As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Pardon my French [Canadian Politics Thread]

194959799100

Posts

  • BlarghyBlarghy Registered User regular
    If it is, it isn't explicit, because I don't see it.
    I'm genuinely trying to understand here, can you be more clear?

    I agree. The fact that Quebec is a distinct society does provide a potential reason for laws that are protective of its heritage, which the question acknowledges. Its being taken as an attack on distinct society, but I don't necessarily think that it is. But maybe, it could be. And its not quite a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question. Blanchet has openly supported the bill, so a perfectly legitimate answer would be to answer why he feels the bill -isn't- discriminatory. And, to be honest, it's an answer I actually want to hear. There's so much puffery about how criticism is "anti-Quebec" or "ROC doesn't understand" without a good answer to why, on its own merits, the bill isn't discriminatory.

    That's why we're being so harsh in this thread, BTW. We -want- to understand why this bill isn't discriminatory. Throwing out what-aboutism about New Brunswick or Ford or other issues and using that as reasons to avoid answering the question just dances around an actual defense of the bill.

    Caedwyr
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    My dude, there are absolutely elements to both bills that are discriminatory.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    splitting some real arbitrary hairs here my friends.

    One bill is extremely xenophobic while the other is only moderately so? That does not make one "better" than the other.

    None of these bills would fly in any other province.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Taco weddings are the best part of this page, by far.

    Taco trucks and a magician. It's going to be a blast .

    Please tell me these things will be combined. I want magic tricks involving tacos.

    :so_raven:
    Gnome-InterruptusOmnomnomPancakeLordSolarMachariusElvenshaeForar
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The question in question:
    You denied that Quebec has problems with racism yet you defend legislation such as bills 96 and 21, which marginalize religious minorities, anglophones and allophones. Quebec is recognized as a distinct society, but for those outside the province, please help them understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws.

    Honestly the first thing that jumps out to me is it's implicitly defining anglophones as a minority, which is weird.

  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    Lol
    It's ok you guys, bill 21 is bad but because the other bill was also asked about, which I swear is less bad, we can just not answer the question and nobody is racist!

    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
    Disco11Aridhol
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Corvus wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Taco weddings are the best part of this page, by far.

    Taco trucks and a magician. It's going to be a blast .

    Please tell me these things will be combined. I want magic tricks involving tacos.

    The Magician is there to entertain folks while they are waiting for their table to be called for the Taco truck.

    This is wedding #2 for both my fiancee and I so we decided to have a lot of fun with it. also giant Jenga and a bunch of board games..... That created a problem as I am a big boardgame nerd and don't think folks would be really interested in playing Terra Mystica or Eclipse at a wedding and needed to track down some "simple" games

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    Gnome-InterruptusLordSolarMachariusElvenshae
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    shryke wrote: »
    The question in question:
    You denied that Quebec has problems with racism yet you defend legislation such as bills 96 and 21, which marginalize religious minorities, anglophones and allophones. Quebec is recognized as a distinct society, but for those outside the province, please help them understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws.

    Honestly the first thing that jumps out to me is it's implicitly defining anglophones as a minority, which is weird.

    I don't think that phrasing implicitly calls anglophones a minority. Otherwise it would be written: "which marginalize minorities like certain religious groups, anglophones, and allophones."

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Blarghy wrote: »
    That's why we're being so harsh in this thread, BTW. We -want- to understand why this bill isn't discriminatory. Throwing out what-aboutism about New Brunswick or Ford or other issues and using that as reasons to avoid answering the question just dances around an actual defense of the bill.

    The whataboutism was in response to someone saying discrimination against francophones in the ROC would never happen and would get called out hard. I pointed out it does happen and it slips past virtually unchallenged compared to the shit Québec gets. Calling out discrimination wherever you see it is fine, in fact it's admirable. Calling out discrimination in one party while deliberately ignoring discrimination being done by other parties against its language is hypocritical and shitty. That's the crux of the Québec-bashing argument.

    If you want to know why Blanchet thinks Bill 21 isn't discriminatory, you'll have to ask him. I think it's discriminatory. I agree with the basic principle - absolute secularism of the state - but its implementation is shitty and horrible and I'd be happy to see it gone and replaced by something that addresses the underlying social issues and offers support and solutions rather than something that effectively kicks minority women out of the workforce and calls it a day.

