QuoteWalmart and other major retailers take Quebec government to court over French signage requirements
Sidhartha Banerjee, Canadian Press | Nov 18, 2012 11:27 AM ET | Last Updated: Nov 19, 2012 10:12 AM ET
More from Canadian Press
MONTREAL — Several major retailers are taking the Quebec government to court over the provincial language watchdog's insistence they modify their commercial brand names to include some French.
The retailers include some of the biggest brand names in North America — Walmart, Best Buy and Costco. Their lawyers are expected in Quebec Superior Court on Thursday.
Quebec's language watchdog, The Office Quebecois de la Langue Francaise, wants the retailers to change their signs to either give themselves a generic French name or add a slogan or explanation that reflects what it is they're selling.
The changes are outlined on a website run by the language agency that gives businesses options on how to change their names. For example, Walmart, a household name on the retail scene that doesn't really have a French equivalent, could change its signs to "Le Magasin Walmart."
But retailers say the language laws have not formally been changed and they will ask the courts to decide whether the language office has the right to make new demands.
According to Section 63 of Quebec's French Language Charter, the name of a business must be in French. But it hasn't generally been applied to trademarked names.
So some companies have taken steps to change their name — like Kentucky Fried Chicken, which is known in Quebec as "Poulet Frit Kentucky." But others, like Walmart and Best Buy, have set up shop under the same name that appears elsewhere in the world.
Nathalie St-Pierre, vice-president for the Retail Council of Canada's Quebec branch says the province wants to change the rules without having modified the law.
The six companies taking legal action include Walmart, Costco, Best Buy, Gap, Old Navy and Guess. They are represented by two law firms.
St-Pierre says all have complied with the rest of Quebec's language requirements for many years. She says they're now being forced to comply with a new interpretation of an old law.
And she questions the point of the whole battle.
"You know the brand, you know the colours, you know the sign," St-Pierre said of the famous company logos.
"That's the work that's done behind setting up a trademark and there are brands that stand on their own and need no description."
The legal battle comes as the minority Parti Quebecois government does hope to tighten the province's language law and expand the use of French at work.
The government is expected to seek new restrictions on who can attend English-language junior colleges, and also extend the language law to smaller businesses.
It's unclear which of the legislative changes would actually be adopted because the PQ only has a minority in the legislature, and little support from opposition parties on the issue.
But the push for businesses to change their signs started earlier, last year under the then-Liberal government, amid controversies over whether the use of French in Montreal was declining.
A year ago, the language watchdog announced it was embarking on an awareness campaign aimed at getting to companies to comply.
The plan featured a website that told companies they had a number of choices.
They included coming up with a descriptive slogan or line in French to identify themselves. Companies could also opt for a French version of the name or use a French/English version, with the French appearing more predominantly.
Martin Bergeron, a spokesman for Quebec's language watchdog, would not comment on the matter as it is before the courts.
But in a video on the website Louise Marchand, who heads the OQLF, called the situation worrisome.
"Displaying the name of the company in French is a show of respect for the law," Marchand says.
Provincial politicians have been largely in favour of the watchdog's move and French-language activists have called for the larger companies to comply. The Societe St-Jean Baptiste has even called on the six multinationals to be boycotted by consumers.
St-Pierre said the companies tried to sit down with the OQLF but were met with heavy-handed tactics.
St-Pierre said the agency sent letters obliging retailers to change their signs, followed by letters that threatened to revoke government "francization certificates." Those certificates, renewed every three years, mean companies are in compliance with language rules and can benefit from certain government grants.
Threats of fines, ranging from $1,500 to $20,000, followed.
St-Pierre said that as the tone increased, companies had little choice but to go to court. "The fact that the law hasn't been changed is the key element here," St-Pierre said.
Some companies have voluntarily changed their signs. After a series of fire-bombings, Second Cup coffee shops added the words "les cafes" to their signs. Starbucks in Quebec is known as Cafe Starbucks Coffee. And KFC is "PFK" in Quebec.
A marketing professor at Concordia University says the reason for the legal challenge is more than just protecting the trademark, it's also about protecting the look and feel of a logo.
"They spend big bucks on designing logos and logo systems and how to apply their logos on everything from signage to advertising to stationery," said Harold Simpkins. "Now they'd have to add another element to that logo just for Quebec."
He said changing signage could be a costly venture for some companies.
A handful of U.S. retailers are making their way to Canada in the coming months. While he doubts retailers would wrap up operations in Quebec over a sign law, he said it could dampen the pace of expansion.
"It sounds like such a simple thing to add this word, but you have to take into consideration the proportion of the signage on the sides of your buildings and they pay big bucks to designers tell them precisely where to place signs," Simpkins said.
:rolleyes:
I try and defend French language concerns here on Languish, as they're not without some merit. But this?
Umm. You don't change proper names in translation. Otherwise we'd just call Quebec "Annoying-Land" in English. But we don't do that. It has a proper name, Quebec. So we use it.
What is Walmart in French? Le Walmart?
Bureaucrats says the laws allows them to be strict.
Corporations says the laws allows them to use their trademarks as it is.
Some corporations have made changes to their trademark to comply with bureaucrats harassments.
The PQ is in a tight spot. It can't be seen as too soft on english signs as it will lose even more vote to the commies or to the more extreme independantist party.
It can't be too hard either for fear of scaring some businesses away as we already are in a difficult financial spot.
So, it will most likely let the Office de la langue française deal witht he matter on its own, claiming it's an independant office (wich is of variable geometry, lately :thumbsdown: )
For the record, I don't like seeing english brands like Walmart, Bestbuy, Futureshop, etc, but the problem lies not in what foreign companies chose to call themselves but in whatever prevents our own corporations from growing to a size where they can compete with them, without being bought by foreigners along the way as it is their only solution to get funding for newer&bigger projects.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 19, 2012, 02:11:49 PM
What is Walmart in French? Le Walmart?
Wall = Mur, Mart = Marché. Murmarché! :smarty: :frog:
:P
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2012, 02:29:16 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 19, 2012, 02:11:49 PM
What is Walmart in French? Le Walmart?
Wall = Mur, Mart = Marché. Murmarché! :smarty: :frog:
:P
Marché chez Wal. Walmarché. Chez Wal's. Infinite possibilities. :P
Excelpt that "Wal" is short for Walton, the company's founder, not a misspelling of "wall". :p
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 01:59:39 PM
I try and defend French language concerns here on Languish, as they're not without some merit. But this?
Think of it this way: if WalMart has to buy signage, they can recoup the costs by shaving off employees and blame a union for it somewhere. That should make you spooge in your pants.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 03:46:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 01:59:39 PM
I try and defend French language concerns here on Languish, as they're not without some merit. But this?
Think of it this way: if WalMart has to buy signage, they can recoup the costs by shaving off employees and blame a union for it somewhere. That should make you spooge in your pants.
Are you kidding? Walmart is one of the most famously anti-union companies in the world. They even closed the one or two Quebec Walmarts that did unionize. :wub:
But since I'm not a political one-trick pony, I don't see the evil hand of unions behind this one.
"I say the compromise of using the trademark + a french description under it is a pretty good one.
Like The Brick does. In Quebec it's Brick : Magasin de Meuble.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 03:29:49 PM
Excelpt that "Wal" is short for Walton, the company's founder, not a misspelling of "wall". :p
I KNOW
Are French-Canadians that god damn dumb that they need every company to have a description of what they are? Are they so insulated and isolated from reality and the global economy due to their obsession with maintaining a cultural and linguistic heritage from overlords who possessed their territory for less than half of their history that they have totally lost touch? Wow.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 19, 2012, 04:29:01 PM
"I say the compromise of using the trademark + a french description under it is a pretty good one.
Like The Brick does. In Quebec it's Brick : Magasin de Meuble.
For God's sake, why make it obligatory? Are hundreds of Quebeckers wandering into Walmarts and Costcos thinking their movie theaters or night clubs? :huh:
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 19, 2012, 04:29:01 PM
"I say the compromise of using the trademark + a french description under it is a pretty good one.
Like The Brick does. In Quebec it's Brick : Magasin de Meuble.
