Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[harls]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We've survived worse.

On a déjà vu neiger.

[New Brisavoine]

He's serious this time. Tremble Canada. (kind of confirms the most somber parts of Ignatieff's interview that I haven't quoted... he sounded rather pessimistic and worried about the future of Canada)



And on that note good night to you all, if you can.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The coldest temperature ever recorded in Paris was -23.9C on Dec. 10, 1879. (here people talk about it like you'd talk about the dinosaurs, or saber-tooth tigers hunting early humans 100,000s years ago, or other similar horror stories from antediluvian times) Montréal is basically going to have that temperature on Monday. If we expected a similar temperature here, the media would go absolutely nuts.

On the flip side, Paris gets a lot of grey days for a large part of the year. In North America it's more common to have bright sunny days year-round, although the Pacific Northwest is a bit like parts of Europe. The temperature extremes are interesting but by definition not very common events.

Montreal is a bit extreme in the winter but I really don't think winters in places like NYC or DC are that bad. +2 and sunny can be really nice while +10 and grey can be depressing.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

He's serious this time. Tremble Canada. (kind of confirms the most somber parts of Ignatieff's interview that I haven't quoted... he sounded rather pessimistic and worried about the future of Canada)

It could happen but it seems like following through with this type of coercion would have a major impact on world politics. Wouldn't it be a major crisis for the EU if the US enacts trade policy to force Denmark to give up territory? What's the point of the EU if it doesn't step in to prevent such an event?

There is nobody to save Canada I guess but altering the Canada-US trade relationship isn't trivial for the US.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

He's serious this time. Tremble Canada. (kind of confirms the most somber parts of Ignatieff's interview that I haven't quoted... he sounded rather pessimistic and worried about the future of Canada)



And on that note good night to you all, if you can.

Trump is definitely pinching a loaf. Just look at his ugly face. He's not just ugly on the inside. And that stupid red tie.

[Acajack]

The Supreme Court of Canada will announce next Thursday morning whether it will agree to hear the challenge of Quebec's Bill 21 on secularism (laïcité).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Supreme Court of Canada will announce next Thursday morning whether it will agree to hear the challenge of Quebec's Bill 21 on secularism (laïcité).

The resultant national unity crisis if the SCC agrees will be huge. And this one will be interesting, because Western conservatives will be on Quebec's side on this one. Not because they like Bill 21, but because the implications of the SCC using judicial activism to rewrite the constitution to weaken the notwithstanding clause would be taken as an attack on provincial autonomy more broadly. The Constitution is pretty clear that §33 is absolute and the SCC itself has affirmed this not too long ago.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The resultant national unity crisis if the SCC agrees will be huge. And this one will be interesting, because Western conservatives will be on Quebec's side on this one. Not because they like Bill 21, but because the implications of the SCC using judicial activism to rewrite the constitution to weaken the notwithstanding clause would be taken as an attack on provincial autonomy more broadly. The Constitution is pretty clear that §33 is absolute and the SCC itself has affirmed this not too long ago.

Yeah seems pretty open and shut but who knows. But you have to admit the kind of like Bill 21 too. If this was something against English speakers (yes language is s33 exempt but I mean the principle) the western conservatives might be less supportive.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yeah seems pretty open and shut but who knows. But you have to admit the kind of like Bill 21 too. If this was something against English speakers (yes language is s33 exempt but I mean the principle) the western conservatives might be less supportive.

I dunno. The big tent of the western conservatives includes a lot of religious Christians. I know the bill is generally perceived as an attack on Muslims but I bet a lot of evangelical Christians see it as an attack on their kind too.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The resultant national unity crisis if the SCC agrees will be huge. And this one will be interesting, because Western conservatives will be on Quebec's side on this one. Not because they like Bill 21, but because the implications of the SCC using judicial activism to rewrite the constitution to weaken the notwithstanding clause would be taken as an attack on provincial autonomy more broadly. The Constitution is pretty clear that §33 is absolute and the SCC itself has affirmed this not too long ago.

Is that what it would be?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Is that what it would be?

Yes. The constitution is pretty clear that it may be invoked for any reason. Trying to change it to put limit on it would essentially amount to the SCC making shit up to get their personally preferred outcome - ie. judicial activism. The whole point of the clause is to protect democracy by creating a means to get around judicial activism. Any substantial weakening of it, is essentially the end of parliamentary democracy.

It also protects provincial sovereignty from federally appointed judges. (Although this would could be resolved by having provinces appoint SCC judges instead of the PM, like what Meech envisioned).

