The Confederate Flag

[Ryujin]

Heh. The anglophne minority is better treated than the francophone minority is treated in Canada. All laws are translated to English systematically and they get translaters if needed at trials. Not something foudn systematically in Canada for francophones. Anglophones in Québec have institutions and budgets not found in say Manitoba or British-Colombia. Anglophone schools are well funded and they have their own school boards. They also have anglophone hospitals funded by every Québécois. Schools and hospitals are disappearing for francophones in the rest of Canada. You can live your entire life and not speak a word of French in Québec. They are fine. Worried, I'm sure, but fine. No concentration camps for them.

You would be wrong there. Even in traffic court in Ontario, which is not legally bilingual, you would be granted a translator if your first language was French. Also if it was Japanese, Hindi, Spanish, Italian..... This is the case in most Provinces, though there might be a procedural delay while a translator was located. In New Brunswick one would be virtually standing by.

 

[Umbran]

Which nation is?

Few are. That raise the question of whether drawing national bounds along cultural lines is really a useful idea.

The solution is that if Aboriginals want to be Canadians they can.

India and Bangladesh have shown that "enclaves" work poorly, socio-economically. An enclave within another nation's borders ends up with restricted access to the governmental services required to be viable. "Sure, you can stay part of Canada, but you'll be screwed if you do," isn't a great solution.

Heh. The anglophne minority is better treated than the francophone minority is treated in Canada.

Right now, yes. But the Canadian Federation kind of requires it be so, and supports that, no? What assurances do they have that, without that protection, they won't slide into a similar situation? There is long-standing resentment that cold manifest in poor treatment going forward.

 

[Kramodlog]

Few are. That raise the question of whether drawing national bounds along cultural lines is really a useful idea.

One can wonder indeed.

India and Bangladesh have shown that "enclaves" work poorly, socio-economically. An enclave within another nation's borders ends up with restricted access to the governmental services required to be viable. "Sure, you can stay part of Canada, but you'll be screwed if you do," isn't a great solution.

Well, it is up to them to determine what they want for their future. As opposed to their latest history, they have choices. They are more then welcome to join us in our adventure.

Right now, yes. But the Canadian Federation kind of requires it be so, and supports that, no?

Support discrimination toward francophones? Tacitely, yes.

What assurances do they have that, without that protection, they won't slide into a similar situation? There is long-standing resentment that cold manifest in poor treatment going forward.

No garanty can be seriously given aside from our word. Who knows what will happen in 100 years? They'll have to ride it out and see or leave for Canada. They do have a voice in a referendum, like the rest of us. That is more than we had in our history.

 

[Umbran]

Well, it is up to them to determine what they want for their future. As opposed to their latest history, they have choices. They are more then welcome to join us in our adventure.

"Join us, or be screwed as an enclave?" Yeah, great choice.

Support discrimination toward francophones? Tacitely, yes.

Allow me to restate - at the moment, you couldn't legally discriminate against Anglophones in Quebec, correct? Is the sovereignty movement dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination against anglophones?

No garanty can be seriously given aside from our word.

In an absolute sense, the only things that are inevitable are death and taxes, yes. But, as I note above - you can make the constitution for the new country part of the referendum - "If we leave, we leave under the following rules...." So, everyone knows that they are getting into before they choose. Is that being done?

 

[Kramodlog]

You would be wrong there. Even in traffic court in Ontario, which is not legally bilingual, you would be granted a translator if your first language was French. Also if it was Japanese, Hindi, Spanish, Italian..... This is the case in most Provinces, though there might be a procedural delay while a translator was located. In New Brunswick one would be virtually standing by.

It is up to the whim of the provincial government. Take BC, a day in court in french might be complicated. No garantied interpreter when you need it (unless you call in advance) and not for all court cases. http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/faq/info/interpreter.htm On paper it might seem adaquate, but reality often meets budget cuts as french is not a priority even if it is one of Canada's official language on paper.

BC, PEI, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia do not have automatic translation for court documents. If you want them in french or translated from french to english, you have to pay for them yourself as court proceeding have to happen in English. It was up held by the supreme court in 2013.

