Must the crucifix be worn right-side-up to comply with the law?
Okay, I knew I had to get here and respond to all of you; I’ve been priming myself for the last few days to come read what would certainly be written here. I’ll first present the idea of a secularism charter (which I don’t entirely support, at least not in its proposed implementation, but we’ll get back to this) and then answer post by post.
The general idea of a secularism charter is that the government should not support any religious belief over others, or a religious lifestyle over a secular lifestyle, or vice versa. As you may be aware, in some Quebec cities, meetings of the city council are still opened by Catholic prayers, and this has fallen under the sights of secularists who view it (correctly, in my opinion) as undue state support for Catholicism. In addition, there has been a debate in Quebec (in other parts of Canada and in other countries as well, but they won’t tell you that) about whether we may or should bend some of our rules to accommodate religious requirements. The generic example is that schools typically forbid weapons, but baptized Sikhs must wear a kirpan which is a knife. Should they be granted an exemption to the rule, or should the school and the students meet somewhere in the middle, or should the law be inviolable? It’s not an easy question. And even if we can answer it, other cases will happen which will also require a lot of work to answer.
The Parti québécois is a progressive (centre to left, depending on leader), secular party. They were born in the Quiet Revolution when Quebec threw away the yoke of the Church and established itself as a modern nation, so you can guess they have no love for the institution. Or any other religious institution, to be sure. Some of their policy makers would like to remove any religious symbol from the governmental sphere. This, of course, is hard (not to mention sort of counter-productive) since religion is so entwined with personal identity. And if the person who serves you at the counter when you go get your driver’s licence wears a small cross or star of David necklace, it’s hard to equate this with government support of religion. It’s private expression. So it was decided that the secularism charter would only forbid “ostentatious” religious symbols. So: Catholic prayer at city council – forbidden; small religious pendant – permitted. The only problem here is that “ostentatious” isn’t defined. Where is the line? We don’t know, but what we do know is that it will cause problems with implementation. This is an issue.
Now, why did you hear of this? (Followed in next post.)
You heard of this because the PQ presented their secularism charter to the press a few days ago, through the voices of their leader, Pauline Marois, and their candidate in Trois-Rivières and pro-secularism activist, Djemila Benhabib. The latter is a rookie in active politics but relatively well-known as an activist for secularism in the public sphere, and especially against radical Islam. And as it turns out, she really does support secularism, because one of the first things she told the media was that she supported removing the crucifix hanging from the walls of the National Assembly.
I should open a parenthesis here. There is a crucifix hanging in the National Assembly where the deputies debate. It’s a bit like the “under God” in the US pledge of allegiance in that it was added during the Cold War by a conservative government (in this case, premier Maurice Duplessis) to show that we weren’t commie heathens, but today you cannot get rid of it since you’ll raise the ire of a small but vocal minority of conservatives. The previous PQ leader, André Boisclair (or as I call him, Cocaine Oil-Sands) suggested that maybe it should be removed during the 2007 election campaign, and the backlash by this vocal minority forced him to back down. So since then no party has suggested having it removed, instead saying that it’s a “cultural” symbol or a “memento of our history”, evacuating the fact that it is a religious symbol, right in the middle of the chamber where our laws are made. Thing is, there is no benefit to suggesting that it be removed, since secularists don’t make a big issue out of it, while religious conservatives, while few in number, consider it supremely important. Compare this with the question of abolishing the monarchy in Canada. The only people who care about this question are a minority of conservatives and monarchists, so you gain nothing by suggesting abolition.
So yes, Benhabib suggested removing the crucifix. Immediately she was attacked on this by the right-wing mayor of Saguenay, Jean Tremblay. Tremblay is well-known as one of the mayors who still hold on to the prayer before council meetings even in the face of lawsuits. So of course he’d oppose a secularism charter (even though he’d respect it if it became law), but what really caused a controversy is that he attacked Benhabib herself, calling her an “Algerian”, saying that he couldn’t even pronounce her name, and that she was a foreigner who came to force Quebecers to abandon their culture. I don’t know if this angle was reported in the English-language press, since it doesn’t fit with the usual English Canadian angle on Quebec identity politics, but in any case you can read about it in this Devoir article.
