Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by lio45

Meanwhile, the PLQ would absorb QS (both being very urban, woke, very Montreal-based parties and good fits on many issues).

"Very urban" and "woke" to describe the PLQ is the funniest thing I've heard today.

It's a classic liberal party: concerned with individual liberties, which translates into neo-liberal economic policy and hands-off social policy. Its environmental track record is poor. Its base of support is more suburban than urban.

QS is a social democratic party that leans left on every issue, with a particular focus on the environment. Its base of support is in the bobo-écolo-granolo urban parts of both Montreal and Quebec City.

That doesn't even get into the fact that the PLQ is federalist, which is the number one issue for many of its members and voters, whereas QS is sovereigntist, with pretty clear support in its platform for an independent Quebec. Hard to reconcile the two.

Beyond culture war dogma viewed from the perspective of a cultural conservative ("woke!"), there is very little overlap in the real substance of what both parties represent.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by harls

I've gone camping in Old Orchard, Maine with some die-hard separatists. They were told that the staff at the campground were bilingual, and demanded to be served in French.

In the USA.

Like, what?

I got served in French at the Clerk Office in Stewartstown, NH and also at my local realtor’s office in Canaan, VT. Both times without even asking!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by harls

It's like me going to the passport office in Saguenay and being a grade A penis, demanding to be served in English (ok, it's the federal goverment and not some private business.. but come on.. when in Rome).

Agree with you there, the big difference with my above examples is that I absolutely didn’t ask, let alone demand. (I’m a big fan of the “When in Rome” principle, as those who have paid attention to my 15+ years of SSP posts will know!)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

"Very urban" and "woke" to describe the PLQ is the funniest thing I've heard today.

It's a classic liberal party: concerned with individual liberties, which translates into neo-liberal economic policy and hands-off social policy. Its environmental track record is poor. Its base of support is more suburban than urban.

QS is a social democratic party that leans left on every issue, with a particular focus on the environment. Its base of support is in the bobo-écolo-granolo urban parts of both Montreal and Quebec City.

That doesn't even get into the fact that the PLQ is federalist, which is the number one issue for many of its members and voters, whereas QS is sovereigntist, with pretty clear support in its platform for an independent Quebec. Hard to reconcile the two.

Beyond culture war dogma viewed from the perspective of a cultural conservative ("woke!"), there is very little overlap in the real substance of what both parties represent.

Pretty sure the PLQ and QS could find a way to get along on most issues. Except (perhaps) for independence, but no one really believes that QS is a pro-independence party anyway - at least not in its rank and file.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Speaking of airports, in the Franco world, the word used for Terminal is Terminal; not Aerogare. As well, want to hit the duty free, everywhere in the world, the term "duty free" is used. Except in Quebec, where it's "Hors Taxes".

That's Canadian federal government vocab, just so you know. (Though sure, likely to have been coined by Québécois federal public servants. Could be Franco-Ontarians or Acadians too.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

"Very urban" and "woke" to describe the PLQ is the funniest thing I've heard today.

You might find it funny, but it's still accurate

It's a classic liberal party: concerned with individual liberties

That part is only correct if your [apostrophe + s] stands for "was" rather than "is".

Voters concerned with individual liberties AND who aren't thoroughly urban in mindset, are voting for either the CAQ or the PCQ nowadays. The Libâââârté! crowd certainly isn't casting votes for the PLQ of 2024.

Yes, the PLQ used to be a bigger tent party that wasn't only urban and Montreal-based, but it's not anymore.

For an American example, if I said the GOP is mostly not an urban party nowadays and you pulled out numbers from the election of Abe Lincoln saying that I'm wrong because all the cities of the U.S. Northeast voted for him, you haven't contradicted me at all...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Pretty sure the PLQ and QS could find a way to get along on most issues. Except (perhaps) for independence, but no one really believes that QS is a pro-independence party anyway - at least not in its rank and file.

Exactly, on both counts.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

You might find it funny, but it's still accurate


That part is only correct if your [apostrophe + s] stands for "was" rather than "is".

Voters concerned with individual liberties AND who aren't thoroughly urban in mindset, are voting for either the CAQ or the PCQ nowadays. The Libâââârté! crowd certainly isn't casting votes for the PLQ of 2024.

Yes, the PLQ used to be a bigger tent party that wasn't only urban and Montreal-based, but it's not anymore.

For an American example, if I said the GOP is mostly not an urban party nowadays and you pulled out numbers from the election of Abe Lincoln saying that I'm wrong because all the cities of the U.S. Northeast voted for him, you haven't contradicted me at all...

If you are Jean-Guy Dubois who owns Terrassement et Déneigement JGB in St-Valérien-de-Milton, your dad probably voted for the PLQ and so did you until the past decade when you switched to the CAQ.

Now you've probably soured on the CAQ (pandemic handling and other stuff) and may be tempted by the PCQ, but you haven't made up your mind yet if you'll vote for them and the next election is still a long way away. (You might even give the CAQ another chance if they smarten up.)

If you're quite nationalistic and even indépendantiste (fairly rare among self-made entrepreneurs, though) you're probably giving the PQ and PSPP a long hard look and may have already decided they have your vote in 2026.

But anyway you slice it, with all of those options on the table, Jean-Guy Dubois isn't going back to the PLQ anytime soon.

And how many Jean-Guy Dubois are there out there?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Ozabald

Speaking of airports, in the Franco world, the word used for Terminal is Terminal; not Aerogare. As well, want to hit the duty free, everywhere in the world, the term "duty free" is used. Except in Quebec, where it's "Hors Taxes".

