Here we go again... refutation...

I am curious?

How could you take two different releases, and misquote the essential sentiment of each one?

First, AffiliationQuebec promotes Canadian values, and minority rights! There is NO anti French or anti Quebecois sentiment in our platform!

Journal de Montreal claimed Quebecers could NOT be served in French (Which is patently untrue), which their scandalous article failed to demonstrate.Their misleading, front page article, intended to inflame the social and political balance of Montreal, while acting as "agents provocateur".

If you cannot quote AffiliationQuebec correctly, please do NOT quote us at all!

Allen Nutik,
Chef,
AffiliationQuebec

Here we go again...

There is a new political party in Québec. It is called AffiliationQuebec and it has as it's main objective the promotion of the English Language in Montréal.

Fair game, I say. After all, this is a democratic Country and I am always happy to hear of efforts pertaining to minorities everywhere.

My only concern is the spirit that seems to envelop the Party’s Leader, Mr. Allen E. Nutik (see photo above). Yesterday, I received a letter from him indicating that the Charter of Rights is wrong: “Had we known the full implications of the massive changes the Charter of Rights would impose on Canadian life, I wonder if the results have been what the legislators originally intended?” The underlining issue here seems to be because the Charter protects the French Language.

Furthermore, Nutik exclaims: “I do want to talk to you for a moment about complicity, a word that certainly conjures up a negative connotation, especially when used in conjunction with Quebec's infamous language and sign laws, which I am not alone in considering to be illegal, although the Supreme court of Canada, in their wisdom, evidently does not. “

Mr. Nutik agrees that “Quebec law does permit the use of English on signs” yet, in another article received today, AffiliationQuebec has decided to file a complaint with the Quebec Press Council because Le Journal de Montréal has discovered a lack in French Services in downtown Montreal. You may read what this Party calls an “offending article” here:

The article is neither offending nor out of place. Francophones have the right to be served in their own language in the Metropolitan of Québec.

Thus the fight continues. Some appears to still want Montréal to become, if not a bilingual city, an Anglophone city and we have seen this in the past. In our view, the result of such actions simply nourish the Nationalistic sentiments of Quebecers and helps their "Independence" cause.

Time to wake up people. Québec has the right to be as French as Alberta has the right to be English.

Stop harassing francophones!

Jean Lessage (PLQ past Premier) was right: “Maître chez nous”.


phil at uni dot ca

No one cares... thus the end?

Hello graham at uni.ca,

No one is catching up simply because no one cares.

Think about it. In the last 40 years, each "substantive" Federalist cases have been rejected... mostly by EC.

Who are you expecting to excite with this. History repeats itself, and thus the danger of the disintegration of Canada.

Time to wake up.

phil at uni.ca

Two Solitudes

Maybe the press is busy wrapping gifts. Or maybe no one cares to read the French press. But there is no coverage in English Canada as of 5pm 24Dec07 that PM Harper wishes to entrench the Quebecois' nationhood in the Constitution.
This is huge news. I hope by tomorrow the rest of the country catches up.

graham at uni dot ca

De Uni.ca à vous tous - from Uni.ca to you all!

We would agree with UBC on this one. Have a wonderful Season's Greetings everyone and a great 2008.

Meilleurs voeux à vous tous et que 2008 soit une année excellente.

www.uni.ca

Dear Mr. Bernard Lord...

The stats for the 2006 Census on Bilingualism are out today and Harper has conveniently flown into action. Former New Brunswick premier Bernard Lord has been appointed as Special Advisor to a committee for the Consultations on Linguistic Duality and Official Languages which will be meeting with English and French language minority groups across Canada on the state of bilingualism. In fact the meeting in Vancouver takes place today – BY INVITATION ONLY! as I have been just informed by the Heritage Ministry. So much for getting a chance to be heard. I’ll have to use the Uni.ca open mike instead:

The Census really says it all: the number of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 19 who are bilingual is down from 2001 figures. This is usually the age when Canadians in the ROC are most likely to be fluent in both French and English, given the French language programs in schools. So why are the numbers decreasing when there is a steady demand for French Immersion Programs and the new Intensive French Program are gaining popularity across the country? In fact, the lack of French language teachers is becoming critical because both anglophone and allophone parents are enrolling their children in French as a Second Language (FSL) programs. Speaking a second or even a third language is fast becoming a common occurrence in Canada and highly valued by Canadians.

