Pauline Marois, the Québec citizenship law project and reasonable accommodations

[DaimonAugustus]

Greetings,

This is my first post on this board. I would therefore like to introduce myself. My name is Damien. I am 21 years old. I was born from an immigrant mother and a Québécois father in Montréal in 1985. I study biochemistry at the University of Montréal. I am also what you would call a "pure and hard" independantist.

I have come to you on this day because I believe that there is a big misunderstanding between independantists and people in the rest of Canada (ROC). Recent events, to which I refer in this thread's title, have sparkled the revival of old grudges, of old hatred. I say this because I have noted a remarquable rise in the amount of Québec bashing found in canadian newspaper in the last few days. They say we (Québec sovereignists) are racists, totalitarian scum, fascists... I am well aware that I will not change the opinion of many people, if any, by simply writing on some torontonian forum. But at least I will have tried, and made my part. Besides, I know no one from English-Canada, and wish to make new contacts. That mean I'm here to make friends

What I'd like to convince you of is that our positions, opinions, and objectives aren't that of racists in any way. I don't believe in canadian multiculturalism, yet I am not racist. I see a difference between my people and others, and yet that doesn't make me a racist. I want my people to be the one and only master of its own land : it is a perfectly legitimate objective, and it has nothing to do with fascism. I want my culture to live, I want my children's children's childrens to speak french, to speak it as well or even better than I do. I love my culture and wish to see it flourish. But I fear assimilation by the english leviathan. Does that make me xenophobic ?

To me, there is something extremely wrong in canadian multiculturalism, a least in its theoritical form. I was relieved, when I visited Toronto last summer, to see that in real life, it's just good old assimilation. English's attractive power is such that, even though they wear scarfs or kirpans, they speak english with a torontonian accent, and think like anglo-saxons. For that I must congratulate you. Your system works. I wish you tons of successful immigration.

Unfortunately, that model cannot be applied in Québec. We have to make extra efforts to integrate and, in time, assimilate immigrants to our society. The french language does not have the power, in the present-day world, that the english language has. Especially in the context of Québec being a mere province of the massively english country that is Canada. Does that make sense to you ?

My vision of immigration, and that of most Québécois I think, can be bluntly put as "Be my brother or bust". If you come in Québec, you have to become one of ours. And if you do, our doors are wide open. A new life awaits you here. Please raise your family alongside mine. Your children will play with mine, and they will become pure Québécois. May my daughter marry your son. We'll build this country together. If it doesn't please you, however, then we don't need you. Come back if you ever change your mind.

Those of you who believe in multicultaralism may be schocked by my references to the concept of assimilation. However, I consider that a nation should have only one dominant, pure culture. Intercultural marriages should be the norm. The different communities that inhabit a country should mix with one another, blend together, exchange to become one. My blood isn't pure : my ancestors come from Normandy, Ireland, Scotland, some are natives and others probably come from other places as well. My soul, however, is pure. Its roots are in Québec, and that is where its loyalty lies. That is how nations are born and evolve. Cultures meet, sometimes collide, and eventually merge to give rise to something new and pure. That is how the people of Québec was born. That is how it will change and evolve. Accepting the rules of multiculturalism, however, has nothing to do with that. It is a collective suicide, a treason of our history and of our soul. Our duty is therefore to fight the Charter, which is a foreign law imposed on us without our consent. That law is adapted to the context of an Anglo-Saxon land, not to mine. Therefore, why should I abide to it ?

The solution to this problem is the independance of Québec.But until my brothers have the courage to do it, we need measures to counter the destructive influence of the Charter. A Québécois Constitution and a Québécois Citizenship would do the trick. That's not racism, believe me. We simply want to protect what we love and give ourselves the means to do it.

 

[Hydrogen]

I have come to you on this day because I believe that there is a big misunderstanding between independantists and people in the rest of Canada (ROC).

Besides, I know no one from English-Canada, and wish to make new contacts.

Can I presume from this sentence that you have not visited "the rest of Canada" and noted that it is quite diverse in its make-up? It is difficult to know what other people are thinking when you don't know any of the other people.

I don't believe in canadian multiculturalism, yet I am not racist. I see a difference between my people and others, and yet that doesn't make me a racist. I want my people to be the one and only master of its own land : it is a perfectly legitimate objective, and it has nothing to do with fascism. I want my culture to live, I want my children's children's childrens to speak french, to speak it as well or even better than I do. I love my culture and wish to see it flourish. But I fear assimilation by the english leviathan. Does that make me xenophobic ?

Cultures meet, sometimes collide, and eventually merge to give rise to something new and pure. That is how the people of Québec was born. That is how it will change and evolve. Accepting the rules of multiculturalism, however, has nothing to do with that. It is a collective suicide, a treason of our history and of our soul. Our duty is therefore to fight the Charter, which is a foreign law imposed on us without our consent. That law is adapted to the context of an Anglo-Saxon land, not to mine. Therefore, why should I abide to it ?

The thing is, who are your people? Are they just those individuals who can trace their history back to New France? You say that you see no difference between your people and others, but the very sentence suggests you do: they are the others. So who are your people?

You would then appear to contradict yourself with respect to past - that Quebec of today is a product of different cultures (which it most certainly is). As for the Charter - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - being so odious to you, how could anyone presume that the very idea of rights and fredoms would be protected or offered to others by "the masters."

You want your people to be the "one and only master of it's own land;" but am I to understand that the others - those who are not of your people - shall not masters, as well? Are they to be subjacent? The very phrasing of this passage, that it is legitimate to be a master by way of a self-defined status, does smack of something other than equal status with respect to the others. I'm not surprised that some people would view this as fascism.

If you want your culture to live, it does not automatically mean the rejection of other cultures, or their coercive assimilation. It means that you have to do something to keep your culture alive - you - not others. But over time, all cultures change. Quebec culture has changed over the past fifty years. It would be strikingly odd to suddenly believe that Quebec culture will now stay frozen, as is, by way of attitudes or laws that seek to restrict or outlaw those of others.

You fear assimilation by the "english leviathan." Is this because of the language? Just imagine how people might feel when they come to Quebec and are told to assimilate into a culture where there are "the people" (you) and the others (them). You propose quite the uphill battle, one where only the official culture gets to write the rules of what constitutes adequate definitions of assimilation.

To me, there is something extremely wrong in canadian multiculturalism, a least in its theoritical form.

Nobody really lives in a theoretical form. People can learn to live together without the benefit of theory, or worrying about it. In fact, it was the very action of people from diverse backgounds living and working together that generated the policy of multiculturalism. The fact gave rise to the theory, not the other way around. The theory, as you call it, just provide the words and spelled out some general presuppositions. The fact is, people have much more in common than given credit for.

