Even Freaking Montenegro Is Independent- Why Not Quebec?

[Gorsnak]

:rolleyes:
As recently as my own time in high school there was a French school in a tiny little hick town in Saskatchewan (Vonda) serving the French community there up till high school. I know because my own little hick town school was where they came for high school. For all I know it’s still operating, but I suspect it’s been shut down for lack of students - there were only a half dozen students per class even back then. I’d be very surprised if there weren’t still a few French schools in places like Gravelbourg. I’d be utterly shocked if there weren’t many French schools in St. Boniface and the various French communities surrounding Winnipeg. And now of course there are all manner of French immersion schools in communities with no significant French minorities to begin with.

French minorities on the Prairies didn’t disappear for lack of French schools. French schools on the Prairies disappeared for lack of French minorities. The minorities melted into the surrounding population, as happens with small minorities. Except where they didn’t, like the aforementioned St. Boniface.

I’d suggest educating yourself on this subject before you go spouting off again. You really aren’t doing anything to help your credibility.

And I must say, I find the idea that it’s unfair for Quebec not to get a veto because any other group of 4 provinces can “veto” if they all agree to be somewhat giggle-inducing.

@Valteron

Gorsnak, if you speak any other language as well as English, I would be surprised. Ukranians and others are what you trot out when you want to oppose bilingualism. It would be unfair to somebody’s Ukrainian grandmother to have bilingual services in French. Imposing English on everone is apparently emminently fair.Do you think French-Cnadians are a monolithlic ethnic group? Ever hear of French Canadians of Lebanese, Morrocan, Haitian, and Irish origin? Where do you think names like Claude Ryan and Claude Wagner, Daniel Johnson, Pierre-Marc Johnson, Pierre MacDonald and others in Quebec come from? Do you think English is the only minority group in Quebec?

Actually I speak a smattering of Plattdietsch. But only a smattering. Plattdietsch is rapidly dying out even amongst the branches of Mennonites that do their level best to resist every form of change in existence, and I don’t come from one of those. I only made the quip I did because “English-Canadian” is a rather silly designator for me. Angophone works fine, but “English-Canadian” seems to imply some actual Englishness, and the most recent common ancestor I have with any Englishman is pre-16th Century at the very least, and quite likely predates the Angles and Saxons crossing the Channel. But you’re right, there are lots and lots of Ukrainians from where I’m from. Enough that they convinced the school division to teach Ukrainian as an optional alternative to the otherwise-mandatory French classes in our French-hating school.

[Frank]

Would you, Valteron, be willing to concede that the activities of the FLQ may have had some effect on the perception of Quebec within the rest of Canada?

[Rodgers01]

@RickJay

Indeed, Quebec’s identity is intrinsically bound up in the creation of Canada. It wasn’t grafted onto Canada, it was an integral part of the creation of the country.

@Valteron

And what I herd was pretty bad and made me understand the depth of hatred and ill-will there is against Quebec in English Canada.

If both of those statements are true, it seems like more of an argument for dissolution. IANAC, but from what I’ve read and from what I’ve experienced in my travels in Canada, the history of French and English Canada may be entwined, but it is a very bitter entanglement, and both cultures could survive – and, indeed, thrive – without one another.

[Gorsnak]

@Frank

Would you, Valteron, be willing to concede that the activities of the FLQ may have had some effect on the perception of Quebec within the rest of Canada?

Actually I don’t think 8 out of 10 people from TROC (The Rest of Canada) could tell you what the FLQ was. If you’re really lucky, they might have seen a stock footage clip of Trudeau saying “Just watch me.”

The source of anti-Quebec sentiment in western Canada is, so far as I can tell, based on, in declining order of importance:

1. General anti-Eastern sentiment. Quebec and Ontario get all the say in Parliament and invariably screw over the West. Just look at the National Energy Program. Etc.

2. Quebec’s insistence that it deserves special treatment implies that western Canada doesn’t. It’s inevitable that this sort of thing won’t go over well with the other siblings even if Quebec really does deserve special treatment.