The government, however, appears to be living on a different planet. A 2006 Research Report of FSL teaching in Canada cites a lack of francophone material resources and the diversity among the student populations as also major challenges for French language teachers. Graham Fraser, Canada’s Commissioner of Official Languages, has questioned why students no longer require a second language to study at a post-secondary institution in Canada. And what message does this send to the people of a country whose linguistic landscape not only includes two official languages but an ever growing multilingual reality? In Europe one cannot set foot in a university without proficiency in at least a second or a third language.

A great amount of research is being done in the academic arena on second language learning yet there is little interest and willingness on the part of both federal and provincial governments to support the work being done by researchers, teacher educators, and teachers.

Is there a hope that something will come of this latest consultative process or is it just another grab for votes on the part of Mr. Harper? It remains to be seen…

meike at uni.ca

Monarchy Rebuttal

About our white paper recommendation regarding Monarchy, Mr David Steventon writes:

Interesting editorial. Seems like one requirement is missing. That the new monarch be a past employee of CBC.

That's how stupid the concept is. Heck we have trouble finding sufficient statesmen. (Thinks, do we have any?) So how are we going to find an individual to inspire our nation, including Quebec?

And who would appoint this nation inspiring monarch? The Prime Minister? What an opportunity for a patronage appointment. Considering the wealth of qualified people for the position of Governor General, the past two have left a lot to be desired. And of course who could forget Jean Sauvé, who thought of herself as royalty, by banning the streaming masses from Rideau Hall.

Come on, you have a great web site here. Don't waste time and effort on such trivialities.

David Steventon

Thanks for the comment. Allow me to respond.

First, the onus is on you, Mr Steventon, to defend the relevance of the House of Windsor in 21st century Canada. Given that our Prime Minister has declared the Quebecois a nation, what relevance has the Queen to them?

Ask yourself: where is the Queen physically right now?

Second, in our proposal, we would not be appointing a new Monarch. This person would be our head of state, but no monarch. We would be abolishing the Monarchy from Canada.

We left open the options for appointment of the officer. It doesn’t matter terribly to us, as we’re satisfied as long as there is no election, there is also no republic.

I do not consider it trivial at all that we have this middle age vestige still at the centre of our governmental structure. That, coupled with the sheer irrelevance of the Monarchy to Canadians of non-British descent, make a strong case for reform.

The new Australian PM just announced they will have a go at a Republic; I'm suggesting we have a go at reform in our own way, too.

graham at uni dot ca

Atlantic Canada Speaks Out

Here is an interesting letter from a fellow Maritimer. He's more subtle than I am in calling these Upper Canadians "unwittingly imperialist."

graham at uni dot ca

Being a bit of a political junky, I looked through your website with some keen interest. It seems that there is an honest attempt to so-called 'solve' the county's problems, but there are major problems in your writing as concerns people, like me, from Atlantic Canada. Historically, few in this region wanted to join Canada to begin with. Arms were twisted by imperial powers to force integration. Things have changed in many ways, but latently, at least, most Atlantic Canadians feel somehow that it is our destiny to be shafted by 'Upper Canada'. From Joseph Howe to Joey Smallwood, the idea in Atlantic Canada was that the powers that be didn't want us to be independent so we had to cut the best deal we could. They predicted that our banking, agricultural, industrial, and trade standards would be dictated by the demographic core of the country and we, consequently, would lose control of them. On these counts, you would have to be lying to yourself to believe that they were in any way wrong. As this was foreseen, the hope was that some minimal guarantees of governmental service and political representation could allow our cultures to withstand the new imperialism that would inevitably try to reinvent our cultures and industry.

