, they weren't going to let me vote at first. I got "you should have used the mail ballot" , and "you can't vote for the Labrador MP." I kndly asked if I could get sworn in to vote in my district ... I did it before, but they weren't prepared for that in southern Labrador. I believe I ended up voting for the Labrador MP because I showed them my license with my Goose Bay address (I had two at the time, one had my St. John's address ). But anyway, the point is you vote where you reside and not where you were born ... just re-read your post and I think I diverged away ... must be geting tired. Somewhere in the above reasoning I had constitution amendment in there and lost my train of thought..... if there was a Constitutional amendment then it would be apart of the Constitution and a part of Canadian Law. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 25, 2007 19:22:13 GMT -5
Skilly, I am not a lawyer although last week I did play the "Federalist oppressors constitutional expert" in "This Hour has 22 minutes". This should establish my credentials beyond any reasonable doubt...  Words are very important to me because outside this cyber world, there is a lot of money attached to it. That doesn't mean that what we read and it clearly appears to state is "politically" true. ~~~~~~~~~~ As for tired....tell me about it. I thought we were sliding to a very quiet Christmas until I got news this morning of massive orders. Apparently, the Chinese factories "improvements" still left 28% reject rates as compared to my products. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 26, 2007 2:24:05 GMT -5
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! If I am stuck in a room with you guys, there BETTER be woman, wine and if need be, suitable pharmaceutical around to provide for heartchurn releif.  Of course there is passion Franko, I'm defending Canadians and Quebecers right to love one another. I even love Doc, although I have no problem stealing his woman AND his beer.  Come to think of it....if Federalist are for love, are seperatist just condoms? *cracks up* |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 26, 2007 7:18:13 GMT -5
And as for that bill? Good luck. The bill will not go through as is IMO. As I said, it's too clumsily worded and seem to have been done in a rush. An amendment here, and ammendment there, and it'll go as some form of language implementation will be put in the Quebec identity chart. Maybe, just maybe, it's not us "old, stuck in the seventies" Federalist who are the problem. Maybe, just maybe it's the hard line sovereignist messengers and their message who are stuck in 1977. IMO there is no problem. That you are the ONLY person on here that is so categorically opposed to the Quebec defining itself and ready to call us racists, segregationists, exclusionists, tribalists, etc... for it makes me believe your kind is a minority and that we'll be able to build our nation within Canada with the same kind of open mind and mutual respect that a majority here express. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 26, 2007 8:50:19 GMT -5
That you are the ONLY person on here that is so categorically opposed to the Quebec defining itself and ready to call us racists, segregationists, exclusionists, tribalists, etc... for it makes me believe your kind is a minority and that we'll be able to build our nation within Canada with the same kind of open mind and mutual respect that a majority here express. Take this discussion to the flamesrus or oilersrus board and I think you'll find differently. Racist goes to far. Tribalist may. Segregationalist and exclusionist? Is that not what separtistism desires? Or is it "loose separtism" whereby Quebec is fully separate from Canada but still enjoys the same economic relationship? |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Oct 26, 2007 9:41:01 GMT -5
