[Newsbot]

Title: The Charter Of Values And Criticism Of Quebec
Written By: JaredMilne
Date: Friday, February 14 at 13:00
The debate over Quebec’s secular Charter of Values has been a heated one. The proposed Charter would restrict public servants from wearing conspicuous religious items such as burqas and niqabs, which many critics say infringes on the rights and freedoms of religious minorities in Quebec. Quebecers who support the Charter, in turn, have been accused of bigotry, especially by other Canadians, claiming that this is just another example of the racism that is supposedly so prevalent in that province, and the supposed ethnic nationalism of the Parti Quebecois.
read more

[RickW]

Just goes to show how generally ignorant the English orbit world is......not much by way of rationality.

[Jabberwalker]

RickW RickW:

Just goes to show how generally ignorant the English orbit world is......not much by way of rationality.

It just goes to show just how little the Quebecois really know about TROC. I was born in Quebec and have lived there, on and off for exactly half of my 57 years. I have heard so many whoppers about how English Canada thinks that I wonder if ANYONE has ever bothered to actually live there. Do they all keep themselves warm at night with the same bizarre myths about English Canada that their priests used to tell them 75 years ago?

Quebec has become so isolated since the 70's and has been left so far behind by the rest of the Canadian federation that they have become quite clueless, collectively. Anyway, most Quebecois are so completely convinced of their cultural superiority (and, below the surface, every other kind of superiority) that legislating against other cultures has become normal and natural. I'll bet that the author of the preceding post, complaining about the "ignorance of the 'English Orbit " believes that North America consists of "the English", their little orbit and the people of the Beauce, Sagueneay, Ville de Quebec, Tamiskaming, and the Montrealais, Laurentides, and Gaspésie. You are in a sea of 300,000,000 English and there are hundreds of orbits in that quite complex series of cultures. To think that there is one, single block that is "English" is a symptom of serious racism and ignorance.

[JaredMilne]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

It just goes to show just how little the Quebecois really know about TROC. I was born in Quebec and have lived there, on and off for exactly half of my 57 years. I have heard so many whoppers about how English Canada thinks that I wonder if ANYONE has ever bothered to actually live there. Do they all keep themselves warm at night with the same bizarre myths about English Canada that their priests used to tell them 75 years ago?

Quebec has become so isolated since the 70's and has been left so far behind by the rest of the Canadian federation that they have become quite clueless, collectively. Anyway, most Quebecois are so completely convinced of their cultural superiority (and, below the surface, every other kind of superiority) that legislating against other cultures has become normal and natural. I'll bet that the author of the preceding post, complaining about the "ignorance of the 'English Orbit " believes that North America consists of "the English", their little orbit and the people of the Beauce, Sagueneay, Ville de Quebec, Tamiskaming, and the Montrealais, Laurentides, and Gaspésie. You are in a sea of 300,000,000 English and there are hundreds of orbits in that quite complex series of cultures. To think that there is one, single block that is "English" is a symptom of serious racism and ignorance.

Much of what you've said about the Franco-Quebecois can also be attributed to us as Anglophones, too, including our assuming that Quebec Francophones also think as one homogenous bloc.

Surely you noticed the links I posted that show how many prominent Quebec separatist leaders, including three former PQ premiers, are all attacking the Charter as it currently stands, and saying that it should be limited to civil servants with coercive authority, like judges? Surely you noticed that this is exactly what the likes of Ezra Levant has advocated for, to say nothing of the examples, both here in Canada and in foreign countries, that support or have actively restricted the wearing of religious garb, and prevented citizens from wearing veils and kirpans?

Living in Alberta for every one of my 31 years, I've heard a bunch of whoppers about the Quebecois themselves, such as the claims that they're supposedly more racist than the rest of us. How can they be, when so many of the same attitudes about religious garb exist in the English-speaking world, as I show with multiple examples in this article?

As I said, right in the text itself, anybody who thinks these attitudes are limited to Quebec is kidding themselves.

Or how about the British Home secretary openly saying that immigrants should speak English in their homes?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... homes.html

What about the people in Richmond, B.C., complaining about the lack of English signage on various commercial signs?

