Pauline Marois, the Québec citizenship law project and reasonable accommodations

[unimaginative2]

There's nothing wrong with claiming that you Québécois have something in common. There's something wrong with denying the most basic and fundamental democratic rights to people who live in a territory, on the basis of a lack of "purity," whether racial or ethnic or "cultural."

Whether you like it or not, Anglophones have lived in Montreal (and a lot of the rest of Quebec) for hundreds of years, likely many hundreds of years more than your ancestors have lived in Quebec. There's something called an ethnic or cultural minority and they exist in every country in the world and any country that can claim with any legitimacy to be free protects its minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I find it deeply disturbing that you feel that your culture somehow has the right to stamp out all other cultures within an artificially created territory. What of the native peoples? They've been there a hell of a lot longer than the Québécois. If they want to speak their own language (a language older than French) or any other language of their choosing in your "French-speaking country," should they leave? Where should they go? Where should the Anglophones go whose ancestors have lived much longer in Quebec than your ancestors, if that's what this is all about? Francophone Quebeckers are a minority within Canada, yes, and their culture and distinctiveness should absolutely be protected. But why does it stop there? Why is it that Quebec, in turn, has no such obligations to its own minorities?

The hilarious thing about all these ideas is that I lived in Quebec and could easily pass a French test. I could have run for office and gotten all the other benefits of being a "Quebec Citizen" even though I only lived there for a few months. Somebody who's lived in the west island (and I really don't think Beaconsfield was French-settled before the conquest) for their entire lives and whose ancestors have lived in Quebec for hundreds of years would be denied their most basic democratic rights.

Oh, and the whole bit about everyone having the right to run for office if they have the right to vote? That's in the 1867 Constitution that Quebec inarguably "signed".

I'd add you on MSN, but I don't really use it much so that wouldn't really help.

I love Quebec and I love francophone culture in Quebec. I think that it's a strong enough culture on its own to have a little self-confidence. It doesn't need to repress or eliminate all minorities in sight to survive. People can freely choose that culture, and virtually everyone who is born into it does. A lot of people also choose it who have come from far away and don't fit into the "We came from Normandy" mould. That's wonderful, and that's what a true society is. I wish that all French Quebeckers could just reflect on the fact that they have a strong culture that is something of an island on an English continent, and it's a culture that shows no sign of dying other than by its own insularity.

That's where my comment about immigration came from. Quebec is scaring away immigrants with all the laws you propose. It already has problems attracting immigrants because, as you've said, many prefer English. The Québécois also have close to the lowest birth rate in the world. If it were independent, Quebec would be one of the fastest-shrinking countries in the world. The only thing that will defeat Québécois culture is insularity, the refusal to accept any one with the slightest bit of difference, because that's where the growth that sustains any society is going to come from.

 

[adma]

How would DaimonAugustus feel if he were a Scarberian dealing with how Scarberia ain't what it used to be, demographically speaking. This whole "culturally squeezed out" thing. I certainly wouldn't side with him, at least not wholesale...

 

[DaimonAugustus]

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?

Well, maybe it's my lack of knowledge on the english language, but I use people and culture as near synonyms, since there's always a particular culture associated with a particular people.

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.

Immigrants have to wait a pre-determined length of time before they can get their canadian citizenship. So ?

am very open to the idea of immigration and encourage people to pursue citizenship.

So do I.

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."

As I already said, we set the rules for citizenship. Newcomers can't themselves set the rules before they have their own citizenship, can't they ? Now, do you believe me if I swear that I don't want to prevent people in general from getting their citizenship ? I admit, though, that stubborn individuals who won't integrate are on my exclusion list, along with some other kind of undesirables (e.g. criminals).

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?

I dare ya.

Seriously, though, it used to be the case. But it changed. If it happens again, I have good hope that it will fail, like it did twice already.

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.

Unovercomable barrier you say ? I don't think so. I did it, and tens of thousands, no, hundreds of thousands of others just like me did it. They are all my brethrens, and we are the proof that Québec is inclusive, and not exclusive as you pretend.

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.

Damn do I hate that fact. But you are right. However, we're working on changing that fact, and who knows, maybe we'll succeed ?

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.

From what I read from you, should I understand that, in order to not be a victim, we should have accepted the Royal Proclamation from the very beginning and shut our traps ? I happen to think, on the contrary, that fighting has made us less victims and brought us closer to "winner" status.

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.

