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.
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.
A “priest-ridden potato republic”, like some British wag claimed Ireland used to be.
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.
Multicultural as an adjective vs multiculturalism as a sociological theory. I agree with you here people like to sweep these uncomfortable subjects under the rug. Canada’s multicultural shift really was in large part thanks to Quebec’s own Pierre Trudeau. Would you agree with me that the federalist vs nationalist schools of thought differ in enough of Quebec’s French population that it’s hard to argue it’s an inalienable part of Quebec’s culture? Beyond that, how many separatists would subscribe more to a multicultural Levesquian point of view? Particularly in Montreal. I’m aware this law is popular, but is it really this monolithic support some are claiming?
Multicultural as an adjective vs multiculturalism as a sociological theory. I agree with you here people like to sweep these uncomfortable subjects under the rug. Canada’s multicultural shift really was in large part thanks to Quebec’s own Pierre Trudeau. Would you agree with me that the federalist vs nationalist schools of thought differ in enough of Quebec’s French population that it’s hard to argue it’s an inalienable part of Quebec’s culture? Beyond that, how many separatists would subscribe more to a multicultural Levesquian point of view? Particularly in Montreal. I’m aware this law is popular, but is it really this monolithic support some are claiming?
It's not monolithic support (that would be unhealthy, no?) but it's about 65-75% of the population that supports Bill 21 according to all polls over the past couple of years.
I'd argue that that's pretty strong support for something as controversial as this.
The CAQ is a nationalist party but not separatist. They are the instigators of Bill 21.
The PQ is both nationalist and separatist. They favour Bill 21.
The PLQ (Liberals) are for secularism but against the Bill 21 approach as they consider it too heavy handed. They tried with a bill of their own a few years ago when they were in power: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ease-1.4369347
Québec solidaire (separatist, socialism) are for secularism but they've flip flopped for several years about what to do about it.
So almost nobody in Quebec is truly in favour of the Trudeaupian multiculturalism schtick about every culture being at home in Canada, Canada not having a common culture or identity, blablabla. At least, they don't have this vision for Quebec. The larger Canada can do what it wants of course. Just don't speak for Quebec on this.
You’re right about all that, I’m not disagreeing. I will add though it wasn’t just Trudeau but many nationalists like Levesque had a vision for a more culturally pluralistic Quebec than is being proposed here. It seems like a rural/urban divide more than anything as French support for the bill is lower in Montreal just like such a law would be in Ontario. The idea that a lady wearing a hijab teaching kids long division equates to the state endorsing the Islamic faith seems a little far reaching to those who have a lot of Muslim friends and acquaintances, which most people do in bigger cities, French speakers included
It seems like a rural/urban divide more than anything as French support for the bill is lower in Montreal just like such a law would be in Ontario. The idea that a lady wearing a hijab teaching kids long division equates to the state endorsing the Islamic faith seems a little far reaching to those who have a lot of Muslim friends and acquaintances, which most people do in bigger cities, French speakers included
It's a bit lower in Montreal but not as much as one might think.
The law still has decent support there, and even among young people believe it or not.
You’re right about all that, I’m not disagreeing. I will add though it wasn’t just Trudeau but many nationalists like Levesque had a vision for a more culturally pluralistic Quebec than is being proposed here.
I've been hearing but don't necessarily agree. It's part of the nostalgia people have for their old foes who are now dead and gone, and therefore no longer a threat.
Lévesque's government passed Bill 101, which was spoken of in the same hysterical and hyperbolic terms as Bill 21 today.
I've been hearing but don't necessarily agree. It's part of the nostalgia people have for their old foes who are now dead and gone, and therefore no longer a threat.
Lévesque's government passed Bill 101, which was spoken of in the same hysterical and hyperbolic terms as Bill 21 today.
I’m not the worlds biggest history whiz but didn’t he pass 101 reluctantly to back his own party? There’s quotes I’ve heard to demonstrate he was personally against it. I believe he thought it delegitimized the Quebec nationalist movement. I will not pretend to be fan of the guy as someone who cherishes Quebec remaining a part of Canada. Still, the mutual respect between him and the elder Trudeau is something I wish we could see more of in modern politics. We’re way too divided over petty things nowadays
I’m not the worlds biggest history whiz but didn’t he pass 101 reluctantly to back his own party? There’s quotes I’ve heard to demonstrate he was personally against it. I believe he thought it delegitimized the Quebec nationalist movement. I will not pretend to be fan of the guy as someone who cherishes Quebec remaining a part of Canada. Still, the mutual respect between him and the elder Trudeau is something I wish we could see more of in modern politics. We’re way too divided over petty things nowadays
I still think there is a lot of nostalgic revisionism when it comes to René Lévesque.
I've read a lot about him over the years - most of what's been written in fact. I've warmed up to him tremendously over that time. Keep in mind I grew up as a francophone in Anglo-Canada. Lévesque was Public Enemy Number 1 when I was a kid. Everyone I knew despised him.
My takeaways were that his reticences about Bill 101 were more about it being humiliating for his people to actually have to pass a law like this in order to have their language take its rightful place in society. I never got the impression that it was because he felt bad for poor Quebec anglos.
He was also a shrewd politician, and even if he held his nose on Bill 101 to maintain party unity as you suggest (or even felt a little bit bad for anglos, hypothetically), that doesn't make him any more noble than any other politician. He just wanted to survive and keep power. It's worth noting that he allowed the strictest version of Bill 101 to go through in 1977, including French only on all commercial signs (not like the "French twice the size" we have today) and restricting access to English schools to kids whose parents went to school in English in Quebec, and not anywhere in Canada (as is the case today).
In 2021 I find it highly ironic how François Legault, who doesn't even want to take Quebec out of Canada, gets hysterically demonized by people who are now drawing comparisons with René Lévesque (and even Jacques Parizeau) who were supposedly "good guys" compared to the current Premier.
This was close to a decade ago now, but I was under the impression when Legault was first running against Charest and then Marois, the CAQ was a clear cut separatist party. Supposedly he’s moderated his stance since then. I found it all pretty transparent that he did that to get more support from the anglo/allos that were fed up with being thrown under the bus by the Liberals. Even QS was getting Anglo votes as a way to stick it to the PLQ.
This was close to a decade ago now, but I was under the impression when Legault was first running against Charest and then Marois, the CAQ was a clear cut separatist party. Supposedly he’s moderated his stance since then. .
The CAQ has never been a separatist party at all during its history. Legault left the Parti Québécois and politics in 2009 but then resurfaced a year or two later and founded the CAQ. The CAQ is a middle ground between the separatist PQ and the staunchly federalist Liberals. But it's not in favour of independence, and never has been.
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.