Except that the stores have been going along using just their trade mark for years - just "Walmart" or "Costco" or "Old Navy".
If the law had always been to have a description of the kind of store then they would have done that when they build all of their stores to begin with. To force the companies to do so now will be expensive. Sure, it's not going to drive the companies bankrupt, but it's a non-trivial expense. Plus it establishes that their signs have to be changed at the whim of a bureaucrat.
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2012, 04:38:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 03:29:49 PM
Excelpt that "Wal" is short for Walton, the company's founder, not a misspelling of "wall". :p
I KNOW
:lol:
Always annoying when a fellow assumes one has an IQ of 50 :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2012, 04:47:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 19, 2012, 04:29:01 PM
"I say the compromise of using the trademark + a french description under it is a pretty good one.
Like The Brick does. In Quebec it's Brick : Magasin de Meuble.
For God's sake, why make it obligatory? Are hundreds of Quebeckers wandering into Walmarts and Costcos thinking their movie theaters or night clubs? :huh:
Because the mandate of the Office is to be a pain the ass to everyone, especially the English speakers.
French-Canadian cultural reinforcement combines the worst aspects of Canuckistanianism, and Frenchiness, to create a people that would rather bitch and wave their cigarettes at each other than make a living.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on November 19, 2012, 04:46:44 PM
Are French-Canadians that god damn dumb that they need every company to have a description of what they are? Are they so insulated and isolated from reality and the global economy due to their obsession with maintaining a cultural and linguistic heritage from overlords who possessed their territory for less than half of their history that they have totally lost touch? Wow.
Yes, French-speakers are less than the rest of us. Unfortunately, they're too craven to separate.
Attacking our precious Walmart? That's like setting our flag on fire. THIS WILL NOT STAND. :mad:
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2012, 07:44:29 PM
Yes, French-speakers are less than the rest of us. Unfortunately, they're too craven to separate.
Who rates lower in your view? French-speakers or Russian-speakers?
Polish speakers.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 08:21:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2012, 07:44:29 PM
Yes, French-speakers are less than the rest of us. Unfortunately, they're too craven to separate.
Who rates lower in your view? French-speakers or Russian-speakers?
The Russians, obviously. Sure, the French are inferior next to the Anglosphere, but they're still a part of the West. Also, the French had dreadnoughts (although only two of them were any good).
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on November 19, 2012, 04:46:44 PM
Are French-Canadians that god damn dumb that they need every company to have a description of what they are?
That is not the point.
QuoteAre they so insulated and isolated from reality and the global economy due to their obsession with maintaining a cultural and linguistic heritage from overlords who possessed their territory for less than half of their history that they have totally lost touch? Wow.
Some people would really like it to be true, the same people who agree with Canada's idea of a cultural firewall, the same people (english&french) who envy China's control of the media, but again, that is not the point.
I love qc threads.
Seeing all the anglos froth at the mouth always makes for a good show :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 04:50:31 PM
Plus it establishes that their signs have to be changed at the whim of a bureaucrat.
Which is the core of the debate here. Not that english canadian media will report it that way of course.
It's not unusual for the citizens to go to court against various government office because bureaucrats have a creative way of interpreting the laws. It's not unusual for the government, the elected body representing us, to sit on the fence and claim "independance" when it suits them.
Judgement against the government have been numerous. Wether it be the creative interpretation of the construction laws by the
Commission de la Construction du Québec or the creative interpretation of what your revenues should be by
Revenu Québec, corporations and citizens go to court every day against their government to have their rigths respected. It's not like Walmart is some unique case just because it's about a trademark. But it's damn sexier than "Citizen sues Revenu Québec for harassment".
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2012, 07:44:29 PM
Yes, French-speakers are less than the rest of us. Unfortunately, they're too craven to separate.
Neil perfectly embodies Canada's spirit about their minorities :)
But he'll be the first one to bitch once the US start annexing his provinces one by one.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 19, 2012, 08:52:38 PM
I love qc threads.
Seeing all the anglos froth at the mouth always makes for a good show :lol:
the sad part is that none seem to get the issue here, even if it's just about overzealous bureaucrats.
Quote from: Scipio on November 19, 2012, 06:39:43 PM
French-Canadian cultural reinforcement combines the worst aspects of Canuckistanianism, and Frenchiness, to create a people that would rather bitch and wave their cigarettes at each other than make a living.
Aren't you from Mississippi or some other shithole? :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 19, 2012, 08:52:38 PM
I love qc threads.
Seeing all the anglos froth at the mouth always makes for a good show :lol:
the sad part is that none seem to get the issue here, even if it's just about overzealous bureaucrats.
Sorry but as much as we Americans don't get to conveniently separate ourselves from our politicians - you don't either. ;)
Quote from: Zoupa on November 19, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 19, 2012, 06:39:43 PM
French-Canadian cultural reinforcement combines the worst aspects of Canuckistanianism, and Frenchiness, to create a people that would rather bitch and wave their cigarettes at each other than make a living.
Aren't you from Mississippi or some other shithole? :lol:
Yeah, he's been doing this more and more lately and it is like wtf? don't you remember you are from a part of America that's one of our greatest embarrassments?
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 19, 2012, 08:52:38 PM
I love qc threads.
Seeing all the anglos froth at the mouth always makes for a good show :lol:
the sad part is that none seem to get the issue here, even if it's just about overzealous bureaucrats.
I gave up online-arguing about qc a long time ago. Les têtes carrées, ca reste des têtes carrées. *shrug*
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 19, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 19, 2012, 06:39:43 PM
French-Canadian cultural reinforcement combines the worst aspects of Canuckistanianism, and Frenchiness, to create a people that would rather bitch and wave their cigarettes at each other than make a living.
Aren't you from Mississippi or some other shithole? :lol:
Yeah, he's been doing this more and more lately and it is like wtf? don't you remember you are from a part of America that's one of our greatest embarrassments?
High-five. We agree about something! ;)
Quote from: Zoupa on November 19, 2012, 09:00:55 PM
High-five. We agree about something! ;)
Which if that has happened - you know we must be right! :hug:
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 08:57:22 PM
Sorry but as much as we Americans don't get to conveniently separate ourselves from our politicians - you don't either. ;)
There's 2 issues here.
The main issue is obviously the overzealous bureaucrats.
The other one is not about who will get confused or not. It's about cosmetics. It's about culture, it's about what you present to the world. Like a city ruling on the size of a sign, on what can go on a sign. Some people are afraid that seeing english language signs everywhere, people eventually get the idea that Quebec is an english province, just like the rest of the country.
It's never been about who would get "confused" by entering a place with an english only trademark. I thought it would be obvious by now.
I don't think it is about confusion. As to the rest of that, I'm sorry but that doesn't really make sense to me. I don't know what it is to be an English province coming from places where yes English is the norm but we make many allowances for other languages. I don't really get what would be so bad if people were to choose whatever language they felt like.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 19, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: Scipio on November 19, 2012, 06:39:43 PM
French-Canadian cultural reinforcement combines the worst aspects of Canuckistanianism, and Frenchiness, to create a people that would rather bitch and wave their cigarettes at each other than make a living.
Aren't you from Mississippi or some other shithole? :lol:
And so I am therefore an authority on shitholes, which Quebec is quick on the way to becoming. This is just as dumb as America passing laws requiring everything be in English. Why not Esperanto? Why not central planning for everything? That's the Canucki way, and golly gee, among a nation that is overwhelming white and middle class, it works. Just like in Sweden.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 09:07:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 08:57:22 PM
Sorry but as much as we Americans don't get to conveniently separate ourselves from our politicians - you don't either. ;)
There's 2 issues here.
The main issue is obviously the overzealous bureaucrats.
The other one is not about who will get confused or not. It's about cosmetics. It's about culture, it's about what you present to the world. Like a city ruling on the size of a sign, on what can go on a sign. Some people are afraid that seeing english language signs everywhere, people eventually get the idea that Quebec is an english province, just like the rest of the country.
It's never been about who would get "confused" by entering a place with an english only trademark. I thought it would be obvious by now.
