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.
for example, the parti quebecois led by the racist pauline marois who wants to strip the rights away (including the right to work) for all those who cannot demonstrate proficiency in french!
Where does the bill on Quebec citizenship talk about taking away people's right to work?
Regarding citizenship, now I realize that Quebec is not a country, but aside from that consideration, what is the difference between being required to know French to be a Quebec "citizen" and being required to know the national language to be a citizen elsewhere in the world, as is the case pretty much world wide, including Canada (which requires you to know either English or French)?
Plus, there are other places in the world where citizenship is devolved to internal entities similar to Quebec. Like Swiss cantons. If you want to become a Swiss citizen, you have to become a citizen of the canton in which you reside. And in Geneva, that means you have to speak French. And in Ticino, that means you have to speak Italian.
You and your buddies can sit in a tavern somewhere in the West Island all you want and spin each other about these issues and think you're right on all of them, but ultimately you're only convincing yourselves.
You realize Quebec is not a country, good. Quebec is an integral part of Canada, and like you said- Canada requires you have knowledge of English or French, and since I am born in Canada and Quebec is part of Canada, it makes it my prerogative to speak English in Canada if I chose to do so? Just as it makes it your right if you want to speak French in Ottawa?
I actually grew up as a francophone in Ottawa, and I can tell you that my right to speak French there that you claim exists, is highly theoretical and applies pretty much only to federal government services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ya7oo
What does it matter if Parizeau was married to a Jew? That shows he is not racist? Cheap cop-pout. His comment was very racist and it clearly demonstrated his true thoughts. Doesn't matter if he's married to a Jew or a Muslim.
I don't believe that his wife was Jewish. I think they were put in a concentration camp because her father was a Polish anti-Nazi agitator.
Anyway, I never was a huge fan of Parizeau, but I do give more weight to actually being married to someone for 45 years and having children with that person than online pontifications about tolerance that involve diddly squat as far as true human commitments are concerned.
You know, being a Californian , I do tend to try and look at issues from the point of view of everyone involved, in order to try to paint a fuller picture in my mind of the situation.
It seems to me, that your complaint is that you feel it is unfair and discriminatory for a group of people to demand of you that you speak a particular language in a particular area of your own country.
It also seems to me, that you feel that your ability to speak your native language unhindered by social or legal constraints, is something that you feel is an inviolable right.
On the other hand, I see a group of people who feel that their native language will be subordinated and assimilated by the much larger group around them, and they fear that without specific steps being taken to preserve their cultural and linguistic identity, that they will effectively disappear as a cultural/linguistic group.
It also seems like they have pretty-much agreed that they should take concrete steps to preserve their cultural and linguistic identity, with the language laws being part of that.
So, in effect, your inconvenience at having to either learn a second language to operate in an area where that second language is spoken, or else having to move to another area of your country where your native language is more widely spoken... is balanced against the inconvenience to others of their entire cultural and linguistic identity being expunged from the face of the Earth.
Though, as an outside observer, perhaps I'm missing some extra subtle nuance to the situation?
You know, being a Californian , I do tend to try and look at issues from the point of view of everyone involved, in order to try to paint a fuller picture in my mind of the situation.
It seems to me, that your complaint is that you feel it is unfair and discriminatory for a group of people to demand of you that you speak a particular language in a particular area of your own country.
It also seems to me, that you feel that your ability to speak your native language unhindered by social or legal constraints, is something that you feel is an inviolable right.
On the other hand, I see a group of people who feel that their native language will be subordinated and assimilated by the much larger group around them, and they fear that without specific steps being taken to preserve their cultural and linguistic identity, that they will effectively disappear as a cultural/linguistic group.
It also seems like they have pretty-much agreed that they should take concrete steps to preserve their cultural and linguistic identity, with the language laws being part of that.
So, in effect, your inconvenience at having to either learn a second language to operate in an area where that second language is spoken, or else having to move to another area of your country where your native language is more widely spoken... is balanced against the inconvenience to others of their entire cultural and linguistic identity being expunged from the face of the Earth.
Though, as an outside observer, perhaps I'm missing some extra subtle nuance to the situation?
