T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
325.1 | | OTOO01::POND | | Wed Jun 27 1990 13:30 | 2 |
| Truth all of it. Quebec is playing with fire.
JP
|
325.2 | May the Farce be with you | RTL::HINXMAN | Sufficient unto the day | Wed Jun 27 1990 17:15 | 5 |
| Another reason why the U.S. would not want to absorb Canada
is that they would find the Canadian sense of humour dangerously
subversive.
Tony
|
325.3 | the americans went through the exercise one time | 8713::HOE | Sammy, why are you so quiet? | Wed Jun 27 1990 17:53 | 7 |
| Back in the late 60's, early 70's, when the separtists were
starting to be heard, the national Security Council for the then
President Nixon, developed a paper that said that if Canada is to
be separated, the only province that would benefit them would be
British Columbia.
cal
|
325.4 | | OTOO01::POND | | Wed Jun 27 1990 18:44 | 4 |
| Why B.C.?? Forest products? Deep water port? Agriculture?
Seems weird...you would think if BC had something that valuable
(like more valuable than Ontario), they would be doing more to
exploit Washington state and Oregon...
|
325.5 | Water & trees | VAOU02::HALLIDAY | Look to the future | Wed Jun 27 1990 20:01 | 6 |
| They *do* exploit Washington and Oregon - this is painfully obvious
when you fly over the clear cuts.
As for B.C., they are particularly interested in our water and lumber.
...laura
|
325.6 | natural beauty, fish and water in BC | 8713::HOE | Sammy, why are you so quiet? | Thu Jun 28 1990 11:33 | 7 |
| Laura,
They also like our natural beauty, fishing industry, and like you
said, water. California is hungry for water and will get it any
way it can.
cal
|
325.7 | I think Alaska is the reason | POLAR::RICHARDSON | He who laughs best | Thu Jun 28 1990 11:57 | 5 |
| I think B.C. makes sense because it separates the lower 48 from Alaska.
With B.C. as a State, it would be easier to build more pipelines and
increase energy development.
Glenn
|
325.8 | | OTOO01::POND | | Thu Jun 28 1990 13:06 | 5 |
| Glenn,
Does this have anything remotely to do with whirly-twirlies? If
not, why are you mentioning it.
JP
|
325.9 | That's some W-T!! | KAOM25::RUSHTON | Unscathed by inspired lunacy | Thu Jun 28 1990 13:38 | 4 |
| Shush, Jim! Glenn's sitting on his washing machine agitator and turned
the dial to...EMULSIFY?!
Pat
|
325.10 | | MQOFS::DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Thu Jun 28 1990 14:20 | 12 |
| From the Montreal Office Gazette:
I agree, we are the Bangladesh of Canada, if we were to separate, we
would instantly die of hunger, thirst....we have no industry to speak
of, most of the population is on welfare and any institution that has
any standing is state owned. One would be foolish to live here and
even worse to MOVE here. Just keep away from here and you will live a
LOT better.
Jean (try to get straight FACTS before making up your mind)
|
325.11 | let me tell you more about Qu�bec | MQOA02::LEBEL | Moi mes souliers avons beaucoup... | Thu Jun 28 1990 15:08 | 9 |
| Jean you forgot to mention that we didn't want to be part of the
second world war and the first for that matter, so we are coward
as well.
Marc
P.S. and 'they' wonder why some quebecquers are considering other
options. Let me tell you, That i do not have a lot of respect for
the people that are questionning the value of a different culture.
|
325.12 | You lost me | OTOU01::BUCKLAND | and things were going so well... | Thu Jun 28 1990 15:22 | 21 |
| re: .10 & .11
Pardon?
Jean, where did you get that article from, who wrote it, and what was
it written in response to? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me as the
only references to Bangladesh that I recall were related to the
physical separation of the Atlantic Provinces from the rest of Canada
should Qu�bec cecede. No one mentioned famine, let alone related
Bangladesh with Qu�bec.
Marc, who are 'they'? And who are the people that question the value
of different cultures? My reading (of this notesfile) is that people
are questioning the use of legal bludgeons not the culture itself.
Cheers,
Bob
BTW, in all cases where a group is oppressed one has the choice of
lowering the oppressor or raising the oppressed. Both will give
equality, only one improves the lot of the oppressed.
|
325.13 | So lets HEAR some FACTS. | CSC32::PITT | | Thu Jun 28 1990 15:37 | 30 |
| re last.
I don't understand who is questioning the value of a differant culture?
Certainly not in anything I've read so far.
No one questions the French Culture, or the Enlgish culture or the
Chinese culture or ANY culture for that matter.
I think the article was only trying to point out that with Quebecs
(and it did mention the Atlantic provinces as well) current
unemployment rate, dependancy on federal funding, and political
problems, that it would not be wise for the US to inherit the
province and all of it's problems.
Quebec would not be able to pull the things they are pulling now.
In the US, you would NOT be able to say "if you speak X you will be
expelled", or "you will not have your sign in X language or you will
be fined". I don't know of ANY free country in the world who would
permit that kind of OPPRESSION to occur. (but I don't know EVERY
country and it's customs...of course Iran is probably a possibility).
Speaking of: WHILE the French speaking Canadians of Quebec were
oppressed (which I am still not clear on), were there laws saying that
ALL signs MUST be in ENGLISH ONLY?
PSS: I didn't know that PQ didn't want to join in WWI or II. What was
the reasoning? Did we not see Hitler as a threat? I have never heard
that before.
-c-
If it is true, then it was before my time.