SO the idea is that if there is a english sounding name, have them throw some other stuff up there in French so that there is more French on the sign for its own sake.
And this is NOT about "French-Canadian cultural reinforcement"?
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 09:07:45 PM
There's 2 issues here.
The main issue is obviously the overzealous bureaucrats.
The other one is not about who will get confused or not. It's about cosmetics. It's about culture, it's about what you present to the world. Like a city ruling on the size of a sign, on what can go on a sign. Some people are afraid that seeing english language signs everywhere, people eventually get the idea that Quebec is an english province, just like the rest of the country.
It's never been about who would get "confused" by entering a place with an english only trademark. I thought it would be obvious by now.
But this is precisely why I am frothing at the mouth over this. It would be one thing if Walmart put up big signs on their stores that readw Walmart Plumbing Supply and Beauty Salon (although I still think the signage law is stupid--if a company wants to lose French speaking business, let 'em) , but Walmart is a company name. It's as much of an English word as Sony or Samsung or Yoplait is.
Walmart isn't really the problem, it's just rightfully take offense. The real culprit for this is Best Buy/Futureshop
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 09:10:49 PM
I don't think it is about confusion. As to the rest of that, I'm sorry but that doesn't really make sense to me. I don't know what it is to be an English province coming from places where yes English is the norm but we make many allowances for other languages. I don't really get what would be so bad if people were to choose whatever language they felt like.
Extreme cases: Quebec lose a distinctive advantage, architecture looks just like Charlottetown, Ottawa or Boston.
Extreme cases: Immigrant get the idea that French is irrelevant, they can easily get by with english only. Why bother learning french?
Extreme cases: with immigrants assimilating ot the english majority, Quebec loses it's status as a French province, english quebecers get even more radical in their demands.
This is why there are language laws, this is why immigrants have to send their kids to french school, this is why corporations have to have french signs, offer french services to their clientele and offer a french work place to their employees.
Now, will this extreme I told you about become the reality because Walmart is "Walmart"? No. But some morons think so. They should be wondering why none of our companies can grow big enough to rival these, why our electronic stores seems to fail one after the other, but I guess it's more important to harass the successful ones. I don't care about Walmart, I hate shopping there, just like I hated Zellers in its time. I'm even beginning to dislike FutureShop since they became BestBuy. It seems their salespeople are even more clueless than when they first opened their stores (the goold old joke about a "SCSI mouse" ;) ).
Anyway, if I were paranoid, I'd say this is a PQ move to distract attention from the upcoming budget.
So you're saying you'd be cool with it if everybody else forced, say, Rossy locations outside of Quebec to change their name to "That French Store Rossy."
Le Grill? What the hell is that?
Of your extreme cases:
1) How does that happen? I've never been to your other two examples, so I'm not sure if they would match Boston. Meanwhile, my last trip to the North End of Boston (October), I noted how similar (though Italian) it looked to Vieux-Quebec.
2) So what? If French is irrelevant to live there (as it often is in Montreal) what's the harm? They'll quickly be dissuaded when they head out of cities and encounter French speaking citizens / if not, then again what's the harm if people speak the language that they want?
3) Again, what's the problem? I'm not sure what these demands would be though feel free to give me 19th and early 20th century examples. :P
...Even I think this may be a tad excessive :weep:
Edit: Although, fuck it, just ban use of English :w00t: :frog:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2012, 10:50:16 PM
...Even I think this may be a tad excessive :weep:
Edit: Although, fuck it, just ban use of English :w00t: :frog:
That'd be stellar for commerce.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2012, 10:50:16 PM
...Even I think this may be a tad excessive :weep:
Edit: Although, fuck it, just ban use of English :w00t: :frog:
Honestly, I'm not a fan of the language laws for exactly this reason: they're incredibly one-sided. They're isolationist, protectionist, and what they tell businesses and citizens alike is "you're not welcome unless you fit your square peg into our round hole." They're pretty much using the language laws to do what those same laws were supposed to prevent in the first place.
Sometimes it can be fun to try and force a square peg into a round hole. ^_^
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2012, 10:20:18 PM
But this is precisely why I am frothing at the mouth over this. It would be one thing if Walmart put up big signs on their stores that readw Walmart Plumbing Supply and Beauty Salon (although I still think the signage law is stupid--if a company wants to lose French speaking business, let 'em) , but Walmart is a company name. It's as much of an English word as Sony or Samsung or Yoplait is.
Once every company is english only what will French customers do, stop buying finished products and build everything themselves? 6 million french speakers on one side, 324 million on the other. At some point, you got to stand your ground, otherwise, people will walk over you.
When a muslim or a Jew complain there's no Halal or Kosher food being served in the airplane, the airplane is run by racist schmuck. When a French complain he's not spoken to in French by a corporation mandated by law to do so, he gets expelled from the plain and the medias portrays the French as racist intolerant.
People in BC are starting to complain about Chinese signs. People in California, and in other US States are trying to limit Spanish education.
There's nothing really different. No one would expect to do business in Germany in english only. No one expects the German to provide free english only public education from kindergarden to university. But we are expected to, and we do it. Not that it bothers me, personally. I like the english-french duality, I dislike mono-cultural/linguistical entities. I think it's great Montreal and Quebec city have a vibrant english speaking minority with their own distinctiveness added to our own. Lots of Irish in Gaspesia and around Quebec city, I think it's cool.
As I said, I don't care about the trademarks. I'd prefer a Marché Viper, owned by a Québécois, with branches everywhere.
But even if it was economically possible, I guess Canadians would never shop in a big store with a French name. Quebec based corporations hoping to sell outside our borders have had to adapt. Bombardier became "Bombardier Recreative Products (BRP)" to attack the North American market with its products. In the past, Aventure Électronique became "Adventure Electronic" trying to penetrate the Ontarian market. Heck, expatriates even have to anglicize their restaurants name to "Pierre's Poutine" in Ontario to hope attracting customers. Numbers speaks. And I think Americans would react the same with a big store chain.
Anyway, I won't defend some stupid bureaucrat's idea. I don't even care if someone answers me in english first, so long as I can get spoken to in French, in a timely manner, not being transferred 8 times, I'll accept it. But I will defend the general idea behing the language laws. It's symptomatic of being a minority, but it's a necessary evil. And every culture react the same when it feels threatened.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2012, 09:28:25 PM
And this is NOT about "French-Canadian cultural reinforcement"?
it is about that. In the mind of some people. It is not about a customer getting confused because he doesn't know what Walmart sells.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 10:57:31 PM
People in BC are starting to complain about Chinese signs. People in California, and in other US States are trying to limit Spanish education.
I'm not sure these are the examples you want. After all, with no official language in many states (and not federally), we end up catering to many languages as necessary.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 19, 2012, 10:46:28 PM
So you're saying you'd be cool with it if everybody else forced, say, Rossy locations outside of Quebec to change their name to "That French Store Rossy."
I don't even know Rossy. If Canadians want the store to change name, it's their thing.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 08:53:05 PM
Which is the core of the debate here. Not that english canadian media will report it that way of course.
It's not unusual for the citizens to go to court against various government office because bureaucrats have a creative way of interpreting the laws. It's not unusual for the government, the elected body representing us, to sit on the fence and claim "independance" when it suits them.
Judgement against the government have been numerous. Wether it be the creative interpretation of the construction laws by the Commission de la Construction du Québec or the creative interpretation of what your revenues should be by Revenu Québec, corporations and citizens go to court every day against their government to have their rigths respected. It's not like Walmart is some unique case just because it's about a trademark. But it's damn sexier than "Citizen sues Revenu Québec for harassment".
That's actually a pretty interesting point. Thanks :)
Are there a section of Quebec nationalists who are generally in favour of the language laws themselves who nonetheless support individual complaints on the grounds that the bureaucrats are being pricks?
Viper, if people in BC complain about Chinese signs they're dismissed as racist crackpots.
Personally, I don't have a fundamental issue with the spirit of the QC language laws; though I reserve the right to find individual implementations dumb.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 11:06:35 PM
Are there a section of Quebec nationalists who are generally in favour of the language laws themselves who nonetheless support individual complaints on the grounds that the bureaucrats are being pricks?
