CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7594
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 5:42 pm
 


MacDonaill MacDonaill:
Mustang1 Mustang1:

Really? Sovereignty's relevancy currently on par with mid 90's or early 80's or 70's? It's slowly becoming immaterial and while its certainly not gone, i suspect that with demographics and immigration it will slowly become a fringe political worldview.


After the loss in 1980, people thought separatism was dead, and it was for a while...

Then there was Meech Lake and Charlottetown.

After the narrowloss in 1995, people again said it was dead, and it was for a while...

Then came the sponsorphip scandal, which pushed support for sovereignty to 54% (luckily, the PLQ was in power, so there was no referendum).

Now the movement is back down, but Quebec nationalism and Quebec separatism are two separate beasts, and all it takes is another crisis with Ottawa for the PQ to make significant gains among soft nationalists. It will always be like that until the issue is settled.


Firstly, separatism, sovereignty-association and Quebec nationalism are not interchangeable terms. Secondly, as i wrote, today's numbers aren't like those of the " mid 90's or early 80's or 70's" and you simple reaffirmed that. The "issue" is dead, it's been settled by two failed plebiscites, constitutional reform, The Clarity Act and Harper's Quebec is a "nation" declaration. It's an archaic political view that's run its course (except for bigots, agenda-pushers and those whom are culturally insecure)


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7594
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 5:45 pm
 


MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Even if, for the moment, separatism's inertia has died down, it doesn't mean that Quebeckers are any happier with the status quo. For the second most populated province to not even want to sign the Constitution, I think it says a lot about how much we do need to stop burying our heads in the sand and settle the issue.


And yet they seem to invoke sec 33 quite a bit. How delightfully hypocritical.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 5:46 pm
 


Back to your boring part of Canada.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 929
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 6:05 pm
 


Both very meaningful and well-developed responses. Really.

I have already retracted the comment about Quebec being the only interesting part of the country and said that it was an exaggeration. I've already made clear that I do appreciate English-Canadian culture and that I go out of my way to enjoy it, but what's most important is that one actually does have to go out of his way.

For example, an apparently excellent, critically acclaimed English-Canadian film was recently released and I am dying to see it, but in order to do so I have to drive an hour to Toronto, pay $20 for parking, $13 for the ticket, maybe $10 for the gas there and back, spend two hours on the road... just to see a film that was made in my own country. Any of the several cineplexes in town would carry it if they thought for two seconds that Canadians would actually be interested in seeing it, but they just aren't. Not my fault. In Quebec, however, even if I don't live in MTL, I can see (French) Canadian movies at the cinema almost any day of the week. Not my fault. Just the way it is.

Canada might be the only country where the only reason most locally produced television shows are only on the air because of government force, even many that I have really liked. It's a shame.

The only Canadian cultural industry that thrives, if one can even say that word in this context, is Canlit. However, that isn't so surprising given that we're talking about reading here, which is a niche market because it's something that most Canadians generally do very little of (but they're certainly not the only ones, so don't think I'm trying to single them out). 42 % of Canadians are semi-illiterate, according to the stats, and even many who are literate often choose not to read anything they don't have to.

Anyway, I digress. If my supposed 'ilk' irk you, tnen I think you're at best mistaken and at worst, it's your loss.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 929
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 6:10 pm
 


Mustang1 Mustang1:
MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Even if, for the moment, separatism's inertia has died down, it doesn't mean that Quebeckers are any happier with the status quo. For the second most populated province to not even want to sign the Constitution, I think it says a lot about how much we do need to stop burying our heads in the sand and settle the issue.


And yet they seem to invoke sec 33 quite a bit. How delightfully hypocritical.


Not really. Even if it hasn't signed the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that they are still bound by it, so if invoking Sec. 33 is the only way they can legally and peacefully protest against certain things they find unfavourable, it's only logical that they should do so. In doing so, they still recognise the sovereignty of the Canadian State. If they did otherwise, it would be the opposite, and Canada would join the ranks of the world's many weak states, unable to inspire the minimum confidence in the ensemble of its population that it takes to govern.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7594
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 6:18 pm
 


MacDonaill MacDonaill:

Not really. Even if it hasn't signed the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that they are still bound by it, so if invoking Sec. 33 is the only way they can legally and peacefully protest against certain things they find unfavourable, it's only logical that they should do so.


It has nothing to do with logic - it's the means to a political end. It's hypocritical and while these separatists whine about an alleged mistreatment of their culture - despite its enshrinement in the constitution - they actually trample other's rights with sec. 33. It's disingenuous and speaks volumes.

$1:
In doing so, they still recognise the sovereignty of the Canadian State. If they did otherwise, it would be the opposite, and Canada would join the ranks of the world's many weak states, unable to inspire the minimum confidence in the ensemble of its population that it takes to govern.


Pure hyperbole. Canada's sovereignty exists and recognition has nothing to do with Quebec. Canada would join the world's many weak states? I think you're scrapping the bottom with this one...i'd ask you to substantiate it, but it will only prove a fruitless endeavor.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1261
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2010 7:02 pm
 


Seriously though, most are indifferent about sovereignty in the province.

Only because that the QC media gives a voice to 25 or so hardcore separatists (RRQ, Loco Locasswipes, Société St-Jean-Baptiste), that should not mean that the outspoken minority should be given more attention than the silent majority on that particular issue.


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 8
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:28 am
 


D'Europe, du reste du monde... le Canada qu'est-ce ?
Un prolongement des Etats-Unis ? Deux peuples ?