    Blanchet kinda dodges the discrimination argument by saying that Bill 21 reflects Québec values. And while yes, secularism is a value shared by a large portion of Québécois (including myself), he conflates support for that general principle with support for Bill 21 specifically and implicitly rejects the values of the Québécois who do not share that value. No one has challenged him on either flaws of his argument, and that's maddening to me.

    That said, Blanchet's main war cry this election period is that it's a provincial law within its powers and jurisdiction and therefore shouldn't be debated or contested federally. His main complaint this election (and in 2019 IIRC) is that people are using a Federal legal-funds program to finance legal battles against Bill 21, which he argues is tantamount to the Federal government challenging the law. Trudeau mounted a weak defense in one of the French debate that the fund is to make legal recourse available to everyone regardless of income. But while Trudeau is 100% in the right and Blanchet is 100% in the wrong on this, the debates are a show and Blanchet is by far the superior showman (despite Trudeau being a drama teacher so this should be the place where he shines) so Trudeau's counter failed miserably and was forgotten by everyone.

    So you see, there are arguments to be made against Blanchet's support of Bill 21, and if Kurl had asked one of those factual and technical questions we would have had an interesting debate that could have exposed the incoherence of Blanchet's position. Instead she went with a blunt "why do you support discriminatory laws" loaded question and inflamed Québec into voting for the Bloc.

    sig.gif
    mrondeauArcticLancershryke
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    The question in question:
    You denied that Quebec has problems with racism yet you defend legislation such as bills 96 and 21, which marginalize religious minorities, anglophones and allophones. Quebec is recognized as a distinct society, but for those outside the province, please help them understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws.

    Honestly the first thing that jumps out to me is it's implicitly defining anglophones as a minority, which is weird.

    I don't think that phrasing implicitly calls anglophones a minority. Otherwise it would be written: "which marginalize minorities like certain religious groups, anglophones, and allophones."

    It absolutely lumps anglophones in with the other two minorities it mentions. You make a list of three things. Two of them are like X. This leaves the impression that the third thing is also like X.

    mrondeauRichyShadowen
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    That's why we're being so harsh in this thread, BTW. We -want- to understand why this bill isn't discriminatory. Throwing out what-aboutism about New Brunswick or Ford or other issues and using that as reasons to avoid answering the question just dances around an actual defense of the bill.

    The whataboutism was in response to someone saying discrimination against francophones in the ROC would never happen and would get called out hard. I pointed out it does happen and it slips past virtually unchallenged compared to the shit Québec gets. Calling out discrimination wherever you see it is fine, in fact it's admirable. Calling out discrimination in one party while deliberately ignoring discrimination being done by other parties against its language is hypocritical and shitty. That's the crux of the Québec-bashing argument.

    If you want to know why Blanchet thinks Bill 21 isn't discriminatory, you'll have to ask him. I think it's discriminatory. I agree with the basic principle - absolute secularism of the state - but its implementation is shitty and horrible and I'd be happy to see it gone and replaced by something that addresses the underlying social issues and offers support and solutions rather than something that effectively kicks minority women out of the workforce and calls it a day.

    Blanchet kinda dodges the discrimination argument by saying that Bill 21 reflects Québec values. And while yes, secularism is a value shared by a large portion of Québécois (including myself), he conflates support for that general principle with support for Bill 21 specifically and implicitly rejects the values of the Québécois who do not share that value. No one has challenged him on either flaws of his argument, and that's maddening to me.

    That said, Blanchet's main war cry this election period is that it's a provincial law within its powers and jurisdiction and therefore shouldn't be debated or contested federally. His main complaint this election (and in 2019 IIRC) is that people are using a Federal legal-funds program to finance legal battles against Bill 21, which he argues is tantamount to the Federal government challenging the law. Trudeau mounted a weak defense in one of the French debate that the fund is to make legal recourse available to everyone regardless of income. But while Trudeau is 100% in the right and Blanchet is 100% in the wrong on this, the debates are a show and Blanchet is by far the superior showman (despite Trudeau being a drama teacher so this should be the place where he shines) so Trudeau's counter failed miserably and was forgotten by everyone.

