Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

PDF Québec is a far-right hate group masquerading as feminist. They literally encourage trans people to de-transition and opposed the Quebec law that bans conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people.

https://therover.ca/terf-wars-why-is...rans-activism/

PDF was formed when the traditional decades-old feminist organization, the Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ), created and led by many notable women over the decades, went fully woke and started supporting stuff that was toxic towards women simply because it had the proper ideological colour.

It'd be interesting to know which organization is more representative of the views of the average woman in Quebec these days.

As it stands now the FFQ has little credibility and its membership base has collapsed.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Bill 21 would have more credibility if it didn't consider Christianity to be "cultural heritage," thereby allowing public schools to retain their giant crosses and saint's names, and of course public holidays that enshrine Christian traditions like Easter, Christmas and St-Jean-Baptiste (conveniently renamed la fête nationale).

There's a difference between laïcité and catho-laïcité.

Quebec hasn't named anything new for a saint or put up a new cross anywhere in 50 years probably.

It's not anyone alive today's fault if Catholicism has 400+ years of history here and Islam doesn't.

But we're not going to be forced to change every single street and town name in the province, lest we have to accept cops with burqas...

Sorry, that's just not going to fly.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Bill 21 would have more credibility if it didn't consider Christianity to be "cultural heritage," thereby allowing public schools to retain their giant crosses and saint's names, and of course public holidays that enshrine Christian traditions like Easter, Christmas and St-Jean-Baptiste (conveniently renamed la fête nationale).

There's a difference between laïcité and catho-laïcité.

I mean yes and no. It doesn't really have to be credible. Probably the biggest aim is for immigrants who want to come to Canada for economic reasons only but bring their own culture will choose somewhere other than Canada. There are numerous teachers for example who have moved from Gatineau to Ottawa system because of this. It's heralded in English Canada but the idea it's a universal good is questionable.

We are a christian heritage country. It is confusing because we are next to an actual christian country but Christmas and Easter are very important to Canada. The idea Ramadan or Diwali are on the same level is ridiculous. Most of the non-religous immigrants I know also get a christmas tree and exchange gifts. Because it is no longer religous.

Not to mention the Judeo-Christian placing the individual at the forefront of rights are the core of who we are even if Quebec is the most collectivist part of Canada.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Bill 21 and the approach to laïcité was meant to place a line in the sand when it comes to the presence of religions in the public sphere and institutions.

Obviously something like this is going to impact the fastest-growing religions most. Which here and most everywhere in the world happens to be Islam right now.

In the same way that federal anti-smoking campaigns back in the day impacted francophones more than most other demographics, because we tended to smoke a lot more.

Now, one question that could be asked is whether we'd have had a Bill 21 if the fast-growing religion had been Christian? The immediate cynical answer from many in the ROC would be "of course not", but my guess is that if you had US-style evangelical Christianity growing fast and becoming influential in Quebec, with its backward attitudes towards women and sexuality, that there would also have been considerable pushback as well.

Interesting and fair analogy. But a lot of it isn't about religion at all. Quebec can't ban cooking curry in apartment buildings and the like but there is a discomfort with lack of integration (assimilation more generally). The law has a general anti-multicularism aspect to it in line with some politics from France.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Not to mention the Judeo-Christian placing the individual at the forefront of rights are the core of who we are even if Quebec is the most collectivist part of Canada.

Ironically, in the contemporary era it's actually what enables the proliferation and flourishing of non-Christian religions in western countries!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

She's not forgetting but openly opposing the mandate.

How so? Neither of the women pictured seem to be in a publlc position of authority.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

How so? Neither of the women pictured seem to be in a publlc position of authority.

One has some kind of clipboard so presumdely working in some public facing capacity.

That aside. The provincial government has banned public facing civil servants presumedly they are saying the state shouldn't support this. The city highlighting them in ads seems clearly to be a challenge to this. Though granted the argument hasn't been covering should be outright banned but claimed public authorities should be neutral so it's grey area,

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Interesting and fair analogy. But a lot of it isn't about religion at all. Quebec can't ban cooking curry in apartment buildings and the like but there is a discomfort with lack of integration (assimilation more generally). The law has a general anti-multicularism aspect to it in line with some politics from France.

As I keep repeating in the Federal Politics thread, my guess is that high immigration and greater and greater diversity are basically here to stay.

In light of this, some measure of collectivism and shared values probably aren't bad things, and I'd expect a lot more discussion of these themes in Canada in the future than in the recent past - which is to say none, at least outside Quebec.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As I keep repeating in the Federal Politics thread, my guess is that high immigration and greater and greater diversity are basically here to stay.

In light of this, some measure of collectivism and shared values probably aren't bad things, and I'd expect a lot more discussion of these themes in Canada in the future than in the recent past - which is to say none, at least outside Quebec.

The time for such discussions, if they were worth having, was the 1960s. The ship has sailed.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The time for such discussions, if they were worth having, was the 1960s. The ship has sailed.

Mostly true though what it really tells me is that Canadians simply didn't or don't want to do it.

Even if the end result could very well be a Lebanon Lite type of future for the country.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As I keep repeating in the Federal Politics thread, my guess is that high immigration and greater and greater diversity are basically here to stay.

In light of this, some measure of collectivism and shared values probably aren't bad things, and I'd expect a lot more discussion of these themes in Canada in the future than in the recent past - which is to say none, at least outside Quebec.

