[eureka]

It might be interesting to discuss this with uou if you had any idea what you were talking about. First, Canada is not a federation. It is a Confederation and, more importantly, a confederation of colonies. Provinces are, as Macdonald said, "Municipalities writ large" They do not have the powers they claim - constitutionally. A series of Privy Council decisions made for political convenience and continue4d by the SCC for the same reason, has led to a degree of decentralisation that was not intended and that the Constitution does not support.

As Lord (I have forgotten which one) wrote in one decision, "History and intent are not to be considered, only words." And that is the legal "principle" that has got Canada into this mess.

If you want to argue this with me, you need start by not being wilfully obtuse. The number of Francophones who voted "yes" in 1995 has nothing to do with the number who support separation. You either know this or you are too stupid to continue.

I can give you Chapter and verse for anything that I say. I have pored over that Bill in the past. I can also give you scores more such provisions since I have the documents for the challenge.

However, I am not particularly interested in even talking to someone who thinks that abuse of children and their forced absorption into a a society that is not that of their parents and siblings. Or with someone who thinks that the expropriation of the Institutions of one element of the society and the forced change of the language in which they operate is all good.

You are the kind of "Uncle Tom" who caused this to happen and that is continuing with the Layton legacy.

[eureka]

I should add that you can help this by not lying. English hospitals, for one, do not have huge numbers who cannot speak French. Anglophone nurses must take quite stringent French proficiency tests. Not long ago, under the compulsion of law, even the signs in the English hospitals had to be in French.

And dozens of doctors and academics were colleagues of mine so quit the BS.

[Gunnair]

RUEZ RUEZ:

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

It's a typically Anglo-Canuck attitude to regard French with disdain by thinking that it's only useful to read the other side of the cereal box, as if 200 million people on 5 continents didn't speak it.

That's a pretty bold statement coming from a Texan. What do you know about typical anglo canucks?

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Not really.

Yup, really.

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Besides the general attitude on this board, of which I have been a member for many years,

You begin to explain how you know Canadian culture by what you see on an internet forum...

Wow.

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

I have lived in Canada long enough and have assimilated into Canadian culture enough to not be ignorant on the subject. I'm also a Canadian citizen, since birth, whose native toungue is English. I am university educated in Canada, I read the Canadian press in both languages and I am literate in public affairs and public opinion.

None of this gives you any particular insight into Canadian culture - only the culture and people that you have experienced.

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

I don't really think my credibility can be called into question on the simple fact that I have lived in other countries than Canada in my lifetime. Especially since Canadians have no problem giving their two cents about Americans and U.S. internal affairs without ever having lived in the U.S. (in the case of most people).

You're credibility can be called into question because you are making generalizations based on your very limited experience. Then you follow it up with what sounds suspiciously like the beginnings of a fit of 8 year old pique and the decision to post as a Yank to finger wave at the Canucks here.

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Also, I am not the only person on the board from another country expressing opinions about Canadians and Canada.

Lastly, most of you have never lived in Quebec, don't speak French and thus cannot and do not read the Quebec press, yet none of this keeps you from saying anything you want about Quebeckers. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So, you've decided to play the idiot like those you accuse of playing the idiot.

Well aren't you the rocket surgeon today.

[MacDonaill]

eureka eureka:

First, Canada is not a federation. It is a Confederation and, more importantly, a confederation of colonies. Provinces are, as Macdonald said, "Municipalities writ large" They do not have the powers they claim - constitutionally.

Canada is a federation. It's not just because we speak of 'Confederation' when referring to what happened in 1867 that Canada is a confederation. The main reason your shit is weak is because if Canada were a confederation, the provinces would have even more expansive powers than they do now, which would completely cancel out your point that provinces were meant to somehow be under the thumb of the federal government.

A confederation is a collection loosely connected autonomous political States. There are no actual confederations in existence today (with the highly debatable exception of the EU). Switzerland which calls itself a confederation officially, has nonetheless also become a federation in practice. In a confederation, the central authority is of little significance and the balance of power rests with the confederated States.

In Canada, national sovereignty emanates from the *federal* government. The Federal parliament is sovereign and only the federal parliament can change the Constitution (with the appropriate support of the population and cooperation of the provincial legislatures) to give more or less power to the provinces. Parliament is sovereign, thus Canada is a federation. Basically all constitutional experts and political scientists are in agreement. It's preposterous to pretend otherwise, and as I said before, if Canada were a true confederation, your point would be even more moot.