To me, there is something extremely wrong in canadian multiculturalism, a least in its theoritical form. I was relieved, when I visited Toronto last summer, to see that in real life, it's just good old assimilation. English's attractive power is such that, even though they wear scarfs or kirpans, they speak english with a torontonian accent, and think like anglo-saxons. For that I must congratulate you. Your system works. I wish you tons of successful immigration.

I think you misunderstand multiculturalism; that's what causes you to fear it and misunderstand it. You confuse the English language with cultural exclusivity, but miss the fact that English is an international language and is the most widely spoken second language in the world. It is not the exclusive property of any one people or culture. Multiculturalism is not assimilation, nor is it cultural exclusivity; it is a recognition that there is nothing that prevents people from being part of two (or more cultures), and that one of those cultures serves as a common bond between all. Over time, that common culture is gradually shaped by all those who participate in it. Needless to say, many people who come to Canada are ready to embrace a culture that embraces them - for who they are.

However, I consider that a nation should have only one dominant, pure culture.

Cultural purity. Again, I'm not surprised that some view these attitudes as fascist. How would you presume to enforce these laws of purity? How exstensive would they be?

My blood isn't pure : my ancestors come from Normandy, Ireland, Scotland, some are natives and others probably come from other places as well. My soul, however, is pure. Its roots are in Québec, and that is where its loyalty lies.

Maybe your ancestral situation would prevent you from being considered culturally pure. German Jews were among the most "assimilated" in Europe. That didn't prevent the Nazis from generating their own definitions of cultural purity (they liked to call it racial) and killing millions of people who had integrated and become part of the very fabric of German culture. The Nazis had defined their own definitions of who was a member of the master race and who wasn't.

Not that I am suggesting that anyone in Quebec would carry out the above today (although Lionel Groulx liked the general idea - and he was a big influence on the emerging Quebec separatist movement decades ago), but from what you are saying, it sounds like the rule would be something along the lines of: "be like we say you ought to be, or we will deport you." It does not sound particularly pleasant.

As for the Charter being a foreign law, Quebec is still part of Canada; and I know a sizeable number of people in Quebec who would be willing to defend it that Charter. You should actually take the time and read it. You will find it to be quite a valuable document to understand. You will also see that a petulant attitude towards it is unfounded. That is - if you dare to read it.

From Toronto: Diversity is Our Strength.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnBN0trSE3c

8:50 - 9:20 LOL!

 

[DaimonAugustus]

Can I presume from this sentence that you have not visited "the rest of Canada" and noted that it is quite diverse in its make-up? It is difficult to know what other people are thinking when you don't know any of the other people.

Can I presume that you do not read a post it its entirety before replying to it ? Because if you did read it all before speaking, you wouldn't say that. I said that I visited Toronto last summer. For your information, I have also been in Ottawa, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Canada is not monolithic and I have witnessed it. But all these people, as different as these people may be, they share a common language, common cultural roots, and get along pretty well in the same country. The same cannot be said of Québec. We're different. We don't belong together within the same legislation. I'd rather have you as a friendly neighboor than as a co-citizen.

The thing is, who are your people? Are they just those individuals who can trace their history back to New France? You say that you see no difference between your people and others, but the very sentence suggests you do: they are the others. So who are your people?

Who are we ? Jacques Parizeau once said, long before is sociologically accurate yet politically unsound comment on the 1995 referendum : "Est Québécois qui le veut" which can be translated as "Is a Québécois who has the will to". We are those who feel as Québécois. Those who have chosen Québec. As accept as my brother he who accepts me as his own. And there are many of those. And each of them is a proof that my vision of Québec is sound.

You would then appear to contradict yourself with respect to past - that Quebec of today is a product of different cultures (which it most certainly is)

I see no contradiction there. These cultures met, and mixed. And they became one. And if fate favours us, we will continue to absorb new elements and enrich ourselves with them.

As for the Charter - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - being so odious to you, how could anyone presume that the very idea of rights and fredoms would be protected or offered to others by "the masters."

You may not like it, but it is a logical obligation. Rights, freedoms and citizenship are granted to newcomers a posteriori, not a priori. Pretending otherwise wouldn't make sense. Don't you think ? Or maybe I misunderstood you.

You want your people to be the "one and only master of it's own land;" but am I to understand that the others - those who are not of your people - shall not masters, as well? Are they to be subjacent? The very phrasing of this passage, that it is legitimate to be a master by way of a self-defined status, does smack of something other than equal status with respect to the others. I'm not surprised that some people would view this as fascism.

You understood very well. If you are not a Québécois, you have no rights in and on Québec. Same applies to any country. You must be German to have rights on Germany, you must be Algerian to have rights on Algeria. What's so wrong with that ? Is it so fascist not to want some bloke from Alberta, who knows nothing of us, to have the right to decide what goes on in Québec ? Do you find it normal that some girl from BC would have to right to vote and be elected in Québec if she can't speak the language and understands nothing of the place's history and political issues ? Don't you understand what I mean ? Because of Québec bizarre status within Canada, people can, in theory at least, vote and be elected in provincial offices while living as total strangers. In Montréal, these people exist. They can't speak french, they barely know what the political parties are, what the issues are, what the history is. In other words, they have no clue in what country they live. Yet, because they are "canadian" they can vote and run for office. Whatever you may say, that's not normal.

Things are such because Québec's status is weird. Many immigrants come in and are surprised to find that people speak french here ! "What ? Isn't this Canada ?" they ask. And then we have to explain : "Yes, but it is also Québec." Believe me, for many newcomers, it is really confusing. Should they learn english or french. Probably both, but which one first ? What is the official language ? And then, if they choose french, they get frustrated each time they get into a store where nobody speaks french. If they choose english, they feel as eternal strangers and get frustrated when they get in stores where nobody speaks english. There is a huge blur about the language. Bill 101 was a way to try and make things clear. The Québécois Citizenship law project is another attempt of that kind. The language of the majority is french, and it should be the normal public language. Period.

If you want your culture to live, it does not automatically mean the rejection of other cultures, or their coercive assimilation. It means that you have to do something to keep your culture alive - you - not others. But over time, all cultures change. Quebec culture has changed over the past fifty years. It would be strikingly odd to suddenly believe that Quebec culture will now stay frozen, as is, by way of attitudes or laws that seek to restrict or outlaw those of others.

My culture lives, and I myself make it live. But the truth is that it is menaced. We do what we have to do to protect it. If we would let things do, its destruction is what would happen. Besides, I don't consider the obligation to integrate Quebec's society to have the right to vote to be a coercitive measure. It's just common sense.

