Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet.

The newly elected QS and PQ MNAs are pulling a Sinn Fein and refusing to say the oath to the King, meaning they cannot take their seats in the National Assembly.

Its my understanding that the requirement for elected members to say the oath to the crown is part of the 1867 Constitution, so they won't be able to get around this requirement.

I get what they're trying to say but effectively disclaiming election is a slap in the face to the voters - by not joining the Assembly, those voters are literally unrepresented.

Ontario of all places allows for an exemption to swearing allegiance to the monarch. For Indigenous people anyway.

I believe Québec would have the authority to take the monarch out of the oath. The CAQ tried in 2019 I think but PLQ bless their hearts succeeded in blocking the move.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

If you don't adapt to your market, you deserve to be squashed by the competition.

Interestingly enough, boycotting a business that refuses to serve people in French is exactly what the opponents of Bill 101 have said should have been the approach all along - let the people decide. Not government by imposing language diktats.

But when the people react like this (the OQLF was not involved yet AFAIK in spite of several clear violations of the law) people still go apeshit anyway.

Obviously any standing up for French or resistance or pushback on English's ubiquity and progress, regardless of who does it, is intolerable to some people.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Interestingly enough, boycotting a business that refuses to serve people in French is exactly what the opponents of Bill 101 have said should have been the approach all along - let the people decide. Not government by imposing language diktats.

But when the people react like this (the OQLF was not involved yet AFAIK in spite of several clear violations of the law) people still go apeshit anyway.

Obviously any standing up for French or resistance or pushback on English's ubiquity and progress, regardless of who does it, is intolerable to some people.

If I understand, in the eyes of the ROC having laws protecting French is fascist, so people should just boycott businesses that don't use French, but boycotting a business operated by minorities (even linguistic minorities) is racist. So, Québécois have 3 options:

1) Being fascists
2) Being racists
3) Bending over and let English dominate

I'll take #4 :

4) Not apologizing for existing and not caring what the ROC think of Québec in the way we protect French.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

If I understand, in the eyes of the ROC having laws protecting French is fascist, so people should just boycott businesses that don't use French, but boycotting a business operated by minorities (even linguistic minorities) is racist. So, Québécois have 3 options:

1) Being fascists
2) Being racists
3) Bending over and let English dominate

I'll take #4 :

4) Not apologizing for existing and not caring what the ROC think of Québec in the way we protect French.

Voilà.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

If I understand, in the eyes of the ROC having laws protecting French is fascist, so people should just boycott businesses that don't use French, but boycotting a business operated by minorities (even linguistic minorities) is racist. So, Québécois have 3 options:

1) Being fascists
2) Being racists
3) Bending over and let English dominate

I'll take #4 :

4) Not apologizing for existing and not caring what the ROC think of Québec in the way we protect French.

#4 and #1 are the same (though “fascist” should be in quotation marks, ideally).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by harls

Lio and Molson seem to be friends now... is that right?

I don’t see that we ever were “not friends”. We just don’t agree on everything 100% of the time.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Not being allowed to take their seats in the Assembly means the MNAs, quite literally, can't do anything

Considering how heavily “party line” the CAQ is and how overwhelming its majority is, the constituents of the PQ ridings are getting MORE done by their MNAs right now (PSPP is in the news daily and has the initiative in this debate) than if they had their seats — where they’d be absolutely useless and powerless; CAQ will have its way for the next four years in the Assembly, and they can’t do anything about that.

The only way to make the CAQ hesitate and reconsider doing something they were going to do is through the media, and that doesn’t require having taken your MNA seat, as long as you have the legitimacy of having won your election (which PSPP and GND both totally have).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Ontario of all places allows for an exemption to swearing allegiance to the monarch. For Indigenous people anyway.

Only for politicians at the municipal level - not MPPs.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I believe Québec would have the authority to take the monarch out of the oath. The CAQ tried in 2019 I think but PLQ bless their hearts succeeded in blocking the move.

Yes and no. They could remove it, but doing so is unconstitutional and probably would be struck down by the courts. And that's the 1867 constitution, not the Charter, so they can't use the notwithstanding clause.

I suppose the goal of the PQ and QS is to create this constitutional drama and then finally say the oath at the end of it.

