Separatism back on Bloc Quebecois agenda
From a Canadian Press article:
"Separatism is back on top of the Bloc Quebecois agenda after being on the back burner for a few years.
"Our goal is as pertinent as ever," Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said at a party meeting in St-Hyacinthe, Que., on Saturday.
"In 2008, Bloc and Parti Quebecois victories brought hope to sovereigntists. It's up to us now to translate this hope into action."
Duceppe made the comments just before Bloc delegates gave him 94.8 per cent support in a confidence vote on his leadership."
So here we go. The post-coalition shake-out begins in earnest.
Seems to me this tees up a number of issues in some very interesting ways. Is Gilles Duceppe blowing smoke? Should federalists just duck? Does Stephen Harper have anything credible to say in response? Has Michael Ignatieff's support for the Conservative budget opened the door for Mr. Duceppe? Does Jack Layton need to say anything?
OK, so my editing skills suck. That nice bold type was supposed to be a hyperlink to:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hlefHVy5R_L78vD8WMD_SNRIJDWg
Separatism is back on top of the Bloc Quebecois agenda after being on the back burner for a few years.
Christ. Why don't you just let 'em go and get on with something else?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
If this actually means anything, it's about Duceppe possibly sensing he faces some potential vote threat from the NDP. This would require him to remind the left wing of his base that the fight for sovereignty is what brought them to the left.
Or it might mean nothing at all and just be anglo-fear mongering, given that Duceppe had never actually argued that the Bloc should give up on sovereignty. After all, to use a historic example, the Irish Parliamentary Party never gave up on Home Rule and ultimate independence for Ireland during all the years it was keeping minority Liberal governments(and at least one minority Tory government) in power at Westminster.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
Except that the Irish desire for home rule pertains to an indigenous nation seeking self determination from a foreign aggressor while Duceppeism fallaciously claims the same argument to lend legitimacy to an ethno-colonialist aim that should have been laid to rest a long time ago.
I'm glad you brought that precedent of the Irish Home Rule Party support8ing minority Liberal government in the UK in the 19th century. Funny how when the Tories and their media stooges were going ballistic about the coalition being supported by "separatists" (sic.) - no one mentioned that great precedent and how British PMs of that period who we now lionize like Gladstone - ruled thanks to deals with so-called Irish secessionists!
There are also autonomist parties (Catalan and others) in the ruling coalition with the Socialist Party in Spain.
Duceppe is preaching to the choir.
I'm going to get back to my colonialist aim of shoving French down panhead's throat. What a crock of bigoted shite he is.
All anyone has to say to this is "Quebec has the right to self-determination"
Although, I can understand how Quebec might be a little more complicated than Ireland as Quebec (like Canada) is also a colonialist country founded on stolen land so the Aboriginal people in Quebec also have the right to self-determination, while the Irish people are indigenous to Ireland so it is a little more clear cut there.
All countries in the Americas have been founded on lands stolen from Aboriginal peoples. That doesn't rule out the US oppressing countries in Latin America, or Canada oppressing Québec.
And I don't believe the Mohawk people are indigenous to what is now Québec, but I can't see any progressive person seriously challenging their right to self-determination.
Rightwing trolls who use the spoliation of Aboriginal peoples to uphold the political and cultural hegemony of English-speaking North America are another matter...
Sepertion has always been on the Bloc's agenda, I don't see how this has ever changed- thus it's nothing new.
And frankly I agree with panhead- we are all living on stolen land, even the Quebecois. We're squatting basically- we never invaded and took over. If the Quebecois have the right to self determination, so do the aboriginals who live in Quebec. Another argument agaisnt seperation to me- if the aboriginals don't want to be part of a seceded Quebec, what will the territory look like ? It would be very oddly shaped and be a micro micro state.
Yeah, I agree, but all I'm saying is that the right of self-determination for Aboriginal people must be respected within (or apart from, if they so desire) a free Quebec
I don't think any progressive person would disagree with that, and I'm hardly right-wing or a troll.
I wasn't speaking to you genstrike, but with panhead, who came barelling onto the board with a flurry of anti-Québécois posts. I never thought of you as anything but progressive.
And I certainly uphold the right of Aboriginal peoples' self-determination. We (an aboriginal solidarity committee) campaigned for that around the time of the 1995 referendum.