And I'm old.
|
325.14 | | 8713::HOE | Sammy, why are you so quiet? | Thu Jun 28 1990 16:50 | 5 |
| Re .12
.10 (Jean) is referring to the base note, I believe.
cal
|
325.15 | | OTOU01::GANNON | Mind that bus! What bus? SPLAT! | Thu Jun 28 1990 16:55 | 16 |
| RE: 325.11 MQOA02::LEBEL "Moi mes souliers avons beaucoup..."
> Jean you forgot to mention that we didn't want to be part of the
> second world war and the first for that matter, so we are coward
> as well.
> Marc
Marc, Can you clarify this? I have heard that national service during
the 2nd World War was not mandatory in Quebec even though Canada had
declared war on Germany. I find this hard to believe since most of the
Canadians who gave their lives lost them in France while helping to free
that country. Why wouldn't French Canadians help the French? I know of
several Quebec Anglophones who did fight in WW II.
- Gerry
|
325.16 | WWII. Where WERE we? | CSC32::PITT | | Thu Jun 28 1990 17:58 | 4 |
| ditto the last question. My Dad was in France in WWII. Why did Quebec
decide not to go?
-c-
|
325.17 | | OTOU01::BUCKLAND | and things were going so well... | Thu Jun 28 1990 18:10 | 5 |
| re: .13 by -c- PITT
� re last.
Was this supposed to be re: .11?
|
325.18 | | OTOU01::BUCKLAND | and things were going so well... | Thu Jun 28 1990 18:12 | 5 |
| re: .14 by cal HOE
Note .10 by Jean refers to an article in the Montr�al Gazette.
My questions to Jean were related to the article and it's author.
|
325.19 | Dacca = Quebec City ? | BTOVT::BOATENG_K | Ahem!Gabh mo Leithsceal,Muinteoir! | Thu Jun 28 1990 20:52 | 27 |
| Re. 10
Are you sure you are/were not referring to Clyde Wells' NeFld ?
The economy of Quebec is probably stronger than the economy of
most of the southern US states. 'cept Texas ?
[I mean one-on-one comparison. Like Quebec's economy compared to Alabama's
BTW: One US newspaper report stated this:
[ A tourist agency named GLOBAL EXCHANGE has anounced a series of
tours entiled "Third World in US-America"
The tour intends to escort tourists to areas of Virginia and West
Virginia - the appalacian coal mining areas to show them living
conditions right in our backyards light years away from the glitz
of Hollywood. ]
This tourist agency is based in San Francisco. A 64 year old woman
from Minneapolis said "..curiosity drew her and nine others on a
ten day journey billed as Appalachia: Third World in United States"
Anybody else heard of this ?
Perhaps the 20% Quebecers which W.S.Journal claimed wanted to "join"
the US Americans can take a few of those trips as a form of orientation.
|
325.20 | | MQOFS::DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Fri Jun 29 1990 11:40 | 13 |
| The article was titled "Montr�al OFFICE Gazette", I composed it and a
previous note attributed it to THE Gazette so it is quite easy to see
how the truth or even fiction can and does get distorted when it is:
posted from memory OR translated. As to french Canadians refusing to
enlist and go to war, it is quite true, I guess we must be pacifists.
Then again it took a declaration of war for the US to enter both world
wars whereas Canada was at war only to defend the crown jewels (if I
had a choice between my "jewels" and the crown's, just guess which ones
I would protect). BTW were all these draft dodgers from the
Viet-Nam war unpatriotic?
Jean
|
325.21 | | KAOM25::RUSHTON | Unscathed by inspired lunacy | Fri Jun 29 1990 12:21 | 16 |
| It wasn't just French-speaking Canadians who refused to go to war,
English-speaking Canadians had a mutiny at Terrace, BC; in the Somme;
and AFTER WWI, in England because they weren't allowed to go home.
Conscription in both wars was met with riots, not as many as in Qu�bec,
but still in other parts of Canada. During WWII, conscription
for 'home service' was prevalent but you had to 'volunteer' to go
overseas (what a laugh).
On the other hand, I wouldn't call General Georges Vanier and the 'Van
Doos' a bunch of 'Uncle Toms' for distinguishing themselves.
I'm not a monarchist so it came as a bloody great surprise to hear
that Jacques Parizeau asked for respect for the institution of the
monarchy, and that he was actually FOND of the Queen. My God!! Man
can give birth!
|
325.22 | Please don't take offence, she IS an old bag | MQOFS::DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Fri Jun 29 1990 12:39 | 8 |
| Jacques only said that because he wants to be king of La Premi�re
R�publique Ind�pendante du Qu�bec Souverain or because he got used to
her face on all our coins and bills (ok the old ones) she did kinda
look nice in 1955, but if he ever saw the old bag today, he may just
change his mind.
Jean
|
325.23 | Chinese Canadians in WWII | POLAR::HO | | Fri Jun 29 1990 13:56 | 2 |
|
|
325.24 | What about Chinese-Canadians in WW 11 ? | BTOVT::BOATENG_K | Ahem!Gabh mo Leithsceal,Muinteoir! | Fri Jun 29 1990 14:18 | 1 |
|
|
325.25 | | POLAR::HO | | Fri Jun 29 1990 15:34 | 8 |
| Re .24
As French Canadians refused to go war. Chinese Canadians as I heard
volunteered to serve the country in WWII. Even though the Chinese
population in Canada now stands around 800,000, a visible minority, we
have been trying hard to serve the country such as building the trans
Canada railway, many had died during its construction. We the only
minority required to pay the head tax, but we still love the country.
|
325.26 | Chinese served Canada inspite of prejudicial treaytment | 8713::HOE | Sammy, why are you so quiet? | Sat Jun 30 1990 19:38 | 13 |
| In WWI, my Uncle Dan just turned 18 so he was subject to
conscription. Just prior to WWI, the head tax for each chinese
baby was imposed on the Chinese immigrants (note, they are
immigrants only because they were not given citizenship,
including those that were born in Canada ).