    So you see, there are arguments to be made against Blanchet's support of Bill 21, and if Kurl had asked one of those factual and technical questions we would have had an interesting debate that could have exposed the incoherence of Blanchet's position. Instead she went with a blunt "why do you support discriminatory laws" loaded question and inflamed Québec into voting for the Bloc.

    Nice post but you seem to be missing the point....

    Does bill 21 affect mostly POC? Yes or no responses only, please.

    If yes = it's a racist law

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    Counterpoint: It doesn't.

    It lumps them together as groups adversely affected by the bills but not all as minorities. Granted there probably is an argument to be had that anglophones are a minority in Quebec. Just not likely a marginalized minority outside of the scope of the bills.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Counterpoint: It doesn't.

    It lumps them together as groups adversely affected by the bills but not all as minorities. Granted there probably is an argument to be had that anglophones are a minority in Quebec. Just not likely a marginalized minority outside of the scope of the bills.

    Not sure you are thinking of the same racist law.

    Bill 21 is the religious freedom one.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    That's why we're being so harsh in this thread, BTW. We -want- to understand why this bill isn't discriminatory. Throwing out what-aboutism about New Brunswick or Ford or other issues and using that as reasons to avoid answering the question just dances around an actual defense of the bill.

    The whataboutism was in response to someone saying discrimination against francophones in the ROC would never happen and would get called out hard. I pointed out it does happen and it slips past virtually unchallenged compared to the shit Québec gets. Calling out discrimination wherever you see it is fine, in fact it's admirable. Calling out discrimination in one party while deliberately ignoring discrimination being done by other parties against its language is hypocritical and shitty. That's the crux of the Québec-bashing argument.

    If you want to know why Blanchet thinks Bill 21 isn't discriminatory, you'll have to ask him. I think it's discriminatory. I agree with the basic principle - absolute secularism of the state - but its implementation is shitty and horrible and I'd be happy to see it gone and replaced by something that addresses the underlying social issues and offers support and solutions rather than something that effectively kicks minority women out of the workforce and calls it a day.

    Blanchet kinda dodges the discrimination argument by saying that Bill 21 reflects Québec values. And while yes, secularism is a value shared by a large portion of Québécois (including myself), he conflates support for that general principle with support for Bill 21 specifically and implicitly rejects the values of the Québécois who do not share that value. No one has challenged him on either flaws of his argument, and that's maddening to me.

    That said, Blanchet's main war cry this election period is that it's a provincial law within its powers and jurisdiction and therefore shouldn't be debated or contested federally. His main complaint this election (and in 2019 IIRC) is that people are using a Federal legal-funds program to finance legal battles against Bill 21, which he argues is tantamount to the Federal government challenging the law. Trudeau mounted a weak defense in one of the French debate that the fund is to make legal recourse available to everyone regardless of income. But while Trudeau is 100% in the right and Blanchet is 100% in the wrong on this, the debates are a show and Blanchet is by far the superior showman (despite Trudeau being a drama teacher so this should be the place where he shines) so Trudeau's counter failed miserably and was forgotten by everyone.

    So you see, there are arguments to be made against Blanchet's support of Bill 21, and if Kurl had asked one of those factual and technical questions we would have had an interesting debate that could have exposed the incoherence of Blanchet's position. Instead she went with a blunt "why do you support discriminatory laws" loaded question and inflamed Québec into voting for the Bloc.

    Nice post but you seem to be missing the point....

    Does bill 21 affect mostly POC? Yes or no responses only, please.

    If yes = it's a racist law

    That's not the point at all. Also, you seem to have missed the part of my post where I said exactly that.

    sig.gif
    ArcticLancershryke
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    That's why we're being so harsh in this thread, BTW. We -want- to understand why this bill isn't discriminatory. Throwing out what-aboutism about New Brunswick or Ford or other issues and using that as reasons to avoid answering the question just dances around an actual defense of the bill.

    The whataboutism was in response to someone saying discrimination against francophones in the ROC would never happen and would get called out hard. I pointed out it does happen and it slips past virtually unchallenged compared to the shit Québec gets. Calling out discrimination wherever you see it is fine, in fact it's admirable. Calling out discrimination in one party while deliberately ignoring discrimination being done by other parties against its language is hypocritical and shitty. That's the crux of the Québec-bashing argument.