3. There’s a sense that Quebec wants it both ways. They want the benefits of being in Canada, without having to actually be in Canada. See also: Sovereignty association (and why do they think they can dictate how we should treat them after they leave anyways?). See also: Quebec’s borders are sacrosanct (re: various First Nations wanting to stay in Canada in the event of seperation along with huge chunks of land), but Canada’s aren’t. See also: Quebec is very happy to receive equalization payments, but still complains about “fiscal imbalance”.

4. Old-fashioned racism.

I’m not saying any of this is actually a legitimate way to view the situation - at the very least there’s another side of the story - but that’s I think a more nuanced explanation of the situation than Valteron’s “they hate us because we’re French” take on things.

[Frank]

@Gorsnak

Actually I don’t think 8 out of 10 people from TROC (The Rest of Canada) could tell you what the FLQ was.

I’ll take your word for it; maybe it’s an age thing. I spent a large part of the mid-70’s at my grandmother’s in Toronto, and certainly there was some hangover from the FLQ then and there, whether merited or not.

I appreciate your perspective; I’ll look for Valteron’s response.

[Valteron]

You would have to research this for exact numbers, but I believe the FLQ was at most about a dozen screwed-up individuals who acted violently in the 1960s and 1970s. Let’s really inflate their numbers and say 60. In a population of about six million in Quebec at the time, that makes … . . . . .hmmmmm… . . . . . . one FLQ member for every 600,000 Quebecers who were anti-FLQ.

If you will research the History of the Ku Klux Klan in Alberta and Saskatchewan in the 1920s and 30s, I think you will find they were, albeit a minority to be sure, a far larger proportion of the population of those provinces than a dozen or so out of six million. And since there was hardly a black person on the Canadian prairies back then, their main targets were French/Catholic Separate Schools. If you have time, read abou the St. Boniface School Fire which was an act of terrorism. I believe you will find it in Warren Kinsella’s book Web of Hate.

I will not bore you with the story of the judicial lynching of Louis Riel.

While you are at it, read about the Manitoba Schools Question of the 1890s. Manitoba entered confederation as a bilingual province and then within 20 years began a campaign to make itself English only. Finally, an end to a western myth. St. Boniface is majoritively English-speaking and has been so since at least the 1970s. French in western Canad is a fucking dead duck and you know it.

I was recently in Alberta and when people found out I was French they would inevitably say “We have nothing against you but don’t try to bring ‘that’ here.” I almost felt like saying “I’m not contagious”.

Here is funny story. In the 1980s, I believe, a small, dwindling group of French-speaking Albertans and Saskatchewaners took a case to the Supreme Court to prove that French was still an official language in those provinces because of a territorial (federal) law of the 1800s that had never been changed. The Court agreed that it was still an official language in those provinces! But the Court also said those provinces could change that with the simple act of passing a law.

Well, sir, good old Sask. and Alb. almost set new land speed records for passing legislation declaring retroactively that English is and has always been the only official language in their Provinces.

Quebec, has always had a fully-funded system of three English-speaking Universities, a fully funded system of English-language junior colleges, high schools and primary schools. Quebec uses English alongside French in its courts, its legislature, and publishes all laws bilingually. English-language versions of government publications are available, and governmet phone services have a number you can switch to to be served in English. But if tiny Quebec, with only seven million people in a sea of 300-million English-speaking North Americans, has the nerve to pass any sign laws to legislate some kind of protection for French, the angry and rightous people in English Canada take time off their labours in declaring their provinces unilingual to shake their fingers at us and reprimand.

And of course, when the referendum was on in 1995 (I worked for the NO side by the way, because I am against the breakup of Canada) here were people taking the plane from the west to tell us how much they loved us!

And please, do not give me that red herring about how you have Chinese in Vancouver or Ukrainians on the prairies, and bilingualism would be unfair to them. We have minorities other than English in Quebec you know! Is it unfair to them for English to have a special status in Quebec?

