Friday, March 2, 2012

The MYTH OF ANGLICIZATION- Part Three

Whenever I hear the argument that the French community in Quebec is in danger of assimilation, I always smile and ask the person who is making the statement that if that is true, what about the assimilation of Montreal's English community, who if you take a moment to consider it, are in the same boat, a people, completely surrounded by a 'hostile' culture and foreign language.

The Anglos of Montreal represent a community  ten times smaller than Franco-Quebecers and are subject to ferocious forces of assimilation, with their own government overtly hostile to their language and culture.
And yet the Anglo community endures. Why? 

In response, I've been told that my comparison isn't fair, because the English community is but an integral offshoot of the 'golden' English hegemony that more or else rules the world.

But if that were true, why is it that small communities, pockets of English located in the Townships, the Pontiac or the Gaspe are disappearing at an alarming rate, not dissimilar to what is happening to small francophone communities around the country?

The realty is that the dynamic forces of assimilation work the same way on English communities as they do on French ones and those that disappear or survive do so for the same reasons.

So let us examine why the English community of Montreal and the French community of the province of Quebec survive, while small English communities in rural Quebec fail as do the small pockets of French across Canada.

It has to do with 'Critical Mass'
"Critical mass is a sociodynamic term to describe the existence of a sufficient amount of adopters of an innovation in a social system such that the rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining and creates further growth. It is an aspect of the theory of Diffusion of Innovations, written extensively on by Everett Rogers in his book, "Diffusion of Innovations". Social factors influencing critical mass may involve the size, interrelatedness and level of communication in a society or one of its subcultures. Wikipedia
Simply put, it means that societies become self-sustaining when they attain critical mass, which in the case of Montreal's English community, means that it has the necessary social institutions to sustain itself, including English schooling from daycare to university, English health services, English media and entertainment, English job opportunities, English religious and recreational institutions and of course a population sufficiently large enough to provide for marriage within the community itself.

The Montreal English community maintains the above-mentioned elements and so survives in a 'hostile' environment' where outside its Montreal area borders it is surrounded by a sea of Francophones.

Even if Quebec's Francophone element grew ten times larger than it is now, the English community of Montreal would continue to survive.
Like a walled city which has all the critical elements for its survival within, whatever hordes remain outside are largely irrelevant.

Out in the Gaspe, the Pontiac and the Townships, the English communities that survive remain threatened because they have lost or are facing deteriorating elements of critical mass and so, are ultimately doomed to fail.
As schools close for lack of enrollment, as jobs disappear where English is spoken and where churches, theaters are no longer able to survive, so goes the community.
Slowly but surely the forces of assimilation bear down and like similar Francophone communities across Canada, the writing is clearly on the wall.

To compare Montreal's English community or Quebec's Francophone community to those small disappearing towns described above is fundamentally dishonest, and French language alarmists who make the connection with disappearing Francophone towns across Canada are playing a deceitful game.

As for Quebec's Francophone society, it is almost ten times larger than the successful English community I described above and if Montreal's English community has attained critical mass, the Francophone society has attained, for want of a better word, 'super-critical mass.'

Quebec Francophones may only represent 2% of the North American population, but they represent 87% of the population of Quebec and control a huge swath of North American territory, an area bigger than 90% of countries in the world.

The seven million people that make up the Quebec Francophone society represents a population that is greater than 40% of the independent nations of the world, certainly more than enough to be self-sustaining.

And so, assertions by French language militants/separtists that francophone society is in danger would be laughable would it not be so sad.
Like flimflam artists, they talk fast, spouting nonsense, making false and misleading statements and using the tried and true method of repeating the assimilation lie over and over again, with complicit media sympathisers affording them a tribune to brainwash Quebecers.

Readers, if Quebec hasn't assimilated over the last hundreds of years, it isn't going to assimilate now. Period.

Having personally borne witness to Quebec Francophone society during the1960s, where assimilation forces were infinitely more pressing, I view with utter astonishment the separatists effrontery to alarm Quebecers into sovereignty, no different than cowboys making loud noises to steer the herd in a desired direction.

Its like the British, having just defeated the Germans in the Battle of Britain, decisively ending the threat of invasion, being told by their leaders to watch it....because  they might be in deep trouble now.  Absurd!

The sad reality that militants don't want to admit is that Quebec's Francophone culture and language  remains triumphant within the Canadian framework.
To admit that, is to remove a cornerstone argument in the independence narrative.

In fact, I would argue that by remaining in Canada, Quebec's Francophone culture has been afforded an extraordinary protection, akin to having a big brother watching out for you in the schoolyard.

For those doing business in Canada, French is a requirement coast to coast, from corn flake boxes to documentation for products as complicated as cars.
All this is subsidized by English Canadians who pay for 75% of bilingualism, a benefit that serves francophone Canadians only.
An independent Quebec would have to pay for all this itself and who knows how many companies, relieved of French in the rest of Canada would just forgo Quebec?

One last point about language bilingualisn and critical mass.

Mario Beaulieu and other militants boast that Quebecers are the most bilingual of Canadians and so don't really need more intensive instruction in English. He and his cohorts are victims of believing their own bullshit propaganda, telling Quebecers that the more they learn English, the more they will abandon French.

But are Quebecers all that bilingual in the first place?

Because of the strength of French in Quebec, the hostility shown toward English, Quebecers remain, contrary to popular belief, sadly disfunctional in English.

Less than half of Quebecers are bilingiual and removing anglos and ethnics from the calculation (they  are much more bilingual than Francophones) we find that only 36% of Francophone Quebecers consider themselves bilingual.

64% of Quebecers are completely insulated from the English world, they couldn't tell you who Rick Mercer or Lloyd Robertson is.
The idea that these people are in danger on anglicizing is laughable.

And of the 34% who claim to be bilingual, how many can truly say they are fluent?
For most these people, bilingualism is the ability to order breakfast in English....after a couple of tries.

I don't think that there are more than 10% of Quebec Francophones who are fluent in English.

If one is to consider society's most socializing element, television, it is easy to conclude that French in Quebec is as secure as English the ROC.

Quebecers spend 1,500 hours a year in front of the boob tube, which is about 500 hours more than they spend in school. (Yup, do the math....180 annual school days x 5.5 hours)

The socializing element of television cannot be overemphasized, Quebec society like all others, is formed by it's influence. 
If Quebecers were to be attracted to English television, I might concede a problem. But they are not.

For whatever reason (and lack of proficiency in English is the number one reason,) Francophones watch French TV almost exclusively, and they watch locally produced content, not as in the old days, where American shows, dubbed into French were the staple fare.

So strong is the connection of Francophones with locally produced TV shows, that the numbers of viewers is simply astounding, with many top shows being watched by over two million people, something that no English entertainment show produced in Canada can match and this with almost four times the population. Link{Fr}

And so an honest examination of the facts can only conclude that the Francophone society in Quebec is secure, safe and successful, with its future assured.
All this within the  confines of a protective, indulgent and doting Canada.

Quebecers have the inalienable right to self-determination and if they wish to become an independant state, so be it.
But for boosters of independence to tell Quebec that they need to separate to assure its linguistic and cultural survival is utter tripe.

Unfortunately, too many Quebecers are eating it up with a spoon....

121 comments:

  1. Editor,

    What happens to the end part of this piece?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So what is the critical mass, whether in percentages or in absolute numbers?

    P.S.: I tend to agree more with the idea that cultural survival is more highly correlated with the existence of strong institutions than specifically with numbers. Canada has numerous strong French-language institutions (mostly in Quebec) that I believe ensure our continued existence, at least for the foreseeable future. Somewhat tongue-in-cheekly, I might suggest that these are: media (for controlling the masses), higher education (for indoctrinating the somewhat brighter), a political intelligentsia, an artistic intelligentsia, and the financing of enough private and state-owned entities.

    This is true of any group anywhere, and it explains the relative certainty of our medium-term survival (I'm still waiting for that asteroid to smack into Earth). Accordingly, it also begins to provide an explanation as to why most immigrant groups don't survive very long as distinct entities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparatchik writes that it is French-language institutions that are also responsible for cultural survival. He names the following institutions:

      "media (for controlling the masses), higher education (for indoctrinating the somewhat brighter), a political intelligentsia, an artistic intelligentsia, and the financing of enough private and state-owned entities."

      Although I believe the critical mass argument is stronger (chicken-egg, with critical mass being the chicken and institutions being the egg), there is much to be said about the "institution" argument.

      However, what I'd like to point out is: with the exception of "state-owned entities", virtually ALL of the institutions Apparatchik names are ones which can exist WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND WITHOUT GOVERNMENT-INITIATED LAWS SUCH AS BILL 101.

      Any free and democratic society benefits from having these very institutions support their particular culture and language without the additional "benefit" of language laws.

      Indeed, I would go further and say that artificial props such as Bill 101 do a DISSERVICE to the language or culture intended as the beneficiary because they give the false impression to the populace that laws can actually protect and promote a culture, ultimately dulling the populace from being proactive in their daily lives in doing what is needed, on an individual basis, to protect the language or culture.

      To wit: a francophone that continues to give his consumer dollar to a store only offering unilingual English service encourages and enables continued "bad" service. Instead, by withholding his consumer dollar and telling the store owner in no uncertain terms that he won't shop there until he gets service in French will get for him and his neighbours French service faster than any law can ever hope to produce.

      Another disadvantage of language laws: by legislating a "French face" in Quebec, francophones are given the false impression that they can live unilingually in French without having to worry about the need for English, the universal language of business, commerce, the internet, and communication. What this does is DISCOURAGE the need of and learning of English which, ultimately, will give francophones ECONOMIC power which is the best way to protect a culture.

      The future of a strong Quebec is one in which francophones learn and work in English in much greater numbers. Sorry, but that's the politically incorrect truth, one which francophones will learn the quickest as soon as Quebec becomes independent, something I hope happens very quickly.

      Delete
    2. A+, Tony! This is EXACTLY the way I want it to manifest myself. Just think--no more special packaging outside Quebec. The economies of scale would reduce the costs of packaging because if Quebec wants French labelling, GREAT! THEY can pay for it all by themselves! If they want their French TV programs that they cherish so much, GREAT! They can pay for the programs all by themselves, and with no assistance from the rest of us!

      There really has never been any happiness between the two linguistic groups, so why artificially fight it?

      Tony, I've read your book online and while your utopic theory looks very good on paper, and your arguments certainly have plenty of merit, the flaw is French Quebec won't go for a bilingual city-state, they just won't. At best, Western Montreal may try for partition of Quebec, and that's fine as far as I'm concerned. It would work even better if the peninsula of land making up the Veaudreuil-Soulange area from the Ottawa/St. Lawrence River summit westward to the Ontario border was included creating a fully accessible corridor to Ontario. Sadly, it's "too French" and so that won't work. Soulange traditionally votes PQ when it is popular to do so.

