The Legault government

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned

delete

pietro_bcc

Thresholds are pretty standard in MMP (though there are some countries that don't have them.) How representative the MMP system in Quebec will be depends on the details.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/workers-scolded-for-speaking...

Don't know if this story was picked up by francophone media, but a number of people who work for the Montreal Heart Institute were reprimanded for linguistic issues. A number of them for speaking Spanish and Arabic, not during work, but during their personal break time (which even the OQLF has stated is permitted under Bill 101) and another employee for answering a patient's question that was asked in English in English (once again this was not a violation of Bill 101, in fact the Quebec Health Services act states that all patients are entitled to receive healthcare in the language of their choice regardless of the institution they're in and if a healthcare worker cannot speak english they must make an effort to find another coworker who can, so to not answer the patient's question in english would've been a violation of the law.)

The union that represents these workers refused to help them backing up the hospital's policy and these workers were forced to seek the aid of the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations.

I fear that Bill 21 will be abused in similar ways, the law says only people in positions of authority, but I don't doubt managers will take it upon themselves to attack employees who wear religious symbols even in jobs that are not in a position of authority.

cco

voice of the damned wrote:

Didn't Legault announce that, if the laicite bill passes, the crucifix will come down as well?

The National Assembly already voted to remove it.

pietro_bcc

Before the hearings: "We have to listen to Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor, they're some of the most important intellectuals in Quebec, they're the most knowledgeable people on the subject of religious accomodation and they produced the glorious "consensus" of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission!"

Bouchard and Taylor come out against the CAQ bill: "Why are we listening to these two old fools? lets imply that they're both going senile"

pietro_bcc

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-government-tells-emsb...

The Legault government has decided to seize 3 more Anglophone schools, this time on the east end. Unlike Riverdale these are schools that are fairly populated because of the significant anglophone presence in RDP and Saint Leonard. I hope this time someone stands up for us, this is a significant threat to the survival of the Anglophone community outside of the West Island.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

All the things I have said about this regime. 'I'm not a sovereignist' he says after a lifetime of being one. Some defend him on that position. He is not going to seperate from Canada he's going to slowly create ome through policies. You can't change ideology especially that quick.

BTW, how is that whole elction reform working out for ya?

I told youu he wsould crown himself King of Quebec.  I warned everybody that he is a very weak man; Weak men given power are dangerous. Just look south at President Pig. We haven't seen anything yet.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

All the things I have said about this regime. 'I'm not a sovereignist' he says after a lifetime of being one. Some defend him on that position. He is not going to seperate from Canada he's going to slowly create ome through policies. You can't change ideology especially that quick.

BTW, how is that whole elction reform working out for ya?

I told youu he wsould crown himself King of Quebec.  I warned everybody that he is a very weak man; Weak men given power are dangerous. Just look south at President Pig. We haven't seen anything yet.

No one here was a supporter of Legault. No one in all of Quebec believes he has given up on sovereignty. If we can get proportional representation out of it that will still be a very good thing for Quebec. 

pietro_bcc

Not a lot of anglophones voted for the CAQ, but for those who did including some people I know. Told ya. The fools who agreed with Legault on Bill 21 thought Legault only hated Muslims and would leave anglophones alone. Well this is what your hate gets you.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

All the things I have said about this regime. 'I'm not a sovereignist' he says after a lifetime of being one. Some defend him on that position. He is not going to seperate from Canada he's going to slowly create ome through policies. You can't change ideology especially that quick.

BTW, how is that whole elction reform working out for ya?

I told youu he wsould crown himself King of Quebec.  I warned everybody that he is a very weak man; Weak men given power are dangerous. Just look south at President Pig. We haven't seen anything yet.

No one here was a supporter of Legault. No one in all of Quebec believes he has given up on sovereignty. If we can get proportional representation out of it that will still be a very good thing for Quebec. 

Well I was being rhetorical but his giving up on Independance? I remember reading someone saying that he has ' renounced'  sovereignty kind of giving him the benefit of the doubt. I never give the benefit of the doubt to any right winger. No one should.

pietro_bcc

For insight into why Anglos didn't vote in the last election (the most anglo ridings in Quebec had the lowest voter turn out) the closure of the 3 anglo schools is prime example. Not a single one of the opposition parties has made a statement about these closures for or against. Its like it didn't even happen.