You fear assimilation by the "english leviathan." Is this because of the language? Just imagine how people might feel when they come to Quebec and are told to assimilate into a culture where there are "the people" (you) and the others (them). You propose quite the uphill battle, one where only the official culture gets to write the rules of what constitutes adequate definitions of assimilation.

There's a big difference between me and an immigrant. It is that I am not an immigrant. Assimilation of newcomers is normal. It always happens, should you like it or not. After a few generations, people are assimilated, that's the way it is. Immigrants should be prepare to see their children be assimilated. It's part of the game. Assimilation of natives to a foreign culture is not normal however. But maybe that's not something you can understand. Your people has never been conquered by another, and you have never feared to see your hometown (I guess it's Toronto) become non-english. Montreal was founded by french people. In the XIXth century, it became mostly english. It re-became french during the XXth. But I very well know that it could be english again. And I don't like it. Can you understand what it is to be told "Sorry, I don't speak french" when you're in your very own town ? And god knows I heard more than my share of that damned sentence in my short life. What if I openned a store in Toronto and didn't speak english ? That would be ridiculous. But for some reasons, in Montréal, it's normal not to speak french.

I've just had it. I want to be respected in the land of my ancestors, the land to which my mother's heart has swore allegiance.

I think you misunderstand multiculturalism; that's what causes you to fear it and misunderstand it. You confuse the English language with cultural exclusivity, but miss the fact that English is an international language and is the most widely spoken second language in the world.

On the contrary, I know this all too well. That's why we have so much trouble over here.

But has a sidenote, I have heard enough english in my life to see the difference between english spoken as a second language and english spoken as a first language. Sons and daughters of immigrants in Toronto, I have witnessed it, all speak english as their first language. It's obvious. They are assimilated. Face it.

Multiculturalism is not assimilation, nor is it cultural exclusivity; it is a recognition that there is nothing that prevents people from being part of two (or more cultures), and that one of those cultures serves as a common bond between all. Over time, that common culture is gradually shaped by all those who participate in it. Needless to say, many people who come to Canada are ready to embrace a culture that embraces them - for who they are.

Being part of two cultures is a lure. It's a lie. Those I know who "have two cultures" either have in fact no culture at all, or have one and falsely pretend to have two. I myself could pretend to have two cultures. But the fact is that I don't. One of them dominates. I am a pure Québécois. My own father was in the same situation. But he made a choice. He had to. His father was Québécois, his mother was an english-canadian. He told me that, as a kid, he couldn't tell who he was. But, half-consciously, he made a choice. He is a pure Québécois. I have many friends of different origins. But the fact is that they all fit one of three categories. Some are, de facto, pure Québécois. Others are still more attached to their parent's cultural identity. And some are lost. They can't speak a single language right. Their minds are unstructured. I call those cultural schizos.

Cultural purity. Again, I'm not surprised that some view these attitudes as fascist. How would you presume to enforce these laws of purity? How exstensive would they be?

That cannot be enforced by laws, per se. Matters of the heart cannot be enforced. But we can try to make our society in such a way that people will naturally blend into our culture. That would be the normal state of things in a normal country. But that cannot be done as long as Québec remains within the canadian confederation. In the meantime, we need artificial tools (Bill 101, a separate, local citizenship etc) to make it "as if we were an independant country". If independance ever comes, we will no longer need such tools.

Maybe your ancestral situation would prevent you from being considered culturally pure. German Jews were among the most "assimilated" in Europe. That didn't prevent the Nazis from generating their own definitions of cultural purity (they liked to call it racial) and killing millions of people who had integrated and become part of the very fabric of German culture. The Nazis had defined their own definitions of who was a member of the master race and who wasn't.

Boy, I get a reference to the Nazis on the FIRST reply. Forgive me if I don't answer to that.

although Lionel Groulx liked the general idea - and he was a big influence on the emerging Quebec separatist movement decades ago

Always the old reference to Lionel Groulx. Forgive him, he was a man of his time. An old clerical nationalist. He was a precursor and I assume it without any shame.

"be like we say you ought to be, or we will deport you."

Nah. I prefer not to let in those we don't want. And for that, the Ministry of Immigration of Québec is doing a pretty good job, considering the Federal Government interference. We select the immigrants that we want, and accept our fair share of refugees. That's the way I like it.

As for the Charter being a foreign law, Quebec is still part of Canada; and I know a sizeable number of people in Quebec who would be willing to defend it that Charter. You should actually take the time and read it. You will find it to be quite a valuable document to understand. You will also see that a petulant attitude towards it is unfounded. That is - if you dare to read it.

It was writtent with lots of good intentions. I don't deny that. But Trudeau wanted to use it as a tool to kill Québec's independantist movement. That's the big problem, and it is the cause of all of our problems.

 

[unimaginative2]

I don't see how the Charter or any other Canadian document is doing the harm to Quebec Francophone culture that you suggest. The French language is stronger in Quebec than ever. Did you know that Quebec City used to be majority English? Quebec already has the right to select its own immigrants, so I don't understand how Federal interference is a problem. The Charter does indeed protect freedom of religion, but it also protects many of the Canadian/Quebec ways of life that the people in Herouxville were so concerned about. Any new immigrants will be forced to accept equality of the sexes or sexual orientations, for example, because of the Charter.

Trudeau didn't create the Charter to kill the separatist movement. From when he first entered politics, one of his most significant goals was to enshrine personal liberties in the constitution, a reflection of American and French Republican values.

I find it sad that you cannot feel like you have an identity unless it fits perfectly with an established "culture" and you must expunge every aspect of your past that doesn't make you pure. I have many friends and know many people who celebrate and feel a genuine part of several cultures into which they were born.

I really think that the time for paranoia in Francophone Quebec has passed. French is stronger than ever. Obviously any immigrant to Quebec City, or indeed any part of Quebec except perhaps parts of Montreal, will have to learn French to be able to communicate. That will pose problems with attracting immigrants, since it's a simple fact that most want to go to a place where they can speak English. Accepting fewer immigrants in return for retaining a dominant Francophone culture is a choice that Quebec is already allowed to make under Canadian law, and is already making.

 

[DaimonAugustus]

I don't see how the Charter or any other Canadian document is doing the harm to Quebec Francophone culture that you suggest. The French language is stronger in Quebec than ever. Did you know that Quebec City used to be majority English?

How ? Heard of Bill 104 recently ? Broken by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. That judgement, based on the Charter, allows people who are financially able and willing to send their kids in non-subsidised english schools to earn the right for their whole family to attend english school. Money buying rights. What a nice democracy.

Trudeau didn't create the Charter to kill the separatist movement. From when he first entered politics, one of his most significant goals was to enshrine personal liberties in the constitution, a reflection of American and French Republican values.