You are right. I didn't give you enough context. What I meant is that the person whom I was referring to was speaking to me in english, but thought she was speaking french. I asked her why she wouldn't speak french to me, since I knew she could, and she answered : "But I'm speaking french to you, Damien." Clearer ?

Whether you like it or not, Anglophones have lived in Montreal (and a lot of the rest of Quebec) for hundreds of years, likely many hundreds of years more than your ancestors have lived in Quebec.

Unlikely, I'm half-breed. On my father's side, we can trace our french ancestors back to 1635. I also have some Mohawk ancestors, which have been around for quite some time. But those are just puerile considerations. It's not a matter of blood, it's a matter of culture.

What of the native peoples? They've been there a hell of a lot longer than the Québécois. If they want to speak their own language (a language older than French) or any other language of their choosing in your "French-speaking country," should they leave?

Natives have a special status. They are our hosts here and deserve the outmort respect. That's why the last PQ government granted the Innus new territorial rights over all of Côte-Nord.

Why is it that Quebec, in turn, has no such obligations to its own minorities?

We do have obligations. Anglophones have the earned right to have their own schools for example. We don't intend on removing that from them, nor on removing their citizenship. It's an earned right.

Somebody who's lived in the west island (and I really don't think Beaconsfield was French-settled before the conquest) for their entire lives and whose ancestors have lived in Quebec for hundreds of years would be denied their most basic democratic rights.

First, that's out of question. That is written nowhere in Pauline Marois's law project. They have earned rights. Again, we're talking about newcomers.

On a side note, Beaconsfield was french-settled long before it was ever named Beaconsfield. It's just a division a an old parish (Pointe-Claire, if I remember well).

Oh, and the whole bit about everyone having the right to run for office if they have the right to vote? That's in the 1867 Constitution that Quebec inarguably "signed".

Did I ever say that people should have the right to vote without having the right to run for office ? If you have the right to vote, you have the right to be elected. It is true though that, according to article 3 of the constitution, anyone with canadian citizen status should have the right to vote and run for office in any province. We, however, would like to create a separate, local citizenship for Québec alone, like other local citizenships that exist elsewhere, like in Finland, France... and even Canada (see the case of the Nisga'a nation).

I'd add you on MSN, but I don't really use it much so that wouldn't really help.

Why don't you add me anyway ? Each conversation count when it comes to understanding others. I'd consider myself lucky with a single convo in ten years.

I love Quebec and I love francophone culture in Quebec. I think that it's a strong enough culture on its own to have a little self-confidence. It doesn't need to repress or eliminate all minorities in sight to survive. People can freely choose that culture, and virtually everyone who is born into it does. A lot of people also choose it who have come from far away and don't fit into the "We came from Normandy" mould. That's wonderful, and that's what a true society is. I wish that all French Quebeckers could just reflect on the fact that they have a strong culture that is something of an island on an English continent, and it's a culture that shows no sign of dying other than by its own insularity.

I totally agree on almost everything you say here. It is a fact that we direly need more self-confidence. If we had more, we'd probably be independant by now. But you know, I think that most people realise nowadays in Québec that we have a strong culture in an ocean of english speaking states. I disagree also, when you say that we show no sign of dying. I am persuaded that we have to be very careful. Montréal could very well be wholy anglicised in a short period of time. The rest of Québec could take more time, who wants of a french country who's metropolis is english ?

As you said, we don't breed enough. To me, THAT is our biggest problem. I sincerly hope it won't kill us.

Quebec is scaring away immigrants with all the laws you propose. It already has problems attracting immigrants because, as you've said, many prefer English.

It's far from being as you describe it. I have my own personal sources in the ministry of immigration, so I think that my opinion on this can be trusted. When we're clear enough on what awaits them here, there usually aren't problems of that nature. Problems arise from lies and misconceptions about what Québec is. Sovereignist elements within the ministry tend to idealise Québec's french identity in front of immigration candidates. Useless to say that it is a cause of disillusion and frustration to those immigrants. On the other hand, immigrants who settle in Québec with a poor knowledge of what Québec is are bitterly surprised to see that it isn't what they thought (i.e. english like the rest of Canada). Those are usually the most reluctant to learn french (obviously) and the most prompt to pronounce the eternal : "Come on, this is North America, learn the language". So sweet of them. They often leave for Toronto after a few months or years. Either that or they ghetto themselves in the West Island... !