Seriously, look at the Liberal's, PQ's and QS's social media accounts. Not one comment on this. The lack of respect to not even comment on the most important story facing the anglophone community today is the reason anglos don't vote.

cco

Speak for yourself.

Pondering

Legault has renounced referendums and renounced pushing for separation not  because he doesn't want it but because it is a failed strategy. He could see the PQ was going nowhere as long it was divided between those who want to keep pushing and those who do not. So he formed his own party of practical sovereignists willing to strive for incremental separation. For example, taking over federal taxation. 

I do hope that some day there will be federal and provincial parties willing to serve the 99%.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

Legault has renounced referendums and renounced pushing for separation not  because he doesn't want it but because it is a failed strategy. He could see the PQ was going nowhere as long it was divided between those who want to keep pushing and those who do not. So he formed his own party of practical sovereignists willing to strive for incremental separation. For example, taking over federal taxation. 

I do hope that some day there will be federal and provincial parties willing to serve the 99%.

I am on board with that. The  99% have been getting shafted for 35 or 40 years. Trick is to turn people on with social democracy. We for the most part vote against our interests. That has to stop. How? A very charismatic down to earth authentic leader going all over Canada spreading the message which is 'wake up you're being sctrwed royally.If this leader can convince the masses that social democracy is much greater than capitalism. Remind them that they are poor or struggling or both that you're living in an increasing unaffordable worl where our cities and towns have been playgrounds for the rich and graveyard for the poor. Convinvce them that capitalis, is the problem and it can only be saved  by progressives.

As for Legault, he left the party because he went home crying that Pauline Marois won the leadership of the PQ.

So he started his own party. Does anyone else find it fascinating how easily it is for people to always run to the right just to get screwed by them endlessly. It's like a fly trying to fly through a window. Eventually you learn their lesson. And seeing what the Conservatives are up to in the U.S.it should concern the masses about handing them the keys. Not to mention a right wing country provincially and federally save B.C.

His cabinet is arrogant as shit. Especially the The Junior Justice Minister is a condescending prick. The Minister in charge of education  is the same. Come to think of it, the whole party is that way.

pietro_bcc

cco wrote:
Speak for yourself.

If this is directed towards me I don't know which part of what I said is opinion based. It is a fact that anglophone ridings in Quebec had the lowest voter turnouts in the election and it is a fact that the Liberals, PQ and QS have not commented on the school closures. I just checked all their social media accounts this morning to be fair, still not a single comment from any of them.

cco

I'm an anglo, and I voted. So did every anglo I know. And on the list of concerns I took into the voting booth, the fate of the EMSB didn't even crack the top 20. If disrespect for the EMSB were the concern driving anglo abstentionism, you'd think turnout for EMSB elections would be higher than 18%. Around 40% of anglo children go to private school in any event.

pietro_bcc

My point wasn't that anglos abstained from voting because of the potential school closures. My point was that anglos didn't vote because not a single party (even the so called "party of anglos") gives a damn about issues facing the anglophone community, as exemplefied by the lack of response to these school closures by all political parties.

Also don't know what the relevance of the school board elections is to this. I'm not talking about the abolition of the school boards that the CAQ is planning, I'm talking about the closure of schools.

I'm glad you voted, I'm an anglo and voted as well but that's anecdotal. The lower voter turnout in ridings with a significant anglo population is a fact, not opinion.

swallow swallow's picture

I voted too. Also anglos is not the same as west islanders. 

pietro_bcc

New info on what the NDPQ, Greens and Conservatives want from the new electoral reform law.

https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/554128/mode-de-scrutin-trois-p...

- They want a seat guaranteed for the leader of any party that gets 2% provincially, but fails to elect a member from the regional lists or riding seats.

- A province wide compensatory model that would work alongside the regional lists to ensure that a party's final seat total is proportional to the province wide vote percentage (because with a strictly regional list system a party can hypothetically win no seats even with a significant percentage of the vote, if their vote is too spread out as to not reach the threshold in any single region.)

The second demand is sensible, the first demand just comes off as the leaders wanting to get their hands on their precious seat without putting in work.

lagatta4

I know several anglophones who voted QS, mostly in areas where there is a significant percentage of progressive anglophones (and anglicised allophones) such as Mile-End, the Plateau, and the western part of Rosemont-La-Petite-Patrie/Gouin.