Tremblay’s comments of course caused an avalanche of condemnations by people from everywhere on the political spectrum, who considered them xenophobic. Marois condemned them, so did François Legault of the current third party, the Coalition Avenir Québec. Premier Jean Charest of the Liberal party said that “all Quebecers are equal” but shied away from directly condemning Tremblay’s comments. His candidate in Dubuc, outgoing deputy Serge Simard (who’s currently largely surpassed in the polls by the PQ candidate) called Tremblay “courageous” but still said that all Quebecers have the right to express their opinion. So yes, there was a potentially xenophobic angle to this whole issue, though maybe not the one you expected.
Now:
Why did the English-language press believe that the charter of secularism would ban non-Christian symbols, but not Christian symbols, when (at least from here in Quebec) the debate mostly appears to be “angry white Catholic conservative from the Liberals – he supported them in 2008 – slams progressive secular immigrant from the PQ”? From this you need to understand how English Canada views Quebec, the PQ, and identity issues. I’ll try to explain it in my next posts, but to explain it well we would require a serious and prolonged debate.
No, that’s not what they’re saying. Religous symbols will forbidden, period, **if they are not Christian. ** The Christian symbol of the cross, or crucifix, is permissible, as long as it is not ostentatious.
For the record, it was reported in the English media. At least, it was in the Globe and Mail (link to the item); and if it was there, I’d presume that it made it into other media sources also.
Well, I looked on the PQ’s website, and what I see about the secularism charter is this. Of course, the charter isn’t written yet, so who knows what it will look like after all the wheeling and dealing. But the relevant part appears to be this:
My translation:
I cannot find the words “chrétien” or “catholique” on this page, so it doesn’t seem like the secularism charter makes any exception for Christian symbols. Now you may argue that of course Christian symbols are typically less ostentatious than other religious symbols (small crosses vs. headscarves), or that in practice Christian symbols will get a free pass while other religions’ won’t, or even that, while not mentioning any religion, this policy is clearly designed at making life hell for Muslims. That’s certainly what the anglophone journalists who reported on it did, but the fact is, it’s not there in the text. It’s meta-reading. And from what I know of modern Quebec society (living there, you know), I can tell you that those who wrote the policy almost certainly weren’t doing so out of any xenophobic feelings. The first two objections (Christian symbols are less ostentatious, and some people will give them a free pass anyway) are valid objections. That’s why we’ll need a precise definition of “ostentatious”, or we’ll need to drop the targeting of private religious expression, even in the public sphere. IOW, you can wear your pendant or headscarf, but don’t proselytize. And treat every citizen equally, even if they don’t share your religious beliefs. This is what I expect will happen.
Good posts, HJ, and informative.
Not if you worship Lucifer… 
Sorry, couldn’t resist…
So now, we have to explain why English Canada is so wary of Quebec that it automatically sees anything coming from here as having a racial, xenophobic subtext. Well, let’s get the obvious out of the way. The policy discussed here is part of the PQ’s platform, and the PQ supports (I won’t say “are committed to”, because I don’t think they are) Quebec independence. Canadians, no matter what they think of Quebec and Quebecers, don’t want to see their country lose a chunk. I understand this. So of course any policy supported by the PQ (or other sovereigntist parties) is automatically tainted in the minds of other Canadians, usually in the mind of Quebec anglophones as well.
This said, I think we need to go back to English Canadians’ national identity to understand their belligerent attitude toward Quebec, and especially toward the existence of a mainly French-speaking society inside their country. First, English Canadians don’t consider “English Canadian” to be a nationality. The nationality is “Canadian”. I’ll use this term from now on, since that’s the one they use. Canadians’ main national myth, despite being somewhat under attack by conservatives, is multiculturalism. Ask Canadians, and they’ll tell you that Canadian multiculturalism means that all ethnic groups present in Canada are allowed to keep their culture and enrich the country, unlike the “melting pot” in the US which means that everyone must become American. In fact, you probably won’t even need to ask them, they’ll tell you; they’re an extremely proud people. Even if they haven’t been to the US, or Europe (or even Quebec), they know how unique Canada is. I understand: it’s their defining national myth, and of course this myth distinguishes them from Americans: Canadians need to define themselves as a people separate from Americans, which isn’t all that easy.