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Pe ... story.html

Look how many of those commenters are saying that the signs should be in English-some of them going so far as to say that it should be mandatory. Shades of Bill 101, anyone?

And look at how many Chinese immigrants agree with them:

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/03/1 ... ese-agree/

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/01/1 ... an-voices/

All of the above aside, the Franco-Quebecois are hardly the only ones convinced of their cultural superiority. What do you think we do when we insist that Quebec accommodate its Anglo minority, but then so many of us throw a fit when Francophones in other parts of the country try and ask for the same treatment in other provinces? Why should Anglos be the only ones to have any accommodation made for them? Why have Francophones so often needed to go to court to get their rights recognized?

Why are so many Canadians, both English- and French-speaking, up in arms about the religious garb worn by certain minorities?

More generally, I've noticed that many thinkers in cultures descended from Britain (including ourselves and the United States) always treat the Anglo-American experience and way of doing things as "universal" and "superior", without regard for any of the conditions that shaped it, or even the ways it differs between Anglo-majority countries like Canada and the U.S.

As Claude Couture pointed out in his book "Paddling With The Current: Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Etienne Parent, Liberalism And Nationalism in Canada", the rest of the country might be seen as promoting an ethnically neutral and 'civic' nationalism...but that hinges on our English-majority language and culture being "neutral" and not having become dominant in Canada through its own unique history.

If Quebec can't justify any sort of support for the French language, then what business will will English-speakers have to complain if people increasingly resort to using Chinese (as they are in Richmond) or Spanish (as they are in some parts of the United States)? If other provinces like Alberta declare English to be their primary languages of government, education and the courts, with accommodations made for French, then why can't Quebec do the same thing in reverse? Are we, as Canadians, not implicitly noting the dominance of our cultures when we legislate English and/or French? Sure, English might be dominant now, but what happens if demographics in Canada change, particularly as so much of our population growth comes from immigration? If we oppose Quebec legislating French, will we have a leg to stand on if we demand that new arrivals should learn English, if it becomes in danger of being supplanted?

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, mind you-our identities and cultures can change and evolve with the contributions of new arrivals, and *all* people who integrate into Canada have just as much right to see themselves as Anglophone or Francophone Canadians, regardless of their ethnicity or how long they've been here. But just as Quebec was founded as a primarily French culture, most of the other provinces were founded as a primarily English culture, and I don't understand why it's alright when we take steps to maintain that fact, but it's bad when Francophones do it.

[Jabberwalker]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

It just goes to show just how little the Quebecois really know about TROC. I was born in Quebec and have lived there, on and off for exactly half of my 57 years. I have heard so many whoppers about how English Canada thinks that I wonder if ANYONE has ever bothered to actually live there. Do they all keep themselves warm at night with the same bizarre myths about English Canada that their priests used to tell them 75 years ago?

Quebec has become so isolated since the 70's and has been left so far behind by the rest of the Canadian federation that they have become quite clueless, collectively. Anyway, most Quebecois are so completely convinced of their cultural superiority (and, below the surface, every other kind of superiority) that legislating against other cultures has become normal and natural. I'll bet that the author of the preceding post, complaining about the "ignorance of the 'English Orbit " believes that North America consists of "the English", their little orbit and the people of the Beauce, Sagueneay, Ville de Quebec, Tamiskaming, and the Montrealais, Laurentides, and Gaspésie. You are in a sea of 300,000,000 English and there are hundreds of orbits in that quite complex series of cultures. To think that there is one, single block that is "English" is a symptom of serious racism and ignorance.

Much of what you've said about the Franco-Quebecois can also be attributed to us as Anglophones, too, including our assuming that Quebec Francophones also think as one homogenous bloc.

Surely you noticed the links I posted that show how many prominent Quebec separatist leaders, including three former PQ premiers, are all attacking the Charter as it currently stands, and saying that it should be limited to civil servants with coercive authority, like judges? Surely you noticed that this is exactly what the likes of Ezra Levant has advocated for, to say nothing of the examples, both here in Canada and in foreign countries, that support or have actively restricted the wearing of religious garb, and prevented citizens from wearing veils and kirpans?