Not a lot of anglophones in the East End, mostly anglicised allophones (Italians and Portuguese, mostly) who arrived before the enactment of the French Language Charter. Later immigrant groups are in the francophone system. There was a longstanding anglo community in part of Rosemont near the Angus shops (old Protestant churches and an Irish Catholic church attest to them) but they have mostly moved or assimilated.

I also know many sovereignist progressive francophones who vote NDP, and many in both language groups who vote Projet. Not many people were voting on the national question; more on social and environmental issues.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:
If this leader can convince the masses that social democracy is much greater than capitalism.

That is falling into the right wing trap that associates socialism with anti-capitalism. 

I am absolutely a capitalist. I believe people should be able to open up a furniture store or sell products they make. I believe they should have the right to hire people to expand their businesses. We need enforced laws around those acts to prevent exploitation but capitalism in and of itself is not evil. 

I believe that things we all need or use should be provided for collectively because that is usually the most economical approach. Likewise services that impact the community as a whole even if we don't use them directly are best delivered collectively.

Social market economy is too long to say and isn't self-explanatory. We should come up with a new term and logic for what should be provided for collectively. 

Pondering

dp

 

Unionist

cco wrote:
I'm an anglo, and I voted. So did every anglo I know. And on the list of concerns I took into the voting booth, the fate of the EMSB didn't even crack the top 20. If disrespect for the EMSB were the concern driving anglo abstentionism, you'd think turnout for EMSB elections would be higher than 18%. Around 40% of anglo children go to private school in any event.

Agreed.

 

lagatta4

We must also remember that government knew about the coming school-building crisis for years (overcrowding but also a dire lack of maintenance).

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

cco wrote:
I'm an anglo, and I voted. So did every anglo I know. And on the list of concerns I took into the voting booth, the fate of the EMSB didn't even crack the top 20. If disrespect for the EMSB were the concern driving anglo abstentionism, you'd think turnout for EMSB elections would be higher than 18%. Around 40% of anglo children go to private school in any event.

Agreed.

 

Where did you get the figure that 40% of Anglo children go to private school? I should think it would be more like 4%. 

pietro_bcc

lagatta4 wrote:

We must also remember that government knew about the coming school-building crisis for years (overcrowding but also a dire lack of maintenance).

Very true.

I went to the EMSB meeting yesterday and the EMSB apparently has a few small buildings in RDP and Montreal North that are vacant (very small buildings which could hold I believe 10 classrooms), as well as an empty plot of land in Anjou which they will offer to transfer to the french school board.

They also put forth a number of proposals that would increase space for french students while not closing any anglo schools. These include cohabitation in a number of schools (which already works well in the St. Dorothy school.) Transfering all programs in the Gallileo building to other schools (except the program that helps adult special needs students which Roberge rightfully took off the table) and trading the Lester B Pearson High School building with Jean Grou which is a smaller building (this alone would create 1000 spaces in the french system with the added bonus of moving Lester B. Pearson to RDP where 70% of their students are located.)

I'm open to almost any proposal that does not involve closing yet another anglo school.

pietro_bcc

I am scared that the CAQ won't even consider these alternatives and will just close the schools because that's what they want to do.

cco

Pondering wrote:

Where did you get the figure that 40% of Anglo children go to private school? I should think it would be more like 4%. 


The Fraser Institute (warning: it's the Fraser Institute). Obviously, their only concern is that the number is less than 100%. Use of private schools in Québec is ridiculously high, due to public funding for a lot of students to attend them. Terrible policy.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Where did you get the figure that 40% of Anglo children go to private school? I should think it would be more like 4%. 

The Fraser Institute (warning: it's the Fraser Institute). Obviously, their only concern is that the number is less than 100%. Use of private schools in Québec is ridiculously high, due to public funding for a lot of students to attend them. Terrible policy.

 

It seems that both the BC Liberals and the Quebec Liberals love to subsidize their supporters kids to go to schools for the ruling class. In BC many of them are also religious schools.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Where did you get the figure that 40% of Anglo children go to private school? I should think it would be more like 4%. 

