Come the next referrendum, how will the recognition of Quebec as a nation affect the votes of those who are sitting on the fence? Will the fence sitters be encouraged to keep Quebec in Canada in part because Canada is willing to recognize Quebec as a nation?
No, they’re not. They’re good honest English words, cobbled together with bits of stolen Greek, just like all of our good technical words which aren’t cribbed from Latin. 
Francophones speak French at home, anglophones speak English at home and allophones speak another language at home.
That’s interesting. I’ll have to check with Revenu Québec, I’d like to know more about this. (Not to qualify for it, since I can’t, at least not now.)
Well, they are more often used in French than in English, but as Larry Mudd points out, they originate from Greek (probably mixed with Latin). How would I call a Dutch speaker? That’s a good question. In French, I’d probably try something like “néerlandophone”, but I’m not convinced this word actually exists, and I have no idea what it would be in English.
Here are a few “phone” words that I know about:
German: germanophone
Spanish: hispanophone (Hispania)
Portuguese: lusophone (Lusitania)
Russian: russophone
I’m sure I could think of a few others (sinophone for Chinese speaker, maybe? Depending on what we mean by “Chinese”), but they’re not coming to me right now.
Possibly. I’m sure Harper has thought of this too. Note that Jean Charest, premier of Quebec, is happy with this recognition. In fact, maybe the rest of this post will be informative to you.
Allow me to switch to a more emotional register now and explain what it means to me, on a gut level, to recognize Quebec as a nation inside Canada, or not. I can only speak for me and not for other francophone Quebecers, but I’m sure I’m not the only one sharing these feelings. As Gorsnak and I have discussed earlier, for many people in Quebec, “English Canada” exists as an entity. Gorsnak disputes this, but he did point out that even Gilles Duceppe speaks about “negotiat[ing], nation to nation”. And in fact, even though I recognize his point – he’s shown me the importance that belonging to an ethnic group or another still has in Western Canada, or at least in the Prairies – I still feel that “English Canada” is united in many ways. (Another phrase used inside Quebec to refer to this block is the rest of Canada, or ROC – notably, this English phrase is used even in francophone publications.) I only have to look at the threads on this board discussing English Canadian identity – which the participants of course only refer to as “Canadian identity”, even though I usually don’t really recognize me in them – to convince me that there’s something to it. (I could link to one of these threads, but you can find them: they always lovingly mention Tim Horton’s restaurants.)
So to me, and to many francophone Quebecers, English Canada exists as an entity. But not only that: it is also a rather meddling entity. English Canada enjoys watching Quebec’s political, economic and cultural scene from outside, making insulting comments about us. I’ve already pitted English Canadian media in [thread=388957]this thread[/thread]. These cases, remember, are the main times we hear about English Canadian media. So it really colours our impression of English Canada’s reaction to our existence. Here’s an aside that might help you understand. In my previous posts, I’ve mentioned secularity as an important value of the Quebec nation. This is not without reason: accommodation of some groups’ religious values that are at odds with the values of our society has made the news in the last few weeks in Quebec. In particular, there were two events involving Hasidic Jews in Montreal:
[ul]
[li]not wanting to see scantily clad women exercising in the YMCA next door, a Hasidic synagogue asked the YMCA to put tainted glass on their windows – instead of placing this glass on the windows of their synagogue[/li][li]directives to the Montreal police, mentioning that Hasidic men don’t speak to women and asking female police officers to leave all the speaking to their male peers when interacting with them, were published in the media.[/li][/ul]
These events were discussed a lot in the Quebec press and people, since they show the conflict that might erupt between a secular society and religious groups. Personally, my opinion was that the synagogue should have put tainted glass on their own windows, and that while it might be useful to have such a directive to police exist as a heuristic, there should be no obligation for female officers not to speak with male Hasidim when necessary. Many people had a similar opinion to mine; Action démocratique leader Mario Dumont met the press to express his disagreement with unreasonable measures with respect to religious groups. This was all very healthy. But I half-expected some journalist in English Canada to seize upon this discussion and dilute it to “francophone Quebecers’ opposition to the reasonable measures these peaceful Hasidic Jews ask to feel at home in Montreal shows just how racist and anti-Semitic they are”. I know it’s irrational. But it should illustrate how strongly me and other Quebecers have come to expect English Canadian media to make up reasons to insult us.
Also, I know I’ve discussed Canada’s recent history with RickJay before. Among other things, we mentioned the Meech Lake Accord, and how it was received outside of Quebec. RickJay’s argument, if I remember well, was that anglophone Canadians weren’t opposed to Meech per se, but didn’t feel a great need for it either and thought it was mostly driven by politicians and not by the people. He also mentioned that this happened about at the time when the language laws in Quebec, which were under attack by the province’s anglophones, were making headlines in the rest of Canada, and that it had an effect on their perception of Quebecers. I pointed out that our laws concerned only us, and that the rest of Canada didn’t really matter here. His reply was that in a federation, every province’s affairs are domestic affairs. I see that this does make sense, and I understand why English Canadians would think that. But to me, it’s very close to saying “English Canada should have the right to govern Quebec”. I mean, people from the rest of Canada don’t know what happens in Quebec. They don’t see the purpose of our language laws, and even if they did, would they feel that it is worth ensuring that Quebec remain a French-language society? Instead, they listen to the complaints of our English-language minority, whose situation is objectively much better than the French-language minorities in the rest of Canada – and of course they completely forget these minorities.