    If you want to know why Blanchet thinks Bill 21 isn't discriminatory, you'll have to ask him. I think it's discriminatory. I agree with the basic principle - absolute secularism of the state - but its implementation is shitty and horrible and I'd be happy to see it gone and replaced by something that addresses the underlying social issues and offers support and solutions rather than something that effectively kicks minority women out of the workforce and calls it a day.

    Blanchet kinda dodges the discrimination argument by saying that Bill 21 reflects Québec values. And while yes, secularism is a value shared by a large portion of Québécois (including myself), he conflates support for that general principle with support for Bill 21 specifically and implicitly rejects the values of the Québécois who do not share that value. No one has challenged him on either flaws of his argument, and that's maddening to me.

    That said, Blanchet's main war cry this election period is that it's a provincial law within its powers and jurisdiction and therefore shouldn't be debated or contested federally. His main complaint this election (and in 2019 IIRC) is that people are using a Federal legal-funds program to finance legal battles against Bill 21, which he argues is tantamount to the Federal government challenging the law. Trudeau mounted a weak defense in one of the French debate that the fund is to make legal recourse available to everyone regardless of income. But while Trudeau is 100% in the right and Blanchet is 100% in the wrong on this, the debates are a show and Blanchet is by far the superior showman (despite Trudeau being a drama teacher so this should be the place where he shines) so Trudeau's counter failed miserably and was forgotten by everyone.

    So you see, there are arguments to be made against Blanchet's support of Bill 21, and if Kurl had asked one of those factual and technical questions we would have had an interesting debate that could have exposed the incoherence of Blanchet's position. Instead she went with a blunt "why do you support discriminatory laws" loaded question and inflamed Québec into voting for the Bloc.

    Nice post but you seem to be missing the point....

    Does bill 21 affect mostly POC? Yes or no responses only, please.

    If yes = it's a racist law

    That's not the point at all. Also, you seem to have missed the part of my post where I said exactly that.

    Nice deflection.

    So you are saying bill 21 does not mostly affect POC?

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Counterpoint: It doesn't.

    It lumps them together as groups adversely affected by the bills but not all as minorities. Granted there probably is an argument to be had that anglophones are a minority in Quebec. Just not likely a marginalized minority outside of the scope of the bills.

    Not sure you are thinking of the same racist law.

    Bill 21 is the religious freedom one.

    We're talking specifically about Shachi Kurl's question to Blanchette at the debate.

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Counterpoint: It doesn't.

    It lumps them together as groups adversely affected by the bills but not all as minorities. Granted there probably is an argument to be had that anglophones are a minority in Quebec. Just not likely a marginalized minority outside of the scope of the bills.

    Not sure you are thinking of the same racist law.

    Bill 21 is the religious freedom one.

    We're talking specifically about Shachi Kurl's question to Blanchette at the debate.

    Yes.

    Supporting those laws makes you racist. It's that simple, folks. I don't see why this is so hard for people to parse.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Descendant XDescendant X Outpost 31Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Descendant X on
    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Mix of people remember before the Révolution Tranquille and straight up pure racism. Exact split depend on the person.

    Disco11Gnome-Interruptus
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    If you don't legislate it, religion and its associated bullshit will keep trying to seep back in? I mean, you say that about the theocracy, but I am pretty sure we have an entire separate education system for the purpose of indoctrinating kids into that mystical superstition nonsense. Odd how Dougy never saw that as an efficiency; two school boards? Why?

    Gnome-InterruptusRichyLordSolarMacharius
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    @Disco11 stop it. You are literally ignoring what everyone is saying so you can reply "it's racism" over and over again.

    sig.gif
    shrykemrondeauArcticLancerElaro
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    @Disco11 stop it. You are literally ignoring what everyone is saying so you can reply "it's racism" over and over again.

    You (and Blanchet) keep replying by sidestepping and avoiding a direct question.

    This law mostly affects minorities and POC... How is that not the literal definition of racism?

    I'm being serious. How can you defend something that will make their lives significantly more difficult to work or even receive government services?