The Fraser Institute (warning: it's the Fraser Institute). Obviously, their only concern is that the number is less than 100%. Use of private schools in Québec is ridiculously high, due to public funding for a lot of students to attend them. Terrible policy.

 

It seems that both the BC Liberals and the Quebec Liberals love to subsidize their supporters kids to go to schools for the ruling class. In BC many of them are also religious schools.

That number is wildly wrong. I suspect it came from this study from 1991

http://mje.mcgill.ca/article/viewFile/8072/6000

 Of a total of 240,904 youngsters enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools in Canada in 1990-1991, 100,742 or 41 % were in Quebec. Ontario was second with 27% (Statistics Canada, 1992, p. 23). Expressed in other terms, 9.6% of Quebec's total school enrolment was in private schools, representing more than a doubling of the national average of 4.6%. British Columbia, with 7.8% of its total school enrolment in private schools, was the only province to rival Quebec. In fact, the remaining eight provinces fell below the national average. Private school attendance was lowest in the maritime provinces and Newfoundland, where it constituted less than one percent of total school enrolment. Federal government figures also show that Quebec spends more on private education than does any other province. Preliminary data for 1990-1991 reveal that Quebec spent more than $561 million on private education or aImost half the Canadian total of $1.3 billion (Statistics Canada, 1992, p. 28). 

All students, not just Anglo students, and not 40 % of Quebec students, rather 40% of the students in Canada who are enrolled in private schools. 

swallow swallow's picture

(cross-posted with Pondering)

40% sounds high - I've seen numbers approaching 20% province-wide, and I think it's close to 30% in Montreal.

But it's a bit misleading to compare to English Canada: These schools are often referred to as semi-private - they can get government per-student subsidy rates, but can't charge over $5,000 (exact figure a bit lower) in tuition. Full-on private schools can charge what they like and get no subsidy, as in English Canada, and their enrollment is much lower. 

As a result, Quebec likely has the highest (semi) private-school enrollment rate in North America. One reason is that the graduation rate in public schools is very low - lowest among francophone boys. Government subsidies for private school, and the government-imposed cap on tuition tate, is another. And francophone & allophone parents seeking English-language education have no choice other than the semi-private schools (anglos can go where they like, as can those whose parents were educated in English in Canada). Anecdotally, I hear people say they are considering semi-private because of the bullying in public high schools. And there are multiple reports of under-resourced magnet high schools in rural areas not being able to handle the demand, given an under-resourcved educatioanl system. CAQ won some popualrity by promising to do something about that (the education minister wrote a book on fixing the public schools)

A useful CBC backgrounder on the semi-private school system in Quebec (written under the previous government): https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-october-29-2017-1.4374949/are-quebec-s-private-high-schools-creating-a-segregated-society-1.4374965 

pietro_bcc

Yeah, Quebec does have the highest private school attendance, but the numbers I've most often heard were almost 20%, I can't find a precise number anywhere though.

Also yeah the private schools are heavily subsidized, if I remember correctly the parent only pays something like 30% of the cost on average, government pays the rest, it was in a metro article last year so I don't remember exactly.

lagatta4

There is no excuse for subsidising private schools, except perhaps in the specific instance of public schools not providing needed adaptations for disabled pupils and students. Otherwise, they simply shouldn't exist.

pietro_bcc

I found the next group of people that the CAQ and Quebecor will start demonizing after they're done with Muslims and Anglos.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/05/22/au-moins-200-membres-de-car...

Mexicans.

This will go through the same pattern that hate against Muslims went. Find some isolated cases that are legitimately horrifying (in the case of Muslims, the Shafia murders, Parliament hill shooting, murder of 2 Canadian soldiers using a car, the hate spewed by Charkaoui) (in the case of Mexico, whatever crimes these scumbags have committed) and just keep repeating it over and over for years if you have to. Do the 700 anti Muslim Martineau articles in 10 years.

Then insist that laws against them are just necessary (limiting immigration from latin American countries to Quebec for instance) and keep crying saying "why won't Trudeau protect us", I guess the only person who can protect us from the Mexicans is Legault.

And right there he gets another mandate based on fear.

Watch it happen.