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yes. The constitution is pretty clear that it may be invoked for any reason. Trying to change it to put limit on it would essentially amount to the SCC making shit up to get their personally preferred outcome - ie. judicial activism. The whole point of the clause is to protect democracy by creating a means to get around judicial activism. Any substantial weakening of it, is essentially the end of parliamentary democracy.

It also protects provincial sovereignty from federally appointed judges. (Although this would could be resolved by having provinces appoint SCC judges instead of the PM, like what Meech envisioned).

I thought the claim was that it interfered with rights not subject to the notwithstanding clause.

[Acajack]

..............

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The resultant national unity crisis if the SCC agrees will be huge. And this one will be interesting, because Western conservatives will be on Quebec's side on this one. Not because they like Bill 21, but because the implications of the SCC using judicial activism to rewrite the constitution to weaken the notwithstanding clause would be taken as an attack on provincial autonomy more broadly. The Constitution is pretty clear that §33 is absolute and the SCC itself has affirmed this not too long ago.

Yeah there would be fallout for sure, though obviously not as much as a subsequent decision to invalidate Bill 21, coming a year or so after this decision to hear the challenge. (If that is what they decide to do.)

AFAIK this is a bit of a different case from previous ones, as one of the things that is at stake is the suitability or legitimacy of using S. 33 itself.

In previous court challenges (such as for Bill 101), the use of S. 33 was not debated up front, and so the Supreme Court first made its ruling (based on its interpretation of the constitutionality of the law) and then Quebec invoked S. 33 afterwards in order to preserve Bill 101, or at least most of it. The Supreme Court was not involved in that final step.

But at the moment, there is considerable pressure coming from all over the place to somehow restrict or limit the use of S. 33, and no doubt that the Supreme Court judges are among those who aren't too crazy about it.

I still think Quebec's case is on pretty solid ground, and of course the judges are not completely blind to political ramifications. Even if they say they are.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I dunno. The big tent of the western conservatives includes a lot of religious Christians. I know the bill is generally perceived as an attack on Muslims but I bet a lot of evangelical Christians see it as an attack on their kind too.

Yeah that might be true. I don't think English Canada is aware of Bill 21 outside of Muslims who see as you say a direct attack and more evidence of racist Quebec.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I thought the claim was that it interfered with rights not subject to the notwithstanding clause.

It does not. Except very possibly around some of the edges (like with English school boards).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yeah that might be true. I don't think English Canada is aware of Bill 21 outside of Muslims who see as you say a direct attack and more evidence of racist Quebec.

In short, anyone who cares about Bill 21 in the ROC is against it. Most don't care but it could be used as a convenient cudgel against Quebec anyway.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It does not. Except very possibly around some of the edges (like with English school boards).

Yeah the boards are claiming that isn't around the edges which seems very dubious. I suppose if in the future most of the prospective teachers are covered women it could eventually impede their ability to deliver English education though given language policies that seems unlikely though the English boards certainly did lose staff members.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

Montreal is a bit extreme in the winter but I really don't think winters in places like NYC or DC are that bad. +2 and sunny can be really nice while +10 and grey can be depressing.

When I was a kid I remember they had documentaries on French TV explaining how depressions are high in Québec due to long winters, with lots of suicides. They also showed that underground city that they built in the center of Montréal to remain indoor during the coldest days. I remember I found that crazy.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by someone123

Wouldn't it be a major crisis for the EU if the US enacts trade policy to force Denmark to give up territory? What's the point of the EU if it doesn't step in to prevent such an event?

The general consensus here is that the EU countries will just cave in, because their security depends too much on the US. They will accept just anything Trump will ask, with only token resistance if he's really serious.

I find that abject, but what can I say. It's not France's fault. We are fully independent from the US (thanks to de Gaulle), with our own nuclear deterrent, our own fighter jets, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, etc, so we could resist Trump, but the other European countries have never listened to France (they distrust us ever since Louis XIV and Napoleon), and they put all their eggs in the US basket, so now they are prisoner of whatever Trump decides, and France alone cannot change Europe.

Originally Posted by someone123

There is nobody to save Canada I guess but altering the Canada-US trade relationship isn't trivial for the US.

Ignatieff in that interview said the Canadian leadership should organize an international conference with European countries, Mexico, Panama, to make a stand against Trump. He also thinks Canada should be "playing hard ball" (I quote) and stop exporting gas and oil to the US to hurt them (I was thinking wow... pretty bold, but which Canadian PM would ever dare to do that?).