But alas, the good hearts of Unity believe somehow that the "martimes" are overrepresented in the senate. They are not wrong in proportion to the population. They are wrong, however, to characterize Newfoundland as being part of the Maritimes--it is not and never has been. They are also wrong to suggest that this "over-representation" somehow needs to be corrected. It was a minimal guarantee to the loss of our respective sovereignties. I could go on for hundreds of pages on how this destroyed thriving small economies and diverse cultural groupings, but instead would invite contributors just to make an effort to understand different regions' histories with balanced reviews of artifacts and historical documents rather than the unwittingly imperialist underpinnings of Toronto/Montreal publishers.

Hopelessly yours,

Malcolm Smith
Sent July 2007

«Je me souviens de ce qui me convient»

Reconquérir le Canada : les fédéralistes veulent reprendre le crachoir

Gérald Leblanc, La Presse

Léon Dion, réputé professeur de l'Université Laval et père du chef libéral Stéphane, se définissait comme «un fédéraliste fatigué».

Si on lui demandait quand viendrait la réponse à l'éternelle question de l'avenir politique du Québec, il répondait: «Sans doute jamais, à moins de changer la question, notre modèle de pensée.»

Changer le paradigme, comme on dit maintenant, c'est justement ce que veulent faire la douzaine de fédéralistes québécois rassemblés par André Pratte, éditorialiste en chef de La Presse. «Un appel à la nation québécoise pour qu'elle conçoive autrement le fédéralisme canadien et sa relation avec les autres régions du pays», écrit-il en introduction au volume.

On veut profiter de l'accalmie pour reprendre le crachoir, laissé trop longtemps aux adversaires séparatistes, estime-t-on.

Reconquérir le Canada - Un nouveau projet pour la nation québécoise. Un titre étonnant que n'aurait certes pas endossé Pierre Trudeau et que le fils de Léon aimerait sans doute nuancer.

…

Histoire collective

André Pratte lui-même nous invite à revoir notre façon de raconter notre histoire collective. Pourquoi toujours parler de la conquête des Anglais et jamais de l'abandon des Français? Pourquoi ne pas remettre en question notre opposition à la conscription pour la guerre contre Hitler? «Je me souviens de ce qui me convient» parodie le directeur de la publication.

Articles complet ici

Pour lire les réactions des indépendantistes, voir leurs conneries anti-fédéralismes ici.

A Canadian perspective

Please FW to Kevin Myers ---> Re: British newspaper salutes Canada

To Kevin Myers

RE: Canadian perspective on "The country the world forgot - again -- By Kevin Myers"
http://www.uni.ca/country_forget.html

Sometimes I'm not so proud to be a Canadian. While Canada has a great history of accomplishments, most of them come as the result of following. Canada seems to love the US so much that they followed them into Iraq and Afghanistan. Harper's not-so-secret agenda of deep integration with the US today, just another example of Canada's political will not to be a leader and not to be it's own country in this world. So why did Canada scrap their world-leading Avro Aero anyway? US pressure? So sad. Canada still has to answer to someone else's queen. How primitive is that? Canada is a nation in it's infancy. Until Canada grows up and takes control of their own ecomony without depending on the US economy and until it follows it's own path, the world will not change it's view on Canada.

If Canada wanted to be a leader in the world, then they would need to start doing the right thing and fighting the good fight. Not this crap that's going on in Afgahistan and Iraq. That's not their war. They need to stop following the US in unjust conflicts. The US is the last country in the world Canada should be following.

Look at the Canadian dollar? It's nice and high, yet people here panic. Why? Because everyone is too tied down to the US economy instead of creating their own global economy. Why is that???? We too primitive and to wimpy to do things ourselves? We still need the big bad USA to hold our hand? Our gov't is pathetic. We need someone in charge that would stick it to the US (and get rid of the queen). We need our independance.

Look at the environment. Such a sad story, and who does Caanda follow? The damned US. The worse polluter in the world.
I'm so sick of the US. That's the last country anyone should follow.

