Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Intervilles was great. That plus a Japanese science show about the Earth that they broadcasted in those same years that I really liked.

As for my mom, it was... this! (not in 1978 as in the US, but way later in France, like late 1980s)

• Video Link

Did you have the French version too in the music?

This series bored me to death...

We have the French versions of all major American series available in Québec. Original English is also always available.

Never watched Dallas so no idea about the music.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Something I noticed today while watching one of the news channels was a commercial from the Canadian Cancer Society. It was for a challenge for people to not drink alcohol for all of February called DryFeb I think.

On the bottom of the screen it had the text "This event does not take place in Quebec" or something like that. I'm used to seeing "void in Quebec" or contests that aren't valid there but this was a new one. I looked further and DryFeb is a program that only done in English. It doesn't strike me as something that would go over well in Quebec society. I've never heard of it in Northern Ontario but I'll keep my ears open and see if anything is done for it here but I doubt it.

Not sure if this answers your question but Dry January seems to be a ROC thing.

Québec has something called 28 jours sans alcool in February. 29 this year.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I had a crush on Marie-Ange Nardi. Intervilles and other shows (Eurovision, etc). But she was much older than me.

I looked her up. I remember her face but not her name. She is even a number of years older than me! (Still good-looking though!)

[Acajack]

Quebec psyop some are discussing...

François Legault is considered by most to still be a separatist at heart but who doesn't think Quebecers are going to go for that which explains why he is with the CAQ.

I've been reading a few people saying that, since he is probably close to retirement, he could be deliberately sinking the CAQ in order to pave the way for the PQ to take power.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quebec psyop some are discussing...

François Legault is considered by most to still be a separatist at heart but who doesn't think Quebecers are going to go for that which explains why he is with the CAQ.

I've been reading a few people saying that, since he is probably close to retirement, he could be deliberately sinking the CAQ in order to pave the way for the PQ to take power.

I'd wager that since Legault's close to retirement, he's just putting his personal political stamp on the province, consequences for the CAQ be damned. Why fight the teachers and nurses otherwise, if not to draw a line in the sand for provincial employee compensation?

The PQ benefiting is just a side-effect, not an intention.

Separatism is mostly a Ottawa-Quebec thing. If he wanted to turn the screws there, he'd provoke unpopular Ottawa, not provincial public sector unions.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I'd wager that since Legault's close to retirement, he's just putting his personal political stamp on the province, consequences for the CAQ be damned. Why fight the teachers and nurses otherwise, if not to draw a line in the sand for provincial employee compensation?

The PQ benefiting is just a side-effect, not an intention.

Separatism is mostly a Ottawa-Quebec thing. If he wanted to turn the screws there, he'd provoke unpopular Ottawa, not provincial public sector unions.

I tend to agree with you. Though he probably wouldn't be too upset to see sovereignty come back in force after he's left politics.

I just like posting stuff that's out there, even if they're not necessarily reflective of my own views or what I think will happen.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I tend to agree with you. Though he probably wouldn't be too upset to see sovereignty come back in force after he's left politics.

I just like posting stuff that's out there, even if they're not necessarily reflective of my own views or what I think will happen.

Why wouldn't he want to leave politics as the founding father of a new nation?

It sure beats leaving politics to become a forgotten prime minister who fought some nurses.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Why wouldn't he want to leave politics as the founding father of a new nation?

It sure beats leaving politics to become a forgotten prime minister who fought some nurses.

I suppose but I think he's gone too far in one direction to turn back now.

Even if he were to jump, PSPP will be the leading man, not him

The time for Legault to do that would have been maybe a year to two ago, when he was still very popular. Now the time has passed - for him anyway.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I suppose but I think he's gone too far in one direction to turn back now.

That wouldn't be the first major U-turn in politics (think of Macron and nuclear power).

Originally Posted by Acajack

The time for Legault to do that would have been maybe a year to two ago, when he was still very popular. Now the time has passed - for him anyway.

That sounds very... crépusculaire.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I suppose but I think he's gone too far in one direction to turn back now.

Even if he were to jump, PSPP will be the leading man, not him

The time for Legault to do that would have been maybe a year to two ago, when he was still very popular. Now the time has passed - for him anyway.

The other question of course is, what would Ottawa do? Would they do like Madrid and now even London, i.e. refuse to authorize an independence referendum?

If they refuse, it seems the PQ is stuck, just as the Catalan and Scottish nationalists are stuck too.

