Canada to firmly re-assess its status as a British colony

[The Brain]

Traditional germanic traditions, wiped out in germany and scandinavia by Franks and powerful local Kings

I guess I have to disagree.  Anglo-Saxon culture was so devalued that nobody even bothered to write down their traditions until the 19th century and by that time they had disappeared.  To the extent local legal traditions were embraced and maintained by the new English upper classes well that is what they always did on the continent.  That is what Joseph II and the French Revolution and so forth were trying to reform.

Why would Germanic Kings care enough about the common people to wipe out their customs?  But anyway the Normans get a bad rap.  The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.

Not German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries. Strong Scandinavian Kings (KCIV and GIIA) either created or inherited recent absolutized monarchies. Charles Stuart tried to do the same but failed.

GIIA?

To elaborate: when GIIA ascended the throne he had to sign a constitution that essentially made him parliament's bitch. Throughout his career he had to cajole, threaten and inspire parliament to get his way. Now since he was GIIA this wasn't a major problem but it still had to be done. After his death a new constitution was created that followed in the same tracks. It wasn't until Charles XI in the 1680s that absolutism came to be in Sweden, and it lasted 40 years. Then parliament regained power with a vengeance.

[Razgovory]

  The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.

Well the Harrowing of the North...

[Razgovory]

You would have to ask those who forbid French education in the US and Canada.

Hey you can get a French education in the US if you want to pay for it.

After the civil war in Louisiana, French education was forbidden.  Many states of New England also forbid French education after the influx of French Canadian immigrants.
The situation has been reversed since then, and there are of course private schools, but I think some public schools offer French immersion too.

There is still hope for the US
Vermont says Bonjour et bienvenue to attract more francophones

Anything closer to the present?

[Viking]

To elaborate: when GIIA ascended the throne he had to sign a constitution that essentially made him parliament's bitch. Throughout his career he had to cajole, threaten and inspire parliament to get his way. Now since he was GIIA this wasn't a major problem but it still had to be done. After his death a new constitution was created that followed in the same tracks. It wasn't until Charles XI in the 1680s that absolutism came to be in Sweden, and it lasted 40 years. Then parliament regained power with a vengeance.

I was under the Impression that it GIIA got a ready made centralized state from his father... Note, the institutions I am talking about are the ones at a local level, the village, county and parish level of government, not the national level. The only real relevance of Parliament here is that in England it stopped the King from centralizing away traditional legal and governmental structures.

I may also be assuming much of what was happening in denmark at that time was also happening in sweden at the same time and I might also misunderstand some of what the effects of the Indelingsvärket were.

At this time in Iceland the Parliament (think of it as a local council of large farmers) was abolished and royal judges appear as well as written law books (as opposed to traditionally preserved custom).

[The Minsky Moment]

Not German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries. Strong Scandinavian Kings (KCIV and GIIA) either created or inherited recent absolutized monarchies. Charles Stuart tried to do the same but failed.

The Franks were Germanic...

Interesting side discussion that perhaps sheds some illumination on the main discussion.

"Germany" didn't exist in the 8th century, nor were there "German" kings in any meaningul sense of the word. 

"Germanic" either refers to:
(1) a highly disparate (and culturally and linguisitically diverse) group of peoples whose only common linkage is living in an area delimited by classsical Greek and and Roman geogrpahers, or
(2) a broad language family existing over a couple of thousand years, and of which many of the constitutent members would be mutually unintelligible.

In short, talking about "Germany" in the late classical/early modern era is a dangerous anachronism, and the term Germanic is of little use aside from historical linguistics or classical literary criticism.

Yes - some "Germanic" peoples at various points in histories had "free" tribal assemblies.  Then again, so did the Romans.

[Valmy]

  The only thing they did to make themselves historical villains was that they won.

Well the Harrowing of the North...

True, William even regretted that one.  But it was a time when it was important to appear strong.  It was easy to get carried away.

[The Brain]

To elaborate: when GIIA ascended the throne he had to sign a constitution that essentially made him parliament's bitch. Throughout his career he had to cajole, threaten and inspire parliament to get his way. Now since he was GIIA this wasn't a major problem but it still had to be done. After his death a new constitution was created that followed in the same tracks. It wasn't until Charles XI in the 1680s that absolutism came to be in Sweden, and it lasted 40 years. Then parliament regained power with a vengeance.

I was under the Impression that it GIIA got a ready made centralized state from his father... Note, the institutions I am talking about are the ones at a local level, the village, county and parish level of government, not the national level. The only real relevance of Parliament here is that in England it stopped the King from centralizing away traditional legal and governmental structures.