My grand father sent Uncle Dan back to China to study in a
chinese university.
But that is past. The Chinese-Canadians are represented in
Canadian politics and are very much part of Canadian society.
cal
|
325.27 | | SIOG::EGRI | | Wed Jul 04 1990 10:00 | 12 |
| Hey Jean,
I'm not a monarchist either so it amuses me when a person, such
as yourself (intelligent?) starts calling the Queen a BAG. Sounds
pretty childish. I've always wondered why French Canadians felt
that way. But just to show you that I'm sometimes childish myself
I always felt the same way about DeGaule (sp?). Why the French revered
this gutless wonder I'll never know? And why he spent the war in
England when he hated the country and the people so much tells me
a lot about him.
Ted (a CANADIAN QUEBECER)
|
325.28 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Wed Jul 04 1990 10:17 | 5 |
| Interesting consideration too is that Jacques Parizeau is a graduate
of Oxford ... no wonder he speaks impecable English. But, that said,
Oxford and Cambridge seem to breed more than their fair share of
revolutionaries, including, I believe Khadaffi.
|
325.29 | | MQOFS::DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Wed Jul 04 1990 13:33 | 6 |
| ok ok ok, replace bag by hag. We used to call Ren� Levesque "ti-poil",
Trudeau was PET etc etc. People in the limelight do get that treatment
and they should not get upset by it, neither should you.
Jean
|
325.30 | Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :-) | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Wed Jul 04 1990 14:02 | 16 |
| I'm not sure your replacement was any better ... in fact, I'd say
it was worse. I dunno about not getting upset by it ... I think
either word has a lot of disrespect associated with it. There is
a certain parallel to walking on flags potentially at stake here.
I think what you are probably trying to find is one of those non-
committal nicknames like Mulroney is often referred to as Mulooney
after the introduction of the famed coin. Not really an insult, but
not really a pet name either. I cannot think of such a name of hand
for the queen ... but neither hag nor bag cut it ... In England
you might use the term "some old dear" to describe an old woman,
but not meaning that she was endearing at all (but not meaning that
she wasn't either). Just to prove how confusing it is though, at the
same time we might say "be a dear ..." and intend endearment.
|
325.31 | HM = Her Majesticness? | KAOM25::RUSHTON | Unscathed by inspired lunacy | Wed Jul 04 1990 16:25 | 24 |
| Or, one could take a page from the Irish and call her 'ElizaBrit'.
That ain't too bad, is it? Or, Betty Windsor, maybe? At least
Windsor is ahelluva lot better than Saxe Coburg und Gothe.
Other examples abound where the 'people in the limelight' are given
irreverent names:
Brian Mulroney Lyin' Brian, the jaw that walks,
The Prime Mover, The Right Horrible
Brain Baloney.
Margaret Thatcher The Iron Lady, Attila the Hen
Jean Chr�tien Jean Cretin
Richard Nixon Richard Nixon
By the way Jean, I printed the Digital-Qu�bec logo. Impressive, except for
the pink border. Should it have been red? Maybe I should reset my colour
map.
Pat
|
325.32 | appologies to all royalists | MQOFS::DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Wed Jul 04 1990 16:31 | 21 |
| ok, I retract everything I said about Her Majesty, it was not meant in
disrespect not any more than crowning Jacques Parizeau King.
BTW, you can buy $74's worth of Qu�bec's future currency for $2.49
(Canadian) at some convenience stores and they have replaced Her
Majesty's portrait with Lucien Bouchard on the $2, Jacquo on the $5 and
Ti-poil on both the $10 and $20. They could have put a different
picture on the $10, like Lord Dorchester, after all Ren�'s name has
replaced his on what used to be boulevard Dorchester.
Jean
I solemly promise never to make light of the British monarchy as long
as Stuart could be aware of the delations I may have professed.
PS Stuart do you know what kind of motorcycle I ride these days?
A NORTON, true British iron! well at least this limey (no disrespect
intended here) follows MY commands, sometimes because it seems to have
a mind of it's own once in a while.
|
325.33 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Thu Jul 05 1990 09:35 | 14 |
| > BTW, you can buy $74's worth of Qu�bec's future currency for $2.49
> (Canadian) at some convenience stores and they have replaced Her
Reminders of the days when some enterprise shipped out fake Confederate
Money.
> I solemly promise never to make light of the British monarchy as long
> as Stuart could be aware of the delations I may have professed.
Sorry Jean, I cannot always be around to save you from the monarchists
and royalists. :-) Anyways ... people believe I'm a monarchist
and they might be right! One day the wolves will get you! :-) :-) :-)
Stuart
|
325.34 | I kinda like the old Broad. | CSC32::PITT | | Sat Jul 07 1990 00:45 | 5 |
| re .27
ditto (and however you say ditto en Francais)
:-)
|
325.35 | | SIOG::EGRI | | Tue Jul 10 1990 09:44 | 8 |
| I don't have any feelings about the Queen either way. I just wish
they'd stop calling her the "Queen of Canada". Irish people keep
telling me my country is ruled by England which reall ticks me off.
The strange thing is that I pay a ground rent on my house in Dublin
and the money actually goes to some English landlord somewhere in
England. And the Irish try to tell me they got rid of the Brits.
Ted.
|
325.36 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Tue Jul 10 1990 10:06 | 17 |
| As the Queen of England, she is the Canadian Head of State, and as
such the title Queen of Canada makes perfect sense. I'm not sure of
the actual "correctness" of the term, although I've heard it from
high ranking officials here. She is also described as Queen of
Australia and just about every other commonwealth country that
recognizes her as head of state. I've also heard her referred to
as Queen of the Commonwealth.