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    If you don't legislate it, religion and its associated bullshit will keep trying to seep back in? I mean, you say that about the theocracy, but I am pretty sure we have an entire separate education system for the purpose of indoctrinating kids into that mystical superstition nonsense. Odd how Dougy never saw that as an efficiency; two school boards? Why?

    We've also just lived through the gay rights movement, the main (if not only) opposition to which came from religion, and we're seeing the resurgence of the anti-choice movement. We may not be a theocracy, but religion is still in the wings waiting for a chance to come back in.


    (Also, our head of state, the Queen of Canada, has as one of her titles "defender of the faith", a title which was bestowed upon her by the Canadian Parliament. So we may actually be living in a theocracy, technically speaking. Though I don't think anyone ever defined which faith she's supposed to be defending.)

    sig.gif
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?
    two school boards? Why?
    Serious answer: one of the original issue with Canada, starting from the British conquest, is protecting the right of Catholics, initially in the context of mutual genociding in Europe.
    Some of those protections are actually a minor cause of the US independence.

    So, the Constitution includes protection for Catholic schools, which was acting as a proxy for protection of French schools for a while (it did not work, BTW.)
    Québec actually used the process to amend the Constitution for one province to remove that and use explicit French and English school boards.

  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited September 17
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    OmnomnomPancake on
    Imperfect
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake OttawaRegistered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

    That the law that is being put in place in the name of secularism is 100% targeted towards religions that are practiced by non-whites, essentially.

    It essentially does not affect Christians in any meaningful way even if they by by far the largest religious group in the country that, as you mentioned, have their beliefs soak our society.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    Dissociater
  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake OttawaRegistered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

    That the law that is being put in place in the name of secularism is 100% targeted towards religions that are practiced by non-whites, essentially.

    It essentially does not affect Christians in any meaningful way even if they by by far the largest religious group in the country that, as you mentioned, have their beliefs soak our society.

    I'd largely agree with that.

    It's similar to Voter ID laws crafted by Republican legislators in various American states. The laws are race-neutral in writing and on their face-value intent, but they heavily affect minority populations and have been shown to suppress their voting numbers, to the benefit of these same Republican legislators, who know exactly what they are doing.

    This is populist, fascist bullshit, and I hope this leads to a greater brain-drain/emigration from Quebec, where young people (because previous hires are grandfathered into an exemption) leave the province and seek work and life in more empathetic and accepting parts of our country.

    This happened already in the 1960s and 70s, when the language laws pushed many of the biggest companies/corporations out of Montreal, into the welcoming bosom of Toronto.

    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Disco11Hardtarget
  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    If you don't legislate it, religion and its associated bullshit will keep trying to seep back in? I mean, you say that about the theocracy, but I am pretty sure we have an entire separate education system for the purpose of indoctrinating kids into that mystical superstition nonsense. Odd how Dougy never saw that as an efficiency; two school boards? Why?

    We've also just lived through the gay rights movement, the main (if not only) opposition to which came from religion, and we're seeing the resurgence of the anti-choice movement. We may not be a theocracy, but religion is still in the wings waiting for a chance to come back in.


    (Also, our head of state, the Queen of Canada, has as one of her titles "defender of the faith", a title which was bestowed upon her by the Canadian Parliament. So we may actually be living in a theocracy, technically speaking. Though I don't think anyone ever defined which faith she's supposed to be defending.)

    The Church of England.

    It's why a Catholic can't be king or queen of England.

    sig.gif
    Al_watshryke
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

    That the law that is being put in place in the name of secularism is 100% targeted towards religions that are practiced by non-whites, essentially.

    It essentially does not affect Christians in any meaningful way even if they by by far the largest religious group in the country that, as you mentioned, have their beliefs soak our society.

    I'd largely agree with that.

    It's similar to Voter ID laws crafted by Republican legislators in various American states. The laws are race-neutral in writing and on their face-value intent, but they heavily affect minority populations and have been shown to suppress their voting numbers, to the benefit of these same Republican legislators, who know exactly what they are doing.

    This is populist, fascist bullshit, and I hope this leads to a greater brain-drain/emigration from Quebec, where young people (because previous hires are grandfathered into an exemption) leave the province and seek work and life in more empathetic and accepting parts of our country.