[Valteron]

The basic fact is that when English Canada rejected the Meech Lake agreement, Quebec finally realized it had held out its hand and had been spit in the face. All because of a clause about the “distinct society” which was nothing more than a recognition that we are part of Canada but different. But if you listened to talk shows and read letters to the Editor in English Canada as I did at the time, you will realize that all over the rest of Canada, they were convinced that those slimy con artists in Quebec were slipping that clause in to scam them.

When Meech was voted down, something died in Quebec. News footage of Quebec’s holiday, Fete nationale (June 24) usually a very positive and fun thing, showed at least one youth riding his bike and stopping to symbollically wipe his ass with the Canadian flag.

But let me tell you another story. You remember that Mayor Pelletier of Quebec City who refused to run up the Canadian flag at the Quebec City Hall? You may be surprised to learn that Mayor Pelletier was originally a strong federalist. In 1977, when the new PQ government refused to participate in the Canada Day parade in Ottawa, he sent the Bohomme Carnaval float and bans from Quebec City. I still remember people in Ottawa applauding wildly as the float passed by and blessing the Quebec City Mayor.

Do you know what turned him against Canada. The Meech rejection. The knowledge hat any attempt at all to accomodate Quebec in Canada will be met with a wave of hostility in the rest of Canada.

[JRDelirious]

@Valteron

Let’s see. The nine English provinces (Ontario, Mantioba, Saskatchewan and even Alberta used to have substantial French minorities, but funny how they disappeared through 100 years of being denied schools, government services etc. in their own language.) conveniently fixed it up so that any four provinces have a veto over constitutional changes, since you need seven out of ten to vote for it.
So the four western provinces virtually have one, the four Atlantic Provinces have one, but Quebec…has no right to a veto.

I was told once when in Quebec in '95, shortly before the referendum, “The fundamental historical misunderstanding is that to the rest of Canada, Québec is one of TEN; to many here, Québec is one of TWO.” Quebec is one out of ten if we go by provinces, or one out of four if we go by population. OF COURSE it will get outvoted. What’s the legal problem with that? This:

the most isolated, feared and despised part of the country, which has the most distinctiveness to protect, which is trying to protect itself from drowning in a sea of English is North America

is an appeal to emotion. It does not sustain a legal claim to veto power.

If where I live (PR) were to be admitted as a US State, surely I would not expect that on account of us being this enclave of Spanish-speaking mulatto latinos with a distinct history, we should have any more than 1/51 worth of pull when big decisions are made.

[Valteron]

@JRDelirious

I was told once when in Quebec in '95, shortly before the referendum, “The fundamental historical misunderstanding is that to the rest of Canada, Québec is one of TEN; to many here, Québec is one of TWO.” Quebec is one out of ten if we go by provinces, or one out of four if we go by population. OF COURSE it will get outvoted. What’s the legal problem with that? This: is an appeal to emotion. It does not sustain a legal claim to veto power.

If where I live (PR) were to be admitted as a US State, surely I would not expect that on account of us being this enclave of Spanish-speaking mulatto latinos with a distinct history, we should have any more than 1/51 worth of pull when big decisions are made.

With all due respect, living in Peurto Rico, you are talking through your hat and comparing apples and oranges. What it amounts to is that Anglo-Canada found a way to rig things so that the West (the mistreated, alienated West) has a virtual veto because it is made up of four provinces. The four Atlantic Provinces, who have less than a third the population of Quebec, ditto. Ontario is not four provinces, but with almost 40% of the population, it is practically impossible to pass an amendment that is opposed by Ontario. But Quebec, which is more different than any other part of the country (I trust THAT is not an appeal to emotion is it?) has fuck-all. And that was all arranged in a quickl convened meeting by the nine English Provinces without the Quebec delegation being present in the 1980s. Quebec was told the next day that it was fucked and isolated, thank you. To compare that with a small Spanish-speaking island joining a country of 300 million and expecting a veto is simply ridiculous.

[Valteron]

By the way, there is nothing wrong with majority rule where citizens may one day be members of the majority on one issue and members of the minority on another. That is what democracy is all about.

