Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[1overcosc]

The Online Harms Act, the Online News Act, and the Digital Services Tax are all dead in the water with Trump in charge. It's now a question of how long Trudeau tries to limp along with these ideas.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

as the US will be adult in the room getting the two kids to play nice.

Trump and "adult in the room"...

But then again, by the time Québec actually reaches the stages of negotiations with Canada post-referendum, Trump may not be in the White House anymore.

(but JD Vance or another crazy might be)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In practice, neither side can really play any "card" against the other, as the US will be adult in the room getting the two kids to play nice.

True. (I’m somewhat amused by the idea that should it happen within the next few years, it’ll be the Trump Administration that’ll be the one adult in the room )

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The Online Harms Act, the Online News Act, and the Digital Services Tax are all dead in the water with Trump in charge. It's now a question of how long Trudeau tries to limp along with these ideas.

Several European countries have said they would go ahead with a DST unilaterally (now that there's no chance of OECD's Pillar I ever becoming reality). I certainly expect France to enact a digital service tax (in fact Macron almost did a few years ago, and it was his decision to do it that pushed the US to enter an international negotiation leading to OECD's Pillar I and II, now dead in the water due to Congress's opposition to both). Insane tax evasion by the GAFAs to Ireland cannot last for ever! People here are sick and tired of it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A lot would depend on Trump I suppose, and how much he likes (or dislikes rather) the prime minister of Canada.

Although by the time Québec becomes independent, Trump may have left the White House already (or changed the Constitution and establish a semi-dictatorship?, or "démocrature" as we call it in French? ).

Do you guys worry about recent events in the US sometimes? It's only a few dozens of miles from Montréal. Here in France the US are far away, and we have our own independent nuclear deterrent, so we're pretty relaxed about what's going on in the US (at least I am). Don't know how I'd feel if I lived literally an hour drive from the US, and in a country so dependent on the US.

I am concerned about two things.

First of all trade and especially tariffs. I don’t want extra taxes slapped on our products as 70% of our exports go to the US.

I am also worried about tens or hundreds of 1000s of illegals in the US panicking at the deportation talk and flowing across our borders.

I am not too concerned about who has to go to which bathroom or locker room in the US.

[New Brisavoine]

If he taxes Canadian goods to the hilt, that would reorient Canada more towards the European market. In that case that would probably make sense to peg the currency of an independent Québec to a basket including the euro.

But I think the bigger worry is of course the future of democracy in the US. That's what would worry me most if I lived an hour drive from the US.

PS: I was checking on a map, the US border is as close from downtown Montréal as a line between Senlis and Compiègne from the center of Paris. That's insanely close! I can't imagine if there was a foreign country that close from Paris, and if on top of it this country was the most powerful in the world, and we wouldn't have any nukes to start with!! You have to be very, very confident in that neighbor...

[Acajack]

The US has always been a bit crazy. As their longtime neighbours we are used to it.

Canadians who are really really concerned about internal affairs of the US are generally those who are confused and think we are the same country.

And yes there are lots of Canadians like this.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In history the modern era starts after the Middle Ages. The US have always lived in the modern era.

Maybe for historians, but for the average person today, even calling 100 years ago "modern times" would be a stretch.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The US has always been a bit crazy. As their longtime neighbours we are used to it.

"Canada is like a loft apartment over a really great party."- Robin Williams

In other words, you get the good, but you get the bad.

You might argue it's more of a mosh-pit (or meth-lab) these days, but it is what it is.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Actually Yamamoto was opposed to attacking the US, as he knew his navy couldn't match the US navy and its industrial potential. The decision was taken by the hardliners from the land army, the infamous Kwantung Army which ravaged China and had already launched several coups in Japan and killed several prime ministers and ministers. The emperor was for a long time not in favor of attacking the US, but in the weeks before Pearl Harbor he was eventually won over by the hardliners around Tojo.

Their reasoning was: a- we can't go on for much longer with the US oil embargo, we will have to stop all military operations in China by the beginning of 1942 at the latest without oil, b- we need the oil fields from the Dutch East Indies to continue the war, c- if we seize these oil fields, we can continue our war in China, BUT the US will most certainly attack us (false premise I think, since the US were very isolationist at the time, and I'm not sure a Japanese attack on the Dutch East Indies alone, without attacking the Philippines, would have pushed the US into war), so d- since the US are going to attack us anyway, we might as well cripple their navy potential by attacking their major vessels in Pearl Harbor. They knew they couldn't destroy the US navy entirely, and they knew they couldn't match the US over the long term, but they thought (the hardliners around Tojo) they could destroy enough of the US navy to have a free hand in East Asia for at least one or two years, by which time they'd be in a favorable position to impose a general peace in their favor.

Not only I think they were wrong about "the US is going to attack us anyway", but above all they were extremely deluded in thinking that after having attacked the US they could expect to negotiate a peace or some sort of armistice in a position of force. They did not realize the depth of US pride and patriotism.

Yes, thanks for the correction. I misspoke on Yamamoto's miscalculation of US industrial might.