But Aboriginal self-determination should not be wielded by the Federal government or the Canadian bourgeoisie as a wedge against Québec national rights. There are all manner of possible arrangements - the current federal state and a series of independent states or statelets are certainly not the only possible ones.
If the Quebecois have the right to self determination, so do the aboriginals who live in Quebec.
I agree on both counts. Do you?
Isn't support for separation at its lowest ebb these days?
Just because Duceppe says it is back as an issue doesn't make it so.
Thank you lagatta. I'm so sick of English Canadian fear mongers using the Aboriginal self-determination argument solely as a stick to argue against Quebec self-determination - when really most who bring this up, including those on the left, really don't give a damn about Aboriginal self-determination, and really don't have a good argument against Quebec's right to secede.
Also, panhead, Quebec self-determination is not by definition ethnocentrist. Ethnocentrism is much more evident among Canadian nationalists on the left in the ROC pretending that Canada is really a harmonious mosaic steeped in post-ethnic politics while ignoring the obvious and valid issues confronting the Quebec people, Aboriginals, and other people on the periphery.
Unionist, who are you asking- if it's me, then yes of course I definetly do. Which of course conflicts with me being anti-seperatist. A re-negotiation of the relation between Quebec and Canada would be okay with me, but not seperation. I don't mean to give the impression of fearmongering, I'm just pointing out the practicalitites of the situation. Non- Quebecois and non-aboriginal people have the right to self determination as well, and if none want to join a seperate Quebec indpendant nation, but stay part of Canada..There are parts of Quebec that aren't that inhabited, or that have patches of english people or aboriginal people- it would be like Palestine's geographical situation, 1 state stuck among another if they don't want to join. Even in Europe and elsewhere, there are very few states that have only 1 nation in them.
By the way, what does ROC stand for ?
skarredmonkey, most stalwart support for nationalism in Quebec comes from the dominant linguistic majority and not the ethnic communities that live in Montreal.
One Khadir does not make a popular movement that transcends ethnic lines, although I admit, it's a good poster.
Besides, all I was saying was that the comparison between Quebec and Ireland was inadequate, to say the least. When a white, Catholic, French population decides to seperate from Algeria we'll have a decent parallel.
If this actually means anything, it's about Duceppe possibly sensing he faces some potential vote threat from the NDP. This would require him to remind the left wing of his base that the fight for sovereignty is what brought them to the left.
I think it's their equivalent of NDPers having had to set aside Afghanistan and corporate tax rates as wedge issues to make the coalition work. Duceppe promised on behalf of the Bloc that during the time the coalition would have received their support, they would not raise confidence issues relating to sovereignty. Now that the coalition is dead, they are jumping right back in to reassure their base.
Christ. Why don't you just let 'em go and get on with something else?
Keep your ignorant arrogant Yanqui opinions to yourself.
skarredmonkey, most stalwart support for nationalism in Quebec comes from the dominant linguistic majority and not the ethnic communities that live in Montreal.
What does this have to do with anything? This does not suggest ethnocentrism by anyone.
It's not even true - the PQ and Bloc are making inroads into minority ethnic communities, and in Montreal, and Haitian, Korean and yes English-speaking Anglo Quebecors have been elected on a separatist platform. But even if it was true, should Montreal dictate to the rest of the province that province's constitutional future?
I dread to know what this even means.
By the way, what does ROC stand for ?
Rest of Canada
I have no problem with this majority's desire to determine its political future, and I expect that you will share the sentiment if the majority of Montrealers are allowed to express and determine their own constitutional future along with other groups desiring to either retain their Canadian identities or reclaim those that were crushed by French and English colonialists.
That the vast majority of ethnic Montrealers maintain a federalist political position, and identify as Canadians is not even a questionable fact, so I don't know why you would chose to give an impression to the contrary.
...and I expect that you will share the sentiment if the majority of Montrealers are allowed to express and determine their own constitutional future along with other groups desiring to either retain their Canadian identities or reclaim those that were crushed by French and English colonialists.
No I won't support any Canadian bourgeois attempt to stifle Quebec sovereignty by calling for a race-to-the-bottom series of micro-secessions within Quebec. Do yourself a favour and read C.H. Wellman's "A Theory of Secession" and spare us the phony outrage about French colonialism.
Because the phrase "vast majority" is vastly untrue, and because you're only bringing this up to delegitimize Quebec sovereignty.
So essentially, only one nation group has a democratic right to determine its future. The rest can either go along or move away including those whos land is really what's in contention. And all the while, you claim that this is not an ethnocentric movement, just as long as everyone converts, right?