      I still believe Harper should butcher equalization payments, especially to Quebec, if for NO other reason than their disloyalty to our confederation. When the demerits of separation are discussed in French social circles, its opponents always discuss the costs as opposed to why it's positive to be a part of a greater Canada from a nonmonetary standpoint. If THEY can't come up with the merits (except for the formidable costs), is there really an argument here?

      One thing the next round of equalization in 2014 should include is the POTENTIAL for revenue, and all the recipient provinces of equalization SHOULD be forced to look at what they can do to improve their own fortunes. NF has already done better in finding offshore oil, yet they still expect to get their same handout as they always have. There may be merit, but why shouldn't the onus be on them to show why? Don't get me wrong; I've always enjoyed the business trips to NF I used to take. Geographically, it's fabulous because it's very unspoiled, but it's the social openness and hospitality of its residents that make it really special. I knew the Americans that were grounded in NF during 9-11 were in for a special, enormously positive experience even though they had no idea HOW special it was going to be. Maritimers are very friendly and hospitable as well, and I don't want to see them get hurt.

      On the flip side, the sad reality is Ontario, at least for the time being, cannot afford to contribute to the support system. The economic shocks of the last few years make it too difficult financially to do so. Ontario has a large industrial base, and this has been eroded because of loss of wealth in the U.S. and around the world. Harper's determination to trade with China is a long overdue strategy. While in the past, America has been a big basket in which Canada could put most of its eggs, it's always risky to put all or too many of one's eggs into one basket, no matter how lucrative that basket. Too, China has triple the population America has, and because they are taking on a market economy, albeit slowly, they are flexing their might. Ontario will either have to learn to cater to THAT critical mass or continue to struggle, but right now they haven't the means to be have-not Canada's breadbasket.

      Delete
    3. Tony, I've read your book online and while your utopic theory looks very good on paper, and your arguments certainly have plenty of merit, the flaw is French Quebec won't go for a bilingual city-state, they just won't. At best, Western Montreal may try for partition of Quebec, and that's fine as far as I'm concerned. It would work even better if the peninsula of land making up the Veaudreuil-Soulange area from the Ottawa/St. Lawrence River summit westward to the Ontario border was included creating a fully accessible corridor to Ontario. Sadly, it's "too French" and so that won't work. Soulange traditionally votes PQ when it is popular to do so.

      I think this is where you're wrong, Mr Sauga: by putting it in terms of "too French", you make it clear that Francophones are not welcome in this hypothetical tearaway province. Obviously you need territorial continuity, and it would be better if the part of Ontario between Ottawa and the Merger of the Ottawa River and the St Lawrence joined in as well (thus leaving Ontario), but the whole point is not to create a "French-free" Southern Quebec, but a bilingual Province (due to the people who already live there, unburdened by Bill 101 and all related nonsense. Among the people living there, there will be unilingual Francophones, but the point is not to kick them out or to make them feel unwelcome, but to give them a choice other than the rule-by-force of the Nordiques. After all (2006 Census numbers in hand), there are 4 million unilingual francophones in Quebec out of 7.5 million inhabitants (numbers may have changed since then, but not proportions), and support for Quebec independence is around 40%. That means 1 million uniligual Francophones opposing an independent Quebec. By no means will they be ready to be on the side of the Anglos, Allos and their bilingual fellow Francos, but then you only need to convince the ones in the region of interest that they won't be worse off, even without the current hegemonism of the Nordiques.

      Having said that, I think the most accurate predictor of the boundaries of the new Province is the result of the de-amalgamation votes, which would see the island (but not the City!) of Montreal split down the middle (see map in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Montreal-boroughs-post-demerger.png)

      and some see this as some sort of re-enactment of the Berlin Wall. But there is no need for that: people from Gatineau are free to hop across the river to Ottawa, and vice-versa. All that is needed is the removal of the OQLF authority from the areas outside the bold black line (and any other areas who care to join in). No walls, no civil war, no balkanisation (as Seppie's new English speaking incarnation suggests), just a dull, boring administrative reshuffle. And, yes, I expect Montreal Est to stay with the Nordiques...

      Delete
    4. So, VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

      Delete
    5. Partition: When I say "too French", I mean the residents of Vaudreuil/Soulange would not likely support annexation with Ontario, or a city-state. Too bad, really, because they'd benefit from a nice tax cut, and there are already plenty of Franco Ontarians living just over the current border so communication in French is not imperiled.

      Delete
    6. OK, likelihood is always going to be a guessing game, so I hear you there, but lest the usual suspects accuse me (or even, by association, you) of advocating annexation with Ontario, let me emphasize that I envisage the New Province to be on land that currently belongs to Quebec and Ontario, occupied mostly by bilingual inhabitants (or, to a lesser extent, more tolerant unilinguals) and INDEPENDENT of either of the currently existing provinces, which currently are or aim to be unilingual (albeit in a different language from each other) and seem to struggle handling a substantial minority that does not fit in their vision.

      (Cue some other incarnation of you-know-who accusing me of advocating the slaughter of the first borns or the adoption of Tagalog as the official language...)

      Delete
    7. Mr. Sauga writes:

      I've always enjoyed the business trips to NF I used to take. Geographically, it's fabulous because it's very unspoiled,

      Beside Quebec, Newfoundland is my favourite province!

      Like you say, if someone wants a real treat, go for a vacation in Newfoundland: unspoiled, etc. It's like going back to the 1950s.

      And the best fish and chips in the world (go to Chess's in St. John's!).

      Delete
  3. "Quebecers have the inalienable right to self-determination and if they wish to become an independant state, so be it."


    "Unfortunately, too many Quebecers are eating it up with a spoon...."

    Many in the ROC would hope they use a shovel in lieu of a spoon. Canada, as I have stated many times, would be a better and stronger country without the negative pole of Quebec.

    I would wish them well to live in their utopian world of French...Of course, rational would lead one to believe this might be short lived without the "confines of a protective, indulgent and doting Canada" that the editor suggests.

    Time to move on..in any event. Separate...good fences make good neighbors. I would like to see a particularily high fence placed around Quebec to insulate Canada from the negative influence of the "distinct society".

    As to Quebec media and TV...how much of the total CBC budget or CTF is directed towards Quebec look alike versions of American TV. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Canada, as I have stated many times, would be a better and stronger country without the negative pole of Quebec."

      Le problème est que le "canada" ne sera plus un "pays" lorsque nous l'abandonnerons.

      Delete
    2. Ever heard of places like Ireland or Australia? I'm sure they can find a way to get by...

      Delete
    3. Mr. Sauga in Laval this weekendSaturday, March 3, 2012 at 5:17:00 AM EST

      Ireland now is in financial peril. They for a while were able to improve their fortunes by cutting taxes and taking on more debt, but that proved to be short-term gain, and now they're just starting to feel the long-term pain as the other shoe has dropped.

      Australia is indeed doing well, but it took them quite a while to do so, and they were really rugged individualists when they started out. So was Israel. Quebec, would eventually start to get it right, but first they would go through a plenitude of pain, starting with their structural deficit and over reliance on the government to take care of them. Right now, the ROC is their lifeline, but will they sink or swim without the lifeline? Will they sacrifice their generous social programs courtesy of ROC, esp through $8+ billions in equalization payments not to mention other federal goodies they have benefitted from? Increasing taxes in Quebec by taking on the federal tax vacuum won't be enough!

      Beyond that, if Quebec wants French labelling, I'm sure they'll get it, but they'll have to absorb the extra costs while ROC will benefit from English North America's economies of scale and lower costs. Works for me!

      Quebec's nationalism has already cost a lot of its best talent to leave, including Guy Laliberté and Céline...er...I mean Celine Dion. Many, many doctors, even French trained ones have left because (a) Quebec doctors are the lowest paid on the continent and (b) research, equipment, etc. are far behind the times, esp. compared to the USA. There is no reason for this trend not to continue. It's almost impossible to get a doctor on a permanent basis in Quebec. Oh, and let's not forget about a lot of English money that has left as well. If the fires of separation start up again, even more will leave thus making that burden of nationbuilding in Quebec that much harder.

      Delete
    4. Mr Sauga, I generally agree with you. One point I want to make, though, is that the Irish situation that you described, which unfolded occurred between the 1980's and now, does not make it any less of a country (which was my original point). And since they obtained independence from Britain in 1922, it hasn't got anything to do with that either: more a case of some countries having better luck in choosing their government than others.

      Delete
    5. Obviously the word "occurred" is a leftover from the previous attempt at writing my post and does not need to be there anymore... must read before I post!

      Delete
  4. Editor,

    Such is the nature of this maze we're all in, that we spin around the same axel! I therefore, can only begin to comment on this new article the way that I did at the end of the preceding one.

    I must confess that no matter how we try to rationalize it, for the most part the country works! Our problem is that we forget to separate the separatists from the rest of us who have actually embraced each other’s culture. We don’t want to war but remember; the best warriors are those who want war the least! And with that, I must repeat my last post in your previous article...


    Again you Sepeis make it sound like there will be a clean break. Boy, are you ever wrong!!

    Canada played Russian roulette enough times already. There’s no way this will happen again, especially with you separatists loading the gun. The Clarity Act is law. Just as you separatist tell us that your unconstitutional Room 101 segregation law can create hatred but must be obeyed, so will the Clarity Act be obeyed. If you don't like it, leave. One thing is certain; you'll never get all the territory. Already there are several regions with movements preparing to officially request becoming integral parts a The New Canadian Province...

    By the way, you are not dealing only with landed immigrants here. You are trying to wipe out one of the founding nations. They may have marginalized themselves in the past by unsuspectingly accepting the nomenclature of “English Community", but that's over too! A Victorious Founding Nation will only be pushed so far!!

    Mon Ami, the time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end!

    VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't mind if Quebec separated, but I would still wish to keep the city of Montreal as part of Canada, since it was the place I was born and the birth place of Canadian industry...

      Delete
    2. Anonymous writes:

      "I must confess that no matter how we try to rationalize it, for the most part the country works!"

      There is much to celebrate about Canada and, yes, I agree that for the most part the country works. But Justin Trudeau has a point: if the Canada he know and loves ceases to be, he would prefer an independent Quebec.

      And I agree with that sentiment, only that my threshold for why and when a country like Canada should cease to be is very, very different from Justin's. My threshold is when segregation and violation of fundamental human rights becomes a reality in a part of the country...and all of the political parties represented in the country's legislature support it. I am, of course, referring to the present day Parliament of Canada in which the Justin's Liberals, NDP, Conversatives, and, of course, the Bloc all support Bill 101 (I haven't been able to ascertain where the Greens stand on Bill 101).

      35 years of the hate law/race law Bill 101 is enough. The very continued existence of the country must be called into question. As William Johnson once said: "“I would rather see a sovereign Quebec that respected freedoms, respected rights, than see a federalistic Quebec that violates freedoms, that puts fanaticism as an instrument of government policy.”