Hi. My name is Zoupa. I like asian chicks.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 10:47:19 PM
1) How does that happen? I've never been to your other two examples, so I'm not sure if they would match Boston. Meanwhile, my last trip to the North End of Boston (October), I noted how similar (though Italian) it looked to Vieux-Quebec.
Boston, Ottawa, Charlottetown, they all have similar architecture. You can add Halifax and Toronto to the mix.
I find Quebec city to be unique in North America, for a city. Of course, there's the countryside. Except for some parts of Acadia, Quebec is different than the rest of North America. Well, most of it anyway. The later cities&villages to have a typical anglo-saxon look. Anyway, even staying on the highway you should have noticed the difference during your trip, no?
Quote
2) So what? If French is irrelevant to live there (as it often is in Montreal) what's the harm? They'll quickly be dissuaded when they head out of cities and encounter French speaking citizens / if not, then again what's the harm if people speak the language that they want?
What's the harm in providing free romanina education for everyone who asks? Free vietnamese? Free chinese?
What's the harm in translating everything in every language? What's the harm in being treated like a second class citizen, being denied jobs & promotions because your primary language is not english?
This is the way it was in the 50s in Montreal, and in many places in Quebec.
Neil's attitude may seem a bit "overblown" but it is actually representative of a sizable portion of canadians. The ones who complain about our Prime Minister using French during his official speeches, for example.
Quote
3) Again, what's the problem? I'm not sure what these demands would be though feel free to give me 19th and early 20th century examples. :P
Make it mid 20th to late 20th and early 21st, actually.
Like, oh, say, having two seperate university hospital, one run by english staffers for english patients, the other for the french. Why have one bilingual hospital when you can can have two for 3 times the costs? Why hire a French administrator when you can hire an anglophone crook who took refuge in a fiscal paradise after defrauding the hospital and accepting a bribe?
Why elect a former seperatist politician for mayor when you can vote for a blind&deaf man who admits never having heard about any "corruption" while everyone arounds him get arrested? And who's gonna pay for the english Montrealers desire to keep a known idiot as mayor? Everyone in Quebec, of course :)
You said in another thread you didn't want the majority of americans paying for your lifestyle, as gay couples shouldn't benefit from any tax break like us breeders get. But here, you don't seem having a problem for the majority of Quebecers paying for a minority who wish to keep their own lifestyle, while at the same time not understanding why the majority of the province wishes to do the same.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
Viper, if people in BC complain about Chinese signs they're dismissed as racist crackpots.
Personally, I don't have a fundamental issue with the spirit of the QC language laws; though I reserve the right to find individual implementations dumb.
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/01/14/why-chinese-only-signs-arent-good-for-canada/ (http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/01/14/why-chinese-only-signs-arent-good-for-canada/)
La Belle Province is where proud francophones, who value their distinct culture more than most British Columbians do their West Coast heritage, have decided that French must predominate on almost all signs, with English equivalents usually smaller.
[...]
Calgary officials have not been as cautious as those in Richmond. One Calgary city consultative commit-tee, headed by Tom Leung, strongly argued against the kind of ethnic malls where foreign languages predominate, fearing they can isolate minorities and lead to failure.
And here:
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/01/17/more-chinese-only-sign-debate-three-chinese-canadian-voices/
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 11:06:35 PM
Are there a section of Quebec nationalists who are generally in favour of the language laws themselves who nonetheless support individual complaints on the grounds that the bureaucrats are being pricks?
Depends what you will define as "Quebec nationalist". To many, even among the seperatist themselves, not only english canadians, you can't be a Quebec nationalist if you're not a seperatist.
But realistically, among Quebec nationalists, many support the individual complaints of Walmart&co against the bureaucrats. Even among the seperatists, many believe the bureaucrats are asking too much. It's just that... well, it's politics. It's like BB disagreeing with the Conservative, you think he'd tell us? ;) :P
So, many seperatists will follow the partyline, even if they don't really agree with it, for fear of damaging the cause.
A few have voiced dissent, maybe some more will do in the days to come.
It's similar to how the Liberal supporters where willing to shut their eyes in front of illegal financing&corruption allegations. It was more important to protect "the cause" and the party against the sovereignists than offering criticism of bad ideas, wich could be exploited by the opposition.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:01:13 PM
I'm not sure these are the examples you want. After all, with no official language in many states (and not federally), we end up catering to many languages as necessary.
So I can move to the US and request my tax form in French? I can get to a local unemployment office and ask for someone to speak to me in French and that would be seen as totally ok?
A spanish speaking citizen in Mississipi would get a trial in Spanish if he desired so?
I have doubts, but if you tel me it's true, I'll believe you, I've never been south of Boston.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 19, 2012, 11:17:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2012, 11:06:35 PM
Are there a section of Quebec nationalists who are generally in favour of the language laws themselves who nonetheless support individual complaints on the grounds that the bureaucrats are being pricks?
Hi. My name is Zoupa. I like asian chicks.
That's a fetish I'll never get. Half asian-caucasian, cool, but full asian girl, no, just no.
With all of your bitching about the minority English speakers in Quebec, change the terms to minority French speakers in Canada. It's fun. :)
K.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 11:30:55 PM
That's a fetish I'll never get. Half asian-caucasian, cool, but full asian girl, no, just no.
meowtf
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 11:29:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:01:13 PM
I'm not sure these are the examples you want. After all, with no official language in many states (and not federally), we end up catering to many languages as necessary.
So I can move to the US and request my tax form in French?
Yes you can.
Quote
I can get to a local unemployment office and ask for someone to speak to me in French and that would be seen as totally ok?
Probably. Why that not be ok?
Quote
A spanish speaking citizen in Mississipi would get a trial in Spanish if he desired so?
Not likely. But he could ask.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 08:53:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 04:50:31 PM
Plus it establishes that their signs have to be changed at the whim of a bureaucrat.
Which is the core of the debate here. Not that english canadian media will report it that way of course.
It's not unusual for the citizens to go to court against various government office because bureaucrats have a creative way of interpreting the laws. It's not unusual for the government, the elected body representing us, to sit on the fence and claim "independance" when it suits them.
Judgement against the government have been numerous. Wether it be the creative interpretation of the construction laws by the Commission de la Construction du Québec or the creative interpretation of what your revenues should be by Revenu Québec, corporations and citizens go to court every day against their government to have their rigths respected. It's not like Walmart is some unique case just because it's about a trademark. But it's damn sexier than "Citizen sues Revenu Québec for harassment".
So Quebec government sucks, and this is just an examle of that? :huh:
Yup. It sells papers and got you talking though, feeding the myth.
Oh, Canada.
Quebec is a racist province, and they deserve all the bad things that happen to them.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 10:56:40 PM
Sometimes it can be fun to try and force a square peg into a round hole. ^_^
TMI
Quote from: Berkut on November 20, 2012, 12:37:41 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2012, 11:29:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2012, 11:01:13 PM
I'm not sure these are the examples you want. After all, with no official language in many states (and not federally), we end up catering to many languages as necessary.
So I can move to the US and request my tax form in French?
Yes you can.
Quote
I can get to a local unemployment office and ask for someone to speak to me in French and that would be seen as totally ok?
Probably. Why that not be ok?
Quote
A spanish speaking citizen in Mississipi would get a trial in Spanish if he desired so?
Not likely. But he could ask.
Yeah we're pretty accommodating. Hell, my sample ballot came in a bunch of different languages that you can vote in.
Yeah, I mean you an get government communications in all sorts of languages. The government has to make a good faith effort to communicate to its citizens, which means it will send tax forms to you in French if you so chose. You won't get a trial in French, but I think the government is required to give you an interpreter so that you can aid in your own defense. In practice it would be harder to find a French interpreter then a Spanish one due to the low number of French speakers in the country. Now if you demanded a French interpreter and could speak perfectly fine English they might hit you with sticks for being an asshole.
I'd be with them if it meant changing things like sub-titles, e.g. "Lowest prices in the world" or the like into French but the names of shops too? That is just stupid.