    This happened already in the 1960s and 70s, when the language laws pushed many of the biggest companies/corporations out of Montreal, into the welcoming bosom of Toronto.

    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Toronto is only welcoming if you speak English.

    You, personally, are the kind silly goose that insisted, in the '60s and '70s, that people "Speak White", and moved to Toronto when people answered "Non".
    You are, quite literally, celebrating cultural destruction.

    The actual reality is that English, not French, English, is mandatory and imposed for meaningful participation in public life in Canada, including Québec.
    Right now, at this very moment, it is impossible for me and many other to have any kind of work where I don't spend most of my time working in English, in Québec.
    That's true for basically all high paying jobs.

    Richyshryke
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

    That the law that is being put in place in the name of secularism is 100% targeted towards religions that are practiced by non-whites, essentially.

    It essentially does not affect Christians in any meaningful way even if they by by far the largest religious group in the country that, as you mentioned, have their beliefs soak our society.

    I'd largely agree with that.

    It's similar to Voter ID laws crafted by Republican legislators in various American states. The laws are race-neutral in writing and on their face-value intent, but they heavily affect minority populations and have been shown to suppress their voting numbers, to the benefit of these same Republican legislators, who know exactly what they are doing.

    This is populist, fascist bullshit, and I hope this leads to a greater brain-drain/emigration from Quebec, where young people (because previous hires are grandfathered into an exemption) leave the province and seek work and life in more empathetic and accepting parts of our country.

    This happened already in the 1960s and 70s, when the language laws pushed many of the biggest companies/corporations out of Montreal, into the welcoming bosom of Toronto.

    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Could not have said it better.

    When I see their politicians bristling at being called racist.... Have you tried, you know, not being a populist fascist cloaking your xenophobia in "secularism"?

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

    That the law that is being put in place in the name of secularism is 100% targeted towards religions that are practiced by non-whites, essentially.

    It essentially does not affect Christians in any meaningful way even if they by by far the largest religious group in the country that, as you mentioned, have their beliefs soak our society.

    I'd largely agree with that.

    It's similar to Voter ID laws crafted by Republican legislators in various American states. The laws are race-neutral in writing and on their face-value intent, but they heavily affect minority populations and have been shown to suppress their voting numbers, to the benefit of these same Republican legislators, who know exactly what they are doing.

    This is populist, fascist bullshit, and I hope this leads to a greater brain-drain/emigration from Quebec, where young people (because previous hires are grandfathered into an exemption) leave the province and seek work and life in more empathetic and accepting parts of our country.

    This happened already in the 1960s and 70s, when the language laws pushed many of the biggest companies/corporations out of Montreal, into the welcoming bosom of Toronto.

    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Toronto is only welcoming if you speak English.

    You, personally, are the kind silly goose that insisted, in the '60s and '70s, that people "Speak White", and moved to Toronto when people answered "Non".
    You are, quite literally, celebrating cultural destruction.

    The actual reality is that English, not French, English, is mandatory and imposed for meaningful participation in public life in Canada, including Québec.
    Right now, at this very moment, it is impossible for me and many other to have any kind of work where I don't spend most of my time working in English, in Québec.
    That's true for basically all high paying jobs.

    Having grown up in Quebec the English taught in schools was laughingly bad and non-functional.... By design. They don't want you to ACTUALLY learn it, yeah?

    They want to keep you trapped in QC with no options to move.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

    That the law that is being put in place in the name of secularism is 100% targeted towards religions that are practiced by non-whites, essentially.

    It essentially does not affect Christians in any meaningful way even if they by by far the largest religious group in the country that, as you mentioned, have their beliefs soak our society.

    I'd largely agree with that.

    It's similar to Voter ID laws crafted by Republican legislators in various American states. The laws are race-neutral in writing and on their face-value intent, but they heavily affect minority populations and have been shown to suppress their voting numbers, to the benefit of these same Republican legislators, who know exactly what they are doing.

    This is populist, fascist bullshit, and I hope this leads to a greater brain-drain/emigration from Quebec, where young people (because previous hires are grandfathered into an exemption) leave the province and seek work and life in more empathetic and accepting parts of our country.

    This happened already in the 1960s and 70s, when the language laws pushed many of the biggest companies/corporations out of Montreal, into the welcoming bosom of Toronto.

