Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Honest question: Could the 'discrimination' you faced socially be due to other factors?

I didn't face any discrimination "socially", I'm a nice guy and I always make friends easily. I'm talking about linguistic discrimination while being a customer at various Vancouver locations

Because no one on SSP 'discriminates' against you for having a French accent.

... it's a written board, so, duh.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

I didn't face any discrimination "socially", I'm a nice guy and I always make friends easily. I'm talking about linguistic discrimination while being a customer at various Vancouver locations


... it's a written board, so, duh.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I wonder what they will say if Danielle Smith becomes Premier of AB, passes her Sovereignty act and declares that Alberta is free to pollute all it wants, won't pay equalization and won't follow any Federal laws? In addition she might throw in some anti Quebec and anti francophone stuff too. Will it be fine then?

To reiterate what I already said: Albertans are free to democratically decide to do whatever they want, as long as it concerns them only; they are not free to choose to violate Federal-level laws that were decided / backed by a majority of Canadians. If they want to violate / change Federal laws, they'll need to convince a good chunk of us non-Albertans to agree with them.

So, no, it won't be fine, obviously. And also, it won't work. Danielle Smith knows that (she's not stupid); at this stage it's probably just red meat for the base.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

You could have meant that I occasionally use unnatural phrasing that betrays that I'm not a native English speaker. Some of the foreign SSPers "have an accent" even while sticking to writing, if you know what I mean

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

So, can we expect an official apology from Quebec in about 20 years time for heavily restricting access to English language education in la belle province???

Methinks not.........

If English ever becomes quasi-eradicated globally, then I promise I'll do my best to push my elected representatives to issue an apology for Quebec's (minor) part in the process during the 20th and 21th centuries. (If I'm still alive, of course.)

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

To reiterate what I already said: Quebecers are free to democratically decide to do whatever they want, as long as it concerns them only; they are not free to choose to violate Federal-level laws (Language discrimination, religious persecution) that were decided / backed by a majority of Canadians. If they want to violate / change Federal laws, they'll need to convince a good chunk of us non-Quebecois to agree with them.

Fixed that quote for you.

And yes I agree Smith is just throwing red meat to the base. Climate Change and the tarsands are Alberta's third rail like language laws and hijab bans are Quebec's. Your and other Quebecers' arguments and logic and history of defying the Federal government are being used by right wing demagogues here to promote an anti science, one dimensional industry resource agenda in Alberta.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

You could have meant that I occasionally use unnatural phrasing that betrays that I'm not a native English speaker. Some of the foreign SSPers "have an accent" even while sticking to writing, if you know what I mean

Nah, to your credit your written English is almost flawless and in fact superior to many anglos. Occasionally you use French origin words that are uncommon and sound slightly unnatural but overall I wouldn't immediately guess that English was your second language.

What I meant was you could easily offend many people with your views such as those expressed on SSP.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

If English ever becomes quasi-eradicated globally, then I promise I'll do my best to push my elected representatives to issue an apology for Quebec's (minor) part in the process during the 20th and 21th centuries. (If I'm still alive, of course.)

Because French is quasi eradicated globally? Colonial enclaves across the world say otherwise. La Francophonie is the equivalent of the Commonwealth.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dleung

Ok, now apply that to woke institutions and trans-athletes in colleges, case closed!

Private institutions, just like Alberta within Confederation, can do whatever they want, as long as they don't violate the laws of higher levels of government than them.

I already linked to the 1970s law that private institutions violate whenever discriminating on the basis of race in this country.

(Introduced by democratically-elected legislators! Canadians democratically support the idea of preventing private businesses from having explicitly racist policies, even if they're private entities.)

So, case closed. I'm, as always, on the side of democracy here.

Bottom line is you hide behind democracy when discrimination works for your in-group, but fight it when it benefits minorities.

Patently untrue. Show me ever being on the un-democratic side.

I'm totally on the democratic side on the wokeness issue. You're the one with the fringe / antidemocratic position.

If Canadians ever vote with a majority to change the laws in order to make race-based discrimination by private entities legal in Canada, THEN I'll, as always, have to be okay with that (I'll find it unsavory, obviously, but it's democracy).

[dleung]

^^You're hiding behind legalism again. If the wokeness you're describing is illegal, it wouldn't be happening. If Quebec's discrimination is totally-legal, there wouldn't be all these court challenges (which you vocally oppose). The relevant thing are our own opinions on what is right, not our amateur-hour legal interpretation or speculation on what the stupid/selfish majority supports. Obviously something can be legal and bad at the same time, but when the legal and bad thing benefits your in-group, you focus on "it's legal"; when the legal and bad thing benefits other groups you focus on "it's bad"

Originally Posted by O-tacular

What I meant was you could easily offend many people with your views such as those expressed on SSP.