Until 198? when the Canadian constitution was patriated, it was a
British act of parliament, so apart from her figurehead position
of head of state, Canada is no longer in a legal sense ruled by
England.
Many might say we are ruled far more by the US than England, even
though we are a sovereign nation!
Stuart
|
325.37 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jul 10 1990 12:14 | 12 |
| >Queen of Canada... not sure of the actual "correctness" of the term
It's exactly as correct as "Queen of England." Her actual full title
includes both, as well as all the other places she's queen of.
>Canada is no longer in a legal sense ruled by England.
True with respect to Parliament, but nothing changed with respect to
the monarchy. 'Course she's just as much your Queen as theirs, so I
s'pose that means England is ruled by the Queen of Canada...
/john
|
325.38 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Tue Jul 10 1990 12:43 | 9 |
| >True with respect to Parliament, but nothing changed with respect to
>the monarchy. 'Course she's just as much your Queen as theirs, so I
>s'pose that means England is ruled by the Queen of Canada...
I daresay that is true if you can call our Constitutional Monarchs
actual rulers. Although technically possible, I cannot for one
moment imagine the Queen actually "ruling".
Stuart
|
325.39 | | RTL::HINXMAN | Sufficient unto the day | Tue Jul 10 1990 12:50 | 6 |
| re .38
Isn't it the case that the Queen's powers in Canada are delegated
to the Governor-General?
Tony
|
325.40 | | SIOG::EGRI | | Tue Jul 10 1990 13:50 | 10 |
| I know the significance of the Queen as a figure-head in Canada.
It's all those other non-Canadians who keep telling me all about
my own country. And everything they tell me is wrong. I don't tell
the Irish about Ireland. I feel they know more about their own country
than I do but in a some cases I'm not so sure.
My wife's uncle, who is Welsh, keeps telling me that the national
anthem of Canada is The Maple Leaf Forever. I've given up arguing.
Ted.
|
325.41 | | KAOM25::RUSHTON | Unscathed by inspired lunacy | Tue Jul 10 1990 14:09 | 6 |
| <<My wife's uncle, who is Welsh, keeps telling me that the national
<<anthem of Canada is The Maple Leaf Forever. I've given up arguing.
Anyone who has a leek as a 'national' emblem has got to be questionable.
Pat
|
325.42 | | KAOO01::BORDA | On the Horns of an Enema | Tue Jul 10 1990 14:28 | 6 |
|
You mean it's not The Maple Leaf Forever????..say it isn't so!!!!
No wonder I've had such a hard time trying to fit the words to the
tune they keep playing at all the hockey games...
|
325.43 | Whirly Twirly anthems | VAOU02::HALLIDAY | Look to the future | Tue Jul 10 1990 17:37 | 7 |
| Rumor has it that the Tories wanted a new national anthem for Canada
anyway...you know, the one where people at baseball games are polite to
some Mexicans...(`Jose can you see...').
I never even *heard* _The Maple Leaf Forever_ until I was in my teens.
...laura
|
325.44 | | KAOO01::BORDA | On the Horns of an Enema | Tue Jul 10 1990 17:44 | 7 |
|
I s this the new anthem for Jose Canseco in honour of his pathetic
28 million dolaar contract???
Best keep the polticians especially the senators away from this
guys business manager.
|
325.45 | | OTOU01::BUCKLAND | and things were going so well... | Tue Jul 10 1990 18:53 | 3 |
| re: .41 by Pat
Careful Pat, That's my mum you're talking about.
|
325.46 | hey guv! | HYDRA::MCALLEN | | Mon Jul 16 1990 21:35 | 9 |
|
re .39 -
Yes, please let's hear more about the GOVERNOR-GENERAL.
Is it within the authority of the governor-general to
suspend operation of some parts of the government?
For example, to close the water faucet before the Grand Canal
has become totally filled?
|
325.47 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Tue Jul 17 1990 10:27 | 14 |
| re .46
Just as it is in the power of the Queen to do assorted things to
alter the operation of government, so it is with the g-g, since
the g-g is the agent of the Queen in Canada. Now, in practice, the
only time the monarch or her agent gets involved is when the p.m.
requests her action, such as for the dissolution of parliament to
call an election., or to call by-elections. These are all in fact
actions of the monarch and not the p.m.
So, yes it is within the authority of the g-g to suspend operation
of some parts of the government and he/she regularly does so !
Stuart
|
325.48 | Figureheads | VAOU02::HALLIDAY | Look to the future | Tue Jul 17 1990 12:17 | 10 |
| The Queen, Governors General and Lieutenant Governors are, in theory,
the final decision makers - no bill may become law without their
assent, which these days means a rubber stamp. In theory the same lot
appoint cabinet members, but, again, this merely means rubberstamping a
list proposed by the Premier or Prime Minister.
I only know of one occasion where Royal Assent was witheld - a
Lieutenant Governor sent a bill back for another look.
...laura
|
325.49 | wanna go for a walk? | KAOFS::RODERMOND | | Tue Jul 17 1990 12:28 | 15 |
| The G-G is hardly a figure head I'd say. The last one had enough power to put
the police at the gates of her back yard and keep out all tourists and
assorted ottawa rifraf (who were fond of taking strolls thru the grouds.
Now when it seems that they are turning this decision around, no-one kan be
found who made the orignal decision and everyone says "not my shift!". So
noone can take this much wanted stroll yet.