But can you conceive that when one group that perceives itself as a nation is smaller than another in the bosom of a single state, majority rule can quickly become a cover for domination of one nation by the other? Do you cocede that?

By the way, you might be interested in a little detail about Canadian history. From 1840 to 1867, Quebec and Ontario were joined in one legislative union. Although in the 1840s Quebec had a larger population than Ontario, the English population insisted that both must have EQUAL representation, and be seen as two equal entities. Then, after 20 year of immigration from the UK had shifted the majority in favour of Ontario, the English population suddenly saw the virtues of majorty rule and representation by population. Funny how that works, huh?

[Ludovic]

@Valteron

With all due respect, living in Peurto Rico, you are talking through your hat and comparing apples and oranges. What it amounts to is that Anglo-Canada found a way to rig things so that the West (the mistreated, alienated West) has a virtual veto because it is made up of four provinces. The four Atlantic Provinces, who have less than a third the population of Quebec, ditto. Ontario is not four provinces, but with almost 40% of the population, it is practically impossible to pass an amendment that is opposed by Ontario.

But they don’t have anything approaching 40% of the influence. I see a lot of the faux-rugged-individualist-cowboy attitude in Western Canada as I see in some Midwest and Western US states – perfectly happy to take advantage of disproportionate political influence and natural resources, but screaming about capitalism and traditional individual rights when asked to give something back. Sometimes couched in implications that the soft back-Easterners want to sit back and take advantage of their hard work when that’s anything but the case.

I don’t remember the last time I’ve seen Ontario-specific issues being passed (in legislation) over the objections of others (not that I pay too much attention). Quebec can’t lay claim to a special oppressed status versus them, with less of a population and greater payment differential IIRC.

[RickJay]

@Valteron

Rick Jay, this is the time of night when I would prefer to sleep “on my two ears” as we say in French (I will not annoy you with the actual French) than to get into an argument. I was around for Meech Lake and I saw the Thousands lined up to hold up Mantioba’s announcement past the deadline, to kill it.

That is false. Manitoba’s approval was held up by one person, Elijah Harper, and Harper’s concern wasn’t even the “distinct society” bit, but rather the lack of any movement forward for aboriginals. That’s a simple, straightforward fact. It is not open to dispute.

The “distinct society” clause would have meant nothing more than a recognition that we are different while being part of Canada, and that was something good. Anglo paranoia went into overdrive and made that clause a bogeyman that would have Quebec “cramming French down your throats and taking your oil”

Oh, what nonsense.

Here are the facts: The Meech Lake accord died because of a procedural issue, held up by one person, in the Manitoba legislature. It was not rejected by “English Canada.” Most of the other provincial governments approved it, and the people themsleves never had a say in it.

Those are indisputable, 100% true facts. On the SDMB we deal with facts, supported by objective evidence; we don’t just make shit up or throw around ad hominem arguments like vague implications about “the likes of you” even though nobody in this thread has expressed anything negative about you, Quebec, or French Canadians. Of course you assume - wrongly - that none of us speak French, so I guess it would surprise you to know I speak French reasonably well. I can get along, anyway.

The most common comment was “Those fucking Quebecers aren’t going to get away with it!”

Sounds like bullshit to me. Let’s be honest; most normal people didn’t care about Meech Lake one way or another. But either way, they had no say in it.

[Valteron]

@RickJay

That is false. Manitoba’s approval was held up by one person, Elijah Harper, and Harper’s concern wasn’t even the “distinct society” bit, but rather the lack of any movement forward for aboriginals. That’s a simple, straightforward fact. It is not open to dispute.
Oh, what nonsense.

Here are the facts: The Meech Lake accord died because of a procedural issue, held up by one person, in the Manitoba legislature. It was not rejected by “English Canada.” Most of the other provincial governments approved it, and the people themsleves never had a say in it.

Those are indisputable, 100% true facts. On the SDMB we deal with facts, supported by objective evidence; we don’t just make shit up or throw around ad hominem arguments like vague implications about “the likes of you” even though nobody in this thread has expressed anything negative about you, Quebec, or French Canadians. Of course you assume - wrongly - that none of us speak French, so I guess it would surprise you to know I speak French reasonably well. I can get along, anyway.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Let’s be honest; most normal people didn’t care about Meech Lake one way or another. But either way, they had no say in it.