 

[billd91]

Few are. That raise the question of whether drawing national bounds along cultural lines is really a useful idea.

It's not really like big multi-cultural or multi-national states do much better, particularly when there are population size differences. Ask the Chechens how they like living under Russian-dominated governments. At least with national boundaries coinciding with cultural lines you can find some synergy between public policy and cultural practice like language- and literature-preserving education. Of course, in those environments, it's doubly hard being the dissenter or being the minority.

 

[Umbran]

At least with national boundaries coinciding with cultural lines ...

The point is that these generally don't exist. They are an idea on paper, but not a common reality. Human cultural groups have moved around enough that there's nowhere we can find nation-sized, culturally pure areas that don't have notable minorities within them. Getting a real one-culture nation requires relocation of populations. Note that the current Middle East is a result of trying that!

Thus, I question the idea of trying. Working to live with each other may be better than trying to draw lines between us.

 

[Kramodlog]

"Join us, or be screwed as an enclave?" Yeah, great choice.

It remains to be seen if would indeed be an enclave and if the situation would effectively as bad a you present it. It would be a threeway negociation. If Québec is ok with Canadian Aboriginales on its territory, Aboriginales and Canada might have counter propositions to make. Part of the mystery around it is that Canada won't say what it is willing to do, as that would mean it could accept Québec's independence.

Allow me to restate - at the moment, you couldn't legally discriminate against Anglophones in Quebec, correct?

Sure we can, like francophones are discriminated right now in the rest of Canada on various issues. But it doesn't mean we do it. At least not intentionally. But there are issues that pop up from time time and those are usually settled in court. It is part nature of having a minority and a constitution.

Is the sovereignty movement dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination against anglophones?

It is dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination.

In an absolute sense, the only things that are inevitable are death and taxes, yes. But, as I note above - you can make the constitution for the new country part of the referendum - "If we leave, we leave under the following rules...." So, everyone knows that they are getting into before they choose. Is that being done?

It wasn't like that. In 1980 there was supposed to have one referendum to first get the mandate to negociate sovereignty-association with Canada, and then bring back the results of the negociation with Canada to the people. Then a second referendum was supposed to be held to get their vote on it. At the time Canada did not have a constitution or a charter of rights and freedoms, so that wasn't an issue.

In 1995 it was about the same thing, but the referendum also gave the government the legitimacy to declare unilaterally Québec's independence if negociations weren't going well with Canada. Canada is very protective of Québec's anglophone minority, so their rights would be secure when negociating secession with Canada.

How a third referendum would look like, if a referendum is used to achieve independence, hasn't been discussed. It won't happen soon since no independentist party is in power and elections are far away.

Canada is very protective of Québec's anglophone minority, so their rights would be secure when negociating secession with Canada. In terms of realpolitiks, the anglophone minority's rights is a bargaining chip for Québec.

 

[Umbran]

Sure we can, like francophones are discriminated right now in the rest of Canada on various issues. But it doesn't mean we do it. At least not intentionally. But there are issues that pop up from time time and those are usually settled in court. It is part nature of having a minority and a constitution.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I asked if you could *legally* discriminate. If there's a law against it, such that the court can settle the issue, the answer is, "no".

This doesn't mean discrimination doesn't happen (many forms are illegal here, but clearly happen regardless). Just that the basic concept of equality is present.

It is dedicated to a new constitution that would prevent discrimination.

Well, that's a goodness.

 

[Hussar]

There is a public service announcement about Cabot.
[video=youtube;Jciev8iRFow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jciev8iRFow[/video]

Like how it is hidden that the Brits actually came with candy and rainbows?

It isn't about breaking a country. It is about creating a country so that a nation who is oppressed can finally be free to decide its faith. Canada will still exist afterwards.

Not much is said about Cartier date and location. For Cabot they gave a place which we actually do not know he went there (Newfoundland) and a date (1497). Ottawa's bias is obvious.

Yeah, they flat out state that Cartier discovered Canada and that the English were just there for the fish. Yup total bias.