And who the fuck are you to determine whether my outrage is phony or not? Go spit on your crystal ball and try again.
As to whether or not ethnic communities support Franco-centric nationalism and secession, I believe electoral results speak for themselves, as does the nationalist desperation in merging the city to negate the political voice of these communities.
Two points. First, the majority of Quebecers have alway been federalists. It's highly unlikely that Quebec will choose to separate.
Second, if H*** does freeze over and Quebec does separate, so f*****g what? We'll all get along. We'll develop bilateral institutions and instruments that serve our needs. We'll keep the borders open, like Europe. Very little will change, in fact, for anybody.
In fact, let's just all separate now. Let the Governor General--her Queeness, she who does not reveal her reasons--declare it unilaterally. All provinces as of 1 April are indepedent countries.
Let's even go further and make the Greater Toronto Area its own country, too. I'm feeling magnanimous. Give Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal, Halifax, and St. John's country status. And, let's not forget every native reservation. If Iceland with 350,000 people can be a country, why not Regina?
Everybody happy? Good! Now what? Right. Now that Ottawa and Toronto bashing are off the table, what's to do? Politicians will have to become grown ups, start cutting deals, negotiating and entering into responsible agreements and make arrangements between themselves.
There's the unity problem solved. What's next?
--
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire
Were it not for the threat from the gaping voracious maw to our South that requires our unity, I might think you'd come up with a viable solution there, Barts.
The CPC collapse has gone almost entirely to the LPC. The BQ know there next fight will be with the LPC and thus it makes strategic to play the Separtist card against their longtime rivals.
Panhead, I've stated here and elsewhere that I support the self-determination rights of all people, especially Aboriginal peoples within what is now Canada, and have actively supported a Palestinian, Basque and Kurdish homeland, and a 32 county Ireland. But it's patently unfair to Quebec if the ROC were to actively support a so-called "archipelago" of outposts within Quebec that remain loyal to Canada just to interupt or complicate Quebec's wishes for sovereignty. The ROC shouldn't have a say whatsoever. One recalls that the corporate English-Canadian media and several scholars in 1995 were overjoyed by speculation that if Quebec were to secede after voting yes in the referendum, everyone from the James Bay and Nitassinan Innu to the Anglos of Westmount and the Eastern Townships would secede in turn and then rejoin Canada, turning Quebec into a geographic swiss cheese.
You brought this up for a reason panhead. Not Peter3, not me, not anyone else but you. You brought this up by insinuating that French Quebecers with sovereigntist aims are necessarily "ethno-colonialist" (not true), as if French-speaking nationalist Quebecers wouldn't respect Aboriginal rights (extremely unlikely), as if what you're saying makes contemporary Canadian federalism a winning argument, or as if nationalism was illegitimate among French speaking Quebecers but completely okay for everyone else.
You lambasted ethnic politics and the sovereignty project and only supported it when you could identify "the ethnic communities" of Montreal and Aboriginals as possible sites of opposition to Quebec autonomy, proving your only motive here is to attack Quebec sovereignty in any way you can. You were caught with your feet in your mouth when you suggested "I have no problem with this majority's desire to determine its political future," right after saying the Quebec nationalist project "should have been laid to rest a long time ago." In other words, Quebec should not secede, but if it does, we should make it as hard and complicated on them as possible by advocating a series of micro-secessions within Quebec. The difference is that I and most other people on babble support self-determination rights for everyone, including minorities within Quebec, as a matter of principle rather than Anglo-Canadian vengeance. But just after suggesting that the sovereignty project should be "laid to rest", you've very clearly shown that you are just a staunch federalist who only supports self-determination rights for everyone if it is a way of getting back at Pequistes in the event of a successful secession referendum.
To get back on topic, Ken Burch said it right when he said of Duceppe's comments and this news item:
For the past few years public opinion has shown mediocre support levels for a referendum so the BQ have had to adjust accordingly. And for a month or so, the Bloc thought it could get more concessions out of a coalition government and so focused its energies there. With that prospect out the window, it needs to resell its raison d'etre in order to keep up its profile in Quebec, but it has never actually abandoned the sovereignty project. In all likelihood there won't be another referendum until two things happen: the PQ gets in power provincially, and a major constitutional issue arises in which Quebec gets shafted.
I like the simple rationality and honesty of BQ politicians.