First, Manitoba’s approval WAS help up by Harper, but if he had not held it up, there were thousands willing to talk it into the ground. I saw them lined up on TV.

Secondly, Newfoundland rescinded its approval, just to drive the nail in the coffin.

People may not have had a say in terms of an actual referendum on it, but I heard them talking about it aplenty in the media, on talk shows and on the streets. And the whole brunt of it, as I heard it, was “Those fucking French aren’t going to pull one over us with their distinct society clause.”

My proudest moment in this whole fiasco was when Premier Robert Bourassa, a federalist who had fought to find Quebec a real place in Canada, went on TV and said “Quebec IS a distinct society and will remain a distinct society.” In other words, he was saying Fuck You to all the people who had just worked to defeat the measure.

As I stated, it is virtually impossible for any sort of constitutional deal to be reached to include Quebec, because by definition, anything Quebec likes, English Canada will reject. You know that and you have seen it. If you want facts, my friend, that IS a fact demonstrated time after time. Remember, the OP that began this thread is predicated on the assumption that Quebecers are involved in some sort of elaborate plot to “extort” anglo-Canada. Go up and read it it, in case you have forgotten. Is that one of the “facts” that you prize on this message board?

[JRDelirious]

@Valteron

But Quebec, which is more different than any other part of the country (I trust THAT is not an appeal to emotion is it?)

No, but it still confers no special legal right you can take to the bank.

To compare that with a small Spanish-speaking island joining a country of 300 million and expecting a veto is simply ridiculous.

Ah… some nations are more nations than other nations, I see. Clear as an unmuddled lake, as the azure sky of deepest summer. My apologies on my effrontery :dubious:

But can you conceive that when one group that perceives itself as a nation is smaller than another in the bosom of a single state, majority rule can quickly become a cover for domination of one nation by the other?

Absolutely. And when it is clear that equal partnership is unsustainable, then the best answer is to not bother trying to bargain with the senior partner but accept a civilized divorce.

From 1840 to 1867, Quebec and Ontario were joined in one legislative union. Although in the 1840s Quebec had a larger population than Ontario, the English population insisted that both must have EQUAL representation, and be seen as two equal entities. Then, after 20 year of immigration from the UK had shifted the majority in favour of Ontario, the English population suddenly saw the virtues of majorty rule and representation by population. Funny how that works, huh?

Oh, it would be hysterical, if it weren’t so tragic – and typical. You were undone first by typical BritEmpire backstabbing (they don’t call her “perfidious Albion” for nothing) and secondly by a “constitution” that was suitable to such political maneouvers.
Maybe it qould have worked better if Canada had been founded with a US-style “hard” constitution – but that was out of the question in the days of Victoria, wasn’t it? – creating a federation where for certain procedures the components of the federation would be represented on a 1:1 basis (in the US, the constitution itself prohibits changing the equal seats in the Senate) and making it hard to amend once in place … but then again, after 1867 they added **more ** English-Canadian provinces so you would still be outnumbered. But at least it would have been written and clear to all parties from the start.

Funny, y’know, I’ve always been sympathetic to the FrancoCanadians in sight of the many abuses that were committed against that community… It was your argumentation of the concept that Québec is legally and morally entitled to by its lone self be the “equal” in veto power to any other 4 provinces together, by dint of being the “disadvantaged minority”, that I found unfederalist and that I wished to challenge.

[RickJay]

@Valteron

First, Manitoba’s approval WAS help up by Harper, but if he had not held it up, there were thousands willing to talk it into the ground. I saw them lined up on T

I have no idea what you think you saw on TV, but it is irrelevant. Manitoba does not have thousands of people in the legislature. You’re not allowed to just walk into a parliament and stop the process of government.

Harper was a member of the legislature, not some schmoe off the street. What “thousands of people” are you talking about? Where are you getting this nonsense? How do you think legislatures work?