A recent survey about the PQ satanic project (sorry I have no time right now for a proper translation...maybe later EDIT: please witness the poor translation attempt)--- Léger Marketing Sondage sur le projet de loi sur l'identité québécoiseCanoë 25 octobre 2007 Mme Marois a proposé un projet de loi sur l’identité québécoise instituant une citoyenneté québécoise. Cette citoyenneté serait attribuée à tous les citoyens nés et domiciliés au Québec et détenant la citoyenneté canadienne. Cette citoyenneté serait également attribuée à tous les nouveaux arrivants qui seraient en mesure de démontrer une connaissance appropriée de la langue française. Mrs. Marois proposed a bill about Quebec identity who would institute a Quebec citizenship. This citizenship would be given to all Canadian citizens borned in and living in Quebec. That citizenship would also be given to newcomers able to demonstrate an appropriate knowledge of the French languague.Êtes-vous en faveur ou en défaveur de ce projet de loi? Are you in favor or in disfavor of that bill proposal?| ______ | Total | Montréal | Région | | En faveur - In favor | 44% | 35% | 53% | | En défaveur - - In disfavor | 46% | 54% | 38% | | Ne sait pas/refus - DK/refusal | 10% | 11% | 9% |
| ______ | Francophones | Non-Francophones | | En faveur - In favor | 52% | 13% | | En défaveur - In disfavor | 38% | 79% | | Ne sait pas/refus - DK/refusal | 10% | 7% |
| ______ | 18-34 ans | 35-54 ans | | En faveur - In favor | 47% | 43% | | En défaveur - In disfavor | 42% | 48% | | Ne sait pas/refus - DK/refusal | 11% | 9% |
Le projet de loi prévoit que les personnes immigrantes concluraient un contrat d’intégration avec la société québécoise. Ceux qui ne connaîtraient pas la langue française auraient un délai de trois ans pour l'apprendre le français. En contre-partie, le gouvernement s’engagerait à fournir l’aide nécessaire pour l’apprentissage du français. The bill proposal include a integration contract with Quebec society for immigrants. Those would would not know French would have 3 years to learn it. The gouvernment engage himself to provide the help necessary for French learning.Êtes-vous en faveur ou en défaveur de cette proposition? Are you in favor or in disfavor of that proposal?| ______ | Total | Francophones | Non-Francophones | | En faveur - In favor | 62% | 69% | 32% | | En défaveur - In disfavor | 33% | 27% | 60% | | Ne sait pas/refus - DK/refusal | 5% | 5% | 8% |
Source: Léger Marketing Méthodologie Sondage express Léger Marketing réalisé le 24 octobre 2007 auprès de 513 Québécois(es). La marge d’erreur est de +/- 4%, 19 fois sur 20. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 26, 2007 11:14:32 GMT -5
The Quebec Identity Act, tabled by PQ leader Pauline Marois last week, was an attempt to appeal to old-stock francophone voters, who have been deserting the PQ for Mario Dumont's Action democratique du Quebec.
A Leger Marketing poll, conducted on Wednesday and published yesterday in the Journal de Montreal, suggests Ms. Marois was on target. The poll found that 52% of francophones surveyed were in favour of the bill, while 38% opposed it and 10% offered no opinion.
Among non-francophones, the bill was opposed by 79% and supported by 13%, with 7% offering no opinion.
According to the survey, Ms. Marois was considered the leader best positioned to "defend the Quebec identity." She had the support of 35% of respondents, compared with 30% for Mr. Dumont and 18% for Liberal Premier Jean Charest. The poll, considered accurate within four percentage points, 19 times out of 20, found that support for the PQ project was highest in regions outside Montreal.National Post
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 26, 2007 13:57:06 GMT -5
Don't they want two classes of citizen?
PURE LAINE are citizens that can trace their heritage back to the Tremblay line, filles du roi, or Courreurs du bois.
BLOKES are Hinglish that were born in Quebec but fled to Toronto, Haitians or cab-drivers of other pedigree, maudit _______ (fill in the blanks) that voted no in the referendums, intellectuals that read books and children of women that adopted their husbands name.
New Quebec citizenship may not be recognized by the UN but would include a 3x5 plastic card complete with holigrams, magnetic strip and for an additional three payments of $29.95 a certificate suitable for framing.
.............but wait; that's not all, in addition to the citizenship you receive the card, the certificate; and not one but two certificates, one with small English subtitles and two frames made of Canadian Maple (made in China).
I miss the daily debates on these items of critical importance.