Harper totally sucks.

We need to burn their White House down again like in the war of 1812. Talk about a proud moment. The US lost that war. :)

We need to get economically independant from them.

We need to fight our own wars, just wars, not wars over oil and terrorist ghosts.

Why wasn't Canada fighting apartheid in South Africa?

Why wasn't Canada in Rwanda? In Darfur? Why isn't Canada fighting the US invasion?

Why is Canada destroying all our natural resources for the benefit of the US way of life?

Why are the Canadian forces doing more than peacekeeping in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Why isn't Canada the environmental leader of the world?

Because of our damn corrupted government and the greedy people that live here. It pisses me off. What ever made this country great is being lost because of greed and US values. This is a good site: http://www.canadians.org/ I wish these people ran the country.

Thanks,
Brian

PS: To the London Telegraph, start providing e-mail addresses so the people can be more interactive.

« Le nationalisme c'est la haine des autres, le patriotisme c'est l'amour des siens » - Romain Gary

U.S. Unity vs. Diversity

View unity video

So I'm sitting in New Orleans.
A place that has had challenges,
some recent, some much longer lived.

Many people talk about how they were abandoned by the country, even before the Hurricane. How they deserve a greater share of their natural resources, about how different they are from the rest of the country, their culture, their food, music, way of life, indeed, the colour of their skin. Their history one of slavery and civil war, poverty and racism.

And yet, not one person talks about separation.
That is crazy talk: they are Americans. Period.

When you make a bond that has any meaning, it is a foundation from which you can draw strength and unity from even in the the face of diversity and adversity. The diversity of the United States is quite extreme and in fact quite bloody at times. And yet they find strength in unity. Even now, many disagree with their governments, and yet, federalism survives and a national identity continues, even with such vast diversity of geography and demographics.

Some might say that perhaps some parts of the U.S., geographic or demographic, should separate, should assert their rights. Well that is happening, through the democratic and legal institutions. Perhaps it is slow, but it is a real alternative to bloodshed. Perhaps it was the violent history of the Civil War that has the U.S. united never to do that again, at least not to themselves.

So it seems strange, sitting here, in a place with so many problems and then I think of home, Canada, and the places I love in Ontario, Quebec and PEI where I grew up and still live a lot of the time. Where are these gross injustices, these terrible challenges, these human rights abuses that would justify separation? There are none. Argue all you want, you will never convince me that there is anything that is so wrong with Canada or Quebec or any particular part the justifies or even brings some benefit from separation. The only benefit is for a small group of provincial politicians that have been getting elected by pulling this emotional chord without a rational plan or good reason other than a drive for personal power. That's it, it's about one group of politicians wanting to grab power for themselves, and they'll mutate the issues to make it seem like it's everything else but that. And they'll take their federal pensions along the way.

Rather than being actual freedom fighters, reading the news I see those who claim to be so oppressed are themselves taking so well to being the oppressor, with mean spirited moves to prevent Muslim women from wearing their veils by choice and now a hierarchy of democractic and human rights based on the languages you speak.

Shameful and ridiculous and so inconsistent with a country like Canada.

This world needs unity, it needs to be constructed level by level with families, towns and cities, provinces, countries, continents, and the human race coming together, unifying as best we can. Canada needs to be an example of unity, not an example of an opportunity for peace and prosperity thrown away.

That's how it looks from here.

Pour le capitaine des Habs, le français, et puis après?

Guy Bertrand et Pauline Marois critiquent le fait que le capitaine du Canadien de Montréal ne parle pas assez le français.

Extrait – Radio Canada "En regard du projet de loi péquiste sur l'identité québécoise, le capitaine du Canadien ne serait pas Québécois, car il ne maîtrise pas assez bien le français. Me Guy Bertrand a fait une sortie en règle contre Koivu, Pauline Marois en a fait de la récupération politique.

Je ne veux pas vraiment me mêler de politique, mais on mélange les choses...