S'il y a bien un trait caractéristique de ce pays, c'est celui de l'existence de deux langues.
Quel en est le ressenti ?
Prenons un peu de distance pour éviter tout débat passionné. L'exercice peut sembler difficile.

Quand on pense habiter une terre, de sa langue, de sa culture... on essaie de protéger ce que l'on a.
La question des colonies d'Afrique et d'Asie semble réglée. L'Ecosse, la Catalogne sur l'exemple du Québec construisent leur identité. La question du Tibet et des Territoires palestiniens nous parait sacrifiée à des intérêts plus grands... mais pour qui ?

Il semble facile de pointer du doigt la paille dans l'oeil du voisin... et de se faire donneur de leçons.

La loi 101 est discriminatoire mais pas dans le sens qu'on croit. Discriminer n'est qu'un synonyme de distinguer, discerner. Ainsi le Québec a voté, pour protéger la majorité de ses habitants (francophones pour l'occasion), des mesures de survivance.
Rien à voir donc avec les mesures discriminatoires antérieures faisant de l'Anglais, langue alors de la minorité, la seule officielle du Canada.
Ce ne sont là que des faits.

Didier Eribon écrivait à propos de Deleuze et Mille Plateaux...

Dans Mille Plateaux, en 1980, Deleuze et Guattari développent une théorie de la politique minoritaire. Majorité et minorité ne se définissent pas en termes quantitatifs, mais en termes de domination. (« La majorité suppose un état de domination, et non l’inverse. ») Cela veut dire que « majorité implique une constante, d’expression ou de contenu, comme un mètre étalon par rapport auquel elle s’évalue. Supposons que la constante ou l’étalon soit homme-blanc-mâle-adulte-habitant des villes-parlant une langue standard-européen-hétérosexuel. […] Il est évident que “l’homme” a la majorité, même s’il est moins nombreux que les moustiques, les enfants, les femmes, les Noirs, les paysans, les homosexuels, etc. » Mais être « minoritaire » n’est pas un état, c’est un devenir. La politique « minoritaire », celle qui fait advenir l’histoire, ne consiste donc pas à vouloir constituer une « minorité » comme un groupe, un état, un ensemble stable. Il s’agit de produire et reproduire du « devenir » minoritaire : « Il ne faut pas confondre “minoritaire” en tant que devenir ou processus, et “minorité” comme ensemble ou état. » Et le risque, pour les minoritaires, c’est précisément de se « reterritorialiser » ou de « se laisser reterritorialiser sur une minorité comme état ». C’est pourquoi Deleuze et Guattari peuvent écrire que « même les Noirs ont à devenir Noirs. Même les femmes ont à devenir femmes. Mêmes les juifs à devenir juifs »… Aussi le « devenir minoritaire » doit-il se comprendre comme une « ligne de fuite », qui ne tend pas à créer « un ensemble définissable par rapport à la majorité », mais à produire un mouvement qui peut affecter également ce dont le minoritaire s’écarte et dévie, et qui est lui-même entraîné et modifié par le devenir : « Une femme a à devenir femme, mais dans un devenir-femme de l’homme tout entier. Un juif devient juif, mais dans un devenir juif du non-juif. »

L'histoire contemporaine semble nous montrer que le Québec a suivi cette voie... en s'ouvrant plus que tout autre province, pays au monde, qu'en est-il des anglo-canadiens du ROC ?

L'avancement d'une société ne se mesure pas en termes de branchements internet, d'un rapport favorable aux investisseurs... Eteignons la télé et l'électricité et voyons qui sont nos voisins... Bonjour je m'appelle Chris !


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2372
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:06 am
 


Well written even if the whole English French issue is too emotional to apply a philosophical argument to. Bill 101 pushes things into the realm of spite and just wanting to irrationally "stick it to" the Anglos.

BTW why post this same thing in two separate threads?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7594
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:17 am
 


Benn Benn:
Well written even if the whole English French issue is too emotional to apply a philosophical argument to. Bill 101 pushes things into the realm of spite and just wanting to irrationally "stick it to" the Anglos.

BTW why post this same thing in two separate threads?


And why not only in the Discussion Française threads, if that's his/her posting language?


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 8
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:27 am
 


Benn Benn:
Well written even if the whole English French issue is too emotional to apply a philosophical argument to. Bill 101 pushes things into the realm of spite and just wanting to irrationally "stick it to" the Anglos.

BTW why post this same thing in two separate threads?


Quand la passion s'installe et ne fait avancer le débat, la philosophie est une bonne échappatoire...
Concernant la loi 101, des amendements ont été apportés.
Je ne peux évoquer le ressenti des Québécois d'expression anglaise, mais ils me rassurent par leur présence. Le Québec est une société ouverte.
Que serait finalement un Canada sans francophone et un Québec sans anglophone ?
Le Canada une grande Andalousie ?

Le même message posté sur deux sujets différents pour répondre de la même façon.

Je te remercie de m'avoir répondu en Anglais.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7594
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:46 am
 


Still wondering why this isn't in Discussion Française threads?


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 8
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:58 am
 


Sorry for disturbing you with my post in french, i'm not very good at english. ;-)


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7594
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:18 am
 


takamats takamats:
Sorry for disturbing you with my post in french, i'm not very good at english. ;-)


You weren't "disturbing" me - it's just that there is a designated place for all French discussions, that's all.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4183
PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:53 am
 


there is a difference between protecting a french culture and forcing it on others that are not french, dont you think?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 10  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.