Pondering

I would like to verify their numbers and find out what percentage they represent but if it is true then I don't see reinstating the requirement for visas as unreasonable. 

lagatta4

Isn't there some ways those very violent criminals can be screened without impeding the far greater number of peaceful, hard-working and increasingly educated Mexicans who want to get away from them? They are Latin-speakers; easy for them to learn French.

pietro_bcc

I don't doubt that there are some criminals who are getting fake Mexican passports to enter Canada (just as there are undoubtedly more US criminals who enter Canada illegally with fake passports.) My issue is more with how Quebecor is sensationalizing it, I watched some of their reporting yesterday about this on LCN (really a terrible station, Radio Canada is much better, but at the same time I want to stay informed about how the other francophone channels report news) and man they're really trying to scare people.

Honestly there is always going to be more criminals who get through if you loosen travel restrictions, but in my mind the positives usually outweigh the negatives with these sorts of agreements. You just have to support more cooperation between countries regarding sharing information of known criminals in your countries and give the border agents the resources they need to look out for these people. Some will slip through the cracks, but that will happen no matter what you do.

Pondering

lagatta4 wrote:

Isn't there some ways those very violent criminals can be screened without impeding the far greater number of peaceful, hard-working and increasingly educated Mexicans who want to get away from them? They are Latin-speakers; easy for them to learn French.

That's what the visa requirement was for. I just don't know whether or not it is effective at stopping criminals or if the numbers in the article are correct. 400 is a lot. I assume some refugees and immigrants are criminals just like some Canadians are criminals. If percentage wise we are talking similar to the percentage of Canadian criminals then I don't see a problem. If it is increasing the percentage of criminals in Canada I have a problem. 

The 400 number is also questionable because even if some are gang members maybe others just have a marijuana conviction or something else minor. 

I do have a culture issue with immigrants from some countries. In the early to mid-seventies in Montreal I was working at a restaurant and one of the cooks ordered me to meet him after work. I think it was Guiana but maybe some other South American country. A while later I was sitting in a restaurant getting ready to order, the restaurant had around 75% free tables. A guy with a strong accent came and sat at my table and insisted we eat together. Another waitress told me that in their country women don't go out alone and if they do it is an invitation. 

Anedotal, I know, and I have experienced lots of other incidents of men being overly aggressive or rude in asking for a date or whatever but none quite like that in which my obedience to demands was expected. 

I just realized I have no trouble with women immigrating from anywhere in the world. I do have a problem with men immigrating from countries in which there is extreme subjegation of women. 

I do want people who share the values of Canada or are willing to accept and embrace our values.

Some anti-immigrant sentiment is based on race but it is unfair to insist that it is the only reason is racism. It is not immoral to favor immigration from countries with cultures similar to our own in terms of enlightenment with respect to human rights and equality. 

Harper tried to woo immigrants through social conservatism.  Ford's anti-sex education is designed to appeal to immigrants coming from socially conservative cultures. 

Canada brags a lot about multiculturalism and I don't want people to lose their culture in the sense of art and music and even religion to a limited extent. The values "test" has been widely mocked but I do want immigrants who formally agree with and support our Charter of Rights with regards to women and LGBTQ.

I don't want an ever increasing percentage of misogynistic men in Canada. 

swallow swallow's picture

I have an issue with how most men behave. But it's not true that women in Guyana, or any other South American country, are not allowed to go out on their own. I know some very tough women from Guyana and none of them put up with that shit, either here or there. There's social consertvatism in South America - Brazil has a lot these days as US-style evengelism sprads - but there's also plenty of social conservativsm in Europe and the USA - where many states have more sexist laws than any South American country.  

I think it's OK for migrants to challenge the "values of Canada" since those values are so often colonialist and racist. But equality between women and men is basic and has to be accepted by everyone, that's fundamental. 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

I have an issue with how most men behave. But it's not true that women in Guyana, or any other South American country, are not allowed to go out on their own. I know some very tough women from Guyana and none of them put up with that shit, either here or there. There's social consertvatism in South America - Brazil has a lot these days as US-style evengelism sprads - but there's also plenty of social conservativsm in Europe and the USA - where many states have more sexist laws than any South American country.  

I think it's OK for migrants to challenge the "values of Canada" since those values are so often colonialist and racist. But equality between women and men is basic and has to be accepted by everyone, that's fundamental. 