You forget one thing. Trudeau didn't like the sovereignist movement for many reasons (some of which were fonny) including the fact that we have always considered collective rights to prime on individual freedoms. It is on that assumption, for example, that Bill 101 was written. But for Trudeau, individual rights primed. He said it, more than once : "J'ai toujours détesté l'esprit de cette loi." (I have always detested the spirit of that law). The sovereignist movement was and remains in ideological contradiction with his vision of rights and freedoms. Embedding his vision into the constitution was the work of his life, and he wished, among other things, that it would stop majorities from oppressing minorities. To him, the sovereignist movement was bound to oppress minorities. He was very well aware that his Charter would, as we say in french, cut the grass under the foot of the sovereignists. He was not ashamed to admit it. Everybody knows that. Now I'm not saying that it was his sole objective. It was part of a bigger, fortunately much more noble plan. But that plan included fucking our movement. For that reason, and some others, that charter is a poisonned gift.

I find it sad that you cannot feel like you have an identity unless it fits perfectly with an established "culture" and you must expunge every aspect of your past that doesn't make you pure. I have many friends and know many people who celebrate and feel a genuine part of several cultures into which they were born.

I do not forget where I come from. It is important to remember it. But it is the past. What is most important is to know who I am today and where I want to go. And I know that I don't want to end up like that one guy I met one day. He was obviously a tourist. He was speaking english, so I asked what his nationality was. He said "I'm German". So I said : "Oh ! Sprech Deutsch !". He answered : "What ?". I said : "Didn't you say you're German ?". He said : "Yeah, but I don't speak it, I live in Chicago". I wondered : "But then you're not German". He answered : "Yes, I am, my great-grand-father's was born in Bonn". Then I thought : "Oh my God, THAT'S what the word nationality means to Anglo-Saxons ? Better call it folklore." I don't want my grand-children to become folkloric french-canadians. You see ? My culture has nothing to do with the establishment. It is born from a history. It's where my heart lies. Sure I have double-citizenship. But those are just papers.

I really think that the time for paranoia in Francophone Quebec has passed. French is stronger than ever. Obviously any immigrant to Quebec City, or indeed any part of Quebec except perhaps parts of Montreal, will have to learn French to be able to communicate.

You are right. But it's not because a few battles are won that the fight should cease, now should it ? Beside, you said it : except perhaps parts of Montreal. Now guess where the HUGE majority of immigrants go ? Why don't you come around in Park Extension, and see how well immigrants are integrated around here. Can't blame them with this mess.

ccepting fewer immigrants in return for retaining a dominant Francophone culture is a choice that Quebec is already allowed to make under Canadian law, and is already making.

And I guess we should be thankful of this privilege ? Don't you think that, if we were independant, we wouldn't have to worry as much about the volume of immigration ?

 

[unimaginative2]

How ? Heard of Bill 104 recently ? Broken by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. That judgement, based on the Charter, allows people who are financially able and willing to send their kids in non-subsidised english schools to earn the right for their whole family to attend english school. Money buying rights. What a nice democracy.

Bill 101 was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and the Quebec government overruled it using the notwithstanding clause. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't do the same for this law.

You forget one thing. Trudeau didn't like the sovereignist movement for many reasons (some of which were fonny) including the fact that we have always considered collective rights to prime on individual freedoms. It is on that assumption, for example, that Bill 101 was written. But for Trudeau, individual rights primed. He said it, more than once : "J'ai toujours détesté l'esprit de cette loi." (I have always detested the spirit of that law). The sovereignist movement was and remains in ideological contradiction with his vision of rights and freedoms. Embedding his vision into the constitution was the work of his life, and he wished, among other things, that it would stop majorities from oppressing minorities. To him, the sovereignist movement was bound to oppress minorities. He was very well aware that his Charter would, as we say in french, cut the grass under the foot of the sovereignists. He was not ashamed to admit it. Everybody knows that. Now I'm not saying that it was his sole objective. It was part of a bigger, fortunately much more noble plan. But that plan included fucking our movement. For that reason, and some others, that charter is a poisonned gift.

Like you say, enshrining personal rights in the constitution was his goal in and of itself, and any effect it might have had on the sovereigntist movement was a very secondary concern. That being said, I don't see what's wrong if those policies happened to diminish democratic support for a political movement. The Charter certainly did nothing to hinder the sovereignty movement's activities, and Quebeckers have had many opportunities to democratically reject the Charter and leave Canada, but have chosen not to. They support the Charter and its values, and polls throughout Canada, including Quebec, have proven it.

I do not forget where I come from. It is important to remember it. But it is the past. What is most important is to know who I am today and where I want to go. And I know that I don't want to end up like that one guy I met one day. He was obviously a tourist. He was speaking english, so I asked what his nationality was. He said "I'm German". So I said : "Oh ! Sprech Deutsch !". He answered : "What ?". I said : "Didn't you say you're German ?". He said : "Yeah, but I don't speak it, I live in Chicago". I wondered : "But then you're not German". He answered : "Yes, I am, my great-grand-father's was born in Bonn". Then I thought : "Oh my God, THAT'S what the word nationality means to Anglo-Saxons ? Better call it folklore." I don't want my grand-children to become folkloric french-canadians. You see ? My culture has nothing to do with the establishment. It is born from a history. It's where my heart lies. Sure I have double-citizenship. But those are just papers.

Exactly, so what's so bad about someone describing themselves as their immigrant nationality if they've moved to Quebec, sent their kids to Quebec schools (French by law), and live in communities where it would be impossible to function without speaking French?

You are right. But it's not because a few battles are won that the fight should cease, now should it ? Beside, you said it : except perhaps parts of Montreal. Now guess where the HUGE majority of immigrants go ? Why don't you come around in Park Extension, and see how well immigrants are integrated around here. Can't blame them with this mess.

So what? Some parts of Montreal were never in their history pure Francophone Quebecker as you would define it. In fact, far more areas were historically Anglophone and have shifted to become overwhelmingly Francophone. Just because a handful of historically Anglophone and Allophone communities exist within the boundaries of the Province of Quebec doesn't mean that Francophone culture in Quebec is under grave threat.

And I guess we should be thankful of this privilege ? Don't you think that, if we were independant, we wouldn't have to worry as much about the volume of immigration ?

Why? I suppose that as an independent country, Quebec would get quite a bit less immigration. It's already having trouble retaining its hand-picked immigrants. If your problem is with not being able to select immigrants, and yet the law says Quebec can do just that, what is it that's bothering you?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

independence is not going to happen. frankly, if i were living in quebec and the province was allowed to separate from the rest of canada, i would be worried behind the reasoning and what we would loose. IMO, canada will never allow separation unless it benefits canada.