If you wish to start educating yourself on the subject, here's a start: http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Confederations%20and%20Federations.htm

You can also give yourself a leg up by reading the British North America Act of 1867 and paying particularly close attention to articles 92 through 95. You can do that here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html. And if I were you, I'd also read some credible commentary on the Act so that you can actually understand what it means. More than one constipated old battle axe has lost in court over their cockamamie constitutional theories.

$1:

The number of Francophones who voted "yes" in 1995 has nothing to do with the number who support separation. You either know this or you are too stupid to continue.

You originally said that the majority of Francophone Quebeckers have never been in support of separation. If voting YES on a referendum about Quebec independence is not an unequivocal show of support for sovereignty, I don't know what is. Your statement was therefore incorrect. Now, we can argue about what the current levels of support are, but that is another subject.

$1:

I can give you Chapter and verse for anything that I say. I have pored over that Bill in the past. I can also give you scores more such provisions since I have the documents for the challenge.

Please do point them out. I'll give you a hand. You can find the current version of the Charter of the French Language here: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.q ... C11_A.html

In any case, as I said before, even if you find them you still have to explain why they are unjust. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

$1:

However, I am not particularly interested in even talking to someone who thinks that abuse of children and their forced absorption into a a society that is not that of their parents and siblings. Or with someone who thinks that the expropriation of the Institutions of one element of the society and the forced change of the language in which they operate is all good.

You have provided absolutely no documentation that would even (A) clue us in on whatever the hell it is you're talking about or, (B) support your outlandish accusations of child abuse and expropriations. Until then, I consider you a crackpot angryphone who is probably retired and has nothing more constructive to do with his time.

$1:

You are the kind of "Uncle Tom" who caused this to happen and that is continuing with the Layton legacy.

Uncle Tom, eh? So because I have a certain language as a mother tongue I am supposed to think or act in a specific way? I suppose you think I should agree that the Crown should have put these French assholes in their place a long time ago before they got uppity and started demanding their rights and governing their own territory? Well forget it. That anachronistic. corrupt way of thinking dies with you.

I regret even wasting my time with you. Old bigots never change their minds.

[MacDonaill]

Gunnair Gunnair:

RUEZ RUEZ:

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

It's a typically Anglo-Canuck attitude to regard French with disdain by thinking that it's only useful to read the other side of the cereal box, as if 200 million people on 5 continents didn't speak it.

That's a pretty bold statement coming from a Texan. What do you know about typical anglo canucks?

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Not really.

Yup, really.

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Besides the general attitude on this board, of which I have been a member for many years,

You begin to explain how you know Canadian culture by what you see on an internet forum...

Wow.

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

I have lived in Canada long enough and have assimilated into Canadian culture enough to not be ignorant on the subject. I'm also a Canadian citizen, since birth, whose native toungue is English. I am university educated in Canada, I read the Canadian press in both languages and I am literate in public affairs and public opinion.

None of this gives you any particular insight into Canadian culture - only the culture and people that you have experienced.

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

I don't really think my credibility can be called into question on the simple fact that I have lived in other countries than Canada in my lifetime. Especially since Canadians have no problem giving their two cents about Americans and U.S. internal affairs without ever having lived in the U.S. (in the case of most people).

You're credibility can be called into question because you are making generalizations based on your very limited experience. Then you follow it up with what sounds suspiciously like the beginnings of a fit of 8 year old pique and the decision to post as a Yank to finger wave at the Canucks here.

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Also, I am not the only person on the board from another country expressing opinions about Canadians and Canada.

Lastly, most of you have never lived in Quebec, don't speak French and thus cannot and do not read the Quebec press, yet none of this keeps you from saying anything you want about Quebeckers. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So, you've decided to play the idiot like those you accuse of playing the idiot.

Well aren't you the rocket surgeon today.

As I said, the fact that I've lived elsewhere in my lifetime does not disqualify my point of view. If that's all you've got, then you'll have to come up with something better.

Notwithstanding the occasional English-Canadian francophile, Canadians are generally antipathetic towards Quebec. They always have been. The Anglo-Canadian establishment had a snobbish disdain for French-Canadians before the Quiet Revolution, and they've had nothing but bad things to say ever since. The supposed reasons for disliking Quebec have evolved, but the sentiment has never really changed.