Living in Alberta for every one of my 31 years, I've heard a bunch of whoppers about the Quebecois themselves, such as the claims that they're supposedly more racist than the rest of us. How can they be, when so many of the same attitudes about religious garb exist in the English-speaking world, as I show with multiple examples in this article?

As I said, right in the text itself, anybody who thinks these attitudes are limited to Quebec is kidding themselves.

Or how about the British Home secretary openly saying that immigrants should speak English in their homes?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... homes.html

What about the people in Richmond, B.C., complaining about the lack of English signage on various commercial signs?

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Pe ... story.html

Look how many of those commenters are saying that the signs should be in English-some of them going so far as to say that it should be mandatory. Shades of Bill 101, anyone?

And look at how many Chinese immigrants agree with them:

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/03/1 ... ese-agree/

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/01/1 ... an-voices/

All of the above aside, the Franco-Quebecois are hardly the only ones convinced of their cultural superiority. What do you think we do when we insist that Quebec accommodate its Anglo minority, but then so many of us throw a fit when Francophones in other parts of the country try and ask for the same treatment in other provinces? Why should Anglos be the only ones to have any accommodation made for them? Why have Francophones so often needed to go to court to get their rights recognized?

Why are so many Canadians, both English- and French-speaking, up in arms about the religious garb worn by certain minorities?

More generally, I've noticed that many thinkers in cultures descended from Britain (including ourselves and the United States) always treat the Anglo-American experience and way of doing things as "universal" and "superior", without regard for any of the conditions that shaped it, or even the ways it differs between Anglo-majority countries like Canada and the U.S.

As Claude Couture pointed out in his book "Paddling With The Current: Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Etienne Parent, Liberalism And Nationalism in Canada", the rest of the country might be seen as promoting an ethnically neutral and 'civic' nationalism...but that hinges on our English-majority language and culture being "neutral" and not having become dominant in Canada through its own unique history.

If Quebec can't justify any sort of support for the French language, then what business will will English-speakers have to complain if people increasingly resort to using Chinese (as they are in Richmond) or Spanish (as they are in some parts of the United States)? If other provinces like Alberta declare English to be their primary languages of government, education and the courts, with accommodations made for French, then why can't Quebec do the same thing in reverse? Are we, as Canadians, not implicitly noting the dominance of our cultures when we legislate English and/or French? Sure, English might be dominant now, but what happens if demographics in Canada change, particularly as so much of our population growth comes from immigration? If we oppose Quebec legislating French, will we have a leg to stand on if we demand that new arrivals should learn English, if it becomes in danger of being supplanted?

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, mind you-our identities and cultures can change and evolve with the contributions of new arrivals, and *all* people who integrate into Canada have just as much right to see themselves as Anglophone or Francophone Canadians, regardless of their ethnicity or how long they've been here. But just as Quebec was founded as a primarily French culture, most of the other provinces were founded as a primarily English culture, and I don't understand why it's alright when we take steps to maintain that fact, but it's bad when Francophones do it.

Yes, the other side of that (that neither "side" of this seems to be aware of) is that Quebecois values, for the most part, are much closer to those of English Canada than they realize. My observation is that French and English Canadians are more likely to agree with each other than English Canadians are with their American cousins. Neither solitudes has enough exposure to the other to know that, for the most part but it is quite striking. I'm not sure is either solitude WANTS to know that, each for their own separate reasons. That "Quebec Uber Alles 101" course that everyone gets in first year CEGEP teaches that Quebecers are fundamentally different and no accommodation is possible. English kids in TROC learn that the French are fundamentally alien and "how could they think the same way that I do?" Never the less, there is a broad political consensus ... a political centre ... that both French and English Canadians inhabit that is now almost completely absent in the United States. We share more values with French North America than we differ over.

Anyway, anyone who believes that the opposite in Canada represents some sort of homogenous sameness is either inexperienced at the ways of the World or perhaps not the brightest bulb on the string.

p.s. I am a 10th generation "Canadian", a 14th generation North American (family arrived here in 1702) and the often cited Quebecois attitude that "We were here first" does not necessarily wash. I am also descended from no less than four sets of refugees (including French Huguenots) and I welcome those who have come here for safety, escape and honest opportunity.