 

[Hydrogen]

Can I presume that you do not read a post it its entirety before replying to it ? Because if you did read it all before speaking, you wouldn't say that. I said that I visited Toronto last summer. For your information, I have also been in Ottawa, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Canada is not monolithic and I have witnessed it. But all these people, as different as these people may be, they share a common language, common cultural roots, and get along pretty well in the same country.

I read your post. You mention nothing of the other provinces or cities, so my presumption is an honest one. Nevertheless, if you did not notice the distinctness of Newfoundland, or the multiculturalism of Toronto, then you would have missed something. You did, however, invoke such phrasings as "english leviathan," and "ROC" as if it were describing some monolithic, monocultural whole. You appear to refusing to see any region as distinct in its own right, as that may undermine your own exclusive presumptions that only Quebec persons of a specific cultural mindset are distinct.

Nevertheless, beyond language, I see no radical cultural difference between, say, the people of Montreal and Toronto. Generally, Montreal - like Toronto - is a cosmopolitan city with a similarly fitting outlook (although I find the multicultural fact of Toronto amplifies that outlook considerably).

We are those who feel as Québécois. Those who have chosen Québec. As accept as my brother he who accepts me as his own. And there are many of those. And each of them is a proof that my vision of Québec is sound.

I find that a somewhat circular expression, and not in any way relating to Quebec culture exclusively. It certainly does not explain the desire to expunge people who might accept you "as a brother" (any sisters?), but still wish to keep their own traditional language alive, and define themselves as having an affinity to their culture of origin. They might be feeling something in their hearts, too. Why do you get the exclusive right to judge that? You would appear to be taking up the exclusive right to judge who is accepting enough, and who isn't.

I see no contradiction there. These cultures met, and mixed. And they became one. And if fate favours us, we will continue to absorb new elements and enrich ourselves with them

Those cultures met and mixed. That is not the same as the fate you wish "others" to adjust to: assimilation. And pardon me for pointing this out, but enrich yourselves with them? That sounds more like consumption and digestion. What of "them?"

You understood very well. If you are not a Québécois, you have no rights in and on Québec.

No rights? None whatsoever? Sounds extreme because it is extreme. Will there be culture police investigating the cultural correctness of rightless immigrants? Will there be habaeus corpus? It sounds as if, in the name of cultural protection, you've forgotten the people - the human beings.

Do you find it normal that some girl from BC would have to right to vote and be elected in Québec if she can't speak the language and understands nothing of the place's history and political issues ?

Well, if that "girl" is of voting age, then that woman has a right to run for elected office - whether you consider it normal or not. The voters certainly have a right to vote for another individual if they find her knowledge wanting. It sounds as if you are wishing to invoke a test of some sort to be in Quebec, or to be considered as a member of the Quebec culture. I just wonder if this test would be applied to all members of that culture as well. Besides, have any girls from B.C. run for political office in Quebec recently?

Because of Québec bizarre status within Canada, people can, in theory at least, vote and be elected in provincial offices while living as total strangers. In Montréal, these people exist. They can't speak french, they barely know what the political parties are, what the issues are, what the history is. In other words, they have no clue in what country they live. Yet, because they are "canadian" they can vote and run for office. Whatever you may say, that's not normal.

People can vote for whomever they want to. That is their decision. As for the people who possess little knowledge of cultural history, there is really nothing new of that, and it is certainly not an issue specific to Montreal. And concerning people who don't speak French in Montreal, why worry about it? That's their problem, not yours. It would strike me as a considerable restriction to not know how to speak french. The question is this: is life in Montreal (or Quebec) to be forever restricted to the French language alone?

My culture lives, and I myself make it live. But the truth is that it is menaced. We do what we have to do to protect it. If we would let things do, its destruction is what would happen. Besides, I don't consider the obligation to integrate Quebec's society to have the right to vote to be a coercitive measure. It's just common sense.

Yes, your culture lives because you make it live. But if you take the point of view that others who have their take on how their culture "lives" is wrong or menacing, then you wishing to impose only your beliefs. What makes your culture better, or more worthy of special protection, or more deserving of passing judgement on those called the "others?" With respect to common-sense notions, to paraphrase Einstein: common sense is the collected prejudices aquired by age eighteen.

Your people has never been conquered by another, and you have never feared to see your hometown (I guess it's Toronto) become non-english.

Speaking or presumptions...

My parents came to Canada as refugees. Both were driven out of their own countries not by people of a different culture or language, but by people with a different ideological and political point of view. To them, Canada is a haven where human beings of different cultures live in relative peace when compared to many other places in the world.

Maybe I missed the story in the news, but has Quebec been conquered recently? Are francophones being forced to speak a language other than French? Are they/you being forced to take competency tests in order to vote or to even remain in Quebec? Or is this just a case of fearing the "others" because they don't sound like you?

If they choose english, they feel as eternal strangers and get frustrated when they get in stores where nobody speaks english.

And what of the francophone families in Quebec that have gone for generations never learning to speak English in Canada (and North America)? It strikes me that they are architects of their own sense of being strangers on the continent. In addition, no one has invoked any demands for linguistic tests to vote in a Canadian election because the country has a majority of people who speak English.

Being part of two cultures is a lure. It's a lie. Those I know who "have two cultures" either have in fact no culture at all, or have one and falsely pretend to have two.

First, you don't get to be the judge of others in that respect. You have no special status in knowing the cultural specifics of other people. Second, if you believe this to be a lie, then you are accusing many people of lying solely on the basis of your own prejudices. Third, every person has a culture of some sort, and once again, your own ignorance and restricted point of view blinds you to this fact.

Boy, I get a reference to the Nazis on the FIRST reply. Forgive me if I don't answer to that.

When one hears expositions on the necessity to protect cultural purity, then one can raise a valid historical reference that operated on this point.

 

[DaimonAugustus]

Nevertheless, if you did not notice the distinctness of Newfoundland, or the multiculturalism of Toronto, then you would have missed something. You did, however, invoke such phrasings as "english leviathan," and "ROC" as if it were describing some monolithic, monocultural whole.

I thought I said that I did notice a difference. Anyway, it is not false to pretend that Canada can be divided in two on the basis of language. And it turns out that the french part is, for the most part, Québec and the rest is english Canada. I find it very reasonable to refer to the ROC as an entity with a certain level of homogeneity, in pretty much the same way as one can refer to the Western World as a whole as a cultural zone, despite its obvious diversity.

Nevertheless, beyond language, I see no radical cultural difference between, say, the people of Montreal and Toronto. Generally, Montreal - like Toronto - is a cosmopolitan city with a similarly fitting outlook (although I find the multicultural fact of Toronto amplifies that outlook considerably).

