Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Euro-level pro-car still can't hold a candle to Québec. Look up the saga troisième lien to see how much Québec was willing to spend just for a road tunnel for Lévis. In a metro area of less than a million people. Even Anglophone provinces like Ontario and BC would freak out at the price tag.

I don't know. Greater Paris (not the metropolitan authority, but the French State) spent 2.4 billion euros to build a 10 km 4-lane road tunnel in the Western suburbs of Paris, billed the "most expensive road tunnel in the world" at the time (2011).

Suburban voters also use much more predominantly their cars than inner Parisians, and would quite agree to a cap on the price of gasoline (as the far-right proposed in the last elections).

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I don't know. Greater Paris (not the metropolitan authority, but the French State) spent 2.4 billion euros to build a 10 km 4-lane road tunnel in the Western suburbs of Paris, billed the "most expensive road tunnel in the world" at the time (2011).

Suburban voters also use much more predominantly their cars than inner Parisians, and would quite agree to a cap on the price of gasoline (as the far-right proposed in the last elections).

If it was only $2.4 billion for 3e lien it would have already been built They were throwing numbers around in the tune of $8-10 billion for 3e lien tunnel.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The PLQ also bears some responsibility for having allowed right-wing Anglophone municipalities to demerge from the City of Montréal in 2006. This stupid pandering to Anglophone voters has made the City of Montréal more left-wing (which ironically is detrimental to the Anglophone inhabitants of these demerged municipalities, who live on the same island as the City of Montréal and have to use its infrastructure, now decided by more left-wing voters than them...) Brilliant really!
.

The de-mergers weren't a right wing vs left wing thing. It was all about linguistic politics.

Basically most Montreal anglophones want to be subject to the demographic and democratic francophone majority will as little as possible. So they actively seek out any ways to get themselves out of that situation. This was a great one so they seized it.

What the Liberals did was one of the most blatantly electoralist things I have ever seen, with no concern whatsoever for the greater good.

It's hilarious that in some circles the Quebec Liberals are still seen as the party that has the well-being of Montreal closest to its heart!

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Montreal is a huge mix of ideologies, with woke leftism, diversitism and globalism very present in the city, mixed in with more classic leftism, centrism, and Québécois nationalism and separatism.

Most forms of conservatism as understood by other North Americans are not very present there however.

Yes Montreal is weird in that even amongst Anglophones, it leans much more to the left. The majority of Canadian Anglophones attracted to move to Montreal these days are also very leftist.

Even the large majority of Jews in Montreal vote Liberal, despite the fact all the Jewish communities in the Rest of Canada vote overwhelmingly Conservative.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

They were throwing numbers around in the tune of $8-10 billion for 3e lien tunnel.

Yeah, I've just seen that. That seems like a lot. That being said, I tend to be in the "it takes what it takes" camp. Good infrastructure is always good. And it lasts a long time. We're too short-termists these days.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Yes Montreal is weird in that even amongst Anglophones, it leans much more to the left. The majority of Canadian Anglophones attracted to move to Montreal these days are also very leftist.

Even the large majority of Jews in Montreal vote Liberal, despite the fact all the Jewish communities in the Rest of Canada vote overwhelmingly Conservative.

Anglo-Montrealers are as close as you'll get to single (or maybe two-) issue voters in Canada.

They only care about:

- English language rights in Quebec

- Neutralizing even the slightest threat of Quebec independence

The Liberals both federal and provincial generally make those issues their bread and butter, which explains their loyalty.

[Acajack]

Even Québécois nationalists and separatists aren't as obsessed by existential threats as Anglo-Montrealers are.

And that's saying something!

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Anglo-Montrealers are as close as you'll get to single (or maybe two-) issue voters in Canada.

They only care about:

- English language rights in Quebec

- Neutralizing even the slightest threat of Quebec independence

The Liberals both federal and provincial generally make those issues their bread and butter, which explains their loyalty.