But correct me if I’m wrong, but this emphasis on “multiculturalism” (which as I’ve said before, I don’t consider to be all that different from other cultural policies in other first-world countries) leads Canadians into extremely ethnic-based thought patterns. I’ve been asking the Canadian posters here what multiculturalism means after all, and the answers I got were usually along the lines of “well, here in Toronto you’ve got a Caribbean festival where you can sample music and food, and you’ve also got the Ukrainian festival, etc.” You’ve got ethnic groups, each ethnic group does such-and-such things, and all of this contributes to Canada and is great.
But what happens when Canadians look at Quebec? They see French-Canadians. Of course, since they view people through ethnic determinism. What’s a French-Canadian? Well, we of course strongly value and support their contribution to this great country. They speak French ([post=14011253]sort of[/post]*), they’re very Catholic – just hear the funny swear words they use! – and they’re not very educated. And they [post=14800365]smoke[/post] and drink Pepsi. Oh, and they are a very insular culture; they don’t like people not like them.
My point is, ethnic-based thinking is extremely reducing, and I don’t consider it open-minded. If you think of me as a French-Canadian, you fit me into a model which just doesn’t apply. Especially since the whole point of the modern Quebec nation is that we managed to come out of being French-Canadians and adopt a modern identity! English Canadian media has bashed this PQ policy, claiming it is xenophobic and pro-Catholic. Using ethnic thinking, it’s obvious: PQ = “French-Canadian” nationalism = strong, reactionary Catholicism with hatred for anyone who isn’t “pure laine”, and probably especially Jews. It’s 1930s based thinking. But the idea that opinion leaders among the PQ would favour Catholicism is insane. I know comments on media websites typically suck, but I’d suggest you look at Dominic Audy’s comments of August 18 at 16:45 under Le Devoir’s latest anglophone press review, since they’re quite interesting and show how a francophone Quebec progressive thinks about the condemnation of the PQ in anglophone right-wing media. I’ll translate the second paragraph here:
*It seems important for many people (not only Canadians) that the language spoken in Quebec not be French. I’m not sure why that is.
OK, having done the secularism charter (thanks swampspruce for the good comments!) I’ll now answer unrelated posts. Before answering Gorsnak, Leaffan, Spoons, RickJay, etc. on the charter, I’ll first wait for them to acknowledge Hari Seldon’s incorrect facts.
Well, to be honest, I don’t support applying bill 101 to the cégeps, mostly because by the time you reach cégep level, you’re (almost) an adult and should have choice of what you want in terms of education. But the point of the matter is this. Public education and official language are both under the purview of the provinces in Canada. Quebec’s official language is French, and so language of schooling in Quebec is French. Anglophones, as an official language minority in Canada, are guaranteed schooling in their language. But if you’re not an anglophone, why should you have access to public English-language schooling? As I’ve said, French is the official language of Quebec, and in any case you always have access to (non-subsidized) private schooling.
To be honest, I’m sure that when the Charter of the French language was first promulgated, restricting public schooling in English to anglophones was considered radical. Now most Quebecers support it. Adding the cégeps to this really is a minor change. I know I’m only opposing it because it’s never been done before.
Wow, so you think francophones should have access to English-language schools so they can learn English and leave Quebec. Why should I support this exactly?
Keep in mind, I did all my schooling (up to the cégep and even most of my university) in French. Is my English deficient? And lo, despite being bilingual I have no intention of moving to Fort McMurray to extract oil from the ground. I like it here in Quebec, it’s my country (or whatever), I like living in French, and being exposed to English Canada has given me no irrepressible need to move there. This said, I’d like English fluency among francophones to improve, but the fact is it’s already quite high. How about you? How come you never managed to learn French despite living in Quebec for 50 years?
Oh, and yeah, I’d like immigrants to learn French and be able to live and work in a French-speaking society. That’s why they should be going to school in French. If after this they consider francophones to be evil Catholic xenophobes and prefer anglophones, and want to live and work in English only, the fact is there exist places even in Quebec where they can do this. Or otherwise, everywhere else in Canada and the US.
Are you a right-winger Mr. Emouse?
Your entire post therefore proceeds from a false assumption.
The notion that English Canadians are “belligerent” to “the existence of a mainly French-speaking society inside their country” exists largely in the minds of some French Canadians. The number of English Canadians who hold on to such a belligerence is a miniscule minority now, and they’re mostly really, really old. It’s really not something most English Canadians care about. At best, your claim is decades out of date.
Boy, you said it.