However, Pearl Harbor was Yamamoto's plan, and the point I was trying to make was that the attack was intended to cripple the US Navy for a period of time with the intention that Japan would have a military advantage from a devastating surprise attack on a key military target. Attacking a random city wouldn't have accomplished much more than to motivate the US to join the war and defeat Japan.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

those who are confused and think we are the same country.

And yes there are lots of Canadians like this.

There are lots of French people like that too. The French Left was up in arms when the US supreme court struck down Roe vs Wade, as if we were a US state or something! They even asked for the right to abortion to be inscribed in the French Constitution (!) in order to protect us... from the US supreme court?

And naturally, Macron's party dutifully complied. The most ridiculous legal move I've ever seen in France (and I've seen many).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The US has always been a bit crazy. As their longtime neighbours we are used to it.

Canadians who are really really concerned about internal affairs of the US are generally those who are confused and think we are the same country.

And yes there are lots of Canadians like this.

I think that's overstated a little. Average ROCers know that the US has 10 times our population and many many times our wealth and military power (of which we have very little in light of intentional underspending on the military). We also know that any government change can affect our economy a great deal, and thus can be concerned about US internal affairs yet still be aware that we are not the same country... in fact that awareness is the root of our concern.

The flavour of their politics since 2016 (or before, actually) has become decidedly more 'crazy' and divisive, and appears to be continuing to advance in that direction. If you're not concerned, even as a separatist, you're not paying attention, IMHO (but should be).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

There are lots of French people like that too. The French Left was up in arms when the US supreme court struck down Roe vs Wade, as if we were a US state or something! They even asked for the right to abortion to be inscribed in the French Constitution (!) in order to protect us... from the US supreme court?

And naturally, Macron's party dutifully complied. The most ridiculous legal move I've ever seen in France (and I've seen many).

I don't think this is as crazy as you say it is. Empathy and concern over women's reproductive healthcare is a reasonable thing, even if it's not happening in your own country, yet. Given the spread of far-right politics around the world, trying to future-proof the healthcare rights of France's women from potential future far-right political movements is probably a good idea, not a ridiculous one, IMHO.

(I had written a better response, but SSP's new "security measures", i.e. 'are you human?' glitched out, and I don't want to take the time to reconstruct it as I had written it.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think that's overstated a little. Average ROCers know that the US has 10 times our population and many many times our wealth and military power (of which we have very little in light of intentional underspending on the military). We also know that any government change can affect our economy a great deal, and thus can be concerned about US internal affairs yet still be aware that we are not the same country... in fact that awareness is the root of our concern.

The flavour of their politics since 2016 (or before, actually) has become decidedly more 'crazy' and divisive, and appears to be continuing to advance in that direction. If you're not concerned, even as a separatist, you're not paying attention, IMHO (but should be).

Who says I'm a separatist?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't think this is as crazy as you say it is. Empathy and concern over women's reproductive healthcare is a reasonable thing, even if it's not happening in your own country, yet. Given the spread of far-right politics around the world, trying to future-proof the healthcare rights of France's women from potential future far-right political movements is probably a good idea, not a ridiculous one, IMHO.

(I had written a better response, but SSP's new "security measures", i.e. 'are you human?' glitched out, and I don't want to take the time to reconstruct it as I had written it.)

I'm sorry but:
a- fundamentally, abortion is a failure of birth control. There exists the contraceptive pill since the 1960s (which was approved in France 10 years before abortion), condoms, and various other ways to prevent births. When you're at the stage where you need abortion, that means you have neglected all other solutions, and frankly I think it reflects poorly on you. So yes abortion should be allowed to prevent situations of distress even for women who didn't pay attention to the many other ways to prevents births (or for those who couldn't), but abortion should never be the MAIN or FIRST response to control births.

In France, the woman who is almost revered as a saint for having introduced the bill in parliament that legalized abortion in the 1970s (the minister of health Simone Veil, who was a death camp survivor from WW2, and an admirable woman in many ways, she was right-wing and not left-wing by the way), thought of abortion as a health and humanitarian measure for desperate women in need of it, not as an average or main birth control technique. Now it's all been perverted by the French Left, for whom abortion is almost a religion, and they've turned it into a first-line almost principal way to control births, and France is one of the (if not THE) European countries with the most abortions in Europe. This is profoundly wrong.

b- abortion is absolutely in no danger in France. We're not the US. Those opposed to abortion are as minuscule a group as those in the US wishing to remove "in God we trust" from US dollar bills. So there was absolutely no need to inscribe it in the Constitution.

c- from a legal point of view, inscribing it in the Constitution is perverse. The French Constitution is not a catalogue of rights, it's a text explaining how the various branches of government should function, and proclaiming some fundamental values in its preamble. A country for which abortion becomes a "fundamental value" is a deeply sick country. Abortion should be a desperate measure for women in need who have missed all other birth control techniques, not a "fundamental value" of a nation!

d- from a political point of view, who does this generation think they are?? They think they can write something in the French Constitution and prevent future generations from enforcing whatever policies they want to enforce in their time?? This is both very deluded and super egocentric. If French people in 2050 want to ban abortion (which I doubt they will), no abortion right in the French Constitution will prevent them from doing it. They will just change the constitution then. So it's frankly ridiculous, on top of being deluded.

and e- I'm sorry but we're not the 51st state of the USA. I don't care what the US supreme court does, as much as I don't care what the Chinese supreme court does. This overreaction is just the produce of more than 30 years of non-stop US series on our TV screens and now Netflix and whatnot. We've become a cultural colony of the US, and that's frankly sad for a once large and vibrant nation like France.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Who says I'm a separatist?