Thats the best thing about canada, don't you think....trying to make those
summer guards loose their cool and blink? I betcha amerika has no institution
like this!
my .02c worth on the g-g
F
|
325.50 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Tue Jul 17 1990 13:23 | 9 |
| If you were willing to pay, you could put up fences and gates around
your house and pay for security guards as well to keep out tourists
and assorted ottawa rifraf too you know! Mind you do people apart
from the paper deliverer, mail person and junk delivery people take
regular strolls through your yard ?
This is hardly POWER !
|
325.51 | trustworthy are the queen's own | HYDRA::MCALLEN | | Tue Jul 17 1990 22:05 | 17 |
| You say the G-G is but a rubber stamp. However:
I had heard that the G-G in Australia dissolved Parliament
and effectively dismissed the Prime Minister, without
the Prime Minister wanting these to happen, some time in the
1970's.
Is that true, and could it happen again, and, could it
happen in Canada as well? Were there special circumstances
in Australia at the time, enabling the G-G to do the above,
which do not normally exist? Is there some absolute
constitutional check on the G-G's power, or is he merely
trusted, by those ruled, not to do anything arbitrary or nasty?
Now, we all know who the queen's art-curator was, back in
the 50's, right. Blunt or Blount or something?
|
325.52 | Real Power | KAOA01::LAPLANTE | | Wed Jul 18 1990 08:49 | 20 |
|
The G-G does not have to disolve parliament when requested by the
Prime Minister.
In at least one instance in Canada where the government was in a
minority, the G-G refused to do this and requested the opposition
to form a government. This prevented a second election very shortly
after the one which elected the minority.
In Ontario, the current Liberal government came about exactly because
of this. The Lt-G requested that the Liberals, who were in opposition
at the time, be given a chance to govern. As the Liberals had come
to an understanding with the NDP, they were able to do so. They
then swept the next election.
So the G-G and the Lt-Gs do have power. However their primary function,
as is that of the Queen, is to act as unbiased advisors to the
government and to provide continuity regardless of who gets elected.
Roger
|
325.53 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Wed Jul 18 1990 10:09 | 16 |
| Very true, but this is totally within their anticipated and expected
mandate. It's not as if it is something they have done by an abuse
of their power. It is a part of the system and a reasonable one too
given the cost of an election and the fact that essentially between
the date of dissolution and after the election, the province or country
is essentially ungoverned.
I have no problem with this power.
I have vague memories of the event mentioned in Australia, but cannot
remember the details... I would presume again it had to have been
within the defined powers of g-g / Queen in Australia's constitutional
monarchy. Remember also, that it is very likely that Australia's
g-g may have different constitutional powers than ours.
Stuart
|
325.54 | | GYPSC::FORST | Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222 | Thu Aug 02 1990 07:41 | 7 |
| The article in .0 displays typically this disgusting, $-driven only,
primitive point of view, which makes certain groups in certain
countries so popular around the world (I mean among those people
who have some brains left from $-thinking and for whom 'culture'
is not a four-letter-word)
R.
|
325.55 | Dig a little deeper, TV doesn't show everything | POLAR::LACAILLE | YFM-350 the real Ultimate Warrior | Thu Aug 02 1990 09:37 | 13 |
| re: <<< Note 325.54 by GYPSC::FORST "Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222" >>>
You seem to have a very limited view of this whole affair. There
are many other places in this world (ie New Orleans, New Brunswick)
that have thriving French cultures WITHOUT a need to legislate
one into existance.
I see the reasoning behind ensuring a dominent french presence in
Quebec, but no one has the right (IMO) to ban the use of other
languages in any society. This has been done in Quebec.
Charlie
|
325.56 | .. but they don't speak english! | GYPSC::FORST | Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222 | Thu Aug 02 1990 10:59 | 43 |
| 'Banning':
There are (at least) 3 major universities in Montr�al which offer
their services predominantly in english. Banning?
Same true for media. Banning?
Same true for sport arenas (Bilingual in 80% french crowd - Forum)
Banning?
The 'french cultures' in New Orleans (look at the NAME!) are
'generously' treated minorities. Alone this completely out-of-balance
comparison displays a limited view. The people in Quebec are NOT this
kind of 'exotes', IMO.
To open up your limited view:
Try to understand that Quebec (and other regions in the world fighting
for their cultural identity) sometimes desperately try to avoid being
treated like 'cute little minorities' (see your comparison) ON THEIR
HISTORICAL HOME TURF by sometimes 'overshooting' regulations.
The point is, that these regulations do not count in reality (or are
less dangerous). Real 'banning' is not loi 101 etc., real banning is
not providing educational facilities/media, is this ignorant and
careless and respectless assimilation approach. So, in the aspect which
really counts, Quebec is FAR more non-banning than any other place in
North-America. You can prove me wrong if you show me a place in that
continent where you can get along as comfortably as a french-only
person as you can in Quebec as an english-only. Real every day street-
live and attitudes count, not some 'banning laws' and stuff like that.
The latter would be a very limited view.
There is a famous sequence in a Woddy Allen movie. Somebody is asked
about some other country (don't know exactly which) and says "It was
nice, but they don't speak english!". Very unfortunately more than a
joke, and in Quebec you can feel that attitude the strongest (of
course), but also here in europe. As said elsewhere, I hope that the
inclusion of eastern europe into the 'functioning' and open part of the
world will also act as a 'fortress' against the un(i)-cultural
'porridge'.
Insisting on cultural distinctnesses has nothing to do with banning,
is not racism or 'limited view of yesterday', but is aimed towards
mutual respect and cultural richness of this world, IMO.
