🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fawzi-2909960952390001@news1.vir.com>, fawzi@vir.com (Fawzi) wrote:

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


>> 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?

Who said anything about Constitutional talks? 

No, that is not what I suggest. I think that the issues need to be
discussed without any attempt to link them to a Constitutional ammendment.
Get everything out in the open. Pinpoint the problems. Open some eyes and
correct a few misconceptions. Once this is accomplished only then is it
reasonable to begin formulating a plan of action.

As a trouble-shooter in the hi-tech industry I never commit to a course of
action until I have positively identified the problem and its source. This
allows me to take appropriate measures rather than waste time, money and
effort. If you enter into a problem-solving session with a fixed program
you limit your chances of success because you confine your analysis to a
limited range of possibilities and solutions. 

 
>> 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.

Quebec has never been a Nation. Some Quebecers may feel that they are, but
never has it been real. It was once a colony of France, then of England,
then part of the Dominion of Canada. I think the claim to nationhood is
emotive and based entirely on cultural factors.

This is not to deny the validity of Quebec nationalism, but to point out
that there is no legal precident for a claim to nationhood that would be
recognized by the UN or the Hague. 

If you and other nationalist sincerely feel that cultural considerations
are enough justification for a claim to nationhood, then you must likewise
grant such recognition to the First Nations within Quebec. They fit your
criteria for a nation; they also have more of a valid claim to the land
and the right of self-determination than Quebec does.

I think the problems that we are experiencing in terms of an open and
progressive dialoge on the issue of separation has more to do with several
contradictory assertions by the PQ government. The first is that Quebec
has the right to unilaterally separate from Canada, yet the district known
as Nouveau Quebec (mainly populated by First Nations) cannot separate from
Quebec to remain in Canada as it so chooses, nor can any other district in
Quebec.

If Quebec nationalist assert the right to separate from Canada then how
can they deny that right to districts within their own borders the right? 

>> 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.

That is fine. I believe it to be a matter of individual choice. I do not
think that this is something that government should legislate. The current
laws in Quebec are intrusive; they dictate to business what language they
can use on signs, should use to conduct business and what schools their
children should attend. 

Look at the negative press these actions have received in the US and the
RoC. The executive from Bombardier's US division who was on temporary
assignment to Quebec forced to send his child to a french school; how is
this in the best interests of the child or his parents? Sure, he
eventually received an exclusion but only after much struggle. This sends
out a very poor message to the international business community and
certainly does not motivate their personnel to relocate in Quebec.

Right now many hi-tech businesses in Quebec are in crisis because they
cannot attract the best and the brightest. This has implications for the
economy.

>> 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.

Distinct - en francaise - does not imply nationhood. Distinct means
different or unique in both English and French.  It does not imply
superiority, although some narrow-minded people would have us believe so.

>> 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.

We are not discussing the US. It has a very different culture, history and
values. There aren't many claims for cultural distrinction that compare to
what we are discussing -except for Creole French in Louisianna.

This is where your argument is weak. You strive for cultural distinction,
yet you cannot recognize Newfoundland's own claim of distinction. It is
not based on geography or simple regional disparities. Newfoundland's own
history and culture are very different from Quebec and the RoC. 

Newfoundland may speak english, but it is a very unique dialect. It
evolved separately from elsewhere in Canada. It has different institutions
and traditions based on its history; it only joined Canada in this century
and did so reluctantly because it feared the loss of its traditions and
distinctiveness.

>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.

That is your perception. I really don't think that separation and
restrictive language laws will do much to preserve your future. You'll be
more of an island in a sea of American and English Canadian culture. It is
also possible that these actions might do more to isolate you from the
rest of North America and lead to major changes in your economic wealth.

Next. If you really believe your self to be a thriving culture, then your
argument justifying separation and the use of restrictive language laws is
based on a falicy. It is inconsistent with your entire rationale to this
point.
 

>>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.

Okay. The Globe and Mail and the Gazette might be accussed of an
"anti-sovereignitist bias" but Le Devoir is usually more objective. What
about comments broadcast live on TV? Live comments from the mouths of
Beaudoin and others are not subject to misrepresentation. 

>> 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.

In case you were not aware, there are many provinces that share Quebec's
desire to decentralize power and give more to the provinces. Job training,
immigration, etc. Other provinces see that the whole framework for
confederation needs radical change. 

>> 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?

A simple majority - lets say 50.1%  - is a shakey foundation for building
a nation. It implies that 49.9% are opposed. How do you get the 49.9% on
side with separation? Do you just ram legislation down their throat? Do
you expell them? Do you ignore their views?

What do you do where whole districts vote overwhelmingly in favour of
remaining in Canada, as they did in the Eastern Townships and Nouveau
Quebec. Do you let them decide their own fate? Or do you send in the QPF?

This is really not a simple and clear matter. That is why open discussion
is critical.


Regards,

Paul


The problem is that there is no clear process. No one will talk about it;
not the PQ or the Feds.