D'entrée de jeu, je tiens à dire que je suis moi-même un fervent défenseur du français. En revanche, les meilleurs joueurs au monde viennent au Québec pour faire un travail: jouer au hockey. Et la langue de travail dans la LNH, c'est l'anglais.
…

Le mandat du Canadien est d'être compétitif. Si l'équipe n'est pas bonne, on peut critiquer. Si l'équipe n'est pas assez francophone, je ne suis pas sûr. On doit aller chercher les meilleurs joueurs disponibles, peu importe leur langue."

Article complet

Hommage à René Lévesque... 20 ans déjà... Du moyen âge jusqu'à demain...

Malgré le fait que nous, à Uni.ca croyons dans une Canada uni, nous reconnaissons sans hésitation la grandeur de M. René Lévesque qui est décédé il y a 20 ans aujourd'hui. Quel Québécois... quel Canadien!

Voici un extrait de canoë.ca

"… Le premier ministre Jean Charest l'a qualifié de grand homme et de personnage marquant de l'accession du Québec à la modernité.

Notant qu'il avait marqué l'histoire journalistique avant d'en faire autant en politique, le premier ministre Charest a notamment souligné son rôle dans la nationalisation de l'hydroélectricité, l'adoption par son gouvernement de la Charte de la langue française, de la loi sur l'assurance automobile, et de celle sur le financement des partis politiques.

M. Charest n'a pu éviter de faire allusion au débat actuel sur les accommodements raisonnables et l'identité québécoise, rappelant que René Lévesque avait connu l'horreur du nationalisme extrémiste lorsqu'il avait découvert les camps nazis en tant que correspondant de guerre. M. Charest a insisté sur le fait que M. Lévesque s'était dissocié du nationalisme ethnique, xénophobe et intolérant pour plutôt embrasser des valeurs d'ouverture et de tolérance.

Auparavant, le chef de l'Action démocratique, Mario Dumont, avait aussi insisté sur l'assainissement des moeurs politiques, qualifiant la loi sur le financement des partis politiques d'héritage extraordinaire laissé par René Lévesque.

M. Dumont n'a pas manqué de souligner, d'ailleurs, que cette loi avait servi de modèle à travers le monde entier.

Rappelant lui aussi certaines réalisations marquantes, le chef adéquiste a par ailleurs souligné les qualités de clairvoyance et de courage qui habitaient M. Lévesque…."

L'«amero» n'est pas exclu, dit David Dodge

Jesse Caron,
LesAffaires.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amero

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhs64JnfC8c&eurl=http://widget-26.slide.com/widgets/sf.swf

L’Amérique du Nord pourrait un jour utiliser une monnaie unique comme l’euro, dit le gouverneur de la Banque du Canada, David Dodge.

David Dodge a avancé cette possibilité en marge d’un discours livré à Chicago.
…

(Certains) croient qu’une monnaie nord-américaine unique pourrait être créée de toutes pièces et s’appeler l’amero. D’autres croient plutôt que le dollar américain serait adopté d’emblée, ce qui enlèverait au Canada et au Mexique une bonne dose de contrôle sur leur économie.

Une écœuranterie péquiste

La proposition du Parti Québécois, ou dois-je dire de Pauline Marois, de redéfinir les droits et libertés en créant deux catégories de citoyens au Québec, nous désole profondément. C’est comme si Mme Marois n’avait pas du tout réfléchi aux conséquences de cette idée stupide.

« Interdire aux nouveaux arrivants de se présenter aux élections parce qu'ils n'ont pas une connaissance appropriée du français serait une mesure discriminatoire et antidémocratique », selon madame Ginette L'Heureux.

« Notre réaction en est une de honte de vivre dans une province dans laquelle un projet de loi est déposé à l'Assemblée nationale, qui fait en sorte de créer deux types de citoyens, dans laquelle un type de citoyen pourrait bénéficier de tous les droits juridiques et législatifs, et un autre type de citoyen ne pourrait faire partie du processus législatif et électoral. [...] On aurait pensé que ce projet aurait été déposé par un parti d'extrême droite. ». Conseiller juridique de B'nai Brith, Me Steven Smilovitch.