Quote
So some companies have taken steps to change their name — like Kentucky Fried Chicken, which is known in Quebec as "Poulet Frit Kentucky." But others, like Walmart and Best Buy, have set up shop under the same name that appears elsewhere in the world.
This KFC one is particularly weird. I was under the impression it didn't even use the Kentucky Fried Chicken name anymore and just stuck to the pure KFC branding as it said enough.
Man, now I want some Chicken.
I liked Viper's explanations on the culture background of what is a pretty dumb measure.
Still, it's hard to believe nationalists are helping themselves in any meaningful way with such excessive measures (or by fostering a climate in which such could occur), since it just serves to make them look ridiculous - even in the eyes of many of their own members - and frighten business away.
But I suppose that's just a realistic side-effect once a society has largely accepted the "endangered culture" mentality (which is IMO probably a valid perception).
I thought Nationalists looking ridiculous was de rigueur.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on November 20, 2012, 12:30:35 AM
With all of your bitching about the minority English speakers in Quebec, change the terms to minority French speakers in Canada. It's fun. :)
Historically, French schools were forbiden in most part of Canada. In Manitoba, French had the right to public schooling only since the early 90s.
French were here first. French rights have been historically trempled. Once you get to a minority status, you arrive at some point with the consequence being that you either keep on forcing assimilation or you protect the language you tried to trample.
As Canadians from all horizons fear only one thing, annexation by the US, official bilinguism was seen as a way to preserve canadian identity in face of seperatism rising in Quebec. Official bilinguism dates only from 1982.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2012, 01:52:51 AM
Yeah, I mean you an get government communications in all sorts of languages. The government has to make a good faith effort to communicate to its citizens, which means it will send tax forms to you in French if you so chose. You won't get a trial in French, but I think the government is required to give you an interpreter so that you can aid in your own defense. In practice it would be harder to find a French interpreter then a Spanish one due to the low number of French speakers in the country. Now if you demanded a French interpreter and could speak perfectly fine English they might hit you with sticks for being an asshole.
Yeah, if you're on trial and can't speak English (or don't speak it well), they won't conduct the trial in your language for you (as always, there might be exceptions) but they
will get you an interpreter. If you speak English well, but would prefer to have not do so, yes, then they'd probably tell you to fuck yourself.
That's for criminal trials, though. For civil suits, I'd guess that a plaintiff that doesn't speak English would have to provide their own interpreter, but I'm sure about that, and I have no idea about the defendent in a civil suit.
As far as the question about asking for a French-speaking person at the unemployment office, that actually might be a problem. They would get someone there, but instead of a French-speaking employee of the department, it might just be an interpreter, and it might actually take a bit of time to arrange, which would be inconvenient for the client. But the same accomodation would be extended to speakers of almost any language; Spanish-speakers would actually have a decent chance of there being a Spanish-speaking employee actually on duty, for languages that don't have very many speakers in this country, say Latvian or Basque, the time to arrange for an interpreter might be measured in weeks (which obviously would be very inconvenient for the client).
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 07:36:08 AM
French were here first.
Actually, no. The French weren't there first. Call 'em Indians, Native Americans, First Nations, or whatever, they were there first.
QuoteFrench rights have been historically trempled. .
I guess that really, the heart of the problems that many Americans have with your language laws is that we are more comfortable with the idea of individual rights, not group rights.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 07:36:08 AM
As Canadians from all horizons fear only one thing, annexation by the US
Not to worry, your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. :)
:yeah:
Quote from: Caliga on November 20, 2012, 08:00:46 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 07:36:08 AM
As Canadians from all horizons fear only one thing, annexation by the US
Not to worry, your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. :)
But I don't want our occupation of Canada to be modeled on the Borg. I want it to be like the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, where we strip out every thing of value and then leave after there's nothing worth taking left. Wait a sec--did we already occupy Canada at some point and not remember it?
If so you left all the Oil & Uranium behind, so I'm guessing not, really no.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:34:21 AM
Yeah we're pretty accommodating. Hell, my sample ballot came in a bunch of different languages that you can vote in.
It's especially accommodating when the dates in Spanish for Election Day are incorrect.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:44:34 AM
So Quebec government sucks, and this is just an examle of that? :huh:
When I tell you I live in a socialist hell, do you think I'm lying?
See, a real case: my notary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_notary) made a simple mistake last year. She made all the paper work to dissolve two of our companies, but forgot the file the final documents with the government, after everything else was registered. So, for the government, I still have 2 active companies, beside the others. These two companies have produced tax fillings every year, one of them never had any revenues.
So, I received a letter last month, telling me I owe the government 8000$ in income tax for one of the companies because the company is still registered and did not file an income tax report. Now, I have to prove to my government there has been no activity for this company, that it was dissolved, that the notary simply forgot to file the last paper (electronic form actually, in a system for wich the government has had many problems... so it might just be that they lost it).
For another company, I made a mistake, many years ago. They changed my GST&PST declaration period from trimestrial to monthly, but I did not noticed it. See, despite me writing and phoning, telling them to use the office adress for any correspondance, they are still sending all documents to my father's adress for this enterprise. So, I keep getting stuff late. Anyway, I made the mistake, I made my declaration for 3 months instead of one month.
Never mind that my documents were correctly filled with the proper dates, the government assumed I did not make any declaration for 3 months of the year. Now, do they base themselves on an annual mean to estimate the amounts I owe them? Of course not :) They took my declaration for 3 months in a specific period, assumed it is representative of all months in a year, and say I owe them 2900$ in unpaid tax for this company, plus the penalties, plus the interests.
I sent the document twice, twice I was called back to tell me they lost it, I had to resend it. 3 years later, they credited me with one month, insisting I owe them 2000$ for 2 months.
That has been lasting for 4 years, trying to correct a simple mistake. When I call, I'm told these things take time.
So, yes, our government is filled with assholes, the bigger ones working for the Office de la langue française and Revenu Québec.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 07:58:37 AM
Actually, no. The French weren't there first. Call 'em Indians, Native Americans, First Nations, or whatever, they were there first.
True, and we try to make things right, but it's difficult with so many languages now extinct.
Quote
I guess that really, the heart of the problems that many Americans have with your language laws is that we are more comfortable with the idea of individual rights, not group rights.
The problem is what do you do once a group has been pushed to the brink of extinction?
Choice A: keep doing what you did, let it die.
Choice B: allow some compromises to help them survive.
Choice B was decided as a way to keep Quebec into Canada. The day it stops entirely is the day Quebec gets out of the Federation, and Canadians fear that, for some reason.
In the US, you have affirmative action for certain groups, like the blacks, because historically, they were denied access to decent schools. Either we have affirmative action were French would be given preferential treatments (I can imagine the outcry in Canada), or you let the people of Quebec protect their culture. And yes, sometimes it will give silly issues like the trademark battles.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:42:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:44:34 AM
So Quebec government sucks, and this is just an examle of that? :huh:
When I tell you I live in a socialist hell, do you think I'm lying?
that's what happens when you employ people because they speak French, rather then because they're good at their job :P
Quote from: HVC on November 20, 2012, 08:57:59 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:42:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:44:34 AM
So Quebec government sucks, and this is just an examle of that? :huh:
When I tell you I live in a socialist hell, do you think I'm lying?
that's what happens when you employ people because they speak French, rather then because they're good at their job :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Porter_%28Canada%29
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 07:54:27 AM
Yeah, if you're on trial and can't speak English (or don't speak it well), they won't conduct the trial in your language for you (as always, there might be exceptions) but they will get you an interpreter. If you speak English well, but would prefer to have not do so, yes, then they'd probably tell you to fuck yourself.
it's the same here, except any Canadian citizens has the right to a trial in English, not just an interpreter. A French Canadian citizen though can only get his trial in French in Quebec, or "were the numbers justify it". Wich is akin to "learn english" for 95% of the territory outside Quebec.
See, there's nothing wrong with individual rights. But they just don't mean the same in English Canada than in Quebec. And until they do, the language laws will be a necessity.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:48:43 AM
In the US, you have affirmative action for certain groups, like the blacks, because historically, they were denied access to decent schools. Either we have affirmative action were French would be given preferential treatments (I can imagine the outcry in Canada), or you let the people of Quebec protect their culture. And yes, sometimes it will give silly issues like the trademark battles.