Not me.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I'm sorry but:
a- fundamentally, abortion is a failure of birth control. There exists the contraceptive pill since the 1960s (which was approved in France 10 years before abortion), condoms, and various other ways to prevent births. When you're at the stage where you need abortion, that means you have neglected all other solutions, and frankly I think it reflects poorly on you. So yes abortion should be allowed to prevent situations of distress even for women who didn't pay attention to the many other ways to prevents births (or for those who couldn't), but abortion should never be the MAIN or FIRST response to control births.

In France, the woman who is almost revered as a saint for having introduced the bill in parliament that legalized abortion in the 1970s (the minister of health Simone Veil, who was a death camp survivor from WW2, and an admirable woman in many ways, she was right-wing and not left-wing by the way), thought of abortion as a health and humanitarian measure for desperate women in need of it, not as an average or main birth control technique. Now it's all been perverted by the French Left, for whom abortion is almost a religion, and they've turned it into a first-line almost principal way to control births, and France is one of the (if not THE) European countries with the most abortions in Europe. This is profoundly wrong.

b- abortion is absolutely in no danger in France. We're not the US. Those opposed to abortion are as minuscule a group as those in the US wishing to remove "in God we trust" from US dollar bills. So there was absolutely no need to inscribe it in the Constitution.

c- from a legal point of view, inscribing it in the Constitution is perverse. The French Constitution is not a catalogue of rights, it's a text explaining how the various branches of government should function, and proclaiming some fundamental values in its preamble. A country for which abortion becomes a "fundamental value" is a deeply sick country. Abortion should be a desperate measure for women in need who have missed all other birth control techniques, not a "fundamental value" of a nation!

d- from a political point of view, who does this generation think they are?? They think they can write something in the French Constitution and prevent future generations from enforcing whatever policies they want to enforce in their time?? This is both very deluded and super egocentric. If French people in 2050 want to ban abortion (which I doubt they will), no abortion right in the French Constitution will prevent them from doing it. They will just change the constitution then. So it's frankly ridiculous, on top of being deluded.

and e- I'm sorry but we're not the 51st state of the USA. I don't care what the US supreme court does, as much as I don't care what the Chinese supreme court does. This overreaction is just the produce of more than 30 years of non-stop US series on our TV screens and now Netflix and whatnot. We've become a cultural colony of the US, and that's frankly sad for a once large and vibrant nation like France.

The first line of defence for anti-abortionists is that it is being used as a main source of birth control, thereby conveniently side-stepping the reality that there are many cases not birth control related that require the procedures used for abortion to literally save women's lives. I'm not going to list them out because it's easy to do the reasearch and learn for yourself... though if you're already caught up in the moral-judgement aspects of it, you probably won't be inclined to do the research anyhow.

The birth control argument is simplistically lazy (or disingenuous), but continues to live on due to religious or political beliefs, sadly.

[New Brisavoine]

Again, close to no one argues about banning abortion in France, and it's never going to become any major movement in the foreseeable future, so you're essentially arguing in a vacuum.

I don't know a more stupid legal move than this inscription of abortion in the French Constitution. Nearly 100% of Constitutional law scholars and professors in France were opposed to it. It says something about the immaturity and lack of legal expertise of our current political class.

[Acajack]

On a higher level going beyond the abortion issue in isolation, yes the US and what goes on inside its borders influences the entire world (especially western countries) but there are still lots of examples of things that are crazy in the US that haven't taken root even in Canada despite the fact we are right next door.

So I still do think that a lot of the interest in internal issues of the US is because many Canadians feel US issues in their bones, as if they're taking place "at home" because "home" psychologically extends to the US.

Here is an example of high school students in Ottawa marching on Parliament to demand gun control *in the US* after yet another school shooting down there. Apparently at the height of the march there were 3000 students participating. (Note that Canada already has gun control and school shootings are extremely rare here.)

https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.4591543

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Again, close to no one argues about banning abortion in France, and it's never going to become any major movement in the foreseeable future, so you're essentially arguing in a vacuum.

I don't know a more stupid legal move than this inscription of abortion in the French Constitution. Nearly 100% of Constitution law scholars and professors in France were opposed to it.

Also note that there is absolutely nothing going on politically in Canada that would indicate that abortion could be (re)criminalized here at any point in the foreseeable future. (Yes we have anti-abortion activists and some of them are elected officials, but they are a small minority and no one with any real power or who could have real power is talking about this.)