Secondly, Newfoundland rescinded its approval, just to drive the nail in the coffin.

Irrelevant, and factually wrong. Newfoundland did not “rescind” its approval, it didn’t bother to hold a vote when Manitoba had already killed it.

People may not have had a say in terms of an actual referendum on it, but I heard them talking about it aplenty in the media, on talk shows and on the streets. And the whole brunt of it, as I heard it, was “Those fucking French aren’t going to pull one over us with their distinct society clause.”

So you claim, but you provide no evidence. Your subjective opinions aren’t truth.

Do some English dorks hate Quebec? Sure. Do some French dorks hate English Canada? Sure. But that does not prove your claims:

1. You claimed the Quebec “Bent over backwards” in the Meech accord. When you were asked how this was so, you refused to answer. Can you support this claim?

2. You have claimed, over and over, that Meech Lake failed because of “opposition” by (by implication) most English Canadians. As has been explained to you, this is false; the general public had no say in the matter and English Canadian governments were overwhelmingly in favour of the amendment. It died because of a procedural issue (combined with Mulroney’s bad planning.) Your “thousands of people” had squat to do with anything.

As I stated, it is virtually impossible for any sort of constitutional deal to be reached to include Quebec, because by definition, anything Quebec likes, English Canada will reject. You know that and you have seen it.

It’s funny, then, that most of English Canada passed the Meech Lake deal.

If you want facts, my friend, that IS a fact demonstrated time after time. Remember, the OP that began this thread is predicated on the assumption that Quebecers are involved in some sort of elaborate plot to “extort” anglo-Canada. Go up and read it it, in case you have forgotten. Is that one of the “facts” that you prize on this message board?

I don’t give a shit about the OP; it’s all subjective nattering, with nary a factual claim to be found. I’d like to see your explanation for the claims you’ve made that appear to be one hundred percent fiction. Your bizarre hostility to our “kind” deserves some elaboration, too.

[Gorsnak]

@Valteron

I will not bore you with the story of the judicial lynching of Louis Riel.

Oh good lord. Riel was executed for treason after engaging in an armed uprising against the government, an uprising that was about Metis land rights, not the systematic oppression of francophones in western Canada. They could have been speaking Swahili and it wouldn’t have changed anything. I grew up a stone’s throw from one of the battlefields; you don’t need to tell me what happened. Suggesting that Riel’s execution was part of some overarching anti-francophone attitude on the part of anglo Canada is completely ridiculous. The amount of revisionist history in your posts leads me to conclude that there’s really no point in continuing this coversation.

[Valteron]

@Gorsnak

The amount of revisionist history in your posts leads me to conclude that there’s really no point in continuing this conversation.

Then I guess we finally agree to something. So let me end my participation in this thread by apologizing for being delusional.

My mental illness led me to believe that I saw news footage of thousands of ordinary citizens lined up to register their objections to Meech Lake at the Manitoba Legislature (maybe hundreds, not thousands, us delusional people have trouble counting people in a 5-second news clip). This is because before Harper killed it off, the Manitoba Legislature had called for Citizen participation. Or at least, that is what my deluded mind remembers.

My mental illness seems to go back quite a few years. I distinctly remember in history class reading quotes from Ontario and other anglo-Canadians saying that the west must be the expansion ground of the British race and that French-speaking half-breeds like Riel must be taught a lesson. If you want a citation, then find my school textbooks from 40 years ago. They were English textbooks incidentally, because I went to English schools. I believe you will also find comments of that kind in leters to the Globe and Empire (ancestor of the Globe and Mail) and other newspapers. The hanging of Riel and the abolition of French schools in Manitoba was English-Canada’s way of telling French Canada that the west was English, period. But if you guys choose to remember it otherwise because that makes your conscience feel better, go ahead.

I distinctly remember all the debate revolving around Meech on radio talk shows (or once again perhaps this are just my delusions) in which one caller after another attacked the “distinct society” clause and used it to imply Quebec was out to scam the country. Just the same way that the OP in this thread does. Or did I just imagine the word “extort” in the OP as well?