I'm talking early to mid 1970s. It was probably different 40 to 50 years ago. It's just an example of why anti-immigrant sentiment isn't necessarily rooted in racism. Men with misogynistic views may not directly impact Canadian women not of their community but they still vote. 

Why shouldn't we favor immigrants from countries with values similar to that which are in our charter? 

Almost all immigrant groups if not all have communities in large cities. It is natural for people to want to congregate in cultural and religious communities. We don't question the right of immigrants to form such communities.

Living with and among like-minded people is comfortable, relaxing, you know where people are "coming from", no pun intended. Raising children and living in a community with shared values means that your children are far more likely to adopt them. Shared experiences make a community feel known to one another. 

I moved from Chateauguay to Montreal when my daughter was preteen because I wanted to expose her to greater diversity. I personally love the mix of cultures in the Plateau. It's just that I also understand the desire of immigrant communities to band together for the comfort of speaking their mother tongue and having access to traditional foods and being with people likely to share values and have a common understanding and view of the world. 

In large part that is how many Quebecers feel. They feel like a community that must band together in self-protection from the rest of North America. It was never just about language or even just about the rest of Canada. It was about survival as a recognizable cultural community. In my last building only one family (non-religious) celebrated réveillon. It would have been much more fun if all 6 units were celebrating. 

The desire for preservation of shared experiences in a community is not immoral. Multiculturalism is not a Quebec value. Preservation is a Quebec value. 

Some anti-immigrant sentiment is rooted in racism. A lot of it is rooted in fear of assimilation into the North American culture.  Quebecers don't want Quebec to be the same as the rest of North America only speaking a different language. Language is a barrier to assimilation not the central issue. 

Probably a lot of members of La Meute are racist however....

Police officers,[3] experts,[18] and the majority of journalists identify La Meute as far-right. The group is considered islamophobic[19][20]supremacist,[21] ultranationalist, or even populist by some.

La Meute is, according to Maxime Fiset, "on the limit of the spectrum of what is far-right"[22] and corresponds to, according to David Morin, a "populist and nationalistic-identitarian far-right fringe".[23] David Morin hesitates between the terms "identitarian far-right" and "right-wing populism", and notes there are "communicating vessels" between more radical groups, like Atalanteand, sometimes, Storm Alliance.[24]

The group is often differentiated from racist, supremacist, neo-nazis and neo-fascists groups by observers,[25][26] experts,[23][22][24][27] and journalists. Quebec police don't consider La Meute to be a threat.[28] There is debate over whether "far-right" is the best descriptor for La Meute.[29][30][31][32] Some believe we call them far-right "a bit foolishly",[33] declaring "it's difficult to find anything to condemn this group".[34] Finally, some journalists oppose La Meute's public image to its private Facebook group.[35]

La Meute rejects the "far-right" label[15][16] and is known to regularly delete overtly racist comments,[12] or comments inciting violence.[7] Some journalists doubt this, arguing that the Facebook group shows "numerous references to Muhammad as a pedophile or rapist" and that it can be invalidated "by simply typing "pig" in the search bar".[35] La Meute is known to expel its members who are overtly racist.[22] La Meute's spokesperson, Sylvain Brouillette, identifies La Meute as center left.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Meute

Such a group is bound to attract racists just like protests attract the Black Bloc. It doesn't mean those people are representative of the group. 

A woman challenged Trudeau in Quebec on who would pay for the refugee influx at Quebec's border and he called her racist. 

The accusation of racism is being used to squelch valid concerns over immigration. Those concerns don't necessarily outweigh our obligation to welcome refugees but that doesn't mean they are invalid or racist or that there aren't more positive ways to address them than accusations of racism. 

swallow swallow's picture

You are referring to Diane Blain, the 2018 heckler? She is a member of the racist organizations Storm Front and Front Patriotique du Quebec and the incident was planend by far-right groups. Trudeau reacted to her perfectly appropriately. In no way do these groups represent the views of the Quebec people. 

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1119033/immigration-refugies-canada-justin-trudeau-explique-apres-vif-echange-citoyenne 

https://pressprogress.ca/conservative-leader-andrew-scheer-defends-heckler-affiliated-with-far-right-anti-immigrant-groups/

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

swallow wrote:

I think it's OK for migrants to challenge the "values of Canada" since those values are so often colonialist and racist. But equality between women and men is basic and has to be accepted by everyone, that's fundamental. 

