🚀 go-pugleaf

I apologize for the long post...


In article (Dans l�article) <pbennett-2609961319580001@47.208.9.182>,
pbennett@bnr.ca (Paul J. Bennett) wrote (�crivait)�:

> In article <fawzi-2409962219260001@news1.vir.com>, fawzi@vir.com (Fawzi)
wrote:
> >Paul,
> >
> >I was just mentioning to someone that evoking a possibility of war is
> >plain stupid.
> >Now if your looking for an all out
> >nazi-racist-graffiti-making-harrassing-radical-ex-FLQ-flag
> >burner-anti-anglo debate, you've hit the wrong separatist bastard, sorry.
> >Better luck next time.
> >
> >Salutations chez vous itou.
> >
> >Fawzi
> 
> Hello Fawzi,
> 
> I wasn't trying to hit you or label you. Only to mention that les Anglais
> are not the only people who could (or should) be accused of threatening
> violence or posturing.

I never made any reference to the language (or to the group of people that
share that language).

And I certainly am not generalizing on a whole group of people that share
a common culture or a common political opinion, based on a few that are
being maladroit, irresponsible or stupid in their choice of words or in
their actions...
(I somewhat doubt everyone around here can say the same...)


> Both sides really need to have an honest face-to-face to discuss this. Any
> implied threat of violence is irresponsible. Quebec and the RoC have
> behaved in an equally bad manner.
> 
> Like you, I believe Canadians have a tradition of resolving problems
> peacefully.  
> It may even be that if both sides really listened they may discover that
> they really are not all that far apart in their desires.

Do you realy think we need more constitutional negociations?



> Separation has risen out of the frustration Quebecers feel about the
> supposed disregard the RoC has for French language and culture.

Just thought I mention I disagree with that.
I don't feel the slightest bit frustrated.  I just think that Quebec
canot, inside the actual constitutional agreement, ensure its long term
survival as a nation.  And since, there has been decades of fruitless
"talks", I believe it is time for Quebec to look at options that are
outside of the canadian constitutional frame as it now is.



> Consequently they have adopted strict language laws in an attempt to
> preserve the culture and language. Is this the best way? Maybe not. But
> there is no denying that the desire to preserve their cultural identity is
> legitimate and the driving force behind what they do.

I apreciate your honesty, realy.
I personaly believe language laws are the only way.  But many francophones
of all political tendencies have very legitimate doubts on the matter.
And I have nothing against the english language (evidently...) or against
englophones, but I believe that the principal threat to the survival of
french in north america is the english language (not spanish, or
italian...) and the overwhelming american culture that comes with it. (But
that's just my opinion...)
And I know this concept might be hard to grasp for a north american
anglophone, but I believe every Quebecer should know english, but live in
french.
 


> Perhaps the rest of Canada should accept Quebec as a "distinct" culture.
> Why not? The have a history and culture that is very different from other
> parts of the country. To deny this "distinctness" is pure folly and
> ignorance.
> 
> Distinctness, however, is not exclusive to one segment of Canada.
> Bourassa, Parizeau and Bouchard have each insisted that Quebec should have
> exclusive right to the claim of distinction - this just isn't based on
> reality or fact. The First Nations have a rich history, culture and
> heritage that cannot be ignored.

Actually "distinct" was a compromise for a more precise word (and distinct
is not an exact translation of what it means in french... In english it
has that "superiorish" conotation that it doesn't have in french.). 
Nation would have been more appropriate, but was unacceptable to the
federal government.
And Quebec's premiers asking that Quebec should be alone to be a distinct
society, is just another way of saying, if not by words, by fact, that
anything less than recognizing Quebec as a nation (with the uniqueness
that this word implies) is unacceptable.



> What about Newfoundland? It is the home of the oldest European settlement
> in North America and, consequently, has as much right to a claim as a
> distinct society. Quebec must also recognize the validity of such claims.

Yes, Newfoundland is a distinct society from BC.  As Texas is a distinct
society from California.  But you canot compare Quebec at the same level
with other provinces, because eventhough Quebec is a province; because of
its specific culture and institutions and people, it is also a nation.
And with all due respect no other province can make such a claim.
So to consider Quebec as just one of ten provinces, and asking it to be
equal in a federation to PEI (for example) with its 150000 anglophone
inhabitants, in an anglophone continent, is simply unacceptable to the
only surviving (and thriving?) francophone culture in North America.


> Differences should not be perceived as a threat or a weakness. They really
> only become obstacles when xenophobic politicans seize on differences as
> something negative. 

And conclusions about politicians should not be drawn on reports from
evidently biased sources.  Which shamelessly report citations out of
context and put emphasis on extremists and then draw general conlusions
from it.
Parizeau's comments on referendum night was the only shameful exception.
 

> Mutal respect is the key to national unity. Legislation, Constitution and
> court orders are not going to change people's perceptions or end the
> debate.
> Any attempt by federalists to close the matter by these means is
> short-sighted and simplistic.

I agree. And although respect is one of the keys, true courage and true
will to change profoundly the constitutional frame of this country might
keep Quebec from achieving sovereignty.
And I'm all for any type of agreement "� la Maastricht" with Quebec in a
confederation managing all of its own levers of power, and many
sovereignists think as I do, I believe.  But I doubt many canadians are
ready to revolutionize completely their constitution only to satisfy one
of its ten provinces (...as opposed to its largest national component).
And after decades of trying to change it with some wanting more central
power, and Quebec wanting no central federal power, I have profound doubts
on any resolution of our problems by these means.

> Likewise, a simple majority in a referndum
> cannot be seen as sufficient license to initiate separation.

Why should a nation be forbiden to choose its own political status? Does
democracy stop to apply in this particular case?

 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul

Salutations chez vous,

Fawzi