I like the simple rationality and honesty of BQ politicians.
Duceppe is my favorite leader even though I'm a federalist.
Skarred, I'm not an anglo, nor a supporter of past English colonial activities and policies. I also, don't care if Quebec attains independence or not. What crawls under my skin is the continuous parallel being made between the quest for Quebec sovereignty and independence struggles around the world. It's a pity card played to hook those who are politically correct to a fault.
Quebecers have never been forcibly assimilated, denied their culture, language, religion and right to maintain their society. Moreover, they have been the dominant white presence within the province and have played a major role in crippling the indigenous populations culturally and socially. I've said this before, but whether French or English, they are the two sides of the same coin. I see the nationalist movement as the continuation of the original colonialist principles that brought Europeans to this continent.
That being said, if Quebec attains sovereignty through democratic means then I would not oppose it, even if I could. But don't fool yourself into believing that an independent Quebec would be a socialist haven. It wasn't that long ago that the PQ was attempting to bulldoze native lands to build golf courses. Nor was it that long ago that enforced school closures, tongue-troopers and the rest of the fascist crap that went on in the 80s prompted close to a million anglophones and allophones to leave the province. The only response by the nationalists was to rename English streets with French names. The quest of notre terre did not include anglophones that have lived here for generations, or ethnics, and Dorchester became Levesque, without even a hint of paying lip service to the First Nations who lived here a thousand years before the French realized the world might be round.
As far as the issue of whether a sovereign Quebec would itself be divisible, why not? If an historically English community like the Townships choses to remain a part of Canada, shouldn't a sovereign Quebec respect their will as the rest of Canada respected the will of Quebecers to have their own country? But don't hold your breath because any attempt either by indigenous peoples or other groups to exercise their rights and desires will be squashed just as they are squashed right now under a heavy handed linguistic legislation that is not only designed to protect the French language, but as importantly, to either assimilate minorities or disenfranchise them to the point where it would be better for them to relocate than to remain under the never-ending spectre of les patriotes, militant 101-ers and the threat of seperation and the instability it might cause.
Here to stay
Bedic, 23, and Abraham, 27, are students at the Pearson Electrotechnology Centre in western Lachine. [...] Most students, like Bedic and Abraham, are totally at ease in French, and counting on building careers in Montreal. [...]
To stay or not to stay; that has been the question for young anglophones in Quebec, across all education levels, through these past four decades of political change in Quebec.
But after 35 years of uninterrupted population decline, the latest census data made public in December 2007 showed a 5.5-per-cent increase in the anglophone community from 2001 to 2006. It was the first census-to-census, five-year growth in the English-speaking community since 1971. Overall, the number of anglos who came to Quebec from other provinces and countries, or who were born here between 2001 and 2006, exceeded the number who left, or who died during these same five years.
Yes, it does the heart good to think of all the great anglophone people who actually want to live here and find all the silly bylaws in Toronto (just as an example) far more annoying than panhead's paranoid, racist rants.
Why on earth is someone who has such a racist anti-Québecois or anti-francophone agenda allowed to post on a progressive board? This last post of his is deeply sick, pathological. Tongue troopers, fascists and very bad spelling? And worse history? (The Liberals were in power during the Oka Crisis,not the PQ). And this thing is purporting to defend English?
The discourse would indicate that this is the banned racist viijan with a different web address.
That stuff has absolutely nothing to do with the progressive English-speaking people I know and love here.
For whatever it's worth, in mentioning the example of the Irish Party, I wasn't absolving francophones in Quebec of responsibility for how FN people in Quebec have been treated, but merely pointing out a parallel between the choices the Irish party made then and the BQ is making now.
Beyond that, I'll stay out of this, since there are limits to the degree that I'm probably entitled to speak on this particular issue.
The parliamentary situation since 2004 has actually represented the first situation in which the BQ has been operate in the way it meant to: that is, having a "balance of power" situation in which the governing party would have to deal with it if that party was to stay in power. In that sense, probably both the BQ AND the Reform Party won too many seats for their own good in '93 and '97. Both parties really needed a minority parliament in which a Tory plurality would have had to beg for their support to stay in power.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
Someone obviously failed comprehension as I specifically mentioned that I don't see a difference between the British or French colonial presence in North America. I don't have an anti Francophone agenda. I have an anti-bullshit agenda and it is deeply sick and pathological, although a little less rabid than your accusations and Israeli style of discourse where an anti semite lurks in every termite hole.