      I wholeheartedly agree with Johnson. Time to say goodbye and get on with our lives.

      Delete
    3. Our problem is that we forget to separate the separatists from the rest of us who have actually embraced each other’s culture.

      Begin by referring to them as separatists. Proudly use the word Canadian rather than federalist.
      Separatist and treasonist rather than nationalist, souverainiste or independantiste.

      French Canadians don’t appreciate being branded as Separatists, Frenchies or Quebecois, so why go there? If we understand that the separatist is but an extremist special interest minority, we will be less likely to insult our French Canadian brothers. Lets remember that we won that divisive referendum with and because of them.
      You don’t believe it was only because of the Greeks, the Italians and the Jews, do you?

      Don’t refer to yourself as a Quebecois. If you are a Montrealer, say so. After all, Montreal may well be a Canadian Bilingual Province soon enough.

      I can go on sighting more examples that help the deceptive separatist myth, but perhaps the most important thing is to be mindful when we speak so that we don’t perpetuate the separatist myth.


      Separate the separatist from our province as the hateful cult that they act like and you’ll discover how our French Canadian Brother is our ally!

      Delete
    4. Ohhh....here you all go again, riding on that utopian theory of separating the separatist from the Real Canadian. The two are inseparable and not mutually exclusive, and if they are, nothing has manifested to prove it. You have had at the fore Quebec governments that hold or promise to hold referendums as required, while others state no referendums unless something riles Quebec up enough to hold one.

      The CAQ-ers are already bursting at the seams. The ol' separatist in the CAQ is already rising to the surface even before its first test at the polls. So much for a referendum-free-for-a-decade separatist party.

      One painful negative I have to endure living in Toronto is the Maple Leafs--the perennial losers that they are. They are the most valuable team in the NHL despite no playoff revenues for the last 8 years. They don't HAVE to win to be successful. Season ticket holders are mostly rich corporate clients--there are megatons of money in Toronto. They can EASILY afford a new franchise in the area--EAS-IL-Y! Hockey is Canada's #1 spectator sport and that market has an absolute fortune of money. If little Quebec City could afford an NHL team, if even smaller Green Bay can float an NFL team (as football is the only game in that town), Toronto can afford two NHL teams.

      My raison d'être for bringing up the Leafs is parallel to what's happening in Quebec. The Leafs have no reason or need to win a Stanley Cup, just keep the utopic dream of winning a championship one day in the future is enough. That is enough to keep the corporate box seat money coming in like a horse perpetually chasing a carrot placed on a fishing line two feet in front of its nose. A stupid horse will keep chasing after the carrot it will never catch.

      What's going on in Quebec is even worse because Canada keeps bribing the horse with carrots lest the horse will not perform if not given the carrot. Who's paying for the carrots? Not Quebec! It's also like child doing a bad behaviour and the parent rewards the child if he'll stop doing the bad behaviour. He'll do it to collect the reward, but right after that he'll go back to the same bad behaviour, esp. if the parent endlessly rewards the child to stop the behaviour. Quebec's "bad behaviour" is threatening to separate if it doesn't get its reward. There is no incentive to stop the bad behaviour, just perpetuate it. Cut Quebec off the federal dole, and they'll stop, or leave and either sink or swim. I can live with that. They're gonna sink because they'll still want their generous social programs and low tuition. Look at the tuition protests going on. FOOLISHNESS! Quebec is a big fat fool, but as long as they're getting their federal government rewards, ROC is the fool!

      Delete
  5. Editor: You articulate some very important points, but the reality is that Quebecois continue to be taught in school that their culture is threatened, that Canada is a threat and an enemy, that any English within Quebec is effectively "toxic" to French, etc., and this is compounded by much of the Francophone media and politicians. Within francophone culture, it remains very risky to rebut separatists publically - you will be labelled and marginalised socially and in your career prospects, or receiving provincial government assistance for anything, such is the hold of separatists in the province over the last few decades.

    Unfortunately although change is slowly happening, separatism no longer receives the airplay and support as it did in the 1990s, and many Quebecois are beginning to realise that Bill 101 is as much a barrier to their children's future as the church was to the young generation in the 1950s. I don't think this will result in any significant changes/relaxations to the language laws any time soon, but given that English is returning (slowly) to the island of Montreal, that more people are becoming less extreme in their lingo politics, I expect that in 3-4 decades that there will be a more pragmatic and healthy duality of French and English in Quebec. Unfortunately it is too late for Montreal to return to being the big metropolis of Canada which it once was - the position now taken by Toronto/Greater Golden Horseshoe region, and I am not expecting true linguistic harmony to happen in my lifetime - but I believe it will happen, and the turning point in attitudes is now - as demonstrated by your articles and by many of those who engage in dialogue. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Our problem is that we forget to separate the separatists from the rest of us who have actually embraced each other’s culture.

    Begin by referring to them as separatists. Proudly use the word Canadian rather than federalist.
    Separatist and treasonist rather than nationalist, souverainiste or independantiste.

    French Canadians don’t appreciate being branded as Separatists, Frenchies or Quebecois, so why go there? If we understand that the separatist is but an extremist special interest minority, we will be less likely to insult our French Canadian brothers. Lets remember that we won that divisive referendum with and because of them.
    You don’t believe it was only because of the Greeks, the Italians and the Jews, do you?

    Don’t refer to yourself as a Quebecois. If you are a Montrealer, say so. After all, Montreal may well be a Canadian Bilingual Province soon enough.

    I can go on sighting more examples that help the deceptive separatist myth, but perhaps the most important thing is to be mindful when we speak so that we don’t perpetuate the separatist myth.


    Separate the separatist from our province as the hateful cult that they act like and you’ll discover how our French Canadian Brother is our ally!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it's time for new revolution to retaliate against those septards...

      Delete
    2. There's been enough retaliation from all sides. We need to expose the culprits who pretend to look out for Quebecers.

      If you think the separatists PQ, BQ, ADQ and CAQ represent the French Canadians, you’re another fallen victim of the Separatist lexicon. The word Quebecois used to be used to describe someone from Quebec City just as Lavallois does for Lavalers. Now a Quebecois is mixed in as part of the "nation" of Quebec. That’s more of the same mythology and deception.

      Note that the children of the separatist leaders are multilingual yet those same leaders prevent the rest of Quebecers access to other languages! You call that caring for their people? Do you think that if we expose these traitors to French Canadians will continue to accept being systematically segregated forever?

      Before you paint us all with the same cross dressing monarch’s blue brush, remember that there are more French Canadians living in the PROVINCE of Quebec who are ready to bleed Maple Leaf Red to defend our Canada than the separatist propaganda allows you to!

      The dirty underhanded separatists propaganda, which in our ignorance we Canadians permit, is the greatest danger to our sovereignty.

      This is our country! All of it! Separate the separatist from the French Canadian if you want to keep it!

      Delete
    3. "Separate the separatist from our province as the hateful cult that they act like and you’ll discover how our French Canadian Brother is our ally"

      "After all, Montreal may well be a Canadian Bilingual Province soon enough."

      Confusing post as you appear to be a separatist yourself.

      Delete
    4. @anom 8:49

      "remember that there are more French Canadians living in the PROVINCE of Quebec who are ready to bleed Maple Leaf Red to defend our Canada than the separatist propaganda allows you to!"

      What the h*ll are you smoking? "French Canadians" ready to "bleed Maple Leaf red to defend Canada" is rarer than the Pope's sh*t and you'd know too well if you'd lived in Québec for more than a week.

      Delete
    5. Le sécessionniste : C'était qui qui a voté non en 80 et en 95 alors?

      Delete
    6. I'm sure the Pope sh*ts at least once a day... not that rare then!

      Delete
    7. Mind you, the difference between voting Non and bleeding maple leaf red and defending Canada is abyssal.

      Delete
    8. Not as big as the difference between voting "Non" and voting "Oui"...

      Delete
  7. "And so an honest examination of the facts can only conclude that the Francophone society in Quebec is secure, safe and successful, with its future assured."

    I don't fully agree on that editor, because the fact of the matter is that the existence of this culture will gradually end up fading away in about 50 years from now, considering the birth rate is so low(despite the mini-baby boom that's currently popping up to the surface),the suicide rate among teen is higher than the rest of Canada and of course, immigrants not willing to integrate into and adopt the white "french" catholic pure-laine society and lifestyle ...So, basically you have to take those key points into consideration before denoting any assumption of how secured and safe it is. Perhaps it is the case now, but like I said earlier, not likely to be further down the road, especially with the lack of maturity they carry around in their behaviors and personalities, doesn't seem to be very reassuring to the preservation of their existence at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Blah Blah Blah you'll be talking about this process forever with no result. When you intellectualize the shit out of something the voters don't listen. They need actions to move forward in a positive manner. What is the solution and how soon?? I want to move back and suffer no discrimination wherever I choose to live.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actions?
      As posted above, already there are several regions with movements preparing to officially request becoming integral parts of The New Canadian Province of Montreal...
      How's that for action?

      A Victorious Founding Nation will only be pushed so far!!

      VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

      Delete
    2. Anon 8:58AM, one JdeM columnist expresses the same point of view as yours. Of course in his case it's an attempt at a sneer, but he knows well that he's parroting a point of view shared by MANY Montrealers:

      "L’objectif pour la métropole ? Devenir une cité-État. Séparer Montréal du reste du Québec. Moins Montréal ressemblera au Québec, plus elle sera intéressante. Enfin, elle se convertira, sans qu’on la gronde, au bilinguisme. Et au multiculturalisme."

      http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2012/02/29/hec-in-english

      Delete
    3. “If Quebec were to attain independence, the principle of legal continuity (absence of a vacuum juris) would allow the territorial integrity of Quebec, guaranteed both by Canadian constitutional law and public international law, to be asserted over any claims aimed at dismembering the territory of Quebec, whether they stem from:
      “- the Natives of Quebec, who enjoy all the rights belonging to minorities, in addition to those recognized in indigenous peoples by present-day international law, but without giving rise to the right to secede;
      “- the anglophone minority for whom the protection provided by international law has no territorial effect; or
      “- persons residing in certain border regions of Quebec, who, as such, enjoy no particular protection under international law."
      “These conclusions are reinforced by the applicability of the principle of the succession to the existing territorial limits at the time of independence.”

      Thomas Franck et al., The Territorial Integrity of Quebec in the Event of the Attainment of Sovereignty, Report prepared for the Quebec Department of International Relations (1992)

      The only way of partitionning Québec would be by force. Sounds a whole lot more like a pipe dream to me compared to Quebec independance. Cheers.