 

[unimaginative2]

Did I ever say that people should have the right to vote without having to run for office ? If you have the right to vote, you have the right to be elected. It is true though that, according to article 3 of the constitution, anyone with canadian citizen status should have the right to vote and run for office in any province. We, however, would like to create a separate, local citizenship for Québec alone, like other local citizenships that exist elsewhere, like in Finland, France... and even Canada (see the case of the Nisga'a nation).

The Marois Quebec citizenship proposal would take away the right to run for office from people who do not pass a language test. The Canadian Constitution of 1867, which was framed in large part by Quebeckers, guarantees the right to run for office to anyone who is eligible to vote. That means that the proposal is blatantly unconstitutional, and the excuse can't be used that it's the 1982 Constitution that Quebec didn't sign.

Montréal could very well be wholy anglicised in a short period of time. The rest of Québec could take more time, who wants of a french country who's metropolis is english ?

Do you live in Montreal or elsewhere? I've lived in Montreal and the thought seems laughable to me. The city is overwhelmingly French. The working language is French. Outside of certain, well-established neighbourhoods (and even sometimes there), the first language people speak to you in shops is French. A large percentage of the population speaks French only and little or no English. Most government services are only offered in French. The government enforces strict laws forcing workplaces to operate in French and all signage to be predominantly French. None of that sounds like a recipe for being wholly anglicized in a short time.

It's far from being as you describe it. I have my own personal sources in the ministry of immigration, so I think that my opinion on this can be trusted. When we're clear enough on what awaits them here, there aren't problems. Problems arise from lies and misconceptions about what Québec is. Sovereignist elements within the ministry tend to idealise Québec's french identity in front of immigration candidates. Useless to say that it is a cause of disillusions and frustration to those immigrants. On the other end, immigrants who settle in Québec with a poor knowledge of what Québec is are bitterly surprised to see that it isn't what they thought. Those are usually the most reluctant to learn french (obviously) and the most prompt to pronounce the eternal : "Come on, this is North America, learn the language". Very sweet.

You're missing the point, though. I'm not talking about whether these immigrants are right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out the fact that Quebec gets far fewer immigrants than English Canada or the United States. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, especially if Quebec wants to hand-pick people who would be most likely to assimmilate into Francophone culture. There's a catch, though. It means that Quebec is growing much more slowly than the rest of North America and would be shrinking if it were an independent country, a situation which is causing severe problems for several European countries. If Quebec were independent, it would likely have even more trouble attracting immigrants, especially with the kinds of policies that you advocate.

 

[Hydrogen]

Well, maybe it's my lack of knowledge on the english language, but I use people and culture as near synonyms, since there's always a particular culture associated with a particular people.

So then there is no such thing as a "cultural no man's land." Every individual possess some kind of cutural knowledge.

Immigrants have to wait a pre-determined length of time before they can get their canadian citizenship. So ?

You made no reference to immigration status. You said a girl from B.C..

I admit, though, that stubborn individuals who won't integrate are on my exclusion list, along with some other kind of undesirables

Going on your previous statements, I'd imagine that the category of people who you wouldn't consider as stubborn would be quite narrow. You know, the impure types.

Unovercomable barrier you say ? I don't think so. I did it, and tens of thousands, no, hundreds of thousands of others just like me did it. They are all my brethrens, and we are the proof that Québec is inclusive, and not exclusive as you pretend.

I'm not pretending anything. You are the one making arguments for exclusion.

 

[DaimonAugustus]

The Marois Quebec citizenship proposal would take away the right to run for office from people who do not pass a language test.

No. If your citizenship is your birthright, you don't have to pass the test. And it applies to the anglophone community. It's their birthright as much as mine.

The Canadian Constitution of 1867, which was framed in large part by Quebeckers, guarantees the right to run for office to anyone who is eligible to vote. That means that the proposal is blatantly unconstitutional, and the excuse can't be used that it's the 1982 Constitution that Quebec didn't sign.

But Bill 101 is also unconstitutional. We'll try to find a way around, if we can. And we have a Canadian precedent.

Do you live in Montreal or elsewhere? I've lived in Montreal and the thought seems laughable to me. The city is overwhelmingly French. The working language is French. Outside of certain, well-established neighbourhoods (and even sometimes there), the first language people speak to you in shops is French. A large percentage of the population speaks French only and little or no English. Most government services are only offered in French. The government enforces strict laws forcing workplaces to operate in French and all signage to be predominantly French. None of that sounds like a recipe for being wholly anglicized in a short time.