Outsider or not, your assessment is excellent.
The problem with the “I-want-to-speak-my-language-all-the-time” mantra is that language is not a strictly personal thing.
People learn to speak languages as a social tool to communicate with other individuals. That’s why we have common ones.
A language is not like wearing your hair a certain way or wearing jeans rather than a skirt.
So an anglo in Quebec saying that he just wants to speak his language all of the time is going to be (essentially) forcing everyone he meets to speak English, and in the case of the francophones he meets, to switch languages *just for him*. Either that or he might end up butting heads with francophones who refuse to/cannot speak English.
What it all boils down is that someone is going to have to speak the other’s language.
But who should that be and why?
You sort of touched upon the answer in your post when you were talking about extinction from the face of the earth. That’s generally the way I look at things as well. Every human culture should be entitled to its own homeland where it can flourish. Now, I realize that this not realistic for all cultures, especially those that have been subjected to colonization or forced assimilation, or both.
But as a general rule, I am not too sympathetic to calls for “freedom” for the unrestricted use (and usually imposition) of greatly dominant languages in places where a unique culture exists and is not found elsewhere in the world.
Hence my strong feelings about French in Quebec (and in Canada in general in fact). I am also somewhat unsympathetic to calls for a sustained Russian language presence in Latvia or Estonia, or for Spanish (Castellano) in Catalonia, etc.
I would also be in favour of restrictions on French in order to firm up the status of aboriginal languages in areas of Quebec like Wendake (a Huron “suburb” of Quebec City) and Maliotenam and Betisiamites (both of which are Innu communities on the North Shore of the St. Lawrence), or even in the far north with Cree and Inuktitut.
You sort of touched upon the answer in your post when you were talking about extinction from the face of the earth. That’s generally the way I look at things as well. Every human culture should be entitled to its own homeland where it can flourish. Now, I realize that this not realistic for all cultures, especially those that have been subjected to colonization or forced assimilation, or both.
But as a general rule, I am not too sympathetic to calls for “freedom” for the unrestricted use (and usually imposition) of greatly dominant languages in places where a unique culture exists and is not found elsewhere in the world.
Hence my strong feelings about French in Quebec (and in Canada in general in fact). I am also somewhat unsympathetic to calls for a sustained Russian language presence in Latvia or Estonia, or for Spanish (Castellano) in Catalonia, etc.
I would also be in favour of restrictions on French in order to firm up the status of aboriginal languages in areas of Quebec like Wendake (a Huron “suburb” of Quebec City) and Maliotenam and Betisiamites (both of which are Innu communities on the North Shore of the St. Lawrence), or even in the far north with Cree and Inuktitut.
To be frank (a word that is etymologically related to French ), my opinion about French in Canada is rather divided. After all it was France that promoted the notion of "one nation, one language" and the regional languages in France were among the ones known to have suffered under a national policy.
Now I am not going to judge France for what happened. What is done, is done, and I'm sure they had their reasons. I personally just find it ironic.
Sorry if I'm not expressing myself well.
To be frank (a word that is etymologically related to French ), my opinion about French in Canada is rather divided. After all it was France that promoted the notion of "one nation, one language" and the regional languages in France were among the ones known to have suffered under a national policy.
Now I am not going to judge France for what happened. What is done, is done, and I'm sure they had their reasons. I personally just find it ironic.
Sorry if I'm not expressing myself well.
You do realize that at the time that France went on its post-revolutionary Jacobiniste kick, in the late 1700s, that the ancestors of French-speaking Canadians (including mine) had already been living in North America for more than 150 years?
So I fail to see what this has to do with us, or why it should be held against us.
Actually, the primary motive behind the language laws never was to get immigrants (or their children) to vote for independence. It was all about social cohesion. Before the law was brought in, something like 90% of immigrants went to school in English in spite of the fact they were living in a mainly French-speaking city and province. Many couldn't even string together more than two words of French.