Mais voilà que d’associer le Parti Québécois à un parti d’extrême droite d’Europe d’antan est "irresponsable et vicieux", selon Patrick Lagacé de la Presse « On peut être en désaccord avec le projet péquiste. Je le suis. Des tas de gens le sont et l'ont dit, haut et fort. Mais agiter le spectre de l'extrême droite, c'est irresponsable et vicieux ».

Pas sûr.

Voyons un peu les explications et définitions de divers dictionnaires pour voir si ces commentaires s’appliquent tant soit peu à la philosophie Marois :

Nazisme : « Une des singularités notoires du régime nazi est d'avoir fondé sa doctrine d'État sur le racisme. La glorification des principaux thèmes nazis, le nationalisme, la race, le sang… »


Fascisme : « À l'origine, le fascisme avait pour but l'édification d'un État fort, base d'un nouvel Empire, véritable « but » ultime. Son modèle social est davantage centré sur la nation que sur les individus qui la composent. Il cherche à créer un groupe uni et solidaire, qui ait une identité forte. Pour cela, il faut que cette collectivité partage une histoire et un destin communs et qu'elle se construise sur la volonté de perpétuer son ciment culturel. Il est donc primordial pour les fascistes de préserver l'homogénéité (ethnique, religieuse ou de classe) de cette collectivité nationale. »

Racisme : « C'est une croyance pseudo-scientifique en la supériorité d'un groupe humain, définie comme une race, sur tous les autres. »

Chacune de ces interprétations ressemblent étrangement à la philosophie Marois.

Mais attention. Uni.ca n’accuse pas le Parti Québécois des horreurs philosophiques et historiques mentionnées ci-dessus. Du moins, pas pour le moment… Nous croyons que les Québécois de par leur valeurs demeurent un exemple d’ouverture… un exemple pour le Canada et pour le monde entier. Mais le projet proposé par Mme Marois nie « 40 ans d'action politique pacifique…» Patrick Lagacé

Pour notre part, il est évident qu’il existe une ressemblance dangereuse entre la nouvelle pensée péquiste et les philosophies d’horreurs issues du passé récent.

Il est presque impossible de ne pas faire la relation. De fait, le projet péquiste est un affront à tous les Québécois ; il ne mérite même pas d’être considéré, tant il se rapproche d’une écœuranterie. Rien de moins. C’est une attaque à l’intégrité du Québec premièrement et avant tout.

Nous, à uni.ca devons décrier cette folie péquiste avec toute la ferveur possible.

The Achilles Heel of the Separatist Man

This brief explanation of Federalism is typical of Quebec separatists. Bruno Deshaies sees the subordination of one level under the other as a constant in all federal states.

Not only is this analysis facile, he leaves out the benefits of overlap and competition, as well as the demonsttable success of federalism for Quebec, and for the country as a whole.

Federalism is the Operating System of Spaceship Earth, but separatists always miss this great historic sweep. And it is to their peril. The more they brand "federalism" and "federalists" the bad guys, the more they paint themselves into the wrong side of history.

Oui, je suis pour un Canada Uni

J’aime beaucoup ce drapeau et cet homme.

Je sais qu’ils représentent une certaine « rébellion ». Cette
rébellion, je la partage.

Voyez-vous, je suis descendant, d’une façon certaine, de Louis-Joseph Papineau. En somme, mon arrière, arrière, arrière Grand-mère était sa cousine germaine. Mon arrière, arrière, arrière, arrière, arrière Grand-père était le Père de Louis-Joseph. Pour tout vous dire, je suis issu de Denis Papineau, le frère de Louis-Joseph.

Ok… je sais que c’est loin… mais je pense quand même avoir au moins une goutte de sang des Papineaus en quelque part dans mes veines.

Pourtant, me voici Fédéraliste. (Outch cousin… Don’t turn in your grave, baby, listen to me first).