I'm not sure if that's the best equivalent. After all, black people aren't really dying out whereas you're talking about propping up an apparently dying culture (or at least one that has to be foisted on others to survive).
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 07:54:27 AM
As far as the question about asking for a French-speaking person at the unemployment office, that actually might be a problem. They would get someone there, but instead of a French-speaking employee of the department, it might just be an interpreter, and it might actually take a bit of time to arrange, which would be inconvenient for the client. But the same accomodation would be extended to speakers of almost any language; Spanish-speakers would actually have a decent chance of there being a Spanish-speaking employee actually on duty, for languages that don't have very many speakers in this country, say Latvian or Basque, the time to arrange for an interpreter might be measured in weeks (which obviously would be very inconvenient for the client).
Most of the time they have a conference call with an interpreter on the line, anymore. They have a number the state employee calls, they ask for the necessary language, and then conference in the unemployed individual. Much quicker, easier, and usually cheaper.
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:48:43 AM
In the US, you have affirmative action for certain groups, like the blacks, because historically, they were denied access to decent schools. Either we have affirmative action were French would be given preferential treatments (I can imagine the outcry in Canada), or you let the people of Quebec protect their culture. And yes, sometimes it will give silly issues like the trademark battles.
I'm not sure if that's the best equivalent. After all, black people aren't really dying out whereas you're talking about propping up an apparently dying culture (or at least one that has to be foisted on others to survive).
Yeah. I was thinking that the equivalent would be more like the Acadians in Louisiana or the Appalacians in eastern Tennessee, Kentucky, and western Virginia, which we do nothing to encourage or maintain.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
BUt those things are what make it interesting and unique. Nobody gets all excited about goings on in Montana.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 10:11:38 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
BUt those things are what make it interesting and unique. Nobody gets all excited about goings on in Montana.
As the Chinese curse states: "may you live in Quebec".
Whoops - actually, "may you live in interesting times". My bad. :P
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
Why do you guys have a problem with us striking? Wasting our money?
While I've long wanted to visit Montreal at some point, this thread has made me want to visit it more than ever, now. Luckily, Max doesn't seem to have the same extreme distaste for Quebec as many of the other Canadians share, and may actually go with me when I go. :D
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 10:15:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
Why do you guys have a problem with us striking? Wasting our money?
I don't. It's not a problem for me, it's a problem for you guys. Same with the corruption thing, and with the harsher language laws.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:48:43 AM
In the US, you have affirmative action for certain groups, like the blacks, because historically, they were denied access to decent schools. Either we have affirmative action were French would be given preferential treatments (I can imagine the outcry in Canada), or you let the people of Quebec protect their culture. And yes, sometimes it will give silly issues like the trademark battles.
I'm not sure if that's the best equivalent. After all, black people aren't really dying out whereas you're talking about propping up an apparently dying culture (or at least one that has to be foisted on others to survive).
How on earth do you figure Quebecois culture is dying? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:16:57 AM
While I've long wanted to visit Montreal at some point, this thread has made me want to visit it more than ever, now. Luckily, Max doesn't seem to have the same extreme distaste for Quebec as many of the other Canadians share, and may actually go with me when I go. :D
I don't see any evidence for "extreme distaste for Quebec" here, other than Neil's rantings which are hardly serious.
Montreal is a lovely city, I've been there many times. Though as a tourist site you really can't beat Quebec City.
Maybe distaste is too strong a word. It's more of a dismissal of the culture, the laws, and the people. Honestly, hearing a lot of Canadians (not here, but in general), they speak of Quebec much like many in the US speak of Canada. Almost like it's an annoying little brother that we love to beat up, but no one else can. :P
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:31:13 AM
Maybe distaste is too strong a word. It's more of a dismissal of the culture, the laws, and the people. Honestly, hearing a lot of Canadians (not here, but in general), they speak of Quebec much like many in the US speak of Canada. Almost like it's an annoying little brother that we love to beat up, but no one else can. :P
I think many Canadians are dismissive of Quebec politics (and hence many of its laws), but that's different from disliking the people or culture.
Quebec City seems nice for a brief getaway but I like Montreal better. Also Montreal is very English friendly - though I did have a long interaction at a grocery store where the woman never realized I don't speak French. :D
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:31:13 AM
Maybe distaste is too strong a word. It's more of a dismissal of the culture, the laws, and the people. Honestly, hearing a lot of Canadians (not here, but in general), they speak of Quebec much like many in the US speak of Canada. Almost like it's an annoying little brother that we love to beat up, but no one else can. :P
I think many Canadians are dismissive of Quebec politics (and hence many of its laws), but that's different from disliking the people or culture.
Hmm, I would argue that the culture is also rife with complaint by many Canadians. It's certainly how it seems to an outsider.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:18:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 10:15:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
Why do you guys have a problem with us striking? Wasting our money?
I don't. It's not a problem for me, it's a problem for you guys. Same with the corruption thing, and with the harsher language laws.
Not really, it's just the way we do business. How do you think we built all those nice cabins in our woods?
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
Quebec City seems nice for a brief getaway but I like Montreal better. Also Montreal is very English friendly - though I did have a long interaction at a grocery store where the woman never realized I don't speak French. :D
Depends on whay you are looking for - Montreal is a big, happening city, with culture and activity by the ton. Quebec City is more picturesque.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 10:48:37 AM
Not really, it's just the way we do business. How do you think we built all those nice cabins in our woods?
Ironically, my grandfather built several cabins in the Quebec woods. No strikes, corruption or legislated French was involved. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:47:05 AM
Hmm, I would argue that the culture is also rife with complaint by many Canadians. It's certainly how it seems to an outsider.
Weeelll, there *is* Celine Dion ... :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:48:43 AM
In the US, you have affirmative action for certain groups, like the blacks, because historically, they were denied access to decent schools. Either we have affirmative action were French would be given preferential treatments (I can imagine the outcry in Canada), or you let the people of Quebec protect their culture. And yes, sometimes it will give silly issues like the trademark battles.
I'm not sure if that's the best equivalent. After all, black people aren't really dying out whereas you're talking about propping up an apparently dying culture (or at least one that has to be foisted on others to survive).
How on earth do you figure Quebecois culture is dying? :huh:
I don't really think that it is - but that seems to often be part of all the discussion around all of these laws. Hypervigilance lest everyone (i.e. Anglos) go on a binge to force out French culture.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:48:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
Quebec City seems nice for a brief getaway but I like Montreal better. Also Montreal is very English friendly - though I did have a long interaction at a grocery store where the woman never realized I don't speak French. :D
Depends on whay you are looking for - Montreal is a big, happening city, with culture and activity by the ton. Quebec City is more picturesque.
Yeah, that's why I said brief getaway. Very pretty scenery but I, myself, could really only see hanging out there for a handful of days.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 10:56:35 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:48:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
Quebec City seems nice for a brief getaway but I like Montreal better. Also Montreal is very English friendly - though I did have a long interaction at a grocery store where the woman never realized I don't speak French. :D
Depends on whay you are looking for - Montreal is a big, happening city, with culture and activity by the ton. Quebec City is more picturesque.
Yeah, that's why I said brief getaway. Very pretty scenery but I, myself, could really only see hanging out there for a handful of days.
Yeah, that's fair enough.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:50:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 10:48:37 AM
Not really, it's just the way we do business. How do you think we built all those nice cabins in our woods?
Ironically, my grandfather built several cabins in the Quebec woods. No strikes, corruption or legislated French was involved. ;)
Exactly. A rich anglo stealing our lands.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:50:17 AM
Ironically, my grandfather built several cabins in the Quebec woods. No strikes, corruption or legislated French was involved. ;)
Exactly. A rich anglo stealing our lands.
Take a number and get in line with the Alqonquins and Mohawks, pal.
The Indians, especially modern Indians. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
Exactly. A rich anglo stealing our lands.