The idea Federal or provincial Liberals champion English language rights is laughable. And actually even neutralizing independance is arguably better with CAQ Con governments rather than Liberal. They vote Liberal as it's the only party that isn't openly hostile and makes any effort to court them. I think the Conservatives may suprise in the next election.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The de-mergers weren't a right wing vs left wing thing. It was all about linguistic politics.

Basically most Montreal anglophones want to be subject to the demographic and democratic francophone majority will as little as possible. So they actively seek out any ways to get themselves out of that situation. This was a great one so they seized it.

I know. But I've pointed out the absurdity and own-goal result of it. These Anglophones living in Westmount or Hampstead don't just live within the limited confines of these small municipalities. They live in Montréal, they use the infrastructure of Montréal, but they don't get to decide what Montréal does or how the infrastructure is managed, because they have isolated themselves like little Bantustans. This is both absurd and counter-productive for them, as they let a more left-wing Francophone majority decide for them things that affect them in their daily lives.

Originally Posted by Acajack

What the Liberals did was one of the most blatantly electoralist things I have ever seen, with no concern whatsoever for the greater good.

Yeah, it was rather shameful. And it could have been far worse as they initially intended to fully demerge all the merged municipalities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea Federal or provincial Liberals champion English language rights is laughable. And actually even neutralizing independance is arguably better with CAQ Con governments rather than Liberal. They vote Liberal as it's the only party that isn't openly hostile and makes any effort to court them. I think the Conservatives may suprise in the next election.

The LPC and PLQ records on English language rights in Quebec are imperfect, but in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Who champions them better than the Liberals?

Also the Conservatives are big on provincial autonomy so that involves letting Quebec do what it wants a lot more - Anglo-Montrealers will probably be leery of that.

I saw Poilievre speaking at gatherings in Quebec including in Western Montreal and he spoke very predominantly in French as was all of the promotion and signage if I recall.

Poilievre hasn't yet been forced to write off most of francophone Quebec like the Liberals have, so he's still making a play for some of the nationalist vote - or at least hoping to.

Neither is a sure thing but Francophone Quebec for Poilievre represents in a best-case-scenario way more seats than Anglo-Montreal does.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am sorry but this rebuttal is borderline anti-semitism. While not perfect (such things rarely are) Israelis have more of a historical claim to the lands they occupy than a huge number of people in the world do to where they currently live.

And even so, international law and custom generally dictates that people have a right to live where they and their forebears have lived for a while. Regardless of whether their control of the territory was achieved by noble means or not. If it wasn't the case, then the presence of 99% of the population of North America would be illegitimate. And of course much of the world would be ungovernable.

None of this takes away from the injustices that Palestinians have suffered and that they should also have their own country. But saying even subtly that Israelis have no right to remain where they are is a pretty gross way to approach this, in addition to dooming to failure any attempt at a solution.

I never said Israelis have no right to remain where they are. It’s a complicated topic and as you say, our presence in North America is as well. Both situations represent theft and destruction for Indigenous people on a massive inhumane scale. At least most of us in Canada can now admit to that. Israelis are by and large still lying to themselves and the rest of the world. As for the just outcome, I don’t know what that looks like but it certainly doesn’t look like the current situation. Americans must grow a conscious and a spine on this topic and then place strict humanitarian contingencies on any future support, first of all.

The ancestors of European Jewish people who came from Israel left the territory in 70 CE. They then intermarried and mixed with southern Europeans. Southern Europeans with no middle eastern descent also converted to Judaism thus further diluting that original ancestry. People have claims to lands their ancestors left over 2000 years ago and that is considered a solid claim? The Jewish state in Judea only lasted 200 years.