Funny how when the Tories and their media stooges were going ballistic about the coalition being supported by "separatists" ... no one mentioned that great precedent and how British PMs of that period who we now lionize like Gladstone ... ruled thanks to deals with so-called Irish secessionists!
Not so funny, as it is typical of the Tory poop-fanning machine. Throw out any muck you have, even if you have to make it up (Bloc senators!), and see what sticks.
Group of 7 joined first exodus
http://tinyurl.com/bxvmme
"But then there was some talk going around that it was now going to be a problem, if you didn't have a French name," she recalls today. "And then all of a sudden you would go into stores in downtown Montreal and people wouldn't speak English to you anymore. That was a real eye-opener." As Howes, now an oil-industry executive in Calgary, remembers it, "We were anxious to move on with our lives. And it was really clear to us that our opportunities in Montreal were going to be pretty limited, based on the fact that we did not have the language that we would need, to have the kind of careers that we would hope for" ...
"It's got a renewed vibrancy that I'm thrilled and excited to see," says Howes. "There used to be a depressed feeling about the city. But I think not only is that gone, but there's a renewed joie de vivre. It's like the city has gotten used to being in its own skin again." Val Warnes: "It's friendly again." Like the others, Wendy Dunn says she doesn't regret leaving, and doesn't think about coming back. Her life is out west now, and her family is happy there. She says she's not bitter having left all those years ago, but she says she does, from time to time, think about how much the anglo exodus ended up costing Montreal, economically ...
Wendy Dunn, who as a little girl used to go with friends on the bus to the Montreal Forum and eat pogos and people-watch, says she was surprised to find out in Provence that she could actually understand a lot of what people were saying. But she couldn't quite get the words out herself. So upon return to Calgary, she and her husband started taking French courses. A full 30 years after her last French course in Montreal ...
As a 'pure-laine'(*) francophone québécois who lived in Ontario for 25 years I have mixed feelings about this. One side of me hopes Quebec stays, but at the same time I know several of my relatives and friends Quebec wanting to finally realize their dream of a new country.
If this ever comes to fruition, it will not be the end of the world, nor will it be utopia. I am convinced Quebec will not become a socialist country, no more than Canada anyway. A sizeable portion of Quebec is just as conservative as rural Alberta, and would vote for Harper all the way, if not for an innate mistrust of 'les maudits Anglais' that makes them support the Bloc. These are the sons/grandsons and daughters/granddaughters of the same folk who kept Maurice Duplessis in power for some 20 years.
In the end, I don't think Quebec will ever separate. The famous humorist Yvon Deschamps got it right when he said 'les Québécois veulent un Québec indépendant dans un Canada fort et uni'.
(*) Not so pure-laine. According to my father, who did genealogical research on our family, I am about 17% native Canadian. Probably a lot of people in Quebec have similar ancestry. I think based on that alone we should be able to have harmonious relations with aboriginal Canadians. We can dream...
GreenNeck, almost all "pure-laine" Québécois francophones have Aboriginal ancestry. A large percentage also have Irish ancestry, and quite a few Catholic Scottish Highlander. (Religion was the important fault line back then).
You are right that the Bloc is a strange creature with its rural "Bleus" and urban MPs (and some resource-area MPs) who have trade-union and social movement backgrounds and would be NDP in the RoC.
I'm not necessarily a sovereignist myself, but I can also understand their grievances. While in Quebec all pilots must know English and French, in the rest of Canada English suffices. Is that honestly fair?
GreenNeck, thank you for sharing your story. Many more Quebecers share your ambivalent or undecided views about sovereignty than one might think.
Actually, the worms are all on fishing-line, and he's trolling anywhere he can at this point...
So I take it you think it's fair?
I'm not necessarily a sovereignist myself, but I can also understand their grievances. While in Quebec all pilots must know English and French, in the rest of Canada English suffices. Is that honestly fair?
Isn't English the international language for Air Traffic Control, so all pilots and ATCers around the world have to know it?
I think this one is pretty far down on the list of greivances though...
Isn't English the international language for Air Traffic Control, so all pilots and ATCers around the world have to know it?
Yes.