I may also be assuming much of what was happening in denmark at that time was also happening in sweden at the same time and I might also misunderstand some of what the effects of the Indelingsvärket were.

At this time in Iceland the Parliament (think of it as a local council of large farmers) was abolished and royal judges appear as well as written law books (as opposed to traditionally preserved custom).

I know way too little about Denmark to say much, except to note that there are bigger differences between the countries than I think many people (Swedes and Danes) realize. They have the same shit we have over here, but it's the little differences...

Some comments about Sweden (not arguing with you, just some stuff that may be of interest to our readers): there had been major work done under GIIA's grandfather Gustav Vasa (Lutheranism, hereditary monarchy and others) but my impression is that much of the reforms of the actual administration were done under GIIA. Gustav Vasa ruled without having to ask anyone's permission (he just had to crush some major rebellions now and then) but he still ruled in many ways like a medieval monarch. His administration was still intensely personal, he had little staff and things were based on personal interactions and loyalties. After him his sons were too busy being deposed or waging civil war to get much development done in their day.

The state GIIA inherited was still fairly rudimentary. GIIA was in many ways the creator of the system of administration that was the basis for Sweden's great power era.  Keeping track of every indivdual in the kingdom in order to be able to conscript huge numbers, founding or enlarging universities, creating regional courts of law to reduce the workload for the royal council etc etc. Under GIIA the state became a much bigger player on the local level. Though he still needed parliament approval, and the farmers (bönder) remained free and had representatives in parliament etc.

I don't know a great deal about Sweden's legal history but I am not aware of any great changes in the 16th-17th centuries. The first modern collected national law didn't come into being until 1734.

[viper37]

Even if Quebec was to forbid public english education to everyone, it wouldn't be a violation of human Rights.

Oex just finished telling me nobody would do such a thing...

No one serious has ever advocated that since the political demise of the super extremists, in the 1970s. Who would?

That was highly hypotetical.  Nor have I said I would support such a measure.  Just that banning public education in one language is not a violation of human rights.  Unless Canadians want to admit to crimes against humanity...  Right, I tought so too

While in Canada, it is impossible, that's a given.  If Quebec becomes independant 100 years from now, I don't know.  Lots of things can change.  Maybe the Grallonesque faction will stage a Coup d'État, take over the country, march the English Canadians to concentration camps, who knows

What Oex says is true, and I don't even think the original law 101 advocated that.
Just forget about that happening during our lifetimes.

[crazy canuck]

It is only a hypothetical because nobody would ever commit such a breach of our Charter's protection of free speech.

Yeah what Viper said had nothing to do with free speech.  He said publicly funded education.

Are you trolling or do you really not see a violation of rights if the State prohibits the freedom of someone to learn a language?

[crazy canuck]

Just that banning public education in one language is not a violation of human rights. 

It would be a clear violation of the Charter just as the first Language Bill was.

[Valmy]

Are you trolling or do you really not see a violation of rights if the State prohibits the freedom of someone to learn a language?

Oh I would but that was not what Viper said.  He said banning publicly funding it.  You could still be educated in whatever language you want just not at public expense.  Not funding something is not the same as prohibiting it.

[viper37]

Supposedly we outlawed it in Louisiana and New England in the 19th century.  But now we are awesome.

1860s
The use of French in public activities is interdicted by General Butler to punish Louisiana for being allied with the Confederate States.

1915
Suppression of the French language in the schools by the State Board of Education; Children are punished when they speak French.

For the modern part, French revival & all:

1969
With the support of CODOFIL, Louisiana elementary schools begin offering 30 minutes of French per day.

Arrival of the first CODOFIL teachers from France and Quebec.

1971
Louisiana elects its first French-speaking governor of the 20th century, Edwin Edwards

etc, etc.

[crazy canuck]

He said banning publicly funding it. 

No, he said banning.

[Zanza]

Not German Kings, Frankish Kings brought Roman Law to Germany in the 8th and 9th centuries.

First, I don't think that the dichotomy between "German" and "Frankish" kings makes any sense considering the Franks were just one of the tribal groups of the Germanic region.

Second, while there was obviously Roman and Christian influence, the elements of traditional tribal common law meshed with these and stayed around for centuries, often until the XVIII or even XIX century. There are still laws in Germany's civil code that can be traced to ancient Saxon laws for example.

[viper37]

It would be a clear violation of the Charter just as the first Language Bill was.

We could work around it, like the Canadian provinces did for many years, without any kind of problems.
We could merge the english School Boards with the French ones, deprive them of resources, make life tough for them.  That's not a clear violation of the Charter.

But I just don't see it happening.