I was born and raised in Montréal and still live there. I have some facts for you : on the island of Montréal, only 52% of people claim to have french as their first language. 18% claim to have english as their first language, and 30% claim to have another language as their mother tongue. Of those 30%, 54% will, according to current statistics, make their linguistic transfer to english. Now, at the beginning of the XXth century, 52% of Montréal's population was english, and it changed only because of massive immigration from the countryside at the beginning of the XXth century. October 1970, the election of the PQ in 1976 and Bill 101 in 1977 did scare many english people who left. This is a demonstration, to my opinion, that the linguistic composition of a city can change dramatically in a short period of time (less than a century).

I'm not talking about whether these immigrants are right or wrong.

Neither am I saying that.

I'm simply pointing out the fact that Quebec gets far fewer immigrants than English Canada or the United States. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, especially if Quebec wants to hand-pick people who would be most likely to assimmilate into Francophone culture. There's a catch, though. It means that Quebec is growing much more slowly than the rest of North America and would be shrinking if it were an independent country, a situation which is causing severe problems for several European countries. If Quebec were independent, it would likely have even more trouble attracting immigrants, especially with the kinds of policies that you advocate.

We're still getting about 50 000 immigrants a year. Following the canadian 1% policy is madness. We'd never be able to handle 73 000 immigrants a year.

As for the growth point... Well, for that we need to breed more. Immigrants say it themselves. They're a bit tired of being responsible for Québec's demography. But you are right, we are on the brink of shrinking. It scares me. I'll have kids. That's all I can do.

I don't agree though, that an independant Québec will attract less immigrants. Restrictive policies are supposed to be temporary. They are to be lifted after the independance. Besides, these verse from Loco Locass wrap up what I think (since you claim that you understand french, I won't translate) :

Même ceux qui ne se sentent pas des nôtres
Ne nous voyant plus à genoux,
Seront, plus que jamais, chez eux chez nous

 

[DaimonAugustus]

So then there is no such thing as a "cultural no man's land." Every individual possess some kind of cutural knowledge.

Cultural knowledge and culture in its sociological acception are two different things. That being said, I don't see how the fact that there is a culture associated to each people (people used as a synonym for nation, not many "persons") proves that cultural no man's land doesn't exist.

You made no reference to immigration status. You said a girl from B.C..

She may not have an official immigrant status, but in reality, she *is* an immigrant. She'll be facing the same challenges and the same level of disorientation as "normal" immigrants. You know, the Ministry of Immigration of Québec gets requests and complaints year after year from canadian citizens who come from outside Québec. They want to have access to the free french courses provided by the ministry to immigrants. But unfortunately they can't, because they are canadian citizens. If a Québec citizenship existed, we'd be able to provide such classes for canadian citizens, because we'd be able to (legally) differentiate them from locals. We'd be more than happy to do that, and I'm pretty sure that immigrant canadians would like it as well.

Going on your previous statements, I'd imagine that the category of people who you wouldn't consider as stubborn would be quite narrow. You know, the impure types.

Yeah, keep it up with the sophisms and useless sarcasm. It really helps the debate advance.

Besides, who told you that impure souls were so numerous ? You guessed it ? With your superior moral judgement ?

I'm not pretending anything. You are the one making arguments for exclusion.

As in excluding those who already exclude themselves ? And trying to give them some incentive to move their asses and include themselves ?

 

[adma]

DaimonAugustus, buzz off and go troll elsewhere.

 

[DaimonAugustus]

How polite.

Yet I am deeply hurt by your comment, I will therefore answer to your kind accusations.

Wikipedia gives the following definition of a troll (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) :

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

I did post on a controversial subject. But to determine wether I am a troll or not, my intentions need to be established.

Indeed, Wikipedia says the following :

Attributing intent to trolls is a very difficult issue since by its very nature to call someone a troll is to already assume an intent, that they are posting only to cause problems. So once a person is called a troll they have already been categorized by the speaker as someone with a certain intention.

Many people call others trolls, few call themselves trolls, so a troll is not a self-constructed identity but rather is a category constructed via the speech act of calling someone a troll. Perhaps the more interesting question is the motivation for labeling others as trolls. Individuals so labeled find it offensive. Useful advice for dealing with someone considered to be a troll is, rather than using that term, to ask them questions such as: "What is your intent?" or other questions relevant to the discussion rather than using the ad hominem label "troll."

Now I'll tell you, and hope you'll believe me. I'm not here to cause trouble. I'm here to discuss. And yes, that means debating and exchange contrary opinions. You see, I've got this notion that discussing with people with diverging opinions is a good mean to better understand them. It is also an occasion for me to share my own opinion, hoping that people will understand me better that way.