Well said, thanks. I cringe at terms like "Canadian values."  Wherein are they written and who wrote them is always my first thought.

cco

Pondering wrote:

Why shouldn't we favor immigrants from countries with values similar to that which are in our charter? 

How can immigration agents determine an immigrant's values, and whether or not they align with the values held by the majority of people in their home country?

I had this conversation with my wife a few years ago. Most of her family is pretty regressive and misogynistic – but if her father had been banned from immigrating on those grounds, she would've been, as well. And that's a hypothetical ban on one family alone, not anything as sweepingly broad as banning whole countries.

Or to look at it from the other side: Let's say Canada and Denmark enter into an agreement that allows free movement between citizens in both directions, since we figure we're both pretty progressive and feminist countries. Except nothing then stops Faith Goldy, Adil Charkaoui, and Gabriel Sohier Chaput from heading off to Copenhagen, citing their Canadian passports as proof of their values.

Immigration happens one person at a time. Even if a majority of people in a country hold values that are abhorrent to us, that's no guarantee a particular immigrant from that country holds those values. You can try to set up a test, which people can lie on. You can try and entrench values in law, at which point everyone will call you xenophobic. But there's no getting around the fact that being a citizen of a country doesn't bind you to hold a certain point of view – and holding that point of view at one point in your life doesn't bind you to hold it forever. (Québec's a great example of how a nation's social views can change dramatically in a fairly short period of time.)

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

pietro_bcc wrote:

I am scared that the CAQ won't even consider these alternatives and will just close the schools because that's what they want to do.

lol...I laugh loudly at the brain dead anglos that voted for CAQ buying Legault's promises to the anglo community... I also laugh at the anglo rubes who think he's telling the truth when he calls himself a 'federalist'

Of course they are trying to close these schools. As is many of us who don't and could not afford a condo are being squeezed into eviction. I am sure they would like to privatize public schools. I think Quebecers voted this province a really huge mistake a la Trump. The pain this government is going to inflict on Quebec is immeasurable. A gentrifation of the entire province. It's the reason I voted Liberal. At least I know exactly what to expect from a PLQ government. I don't believe they are as radical or as right wing as the CAQ. Imo. of course.

Pondering

swallow wrote:

You are referring to Diane Blain, the 2018 heckler? She is a member of the racist organizations Storm Front and Front Patriotique du Quebec and the incident was planend by far-right groups. Trudeau reacted to her perfectly appropriately. In no way do these groups represent the views of the Quebec people. 

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1119033/immigration-refugies-canada-justin-trudeau-explique-apres-vif-echange-citoyenne 

https://pressprogress.ca/conservative-leader-andrew-scheer-defends-heckler-affiliated-with-far-right-anti-immigrant-groups/

No it wasn't. She asked who was going to pay the cost because Quebec is shouldering an unfair burden because we have the easiest crossings. Many of the refugees are moving on to other areas of Canada. It doesn't matter if she belongs to racist groups. Her question wasn't racist and she wasn't presenting herself as a representative of such groups. 

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Why shouldn't we favor immigrants from countries with values similar to that which are in our charter? 

How can immigration agents determine an immigrant's values, and whether or not they align with the values held by the majority of people in their home country?

I had this conversation with my wife a few years ago. Most of her family is pretty regressive and misogynistic – but if her father had been banned from immigrating on those grounds, she would've been, as well. And that's a hypothetical ban on one family alone, not anything as sweepingly broad as banning whole countries.

Or to look at it from the other side: Let's say Canada and Denmark enter into an agreement that allows free movement between citizens in both directions, since we figure we're both pretty progressive and feminist countries. Except nothing then stops Faith Goldy, Adil Charkaoui, and Gabriel Sohier Chaput from heading off to Copenhagen, citing their Canadian passports as proof of their values.

Immigration happens one person at a time. Even if a majority of people in a country hold values that are abhorrent to us, that's no guarantee a particular immigrant from that country holds those values. You can try to set up a test, which people can lie on. You can try and entrench values in law, at which point everyone will call you xenophobic. But there's no getting around the fact that being a citizen of a country doesn't bind you to hold a certain point of view – and holding that point of view at one point in your life doesn't bind you to hold it forever. (Québec's a great example of how a nation's social views can change dramatically in a fairly short period of time.)

