Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes of course I've been to Montreal. There's a big difference between tolerance and celebration, and Montreal is also heavily colonized with Anglo influence and PC culture. The situation shown here is practically "hipster" in BC, not mentioning all of the gender confusion and sexual propaganda targeting children. It's disgusting, and this plain truth should be freely discussed. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5ViFZaJe6Y
You're right. Bashing gay people isn't part of Canadian culture.
Thank you for writing this and providing more clarity!
Saying that Quebec is 1/5 of the population yet receives 2/3 of equalization payments is an oversimplification of things.
Does this statistic make Quebec separatists less popular than they would be otherwise?
As an example, I came across this picture -
Equalization payments aren't something that they discusses in debates between separatists and federalists. Most separatists can't be bought. If it was about money then there wouldn't be such a great support for independence.
I’m worried this court challenge for Bill 23 is going to lead us down a rabbit hole for another separation referendum. A better approach for the ROC is to give support to our own religious groups so the same thing doesn’t happen here.
I do need to say though, the whole “laicité” concept is completely foreign to Quebec despite what the CAQ and PQ want us to believe. It was a concept introduced to France during the state atheism of the French Revolution, 30 odd years after Quebec became part of the British Crown. Secularism was just about dead last in coming to Quebec out of all the provinces. The Catholic Church had a complete control of the culture until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Sorry Legault, you’re making up history
Equalization payments aren't something that they discusses in debates between separatists and federalists. Most separatists can't be bought. If it was about money then there wouldn't be such a great support for independence.
Maybe separatists cannot be bought, but they can sure as heck be influenced:
Equaliztion payments are a MAJOR part of discussions during EVERY neverendum.
That's a rather weak article, deliberately trying to scare Scots into voting against independence. (OK, it's the Financial Times after all.)
Aside from my quibble that he got the % in the 1995 Quebec referendum wrong (by a few decimals, but still - as journalists it's their job to get these things right), it's also totally false that there is "no financial sector left in Montreal".
Of course, he quotes a guy from McGill on this, who probably still thinks that "everything was so much better when anglos ran the place"...
(Montreal is actually something like the 25th financial centre in the world today, ahead of places like Melbourne, Milan, Sao Paulo, etc.)
And even if Montreal did take a hit due to its nationalist and separatist angst, all that shows is that it's probably unwise to have your economy controlled by a dominant minority with a flimsy loyalty to the place, who can hitail it out of town as soon as someone even hints at tweaking their dominant minority privileges.
So maybe there actually is a lesson for the Scots in there!
I’m worried this court challenge for Bill 23 is going to lead us down a rabbit hole for another separation referendum. A better approach for the ROC is to give support to our own religious groups so the same thing doesn’t happen here.
I do need to say though, the whole “laicité” concept is completely foreign to Quebec despite what the CAQ and PQ want us to believe. It was a concept introduced to France during the state atheism of the French Revolution, 30 odd years after Quebec became part of the British Crown. Secularism was just about dead last in coming to Quebec out of all the provinces. The Catholic Church had a complete control of the culture until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Sorry Legault, you’re making up history
You make some good points but you're off-base when you say Legault is making things up.
Sure, Quebec doesn't have a history with laïcité going back to 1789 (French Revolution) or the 1905 landmark secularism law in France, but that's precisely the point: Quebec was largely a priest-ridden society into the 1960s.
But the path towards laïcité started then, and has progressed continuously since then by for example taking away control by the church of institutions serving the public like health care and education, or the switch away from denominational school boards in 1997-98.
Legault isn't making anything up. He is part of a historical continuum that began in the 1960s.
And even if Montreal did take a hit due to its nationalist and separatist angst, all that shows is that it's probably unwise to have your economy controlled by a dominant minority with a flimsy loyalty to the place, who can hitail it out of town as soon as someone even hints at tweaking their dominant minority privileges.
So maybe there actually is a lesson for the Scots in there!
You make some good points but you're off-base when you say Legault is making things up.
Sure, Quebec doesn't have a history with laïcité going back to 1789 (French Revolution) or the 1905 landmark secularism law in France, but that's precisely the point: Quebec was largely a priest-ridden society into the 1960s.
But the path towards laïcité started then, and has progressed continuously since then by for example taking away control by the church of institutions serving the public like health care and education, or the switch away from denominational school boards in 1997-98.
Legault isn't making anything up. He is part of a historical continuum that began in the 1960s.
The word choice being used by Quebec nationalists I feel is deliberately inaccurate. The argument I keep hearing is how Quebec culture has “laïcité” deeply entrenched into its distinct culture and that is why a law like this is necessary whereas it’s not in English Canada. This doesn’t reflect reality. It’s an imported concept about as native to Quebec as Ted Nugent
The word choice being used by Quebec nationalists I feel is deliberately inaccurate. The argument I keep hearing is how Quebec culture has “laïcité” deeply entrenched into its distinct culture and that is why a law like this is necessary whereas it’s not in English Canada. This doesn’t reflect reality. It’s an imported concept about as native to Quebec as Ted Nugent
Sort of like how Canada "has always been multicultural"? I hear that all the time. It's almost like a religious dogma for some people.
And yet the idea of multiculturalism in Canada only goes back to the 1970s, and the actual law was passed in the 1980s.
Prior to that, all of Canada's historical imagery, iconography and messaging is about a pact between the British and the French peoples. Even Indigenous people are (scandalously) absent most of the time, and when they're there it's almost limited to a role as background décor.
Anyway, in the case of Quebec I'd argue that 50-60 years and multiple generations is plenty of time for something to become entrenched in the values and identity of a place.
Especially when it's literally a tool to move past a history that was painful to a lot of people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