[lio45]

Yeah, I'd say any trollish residents of the ridings of the MNAs who refuse to take the oath could almost certainly file something in the courts that would eventually generate a byelection (if their elected reps haven't taken the oath by then).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I suppose the goal of the PQ and QS is to create this constitutional drama and then finally say the oath at the end of it.

For the record, I disagree with them. The people had two opportunities to get rid of that oath (1980 and 1995) and voted to keep it.

It's in the 1867 Constitution, and the people of Quebec democratically voted, no less than twice, in favor of it continuing to apply to us.

Any PQ and QS MNAs should take the oath THEN work on getting us out of the situation in which we need to take it. In that order. Not the reverse.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

For the record, I disagree with them. The people had two opportunities to get rid of that oath (1980 and 1995) and voted to keep it.

It's in the 1867 Constitution, and the people of Quebec democratically voted, no less than twice, in favor of it continuing to apply to us.

Any PQ and QS MNAs should take the oath THEN work on getting us out of the situation in which we need to take it. In that order. Not the reverse.

I would agree with that.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yeah, I'd say any trollish residents of the ridings of the MNAs who refuse to take the oath could almost certainly file something in the courts that would eventually generate a byelection (if their elected reps haven't taken the oath by then).

I don't think we have precedent for that in Canada.

In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein has a policy they call "abstentionism" - they run for seats in the UK Parliament and then when they win them, they don't take their seats on purpose, much like what PQ and QS are doing. And they're allowed to just leave their ridings unrepresented the whole term.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I don't think we have precedent for that in Canada.

In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein has a policy they call "abstentionism" - they run for seats in the UK Parliament and then when they win them, they don't take their seats on purpose, much like what PQ and QS are doing. And they're allowed to just leave their ridings unrepresented the whole term.

I guess that's a legit approach, though in this case the voters knew what they were getting into up front.

The PQ (and QS) didn't run on abstentionism at all, so if they don't get represented in the National Assembly, it's a bit unfair to their voters and constituents.

[Acajack]

Overall, I tend to agree with you guys, though I think it's good politicking first by the PQ, as has been the recuperation by QS.

They'll cast themselves as defenders of the nation's honour against colonial imposition, and then the CAQ has to be the bad guy by imposing the official rules on them.

They'll all end up sitting in the National Assembly but they'll have made their point.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Overall, I tend to agree with you guys, though I think it's good politicking first by the PQ, as has been the recuperation by QS.

They'll cast themselves as defenders of the nation's honour against colonial imposition, and then the CAQ has to be the bad guy by imposing the official rules on them.

They'll all end up sitting in the National Assembly but they'll have made their point.

Do you think Legault will actually go through with taking out the oath and triggering a constitutional war that he'll lose?

[lio45]

One thing I've been wondering (just out of sheer curiosity) is whether King Charles is 100% unaware that this is going on, or if His Majesty has heard of it / it's been in the UK news. (These are of course the only two options: totally unaware or vaguely-aware-but-not-gonna-do-anything-about-it.)

[lio45]

One perceived "Legault flaw" is that he's just bark, no bite, towards Ottawa. This seems a lose-lose situation: either we admit we're powerless to do anything about this, or else we try then lose.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

One thing I've been wondering (just out of sheer curiosity) is whether King Charles is 100% unaware that this is going on, or if His Majesty has heard of it / it's been in the UK news. (These are of course the only two options: totally unaware or vaguely-aware-but-not-gonna-do-anything-about-it.)

I believe the monarch gets daily briefings on everything that happens in all 31 "kingdoms" (15 Commonwealth realms, 10 Canadian provinces, and 6 Australian states) he's head of. Not sure how much he actually reads.

Elizabeth II supposedly read them all quite well. Lots of Canadian PMs and provincial premiers have commented on how surprised they were at the level of detail she knew about their governments.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

One perceived "Legault flaw" is that he's just bark, no bite, towards Ottawa. This seems a lose-lose situation: either we admit we're powerless to do anything about this, or else we try then lose.

I see - in that case this is the perfect thing for the PQ to make hay on. Makes total sense now.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

One thing I've been wondering (just out of sheer curiosity) is whether King Charles is 100% unaware that this is going on, or if His Majesty has heard of it / it's been in the UK news. (These are of course the only two options: totally unaware or vaguely-aware-but-not-gonna-do-anything-about-it.)

Doesn't answer your question but Legault actually had a face-to-face private meeting with Charles at the latest global environmental conference (COP 25?).

So I assume he knows who Legault is.