Now why don't you leave me alone ? I don't need rude, vindicative comments like yours. They're useless and bring nothing good.

 

[unimaginative2]

Bill 101 is against the Charter. This new citizenship proposal is against the 1867 Constitution, which can't be overridden by the notwithstanding clause, and which was assented to by the Quebec government.

It's good that you're reaching out to people outside your community. I suggest that you travel to Ontarians and other English Canadians and talk to them. They're less different than you might think.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

DaimonAugustus, buzz off and go troll elsewhere.

adma, please. we are trying to keep this thread PURE, like ivory soap, 99.9% and incidentally white in color. don't contaminate this thread with facts. facts are useless things said the wise man..um....i mean white man.

 

[DaimonAugustus]

Bill 101 is against the Charter. This new citizenship proposal is against the 1867 Constitution, which can't be overridden by the notwithstanding clause, and which was assented to by the Quebec government.

Most jurists I know told me the same thing. Including sovereignists. Some, though, believe that Article 1 of the Constitution could be used. And don't forget the Nisga'a precedent.

It's good that you're reaching out to people outside your community. I suggest that you travel to Ontarians and other English Canadians and talk to them. They're less different than you might think.

If you remember, I have visited Canada to some extent. But it's difficult to really speak with the locals when you're a tourist and know nobody. Thus, real debates are impossible. That is one of the reasons I came over here. I know it works. I have met in real life a few people (ok, lets say two people) that I first encountered on internet forums. One was in Montréal, and the other was in New York. I met both of them in political discussions in which we totally disagreed. I now consider them as friends. Who knows ? Maybe I'll meet other internet acquaintances ? Ontarians maybe ?

I feel that it is important in today's world to make contacts and discuss with people from outside our own country (excuse me if I consider Ontario to be another country). I just felt it to be ridiculous to have Americans, Frenchmen, Swissmen and Australians on my MSN list but no english-canadians, who are my immediate neighbors !

 

[Hydrogen]

Just exactly who are you trying to convince here? This is not our problem; it's your problem.

As you noted, we don't have a huge issue with immigration here in Greater Toronto. We are long past that; just look at the demographics. Sure, there are the occasional cultural bumps here and there, but as most people are pretty reasonable, these things get worked out.

The odd thing is this, you've suggested that the policy of multiculturalism does not really exist in Toronto - or has failed - and that people have assimilated, and that now you want immigrants to assimilate in Quebec.

Here's a suggestion: rather than spending so much time describing your cultural purity, your century-long fears for the continuation of your (self-perceived) cultural purity, your distrust and dislike for anyone who would not happen to aspire to be exactly like you culturally, and your characterization of those people as "strangers," "others" and the like; why not take up an open and multiculturalist attitude? If you think you have observed assimilation in Toronto (with its open attitude to cultural diversity), then take a page from our book. You might discover that an open society makes people feel welcome, and then they want to be part of things. Just don't expect them to be exactly like you want them to be. Be it an open or closed society, it ain't gonna happen.

Remember, selfishness is not doing what you want to do; it's having others do what you want them to do.

But then, with immigration or not, Quebec won't be the place you know now in fifty years. Change is constant, and your dreams for a perfectly preserved, cultural-class-conscious kingdom of linguistic correctness is not likely to turn out the way you want it.

 

[theman23]

So you want people to assimilate. Sounds simple enough. But how would you go about doing this? Who would define what constitutes a Quebecois and what constitutes a non-Quebecois? What would be done to ensure assimilation? Would you give the state power to revoke and grant rights to individuals based on some definition of whatever it is they feel constitutes French Canadian culture? To what extent? And what about those that deviate from social norms but aren't immigrants? Clearly they would have to be dealt with too.

I think a previous poster said it best: What you are proposing is insane. People in this country have a significant (but not total) amount of freedom to act in whatever way they please, and rightly so. Do you have any idea what would happen if the government was allowed to revoke and hand out rights to individuals on something as arbitrary as culture? Do you not see how this could be potentially exploited? If you are upset that immigrants of today do not take part in Quebec culture, fine. But don't expect the government or any other authority to do something about it. Go out and promote your culture. Stop worrying about forcing it upon others.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

alot of things that we see as part of our western culture did not originate from western culture but are now identified with it. the same goes for european culture. when you think potato's, you think irish right? try peru. when you think tomato's you think italy right? try brazil. etc. etc.