Again I remark that Canadians bitch about having French imposed on them, about having to study it in school, about having to speak it to get a good government job, etc. Yet you don't like the alternative either, which is Quebec forming its own country and letting the rest of you go on living your English lives. That you don't like at all.

So it's almost like you reproach Quebec for not wanting to be part of a Canada where their language is insignificant. Because it can't be both ways. Canada cannot be both united and unilingual. You too must choose your preference and be honest about it. Unilingual Canada without Quebec or truly bilingual Canada (as far as the federal government is concerned anyway) with Quebec. Which is it gonna be?

I for one think its rotten to impose a language on the rest of Canada that they clearly don't want to learn. That's why I follow that logic to the end by supporting an independent Quebec.

[Zipperfish]

MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Notwithstanding the occasional English-Canadian francophile, Canadians are generally antipathetic towards Quebec. They always have been. The Anglo-Canadian establishment had a snobbish disdain for French-Canadians before the Quiet Revolution, and they've had nothing but bad things to say ever since. The supposed reasons for disliking Quebec have evolved, but the sentiment has never really changed.

You are perhaps conflating antipathy towards Quebecois and antipathy towards separatists.

Also, there are reasons to disagree with Quebec's stance on certain issues that do not involve "snobbish disdain." Snobby and dismissive pretty much sums up your arguments in this thread. In psychological circles, I believe this is what they refer to as transference.

$1:

I for one think its rotten to impose a language on the rest of Canada that they clearly don't want to learn. That's why I follow that logic to the end by supporting an independent Quebec.

I don't think a separated Quebec would be all that independent, myself. It's a matter of following the thought through to its conclusion. You'd have a country surrounded by Canada and the US, so the necessity of dealing with people in English would still be there. You'd have strong legal claim by First Nations for much of the land. You'd have a large and vocal anglophone contingent bickering for their rights. I don't think Quebecers would be better off, myself.

Like many things, it's superficially satisfying to pack up your ball and go home, but the most optimal solution is stay and work together.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Snobby and dismissive pretty much sums up your arguments in this thread.

It's sort of six to one, half a dozen to the other....Freddy the fraud meets Jason. I'm enjoying watching.

[eureka]

First, try to get it into your head that legalism is not an answer. At the time of Confederation, there were no international definitions of either term. Canada was a Confederation of colonies.

A federation or a confederation is a joining of independent sovereign bodies. When you get that, you will begin to understand. The entities that made up Canada were colonies and Confederation is merely a descriptive.

Section 91 and 92 are quite irrelevant to intent and to what Canada was intended to be. Canada is a different country and the world is a different place. Those sections give no guide to conditions now and were simply a framework for a frontier society. Constitutions change with changing times in all nations except Canada where we are stuck in the words, not the legal intent or history, because of Provincial jealousies.

As for Quebec and language, in 1841 at the Act of Union, English was made the only official language of both Upper and Lower Canada. The position of French was restored at Confederation. It was not given any dominance and the protections for religion were thought to be enough for both communities given the relative populations and their separate cultures.

Nowhere in the Constitution is Quebec given any power over language.

Something that is not well covered in Canadian studies is the fact that Montreal remained in Quebec at the insistence of the English merchants. The proposal supported by many for Confederation was another province stretching from somewhere in Eastern Ontario to cover Montreal Island. The English of Montreal saw that as a threat to the dominance of Montreal and a potential boost to Toronto.

Do you really think that they would have willingly remained in a Quebec ruled by a French Catholic theocracy?

Save your references. There is nothing you can teach me about the Constitution or the arguments.

I also said very clearly that Francophone Quebeckers have never supported separation. Don't try to twist that. They voted yes to a question that was not for separation - or have you not heard of the requirement of the Clarity Act and the reason for that?

It is somewhat ironic that when, in 1949, there was a motion before Parliament to revoke official status for the French language in Canada, Louis St. Laurent made an impassioned speech to Parliament appealing to "British Justice." He was successful and "British Justice" carried the day over the anger that was felt at the time as an aftermath to the War and the attitude to that of a number of French Canadian leaders.

Quebec's idea of justice is?

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Snobby and dismissive pretty much sums up your arguments in this thread.

It's sort of six to one, half a dozen to the other....Freddy the fraud meets Jason. I'm enjoying watching.

Irresistable arrogance meets unmoveable hubris.