Any discrimination Lio faces in Vancouver will vanish the moment he takes off that MAGA cap he likely got away with in the hijab-ban province lol

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Private institutions, just like Alberta within Confederation, can do whatever they want, as long as they don't violate the laws of higher levels of government than them.

I already linked to the 1970s law that private institutions violate whenever discriminating on the basis of race in this country.

(Introduced by democratically-elected legislators! Canadians democratically support the idea of preventing private businesses from having explicitly racist policies, even if they're private entities.)

So, case closed. I'm, as always, on the side of democracy here.



Patently untrue. Show me ever being on the un-democratic side.

I'm totally on the democratic side on the wokeness issue. You're the one with the fringe / antidemocratic position.

If Canadians ever vote with a majority to change the laws in order to make race-based discrimination by private entities legal in Canada, THEN I'll, as always, have to be okay with that (I'll find it unsavory, obviously, but it's democracy).

But JT doesn't count though right? Unless he has a supermajority which is basically impossible in a Westminster system he's a tyrant and has no mandate. Now if PeePee wins with the slimmest minority it will be carte blanche though and 'democracy in aciton'.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Fixed that quote for you.

And yes I agree Smith is just throwing red meat to the base. Climate Change and the tarsands are Alberta's third rail like language laws and hijab bans are Quebec's. Your and other Quebecers' arguments and logic and history of defying the Federal government are being used by right wing demagogues here to promote an anti science, one dimensional industry resource agenda in Alberta.

Except there's a massive difference, what Quebec is doing is perfectly constitutional, what Smith promises would not be.

I'm fine with Albertans democratically choosing to do something that other Canadians find stupid/bad, if it's all within the bounds of Confederation.

I might disapprove (just as I do abortion bans in the U.S. and a myriad of other "unenlightened" policies by foreign countries) but that's all I can do. Albertan internal business concerns Albertans only, I don't get a say.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by lio45

Except there's a massive difference, what Quebec is doing is perfectly constitutional, what Smith promises would not be.

The very use of the notwithstanding clause means that it isn't constitutional by definition because its very use is to override sections of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution.

Alberta can do the same on basically anything if it so pleases.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Except there's a massive difference, what Quebec is doing is perfectly constitutional, what Smith promises would not be.

I'm fine with Albertans democratically choosing to do something that other Canadians find stupid/bad, if it's all within the bounds of Confederation.

I might disapprove (just as I do abortion bans in the U.S. and a myriad of other "unenlightened" policies by foreign countries) but that's all I can do. Albertan internal business concerns Albertans only, I don't get a say.

Except you do by blocking pipelines in Quebec and taking our hard earned royalties as equalization payments (arguments used by every Conservative in Alberta ever). Why should Quebec get to opt out of charter discrimination rights with the niqab ban but Alberta can't opt out of Federal pollution laws? If notwithstanding clauses can be used by Legault they can be used by Smith.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The very use of the notwithstanding clause means that it isn't constitutional by definition because its very use is to override sections of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution.

Alberta can do the same on basically anything if it so pleases.

Precisely. In fact UCP and Wexit party politicians are outright pointing to Quebec as the model to copy.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The very use of the notwithstanding clause means that it isn't constitutional by definition because its very use is to override sections of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution.

Alberta can do the same on basically anything if it so pleases.

Nope, Section 33 is a full part of the Charter. And it only applies to stuff from Section 2 and/or Sections 7 to 15 of the Charter.

Alberta is welcome to use Section 33, it's there for that.

In Quebec's Building Law, there are two articles that are super important for old buildings, and they allow buildings to "dodge" a bunch of other articles; since these articles are fully part of the law, a building that "violates Quebec building code" can, through that section of the building code, not actually violate the building code; it complies with it (through the section that says that if it has this or that characteristic, then it's exempted from a bunch of other sections).

This is crystal clear. In fact, it's even totally court-tested. (By yours truly.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Why should Quebec get to opt out of charter discrimination rights with the niqab ban but Alberta can't opt out of Federal pollution laws? If notwithstanding clauses can be used by Legault they can be used by Smith.

Is this even a serious question?

The average Alberta voter has to be even dumber than I thought.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Precisely. In fact UCP and Wexit party politicians are outright pointing to Quebec as the model to copy.

"Danielle Smith promises to use the Charter's NWC to seize Hornets from CFB Cold Lake (Albertan territory) and use them to bomb the Kremlin" would seduce voters, you think? There are a lot of Albertans of Ukrainian heritage

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by lio45

Nope, Section 33 is a full part of the Charter. And it only applies to stuff from Section 2 and/or Sections 7 to 15 of the Charter.

Which is used in situations where the legislation originally violates the Charter. It's a mechanism within the Constitution for situations where provinces knowingly violate the Charter within the Constitution.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Is this even a serious question?

The average Alberta voter has to be even dumber than I thought.

You just can't stand looking in the mirror.