It’s not too bad for an article. Though of course, those who aren’t familiar with Quebec politics will miss much of the subtext. The fact is, when Mrs. Benhabib suggests removing the crucifix from the National Assembly, Marois, a good number of PQ candidates, and a good number of Quebecers agree with her. But they’ve learned that it’s an issue not worth pursuing. Note that Marois didn’t disavow Benhabib on this, instead she condemned Tremblay’s comments. But it allowed the anglophone press to present the issue as “PQ loves Catholic symbols, hates brown people ones”.
A definition of right wing and left wing would help here. Absent such a definition, I can only answer indirectly. I do not feel any association with either term.
The political party I most agree with is the UK Liberal democrats. If I were American, I’d vote Democrat in national elections.
Note that my description of the PQ is not wholly negative. There’s nothing wrong with being a nonracist nationalist, a labourite (although they tend to be on the Luddite end) or certain kinds of social democrat.
Maybe not you, RickJay, because I’ve found that you’re much more cynical about Canadian national myths than the average Canadian. You don’t swallow that stuff whole. So I think you’ll be able to agree with me on some things.
You severely misunderstand me. I’m not saying this in a “speak white” way, like anglophones who say “you’re in Canada, speak English!” I agree those are minuscule in number. I said “the existence of a mainly French-speaking society”, not “the existence of a society where some or even most people speak French”. Canadians love, or at least have convinced themselves that they love, the diversity of ethnic groups and languages spoken in their country. But what I’m saying is that the idea that Quebec is a French-speaking society and this will transcend the prevalence of the French-Canadian ethnic group living there is something many Canadians have trouble with.
Look at editorials in English-language papers. Look at Hari Seldon in this thread. Look at the assumptions they’re making. They automatically equate the French language with “French-Canadians” and thence to what they imagine French-Canadians must be. It’s ethnic, ethnic, ethnic thinking all the way. In this paradigm, supporting French as the only official language of Quebec, restricting English public schooling to anglophones, demanding that some commercial signage be at least partly in French is “racist” and “ethnocentric”, because it favours “French-Canadians”, because French language = “French-Canadians”. I’m saying Canadians have been taught to think first and foremost about ethnic groups and cannot get out of this box.
I’ll quote another comment from the article of earlier (Marc Provencher’s from August 18, 12:35, three last paragraphs):
Fact is, Canadians have no problem with francophones outside Quebec (unless they lose bilingual jobs to them ;)) since they’re basically ethnic Canadians. They’re both totally Canadian, and yet they have their “French-Canadian” ethnic identity. (I’ve got Franco-Ontarian friends, and they strike me as more traditionalist than francophone Quebecers.) This is multiculturalism and Canadians like it. Quebec has “French-Canadians” without much predictable ethnic background, and seeks to establish French as a non-ethnic language. This is confusing.
I love how you just assume that anglophones can’t read from multiple sources, can’t pick up subtext, can’t take historical issues into consideration (or separate them, as needed), and basically can’t possibly be as informed as you. You really do paint with a broad brush, you know that? Go on and read the bloody English media once in a while, instead of assuming it doesn’t talk about anything “important” and that readers must be ill-informed. Your bias is showing.
Emouse: why I dislike Marios: she’s condescending, petty, rude, selfish, short-sighted, single-minded, arrogant, opportunistic, and stupid. Is that enough? She’s been around long enough for me to hear her babble on at every damn election I’ve ever been eligible to vote for, and my opinion of her has never improved. Even taking sovereignty off the table, I think she’s a terrible leader, an angry and bitter person, and I do not want her anywhere near me and my province.
Every francophone I know who went to an English cégep - where I went - did so to learn more English, my own husband included. The francophone school system in the regions - that is, outside of Montreal and…oh, look…Gatineau/Hull where HJ is from - failed them in letting them become bilingual enough for their own chosen lives, and so they decided to pursue cégep in English. Of the 8 francophones in my regular group of friends - not a statistical sample, I admit - 7 went to a FRENCH university afterwards and live and work in Québec in well-paying jobs where bilingualism is necessary, and one went to Ontario… he’s moved back to Montreal and works in French now. So I don’t believe that HJ’s assertion that francophones will learn English and then suddenly just want to leave to work elsewhere is particularly valid- he himself is bilingual, and he’s still right here. Francophones should learn English in order to better themselves, in order to be able to develop and sell their skills, their resources, their technology, their services…in other words, in order to sell QUEBEC so that we can be a better and stronger province. Independence or tougher, restrictive education laws (kind of against the concept of le carré rouge, IMHO) won’t change the fact that there are 400 million anglophones around us, and we MUST be able to deal with them in order to stand on our own two feet. We shoot ourselves in the foot with our navel-gazing - we need to start growing. We could be a strong province and instead limp around, trying to pin the blame on someone else. We are pathetic, and it’s time we stopped.