[thewave46]

The timing was wrong for Legault.

One builds the case for this sort of thing when the country's in disarray and things are extremely unpleasant, because contented people don't generally want to rock the boat.

When Ottawa's bringing out the meat cleaver, the economy's in recession, and there's high acrimony is when one takes a swing at the pitch.

1980 and 1995 were not accidental years of chance. They were the culmination of anger and momentum on a broad spectrum of issues.

When one can sell 'We're better off on our own!' is when one does this.

The last decade hasn't hurt nearly enough. Maybe the next one does.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The other question of course is, what would Ottawa do? Would they do like Madrid and now even London, i.e. refuse to authorize an independence referendum?

If they refuse, it seems the PQ is stuck, just as the Catalan and Scottish nationalists are stuck too.

Ottawa doesn't have to give its blessing. Quebec just does it.

When the time is right as can be.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Ottawa doesn't have to give its blessing. Quebec just does it.

When the time is right as can be.

Can they legally organize an independence referendum without the go-ahead by Ottawa? In the UK as in Spain, this is not possible. The central government must authorize the referendum. London has denied Scotland a 2nd independence referendum (despite the fact the UK was created as a free union of England and Scotland).

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I'd wager that since Legault's close to retirement, he's just putting his personal political stamp on the province, consequences for the CAQ be damned. Why fight the teachers and nurses otherwise, if not to draw a line in the sand for provincial employee compensation?

The PQ benefiting is just a side-effect, not an intention.

Separatism is mostly a Ottawa-Quebec thing. If he wanted to turn the screws there, he'd provoke unpopular Ottawa, not provincial public sector unions.

I think this take makes sense and more so he's stated that independence requires an economically powerful Quebec. Putting Quebec on a fiscally prudent path would go a long way. Should Quebec ever be not a net beneficiary but contributor it would be very hard to keep support below 50% for independence though Brexit shows that even in that case the disruption to trade can cause a substantial drop in standard of living. At least there is an argument to be made though. Controlling public spending allows further tax cuts creating growth. Unlike Ford Legault has the fortitude to make unpopular decisions.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The timing was wrong for Legault.

One builds the case for this sort of thing when the country's in disarray and things are extremely unpleasant, because contented people don't generally want to rock the boat.

When Ottawa's bringing out the meat cleaver, the economy's in recession, and there's high acrimony is when one takes a swing at the pitch.

1980 and 1995 were not accidental years of chance. They were the culmination of anger and momentum on a broad spectrum of issues.

When one can sell 'We're better off on our own!' is when one does this.

The last decade hasn't hurt nearly enough. Maybe the next one does.

I think there are pros and cons on both sides. When things are bad, people may be afraid to unmoor from that big country called Canada and face the big ocean alone. On the other hand, when things are doing fine, it seems there is less risk in going it alone.

Also, the 1995 referendum was essentially due to the fact the PQ won the general elections the year before and their leader that year had the guts not to listen to his advisers and call a referendum. I don't think 1995 was due to some high-brow analysis by the PQ who concluded THIS was the year based on thousands of data and variables. It was more a desperate "now or never".

A leader can never be certain that THIS will the year anyway. If you don't want to risk losing, you don't call a referendum. It's as simple as that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Can they legally organize an independence referendum without the go-ahead by Ottawa? In the UK as in Spain, this is not possible. The central government must authorize the referendum. London has denied Scotland a 2nd independence referendum (despite the fact the UK was created as a free union of England and Scotland).

It's noteworthy that the UK is attempting to deny a 2nd referendum to Scotland.

In Canada while there is a great amount of referendum fatigue, it's generally accepted that since Ottawa agreed for the first two to take place, it follows that they need to allow a third. (I guess we'll only know for sure though if Quebec tries again.) We do have the Clarity Act as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act

AFAIK Spain has never allowed Catalonia to hold independence referendums, so any that have taken place have been unofficial or even illegal.

[MolsonExport]

Hey, if you lose two out of three, don't you still lose?

Imagine 50 referendums, and only one, the last one, yields a numerical plurality in favor of independence, a 50.001% OUI vote. Maybe with only 70% participation rate. That's it, nada, no more? As once said by Jean Chretien, you don't break up a country because somebody leaves his glasses at home. Especially since the question is nebulous, and triple-barrelled?

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

and

"The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?

