🚀 go-pugleaf

Bosse Dominique wrote:
> 
> Luc Richard <lranjou@login.net> writes:
> 
> >Scott N. wrote:
> 
> >> This is pure immature emotion talking. Separatism won't put food on the
> >> table for your kids, it won't result in a promising future if Quebec
> >> continues to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7 and
> >> exists without social peace. And what is it with this National pride bit?
> >> Tell me, what will it do for you? The inability of anyone to articulate
> >> an intelligent case for a separate Quebec continues to be the only
> >> constant is this mess.
> 
> >Poor Scott !
> 
> >L`�TRE PR�C�DE L`AVOIR !!!!
> 
> >Je sais qu`il est difficile pour un anglo-saxon de comprendre
> >mais... prend ton temps, il faudra que tu prennes l`habitude
> >car l`ind�pendance est in�vitable.

Luc, Is this your effort at articulating an intelligent case for a 
separate Quebec? Sounds more like high-school sarcasm to me. 

> >La relation de *bons voisins* devra prendre le dessus sur tes
> >frustrations. Ne panique pas...Ton pays, le Canada, sera toujours retenu
> >artificillement au G-7. �a fait l`affaire de l`oncle SAM
> >d`avoir un *yes man* bien assis � cot� de lui.
> 
> >Regards,

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you upset that Canada is part of the 
G7? Are you upset about having the U.S. as neighbors?  Or is this another 
attempt to impress the intellectual bottom-feeders?


>                 What Luc is saying is that *being* is more
>                 important than *having*. In Quebec, and
>                 that seems hard for you to understand,
>                 what we *are* is important to us. And
>                 Canadians, we are not in our hearts and
>                 souls. There is nothing you can do about
>                 it, sovereignty is unavoidable.
> 
>                 He also says something about Canada now
>                 owing its seat in the G7 to the fact that
>                 it is a sure ally for the US.
> Thank you for that totally unnecessary and totally condescending 
translation.

What in fact you ARE (if we're talking about francophone Quebeckers), and 
have been for generations, is an integral and vital part of the fabric 
that comprises Canada. What you are (if we're talking about separatist 
Quebeckers) is a constant minority (around 35-40% by most estimates) 
which, in my mind, has bought into manufactured hyperbole to maintain a 
particular government's presence in Quebec's National Assembly.

There is no groundswell of independence in Quebec other than during 
elections or refenda when the gov't rhetoric drives some into a frenzy. 
Where is the evidence of this importance of BEING a separate country? 
Certainly not in Montreal! (unless you count the exclusionary SSJB 
'parade'where people are told what to wear). In fact, polls consistantly 
state that most Quebeckers (Macleans '96 65%) prefer to remain Canadian.

What really scares me about your (separatist) interpretation of BEING is, 
is that it depends totally on keeping others down. I'm all for protecting 
the French language - there is no question that over time, and without 
intervention of sorts, it's usage will diminish. But this language 
situation is absurd - on both sides. But for those who rant about the 
antics of Galganov and other activists, remember, that what he is doing 
is a reaction to discrimination - you know- the 'my sign gets to be twice 
as big as your sign stuff'. Heaven knows there must be other ways to 
promote, maintain, and enhance the french language and culture that are 
more sophisticated, and work on uniting people - not constantly 
restricting their access to the Quebec's public space. Let's face it, 
there are a large number of francophones (most silent) who are 
embarrassed at the way their anglophone and ethnic neighbors are being 
treated. I know many of them. 

In my view, these intolerable State imposed language rules, along with 
the gang of 'inspectors, is a dinosaur (lumbering along and not too 
clever). The gov't has whipped a small portion of the population into a 
tizzy, and now it has to enact dumb laws to appease them. I have yet to 
meet anyone who can look me straight in the ete and say yes, it's right 
that we restrict the use of your mother tongue in public. How, can a 
group so impassioned about maintaing their culture, not understand that 
their english-speaking neighbors are desparately trying to hang onto 
theirs. And NO, NO NO NO NO  NON! we can't all just ship off to Ontario. 
English speaking Quebeckers, who are a defacto minority in Quebec, have 
developed their own unique culture. And to say "hey, why don't you go 
live in Alberta" is like saying "hey why don't you go live in France". 

>                 Now my own:
> 
>                 Recently -- and I think it was a Canadian
>                 who suggested it -- I read about Canada
>                 and Quebec being G7th A and G7th B. What
>                 would you think  (I said *think*, not
>                 rant or bark or erupt or spew hatred) about
>                 such a concept: a shared seat in the G7,
>                 both of us sitting side by side saying
>                 YES to whatever the US want?


It's no secret to anyone, that a large reason that Canada is a well-off 
secure, technologically advanced country is because of where exist north 
of the U.S. It's insulting to tell someone this.

Whether Canada and a separate Quebec could share a seat is a bit of a 
strange question, don't you think?  Why would the G7 accept a 
spanking-new country? Particulary one in which there would undoubtedly be 
a great deal (at minimum) of social unrest between its majority, and its 
english-speaking, enthic, and native populations. (not to mention the 
problems that ROC and Quebec would likey have. For that matter, what's to 
say that a separate Quebec would be admitted automatically to any 
international bodies ot treaties?????