    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Toronto is only welcoming if you speak English.

    You, personally, are the kind silly goose that insisted, in the '60s and '70s, that people "Speak White", and moved to Toronto when people answered "Non".
    You are, quite literally, celebrating cultural destruction.

    The actual reality is that English, not French, English, is mandatory and imposed for meaningful participation in public life in Canada, including Québec.
    Right now, at this very moment, it is impossible for me and many other to have any kind of work where I don't spend most of my time working in English, in Québec.
    That's true for basically all high paying jobs.

    Having grown up in Quebec the English taught in schools was laughingly bad and non-functional.... By design. They don't want you to ACTUALLY learn it, yeah?

    They want to keep you trapped in QC with no options to move.

    Yet I managed to learn it, without any difficulty. Which is the only reason I can have a decent job.

    RichyHandkor
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

    That the law that is being put in place in the name of secularism is 100% targeted towards religions that are practiced by non-whites, essentially.

    It essentially does not affect Christians in any meaningful way even if they by by far the largest religious group in the country that, as you mentioned, have their beliefs soak our society.

    I'd largely agree with that.

    It's similar to Voter ID laws crafted by Republican legislators in various American states. The laws are race-neutral in writing and on their face-value intent, but they heavily affect minority populations and have been shown to suppress their voting numbers, to the benefit of these same Republican legislators, who know exactly what they are doing.

    This is populist, fascist bullshit, and I hope this leads to a greater brain-drain/emigration from Quebec, where young people (because previous hires are grandfathered into an exemption) leave the province and seek work and life in more empathetic and accepting parts of our country.

    This happened already in the 1960s and 70s, when the language laws pushed many of the biggest companies/corporations out of Montreal, into the welcoming bosom of Toronto.

    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Toronto is only welcoming if you speak English.

    You, personally, are the kind silly goose that insisted, in the '60s and '70s, that people "Speak White", and moved to Toronto when people answered "Non".
    You are, quite literally, celebrating cultural destruction.

    The actual reality is that English, not French, English, is mandatory and imposed for meaningful participation in public life in Canada, including Québec.
    Right now, at this very moment, it is impossible for me and many other to have any kind of work where I don't spend most of my time working in English, in Québec.
    That's true for basically all high paying jobs.

    Having grown up in Quebec the English taught in schools was laughingly bad and non-functional.... By design. They don't want you to ACTUALLY learn it, yeah?

    They want to keep you trapped in QC with no options to move.

    Yet I managed to learn it, without any difficulty. Which is the only reason I can have a decent job.

    Same here.

    But not everyone is as gifted as we clearly are.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Man, all this discussion every few years keeps making me flip flop all over the place when it comes to French and Francophone culture.

    Some days its "Yeah, it's a pretty important part of Canadian culture, there should be work put into preserving it."

    Other days its "For fuck's sake Quebec, the other 12 provinces/territories have kinda/sorta worked this shit out, why can't you?". The ol' "9 out of 10 dentists agree... that 1 guy is a prick" joke.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
    SteelhawkShadowhope
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I don’t want to ask a stupid question here, but don’t we already have a secular society by default? I mean, it’s not like we go about our business under the auspices of a theocracy.

    Why do we need to legislate something that already exists?

    Ontario has four separate publicly funded school boards - a legacy of the English/French Protestant/Catholic compromise. Churches are also largely exempt from paying federal taxes. Much of the country's jurisprudence (even after post-1982 reassessment/constitutional upheaval) is thick with Judeo-Christian values throughout upheld legal precedents. Our national anthem has, 'God keep our land'.

    Or,shit, as Richy has noted, the Queen has "Defender of the Faith", and the Monarchy (a heavily religious institution/role) remains of immense constitutional and practical importance, as her representative literally signs our laws into ascent.

    Like, we're not even nominally secular. Religion and the tensions within the Christian faith soak our society.

    Yet the law we discussed affects mostly non-Christians religions....

    Weird, yeah?

    The person I quoted asked if we had a secular society by default, and I replied with examples showing that we do not, and in some ways we actually do go about our business under the auspices of a sort of theocracy (a monarchical ruler, for one).

    Could you be clearer on what you are trying to specifically say?