      Delete
    4. @La secessionniste: Unfortunately you are looking at this issue with "rose tinted glasses." For Quebec to attain independence, it would need to be an independence agreed by the Rest of Canada and in turn by the USA, who most likely would support whatever position Canada would take. Without such agreements Quebec could never have access by sea or air, and Canada will still control the military even if individual soldiers or units were to defect without permission to Quebec.

      Thereafter, as part of an agreement to recognise an independent Quebec, one of the points to agree with be boundaries. Given that the north of Quebec was originally part of Prince Rupert's Land, and was only given to Quebec "in trust", if Quebec were to leave Canada, the former Prince Rupert's Land may require to be returned to Canada, particularly if the indiginous peoples do not want to separate, which is very likely.

      In regard to West Quebec municipalities and other regions, if the communities vote to separate from an independent Quebec, this would end up being a negotiation between Canada and those negotiating an independent Quebec. Anything could happen, but one would assume a pragmatic agreement would be needed, akin to the divide between Northern and Southern Ireland. It is absurd to imagine that an independent Quebec can be independent without the agreement of Canada or the USA.

      Delete
    5. Whether there is any partitioning of an independent Quebec will play itself out on a political level and not on a legal level, no matter what Thomas Franck et al say. Just take a look at Kosovo. None of what has happened there (its independence and then its de facto partitioning) has anything to do with international law.

      Quebec will most likely not be partitioned, but it is not impossible. Just imagine Natives setting up roadblocks, occupying a hydroelectric dam or some bridge. How would Quebec deal with that? With force? Is it impossible that Canada would feel compelled to step in?

      Delete
    6. You speak of a partition that would happen automatically if Québec secedes. However it is possible to have a referendum (you know which one, the one what's-her-face proposed - referendums by popular initiative) within a certain administrative part of Quebec to go back to Canada, is it not?

      Delete
    7. Oh, and I forgot to mention the issue with the borders of Labrador. There is no way, ever, Canada would agree to the borders Qc claims.

      Delete
    8. M. Sécessionniste,

      C'était qui qui a voté NON en 80 et en 95 alors?

      Separating separatists from the French Canadian is what is needed because even if you claim that the movement of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL is a separatist one, you fail to understand that it is not breaking up our country. it is to prove that the Quebecois Separatist is xenophobic, ethnocentric and, thank God, a minority that does not represent French Canadians!

      Quebec separation must never happen because the basis for the movement still remains jealousy, racism and revenge! It is for this reason that our group, and other fast growing groups are poised to ask for the affimation of the new PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL. We shall demonstrate how arguments used by the separatist AGAINST Canada, can also be used by us FOR Canada. The difference is that we wouldn’t need trickery for it. We’ll get a CLEAR Majority asking a simple question.

      The beauty of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is that it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.
      We hope we’ll never need to do it, but in order to resist that hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long, we will!

      VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

      Delete
    9. Le secessionniste,

      If you can find me another opinion that is more neutral and more non-partisan than what you quoted, we may continue the discussion. As you know, your quote was produced by the so-called 'legal experts' hired by the separatist Parizeau government, the same government who held - and lost - 1992 referendum, then blamed the loss to the ethnic votes.

      Now that you mentioned Quebec independence, can you explain to me how is it going to be? As such, there is never any referendum on Quebec independence to date.

      Delete
    10. Erratum: I meant 1995 referendum. The report was issued in 1992.

      Delete
    11. I can't help but say: Excellent! (in a Montgomery Burns voice!)

      Delete
    12. Troy,

      Here is a another opinion, it is not neutral, it is from two passionately against Québec independence english canadians analysts. Regarding the issue of our borders after independence and the issue of partition, their conclusion is :

      "It would be in our best interest to indicate from the beginning that we are willing to accept the existing provincial boundaries of Quebec as the boundaries of the new state of Quebec provided that Quebec surrenders forever all claims to Labrador and agrees to reasonable maritime boundaries and the right of passage through its territory. Though it might make us feel better to lash out by stirring up internal dissent within Quebec, it would be unconscionable to mislead Anglophone and particularly aboriginal groups to believe that if they make enough of a fuss, we will come to their aid and help them to secede from Quebec."

      You can read the full chapter here : http://global-economics.ca/dth.chap6.htm

      Delete
    13. Troy,

      OFF TOPIC

      Sorry that our discussion on Anglisization part two fell short. I was busy yesterday and I am leaving for one week.

      One more comment about this. That Québec is not a UN recognized sovereing state has nothing to do with it, Québec is nevertheless the country (the society, the territory, the group of persons, the community, (you get the picture...)) that we are emotionnaly attached to.

      You think that I and those like me want to force our "illusions" to other members of the community and you want to start forcing on the children.

      I have another theory : without necessarily being independentist, a large majority of quebeckers see themselves as quebeckers first and see things from a Québec perspective. And what is thought in school simply reflects our society, just like schools all over the world are reflections of their respective society.

      Andre Pratte, La Presse federalist editorial, seems to agree with me : http://www.vigile.net/Why-are-so-many-young-Quebecers

      And Association des études canadiennes Jack Jedwab repports that 71% of francos (and 60% of all quebeckers) see themselves as quebeckers first or only : http://www2.lactualite.com/jean-francois-lisee/la-decanadianisation-du-quebec-saccelere/7024/

      I will not be able to pursue our discussion for now since I am leaving for the week. Always to discuss with you. See you next week.

      Delete
    14. The same 1992 report ruled that as Quebec is not divisible, neither is Canada. Quebec would not get an ok from the UN because it does not meet the criteria of a colony, the necessary condition for the UN to ok a secession. Separatist lawyer Daniel Turp tried to challenge that second part of the ruling claiming Quebec was a colony, but failed to convince the panel.
      Separatists often quote the 1992 ruling, but only partially. They tend to omit the part that concerns the whole of Canada.

      Delete
    15. Quebec would not get the ok to break up another UN recognized state, that is.

      UN decisions are not always carved in stone though. Power (ex the US) and determination can make the UN change its mind. Quebec separatists are very determined. So should become Montreal separatists. I have a feeling that Montreal separatists would be a numerous group, all they need is to get organized. It's also obvious what effect the concept of Montreal's separation has on the 'separatist' and 'federalist' Québécois (with both separatists and the 'concerned-for-Canada' federalists essentially being indistinguishable from each other).

      Personally, I would love to see those who want to leave to finally leave (and not just talk about it), and those who are threatened to be left to stop trying to bend over backwards to hold on (this goes for both Canada vis a vis Quebec, and Quebec vis a vis Montreal). Groups of people do drift apart over time, and if we have drifted so far apart, maybe a political remodeling would be in order.

      Delete
    16. Without 'necessarily' being an 'independentiste', and maybe even being a 'federalist', ...he will still side with the separatists. This is so typical.

      Tony Kondacks, remember that clown Acajack? Why do they all sound the same?

      Delete
    17. @JP

      As long as Québec is part of Canada, its territory (present-day territory, seems I need to specify) can't be modified without an approval by the Assemblée Nationale (under the 1871 canadian constitutionnal law). After independance, the territorial integrity of Québec is assured by international law. It is actually an important part of the equation for the international recognition of a new country that the territory remains intact (utipossidetis juris).

      Mind my language, but talking Québec partition is simply put "de l'enculage de mouche". Find a study, a report, anything with an ounce of credibility to assert your claims.

      Document published by the government of Québec in 1997: http://actionsouverainiste.org/fluxrss/la-partition-du-quebec.html
      (no need to highlight the fact its "highly biaised" being diffused on a separatist website)

      @Troy

      5 international constitutional law experts were hired for answering precise Québec questions. Why would they risk their own credibility for laws that don't concern them in any way? Or are you presuming the authors were paid to arrive to these conclusions?

      @adski

      Can you quote the parts of the 1992 report confirming your post?

      Delete
    18. 'L'integrite territoriale du Quebec dans l'hypothese de l'accession a la souverainete' by Franck, Higgins, Pellet, Shaw, Tomuschat
      pp. 377-452

      'The right of peoples to self-determination is a very general principle, which has as a consequence always and everywhere the right for the community involved to participate in it's future, but this does not suffice to provide a basis for the right of a people to accede to independence, to the detriment of the state to which it is attached, EXCEPT IN COLONIAL SITUATIONS.'

      In response to Turp's motion, the panel reiterated:

      '...one cannot reasonably maintain that it (the Québécois) is a colonial people, nor that it is deprived of the right to its own existence within the Canadian whole, nor to participate in democratic life.'

      Delete
    19. @Troy

      The panel stated more than the quebecois separatists, together with their 'federalist' opportunist/extortionist sidekicks, would like to divulge.

      But I agree with you that an opinion of more than 5 people would be necessary for the legitimacy of something as drastic as formation of a new country.

      For one, that new country would need enough leverage to get international recognition, not of some panel, but actual governments. Quebec can count on France, but not even... Sarkozy referred to Quebec separatists as 'sectarians'.

      If I could give Quebec advise, it would be this: you WOULD get the recognition, but do it right. Ask a clear question. Don't tamper with the vote. Don't scapegoat your minorities. Let the other side have a voice, ie don't shut it out with the referendum law, although all this might be moot today given the Clarity Act.

      But if you fuck around like in 1995, nobody will recognize you or take you seriously. It's as simple as that.

      Delete
    20. Adski,

      Thank you for taking the time to share the lines you were referring to, honestly. While the right to self-determination is still a fairly vague concept (Unterberger, 2002; tinyurl.com/8yyktrc), I highly doubt, a Québec Oui majority wouldn't get the international recognition it needs to become a country. Yet, as you state it in your comment above, the entire process needs to be "sans reproche".

      Delete
    21. @Le secessioniste:

      "Find a study, a report, anything with an ounce of credibility to assert your claims."

      http://canadachannel.ca/HCO/index.php/Stéphane_Dion_-_Open_Letter_to_Lucien_Bouchard

      With all due respect to your belief that Quebec's provincial borders are protected by international law based on the principal of "uti possidetis juris" this is simply a principle applied prior to an independence agreement, which may, or may not, be used when boundaries of a new state party are ultimately agreed. In the end, boundaries would need to be agreed in a pragmatic manner by Canada and Quebec, (not to mention the USA who will have some very strong views on the subject) and these may differ from the boundaries as at present.

      If you check the www you will find that there is much discussion on this subject and that what Jacques Brassard states in your attached link is in many respects an opinion designed to reassure the "soft" yes sovereignty vote. Also, with regard to the five experts, you need to realise that the points made are yes/no type points, and are not comprehensive viewpoints of these experts with full explanations or limits or assumptions. In reality, it will be very challenging for an independent Quebec to keep a northern region comprising mostly indigenous people who are not "Quebecois" and who do not wish to be part of an independent Quebec state. It will be similarly so with respect to a western Quebec region most of whose population have expressed their wish through municipal referendums to remain part of Canada.

      One last question if you do not mind. Have you, or your family members or friends, ever experienced limitations to your education, career, or life opportunities which could be resolved or significantly improved if Quebec were to separate from Canada?