We all have places our ancestors left within far shorter windows, that they had inhabited for far longer than Jewish people inhabited Israel originally and yet we make no claim to them. We would consider it ludicrous to do so and yet Israelis are given the opportunity by Western powers to do that, to colonize, and slaughter the people who remained there, who may have even been Jewish themselves prior to converting to Islam. It’s insane.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea Federal or provincial Liberals champion English language rights is laughable. And actually even neutralizing independance is arguably better with CAQ Con governments rather than Liberal. They vote Liberal as it's the only party that isn't openly hostile and makes any effort to court them. I think the Conservatives may suprise in the next election.

I'm pretty sure that the wealthy, Anglo demerged municipalities of Montreal island are the most hardcore LPC supporters ever. Like what just happened in a place like St. Paul's in midtown Toronto probably wouldn't happen in Cote St-Luc or Hampstead.

I don't know how much of it is intentional, but the Federal Conservatives probably made a judicious choice after the collapse of the Mulroney "old Tory" Conservatives to ignore Montreal Anglos and establish a Quebec beachhead in conservative Francophone parts of the province like suburban Quebec City, dairy farmers and the Beauce region.

This is smart. When the two solitudes rear their ugly head, I feel that English Canadians feel the LPC panders too much to Quebec (they mean "Montreal", but they don't know it) and Quebecois probably think the LPC panders too much to Quebec Anglos. It's better not to be associated with this.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What the Liberals did was one of the most blatantly electoralist things I have ever seen, with no concern whatsoever for the greater good.

Well, by contrast, what the PQ did in merging the island into one city with further plans to merge the metropolitan area into one city was also very electoralist.

Nobody thought that either manoeuvre was for the greater good of the city. It should have either remained as it was. Failing that, it should have continued as one-island-one-city.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I never said Israelis have no right to remain where they are. It’s a complicated topic and as you say, our presence in North America is as well. Both situations represent theft and destruction for Indigenous people on a massive inhumane scale. At least most of us in Canada can now admit to that. Israelis are by and large still lying to themselves and the rest of the world. As for the just outcome, I don’t know what that looks like but it certainly doesn’t look like the current situation. Americans must grow a conscious and a spine on this topic and then place strict humanitarian contingencies on any future support, first of all.

The ancestors of European Jewish people who came from Israel left the territory in 70 CE. They then intermarried and mixed with southern Europeans. Southern Europeans with no middle eastern descent also converted to Judaism thus further diluting that original ancestry. People have claims to lands their ancestors left over 2000 years ago and that is considered a solid claim? The Jewish state in Judea only lasted 200 years.

We all have places our ancestors left within far shorter windows, that they had inhabited for far longer than Jewish people inhabited Israel originally and yet we make no claim to them. We would consider it ludicrous to do so and yet Israelis are given the opportunity by Western powers to do that, to colonize, and slaughter the people who remained there, who may have even been Jewish themselves prior to converting to Islam. It’s insane.

The numbers have gone up and down over the centuries but Jews never completely left what is present-day Israel and have had a consistent presence there for 2000 years.

Palestinians are actually more recent arrivals to the region and even their consciousness and existence as a people is relatively recent by historical standards.

Certainly way more recent than the Jews.

Still not saying that Palestinians don't have a right to exist and have their own state BTW.

To get us back on track in the thread, the existence of French Canadians as a people conscious of its existence arguably pre-dates that of Palestinians by a couple of centuries.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

Well, by contrast, what the PQ did in merging the island into one city with further plans to merge the metropolitan area into one city was also very electoralist.

Nobody thought that either manoeuvre was for the greater good of the city. It should have either remained as it was. Failing that, it should have continued as one-island-one-city.

The rationale for une île-une ville was much more defensible, logical and completely in line with municipal organzation and re-organization in North America and much of the world.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I never said Israelis have no right to remain where they are. It’s a complicated topic and as you say, our presence in North America is as well. Both situations represent theft and destruction for Indigenous people on a massive inhumane scale. At least most of us in Canada can now admit to that. Israelis are by and large still lying to themselves and the rest of the world. As for the just outcome, I don’t know what that looks like but it certainly doesn’t look like the current situation. Americans must grow a conscious and a spine on this topic and then place strict humanitarian contingencies on any future support, first of all.