We are rather closely related, of course. We've been sharing this piece of Earth for a little more than two centuries, after all. Besides, France and England, our respective mother countries share common roots that trace back to the First Iron Age. But if you know more than one language, you must be aware that the language you speak strongly influences the way you think. Language difference is not superficial, as you seem to be suggesting. Another difference that you may find benign but that is actually of great importance, is geography and topography. You live on the shores of a lake (more like an inner sea, if you ask me), I live on an island. You inhabit a plain, I live in a valley, to the foot of hill. Just by those two, small differences, it can be said that both our minds and our worlds are structured differently. As your keen eye noted it, that affects, for example, the way we live cultural diversity.

I find that a somewhat circular expression, and not in any way relating to Quebec culture exclusively.

It's not a circular expression. That is because of the bidirectional nature of human relations. A people, a nation, is an ensemble of individuals who recognise each other as members as a whole, and who feel a bond based on a shared history, a shared language, a shared sensibility, shared experiences and a common land. We recognise each other. How can I say this ? Its something you just feel. When two people meet, they just know that they are of the same kind.

It certainly does not explain the desire to expunge people who might accept you "as a brother" (any sisters?), but still wish to keep their own traditional language alive, and define themselves as having an affinity to their culture of origin. They might be feeling something in their hearts, too. Why do you get the exclusive right to judge that? You would appear to be taking up the exclusive right to judge who is accepting enough, and who isn't.

Yes, sorry, sisters as well. I forgot that the word "brethren" exists in english. In french, we use the word "frère" (which means brother) indistinctively as the male form and as the neutral form. Sorry if didn't make myself clear.

Now, people can still have some kind of affinity to some ancestral culture. They're free. They learn and keep whatever language alive. Yet, I have always said that, if I ever immigrate, I will raise my children in the local culture, not in Québécois culture. I may teach the some french, but it'll most probably a second language for them.

Yet, I'll repeat what I just said above. Deciding who's your brethren and who is something you just know and feel. You just get to recognise people of your own kind. Just like family. There's that special connection. It's an integral part of identity : "Who do I identify to, and to what extent ?". You and I, for example, if we met, would feel some level of familiarity as North Americans, a feeling we wouldn't have with, say, someone from Nigeria (picked that country at random). As much as there is no formal definition of what a brethren is, there are also minimum prerequisites. Like sharing a common language and some minimal cultural references.

No rights? None whatsoever? Sounds extreme because it is extreme. Will there be culture police investigating the cultural correctness of rightless immigrants? Will there be habaeus corpus? It sounds as if, in the name of cultural protection, you've forgotten the people - the human beings.

Alright, maybe I pushed it a bit. You don't get to vote in Québec if you're not a Québécois. As far as I know, we grant lots of stuff to non-citizens. To a point that people seem to have forgotten what it means to be a free citizen. But that's not the point. What I meant was that, in Québec, you should get the rights granted to citizens if you are a Québécois. Clearer ?

Those cultures met and mixed. That is not the same as the fate you wish "others" to adjust to: assimilation. And pardon me for pointing this out, but enrich yourselves with them? That sounds more like consumption and digestion. What of "them?"

The main ingredient always dominates in any mix.

Immigrants are in smaller number, therefore the normal course of events would be that they get assimilated to the host culture, and not the contrary. If I compare it to a dillution, does it offend you ? It seems to me that it's the normal consequence of blending in a culture that is more important in numbers.

Well, if that "girl" is of voting age, then that woman has a right to run for elected office - whether you consider it normal or not.

Yes, but that is because the law is flawed. She's a stranger. She should get to settle in and learn and wait a bit. Then, after some time and after she has proved that she's well integrated enough, she can be granted citizenship and run for office. But, the twisted logic of the constitution says that she has the right to run for office right away. As if immigrants were granted the right to vote on federal elections on day two of their presence in Canada. Come on.

And concerning people who don't speak French in Montreal, why worry about it? That's their problem, not yours. It would strike me as a considerable restriction to not know how to speak french. The question is this: is life in Montreal (or Quebec) to be forever restricted to the French language alone?

What if it pisses me off to be told "Sorry, I don't speak french" in a restaurant ? I don't think it happens to you often to be told : "Navré, je ne parle pas anglais" in Toronto. Nor anywhere else in the world. You can always find someone who can gibber some english.

And yes, I'd like Montréal to stay french for quite a few more centuries, if possible.

Maybe I missed the story in the news, but has Quebec been conquered recently? Are francophones being forced to speak a language other than French? Are they/you being forced to take competency tests in order to vote or to even remain in Quebec? Or is this just a case of fearing the "others" because they don't sound like you?

It was not conquered recently, but 244 years ago. Yet, we still live the consequences of that conquest. In those 244 years, I am only the second generation that can live freely and normally in french. It began to change when my father was a kid. Less than 50 years. That's probably why we're so irritated when we meet some people who can't speak french.

And what of the francophone families in Quebec that have gone for generations never learning to speak English in Canada (and North America)? It strikes me that they are architects of their own sense of being strangers on the continent. In addition, no one has invoked any demands for linguistic tests to vote in a Canadian election because the country has a majority of people who speak English.

First, this is supposed to be a federation, not a centralised legislation. And there are two official languages. It was the condition for Québec to adhere to the federation in the first place (not that we really had the choice, seeing how they forced New Brunswick in). Second, if you get to live in North America outside Québec and don't learn English, you're an idiot.

First, you don't get to be the judge of others in that respect. You have no special status in knowing the cultural specifics of other people. Second, if you believe this to be a lie, then you are accusing many people of lying solely on the basis of your own prejudices. Third, every person has a culture of some sort, and once again, your own ignorance and restricted point of view blinds you to this fact.

1-You think I have no insight whatsoever into the cultural identity of people ?

2-Correction : on the basis of my own experience

3-Cultural no man's land exists. Cultural schizophrenia exists.

When one hears expositions on the necessity to protect cultural purity, then one can raise a valid historical reference that operated on this point.

Are you saying that your soul and your culture are not pure ? I believe they are.

IMO, canada will never allow separation unless it benefits canada.

Canada will do as democracy says, thank you.

Bill 101 was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and the Quebec government overruled it using the notwithstanding clause. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't do the same for this law.

There are unfortunately limits to the application of that clause.

That being said, I don't see what's wrong if those policies happened to diminish democratic support for a political movement. The Charter certainly did nothing to hinder the sovereignty movement's activities, and Quebeckers have had many opportunities to democratically reject the Charter and leave Canada, but have chosen not to. They support the Charter and its values, and polls throughout Canada, including Quebec, have proven it.