:D
Joking aside, it looks like my grandfather's cabin is about to end up inside a new provincial park.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:39:54 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:17:31 AM
Exactly. A rich anglo stealing our lands.
:D
Joking aside, it looks like my grandfather's cabin is about to end up inside a new provincial park.
What are the implications of such a thing?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
What are the implications of such a thing?
I was worried that they were going to expropriate, but apparently that isn't in the works - we've been "grandfathered" in (to excuse the expression ;)). On the plus side, it means no new buildings in the neighbourhood.
Edit: it just struck me that, because I chipped in for expenses on the place including taxes, I'm a Quebec taxpayer! Je suis québécois et je me souviens! Well, sorta. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
Joking aside, it looks like my grandfather's cabin is about to end up inside a new provincial park.
What are the implications of such a thing?
I was worried that they were going to expropriate, but apparently that isn't in the works - we've been "grandfathered" in (to excuse the expression ;)). On the plus side, it means no new buildings in the neighbourhood.
Now that's nice. Peace & quiet assured.
At some point I'm gonna go visit that cabin.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:56:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
Joking aside, it looks like my grandfather's cabin is about to end up inside a new provincial park.
What are the implications of such a thing?
I was worried that they were going to expropriate, but apparently that isn't in the works - we've been "grandfathered" in (to excuse the expression ;)). On the plus side, it means no new buildings in the neighbourhood.
Now that's nice. Peace & quiet assured.
At some point I'm gonna go visit that cabin.
You know, I would not mind having you guys up there. Though be warned, it is remote and lacks conveniences.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:59:17 AM
You know, I would not mind having you guys up there. Though be warned, it is remote and lacks conveniences.
:w00t:
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:59:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:56:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
Joking aside, it looks like my grandfather's cabin is about to end up inside a new provincial park.
What are the implications of such a thing?
I was worried that they were going to expropriate, but apparently that isn't in the works - we've been "grandfathered" in (to excuse the expression ;)). On the plus side, it means no new buildings in the neighbourhood.
Now that's nice. Peace & quiet assured.
At some point I'm gonna go visit that cabin.
You know, I would not mind having you guys up there. Though be warned, it is remote and lacks conveniences.
:cool: I like rugged trips in the wilderness. How's the accomodation for a 2 year old & a new born?
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:48:43 AM
In the US, you have affirmative action for certain groups, like the blacks, because historically, they were denied access to decent schools. Either we have affirmative action were French would be given preferential treatments (I can imagine the outcry in Canada), or you let the people of Quebec protect their culture. And yes, sometimes it will give silly issues like the trademark battles.
I'm not sure if that's the best equivalent. After all, black people aren't really dying out whereas you're talking about propping up an apparently dying culture (or at least one that has to be foisted on others to survive).
well, it's a different issue, but the issue of affirmative action is to give certain groups a chance to reach the white majority who historically had access to the best education, and as such the best jobs.
But it's similar in that there was discrimination against a group in the past, and nowadays, measures are needed to help this group reach the level of the majority.
Culturally speaking, if you forbid education, health care, government services in the language of a specific group, even if that group was at one point the majority (like Manitoba), it doesn't take long for that group to become an endangered minority.
At that point, you can keep up the assimilation process, or you can decide to respect the laws of the country, namely the one about official bilinguism, wich was actually only used in Quebec by the english speaking minority. The provincial tribunals did not recognize rights to the French community, the Federal government did not want to anger the British colonists, so it really became an issue with the 1982 Constitution wich gave more protection to minorities.
Now, you have English Canadians and Americans bitching that official bilinguism should be only effective in Quebec, and everywhere else should be english first. You got American and Canadians bitching at seperatists and nationalists, something that is weird to me.
It is apparently ok to be a proud American, but it wouldn't be ok to be a proud Quebecois.
It is ok to call yourself a loyal subject of her majesty, insisting you are totally not like an American, voting laws to protect your cultural identity, to protect your corporations from non English Canadian takeovers, but it's not ok for Quebec to do the same.
And we are the weird ones?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 12:01:08 PM
:cool: I like rugged trips in the wilderness. How's the accomodation for a 2 year old & a new born?
:lol:
Heh, I've had Carl up since he was 4 or so. But a newborn? For them, I like having such luxuries as a bathroom and running water. :D
Sorry V, but all of that sounded really weird to me. I don't know that I've ever bitched that English should be first...anywhere. People who I do see do that (often in our states that border Mexico) strike me as backwards and trying to preserve some static image they have of their "culture" which fails to recognize that such things are fluid and always changing.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
What's worse, is that that Anglophone news sources are willing to talk about it. Yet another example of British colonialism. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2012, 12:30:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
What's worse, is that that Anglophone news sources are willing to talk about it. Yet another example of British colonialism. :(
I just saw this. Yet another blow to Quebec.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/montreals-new-mayor-defies-stereotyping-of-quebec-politics/article5462459/
QuoteIt's Day Two of the administration of Montreal's first Jewish anglophone mayor, and the city seems to still be standing. Michael Applebaum was sworn in on Monday after being elected interim mayor on Friday by his fellow councillors, the majority of whom are francophone, and some of whom are noted separatists. In many ways, Mr. Applebaum's ascension couldn't have come at a better moment.
For one thing, Mr. Applebaum's election is a welcome reminder that Montreal, currently embroiled in the grotesque corruption scandal that drove Gérald Tremblay from the mayor's office on Nov. 5, is modern and diverse enough to get past Quebec's often petty politics of language and search for meaningful ways to repair itself. Mr. Applebaum is the right person for the job: He is an experienced, independent, fluently bilingual councillor who has vowed to build bridges and repair the city's shattered reputation.
Just as importantly, Mr. Applebaum has arrived in the wake of a provincial general election that saw divisive language politics rear their ugly head once again; he serves as a corrective to baser political instincts. As well, his presence in so prominent a position will give some small comfort to Montreal's aging and beleaguered anglophone community, which is never more ignored than it is when the Parti Québécois is in power.
Some will point out that politicians, when obliged to pick a colleague as interim leader, usually give the job to someone they think has no chance of winning a general election. And Mr. Applebaum has vowed not to run for mayor when the current term is over in just under a year. That may be so, but it doesn't take away from the larger significance of the moment.
Mr. Applebaum joins a pantheon of mayors who have defied stereotype and changed Canadian politics, from Glen Murray in Winnipeg, who in 1998 became the first openly gay mayor of a North American city, to Naheed Nenshi of Calgary, the first Muslim mayor of a major Canadian city. In becoming mayor of Montreal, Mr. Applebaum has shown the rest of Canada that there is much more to Quebec than any convenient stereotype.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbL7lG0Su8
"Only English pig with no brain, you know?" :P
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:48:43 AM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 07:58:37 AM
Actually, no. The French weren't there first. Call 'em Indians, Native Americans, First Nations, or whatever, they were there first.
True, and we try to make things right, but it's difficult with so many languages now extinct.
Quote
I guess that really, the heart of the problems that many Americans have with your language laws is that we are more comfortable with the idea of individual rights, not group rights.
The problem is what do you do once a group has been pushed to the brink of extinction?
Choice A: keep doing what you did, let it die.
Choice B: allow some compromises to help them survive.
Choice B was decided as a way to keep Quebec into Canada. The day it stops entirely is the day Quebec gets out of the Federation, and Canadians fear that, for some reason.
In the US, you have affirmative action for certain groups, like the blacks, because historically, they were denied access to decent schools. Either we have affirmative action were French would be given preferential treatments (I can imagine the outcry in Canada), or you let the people of Quebec protect their culture. And yes, sometimes it will give silly issues like the trademark battles.
Actually, why should the government be involved at all? What language a person speaks really isn't something the government should care about. Question: Were Quebecistani denied access to decent schools or access to French language schools? That's sort of a difference.
Because that's why you have a government.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 01:14:47 PM
Because that's why you have a government.
Not it's not. I have government prevent the strong from harming the weak, and to use collective effort where individual effort is insufficient.
Part 2 applies.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:42:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:44:34 AM
So Quebec government sucks, and this is just an examle of that? :huh:
When I tell you I live in a socialist hell, do you think I'm lying?