I think I agree with the idea the consensus is broken. One big advantage over the US and UK we have is if we really turn off the immigration tap we are able to bring net migration down to zero pretty quickly. Family reunification is probably politically essential and we will have some asylum seekers at the land border but the rest we can stop if we have the political will.

It's far from certain of course but I think either path is posisble.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Mostly true though what it really tells me is that Canadians simply didn't or don't want to do it.

Even if the end result could very well be a Lebanon Lite type of future for the country.

I don't know that I'd cite Lebanon in the first instance, but the country has always made special accomodations, as you will well know.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think I agree with the idea the consensus is broken. One big advantage over the US and UK we have is if we really turn off the immigration tap we are able to bring net migration down to zero pretty quickly. Family reunification is probably politically essential and we will have some asylum seekers at the land border but the rest we can stop if we have the political will.

It's far from certain of course but I think either path is posisble.

Breaking that consensus is quite the accomplishment, as it has endured largely unchallenged for the lifetime of anyone living today.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Breaking that consensus is quite the accomplishment, as it has endured largely unchallenged for the lifetime of anyone living today.

Well it's not as deep as it was claimed. There have long been pockets opposed to immigration. Quebec the obvious example for this thread but not only. In the 90s with economic anxiety there as a lot of anti-immigration sentiment. Eventually we just added enough immigrants of high quality that the advantage was so evident it was hard to claim otherwise. But there were always losers and the cultural loss was true outside of Quebec we in English Canada are mostly just resigned to not having culture even when we did that we mostly go along with it. The most culturally unique parts of English Canada mostly didn't get a lot of immigration. Newfoundland is still unique and frankly more distinct than Quebec if we really think about it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well it's not as deep as it was claimed. There have long been pockets opposed to immigration. Quebec the obvious example for this thread but not only. In the 90s with economic anxiety there as a lot of anti-immigration sentiment. Eventually we just added enough immigrants of high quality that the advantage was so evident it was hard to claim otherwise.

Even in the 90s it was never socially acceptable like it is today to say that Canada is letting in too many immigrants.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The most culturally unique parts of English Canada mostly didn't get a lot of immigration. Newfoundland is still unique and frankly more distinct than Quebec if we really think about it.

Newfoundland is only more distinct in terms of the lifestyle aspect of culture. Which isn't nothing, I agree. For the rest not so much.

(And of course Quebec has lots of places with a Newfoundland-ish type of lifestyle within it as well, so these areas are also even more distinct from mainstream North American norms.)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even in the 90s it was never socially acceptable like it is today to say that Canada is letting in too many immigrants.

For the vast majority, the issue isn't immigration, it's the surge in numbers of the last few years. If and when the numbers settle down, peace shall reign again in the land.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Newfoundland is only more distinct in terms of the lifestyle aspect of culture. Which isn't nothing, I agree. For the rest not so much.

(And of course Quebec has lots of places with a Newfoundland-ish type of lifestyle within it as well, so these areas are also even more distinct from mainstream North American norms.)

It's not just lifestyle. It's music, art, food, symbols norms. There just isn't that big a difference between Montreal and Toronto other than language. I think the larger difference is not that they are speaking a different language the real two solitudes is the importance place on language. For Anglophone Canadians west of Quebec especially English is just the medium of communication and other than a few anti immigrant voices not something discussed or thought about.

I haven't been to Gaspe and Saguenay but I don't think it is on the level of Newfoundland and to a lesser extent Cape Breton.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I haven't been to Gaspe and Saguenay but I don't think it is on the level of Newfoundland and to a lesser extent Cape Breton.

Gaspésie once you pass Rimouski is definitely as culturally distinct lifestyle-wise as Newfoundland if not more. If you want even more unique, visit Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

You may not know about it because Gaspésie is never mentioned in English Canadian media. Heck, 9 out of 10 Torontonians/Ontarians don't even know such a region exists.

[Acajack]

While it's true that francophones often tend to exaggerate the importance of language, Anglo-Canadians tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to downplay it.

I feel perfectly comfortable in affirming that I probably know Quebec culture AND Newfoundland to a degree that isn't that common in Canada.

Newfoundland is definitely distinct from the rest of Anglo-Canada and the broader Anglo-America, but it's nonetheless still more ensonced in it than Quebec is.

In Newfoundland the talk shows still come from New York and Los Angeles, and the national newscasts and sportscasts from Toronto. Schoolbooks mostly come from Ontario somewhere.

In Quebec and French-speaking Canada all of that stuff comes from Montreal.

There are artists that can fill the Bell Centre in Montreal several nights in a row that don't even bother to play Toronto at all.

As I've already acknowledged, Newfoundland is one of the biggest outliers in the broader continental anglophone culture. But there is still much greater opportunity for cross-pollination due to the common language. CODCO is much more accessible to someone in Moose Jaw than Rock et Belles Oreilles is.

So I think YOWetal is minimizing the differences, even between Toronto and Montreal. (Maybe basing too much on the McGill crowd being "typical Montreal" in your eyes?)

Sure both are big cities in Canada in North America, not too far apart. But Montreal is still to Toronto what Paris is to London, or maybe Brussels is to Amsterdam.

Also, you mentioned differences in art, food, social norms, etc. All of these exist as differences even within the Ottawa-Gatineau metro area, separated by a river. There are certain foods that are hard to find in supermarkets depending on which side of the river you're on.

[Acajack]

Previous post addressed to YOWetal, not P'tit Renard.