Note that the pro-Canada parties like the Quebec Liberals, while initially opposed to the language laws, quickly came on board just a few years later because they figured out it could actually help them out in keeping Quebec in Canada. Basically, since language angst was a main driver of the independence movement, making Montreal and Quebec more French could help assuage some of those fears and make the francophone majority more comfortable with the status quo in Canada and not want to take the independence risk. (Note that when the pro-Canada Liberals have been in power and the language laws have been challenged, they have always defended them. They are not too pleased about this week`s Supreme Court ruling, BTW.)
A lot of people in Quebec also think that the separatist Parti Québécois who were behind the language laws actually shot themselves in the foot, and that the laws were successful enough in boosting French that it took away from a lot of the anger that might have put independence over the top in the 1995 referendum.
The article you were referring to was written by Ian Darragh. It was a brutal piece of journalism that was totally biased. I read it when it came out and thought it bizarre that one could write an article about a political issue without talking to both sides. I am recalling from memory, and it seems to me that almost no francophones were quoted in the article. Or at the very least there were no Quebec nationalists/separatists whatsoever, both of whom are much larger groups in size than the members of the anglo minority that formed the basis of views in the article.
National Geographic realized their mistake soon after it was published, and it was the last piece Darragh ever wrote for them.
Darragh`s case is actually quite typical unfortunately of many English Canadians, who can be highly respected worldly experts in their fields, but when it comes to the Quebec question, they just lose it.
It`s sort of like trying to get an accurate analysis of Fidel Castro from a Cuban exile in Miami. No matter how esteemed an individual your interlocutor is, rationality goes out the window as soon as you broach that one subject.
I would have responded sooner, but I needed to find the article. Now I have found it. I read the article for myself. There were Francophones interviewed. Among them were Andre and Ginette Bergeron, and a few students. Their view was that they viewed the independence movement as a preservation of their culture, and further more that sovereignty would be economically beneficial as far as sending their taxes only to Quebec, rather than Ottawa. That was what I read. A few students at University of Quebec at Chicoutimi were interviewed. Some stated that they were not afraid to take the future into their own control. One Francophone who was against independence felt that it wasn't beneficial due to the high unemployment rate.
I would have responded sooner, but I needed to find the article. Now I have found it. I read the article for myself. There were Francophones interviewed. Among them were Andre and Ginette Bergeron, and a few students. Their view was that they viewed the independence movement as a preservation of their culture, and further more that sovereignty would be economically beneficial as far as sending their taxes only to Quebec, rather than Ottawa. That was what I read. A few students at University of Quebec at Chicoutimi were interviewed. Some stated that they were not afraid to take the future into their own control. One Francophone who was against independence felt that it wasn't beneficial due to the high unemployment rate.
Thanks for taking the time. Sounds like it was a bit more balanced than what I remembered.
Thanks for taking the time. Sounds like it was a bit more balanced than what I remembered.
Overall, what was your impression of the article?
I never read this article until I was about 15 or 16 years old. My impression at that time was fear. I was worried because I wondered if Quebec actually did get independence, what would that mean for those persons like myself. I asked that because at the time, I was considering moving to Canada. I was also learning French, so Montreal was a place a considered, among other places. What scared me was when Jacques Parizeau blamed "the ethnic vote" for Quebec not getting independence. I was kind of frightened by that because I am one of those "ethnic" persons(I am African-American). At that time, my thought process was, "if he talks like that, then I wonder what he would do if Quebec actually got independence?" I was thinking in terms of what actually demagogues in the USA have done. At the time(2002), I didn't know Parizeau was long gone from office. Now the current Premier of Quebec is Jean Charest. Today I read it and laugh at Parizeau, mainly because he can't do much today.
Over all, I was impressed by the article. There were many different points of view in the article. I look at the movement today in some ways, I could understand why the province of Quebec has wanted to gain independence. Many people feel that they were not given a fair shake and that if Quebec was its own nation, it could run its own affairs as a Francophone nation. At that note, I am still kind of undecided. Support the movement or not to support it.
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.
I could be missing a subtle nuance...
, I do tend to try and look at issues from the point of view of everyone involved, in order to try to paint a fuller picture in my mind of the situation.
Le franßais au Canada
), my opinion about French in Canada is rather divided. After all it was France that promoted the notion of "one nation, one language" and the regional languages in France were among the ones known to have suffered under a national policy.