[JaredMilne]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Yes, the other side of that (that neither "side" of this seems to be aware of) is that Quebecois values, for the most part, are much closer to those of English Canada than they realize. My observation is that French and English Canadians are more likely to agree with each other than English Canadians are with their American cousins. Neither solitudes has enough exposure to the other to know that, for the most part but it is quite striking. I'm not sure is either solitude WANTS to know that, each for their own separate reasons. That "Quebec Uber Alles 101" course that everyone gets in first year CEGEP teaches that Quebecers are fundamentally different and no accommodation is possible. English kids in TROC learn that the French are fundamentally alien and "how could they think the same way that I do?" Never the less, there is a broad political consensus ... a political centre ... that both French and English Canadians inhabit that is now almost completely absent in the United States. We share more values with French North America than we differ over.

Anyway, anyone who believes that the opposite in Canada represents some sort of homogenous sameness is either inexperienced at the ways of the World or perhaps not the brightest bulb on the string.

p.s. I am a 10th generation "Canadian", a 14th generation North American (family arrived here in 1702) and the often cited Quebecois attitude that "We were here first" does not necessarily wash. I am also descended from no less than four sets of refugees (including French Huguenots) and I welcome those who have come here for safety, escape and honest opportunity.

Well said. You've taken the words right out of my mouth, especially in regards to the centre that we as Canadians share, and how we have more common ground with each other than we realize.

The really funny/sad thing about the Franco-Quebecois school of history that claims that they are fundamentally different than the rest of us overlooks all the times that they themselves have helped build the country. John Ralston Saul talked about it at length in "Reflections Of A Siamese Twin", when he mentioned that it's as if power was always given to the wrong Francophones, who were seen as some sort of Uncle Tom for participating in the larger country.

I spent part of a summer in a language exchange program in Jonquiere a few years ago, and one of the things I saw was a play describing the history of the region. I noted that it mentioned the rebellions of Louis-Joseph Papineau, without also mentioning the rebellion held by William Lyon Mackenzie at the exact same time, or how Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine teamed up with Robert Baldwin to finally get us responsible government and true democracy. That's a damn shame, considering everything that guys like Lafontaine and later Franco-Quebecois would accomplish not just for their own community, but for all of us.

That said, during the summers I've spent in Quebec, just about everybody was very friendly to me, including the separatists. Most of them simply thought that separation would leave everybody better off, including Canada as a whole. They're wrong, of course, but I can at least respect where they're coming from.

This is the whole reason I study history-to show exactly how these conflicts got started, and more particularly to find and show the common ground we all share as Canadians. This doesn't just apply to Quebec, either-this is why I've also studied the history of Aboriginal peoples and of Western Canada, for instance, to better understand why they feel alienated.

[Jabberwalker]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Yes, the other side of that (that neither "side" of this seems to be aware of) is that Quebecois values, for the most part, are much closer to those of English Canada than they realize. My observation is that French and English Canadians are more likely to agree with each other than English Canadians are with their American cousins. Neither solitudes has enough exposure to the other to know that, for the most part but it is quite striking. I'm not sure is either solitude WANTS to know that, each for their own separate reasons. That "Quebec Uber Alles 101" course that everyone gets in first year CEGEP teaches that Quebecers are fundamentally different and no accommodation is possible. English kids in TROC learn that the French are fundamentally alien and "how could they think the same way that I do?" Never the less, there is a broad political consensus ... a political centre ... that both French and English Canadians inhabit that is now almost completely absent in the United States. We share more values with French North America than we differ over.

Anyway, anyone who believes that the opposite in Canada represents some sort of homogenous sameness is either inexperienced at the ways of the World or perhaps not the brightest bulb on the string.

p.s. I am a 10th generation "Canadian", a 14th generation North American (family arrived here in 1702) and the often cited Quebecois attitude that "We were here first" does not necessarily wash. I am also descended from no less than four sets of refugees (including French Huguenots) and I welcome those who have come here for safety, escape and honest opportunity.

Well said. You've taken the words right out of my mouth, especially in regards to the centre that we as Canadians share, and how we have more common ground with each other than we realize.