We have entrenched our values in law. It's called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Sure people can lie, but if every adult has to show understanding of and agree to Charter Rights it at least empowers women from countries that oppress women. 

It is true the individual can't be specifically judged based on the culture they come from but I am pretty sure on average the people from China are more likely to respect LBGTQ rights than people from Saudi Arabia. 

That doesn't matter if immigration numbers are low because it isn't enough to impact who is elected to office but Conservatives are not oblivious to the tactive of appealing to the conservative social values of immigrant populations. It is a specific target of people like Ford and Harper and Kenny. I am sure there are plenty of Christian fundamentalists born in Canada. Conservatives are caught between chasing the immigrant vote based on Conservative social values and dog whistling to racists. 

The point I am trying to make is that some of the concerns people have about immigration are valid and can be addressed without accusations of racism. Even those that are invalid can be addressed better through logic and information rather than accusations.  

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

pietro_bcc wrote:

I am scared that the CAQ won't even consider these alternatives and will just close the schools because that's what they want to do.

lol...I laugh loudly at the brain dead anglos that voted for CAQ buying Legault's promises to the anglo community... I also laugh at the anglo rubes who think he's telling the truth when he calls himself a 'federalist'

Of course they are trying to close these schools. As is many of us who don't and could not afford a condo are being squeezed into eviction. I am sure they would like to privatize public schools. I think Quebecers voted this province a really huge mistake a la Trump. The pain this government is going to inflict on Quebec is immeasurable. A gentrifation of the entire province. It's the reason I voted Liberal. At least I know exactly what to expect from a PLQ government. I don't believe they are as radical or as right wing as the CAQ. Imo. of course.

Do you have any information concerning the number of anglophones voting for CAQ? Do you know anyone who believes Legault is a federalist?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

I do want people who share the values of Canada or are willing to accept and embrace our values.

Why do you think that our Charter values are not already taken into account? They are certainly required for citizenship.

It is important to recognize that these rights and freedoms come with responsibility. These responsibilities include:

  • To obey Canadian law.
  • To express ones opinions freely while respecting the rights and freedoms of others.
  • To help those in your community, for example, through volunteering.
  • To take responsibility to protect our environment and preserve our heritage.
  • To eliminate discrimination and injustice.

https://www.canadavisa.com/rights-responsibilities-canadian-citizens.htm...

Pondering

A list of rights like that doesn't explain what those rights entail. 

  • Legal rights
  • Equality rights
  • Mobility rights
  • Aboriginal Peoples' rights
  • The right to peaceful assembly
  • The right to vote
  • Freedom of thought
  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom to practice religion

So which take priority? Freedom to practice religion or equality? 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering I doubt if you could pass a test defining all those terms at a university level so how much depth would you expect from an applicant to join your exclusive settler club. As for which take priority I guess for any particular case, you would have to ask the SCC not a potential immigrant..

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

pietro_bcc wrote:

I am scared that the CAQ won't even consider these alternatives and will just close the schools because that's what they want to do.

lol...I laugh loudly at the brain dead anglos that voted for CAQ buying Legault's promises to the anglo community... I also laugh at the anglo rubes who think he's telling the truth when he calls himself a 'federalist'

Of course they are trying to close these schools. As is many of us who don't and could not afford a condo are being squeezed into eviction. I am sure they would like to privatize public schools. I think Quebecers voted this province a really huge mistake a la Trump. The pain this government is going to inflict on Quebec is immeasurable. A gentrifation of the entire province. It's the reason I voted Liberal. At least I know exactly what to expect from a PLQ government. I don't believe they are as radical or as right wing as the CAQ. Imo. of course.

Do you have any information concerning the number of anglophones voting for CAQ? Do you know anyone who believes Legault is a federalist?

Can I find the statistics? No. But in the south shore, in Chateauguay, Brossard ,Greenfield Park. the Laurentians and border towns like Hemmingford snd Ormstown, towns with a high anglo population. CAQ couldn't have won these towns without the very strong anglophone communities in those towns.

This is why I believe a lot of angloss voted CAQ. To answer your second question. I don't know. I don't talk politics with friends.

Pages