    That the law that is being put in place in the name of secularism is 100% targeted towards religions that are practiced by non-whites, essentially.

    It essentially does not affect Christians in any meaningful way even if they by by far the largest religious group in the country that, as you mentioned, have their beliefs soak our society.

    I'd largely agree with that.

    It's similar to Voter ID laws crafted by Republican legislators in various American states. The laws are race-neutral in writing and on their face-value intent, but they heavily affect minority populations and have been shown to suppress their voting numbers, to the benefit of these same Republican legislators, who know exactly what they are doing.

    This is populist, fascist bullshit, and I hope this leads to a greater brain-drain/emigration from Quebec, where young people (because previous hires are grandfathered into an exemption) leave the province and seek work and life in more empathetic and accepting parts of our country.

    This happened already in the 1960s and 70s, when the language laws pushed many of the biggest companies/corporations out of Montreal, into the welcoming bosom of Toronto.

    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Toronto is only welcoming if you speak English.

    You, personally, are the kind silly goose that insisted, in the '60s and '70s, that people "Speak White", and moved to Toronto when people answered "Non".
    You are, quite literally, celebrating cultural destruction.


    The actual reality is that English, not French, English, is mandatory and imposed for meaningful participation in public life in Canada, including Québec.
    Right now, at this very moment, it is impossible for me and many other to have any kind of work where I don't spend most of my time working in English, in Québec.
    That's true for basically all high paying jobs.

    That bolded line? Yeah, that is a pretty reprehensible thing to say to someone having a conversation with you in good faith. Why not engage with their argument instead of just erroneously calling them a racist?

    I don't know what your job is but if you work with groups outside of Quebec (or NB) why do you expect people to be speaking french to you?

    HardtargetShadowhope
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Québec doesn't get equalization payments "as a total bribe", it gets it for the same reason almost every province gets it, to equalize living conditions across the country. And it doesn't get "troves" of equalization. Equalization is given out per capita, so of course being the second-most populous province we get a larger total amount, but like I said it's given out per capita, and per capita we get less than the other provinces that receive it. This is seriously such a bad take on equalization payments that it sounds copy-pasted from a Wexit website.

    sig.gif
    Gnome-InterruptusLordSolarMacharius
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Crazy that Quebec gets these troves of annual equalization payments as a total bribe to keep them in the country as the francophone minority, and meanwhile we have to respect that they're persecuting the minorities within their 'distinct society'. Like fuck off entirely with that shit.

    Québec doesn't get equalization payments "as a total bribe", it gets it for the same reason almost every province gets it, to equalize living conditions across the country. And it doesn't get "troves" of equalization. Equalization is given out per capita, so of course being the second-most populous province we get a larger total amount, but like I said it's given out per capita, and per capita we get less than the other provinces that receive it. This is seriously such a bad take on equalization payments that it sounds copy-pasted from a Wexit website.

    To be fair QC has not received less than it's paid out.... Ever. The rest of the country cannot say the same. Quebec received 13.1 Billion last year.... While the rest of the country COMBINED received 7.8B with this being pretty in line with the last 20 years.

    Do you not see why some people get angry about this? QC keeps getting rewarded for failing.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Having grown up in Quebec the English taught in schools was laughingly bad and non-functional.... By design. They don't want you to ACTUALLY learn it, yeah?

    They want to keep you trapped in QC with no options to move.

    As opposed to the marvelously fluent French speakers the French-as-second-language and French-immersion classes in the ROC have been producing? Hell they don't even bother teaching Québec/Canadian French, they teach European French. I've lived 12 years in Ontario (both southern and northern) and, aside from people born and raised in those small francophone communities in the north, I have never met an adult who learned French in school and could string a sentence together, never mind hold a conversation. Québécois people are, for the most part, functional in English.


    Or maybe you could not be a jerk and realize that a language is something you need to use continuously to master, not something you can just to learn in class and call it a day. The reason Ontario people who don't live in Francophone communities forget all the French they learned is because they never use it, because they never need to. The reason Québécois are functional in English is because they need to be either for their work, their entertainment (for those who don't like translations or like niche material that isn't translated) or to travel outside the province.

    Which brings us right back to why French language protection is necessary and English language protection is not.

    sig.gif
    mrondeauThis
This discussion has been closed.