Keep in mind that I’m following my gut feeling here. I’m sure that what I’m saying wouldn’t entirely hold to scrutiny, although I expect some of it would. But given this, it is understandable that I, and other francophone Quebecers, may get the impression that “English Canada” (taken as an entity) is on a mission to try to influence (or even control) Quebec’s political process. So what is the alternative? Independence is one. On the other hand, a formal recognition that we are indeed a nation and that we should be allowed to continue existing inside of Canada, but following our own beat instead of the one some would like to impose on us, is another option.
I felt this needed to be said. No, I don’t usually see “English Canada” as a united entity with an agenda of controlling Quebec. But I’ve described a few things that worry me, and that might help you understand why, to many Quebecers, this issue is important.
Gee, severus, other than the language issue you’ve pretty much described how every other province (well certainly Alberta at least) feels about things in Canada. So, you wonder why when you guys look for special consideration that we might get a little upset about it?
I lived in various parts of Montreal for five years. During this time I took university courses in Quebecois French (since my high school French apparently only allowed me to read French and not speak it), had francophone room mates, and usually lived outside of the McGill ghetto and St. Laurent areas. I was at McGill from 1991 to 1996, which were sensitive years.
I think the English media in Montreal had a fairly jaundiced view of francophone issues during this time. But so did the French newspapers. In general, I do not feel that English media in general “enjoys watching Quebec’s political, economic and cultural scene from outside, making insulting comments”. Not that everyone is universally supportive, but I think Quebec issues are usually addressed tactfully. The English media does not really address francophone cultural icons in much depth at all. I don’t recall reading unflattering pieces regarding the YMCA Hassidim incident, despite your fears, though if such pieces existed I would not be shocked.
I think all anglophones should learn French and I do support official bilingualism. I am sure most anglophones do not understand the meaning of “nation” to Quebeckers. But there are lots of examples where francophones seem overly sensitive to slights that are not there, and are overly protective (e.g. street signs) when such measures can seem petty. I don’t necessarily think French media is more objective than English media.
If Alberta were clamouring for some sort of special constitutional status as a “distinctly conservative society” which would allow them to restrict abortions and ban gay marriage, I’d be opposed to that too. I suppose that’s very close to saying that non-Albertan Canada should have the right to govern Alberta?
And good God, if a taking a little flak over Quebec language laws pisses you off, imagine how those poor Albertans felt about the NEP! Talk about the rest of Canada waltzing in and interfering in provincial affairs. Fortunately this province is sufficiently obscure that no one knows or cares enough about it to interfere. 
Oh, that’s true. I always try to keep in mind that being a part of a federation always requires relinquishing a part of one’s sovereignty. (And that’s despite the fact that, for many and maybe most Canadian provinces, getting into the federation in the first place was a decision that was reached by our elites and not by the people, but let’s not get into this now shall we? 
)
I don’t wonder anything, but if you read this thread you’ll find out why Quebec may be seen as different in ways that other provinces wouldn’t be.
Well, as I said this was just an idea that formed in my mind. I guess the only English-language media outlets who covered this were the ones in Quebec, and I haven’t checked how they covered it. My point is that the fact that I had this idea in the first place might point out an unflattering reality about anglophone media in Canada.
Well, while I think learning new languages is always good and I would like to learn more, I don’t actually think all anglophones should learn French. Most of them really don’t have any use for it. But for this reason, I think we should re-evaluate what Canada means to us.
Maybe, but my answer to this would be that “the law is the law”. We can have a healthy debate over the spirit and the word of the law, but as long as it is on the books we have to enforce it. And also, as I said in my previous post, I think that many people in the rest of Canada don’t understand the spirit of the law and should first educate themselves.
Maybe, but I’ve never read or heard in any French-language media in Canada that racism and anti-Semitism is rampant in British Columbia.
Well, Klein did say that he would try to use the notwithstanding clause to ensure that same-sex marriages don’t take place in Alberta. I haven’t heard anything about this recently though, and in any case he apparently didn’t have the legitimity to do this anyway, so I guess it fell through.
I understand your point, Gorsnak. As I’ve answered to Uzi, being part of a federation does require losing some of our sovereignty, and there isn’t much that we can do about it. But while same-sex marriage is an issue that has been well talked about across all of Canada, I feel that often people from outside Quebec have an opinion about Quebec-specific issues that they don’t really understand well. That’s the difference.
Yes, that is one of the main causes of Alberta’s disaffectation about the federal system since the 70s. Unfortunately, I don’t know much about it since it happened before my time and I’ve never heard much about it. I’m sure they have a right to be angry, though.
This said, keep in mind that my last post mostly dealt with impressions. I’m saying how people in Quebec feel; I’m sure people in Alberta can feel the same way.