The really funny/sad thing about the Franco-Quebecois school of history that claims that they are fundamentally different than the rest of us overlooks all the times that they themselves have helped build the country. John Ralston Saul talked about it at length in "Reflections Of A Siamese Twin", when he mentioned that it's as if power was always given to the wrong Francophones, who were seen as some sort of Uncle Tom for participating in the larger country.

I spent part of a summer in a language exchange program in Jonquiere a few years ago, and one of the things I saw was a play describing the history of the region. I noted that it mentioned the rebellions of Louis-Joseph Papineau, without also mentioning the rebellion held by William Lyon Mackenzie at the exact same time, or how Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine teamed up with Robert Baldwin to finally get us responsible government and true democracy. That's a damn shame, considering everything that guys like Lafontaine and later Franco-Quebecois would accomplish not just for their own community, but for all of us.

That said, during the summers I've spent in Quebec, just about everybody was very friendly to me, including the separatists. Most of them simply thought that separation would leave everybody better off, including Canada as a whole. They're wrong, of course, but I can at least respect where they're coming from.

This is the whole reason I study history-to show exactly how these conflicts got started, and more particularly to find and show the common ground we all share as Canadians. This doesn't just apply to Quebec, either-this is why I've also studied the history of Aboriginal peoples and of Western Canada, for instance, to better understand why they feel alienated.

The national narrative of Quebec is "We are Victims". Unfortunately, that idea does not lead to a good, productive place for any of the various peoples who hold it close to their chests. The Quebecois are arguably the freest people on Earth ... far more so over the centuries than the French in France have been ... and the looseness and adaptability of the Canadian federation has allowed them to have de-facto independence at many levels. That last step, though, would accomplish nothing positive for Quebec and the Quebecois, who have been nurtured and protected by the Canadian Constitution through the years /centuries. Quebec has their own language, culture into the 21st century BECAUSE of Canada, not in spite of it. Pauline Marois has invented this crisis to pry Quebec a little further away from Canada by appealing to that deeply held, fundamental core of "Pur Laine" fascism ... all of which runs counter to the constitutional freedoms of Canada that have kept Quebec "pur laine" in the first place.

[JaredMilne]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

The national narrative of Quebec is "We are Victims". Unfortunately, that idea does not lead to a good, productive place for any of the various peoples who hold it close to their chests. The Quebecois are arguably the freest people on Earth ... far more so over the centuries than the French in France have been ... and the looseness and adaptability of the Canadian federation has allowed them to have de-facto independence at many levels. That last step, though, would accomplish nothing positive for Quebec and the Quebecois, who have been nurtured and protected by the Canadian Constitution through the years /centuries. Quebec has their own language, culture into the 21st century BECAUSE of Canada, not in spite of it. Pauline Marois has invented this crisis to pry Quebec a little further away from Canada by appealing to that deeply held, fundamental core of "Pur Laine" fascism ... all of which runs counter to the constitutional freedoms of Canada that have kept Quebec "pur laine" in the first place.

That's one side of it. However, there's also the other side that actively tried to repress Francophones outside Quebec and fiercely opposed bilingualism, which is one of the main factors that gave rise to separatism in the first place. Even in New Brunswick, now officially bilingual, there was a fierce opposition and backlash to it.

Even Pierre Trudeau, for all the very real good he did for Canada on various issues, ended up appealing far more to Anglophones in his vision of federalism than he did Francophones. I write more about this in the Trudeau Paradox series of articles, wherein I also write about the vision of federalism advocated by guys like André Laurendeau, Claude Ryan and Léon and Stéphane Dion, which to my mind would go a long way towards weakening separatism's appeal, if not killing the appeal outright. Those guys, while having issues with the status quo, were also quite ready to criticize their fellow Franco-Quebecois when they felt it was warranted.

There's still quite a few people in the rest of the country who think that we should be all English all the time, that Quebecers should just shut up and assimilate. The likes of Pauline Marois are one part of the problem...but the people I describe are the other part.