This whole round of elections … every single politician is a spineless, pathetic weasel. We could be so much better. We could be so much more.
Hypnagogic Jerk. If it was up to you what you have inscribed in your passport as country of origin ?
Simple question.
I’m sure aware of what they are, though, and multiculturalism simply is not the overriding English Canadian national myth. It never has been.
The primary English Canadian national myth is not being American. You, ironically, managed to mention that but somehow you got one of a dozen carts in front of your horse. The silly non-difference between multiculuralism and a cultural mosiac is a part of that myth, but only a part, and even then not the most important part; that myth is also buttressed by the old hits We’ve Got Universal Healthcare, We’re Great At Hockey, We’re Peacekeepers, Not Peacemakers, We’re Bilingual, and We Aren’t Crime-Ridden. Among other, less important ones that still factor in, like We Spell Words Somewhat Differently.
The word you used was “belligerence,” which is far, far beyond “having trouble with something.”
And even then you’re describing something that simply doesn’t exist for most people. I’m sorry, but a few hand-picked editorials and Hari Seldon’s idle speculation about the motives of a particularly untrustworthy politician don’t constitute a representative sample of the attitudes of 26,000,000 people, or even the voters. You are - and I’m sorry to point this out, but you’re in the habit of doing this - doing precisely what you accuse “Canadians,” to use your term, of doing; picking out the attitudes you particularly don’t like and claiming it to be representative of an entire ethnic group, without evidence that it is. With due respect, because you seem smart and informed, but it has to be said; with one exception, a poster who isn’t in this thread, no Canadian member of the SDMB who involves themselves in threads about Canadian politics is so quick to make sweeping, prejudiced (in the true sense of that term) generalizations about ethnic or linguistic groups when discussing Canadian affairs as you are. Youthink you’re better because you draw the lines in different places, or so you say. You aren’t. Of course every society, every person, every generation, draws different lines; race, ethnicity, etc. are all social constructs. The measure of a person’s awareness and tolerance is whether they judge a person on the other side of the line as an individual, not as a member of a group. You aren’t any better at that than anyone else here, from what I’m reading.
If anything, your claim is not just out of date but almost humorously out of date. English Canadians are probably less interested in Quebec, and less worked up about its linguistic character, than at any previous time in the history of Canada. I’ve never seen such widespread apathy. That this story has any legs at all is mildly remarkable - only mildly, since its purpose is to BE a story and to start a fight - but it’s been a muted reaction, really. Papers are running editorials but nobody’s talking about it. The SDMB isn’t much of a sample; the people here are inherently political. In 1995, everyone was talking referendum. In 1988, everyone was talking Meech and “distinct society.” Today, everyone’s talking about the weather.
In a way the current situation is scarier than it was in 1980 and 1995. The truth is, HJ, that more and more English Canadians simply don’t give a shit what’s going on in Quebec. Stephen Harper’sgovernment’s formal recognition of Quebec as a “nation” was greeted as a mildly positive thing; the general consensus among people who noticed it, which wasn’t that many people, was that it was a nifty little outmaneuvring of those darned Bloc guys, and it was forgotten within weeks. 25 years ago that move would have been completely, utterly unthinkable; it would have created a firestorm that would have swept the government of the day from office before it even hit the House floor. People would have thought it insane. Now it was essentially “Huh? Oh, sure, sounds true. Whatever.”
Indeed, the Charter of Secularism and the various other PQ plans like extending the reach of Bill 101 are probably a tenth as debate-provoking as they would have been 20 years ago, which is remarkable in the information age. I don’t remember a single person I know in real life make any mention of it. I don’t remember a single person on my Facebook feed mentioning it; I’ve got a hundred or more posts about the “legitimate rape” guy from Wisconsin, a thousand pots about whatever idiocy Rob Ford’s up to, and God only knows how many other political updates, but not a peep about Quebec. Back in the day, national unity was THE issue. No longer. One columnist put it as simply “Quebec and the rest of Canada don’t have anything to talk about anymore.” People here are as interested in the Pussy Riot v Putin story as they are in Pauline Marois.