R.
|
325.57 | Adios. | KAOFS::M_RENAUD | Canadian Remote Diagnosis Centre | Thu Aug 02 1990 11:29 | 34 |
| RE: .55
Speaking of limited view, since when has Qu�bec "banned" the use of
other language? No wonder people from other countries can get confused,
with all that harsh, biased, difformed, prejudiced information
scattered around. I believe Rainer has a much better understanding
of the French problem than a lot of Anglo-canadians. The way you
reason, I am surprised you don't yell at governments for legislating
smoking, hunting, crimes etc... Legislations are there to prevent
previous problems to re-occur. It is often an extreme solution when
there are no other alternatives. What is YOUR alternative to the problem?
It is easy to criticize, very hard to understand and for most people,
impossible to see solutions. I think that only understanding and mutual
respect would have chances of success. Like Rainer mentioned in some
of his notes, if a basic respect and attitude of the cultures we
encounter or live with, would be naturally expressed (like learning the
language, at least basics, or even try to) there would never be any
problem. But too many people try to impose their own culture and
language and when this breach of basic human respect forces the
other to use extreme solutions (like legislate) to protect himself,
then they point the finger at him and accuse him of their own sins.
Sorry, too easy! People react to you the way you make them. If you
are friendly, people will be friendly, if you attack them, they either
fight back or protect themselves. The second solution is a much more
peaceful solution, I am glad it is the one that was choosen by Qu�bec.
One thing for sure, this conference is an extremely mild barometer of
the actual language problem that Canada faces, because of the Notes
context, but a good barometer anyways. I, for one, has read enough and
I admire Jean for his patience. I give up, before I forget the context,
I am going back to the FRENCH conference.
Michel pure laine (DELETE ENTRY CANADIAN)
|
325.58 | oh really! | POLAR::LACAILLE | YFM-350 the real Ultimate Warrior | Thu Aug 02 1990 12:51 | 36 |
|
Its the law...take a look. French is the only language
that must be visible on the street in Quebec...give me
a break.
Also, a law that effectively forbids the flying of the
country's flag! Since when does a province take precedence
over the country!
As for English universities in Montreal;
it is only a matter of time before that situation is
corrected by the Quebec government of choice.
I grew up in Quebec...Montreal to be exact. I worked in
alot of the northern towns in my teens. The people there
were nice people. I learned french in those years and enjoyed
the experience. While learning french in these northern towns,
I found the people to be quite tolerent of my halted french.
On my return to Montreal, I tried to use my new found language
and what did I get; disdainful and reproachful people who
have been manipulated by the media to hate me...for Christ
sake I have French Canadian blood in my viens but I just don't
speak the language too well.
Well I have now moved to Ottawa, the west end, I have forgotten
most of my accomplishment (learning french) through lack of
use. I want no part of what Quebec has come. If this hurts some
of you out there, so be it. Its how I feel, bitter for the
experience.
At least I tried,
Charlie
|
325.59 | | CLOSUS::HOE | Daddy, let's go camping! | Thu Aug 02 1990 12:55 | 10 |
| < Note 325.54 by GYPSC::FORST "Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222" >
>>>..countries so popular around the world (I mean among those people
who have some brains left from $-thinking and for whom 'culture'
is not a four-letter-word)
Is the word "F O O D"
calvin
|
325.60 | | GYPSC::FORST | Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222 | Thu Aug 02 1990 13:09 | 16 |
| .58
You get the bitter reaction of something major going wrong.
AND: There are french-canadian ignorant assholes, too, as all over the
world.
But in principle it is my honest opinion that what has been said in the
previous entries holds.
My experience was, being able to speak english a lot better than french
and thus sometimes being mixed up with an anglo, that i was received
with warm welcome once I tried to speak french or asked to speak
english. I find this a natural reaction.
R.
|
325.61 | je me souviens | POLAR::LACAILLE | YFM-350 the real Ultimate Warrior | Thu Aug 02 1990 13:10 | 31 |
| re: <<< Note 325.56 by GYPSC::FORST "Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222" >>>
You keep using the word porridge every time you look at
culture and when you say culture you always seem to use
the word language.
Do you equate language with culture? Certainly language
is a part of culture but its not the whole ball of wax.
Travel across North America, or Canada or even Ontario (or
Quebec). Ignore the language issue and just look at culture,
I mean get down with the people, visit a neighborhood bar or
something. Don't look at the TV and see someone elses view.
If you do this, I'll guaranty you a thriving cultural
enviroment. Hey, Quebec is one of the best examples. It had
no culture 400 years ago, its forging its own culture.
Before anyone screams at this one, think about it. Quebec's
culture is a far cry from that of France.
I applaud this distinction, this breath of fresh air in the
threat of cities like Montreal and the porridge that they imply,
but when my family is constantly threatened with laws and
restrictions from the government, I'm sorry, but that gets my
back up.
I lived there, I know what it felt like. It was prosecution in
its highest form. The exact thing that the French themselves
complain was done to them by the English!
Charlie
|
325.62 | | GYPSC::FORST | Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222 | Thu Aug 02 1990 13:19 | 14 |
| Oh, I lived there, too, went to bars both in the Crescent Street area
AND St. Denis, as well as places like Trois-Rivieres, Ottawa etc.
Have friends, both 'anglo' and 'french'. And as an european i'm not
a TV-addict (by definition, so-to-speak). Don't let get us down to
that,
otherwise I start to compare the quality of TV/media ... better not
for you ...
Sure culture is not = language, but to an extend it is. Being german
nobody has to tell me that there are very different cultures within one
language boundary, like in our country. That was not the point in
these notes.
R.
|
325.63 | Some of my best friends are xenophobic anglos. | BTOVT::BOATENG_K | Ahem ! To be contd.. | Thu Aug 02 1990 17:04 | 12 |
| Re. GYPSEC::FORST
Great/excellent notes! Refreshing !