      Delete
    22. Blah Blah Blah
      We don't need to wash our dirty laundry in the UN and other countries' courts. we can do it in house, à la Canadienne/Québécoise.

      Poster wrote a good bace for a realizable solution..

      The beauty of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is that it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.

      Vive la Province Canadienne de Montréal...

      Delete
    23. Troy, JP, adski and Seppie: you seem to make too much out of a legal opinion, but there are more ways to skin a cat. In my lifetime I've seen two Germanies become one, Czechoslovakia split into Czech Republic and Slovakia, the Soviet Union splinter into a couple of dozen different countries, Yugoslavia being torn by a civil war into another half dozen countries, and even Canada went from having only two territories to having three. I'm not sure what the legal opinions given prior to any of those events were, but I'm happy to bet a fiver that not all of them were favourable to the changes that followed. The good thing about lawyers is that if you don't like what they say, you can always hire one who says what you like...

      Delete
    24. JP,

      So much variables would be at play (outcome of an hypothetic third referendum, separatist/federalist strategies, people occupying the key roles...) that I doubt the debate can be fruitful. One sure thing is that the political tension has diminished a lot since 1995, and negociations following a Oui would be easier and easier as time goes by than they would have been back then. I don't think Conservatives and western Canadians would mind so much if Québec was to separate.

      "One last question if you do not mind. Have you, or your family members or friends, ever experienced limitations to your education, career, or life opportunities which could be resolved or significantly improved if Quebec were to separate from Canada?"

      To answer your question, as an individual, I've never encountered any form of personal limitation that could be attributed to the political situation of Québec. Looking at the larger portrait, I'd even say that I believe your average québécois is more prepared to the outside world than your average north american. But the issue transcends individual opportunities, it's a collective choice. I believe that as a collectivity, Québec (and similarly the ROC) would be better off on its own. I think Janes Jacob's take on the subject (The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over Sovereignty), even if written a relatively long time ago, is accurate on many aspects. Emotional aspects aside, I share the core of her analysis.

      Better be good neighbors than bad lovers,

      Cheers,

      Delete
    25. Better be good neighbors than bad lovers

      Finally something we can agree upon. The issue is how the neighbourhood is carved up and who can join which, don't you think?

      Delete
    26. Quebec Partition, I agree with you about the lawyers, and contrary to the 1992 panel's ruling that neither Quebec nor Canada are indivisible, I believe that both are. I think that the RoQ does not fit in Canada, just like Montral does not fit into the RoQ.

      Google 'Quebec partition' and go to the Wikipedia article about it to see what ridiculous excuses Quebec separatist use against it. I mean one is literally that Canada is divisible because it's not a real nation, while Quebec is not divisible because it constitutes a nation. Really really arbitrary stuff.

      As for the 1992 ruling, yes, no matter how distinguished the lawyers were, there were only 5 of them, they convened only once, were handpicked by Parizeauvey al., and in the end they ruled for indivisibility of Canada as much as Quebec. So we can either take that ruling in it's entirety, or not at all, as in both Canada and Quebec are not indivisible. Of course QC separatists would like to use it partially and selectively, but they are known for wanting a cake and eating it too and we cannot let them have any double standards ANYMORE.

      Your examples of break ups and mergers, often against the UN, show that UN's will can be overridden in response to changing events. So if a selective interpretation of a one time ruling by 5 judges is all they have, then they don't have very much. And just like Parizeau said that Quebec will simply 'ignore' the clarity act, then we have to take a page from this and give them a bit of the same - we simply have to learn how to ignore their nonsense. We already have plenty experience at that too, in regards to their language laws.

      Delete
    27. @ La sessionniste:

      Thanks for your response. I agree with you that many in the RoC may be more ready to negotiate to allow Quebec to leave Confederation, but the negotiation would likely not permit Quebec to keep its current boundaries if the people in those regions really do not want to be part of an independent Quebec irrespective of what Jacques Brassard says, though in the long term I still do not see any advantage to Quebec to try to keep such regions, and I really doubt that most people in Quebec really want full independence.

      It is still remembered how upset soft sovereignists were at the thought that they may lose their Canadian citizenship and passports, or may not be able to use Canadian currency. Even hardline PQ leaders tried to convince separatists that they could maintain their Canadian citizenship even if they separated. It was at this moment that it became very obvious that most people in Quebec who were going to vote "yes" really had not fully grasped the basics of what separatism from Canada really meant, and that the hearts of these people would never have supported the goal of the PQ to declare full independence, even if UDI had been declared, as Parizeau had hoped to do immediately following a the 1995 referendum - hence the infamous lobster pot jibe.

      Thanks also for your candid response to my question regarding whether you or others have experienced any limits due to being within Canada. I'll have to read Jane Jacobs book on the subject of Quebec at least to better understand your perspective - though i find it challenging to understand why you cannot be both Quebecois and Canadian, as Canada does not appear to limit your sense of identity to be who you are, and to do what you wish to do.

      Delete
    28. adski:yes, I remember Acajack。We all had great debates on that forum which,I believe,we won hands down。

      I think this is the forum to be on to discuss these issues now;good quality of debates and my hats off to the editor for his blogs。Well done!

      Delete
  9. There is an oppurtunity to take control of the French School boards in the Montreal area if more allos get elected into the school trustees. The would be able to influence policy and destroy alot of the seppie propaganda in the school curriculm. Even stop the rule of not speaking English or another language in the halls and schoolyards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an excellent idea. Imagine an army of dedicated Allophone parents wrestling control of a French language school board democratically and pushing for more English language instruction so their kids have a fighting chance in the global economy? No wonder there is a political movement in Quebec (fronted by the CAQ) to abolish school boards under the guise of cost cutting. A Quebec institution not controlled by pur lainers simply cannot see the light of day, n'est pas?

      Delete
  10. We are on the same page for the majority of what you say, however, I cannot agree that only francophones benefit from Bilingualism. It is part of our Canadian identity to be bilingual, for those that desire to enjoy the other official language, There is always more to learn, and learning FR helps you interact with the provincial majority in a very beneficial way, thus this statement is the most important to rethink: 'All this is subsidized by English Canadians who pay for 75% of bilingualism, a benefit that serves francophone Canadians only.'
    We know very well that we Anglos get the short end of the bilingual stick in QC, but that doesn't mean that knowing other languages, especially the 'other' official one only serves our francophone brethren.
    Charle le Quint nous a dit, d'après le superbe proverbe turc qui veut dire qu’autant de langues que le gentilhomme sait parler qu’au-tant de fois est-il homme - Charles V used a Turkish proverb to say that the more languages you know, the more you are a person :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only you could convince Canadians from the ROC to think like you do..

      Delete
    2. If only we could convince the ROC to separate the separatists Quebecois from the French Canadians Canada wide, you'd see how a hateful xenophobic little minority they are! And we wouldn't be considering sleepwalking through the biggest land grab by trickery in history!

      This is our country! All of it!
      Separate the separatist from the French Canadian if you want to keep it!

      Delete
    3. "If only we could convince the ROC to separate the separatists Quebecois from the French Canadians Canada wide, you'd see how a hateful xenophobic little minority they are!"

      Yeah, we should take the separatists and put them all on Anticosti Island. They can have their pure French-only society there.

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't go that far: we're not as bad as they are. I'd say they can keep any place where they win a vote, and leave any place where they lose it. The same goes for the federalists. Everybody wins.

      Delete
    5. "we're not as bad as they are"

      So we're the bad guys. Who are the good guys in your world?

      If the good guys are promoting the balkanisation of a state, it leaves me doubtful for the future of humanity.

      Delete
    6. I wouldn't use the term "balkanisation" in your shoes, while you're busy doing some ethnic cleansing... it does say a bit too much about yourself. Also, feel free to explain why you think it's a bad idea that people who don't want their hometown to be transformed by force in a place where their language is forbidden form their own separate administration leaving the rest of Quebec carry on with the legislation they like, but you think it's a good idea to force your fellow Quebeckers to abandon their own language. The only plausible response that comes to mind is "retribution", but that would imply that you accept that the situation prior to the Quiet Revolution was fair after all, otherwise you wouldn't resort to the same tactics. Any thoughts?

      Delete
    7. BTW, welcome back, Seppie: nice new name you've picked. You sound more articulated in English...

      Delete
    8. "So we're the bad guys. Who are the good guys in your world?"

      Good guys don't pass laws (101, etc.) that violate basic human rights and personal freedoms and which result in ethnic cleansing.

      Delete
    9. @ The Quebec Partition,

      Le Secessionniste is not the same individual as Seppie. Seppie isn't as articulate and is incapable of writing in comprehensible English.

      Delete
    10. Quebec partition,

      Geez, I've rarely seen anyone stuffing words in my mouth with such impunity. Just in case you'd give too much attention to my previous post, it was tongue-in-cheek. Fortunately, I don't judge the future of humanity on the sole basis of anonymous comments.

      Glad you like my name.


      Anonymous,

      The notion of bad and good is in itself highly subjective and subject (!) to long unproductive debates. It made me laugh when Quebec Partition used it, hence my comment above. There you have the complete non-interesting story.

      Profitez bien de ce beau samedi,

      Delete
    11. I wouldn't know about that: the style is exactly the same, except he seems more comfortable in English so he ventures in the odd longer post. Also, I always harboured reservations about the "Francophonie" of Seppie, as some better French speakers than me seemed confused by his improper use of infinitives. And it's not like he hasn't got a track record of using multiple identities, is it?

      Delete
    12. Seppie (or Le sécessionniste): I was going to write a rebuttal, but the more I read your latest comment the more I saw that there was no content whatsoever.

      Stuffing words in your mouth? Care to make an example of when it happened?

      Judging the future of humanity? When did I ever do that?

      Notion of good and bad? Is that a cop-out I see before me or art thou just pleased to see me?

      Still, whatever name you choose, the same old trick to say nothing meaningful or pertinent and just throw in the odd covert insult in the hope that this allophone doesn't get it.

      Better luck next time.

      Delete
    13. Quebec Partition,

      Puisque ça semble te préoccuper, non je ne suis pas "Seppie". Ceci étant dit, libre à toi de m'appeler de cette façon.

      Plus important et sans vouloir me mêler de ta vie privé, je crois que tu accordes une importance démesurée aux propos tenus sur ce forum. Il fait beau (je suppose que tu habites Montréal), profite de la vie mon ami.

      Kind regards,

      Delete
    14. Assuming you're not Seppie (and yet I find it suspicious that there hasn't been a single post of his on this page after he littered all the others with posts using multiple recognisable monikers, but all of a sudden you pop out of nowhere holding the same positions and posting in the same style and with the same frequency...), I appreciate the invitation to enjoy life but, if it's alright with you, I'll carry on with my little political project. Give it another 40 years or so: I can wait.