Indeed, I’d argue that part of the reason Pauline Marois is promising the stunts she is - the “Secularism” nonsense, promises of more language cops, and the like - is that the growing apathy towards Quebec isn’t good for her party or her cause. Increasingly people just don’t care. Like the monarchy, which we retain because nobody cares enough to get rid of it, the issue of Quebec’s identity is now regarded by almost everyone as simply a fait accompli, a fact of life that is of little consequence to anyone. The Parti Quebecois can’t have that. They exist to exploit people’s emotions over that division, and they are rightly frightened now that Quebecois are interested in alternatives besides the PQ and the Grits.
Nope, not seeing that in Hari Seldon’s post. It’s just not there, and I challenge you to show me otherwise. His criticism is levelled at an individual politician, Pauline Marois; go ahead, go back and read it if you don’t believe me. It might be a silly criticism (I think it is; I think he is completely wrong about Marois’s intentions) but not one word of his post is a comment on what *French Canadians *are like. You are seeing something that is just not there.
I’m reminded of an interaction with my father-in-law several years ago. He was bitching about something, and blamed it on the WASPs.
I waved and said “Hi!”
He was rather quick to correct himself and apologize, and, of course, said “oh, I don’t mean YOU.”
When pressed, he didn’t really know any other particular WASPs who were to blame for whatever he was bitching about (surely not my family, surely not my friends, surely not his doctor coworkers), but surely they must be out there, and surely they are to blame!
I am well-informed. (In some areas; I’ll admit my economic knowledge isn’t all that great.) Most people aren’t, be they francophones, anglophones, Quebecers, other Canadians, etc. And people have serious problems thinking clearly when we’re touching their national founding myths. Fact is, Canadians define themselves in opposition to Americans and francophone Quebecers. Do you disagree with my assessment of the Canadian nation?
Everyone does, so do you. You don’t think anglophones paint francophones with a broad brush? You don’t think Quebec is painted with a broad brush by the rest of Canada? I’m trying to understand the Canadian nation, and why Canadians think the way they think. I’m bound to generalize.
I would, but I don’t want to die of a heart attack before I reach 35. I’m not exactly the calm type, you know. See, I do read the anglophone media review in Le Devoir. I watch current affairs shows, they invite anglophones like Tasha Kheiriddin who tells us how much we suck. Heck I’ve even watched The Rick Mercer Report once in a while. I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on what anglophones think. Not a perfect one, of course, but do anglophones peruse francophone media? Do they know what we think? Does that prevent them from assuming?
ETA: oh, and I sometimes check the Globe and Mail to see what they’re writing about a Quebec issue, if I feel that won’t cause me to rupture an aneurism.
We’re all biased.
I’m in Sherbrooke now, as you know, and most people around me do speak pretty good English. Of course I’m in an academic environment, maybe the “deep Quebec” as some like to say doesn’t speak good English. But should they?
Face it: people don’t learn languages in school. You learn a language because you need to. If somebody wants to learn English because it’ll help them in their career, they will. Same thing for any other language. We can dream of exchange programs to send young Quebecers pick grapes in BC while Torontonians go, I don’t know, milk cows in Joliette, each learning the other’s language and exchanging culture, but people are only interested in learning a language because they have to.
Hari Seldon said that. Why should I believe that learning English will make Quebecers yearn for other countries? I don’t. And I certainly support francophones learning English.
I think we’re a strong province. I’m really proud of how far Quebec went in the last 50 years. I work in a place where I’m surrounded by extremely intelligent and innovative people, doing great work. I’m impressed by what they do, some of them are leaps and bounds above me. They’re native Quebecers and immigrants, working in French and in English when needed. We’re not pathetic, we’re great. (Not perfect of course, and many things could still be improved, but who cannot say this?) If we had a third of the pride in ourselves that English Canadians have, we could go way further.
Honestly mnemosyne, I don’t know what your problem is with me. We may not have the same goals for Quebec society, but I don’t have anything against you personally. I know I’m not afraid of being antagonistic with anglophones when needed. I don’t think we have a duty to “make nice”. But there’s nothing wrong with that. We have to stand our ground. Do you think Hari Seldon’s OP was honest? Do you think I had no right to correct it?