There's a difference between "terminal" and "aérogare". At CDG, aérogare 2 is made up of several terminals (2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, and now also 2F and 2G). Terminal is a fully French word, with classic French plural "terminaux", quite different from the English plural "terminals". "Les terminaux d'Orly" for instance.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by harls

I've gone camping in Old Orchard, Maine with some die-hard separatists. They were told that the staff at the campground were bilingual, and demanded to be served in French.

In the USA.

Like, what?

Demanding to be served in French in the USA is rare, and quaint. Demanding to be served in English in Québec is... well you know what it is, and it simply cannot be compared. You're worth better than that.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

I got served in French at the Clerk Office in Stewartstown, NH and also at my local realtor’s office in Canaan, VT. Both times without even asking!

Happened to me in Barcelona too. I was a bit piqued... (as in "my Spanish is not good enough..." when in fact it is pretty good).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Happened to me in Barcelona too. I was a bit piqued... (as in "my Spanish is not good enough..." when in fact it is pretty good).

It actually happens quite a bit in Barcelona.

[New Brisavoine]

Justin Trudeau turned PQ leader?

Poilievre «méprise» les Québécois et la démocratie, accuse Trudeau

Le Devoir
29 février 2024

https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/c...ccuse-trudeau?

[Acajack]

The Quebec* Superior Court has just ruled that Quebec Bill 21 on secularism is legal and constitutional.

It has also struck down an earlier decision from a lower court that granted English schools in Quebec an exemption to the law, which had been justified by sections of the Constitution that allow the anglophone community to manage its own schools. The argument was that allowing teachers to wear any type of religious dress or symbols was a form of anglo community autonomy that could be justified under the principle of letting them manage their own schools. Not anymore.

So, Supreme Court of Canada next?

EDIT: *For those who don't know, in spite of its name the Quebec Superior Court has its judges named by the federal government, and not Quebec.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Quebec* Superior Court has just ruled that Quebec Bill 21 on secularism is legal and constitutional.

It has also struck down an earlier decision from a lower court that granted English schools in Quebec an exemption to the law, which had been justified by sections of the Constitution that allow the anglophone community to manage its own schools. The argument was that allowing teachers to wear any type of religious dress or symbols was a form of anglo community autonomy that could be justified under the principle of letting them manage their own schools. Not anymore.

So, Supreme Court of Canada next?

EDIT: *For those who don't know, in spite of its name the Quebec Superior Court has its judges named by the federal government, and not Quebec.

The English School Board part seems like a no brainer. In what universe is the English minority in need of more Religous symbols. I know now politically they take RoC view that this is only racist and has no merit. I mean sure it does have racist motivations but many people believe in the secular side of this law.

[1overcosc]

One thing I'm not seeing yet: did the QSC rule that the bill is actually constitutional (ie. No notwithstanding clause needed) or did they rule that the bill is unconstitutional but confirmed the notwithstanding clause protects it from struck down?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

One thing I'm not seeing yet: did the QSC rule that the bill is actually constitutional (ie. No notwithstanding clause needed) or did they rule that the bill is unconstitutional but confirmed the notwithstanding clause protects it from struck down?

Not a lawyer and it's a couple of hundred pages, but from what I gather the court has ruled that the use of the NWC is totally valid, and as such no ruling on the rights on 2-7 and 15 of the Charter that it suspends is therefore necessary.

Note that laws that are buttressed by section 33 (NWC) are fully constitutional, since the clause is part of the Constitution.

What would be unconstitutional would be if the government used section 33 when it wasn't allowed to. In this case, the court said it was totally OK.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Quebec* Superior Court has just ruled that Quebec Bill 21 on secularism is legal and constitutional.

It has also struck down an earlier decision from a lower court that granted English schools in Quebec an exemption to the law, which had been justified by sections of the Constitution that allow the anglophone community to manage its own schools. The argument was that allowing teachers to wear any type of religious dress or symbols was a form of anglo community autonomy that could be justified under the principle of letting them manage their own schools. Not anymore.

So, Supreme Court of Canada next?

EDIT: *For those who don't know, in spite of its name the Quebec Superior Court has its judges named by the federal government, and not Quebec.

It is the Québec Court of Appeal that made the recent ruling, confirming the previous ruling by the Superior Court. Both courts get their judges nominated by Ottawa.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not a lawyer and it's a couple of hundred pages, but from what I gather the court has ruled that the use of the NWC is totally valid, and as such no ruling on the rights on 2-7 and 15 of the Charter that it suspends is therefore necessary.

Note that laws that are buttressed by section 33 (NWC) are fully constitutional, since the clause is part of the Constitution.

What would be unconstitutional would be if the government used section 33 when it wasn't allowed to. In this case, the court said it was totally OK.

I know.. what I meant was, in the event that the NWC had not been invoked, would this have been struck down or not?

If yes, the ruling would say something like "this law violates section 15 but because section 33 has been invoked this is moot". The court will always say what would happen if the NWC had not been invoked, because use of the NWC expires after 5 years.

Or did they say the ruling doesn't violate section 15 at all, and therefore the use of the NWC wasn't actually necessary?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not a lawyer and it's a couple of hundred pages

Very Anglo-Saxon. In France the decisions of the higher courts usually contain on one side of a sheet of paper, oftentimes half a page. The beauty of terseness, vs the prolixity of Anglo-Saxon courts.