You seem to forget that Québec didn't sign the constitution yet. For that very reason, and because it was forced down our throat by the ROC.

Exactly, so what's so bad about someone describing themselves as their immigrant nationality if they've moved to Quebec, sent their kids to Quebec schools (French by law), and live in communities where it would be impossible to function without speaking French?

They themselves, I can understand. But their children are probably more Québécois than anything else. If they claim some other identity, fine for them. But they'll have a surprise if they get to visit the family in their parent's country of origin. That's what it did to me at least.

So what? Some parts of Montreal were never in their history pure Francophone Quebecker as you would define it. In fact, far more areas were historically Anglophone and have shifted to become overwhelmingly Francophone. Just because a handful of historically Anglophone and Allophone communities exist within the boundaries of the Province of Quebec doesn't mean that Francophone culture in Quebec is under grave threat.

Westmount is a big Trojan horse in the heart of Montréal. We are kind of surrounded by 300 million anglophones, you see.

And Montreal used to be totally french my friend. It's been founded 121 years before the conquest. As for the island as a whole, it had the Récollets as lords and was settled by french settlers long before the first englishman sat foot on it. The english names in the city were used to replace pre-existing french names. Westmount was named Côte-Saint-Antoine for example. Hampstead was cut out of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. And the list goes on.

That being said, every country has its national minorities, and we have to live with it. My problem is when those minorities mistake some old remnants of their colonial prerogatives for "fundamental rights".

Why? I suppose that as an independent country, Quebec would get quite a bit less immigration. It's already having trouble retaining its hand-picked immigrants. If your problem is with not being able to select immigrants, and yet the law says Quebec can do just that, what is it that's bothering you?

I don't know ? I don't understand what you're talking about.



Now I realise this is getting out of hands (and ends...). When threads reach such long quote/answers proportions, they become useless. How about you add me to you MSN list if you have one and have time to loose on such a desperate case as myself ?

kurie_daimon_augustus@hotmail.com

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

M. Augustus - let me begin by complimenting you on your avatar.

In your first post, you use the word "pure" five times. You'll forgive us if that gives us the creeps. Maybe its connotations are different in French - I hear it makes nice wool - but it spells trouble to our ears. Achieving purity means finding some means of purifying the population, and that's never pretty. Maybe it means sitting them down for French tests. Maybe it means checking out the purity of their souls. (George Bush looked into Putin's soul. Maybe Pauline Marois can peer into mine.)

The thing about creating a tier of second-class citizens, as I understand the PQ's leader is proposing is - wait a minute, this is insane. Why am I having to spell out why it's bad to have second-class citizens? I thought universal human rights was the UN declaration that everyone in the office can agree on.

Anyway, there will always be 21-year-old campus zealots with taglines like "J'ai la fleur de lys tatouée sur le coeur" (which musta smarted), goose-stepping around the place. But I'm disturbed at the airtime they're getting. My impression was that Quebec was a progressive place, and that the PQ's appeal to voters was as much in its progressive policies as in its nationalist leanings.

I'm worried about Islamophobia. It's driving us batty. It's a far more destructive force than Islam will ever be. Worse, even, than money and the ethnic vote.

 

[DaimonAugustus]

:lol:

Well Sir Novelty, I must compliment you for your witty humour. You certainly made this thread much less heavy and much more interesting. Thank you very much. Useless to say that I am glad to hear that you appreciate the kind face (and writings ?) of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as much as I do.

In your first post, you use the word "pure" five times. You'll forgive us if that gives us the creeps. Maybe its connotations are different in French - I hear it makes nice wool - but it spells trouble to our ears.

Yes I know. Maybe I used it on purpose ? I want to assure you that it is not uselessly provocative though. As in opposition to purety of race or blood, I propose purety of soul ? My culture and my soul are pure, regardless of where I come from. How's that ? And please don't be so paranoiac, nobody's going to be gased, getthoed or eliminated, or even deported.

Maybe it means sitting them down for French tests.

Yeah, pretty much.

The thing about creating a tier of second-class citizens, as I understand the PQ's leader is proposing is - wait a minute, this is insane. Why am I having to spell out why it's bad to have second-class citizens? I thought universal human rights was the UN declaration that everyone in the office can agree on.

But there already are different classes of individuals in Canada ! Some people are permanent resident, ever heard of that ? My mother has been a permanent resident all her life. She didn't like the idea of a canadian citizenship. She was waiting for a Québécois citizenship to get hers.

This law project isn't about creating second-class citizens. It's about getting some incentive for people to move their lazy ass. And I'm pretty sure any serious newcomer will pass the test quite easily. There's a test to become Canadian, isn't there ? Why can't there be a test to become Québécois ?

Anyway, there will always be 21-year-old campus zealots with taglines like "J'ai la fleur de lys tatouée sur le coeur" (which musta smarted), goose-stepping around the place. But I'm disturbed at the airtime they're getting. My impression was that Quebec was a progressive place, and that the PQ's appeal to voters was as much in its progressive policies as in its nationalist leanings.

Well, it saddens me to hear that I will probably never get answers from you. Too bad. My MSN contact's up there if you ever feel bored. I want ontarian contacts : I have none. Perhaps you'll tell me that this is not the right way to do it. Oh well. At least I'd like to know the definition of the expression "which musta smarted", if you please.

As for the progressive comment... The PQ just lost an election because it insisted on it too much, and not enough on the nationalist part. Which doesn't mean the progressist program should be abandonned.

 

[Hydrogen]

A people, a nation, is an ensemble of individuals who recognise each other as members as a whole, and who feel a bond based on a shared history, a shared language, a shared sensibility, shared experiences and a common land. We recognise each other. How can I say this ? Its something you just feel. When two people meet, they just know that they are of the same kind.

And all of this could also be an artifact of desire, a wanting to be part of something bigger than just one's self, an assumption that the other person with whom you assume a bond feels and thinks as you do.

What I meant was that, in Québec, you should get the rights granted to citizens if you are a Québécois.

As Quebec is part of Canada, a Canadian citizen need not apply for Quebec citizenship. You may not like the Charter, but it still applies.

Yes, but that is because the law is flawed. She's a stranger. She should get to settle in and learn and wait a bit.

On a practical political basis, she should learn something about the riding she wishes to properly represent a riding. the speed at which this is done depends on the individual, not on any specific allotment of time (and wish her luck in getting a nomination through a political party if that's the route she chooses). But going beyond that, the law suggests that she has equality with all others who wish to run for political office. The flaw has nothing to do with the law, and I think this argument is being made as a justification to keep selected people out of the electoral process.

And yes, I'd like Montréal to stay french for quite a few more centuries, if possible.