And please don't engage this person, who is BS'ing. Air traffic control became bilingual in Québec and the Ottawa region in the early 1980s after years of struggle by Quebeckers to be allowed to use French for pilots and air traffic controllers in addition to English (which is mandatory internationally, as you point out). The Trudeau government instituted real-time and simulation studies, and found that bilingual control was as safe and efficient as English-only. This enabled unilingual francophones to pilot aircraft in Québec without having to perfect some foreign terminology, and it permitted controllers to answer and direct them in French. Thus, controllers need to be bilingual, but pilots of aircraft that fly within the "bilingual" area do not.
So even though Machjo is wrong about the pilots, what he presents as "unfairness" was actually the product of a successful struggle by "les gens de l'air" (as they called themselves) to be allowed to use two languages.
I'm not necessarily a sovereignist myself, but I can also understand their grievances. While in Quebec all pilots must know English and French, in the rest of Canada English suffices. Is that honestly fair?
Isn't English the international language for Air Traffic Control, so all pilots and ATCers around the world have to know it?
I think this one is pretty far down on the list of greivances though...
Look up the ICAO (http://www.icao.int/). Plenty of documents to scan. But just one here as an example (http://www.paris.icao.int/news/pdf/ICAO%20language%20proficiency%20requirements%20implementation%20workshop%20kazakstan%202008.pdf):
You'll see from that one that they're still struggling to maintain language proficiency requirements. Think about that while your plane is taking off! So no, not all pilots are necessarily proficient in English as one would think. And I'm sure politics plays a role (what nation would want its aeronautical industry dominated by foreigners?).
Now as for your comment about this not being a hot topic in Quebec, I fully agree. To some degree, I was being a little facetous. But I was also pointing out how in the world of today, a common language has obviously become necessary in certain industries, air traffic being the most obvious example.
Now while air traffic control might not in itself be a major cause of contention in political debates, people are still aware of it symbolically. At the UN, we have 6 official languages for political reasons. In air traffic communications, we have no choice but to put politics aside, at least to some extent, for safety reasons. But this does not mean that aerial communicaiton has no role to play in Quebec language politics. People are aware of the dominant role of English in such sensitive industries, and so consciously or not try to countterbalance with with things like Bill 101 in Quebec, or second-language education reform in Italy and Eastern Europe.
Look up the ICAO (http://www.icao.int/). Plenty of documents to scan. But just one here as an example (http://www.paris.icao.int/news/pdf/ICAO%20language%20proficiency%20requi...):
You'll see from that one that they're still struggling to maintain language proficiency requirements.
Translation: "I'm having trouble explaining my point, whatever it was, so go read a bunch of documents and get back to me if you have any questions."
Yes, it is.
When I started this thread (and promptly buzzed off to a motel with spotty internet access) I was more interested in the tactical and strategic reasons for Mr. Duceppe cranking up the sovereigntist heat at this point than the history of the debate. It seemed likely that this was in part simply a line in the sand to send a clear message that the coalition was done. On the other hand, there were other ways of doing that that don't close as many doors, and invocation of sovereignty seemed calculated to provoke response.
The heat from the BQ in response to French President Sarkozy's flip remarks suggests that they are very unhappy about the debate going in a direction they don't like.
As has been noted, BQ support is bleeding in a couple of federalist directions. I have trouble believing that a sovereigntist battle cry is the answer to that problem, or that the BQ expect it to solve that.
If they were hoping to stir up controversy by provoking an ill-considered reaction, they must be annoyed that the only federalist response they got was from the President of France. Not that that one couldn't go off the rails in jig time with a little push from the wrong direction.
Look up the ICAO (http://www.icao.int/). Plenty of documents to scan. But just one here as an example (http://www.paris.icao.int/news/pdf/ICAO%20language%20proficiency%20requi...):
You'll see from that one that they're still struggling to maintain language proficiency requirements.
Translation: "I'm having trouble explaining my point, whatever it was, so go read a bunch of documents and get back to me if you have any questions."
http://www.icao.int/anb/icaoimojwg/meetings/jwg8/wp8.pdf
This from 2001:
1.2 Current ICAO provisions for the use of English are embodied as Recommended Practices, having less binding value than Standards. Further weakening the practical effect of ICAO English language proficiency provisions is the absence of a required level of proficiency. As a result, although English is used as the de-facto language of international air traffic control, there are no controls on its use. So called “broken English” is the result. Increased international air travel and evidence of mis-communication as a causal factor in some aviation accidents has led to a call to strengthen provisions governing the use of English.