Actually, what I’ve seen is some sort of reference to Quebec having a different culture than the ROC that goes beyond the difference in languages. To me it isn’t evident. The differences between Canadians are pretty negligible compared to the differences I’ve experienced working on the other side of the planet. For someone to say they are a separate nation because of those minor differences is pretty amusing. If it is about language then say so, the rest isn’t very relevant.
Maybe there isn’t much to report? Could be, you know. Actually, I bet there probably is, but why do you expect your media report on it? Maybe they only care about the issues that they think Quebec people are concerned about.
Not all Albertans are rednecks. It probably wasn’t an issue he was willing to die on the hill for.
You’d be surprised at how little we think about Quebec (or any other province, for that matter). It is just the way things are. Are you hoping that being declared a ‘nation’ will change that?
So, in reality you are just like us and thus, you are one of ten (and a few territories), not one of two as you seem to want to make it out to be.
Anglo Montrealer here. I avoided this thread for a little while because the issue is a little sensitive to me.
I am a Quebec(k)er, I am not Québecoise.
I can’t help but feel, to some extent, that the Québecois form a nation/‘distinct society’, not Quebecers, mostly because non-Québecois Quebecers are excluded from it (if they don’t want to assimilate).
On the other hand, I agree that Montreal (and possibly other parts of Quebec, although, embarassingly enough, I’ve never really been anywhere else in Quebec) is like no where else, and this is due to both the French and English sides of its heritage, as well as all the other people who have immigrated here. I would say I identify as a Montrealer more than a Canadian, and a Canadian more than a Quebecker.
I think this whole nation debate would be really interesting if I didn’t think it was leading to renewed seperatism.
Quebec balances the influence of the religious right from both Alberta and from the USA. Quebec has learned to deal with the problem of religion intermeddling with politics, and with the problem of being surrounded by another culture. Canada as a whole would do well to learn from Quebec.
Do yourself a favour as a Canadian and look into the NEP. It was a defining event for Western Canadians, and a fascinating look at Canadian politics, too. It might interest you to know that after the full effects of the NEP were felt, 49% of Albertans supported separation from Canada in 1981. It was a big, big deal here - the NEP had some commendable goals, but at the cost of Alberta’s economy and the financial health of many Albertans.
Because, of course, the other nine provinces have such longstanding traditions of theocracy. Alberta is an absolute cesspool of religious hatred and oppression. In Alberta, they burn gays and Hindus at the stake.
Honestly, what’re you talking about? What evidence is there that any part of Canada needs to “learn” this “lesson?”
Wait, the religious right in Alberta? Are you talking about Stephen Harper, or possibly Preston Manning? I’ve lived in Alberta for 16 years, and I have yet to see an example of people getting in anyone else’s face over religion here the way the United Statesians describe it going on there. Alberta is a redneck, capitalist stronghold, but as far as I can tell, it’s not being ruled by the religious right.
Uh, clarification - my post was aimed at Muffin, not RickJay.
I’m more concerned about the effects of religiously-inspired legislation that runs rampant through Nova Scotia than I am about Alberta. Limiting Sunday Shopping! How horrible!
Oh wait – we have that in Quebec too :rolleye:
Plenty of accusations of racism were made after the Reena Virk tragedy in BC. Unfortunate one-off situations are “newsworthy”, meaning every two-bit analyst takes a shot at it. I don’t much like Jan Wong, nor her comments about Montreal shootings. But these comments were made by one columnist who hardly represents “English media”. There was more rancour aimed at would-be vampires and Goths to my recollection.
Most places in Canada are a little rednecky, outside of a handful of cities.
Ultimately, I do not want to see Canadian politics dominated by another discussion of what it means to be Canadian or a Quebecker or Quebecois. The discussion is worth having, but is not top tier priority for many anglophones. And when it is treated as a top tier issue, many “English Canadians” see this as evidence of meddling by Quebec to extract further benefits as opposed to merely defining Quebec’s place in the Canadian cosmos.
Sure, if you compare Albertans, Quebecers and Yemenis, you’ll probably find out that one of these three groups doesn’t belong with the others. But it’s entirely possible for different nations to have some overlapping values. I think I’ve detailed in my first post in this thread how Quebec society differs from other Canadian societies.
Sure. Although, given the fact that he was about to retire anyway, it wouldn’t have surprised me entirely to have seen him try something.
I’m not surprised, and I don’t especially want to be talked about a lot. My point is that when the media outside of Quebec talks about Quebec, it often seems to be negatively. I guess negative things are more noticeable. But it does shape some perceptions.
This is where there will always be a perception clash between Quebec and the other provinces.
I usually use the term “integrate” instead of “assimilate”. I think the contribution of anglophones to Quebec society (and I’ll say it, to the Quebec nation) is very important, but anglophones must recognize that they live in a French-language society. That’s all. It doesn’t require them to eventually turn into francophones. I think matt_mcl, just to give an example, is well integrated into Quebec society, and he’s not about to become a francophone.
That is interesting. I’ve never lived in Montreal, although of course I’ve been there a few times. I think it’s a great city.
Well, there’s Stockwell Day, among others. But of course Alberta is still far less religious than most places in the United States.