      Best Regards

      Delete
  11. I thank the editor for this post on "critical mass".

    It is essential for everyone to understand the implications of the critical mass concept because it refutes that perennially told bugaboo "Quebec anglophones are the best treated minority", something used, along with other myths, to justify the human rights abuses contained in the hate law/race law Bill 101 against individuals in Quebec and against Quebec's anglophone community.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting read, I must admit, but with all due respect, this text is incomplete and I would dare to say a little biased.

    First, any assessment stating that Anglophones and English-Canadians are "not welcome" or hated by Québécois, is, itself, propaganda.
    Fact: Pro-French does NOT mean Anti-English.
    I was raised in French, educated in French, and I work (mostly) in French. Does that mean I didn't learn english along the way? Does that make me a Anglo hater? Does that make me a separatist? To some people's eyes, maybe, but I certainly don't feel as one of the above. If you're going to rant about bill 101, at least mention that english classes are obligatory in all school levels in Quebec, now. From grade 1 to college. Saying that Québécois are refusing to learn english and that they are against bilinguism, is ignorant.

    Second, on the subject of bill 101, I would like someone to provide me one GOOD reason about why it is such a bad thing for a nation to protect their culture. Like I mentioned before, learning french does NOT mean you can't learn english (or whatever other language, for that matter).
    People say Québec students should be educated in both languages. I agree. BOTH languages includes french, though.

    Third,I don't know what the intention behing your text was, but it strongly makes me feel like you think Québécois should be ashamed of trying to protect French language. Why? I've travelled a lot, in many countries and continents, and never have I seen places and people ashamed of defending their culture and distinctions. Never... Only in my home province, Québec. I LOVE english language, I' trying my best to speak it and write it as well as possible. But I'm not ashamed to say that I'll always stand by laws meant to protect French language.

    And finally, you are wrong, just so wrong, if you think that French culture is safer than ever. I don't mean this as a personal offense, believe me.
    The percentage of French speaking people in Montreal is declining more and more, every year and every decade. Again, I'm not for unilingualism (french or english), but seeing my language slowly drown, and seeing how people don't seem to realize it, is saddening to me.
    I'm not calling that "assimilation", but the situation of French in Québec IS concerning, whether you like it or not.

    Then again, I don't know about the person who wrote this, I don't know where they live, but I get the feeling that they did not care to investigate both sides of the debate before writing a frankly incomplete and one sided text.


    I am proud to speak both French and English (and two other languages), I am thrilled with the benefits it gets me, I am happy to know both Francophones and Anglophones, because there are just so many beautiful things in both cultures (in every culture, in fact).

    Really sad that people can't just get along and that some Enlish-Canadians have this image of hateful anti-anglos when it comes to Francophones.

    I AM pro-French. I am NOT anti-Anglo. And many, many people think the same way I do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't claim to speak for the editor, but the feeling is that no one objects to the Quebec institutions being pro-French, but the way they operate seems more anti-English instead. Also, the focus of this blog is not so much people just like yourself who do speak both languages and just try to get along, but those who seem hell-bent on squashing every trace of the English language and anglophone people out of Quebec. I can see from what you're writing that you're not one of the latter group but, believe me: even on these pages there are much less reasonable people than you.

      Delete
    2. First, I would like commend you on your written English. It's not easy to write in another language. Now, promoting your language is one thing but banning another language from public view because of some paranoid obsession is something else. How would you feel if you saw all the French signs in your town being forced to come down as a government policy? How is removing the word Welcome off the town's water tower going to protect French?? Banning languages, especially one of the country's official languages is not right and one day it will be corrected. There are a million people in Quebec that are English speakers. We pay taxes and contribute disproportionately to Quebec and want her to succeed. Is it wrong that we we would object to our own government treating us as foreigners or second tier citizens? You may think Language police are great but I as a fellow Quebec citizen think it's an abomination. I'm not advocating complete bilingualism pan Quebec, but atleast allow Montreal (where 75% of us live) to be free of language laws. If Montreal succeeds, Quebec succeeds, and that includes members of the Quebecois,Iroquois and Mohawk nations.

      Delete
    3. "First, any assessment stating that Anglophones and English-Canadians are "not welcome" or hated by Québécois, is, itself, propaganda. Fact: Pro-French does NOT mean Anti-English."
      If that was the case, money would be spent to promote the french language and the Québécois culture, instead of paying for language police to make sure nobody uses any other language.

      "Second, on the subject of bill 101, I would like someone to provide me one GOOD reason about why it is such a bad thing for a nation to protect their culture."
      Again, bill 101 is meant to punish people and it prevents people from making their own decisions, instead of promoting the french language.
      And by the way, there's much more to the Québécois culture than the french language; you should get out more.

      "Like I mentioned before, learning french does NOT mean you can't learn english (or whatever other language, for that matter)."
      Actually, that's exactly what the law says. And please, don't give me the "english classes are obligatory in all school levels in Quebec" argument, that's just pathetic.
      Tell me, what's so wrong with letting people chose, and then offering services based on the demand in a specific area?

      "Third,I don't know what the intention behing your text was, but it strongly makes me feel like you think Québécois should be ashamed of trying to protect French language."
      Many of them should feel ashamed, because it's not really about "protecting our language or culture", but more about racism and intolerance in many cases.

      "And finally, you are wrong, just so wrong, if you think that French culture is safer than ever. I don't mean this as a personal offense, believe me. The percentage of French speaking people in Montreal is declining more and more [...]"
      I love these kind of comments. I wonder how many of these pro-101'ers have never been outside the area of Montreal, and yet they make it sound like they are the protectors and defenders of this great province! (which they've never seen)
      You should get out more and visit the province you claim to "want to protect", you'll see that french is far from threatened anywhere else.

      You seem to be a somewhat rational person; why defend racism and intolerance?

      Delete
    4. Message à celui qui écrit ce blog :

      Une masse critique n'est pas le seul facteur à considérer.

      Par exemple, les 500 000 franco-ontariens sont bel et bien en voie d'assimilation. À chaque recensement, la proportion de franco-ontarien dans la province diminue.

      Le fait est qu'il y a 98% d'anglophones en Amérique du Nord et ça va toujours être un facteur défavorisant pour les communautés francophones du Canada. Et il y aura toujours une bonne partie des immigrants qui choisiront l'anglais comme langue d'usage et ce même au Québec.

      Je ne dit pas que l'assimilation des Québécois est une chose certaine, mais on sera toujours à risque.

      D'ailleur la seule raison pour laquel les Québécois ne se sont pas encore fait assimilé est la loi 101. Avant l'existence de cette loi environ 80% des immigrants envoyaient leurs enfants à l'école anglaise... À ce rythme, après 2 ou 3 générations, les anglophones seraient devenu majoritaire au Québec. Il y a aussi eu un exode des anglophones vers les autres provinces à cause de la loi 101 mais aussi à cause de la montée du nationalisme Québécois. Tout cela a donc été une bonne chose pour nous les francophones et vous devriez admettre ce fait.

      Un Quebec souverain garantirait la survie de la culture Québécoise. Tout les pays souverains ont sauvergardé leur culture et leur langue. Un exemple, l'Islande avec ces 300 000 habitant. Ce peuple est indépendant et parle toujours leur langue d'origine, l'Islandais...

      Et même si les Québécois francophones réussissent à survivre à l'intérieur du Canada, ça ne change rien au fait que la population du Québec diminue (de façon proportionelle) par rapport à celle du Canada. La population du Québec est maintenant de seulement 23% de celle du Canada. Et ça continuera à descendre, on tombera à 20%, puis à 15% dans quelques décennies. Donc notre poids politique diminuera à l'intérieur de la confédération Canadienne.

      Mais une chose est sûr. Si le Québec devient indépendant, cela n'aura plus d'importance car on aura 100% des pouvoir!

      je ne pense pas que le Québec a besoin du Canada pour "être protègé". On a pas besoin d'un grand frère... On est des adultes maintenant, le Québec est devenu mature. D'ailleur il y a plein de petits pays européens (Danemark, Norvège, Suisse, Finlande, Suède, les Pays-Bas...) avec des petites populations de 5 ou 10 millions qui s'en sortent très bien!

      Delete
    5. Blah blah blah , more bullshit statistics pulled out from where the Sun don't shine. Outside of Montreal, Quebec is virtually 100% white and francophone. It was before 101 and would still be the case without it! Also, English schools teach French very well. That apparently isn't good enough, they want complete indoctrination for immigrants of the history of Quebec according to them and only French schools are good enough for them. Immigrants are wise to what's going on, this is about power and control.

      Delete
    6. Having your own country does not automatically have any bearing on the sustenance of language or culture. Ireland gained independence but did not retain its language. Today Ireland is an English speaking country, as would be Scotland and Wales if they ever separated from England.
      Conversely, being in close association with another state does not necessarily involve a disappearance of a culture.

      Ireland teaches us another lesson too - that of partition. Having been part of GB for so long, Ireland sustained so much influx from the other side of the sea that in the end an enclave in the north had to be carved. Well, Quebec has been part of Canada for long enough to sustain an influx of people not loyal to to QC but to Canada, and this influx continues annually...and I'll let you fill in the rest.

      Delete
    7. Un Quebecois,

      "je ne pense pas que le Québec a besoin du Canada pour "être protègé". On a pas besoin d'un grand frère... On est des adultes maintenant, le Québec est devenu mature. D'ailleur il y a plein de petits pays européens (Danemark, Norvège, Suisse, Finlande, Suède, les Pays-Bas...) avec des petites populations de 5 ou 10 millions qui s'en sortent très bien!"

      A little bit out of topic, but if you are using those countries as examples, you are sorely mistaken. You see, the penetration of English in the Scandinavian countries is deeper than you may think. Virtually all Scandinavians speak English fluently. The same in the Netherlands. One just needs English to go about there.

      For example, if separatists are in arms with Quebec French universities offering courses in English (Laval, HEC, UQAM), major universities in the Netherlands (Leiden, Delft, Erasmus) have been doing that since forever.

      Delete
    8. Bill Room 101 Racist sympathizers.

      You are not dealing only with landed immigrants here. You are trying to wipe out one of the founding nations. They may have marginalized themselves in the past by unsuspectingly accepting the nomenclature of “English Community", but that's over! A Victorious Founding Nation will only be pushed so far!!

      Mes Amis, the time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end!

      VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

      Delete
    9. Martine Grenier writes:

      Second, on the subject of bill 101, I would like someone to provide me one GOOD reason about why it is such a bad thing for a nation to protect their culture. Like I mentioned before, learning french does NOT mean you can't learn english (or whatever other language, for that matter).

      There are no good reasons why it is a bad thing for a nation to protect their culture. It is your right. And, yes, it is a good thing.

      What isn't a good thing is using legislation to promote one culture or language over another. Why? Because human rights legislation prohibits it.