1.3 In response, ICAO has established the Proficiency Requirements in Common English Study Group (PRICESG). Comprised of an international group of representatives, including pilots, controllers, and language specialists, PRICESG will propose that the use of English be embodied in ICAO Standards, rather than Recommended Practices, and that pilots and controllers demonstrate a minimum required level of English proficiency as a licensing requirement.
So compulsory English and standards are relatively recent. And when we consider the time needed to establish standards, the curriculum, train the teachers, establish the schools, etc., naturally the standards continue to be low even today. But like I said, I was being partially tong-in-cheek to be bringing it up. But I was trying to bring to attention that it's not always easy to promote real language equality as we try to balance the need for a common language and language equality, which naturally leads to language conflict which can spill over on the political stage. Anyway, why I brought it up in this thread, i don't know. Bored I guess. Anyway, carry on your dialogue and sorry to disturb.
One should be proud to be dissed by that reactionary bastard Sarkozy.
No doubt.
But pride is a poor measure of political utility at the best of times.
You didn't actually refer to English as a "foreign" language in Quebec? It reminds me of when I saw French Quebec videos stocked in the "foreign language" section of a store in Ontario. Now that's B.S.
Sorry if I upset you. I merely meant terminology that was foreign to the individual concerned. The only reason I embarked on this topic was to refute Machjo's concocted misinformation about a dispute that was resolved 30 years ago, and has never once been revisited since. Anyone who is interested in the full story should pick up a copy of Sandford Borins' excellent "Language of the Skies", which was simultaneously published in French as "Le français dans l'air", I believe.
"One should be proud to be dissed by that reactionary bastard Sarkozy."
Yopu can huff and puff about that, but the reality is that if "la metropole" (Mother France) let's it be known that she is disdainful towards Quebec becoming independent it is a massive blow to the Quebec independence movement. Back in 1995, the whole Parizeau strategy depended on France recognizing Quebec independence immediately after a referendum vote of Yes and that leading to international recognition. Now France is sending out signals that it won't do that and doesn't want to add fuel to a fire the way Germany did when it was wayyyy too hasty in recognizing the independence of Croatia and Slovenia in the early 90s.
I'm not huffing and puffing at all.
We have to get rid of Sarkozy above all for what he is doing to workers in France; his reactionary attitude towards Québec - because he worships US "culture" - is just a side dish.
Fortunately there has been a very powerful mobilisation against the disgusting bastard.
There is nothing "reactionary" about France not wanting to get sucked into the Quebec issue. People in France have seen with their own eyes in places like Bosnia what happens when every minority starts declaring independence. If you read Chantal Hebert's excellent book French Kiss she actually devotes a whole chapter to how there has been a real sea change in how policy makers in France all across the political spectrum view the Quebec issue and how it is all a very under-reported blow to the cause of Quebec sovereignty.
Historically, it was always "Gaullists" on the right in France who were the most sympathetic to the Quebec nationalist movement (remember who said "Vive the Quebec Libre" in 1967) and socialists in France have tended to be totally disinterested in Quebec. Sovereignists in Quebec were practically popping champgne corks with glee when Chirac was elected President because they thought he would be sympathetic to their cause - but Chirac was also close personal friends with Chretien's Chief of Staff Jean Pelletier (RIP) and was horrified by all the ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and did an about face in his attitudes. Sarkozy is just continuing what is now a consensus in France. Don't kid yourself, if someone from the Socialist Party were president of France, don't think for one second that their policy will be any different and that they are suddenly going to let it be known that they would recognize a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec - it ain't gonna happen.
When Sarkozy has breakfast, jogs, scratches his bum or yawns, it is reactionary.
Insipid name calling doesn't change the fact that French policy towards Quebec has shifted over the last ten years and that if Quebec ever tries to do a UDI - France will not be a hand-maiden.
Sarkozy is a declared enemy of the workers' movement and social gains, in France and everywhere. Calling him reactionary is not "name-calling", it is a statement of fact, like saying the Pope is Catholic.
The France I'm interested in was in the streets against Sarkozy and everything he represents, this past week.
The desper issue, of course, is that we have utterly opposed world outlooks. I'm interested in social movements and what they can achieve against the ruling class, and in developing international solidarities among these movements. You seem more interested in viewing the world from the top down, and realpolitik.
The right to national self-determination is only a very small part of that difference.