The ancestors of European Jewish people who came from Israel left the territory in 70 CE. They then intermarried and mixed with southern Europeans. Southern Europeans with no middle eastern descent also converted to Judaism thus further diluting that original ancestry. People have claims to lands their ancestors left over 2000 years ago and that is considered a solid claim? The Jewish state in Judea only lasted 200 years.

We all have places our ancestors left within far shorter windows, that they had inhabited for far longer than Jewish people inhabited Israel originally and yet we make no claim to them. We would consider it ludicrous to do so and yet Israelis are given the opportunity by Western powers to do that, to colonize, and slaughter the people who remained there, who may have even been Jewish themselves prior to converting to Islam. It’s insane.

Since you are in the Quebec thread let's state there is no ackowldegement there whatsover that the land they are sitting on should be given back. The rest of Canada pays lip service to the idea but it's simply not on.

You are oversimplifying hte history. Jews gradually moved into Ottoman areas buying land and when it all collapsed were a substantial minority combined with a wave of jews fleeing Europe giving them a moral standing to establish a state. The Arabs continually fought for more losing at every single turn. Jews are know obvioulsy completely ensconsed in Isreal proper, a substantial portion of the West Bank which they ocupied in a defensive war and are also never going to give Jeresulem up. Unless the Arabs accept these facts there is no discussion to be had unless they can make life so miserable that the Jews decide any peace is prefferable.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Anglo-Montrealers are as close as you'll get to single (or maybe two-) issue voters in Canada.

They only care about:

- English language rights in Quebec

- Neutralizing even the slightest threat of Quebec independence

The Liberals both federal and provincial generally make those issues their bread and butter, which explains their loyalty.

How extremely and laughably simple of you to reduce a population that numbers anywhere from 700k to 1.1M (depending on the criteria you use) to what amounts to a Journal de Montréal Op-Ed.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The rationale for une île-une ville was much more defensible, logical and completely in line with municipal organzation and re-organization in North America and much of the world.

One only need look down the 20 to the issues that amalgamation has wrought upon another large North American city. Who cares if it was in vogue?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The rationale for une île-une ville was much more defensible, logical and completely in line with municipal organzation and re-organization in North America and much of the world.

Exactly. It's absurd to claim otherwise. Of course the PQ merger was politically motivated, but so was the creation of Greater London in 1962 (Conservatives trying to win London by drowning the left-wing County of London in Conservative outer suburbs), yet nobody can deny that creating Greater London was for the greater good, even if it was politically motivated on the part of the Conservatives. Imagine if Labour had demerged London when they returned to power!

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I don't know how much of it is intentional, but the Federal Conservatives probably made a judicious choice after the collapse of the Mulroney "old Tory" Conservatives to ignore Montreal Anglos and establish a Quebec beachhead in conservative Francophone parts of the province like suburban Quebec City, dairy farmers and the Beauce region.

Agreed that it's smart strategy for Poilievre to target francophone conservatives instead, though I doubt Montreal's West Island was ever old Tory. Westmount has voted Liberal since the beginning of time. If there are old Torys like Mulroney, they don't make up the majority voters. There's even less "Torys" in NDG and Hamsptead.

This is smart. When the two solitudes rear their ugly head, I feel that English Canadians feel the LPC panders too much to Quebec (they mean "Montreal", but they don't know it) and Quebecois probably think the LPC panders too much to Quebec Anglos. It's better not to be associated with this.

Yes. Conservatives want more provincial autonomy and less intrusive federal government, which sits quite well with Quebec nationalists.

Electionist pandering to loud Angryphones is one of the biggest threats to national unity. Along with the Liberal's immigration ponzi schemes upsetting the linguistic balance, Justin is by far the biggest threat to the Canadian confederation since Trudeau Sr IMO.