[Jabberwalker]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

The national narrative of Quebec is "We are Victims". Unfortunately, that idea does not lead to a good, productive place for any of the various peoples who hold it close to their chests. The Quebecois are arguably the freest people on Earth ... far more so over the centuries than the French in France have been ... and the looseness and adaptability of the Canadian federation has allowed them to have de-facto independence at many levels. That last step, though, would accomplish nothing positive for Quebec and the Quebecois, who have been nurtured and protected by the Canadian Constitution through the years /centuries. Quebec has their own language, culture into the 21st century BECAUSE of Canada, not in spite of it. Pauline Marois has invented this crisis to pry Quebec a little further away from Canada by appealing to that deeply held, fundamental core of "Pur Laine" fascism ... all of which runs counter to the constitutional freedoms of Canada that have kept Quebec "pur laine" in the first place.

That's one side of it. However, there's also the other side that actively tried to repress Francophones outside Quebec and fiercely opposed bilingualism, which is one of the main factors that gave rise to separatism in the first place. Even in New Brunswick, now officially bilingual, there was a fierce opposition and backlash to it.

Even Pierre Trudeau, for all the very real good he did for Canada on various issues, ended up appealing far more to Anglophones in his vision of federalism than he did Francophones. I write more about this in the Trudeau Paradox series of articles, wherein I also write about the vision of federalism advocated by guys like André Laurendeau, Claude Ryan and Léon and Stéphane Dion, which to my mind would go a long way towards weakening separatism's appeal, if not killing the appeal outright. Those guys, while having issues with the status quo, were also quite ready to criticize their fellow Franco-Quebecois when they felt it was warranted.

There's still quite a few people in the rest of the country who think that we should be all English all the time, that Quebecers should just shut up and assimilate. The likes of Pauline Marois are one part of the problem...but the people I describe are the other part.

Maybe you can do something about attitudes towards the French language in distant places from Quebec but I'm not holding my breath. All that I can say is that both the English and French have to get out more. The big threat to the French language isn't the English, it is their falling birthrate and the lack of Francophone source countries to provide a steady supply of immigrants. For the longest time, Quebec was a quarter of Canada. It is a fifth, now and falling. Even an independent Quebec cannot stop the tide ... can't haul up the anchor and sail away to a safe "somewhere" and away from Anglophone America. Quebec will have to find a way that does not require repressing others. There may not be a lot of public support for the French language and culture in Alberta but the institution of Canada still maintains and protects French as a founding culture. If Marois et. al. get their way, all of that protection falls away and an "independent" Quebec gradually becomes assimilated, just so that their inhabitants can survive in the Great Anglo Sea. Bashing other minorities will not change that outcome one way or the other.

[RickW]

I have yet to meet a Quebecois who exhibits the "poor me chip on shoulder" (politicians excepted of course).

[Jabberwalker]

RickW RickW:

I have yet to meet a Quebecois who exhibits the "poor me chip on shoulder" (politicians excepted of course).

You must be joking! I've had next door neighbours like that in Quebec. I've had other who were NOT like that and the difference is that the second group have all been out into surrounding North America for more than a tourist visit. if you assume that you know what a culture is like without living in it for a time, you are disappearing up your won backside.

What planet do you live on, again?

[RickW]

Maybe you just have the misfortune of living next to grinches.

[Jabberwalker]

RickW RickW:

Maybe you just have the misfortune of living next to grinches.

My wife had never spent any time in Quebec and then I moved her there about eight years ago. She was really struck (and appalled) at how unfriendly people were to her. She is quiet, not "pushy" in any way but she is obviously not French, if you look at her (Flemish Belgian, actually).I'm quite used to Quebec and didn't even notice the unfriendliness until it was pointed out to me but ... insular and unfriendly is certainly Quebec all over. This is typical of small, isolated and threatened populations, by the way. Apparently, Norway is like that as well with their little (4 million) population surrounded by larger neighbours that threaten to swamp them. Quebecers are often suspicious of outsiders... and a lot of them are quite racist against the "English" (I'm a Celt, not at all English but we're a big homogenous blob, after all) ... or against the "other" as the current and latest cultural purity legislation from Québec reminds us.

[RickW]

So maybe I just "got lucky".........

[Jabberwalker]

RickW RickW:

So maybe I just "got lucky".........

...probably so ...