Why should Jean be the only one *required to answer for Quebec ?
Who answers for the anglo-canadians ? A Canadian is a Canadian. Wrong ?
Re. 58 Check the psychological meaning of AMBIVALENCE then also check
what a neurotic form of ethnocentrism is.
FaZari.
|
325.64 | Didn't you see me doing all those whirly-twirlies? | POLAR::RICHARDSON | He who laughs best | Thu Aug 02 1990 17:33 | 5 |
| Hey FaZari, what about me?!? I thought I pitched in for Jean pretty
good while he was away!
Glenn (A Qu�becer and a Canadian)
|
325.65 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Thu Aug 02 1990 18:15 | 12 |
| Maybe you did, but you still refused to discuss how it was I didn't
understand ....
Stuart
1st an individual
2nd a Canadian
3rd an Ontarian
4th etc.....
I certainly do not rate being an Ontarian more important than being
Canadian ... never would, never will ... not that I'm not proud of it
|
325.66 | Cajun Creole | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Aug 02 1990 21:22 | 6 |
| What French culture in New Orleans?
Oh, you mean the one that speaks only English, and sort of remembers a few
French words from songs and such?
/john
|
325.67 | | MQOFS::DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Tue Aug 14 1990 01:09 | 14 |
| Having travelled to both Louisiana and New Brunswick, I can testify
that french is only alive as a cultural reminder of a distant past in
the first location (and only on street signs and toumbstones at that)
and is being rapidly stamped out in the latter.
Hey Mr. Lacaille, if I had done what you have done, I would not be
writing these notes now. The key is try and try again until you get it
right.
As for rights, I will write some more when I come back from vacation or
have some more free time on my hands.
Jean
|
325.68 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | It's time for a summertime dream | Tue Aug 14 1990 10:45 | 22 |
| That reminds me that any time I write to an address in a foreign place,
I use an address format and spelling etc that is used in the
destination, with any necessary clarification for local postal
authorities to get it to the destination.
For example, I never translate, either spoken or written the names of
streets. For example the new CTH facility is on Boulevard des Haut
Plaines ... I would never translate any part of that ... although
I have seen High Plains Blvd. and Haute Plaines Blvd. Similarly
when sending mail abroad ... place names are left "au naturel" and
a translation only provided if it might be unclear for the local
post office here. e.g. Ghent,
Vlanderen (Flanders),
Belges (Belgium)
I have seen roads in West Qu�bec with English names being translated to
French ... for example between Hull and Aylmer is Mountain Road ... it
always used to have a signposts that said Mountain Road ... they've been
replace recently by "Rue de la Montagne". The Ontario commuinity of
Orleans (no accent) is trying to change it's name to Orl�ans.
Stuart
|
325.69 | No title, just a nit | OLDJON::WATSON | Some like it not | Tue Aug 14 1990 11:06 | 4 |
| Ahh, so the English aren't the only ones to be found translating 'foreign'
names into their native language, eh?
So where's the complaint, now?
|
325.70 | I was happy there | CRATE::ROWELL | Searching for an angel in white | Mon Aug 20 1990 09:40 | 35 |
| I used to live in Quebec, in a place called Val Cartier (I think), and
though I was only 4, I very quickly learned to speak French. My best
friend's Mother was a French Teacher, so I learned to speak 'real'
French. (No insult, slur or whatever intende here. Sorry) Although my
Mom and Dad could never speak French, I have great memories of being
treated so friendly by the rest of the community. We were always
invited to their local festivities. (My Dad was in the army so we moved
around a lot, and consequently we never really got to know our
communities that we lived in)
It saddens me to think that this might not happen anymore. It didn't
matter about the languages, we were all Canadian.
I take Rainers point about Anglos not bothering to try to speak another
language. I comment on it all the time. It bothers me when I go to
mainland Europe, and large groups of multinationals get together, and
they all end up speaking English, so the Anglos don't get left out
and so well, too. I am ashamed to say that I cannot speak French
anymore, and all attempts to relearn it have failed miserably. I will
try again this autumn. However, I can speak enough German to hold a
half decent conversation (I used to be better, but I have forgotten
so much) and I can speak enough Spanish to get by. I have just returned
from a Holiday in Greece. I found that if they didn't speak English,
they spoke German, but occaisionaly, they spoke neither, so I had a go
and did a good job.(Boy, their alphabet is tough !)
I do hope that the current problems can be sorted out amicably, and
that at the end of the day, all will be friends again.
Wayne.
P.S.
Rainer, do you live very far from Frieburg in the Schwarzwald ? I will
be visiting my Dad close to there (Lahr) at the end of September. If you
are not to far, maybe you can buy me 'ein bier' in a Gasthoff.
|
325.71 | | GYPSC::FORST | Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222 | Wed Aug 22 1990 08:51 | 29 |
| Wayne,
no i'm not living near to Freiburg/Schwarzwald, and I will also most
likely be out of the country by that date (probably at your side of the
pond). That for the friendly invitation anyways.
AND: No sane person can hold the fact that english is a
'quasi-standard' around the world against the anglophones. Nobody
(sane) has
a problem with that. The problems arise when - say - the less delicate
members of the 'anglophonie' display the attitude that they regard it
as the 'real', mandatory standard, which unfortunately happens
sometimes. In fact, sometimes I feel sorry for the anglophones, because
they are not forced to the same extend to learn foreign languages as we
germans and other 'main-land europeans' (and other people around the
globe) are. Some laziness is human and if german was this
'quasi-standard' i have no problems to admit that my knowledge of
languages would be weaker. Both english and french are more important
than german. I learned those languages (as good as possible). It's
mainly a 'market-driven' mechanism and we, the speakers of the 'minor'
languages, are 'privileged' in the sense that we feel a stronger
pressure. I'm now considering what is next, spanish or russian.