      Certainly, there is justification and need for official language(s) status; without it, there would be continual "Tower of Babel" court challenges for any and all of the hundreds of language groups within a given territory to advocate for government support for their language.

      But official language status refers only to the language of services that government provides...and not what goes on in the rest of society (ie, non-governmental areas such as businesses, interpersonal interactions, common language on the street or commerce, etc.). When you do that, you are discriminating.

      The way I see it, there are two acceptable ways to advocate for the preservation and protection of a language:

      1) individuals and/or freely associating individuals getting together outside the influence or funding of government and promoting their language. For example, insisting upon speaking only French in your interactions or demanding, on penalty of withholding your consumer dollar, that you get French service in stores. Or starting your own private association advocating for French culture (and without government funding or laws supporting it).

      2) independence. That is, the boundaries of an independent nation. With independence, Quebec gets to (i) control 100% of its ability to pass laws; (ii) control 100% of its ability to tax; and (iii) control 100% of its ability to enter into treaties and agreements with other sovereign nations. With control of all the section 91 powers of the BNA Act -- which currently reside with the federal government -- you will have all powers at your disposal to "reflect" the nation status of the quebecois nation that you believe exists. This in itself will help you protect your language and culture.

      But: once you get your own country you will not be able to have laws such as Bill 101 simply because they violate human rights. And that is why I advocate for Quebec independence. Go for the actual nation that you believe Quebec to be; don't fall into the trap of language legislation -- in this case the "great Canadian law, Bill 101" -- because that gives you the worst of both worlds: the label of human rights violator (which you are) and no nation...just that silly, artificial "quebecois people constitute a nation within Canada" resolution that Harper got for you (an huge insult if I ever saw one).

      Delete
    10. Tony Kondacks, I agree with you on many issues, especially that the Canada-quebec realtionship in the past 5 decades was UNACCEPTABLE. Here is where we disagree: I think that Canada should stop catering to Quebec immediately, even if the cost of this decision would be a break up of the country, but if Quebec does mature when daddy withholds the paycheck and turns his back, then carry on as one country. You think that Canada should end no matter what. Even if Quebec were to come to its senses.

      I have to be honest, this cynicism of yours is not always easy to take. I think it is a result of the kind of treatment you Anglos of QC got at one time (treatment which sucked btw), but maybe it's also because you've put so much effort into your book on why Canada must end that you keep pushing for one solution at the expense of others in order to vindicate your thesis.

      Delete
  13. "Un Quebec souverain garantirait la survie de la culture Québécoise. Tout les pays souverains ont sauvergardé leur culture et leur langue. Un exemple, l'Islande avec ces 300 000 habitant. Ce peuple est indépendant et parle toujours leur langue d'origine, l'Islandais..."

    ... and they are doing so well now, aren't they? Last time I checked Iceland is considering to adopt the CAD as their currency. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

    "D'ailleur il y a plein de petits pays européens (Danemark, Norvège, Suisse, Finlande, Suède, les Pays-Bas...) avec des petites populations de 5 ou 10 millions qui s'en sortent très bien!"

    Are you serious comparing the situation of those countries among others of medium size to Quebec as a country of probably... 6.5 million people with uncle Sam South of the border (350.000.000 and counting)? Really? Can you observe the nuances? No...? Without economic or political leverage Qc will be ripped off of its 'riches' faster than you can say 'poutine'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Room 101 Racist sympathizers...

      In a place that has become a lie, the truth should be repeated as a benchmark every now and then.


      Separating separatists from the French Canadian is what is needed because even if you claim that the movement of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL is a separatist one, you fail to understand that it is not breaking up our country. it is to prove that the Quebecois Separatist is xenophobic, ethnocentric and, thank God, a minority that does not represent French Canadians!

      Quebec separation must never happen because the basis for the movement still remains jealousy, racism and revenge! It is for this reason that our group, and other fast growing groups are poised to ask for the affimation of the new PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL. We shall demonstrate how arguments used by the separatist AGAINST Canada, can also be used by us FOR Canada. The difference is that we wouldn’t need trickery for it. We’ll get a CLEAR Majority asking a simple question.

      The beauty of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is that it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.
      We hope we’ll never need to do it, but in order to resist that hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long, we will!

      And thus, as it was put in an other post, we won't need to wash our dirty laundry in the UN and other countries' courts. we can do it in house, à la Canadienne/Québécoise

      VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

      Delete
  14. What do Quebec's anglos want?

    Well,our duly elected representatives -- the ONLY ones that can legitimately claim that they were elected to represent Quebec anglos -- actually went down on record officially in this regard。

    Take a look at the minority report of the Belanger-Campeau Commission‘s minority report from back in
    1992 (this was a commission designed to tell the rest of Canada what Quebec wanted)as well as Equality Party MNA Neil Cameron's Bill 199,introduced in the Quebec National Assembly,“The Charter of the French and English Languages”:

    http://whycanadamustend.com/Appendix%20C.htm

    and

    http://whycanadamustend.com/Appendix%20D.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony my friend,

      None of that matters if you consider that we really want to not be in a perpetual fight with our French Canadian Brothers. Who are those who constantly try to stop us from living together? The separatists! This is why we must have another approach.
      None of that matters because LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is not about separating from our country. I understand that most everyone has been coached into seeing it from the point of view of separation from Canada or from Quebec if it were a country, but as posted above:

      The beauty of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is that it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.
      We hope we’ll never need to do it, but in order to resist that hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long, we will!

      This way, we won't need to wash our dirty laundry in the UN and other countries' courts. We can do it in house, à la Canadienne/Québécoise.

      Separating separatists from the French Canadian because Quebecois Separatist is xenophobic, ethnocentric and, thank God, a minority that does not represent French Canadians!

      A very doable gerrymandering!!

      VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous:

      If and when you ever get "La province Canadienne de Montreal" you will have, as a province of Canada, the right to opt into section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

      This is the section that deals with official languages of Canada and its federal and provincial legislatures.

      I suggest that you become familiar with it. Why? Because you need to be able to ask what exactly it is that you want...and I assume that you will want both English and French as the official languages of the province you propose.

      Here is the text of section 16:

      16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

      Official languages of New Brunswick

      (2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.

      Advancement of status and use

      (3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.


      Note subsection 16.3. Its heading reads: "Advancement of status and use". This is what will allow your proposed province to be officially bilingual. New Brunswick is officially bilingual and subsection 16.3 is there as a sort of "advertisement" to strongly encourage any of the nine provinces that are not officially bilingual to do so.

      Is this something that you want for your proposed province...'cause I'm not sure.

      The reason I ask is that you use a unilingual French name for it. I wonder: do you have an English name and, if so, what it is? And why don't you use it?

      But there's more to just having the two official languages. For that reason, I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with both Bill 199 and the Belanger-Campeau minority report so that, when asked, you will be able to say exactly what it is you want.

      If you don't know what you want and can't ask for it, you ain't gonna get it.

      For myself, I really don't care where the capital is; all I want is my rights back...and I want them all constitutionally guaranteed.

      Delete
    3. Tony,

      Thanks for helping out with your input. We do know what we want and we have the right people to get things done.

      The name LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL is but a working title. The real name will most likely be one or two bilingual words. Feel free to make suggestions.

      The working title is used mostly because we are well aware that we did not win that referendum alone. We also do not have any problem with our French Canadian Brothers. We want to attract those who are NOT racists from all sides and we know that the majority of them will be French Canadians. It is as a thank you that we use the French version of the working title. Besides, it feels good to know that it shows the separatists what they are about to lose.

      Your attempt to tie us up in federal provincial separation legalese by calling it partition doesn’t scathe us, for our movement is legally doable. Separation referendums have nothing to do with what we want because it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada!

      Critical Mass. gerrymandering. Where numbers warrant. Etc..

      I suggest you do some research on this approach. You will notice that most of the laws are in place for it. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.


      We hope we’ll never need to do it, but in order to resist that hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long, we will!

      And btw, your rights ARE constitutionally guaranteed.

      Welcome to Montréal, welcome to CANADA!!

      VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

      Delete
    4. New Brunswick is officially bilingual and subsection 16.3 is there as a sort of "advertisement" to strongly encourage any of the nine provinces that are not officially bilingual to do so.

      Is this something that you want for your proposed province...'cause I'm not sure.


      Tony, you're a seemingly intelligent person (and I don't mean that to sugar-coat a subsequent insult), but I struggle to understand why you appear to believe that any attempt to remove certain restrictions must be coupled with the need of meddling in order to impose other restrictions on other Provinces. Personally I'm in favour of less restrictive legislation and more freedom. Not interested in sticking it up to the French in Quebec nor (if you've read my proposal) the English in Ontario, nor am I interested in a Nationwide revolution. There is a problem in the region between Ottawa and Montreal: I'm happy to see a solution to that problem. Everything else is just an unnecessary distraction.

      Delete
    5. The Quebec Partition responds to me:

      ...I struggle to understand why you appear to believe that any attempt to remove certain restrictions must be coupled with the need of meddling in order to impose other restrictions on other Provinces. Personally I'm in favour of less restrictive legislation and more freedom.

      Not sure I understand what you are referring to with "removing certain restrictions must be coupled with the need of meddling in order to impose other restrictions on other provinces." Please elaborate.

      Yes, I am also in favour of less restrictive legislation and more freedom...how does what I advocate for stand in opposition to this very worthwhile goal?

      Delete
  15. [b]Lisette Lapointe leaves politics[/b]
    http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/national/archives/2012/03/20120304-132651.html

    Lisette Lapointe, the wife of racist extremist and alcoholic Jacques Parizeau, has announced that she will be leaving politics. Being an opportunist like her husband, Lisette recognizes that the separatist movement is slowly heading towards its death, and she'd rather stay in her mansion (purchased with public funds) with her husband, while coming out of the shadows every year or so to give her opinion on the current Quebec government and what they're doing wrong.

    Too many ethnics and money in politics for Lisette!

    Good riddance to Lapointe, after having spent so many years using our tax dollars to try to destroy our country, without any results, she definitely deserves a break.


    Soon there will be nothing left to these racist organizations, and then we can start moving forward as a province.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'd love that, but if not as one province, two!!

      A very doable gerrymandering!!

      Vive la Province Canadienne de Montréal...

      Delete
    2. Quebecer of tree stump:

      If you really want to get rid of "racist organizations", may I suggest that you do everything you can to get rid of the real enemy which is the Liberal Party of Quebec.

      You are falling into the same trap that the Equality Party did: fighting the PQ. If you do that, you set up the dichotomy in the minds of the anglo/federalist voter that the choice is between federalism and separatism and then, by default, the choice becomes between the PQ and Liberals.

      But if you set the dichotomy up as between a federaist/rights option and the Liberals then you have a chance. Fighting the PQ is precisely what the separatist/human rights violating Liberal Party of Quebec wants you to do.