Even the Bear is laughing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 26, 2007 17:28:42 GMT -5
Mrs. Marois proposed a bill about Quebec identity who would institute a Quebec citizenship. This citizenship would be given to all Canadian citizens borned in and living in Quebec. That citizenship would also be given to newcomers able to demonstrate an appropriate knowledge of the French languague. This is what the problem is with polls like this. Notice the language used. It's in the benign language of inclusion. It does not in any shape of form tell you that it will limit the political rights of citizens. Wording and manipulation of wording has a tremendous effect on people. If you sell it as benign, inclusive then how can someone not like it? Does it talk about excluding anyone? Does it talk about political rights? Does it talk about the money side of it? How many people would agree to this question: Mrs. Marois proposed a bill about Quebec identity who would institute a Quebec citizenship. This citizenship would limit or deny the rights of all citizens not born in Quebec. Newcommers who are not able to demonstrate an appropiate knowledge of French will be denied this citizenship.Why is this question suspect? Because it's about politics. If anyone questions it the spin by the PQ party is going to be....."the majority of French Candians are in favor of this bill but the Federalist are trying to stop the will of the people". While loosly, this is factual, the wording of the poll does not express the full intent of the bill. If the Federalist argue that the poll was not trully representative of the billl's intent, the PQ would just drop into a "victim" defense. The "victim" defense is a very powerful weapon in todays "politically correct" society. If you sell the message of a country based on multiculturism and tolerance, then how can anyone possibly argue with a society whose only "ïntent" is to protect their culture? If someone dares to oppose the full intent or sees through the agenda, then invoking the "victim" routine is a powerful defense PARTICULARLY to those who are predisposed to listening to that message. "Look at what THEY are doing to US", "they'" and "us", the ultimate two words that the PQ hold at at the tip of their lips. This is not something new or original to the PQ. Putin tells his people that "they are keeping the Russian people from a better life". The Chinese government spits out "they are trying to keep us from progress". Aside from this poll and this conversation, language is the primary tool of manipulating the masses. "Axis of Evil" are three words that are almost comical in the meaning. Yet if you are one of those labeled under that term, then you find yourself on the defending end of it. The burden of proof lies on the accused rather then the accuser. As for this conversation..... The "they" and "us" are not that different. Other then language, 98% of our culture has everything in common. Marriage, religion, hopes and aspiration are common to all of us. Heck, we even "worship" something as irrelevent as the same sports team. What we are arguing about and what seperates us is comical to a Kurd or a Palestinian or a Tibetan. What we have come down to and what seperates us is perceptions and fears. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 26, 2007 17:55:03 GMT -5
Maybe, just maybe, it's not us "old, stuck in the seventies" Federalist who are the problem. Maybe, just maybe it's the hard line sovereignist messengers and their message who are stuck in 1977. IMO there is no problem. That you are the ONLY person on here that is so categorically opposed to the Quebec defining itself and ready to call us racists, segregationists, exclusionists, tribalists, etc... for it makes me believe your kind is a minority and that we'll be able to build our nation within Canada with the same kind of open mind and mutual respect that a majority here express. ONLY? Minority? Nice spin. Take a poll of Canadians who heard of this bill and you will may not even see a single digit support for it. In fact, even from a benign, sugar coated poll question posed in Ropoflu's post, only 52% of Francophones supported this bill. 79% Non-Francophones IN Quebec don't want any part of it. This tells me that Quebecers are seeing the intent of it for what it is....and know what the PQ party is up to. Worse still for he PQ...... Look at the age difference and those who favour it. It use to be the vast majority of the younger generation would buy into the PQ message. Not anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 29, 2007 9:05:53 GMT -5
Wording and manipulation of wording has a tremendous effect on people. Indeed. But who says your choice of words or your version of the question is better than the one put forward? Words and political agendas. Both sides have their own version of it. Look at the age difference and those who favour it. It use to be the vast majority of the younger generation would buy into the PQ message. Not anymore. Dunno what you mean since this poll shows that a majority of the younger voters are in favor of the identity project where a majority of the older voters are against it. This poll shows that the prototypical "against it" voter is older, non-francophone and living in Montreal. That's always been the hard federalists profile. I'm actually quite surprise that a project of such nature receives such an early support. A little bit of work at rounding the edges and it'll go like a breeze. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 29, 2007 14:47:52 GMT -5
Voting proficiency testing has been used in the Southern United States until it was declared unconstitutional.
It kept the blacks in line and without a vote for a long time.
While it may be made to appear benign, it enables proficiency testing to be established in practice at the romantic French Literature. Phd level. It is a vehicle to manipulate elections.
It's just a bad idea all around with little chance of working and an intent to keep the pot stirred and agitated.
|
|