Spanish is more important around the world, russian is a 'neighbouring'
language (even more so after the latest political developments), still
don't know.
R.
|
325.72 | | GYPSC::FORST | Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222 | Wed Aug 22 1990 08:53 | 3 |
| Thanks for the invitation, i mean, of course
------
|
325.73 | | MURP::HINXMAN | In danger of the mego effect | Wed Aug 22 1990 12:28 | 12 |
| re .71
> pressure. I'm now considering what is next, spanish or russian.
> Spanish is more important around the world, russian is a 'neighbouring'
> language (even more so after the latest political developments), still
Germany is separated from Spain by France.
Germany is separated from Russia by Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.
Why is Russian "neighbouring" and Spanish not?
Tony
|
325.74 | | GYPSC::FORST | Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222 | Wed Aug 22 1990 14:02 | 51 |
| .73
You are right, that needs clarifications:
- Spain is in the Europ. Common market, like Germany, but I don't
think we have especially strong economical or political relations
with Spain. If it was for Spain alone (and not the whole south
and middle america as well), not many here would even think about
learning spanish.
- The french culture, a strong representative of the global
'francophonie', is much more of an isolating factor between
germany and spain than Poland, which is and was always strong-
ly influenced by Russia and Germany, can isolate germany and
russia. That is the historical problem of Poland, those
'influences' were for the most part not really positive, as we
all know, but it is a fact (no new german imperialism meant at
all) that you can get along in Poland speaking german and/or
russian, while you cannot get along in France speaking german
and/or spanish. So, in effect, we see Poland and Russia within
a 'neighbouring' block, while Spain and France look very distinct
for us. I hope I could make this point clear and I also hope that
nobody understands that as a new 'downgrading' of Poland.
- the most important aspect, as always, is business. Many here hope
that the new political devel. in eastern and central europe gives us
(Germany) a tremendous market chance in eastern europe, the
representative 'neighbour' being russia, because it is so big
and thus has much more business potential relative to the other
ex-socialistic countries in central and south-eastern europe.
Spain, of course, is not such a representative for western
europe.
For those reasons I think your comparison cannot hold.
Finally, as ugly as they were in history for the most part, the ties
between germany and poland as well as russia were closer traditionally
(and will probably develop again in that direction, this time
hopefully positive for the most part) than they were to the Iberian
peninsula (Spain and Portugal; I can hardly imagine a more 'remote'
europ. country from my german point of view than Portugal). Germany is
not western europe, it is central europe, as Poland, Hungary, CSFR are
as well. That difference is for real, it was just overlaid by the
result of WWII.
That is my opinion/feeling, I can't claim to speak for all germans, but
i'm definitely not alone with that point of view.
R.
|
325.75 | No Title | POLAR::LACAILLE | YFM-350 the real Ultimate Warrior | Wed Aug 29 1990 19:27 | 33 |
| I still find it very funny that a province in this country
can legislate its flag to have precedence over its country's.
Gee, I wonder if the Armed Forces were forced to cover their
insignia with fleur-de-lys while in Quebec...Ha!
Re: Desrosier
Its kinda like banging your head against the wall, it feels
so good when you stop.
As for French cultures in New Orleans and New Brunswick, yes
they are cultures derived from a French background. Maybe they
no longer speak french, but whats your point.
re: .62 (FaZari.)
Not ambivalence at all. I like the culture I hate the politics
Sorta like hating oranges and liking apples. Since you seem to
have an opinion on this matter, why don't you share it with all
of us in a more comprehensive manner. I look forward to an
erudite observation from an adjudicator such as yourself.
Respectfully,
Charlie
ps A question of interest for our German friend. In Belgium,
how have the various governments handled the language issue.
Have there in fact been any tyrannical decisions to tip the
language scale in any way?
I am truly interested.
|
325.76 | This guy must be confused or pandering to anglo amis? | BTOVT::BOATENG_K | What do U know that we don know? | Wed Aug 29 1990 20:53 | 6 |
| Re. Note 325.75 by POLAR::LACIALLE
>> re: .62 (FaZari) >>
Wrong dancing partner my dear! Note 325.62 was posted by GYPSEC::FORST
Go back and check!
|
325.77 | I meant .63 | POLAR::LACAILLE | YFM-350 the real Ultimate Warrior | Wed Aug 29 1990 23:37 | 0 |
325.78 | WRONG! | GYPSC::FORST | Rainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222 | Thu Aug 30 1990 10:06 | 26 |
| Well, when asked, I answer:
I claim to know Canada/Quebec better that Belgium (funny enough, I
used to live a mile away from the Belgium border for about 5 years),
but I can tell you that Yes they do have language/culture problems
and Yes there were some 'tyrannical' developments (mostly on
city/county levels).
But if you want to try to compare that to Canada you are royally wrong
(I don't say you ARE trying to compare, just in case).
The french part of Belgium is neighbouring the 'mother' France, as does
the french part of Switzerland. The 'francophonie' in north-america
(Quebec for the most part) is isolated. A BIG difference. Here in
Europe they don't have the fear to be culturally extinguished (not even
virtually), in Quebec some of them (not too few, I think) do.
You brought up yourselves Louisiana and New Brunswick. As I understand,
this is exactly what the Quebecois don't want to be eventually, a cute,
ancient, folkloristic minority, good for sight-seeing (maybe to
experience a pseudo-european feeling without crossing the atlantic
["Oh, it's so european, isn't it honey?"; heared that in ville de
Quebec very often], but not respected as a real 'societ� distincte'.
I don't blame them for not wanting to be like that.
R.
|