I know for a fact that the death of Meech was for large numbers of my Quebec friends the death of their commitment to Canada. I know that it led directly to Lucien Bouchard leaving the Tory party to found the Bloc Quebecois. I know that people like Mayor Pelletier turned from being strong federalists to refusing to fly the Canadian flag at Quebec City Hall. I know that people in Montreal at the Fete nationale celebrations a few days after Meech died were cheering as that kid symbollically wiped his ass with the Canadian flag. I know there were thousands more people in the streets than ever before, and that instead of being a fun, postive celebration, it was more like a giant protest rally.

Now, much as it may surprise you, I do not have right here next to my computer the film footage, the 40-year-old textbooks, the newspaper articles, etc. etc. etc. to prove what I am saying. I did not record the comments of all the people in Quebec who told me that Meech is what made them despair of any settlement and turn into separatists.

So I guess it is all my delusionist, revisionist mind playing tricks on me. I apologize and I will seek the psychiatric help I need to see things from the Anglo point of view, which is the point of viw of objective reality, of course. Meech was just a little constitutional disagreement involving a an aboriginal MLA. There was no background of anti-Quebec, anti-French sentiment. Right.

So let’s end this thread and discuss something else. I have a thread asking for help with amateur lunar astronomy. That should be less confrontational.

[RickJay]

@Valteron

My mental illness seems to go back quite a few years. I distinctly remember in history class reading quotes from Ontario and other anglo-Canadians saying that the west must be the expansion ground of the British race and that French-speaking half-breeds like Riel must be taught a lesson.

When you start citing events from a hundred years ago in complaining about the Meech Lake accord, I think you need to ask yourself if you’re engaged in a legitimate debate of if you’re just determined to find enemies wherever you look.

Or can we all assume that all Quebecois hate Jews? After all, I distinctly remember there being lots of institutional; anti-Semitism in Quebec in the 1920s.

[Spoons]

@Valteron

I believe you will also find comments of that kind in leters to the Globe and Empire (ancestor of the Globe and Mail)…

Slight nitpick: There was never a newspaper named the Globe and Empire.

The Globe was founded in 1844. The Mail was founded in 1872, and merged with the Empire in 1895 to create the Mail and Empire. The Globe and the Mail and Empire merged in 1936 to create the Globe and Mail. Cite.

[kingpengvin]

You are basing this charge of thousands of people standing up against Meech lake based on a half remmebered news clip form years ago?!?!

I remember a lengthy clip of 100 000 out of province Anglophones in Montreal holding a huge rally in support of Quebec and its place in Canada… and look here is the evidence
CNN - Canadians rally for a united country - Oct. 28, 1995 (see how easy that is)

Look All you have to do to get evidence to the contrary is to provide hard evidence. This internet thing is pretty good for doing that. Search and find examples of what you claim.

Wait I’ll do it for you:

Meech Lake Accord

In Manitoba, however, things did not go as planned. ** With many First Nations protestors outside**, the Legislative assembly convened to approve the Accord. Unanimous support was needed to bypass the necessary public consultation, and Elijah Harper raised a Native feather to mark his dissention. Harper opposed bypassing consultation because he did not believe First Nations had been adequately involved in the Accord’s process.

I know you feel you know what happened but cold hard facts don’t agree with your premise.
It was Native protestors outside who were protesting the fact they were left out of the Accord. Not that Quebec wanted distinct society!

It was 1 vote that cause it to fail. He did not support it because, once again, Natives were not in the Accord.

Half remembered things are not facts!

Here are the facts:

Meech Lake died in the hands of politicians.

It was the Charlotttown Accord that died at the hands of the public. Which is probably what you are remembering as the Anglophones going against Quebec.
Except when you look at teh results something strange appears

Charlottetown Accord | Results

It died in Quebec as well as the West. So there is no betrayal there.

As much as you wish to believe there is some great anti Quebec/francophone Bias out there there isn’t. You have loud idiots but the majority of Canadians see Quebec as an important part of the Country.