|
Author
|
Topic: Harper: turning Canada into Belgium vs. Trudeau vision
|
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527
|
posted 08 November 2008 08:36 AM
posted by simonvallee in previous thread. quote:
Harper's plan won't have a big appeal in my opinion. Not only it proposes a huge decentralization that might get centralists or statuquoists unhappy, but its decentralization would break Canada and Québec in ethno-linguistic blocs. It's clear that beneath the appearance of appealing to nationalists, its plan seek to undermine Québec as a nation by cutting it into two separate communities, the franco and the anglo. Québec nationalists I've seen have very badly reacted to the plan.
What about a Montrealer (or someone elsewhere in Canada, for that matter) of neither anglo or franco roots, who speaks both languages fluently? There are more and more living examples of such people. The Trudeau vision of Canada still has force.
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 08 November 2008 09:02 AM
Thanks for reviving that thread, Wilf Day (and thanks gram swaraj for reopening the discussion).The thread was indeed prescient. Two years later, Harper introduced a motion recognizing "Québécois" as a nation (within a united Canada...). The previous Bloc motion, in its English version, recognized all "Quebeckers" as part of the nation. Harper deliberately used "Québécois" in the English version as well - signalling that he was referring only to "French ethnic" Quebeckers. Harper left this issue deliberately ambiguous at the time, but Wilf Day cited Lawrence Cannon getting tripped up and letting the truth slip out. Harper's plan worked - none of the other parties, including the Bloc (which must have figured out what was going on), could afford to vote "no" to the motion. Harper's aim has been consistent: to supplant national rights by ethnic rights - the civic Québec nation (recognized as such by everyone on the Québec political scene) by an amalgam of ethnic groupings.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527
|
posted 09 November 2008 12:18 AM
quote:
originally posted by ferrethouse in previous thread:
The COST of bilingualism to administer and enforce in terms of lost productivity and direct government funding is far greater than whatever perceived benefit you refer to as a "success story".
Hinterland replied: quote:
Everyone prepare themselves for links to the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (...or some old thing from APEC) that categorically proves the statement quoted above. We haven't had that in a few weeks, and I'm pretty sure everyone wants to revisit this perenially baseless canard regarding bilingualism, if only out of pure nostalgia.
And I ask, where are the reports on the BENEFITS accrued from a policy of official bilingualism? And could we include those benefits which are not measured in dollars and cents? [ 09 November 2008: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527
|
posted 09 November 2008 12:41 AM
quote:
originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
How is bi-lingualism worth every penny? Particularily in western Canada?
Good question. A while back I did a six-week French immersion course in Quebec on an all expenses-paid (excluding transportation) federal bursary program. It did wonders for my French, which previously I had only studied in books. I credit this federal expenditure with putting me on the path to becoming fairly functional in French, and I feel I am within reach of becoming fluent. My French skills have helped me professionally and personally. And I am from western Canada. The federal bursary program seeds a larger, healthy injection of money into small towns in Quebec. And it was great getting to know some real Quebecers, eating poutines with them after getting out of the bar, etc.
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527
|
posted 09 November 2008 03:09 AM
At the risk of inviting trolls back (sorry I was too slow to jump in during the first 196 posts)...
quote:
originally posted by CoryWillis:
do we try harder with the Trudeau vision, or do we try something else? I personally support the former, and don't care for Harper's plan, since it divided Belgium more than it brought them together.
Yeah I agree, I say try harder, persist with the Trudeau vision. This would not necessarily make you a Liberal today. The Trudeau vision is what I would call prescient, so prescient that it is still ahead of its time. Bilingual cereal boxes, and whatever else, are fantastic language learning tools.
quote:
originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
why does french get special treatment over other minorities?
Because no other minority has the deep historic importance and continuing political importance to the existence of the country called Canada. (Justice for First Nations is a very different issue, no less important.)
quote:
originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:
Why does the Quebec sign law get a pass when it comes to rooting out intolerance?... how is it so terrible for the french to be a minority amongst the English speakers in North America, but it is okay for the french to shit all over any minority in Quebec?
I don't see the Quebec sign law as intolerance. English is not under threat in North America, whereas French has a harder time. Are minorities really being shit all over by "the french" in Quebec? Gee, why do they stay there, can't they just leave? I have to go back and spend some time there to see for myself.I just got through that first runaway thread. It was good to read a few personal accounts about others benefiting from learning French.
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