This Agreement sets out the terms under which you may use your RBC
Royal Bank Credit Card. It replaces all previous RBC Royal Bank Visa‡
/
Chargex ‡ or Mastercard ‡ Agreements and applies if we send you a
reissued or replacement Credit Card, including when your Credit Card
expires or if you change to a different RBC Royal Bank Credit Card type
covered by this Agreement. If your Credit Card type is discontinued or is
no longer offered by us for any reason, you agree that we may send you
a replacement Credit Card and that the replacement Credit Card will be
governed by the terms set out in this Agreement. This Agreement also
covers your RBC Royal Bank Credit Card Account.
When this Agreement refers to “you” or “your”, it includes each person
who signed or submitted the Credit Card Application, whose name is on
the Account or to whom a Credit Card on the Account has been issued
(each Credit Card issued on the Account will have its own unique card
number) other than an Authorized User. If this includes more than one
person, “you” means each one of you. All of you are, individually and
together, responsible under and bound by this Agreement. This means
that each of you is fully responsible for amounts owing on the Account,
irrespective of which one of you incurred or which Credit Card was
used to incur any particular charge. The amounts for which you are
responsible include any amounts that may have been owing on your
Account at the time your Credit Card was issued.
“You” and “your” do not include Authorized Users unless otherwise
indicated. An “Authorized User” is a person to whom we have issued a
Credit Card on your Account at your request. The terms under which we
will issue a Credit Card to an Authorized User are set in the “Authorized
Users” section of this Agreement. While your Authorized Users will have
the same ability to charge transactions to your Account as you do, you
will be responsible for all amounts owing on your Account, including
those incurred by Authorized Users. You are also responsible for
ensuring that all of your Authorized Users comply with the applicable
terms and conditions of this Agreement

blah dee blah dee blah blah...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I think there are pros and cons on both sides. When things are bad, people may be afraid to unmoor from that big country called Canada and face the big ocean alone. On the other hand, when things are doing fine, it seems there is less risk in going it alone.

Also, the 1995 referendum was essentially due to the fact the PQ won the general elections the year before and their leader that year had the guts not to listen to his advisers and call a referendum. I don't think 1995 was due to some high-brow analysis by the PQ who concluded THIS was the year based on thousands of data and variables. It was more a desperate "now or never".

A leader can never be certain that THIS will the year anyway. If you don't want to risk losing, you don't call a referendum. It's as simple as that.

There were a certain number of stars that were aligning both in Canada and abroad in the early 90s that led to the 1995 referendum.

The Meech Lake accord that would have seen Quebec finally sign the Canadian Constitution was a big source of tension and political pressure when it collapsed. It was viewed by most people in Quebec as a huge snub and as the rest of Canada slamming the door in Quebec's face.

The Canadian federal government was also going through a crisis at the time in terms of deficits, programs, spending and legitimacy.

And globally it was the last big period where you saw lots of new countries become independent. Mostly due to the collapse of the USSR and Iron Curtain but not only that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Hey, if you lose two out of three, don't you still lose?

Imagine 50 referendums, and only one, the last one, yields a numerical plurality in favor of independence, a 50.001% OUI vote. Maybe with only 70% participation rate. That's it, nada, no more? As once said by Jean Chretien, you don't break up a country because somebody leaves his glasses at home. Especially since the question is nebulous, and triple-barrelled?



and





blah dee blah dee blah blah...

This point would carry more weight if Canada hadn't passed the Clarity Act.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There were a certain number of stars that were aligning both in Canada and abroad in the early 90s that led to the 1995 referendum.

The Meech Lake accord that would have seen Quebec finally sign the Canadian Constitution was a big source of tension and political pressure when it collapsed. It was viewed by most people in Quebec as a huge snub and as the rest of Canada slamming the door in Quebec's face.

The Canadian federal government was also going through a crisis at the time in terms of deficits, programs, spending and legitimacy.

And globally it was the last big period where you saw lots of new countries become independent. Mostly due to the collapse of the USSR and Iron Curtain but not only that.

Political science is always good... at explaining the past.

Nobody thought people would vote for Brexit. They did.

So you know. Anything is impossible. It's just electrifying the campaign that matters really.

On that note: what would your kids vote you think in a 3rd referendum? Here you're often accused of being tempted to vote OUI, but what would your kids vote?

Do you think they would vote OUI out of juvenile easily-roused enthusiasm?

Or do you think they would vote NON because they are what Anglophone media portray as "detached" youths who don't care about the "old battles" of sovereignism?