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.
As for optics and the political issue, I am not sure that using the Charter's escape clause to get out of parts of the Charter you don't agree with it, really constitutes acceptance of it. You have to go through a lot of logic gymnastics in order to arrive at that conclusion.
Not really. If they truly don't recognize the Charter then they would take the position that Canada's enactments and judicial decrees don't apply in Quebec. It's called nullification. South Carolina attempted it during the period 1830-32 with regard to certain tariffs. This was well prior to South Carolina's secession.
Notwithstanding (pun intended) Andrew Jackson's histrionics the Federal Government compromised. The problem was kicked down the road until South Carolina seceded in November of December 1860.
Making fun of a minor mistake that I made in my second language, one that I likely write better than 90% of its native speakers.
You're right. I deleted the post. My apologies.
There was a similar error on a publication of our neighborhood association. And your English is quite good. I appreciate the effort and will rep the post.
There was a similar error on a publication of our neighborhood association. And your English is quite good. I appreciate the effort and will rep the post.
Not really. If they truly don't recognize the Charter then they would take the position that Canada's enactments and judicial decrees don't apply in Quebec. It's called nullification. South Carolina attempted it during the period 1830-32 with regard to certain tariffs. This was well prior to South Carolina's secession.
Notwithstanding (pun intended) Andrew Jackson's histrionics the Federal Government compromised. The problem was kicked down the road until South Carolina seceded in November of December 1860.
As I said before, the Constitution and Charter still stand as valid in Quebec. The court of public opinion will have its say on the legitimacy if and when the independence debate becomes hot again and if this is even part of the debate.
I live in Quebec and talk politics all the time, and regardless of the legality (which many people acknowledge), the constitutional coup de force of 1982 still fuels some people's support for independence to this day.
Latinos have done pretty well in terms of Spanish signage in some public facilities, at the polls, and in many stores despite having no official status. Why would Francophones remaining in the ROC if Quebec secedes or is kicked out do any worse?
I think the situation is very different. The Latino (let's say Spanish-speaking) population in the U.S. has a virtually unlimited flow of new blood due to both legal and illegal immigration. These people easily replace and even outnumber the existing hispanophone population which becomes English dominant by the second or third generation, often with little residual knowledge of Spanish.
If you turned off the immigration tap and deprived the community of new blood, Spanish would decline rapidly in the U.S. as the population is generally not transmitting its language to subsequent generations.
Francophones outside Quebec, who do have more institutions and rights, on the other hand don't have this huge demographic inflow of newcomers speaking their language.
So their survival depends way more on the francophones themselves ensuring their kids and grandkids speak French
It's challenging enough under the current set-up, and would likely get a lot worse with the scaling back of bilingualism that would likely follow Quebec's secession.
I think the situation is very different. The Latino (let's say Spanish-speaking) population in the U.S. has a virtually unlimited flow of new blood due to both legal and illegal immigration. These people easily replace and even outnumber the existing hispanophone population which becomes English dominant by the second or third generation, often with little residual knowledge of Spanish.
You make some good points. However Marco Rubio's and Ted Cruz's Spanish is rather good. And most Americans learn Spanish as their second language much the way Quebeckers learn English as their adjunct language and many Anglophones take French, even to the point of immersion.
I personally think the best policies are what the U.S. and Britain have, where English is a working rather than official language. Didn't Canada operate that way prior to the OLA?
You make some good points. However Marco Rubio's and Ted Cruz's Spanish is rather good. And most Americans learn Spanish as their second language much the way Quebeckers learn English as their adjunct language and many Anglophones take French, even to the point of immersion.
Politicians tend to be a different breed, and language retention and knowledge is usually higher than in the general population. People of French Canadian origin outside Quebec who are part of the political class have a higher retention of French than those in the general population. Anglo politicians are also more likely to speak French, just as Jeb Bush and a few other American politicians speak Spanish.
I am not an expert on Ted Cruz, but it doesn't appear his Spanish is very good. Marco Rubio's parents were both born in Cuba, so it's obvious he is going to know Spanish.
I personally think the best policies are what the U.S. and Britain have, where English is a working rather than official language. Didn't Canada operate that way prior to the OLA?
The British North America Act of 1867 stipulated bilinguism in the federal parliament and also in the legislature of Quebec (but not the other three provinces that were part of Canada at the time). That's all that was said about it.
In practice the Government of Canada operated in English, even within Quebec. Services in French to the population were kind of hit and miss, even in Quebec itself. In some cases it was pretty good, in other cases it was non-existent.
As for the U.S. not having an official language, I know people like to trot that out in debates, but no one really believes it. English is the de facto official language and in practice the situation is no different from any other country with an official language formally designated.
Politicians tend to be a different breed, and language retention and knowledge is usually higher than in the general population. People of French Canadian origin outside Quebec who are part of the political class have a higher retention of French than those in the general population. Anglo politicians are also more likely to speak French, just as Jeb Bush and a few other American politicians speak Spanish.
I don't know. I have retained Hebrew pretty well since my Hebrew school days ended in 1970.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
I am not an expert on Ted Cruz, but it doesn't appear his Spanish is very good. Marco Rubio's parents were both born in Cuba, so it's obvious he is going to know Spanish.
I don't know. I have retained Hebrew pretty well since my Hebrew school days ended in 1970.I know that Cruz's father was from Cuba as well.
Nonetheless, having only one parent who speaks a language in the home makes it far less likely that the children will speak it, especially if that language isn't also used in the community around them.
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.