Yes, damn those English-speaking people. How dare they have a history in Montreal. Maybe a few more intimidating laws, and they'll all leave. Sorry for the sarcasm, but if your concern for history consists of only agonizing about what happened 244 years ago, then I assume you will always will hang onto your arguments regardless of what anyone else says. It is easy to adopt the role of being a constant victim of history, because no one can change it. So be it. But do remember, you were not around all those years ago, so your ability to pass judgement today on the basis of that event is rather limited.

I am only the second generation that can live freely and normally in french

And by now there is a second generation of anglophones that have legal restrictions on the validity of their language in Quebec. Congratulations.

Cultural no man's land exists. Cultural schizophrenia exists.

Pardon my English, but that's just bullshit. You are confusing your assumptions for the experiences of other people. You adhere to an overly rigid interpretation of culture that resembles programming.

 

[DaimonAugustus]

And all of this could also be an artifact of desire, a wanting to be part of something bigger than just one's self, an assumption that the other person with whom you assume a bond feels and thinks as you do.

Hell, do you have an identity or what ? Are we such a bunch of idiots for claiming, all together, that we have something in common ? All those who claim that they are Québécois would in fact be mistaken ? It would be some kind of belief that we share something that is in fact false ? Which would mean that our people doesn't exist ?

That would be cultural no man's land in all its glory !

As Quebec is part of Canada, a Canadian citizen need not apply for Quebec citizenship. You may not like the Charter, but it still applies.

That's why the law won't pass. Yet, I don't think it's a bad idea, or something fascist and xenophobic. That's the point I am defending.

On a practical political basis, she should learn something about the riding she wishes to properly represent a riding. the speed at which this is done depends on the individual, not on any specific allotment of time (and wish her luck in getting a nomination through a political party if that's the route she chooses).

Therefore you admit that there two kinds of immigrants with different rights in Québec : canadian citizens and the others.

Yes, damn those English-speaking people. How dare they have a history in Montreal. Maybe a few more intimidating laws, and they'll all leave.

If they don't like they idea of living in a french-speaking country doesn't please them, then yes, they should leave, or I fear they'll be most unhappy. If, on the other hand, they want to be a part of it, then they should stay. We'll throw a nice party together and it'll be fun. You get both kinds on the political landscape : Robin Philpot as the Good, and William Johnson as both the Bad and the Ugly.

I think this argument is being made as a justification to keep selected people out of the electoral process.

No, you are wrong. As I said earlier, it's about kicking some lazy asses who won't integrate into our society.

And by now there is a second generation of anglophones that have legal restrictions on the validity of their language in Quebec. Congratulations.

How oppressive and blood thristy we are ! Forcing them to speak french in a french country, what a nonsense, that is downright tyranny !

Sorry for the sarcasm, but if your concern for history consists of only agonizing about what happened 244 years ago, then I assume you will always will hang onto your arguments regardless of what anyone else says. It is easy to adopt the role of being a constant victim of history, because no one can change it.

As if the conquest happened and then everything was all good and well afterwards. It's not some isolated event. It has been an incessant fight between conqueror and conquered ever since then. We live today the consequences of what happened then. It's not about changing the past or mourning on it. It's about ensuring ourselves a future that won't suffer from the errors and humiliations of the past.

Pardon my English, but that's just bullshit. You are confusing your assumptions for the experiences of other people. You adhere to an overly rigid interpretation of culture that resembles programming.

I am judging people on the basis of my own experience, yes. It's the only reference I have. I judge that someone who can't speak a single language right has a problem. Someone who tells me : "But I'm speaking french to you" in english when I ask them to speak french ARE confused and lost on the cultural level. If you fail to understand that, then I don't know what to tell you. I mean they don't even know what language they're speaking ! They are lost ! I'm not making this up ! They exist, there are many of them, and I find that to be wrong !

 

[Hydrogen]

Hell, do you have an identity or what ? Are we such a bunch of idiots for claiming, all together, that we have something in common ? All those who claim that they are Québécois would in fact be mistaken ? It would be some kind of belief that we share something that is in fact false ? Which would mean that our people doesn't exist ?

One of your problems appears to be your continued confusion of culture automatically standing in for people. You are attempting to reify culture as a means of exclusion, as a means of cutting other people off, as a means of segregating; hence your concerns over cultural purity. How would you ever presume to know if another person shares the same feelings or sensibilites as you?

Therefore you admit that there two kinds of immigrants with different rights in Québec : canadian citizens and the others.

No, I was responding to your suggestion that a person has no right to run political office on the basis of not living in a community for some predetermined quantity of time. You are the one who is so terribly concerned with otherness. I am very open to the idea of immigration and encourage people to pursue citizenship. Your posts suggest that you would work to prevent citizenship. Your measure of acceptability for citizenship is built on the basis of whether that individual shared your specific sensibilities, shared experiences, common history, a common relationship to the land and other highly specific criteria as to exactly what you believe your culture is defined by. It's a recipe to keep people out who you've already pre-determined as being "outsiders," "others" and "strangers."

f they don't like they idea of living in a french-speaking country doesn't please them, then yes, they should leave, or I fear they'll be most unhappy.

You live in a country where the majority speak English. Would like the idea of similar thinking applied to you, or to the inhabitants in Quebec who have never bothered to learn English?

No, you are wrong. As I said earlier, it's about kicking some lazy asses who won't integrate into our society.

And if these individuals don't share your common feelings, sensibilies, common history, heart-felt beliefs and sentiments towards the land, they can't ever integrate because you have set up a barrier that people immigrating here just can't overcome. That way you get to create an environment of purity and exclusivity, and can then always keep the "others," the "strangers," the "outsiders" at bay. They'll always be second-class members of your culture. They will never be pure.

Forcing them to speak french in a french country, what a nonsense, that is downright tyranny !

Quebec is not a country. It is a province of Canada. You appear to have forgotten that fact. But then, I'll just let your own use of the word "forcing" stand for itself. It is indicative of an underlying essence running through your posts here.

It has been an incessant fight between conqueror and conquered ever since then.

This exists because you have chosen to be a victim of history. You can't put the past behind you. For a sizeable portion of the people on this planet, your state of victimhood would be laughable.

I am judging people on the basis of my own experience, yes. It's the only reference I have. I judge that someone who can't speak a single language right has a problem. Someone who tells me : "But I'm speaking french to you" in english when I ask them to speak french ARE confused and lost on the cultural level.

As your comment is without context, maybe you could have used some "common" courtesy, and either speak to them in English, or better, helped them along in French should they be having difficulty. Many people respond well to positive actions. It encourages them to keep trying. After all, if they first tried to speak to you in French, they made an effort. All your telling me here is how that just isn't good enough for you.