"The France I'm interested in was in the streets against Sarkozy"
I can assure you those people are every bit as bored and disinterested in the Quebec nationalist movement as is Sarkozy. They would just roll their eyes and find the Quebec issue as stultifying as getting involved in the latest Walloon vs Flemish spat in Belgium - and if you want to see anyone from France quickly change the subject rather than die of boredom - try bringing up anything about Belgium!
The 'mother country' gives Quebeckers a wake-up call
http://tinyurl.com/askktp
... It was a pathetic performance of subservience and parochialism, French governments having long grown tired of the subject. France had been opposed to Quebec secession since the presidency of François Mitterrand, and relations had been generally excellent between Paris and Ottawa ...
France and Quebec, he continued, share universal values, such as "the refusal of sectarianism, the refusal of division, the refusal to be self-absorbed, the refusal to define one's identity by fierce opposition to another." Quebec is a member of France's "family"; Canada is France's "friend." One kind of relationship does not preclude the other ...
The French are rationalists and realists in foreign policy. The creation of a little state in North America makes no sense to them. The French language is well protected in Quebec, cultural exchanges are strong and, in a divided Europe, France doesn't need any examples of secession that could spread by way of example ...
This just in from Pauline Marois, responding to the French President/reactionary bastard/whatever:
"We are not sectarian, we are not closed in on ourselves, we do not detest Canada. We want to live in better harmony, and sovereignty would allow us to establish links and a better relationship with the rest of Canada.”
What else can she say? Its not as if renouncing sovereignty is an option for the leader of the PQ. But having the President of France explicitly denounce the sovereignist movement in Quebec is still like being swatted with a two-by-four.
An utility grade 2x4.
On the other hand, he wasn't very explicit.
You didn't actually refer to English as a "foreign" language in Quebec? It reminds me of when I saw French Quebec videos stocked in the "foreign language" section of a store in Ontario. Now that's B.S.
In language teaching terminology, a language is generally defined as first, second or foreigh, not based on political definitions, but rather on local language environment. So while French would be defined as foreign in Alberta for most people, so English would be defined as foreign in most of central Quebec, and likely as second in Montreal in most cases. There is no political connotation to that whatsoever.
"It reminds me of when I saw French Quebec videos stocked in the "foreign language" section of a store in Ontario. Now that's B.S."
That reminds me of being a liquor store in Montreal where they had wines separated by country of origin: French Red, French White, Italian Red, Italian White, Australian, German, Spanish etc...and then in a corner of the store was a shelf labelled "Other countries" where they had wines from Bulgaria, Algeria, New Zealand and...Canada!
I sit corrected.
French being considered a foreign language ("Any language other than that spoken by the people of a specific place") in Alberta is irksome, but justified.
Canada being considered a foreign country ("any country of which one is not a citizen") in Quebec, is not.
Erreurs et vérités de M. Sarkozy
http://tinyurl.com/b66a6d
... Quant au sectarisme, le mot est trop fort. Cependant, les chefs indépendantistes doivent convenir qu'il existe au sein de leur mouvement un courant substantiel dont la tolérance aux opinions contraires n'est pas la principale vertu. Ce sont ces gens, dont certains fort connus, qui traitent les fédéralistes de traîtres, de vendus et autres insultes du genre, et dont les dirigeants du PQ et du Bloc ne se dissocient pas assez clairement ...
Cette ignorance dont parle M. Duceppe, Bernard Landry n'en avait pas décelé trace lors de sa rencontre avec le futur président il y a quatre ans. M. Landry n'avait pas non plus eu l'impression que M. Sarkozy était endoctriné par l'homme d'affaires Paul Desmarais, comme le prétendent aujourd'hui des indépendantistes dans une manoeuvre de mauvais goût visant à discréditer l'opinion du président. Faisant référence à l'amitié entre le propriétaire de La Presse et le politicien français, M. Landry avait déclaré: «M. Sarkozy a des amis qui ne pensent pas exactement comme nous. Mais ils lui ont présenté les choses d'une façon relativement objective. Il n'y a rien de négatif de son côté.» ...
Dans leur missive, Mme Marois et M. Duceppe soulignent au président de la République que «les Nations-Unies ont accueilli, depuis 1980, pas moins de 38 nouveaux pays». C'est un fait. Le monde s'en porte-t-il mieux? De combien de ces pays les Québécois devraient-ils envier la qualité de vie politique, sociale, culturelle, économique? Est-il vraiment souhaitable que cette désagrégation des pays existants se poursuive?