Depuis belle lurette, je suis membre de Uni.ca. Voici pourquoi.

Recherchez la défénition du Patriotisme et du Nationalisme. Dans ce siècle présent, l’unité fait la force. D’ailleurs, cela est conséquent avec nos passés. Le Québec est une des grandes souches du Canada. Nous le savons tous. Cela, en somme, définit le Pays… le grand pays… celui qui inclut les Rocheuses.

Il faut que le Québec s’embarque, une fois pour toutes, pour ce grand voyage qu’est le Canada. C’est notre espace à nous… et comme Patriote, je préfère le grand pays que le plus petit. J’ai besoin d’espace… Et j’ai besoin de savoir que ma langue domine l’est de l’Amérique du Nord et j'ai besoin d'espace... chez nous...

Pensez au principe du Fédéralisme. Le Canada, à cause et avec le Québec, est en train d’offrir au monde entier sa propre définition de ce qu'est d’être « Fédéraliste ». Cette définition qui est en voie de définition pourrait très bien fournir une certaine solution pour le monde entier. Et tout cela, provient de ce petit drapeau, vert, blanc et rouge… de cet homme noble et de vous, cher lecteur. Notre rébélion, c'est de combattre pour nos pères et mères, nos fils et filles. Depuis bonne lurette, les Québcois croient à l'union du Canada. Elle est là notre rébéllion.

phil at uni dot ca

PS – En passant, visitez la chapelle de Louis-Joseph sur la 148 (Montebello). Demandez de descendre sous la chapelle…(si vous pouvez). Un endroit aussi sombre que noble.

Québec Constitution... a crazy notion... for a great Nation

This crazy idea won’t fly. For one thing, Dumont rejects the PQ identity bill… thus far. But let's talk about Marois first.

The PQ has “defined” itself, again. Pauline Marois advocates that Québec prevents Quebecers from running for office or fundraise for political parties unless they passed a French test.

Until we hear otherwise, Dumont is rejecting it, apparently, mostly because it strips immigrants some rights unless they learn French. The proposed bill could survive with the Action Démocratique du Québec's support. But Dumont said the legislation is rough, flawed and most likely unconstitutional.

Of course, the PLQ has indicated this new idea deserves "shelving".

phil at uni dot ca

Le projet de loi Marois sur l'identité québécoise

To uni.ca:

Have you all seen the PQ's latest proposal?

Our group (www.uni.ca) has always feared a Quebec constitution. All three parties in Quebec are in favour of one. Last week, the PQ came up with a great idea. As part of their constitution, if you are a new immigrant or come from somewhere else in Canada and can't pass a French test, you do not get full Quebec citizenship and cannot run for political office. That means (name here for any strong Canadian Anglophones) would not be able to run for political office in Westmount, and his political dreams to become leader of the Quebec people will be dashed.....

To me, this is absurd. Apparently, it is not enough that all children of immigrants send their children to French schools, nor can the PQ accept the many statistics that show that the language laws are working and French has never been safer in our lifetimes in Quebec, due to the language laws and the emigration of Anglophones who have not adapted to them.

Some commentators have said this latest PQ proposal smacks of fascism by creating two classes of citizens. I am not sure if I would go that far but it does show the uglier side of the PQ, and an unjustified fear of immigrants with respect to language (in my view). Even Michel David from Le Devoir has panned the PQ proposal, and said that it risks dividing Quebec society even further and undermines the Bouchard-Taylor Commission.

I like to think it shows how desperate the PQ is to remain relevant.

Any thoughts?

_____________________

October 23, 2007 7:30 PM

Anonymous said...

This proposal, very much discussed on Radio-Canada, is certainly troubling.

Thanks to the previous writer for downloading and sending to us that article from La Presse. I am pleased that "...most Quebec constitutional experts conclude that the proposed law is unconstitutional."

J’s closing thought, "I like to think it shows how desperate the PQ is to remain relevant" rings true. Depressing.

Best regards

__________________

Read the article... La Presse, Montréal 10/07

Another article