      By the way, who did you vote for in the last provincial election?

      Delete
    3. The real enemy?
      Tony, are you sure you're not a PQist?

      Delete
    4. Quand ton nom est Tony,tu ne peux pas être autre chose qu'un "liberal".

      Delete
    5. Anonymous responds to me:

      The real enemy?
      Tony, are you sure you're not a PQist?


      I suggest, Anonymous, that you familiarize yourself really well with the policies of the Liberal Party of Quebec and their voting record in the National Assembly as it pertains to language laws and Canadian unity.

      And don't count on what your own individual Liberal MNA says to you when he is on this side of St. Denis street.

      Yes, the Liberal Party of Quebec is a thousand times more your enemy than the PQ is.

      Delete
  16. For those of you advocating for a break-away province from Quebec (ie, partition; "la province canadienne de Montreal; or whatever):

    Please do not be under the delusion that the government of Canada will ever advocate for you on your behalf if and when separatism for Quebec is on the table. They will not!

    Your concerns and the concerns of the minority non-francophones of Quebec will be far down the list of their concerns. You will only serve as a negotiating point for them to get what they want, not what you want.

    You anglos of Quebec have made your bed; you've put your lot in with the Liberal Party of Quebec and their policies -- which you guys vote for by margins of 90% or better. And one of their policies is that Quebec gets to separate intact.

    Do you think for one minute that this won't be invoked when Quebec and Canada are at the negotiating table?

    Here's the dynamic, spelled out for you, in the danger of voting Liberal if the PQ wins an election and then, subsequently, wins a separation referendum:

    https://docs.google.com/View?docid=dg6n6657_179d3drz8dg&pli=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Idem pour la C.A.Q...Vous êtes cuits.

      Delete
    2. You anglos of Quebec have made your bed; you've put your lot in with the Liberal Party of Quebec and their policies -- which you guys vote for by margins of 90% or better. And one of their policies is that Quebec gets to separate intact.

      You're right on there: I am not very clear (but I have my ideas) why the Conservatives are still so unpopular in Quebec, after they recovered from the Campbell annihilation everywhere else , nor am I sure why the Liberals are so popular with Quebec anglos (Charest turning coats didn't help either), given that they are the only Party whose policies are not entirely hostile to them, but, ultimately, the aquiescence of many Quebec anglos who vote for parties that don't particularly care about their predicament, whilst their Nordique counterparts consistently vote for parties who bring their own case forward is a major reason why the Nordiques can get away with what they are doing, seemingly unchallenged.

      Delete
  17. Hello Seppie,

    out of curiosity, how do you see the next 5 years unfolding?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Avec bonne humeur :)...Vive la francisation de notre ville!

      Delete
    2. Seppie, what do you want from people who are not francophone and live in Montreal? What do you expect from them? Just do they learn French? Or more?
      I bet you are an average Quebecois who has a 1950s attitude to minorities. You look down on them and know nothing about them. So before blaming them for being distant, think about what you might be doing to cause that state of affairs.

      @Tony

      PLQ, PQ, CAQ, what's the difference...who in the right mind trusts any politicians anyways?

      Put the law books away and come to Montreal. You'll see that this city had little to do with the rest of Quebec anymore. Except for Montreal east, the rest of the city is multicultural and multilingual. Some people in Montreal may pay lip service to the militant Quebecois to avoid confrontation, but their hearts and minds are in a different place. So whether in Canada, Quebec, or as an independent city state, it continues to drift further and further from the proper Quebec, and will continue to do so.

      Delete
  18. Tony,

    Thanks for helping out with your input. We do know what we want and we have the right people to get things done.

    The name LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL is but a working title. The real name will most likely be one or two bilingual words. Feel free to make suggestions.

    The working title is used mostly because we are well aware that we did not win that referendum alone. We also do not have any problem with our French Canadian Brothers. We want to attract those who are NOT racists from all sides and we know that the majority of them will be French Canadians. It is as a thank you that we use the French version of the working title. Besides, it feels good to know that it shows the separatists what they are about to lose.

    Your attempt to tie us up in federal provincial separation legalese by calling it partition doesn’t scathe us, for our movement is legally doable. Separation referendums have nothing to do with what we want because it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada!

    Critical Mass. gerrymandering. Where numbers warrant. Etc..

    I suggest you do some research on this approach. You will notice that most of the laws are in place for it. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.


    We hope we’ll never need to do it, but in order to resist that hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long, we will!

    And btw, your rights ARE constitutionally guaranteed.

    Welcome to Montréal, welcome to CANADA!!

    VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous writes:

      We do know what we want and we have the right people to get things done.

      Really?

      Who are these "right people" that you have? Forgive my skepticism but if you've got the "right people" you'd do yourself and your pet project a whole lot of good -- and give it much needed credibility -- if you came forward with actual names.

      Would you please be so kind as to provide those names?

      And while we're on the subject: same goes for you. You may want to consider using your real name instead of anonymous. It will add to the credibility of your cause.

      Anonymous also writes to me (Tony):

      Your attempt to tie us up in federal provincial separation legalese by calling it partition doesn’t scathe us,

      I hardly ever use the word "partition". And when I do, it is usually in response to someone else using it. Indeed, if you read my book -- which I highly doubt -- you would know that I do not support partition but, in fact, under my formula, Quebec would separate intact. Quebec separating intact is directly in opposition to the concept of partition.

      And if you do an advanced google search on my website, the result you'll get is that the word "partition" appears in only two out of 18 chapters...and then only in demonstrating how my proposal eliminates the threat of partition to the separatists.

      Anonymous further writes:

      And btw, your rights ARE constitutionally guaranteed.

      Uh, which rights are those?

      Could you please provide some citations or references for both what those rights are and where they are to be found constitutionally?

      I thank you in advance for responding to my queries.

      Delete
  19. Tony,

    You are not the only one who has strategies. LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is not about only English people. We are about Canada and Canada means Welcome! You seam to be basking in the cold info that you wrote in your destroy Canada book.

    The when and how we’ll have The 11th Province is our concern because it is base on Love Of Country, not what can I get for free out of this place.

    The time will come and it will from places you’ve not considered because in your mind CanadaMustEnd. Are there separatists on all sides?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous:

      "Love of country"? I'm sorry to inform you of this, Anonymous, but the feeling isn't mutual. You see, Canada has f**ked you over for the past 40 years.

      If Canada and "love of country" is the horse you want to hitch your wagon to, good luck to you.

      Look. I would be the first person on board if I truly believed your 11th province had a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a reality. But it doesn't.

      May I suggest you read my book? Because I can't imagine that you have reading the comments, above, that you have made about it. And if you do read it, I suggest you will find information in it that will be invaluable to you even if you reject its premise because you can still use said information to further your own 11th province project.

      Delete
    2. Man, you are so fixated on your book. There is a life beyond your book, you know.

      Yours is just one way of looking at the issue, but not the only way. How about a contingency in which the Natives, prevented from joining Canada, start blowing up Hydro Quebec dams in order to mess with Quebec's power grid as well as province's major source of profits? Ever thought of that? You haven't because you haven't thought outside the box to consider violence.

      Separatist movements exist all over the place. One less or one more won't hurt anyone. It's just another way of looking at a rather complex situation, made more complex every year with growing immigration and population aging. so when people throw ideas around to open up the realm of possibilities, you don't have to sneer just because something doesn't fit in your rigid grand scheme.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous writes:

      “Man, you are so fixated on your book. There is life beyond your book, you know”

      One of the reasons I keep referring to my book is that I don't have to keep repeating myself;I can refer to a chapter -- replete with footnotes and references -- and the argument I want to make is made。

      Another reason I do so is to introduce ideas that are not discussed much in federalist circles,especially since most of the arguments and strategies currently under discussion have already been tried or are impractical (eg,the 11th province) and, indeed, I discuss why I believe them to be impractical.

      Another reason I refer to it a lot is to dissuade federalists of the notion that Canada and entities such as the Liberal Party of Quebec are your friends.

      Delete
    4. Your problem is that you're in love with your elitist self. You think because you've written books that contradict your own positions, you are an authority on our country.
      The truth is that you've been basking in you narcissistic literature so long that you've forgotten what COUNTRY means, if you even ever did!

      Delete
  20. "...Canada and Canada means Welcome!"

    Oui bienvenu à tout le monde et à vraiment n'importe qui,pourvu qu'ils viennent affaiblir le Québec.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well Well Well. I am for one a very proud french quebecois, definitely nationalist and potentially separatist. Is it that i hate the english language? Is it that i despise canadians? No. But i see a big difference between the two (Quebec vs the RoC). It is not only the language. It is everything:

    * Catholic vs Prostestant
    * Socialism versus individualism
    * Multiculturalism (Cnd) vs One culture (Qc)
    * The approach towards money (very very important for anglos...westerners...)
    * The approach versus the military
    * Free market versus state interventionalism
    * Etc, Etc, Etc...

    The treat to the French language in Quebec, if Quebec remains in Canada, is immigration, controlled by Ottawa. And let's face it: A bunch of french speaking countries in Europe, as well as the UK, have a very high unemployment %. But immigration is from countries using other languages than french and english. What is the point?

    The best scenario would be an independent Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, etc... No more federal taxes. No more third level of government (federal) to support. And a government that say: Quebec is 80% french, 20% english. Let's keep this. Let's plan immigration according to this simple equation: 80% of french background, 20% of english background. And if possible, everybody's bilingual.

    It is not that i don't like english. But there are multiple place on earth that is english. Why not keeping a small portion of north america french?

    And for everybody claiming that Montreal would split in two...Would you come into Quebec to drop your kids in 7$ day care, and the go work in your fiscal paradise? You would like the best of both worlds, but life is not like this. You want social programs? You need to pay taxes for it...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Natives in Quebec would never want to leave Quebec and remain in Canada. Have you ever spent some time in Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary? Natives are sparing for change in those cities. Have you seen this in Mtl? Quebec City? Nah...They have some very hefty advantages...If their councils would use the money they receive from HQ and the likes correctly, every single native in Quebec would be quite rich. Face it, we are entering a new world order, where smaller government will prevail. There is no need for paying municipal, provincial and federal taxes. The latter needs to be banished. Ontario will soon come into grip with this fundamental concept. It is a question of time. Anglos are well treated in Quebec. I don't recall any "Deportation" of anglos, like the anglos have done to the Acadians. If quebec becomes a country, the 'Deporation" of anglos will be conducted by Anglos themselves, leaving for Ontario. But wait...Ontario is struggling and is currently a fiscal mess. Quebec has more than 40 billions barrels of oil on anticosti. You guys can do the maths...you will remain with us. It is a no-brainer.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation
    but I find this topic to be really something which
    I think I would never understand. It seems too complex and
    extremely broad for me. I'm looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!
    My web page: geld verdienen im internet ohne kosten

    ReplyDelete