See, a real case: my notary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_notary) made a simple mistake last year. She made all the paper work to dissolve two of our companies, but forgot the file the final documents with the government, after everything else was registered. So, for the government, I still have 2 active companies, beside the others. These two companies have produced tax fillings every year, one of them never had any revenues.
So, I received a letter last month, telling me I owe the government 8000$ in income tax for one of the companies because the company is still registered and did not file an income tax report. Now, I have to prove to my government there has been no activity for this company, that it was dissolved, that the notary simply forgot to file the last paper (electronic form actually, in a system for wich the government has had many problems... so it might just be that they lost it).
For another company, I made a mistake, many years ago. They changed my GST&PST declaration period from trimestrial to monthly, but I did not noticed it. See, despite me writing and phoning, telling them to use the office adress for any correspondance, they are still sending all documents to my father's adress for this enterprise. So, I keep getting stuff late. Anyway, I made the mistake, I made my declaration for 3 months instead of one month.
Never mind that my documents were correctly filled with the proper dates, the government assumed I did not make any declaration for 3 months of the year. Now, do they base themselves on an annual mean to estimate the amounts I owe them? Of course not :) They took my declaration for 3 months in a specific period, assumed it is representative of all months in a year, and say I owe them 2900$ in unpaid tax for this company, plus the penalties, plus the interests.
I sent the document twice, twice I was called back to tell me they lost it, I had to resend it. 3 years later, they credited me with one month, insisting I owe them 2000$ for 2 months.
That has been lasting for 4 years, trying to correct a simple mistake. When I call, I'm told these things take time.
So, yes, our government is filled with assholes, the bigger ones working for the Office de la langue française and Revenu Québec.
Nobody here is more anti-socialist than me, I don't think, but that doesn't sound so much like socialism as typical bureaucratic b.s.
QuoteYou got American and Canadians bitching at seperatists and nationalists, something that is weird to me.
It is apparently ok to be a proud American, but it wouldn't be ok to be a proud Quebecois.
Don't know about English-speaking Canadians, but given that it cost us a few hundred thousand lives to get rid of the destructive notion that being more loyal to Virginia or South Carolina was more important than being loyal to the US, I'm not sure why it should seem weird to you that Americans (Lettow excepted) are not, in the main, sympathetic to separatists
Oh. That's a great point you make there. You cannot regard Quebec to akin to a US State. It's more akin to a different country/culture imprisoned in another country.
That's some dramatic rhetoric.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 12:29:08 PM
Sorry V, but all of that sounded really weird to me. I don't know that I've ever bitched that English should be first...anywhere. People who I do see do that (often in our states that border Mexico) strike me as backwards and trying to preserve some static image they have of their "culture" which fails to recognize that such things are fluid and always changing.
Another language or culture is not see as a threat until it reaches critical mass. Right now, Vermont is a french friendly state, promoting bilinguism everywhere in the public and private sector. Back up 100 years ago, French speakers were forced-sterilized like the Afro-Americans, among other things.
A brief history here:
http://bostonlanguage.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-bilingual-u-s-french-vermont/
Now, French is no longer a threat, so it's enjoying a revival. If it threatened the dominant language, if it became more than something for the tourists, you can bet there would be a movement aiming for "English first".
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 12:29:08 PM
Sorry V, but all of that sounded really weird to me. I don't know that I've ever bitched that English should be first...anywhere. People who I do see do that (often in our states that border Mexico) strike me as backwards and trying to preserve some static image they have of their "culture" which fails to recognize that such things are fluid and always changing.
Another language or culture is not see as a threat until it reaches critical mass. Right now, Vermont is a french friendly state, promoting bilinguism everywhere in the public and private sector. Back up 100 years ago, French speakers were forced-sterilized like the Afro-Americans, among other things.
A brief history here:
http://bostonlanguage.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-bilingual-u-s-french-vermont/
Now, French is no longer a threat, so it's enjoying a revival. If it threatened the dominant language, if it became more than something for the tourists, you can bet there would be a movement aiming for "English first".
But there you go again consulting distant history. Sure some of Vermont might see Arizona like behavior but I don't see how you can dredge up the less enlightened past and say that such would dictate how an entire country would react to in the future.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:44:12 PM
That's some dramatic rhetoric.
Also reality.
So then why doesn't Quebec have the will to get out? They're just trapped so tightly they can't vote in favor of independence?
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:50:21 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:44:12 PM
That's some dramatic rhetoric.
Also reality.
So then why doesn't Quebec have the will to get out? They're just trapped so tightly they can't vote in favor of independence?
Maybe for some, for others Independence is not necessary to prosper as a culture.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 02:54:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:50:21 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:44:12 PM
That's some dramatic rhetoric.
Also reality.
So then why doesn't Quebec have the will to get out? They're just trapped so tightly they can't vote in favor of independence?
Maybe for some, for others Independence is not necessary to prosper as a culture.
Except you'd still be imprisoned as you put it.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:56:40 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 02:54:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:50:21 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:44:12 PM
That's some dramatic rhetoric.
Also reality.
So then why doesn't Quebec have the will to get out? They're just trapped so tightly they can't vote in favor of independence?
Maybe for some, for others Independence is not necessary to prosper as a culture.
Except you'd still be imprisoned as you put it.
Yes. I have no magic answer for you. It's something that I cannot reconcile even just for myself.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 03:02:53 PM
Yes. I have no magic answer for you. It's something that I cannot reconcile even just for myself.
It's called cowardice. Despairingly - about half the population is afraid of a the sacrifices necessary to become master in their own house.
G.
QuoteWhen I tell you I live in a socialist hell, do you think I'm lying?
See, a real case: my notary made a simple mistake last year. She made all the paper work to dissolve two of our companies, but forgot the file the final documents with the government, after everything else was registered. So, for the government, I still have 2 active companies, beside the others. These two companies have produced tax fillings every year, one of them never had any revenues.
So, I received a letter last month, telling me I owe the government 8000$ in income tax for one of the companies because the company is still registered and did not file an income tax report. Now, I have to prove to my government there has been no activity for this company, that it was dissolved, that the notary simply forgot to file the last paper (electronic form actually, in a system for wich the government has had many problems... so it might just be that they lost it).
:unsure:
That sure sounds sucky but it certainly doesn't sound in any way particularly socialist.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:59:17 AM
You know, I would not mind having you guys up there. Though be warned, it is remote and lacks conveniences.
Sounds like a real life murder-mystery in the making.
Quote from: Grallon on November 20, 2012, 04:38:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2012, 03:02:53 PM
Yes. I have no magic answer for you. It's something that I cannot reconcile even just for myself.
It's called cowardice. Despairingly - about half the population is afraid of a the sacrifices necessary to become master in their own house.
G.
Say it in French.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
The complaints made about it by whom? You guys? We don't care.
It's been a pretty good year. Interesting stuff, real change in the works.
What's been going on in Ontario this year?
Quote from: Zoupa on November 20, 2012, 11:44:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:00:25 AM
It's been a bad year for Quebec. The province seems determined to live up to all the complaints made about it - strikes, municipal corruption scandals, and harsher language laws.
The complaints made about it by whom? You guys? We don't care.
It's been a pretty good year. Interesting stuff, real change in the works.
What's been going on in Ontario this year?
Seems that Viper does.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:49:19 PM
But there you go again consulting distant history. Sure some of Vermont might see Arizona like behavior but I don't see how you can dredge up the less enlightened past and say that such would dictate how an entire country would react to in the future.
You can't understand the present without knowing history. You can't understand someone without knowing where they came from.
There's a reason why French is in danger, even in Quebec if we don't do anything. The number of French speaking people in Canada has diminished over the years, the only recent gain is that it's declining slower.
Now, what's the difference between a francophone outside of Quebec and a francophone in Quebec without any language laws?
There ain't much.
In the past, our ancestors were breading like rabbits, maybe 5 francophones birth to 1 anglophone birth and immigration wasn't an issue.
Nowadays, it's more or less equal for the births, and immigration is vastly from non french-speakers.
That means that without anything, French is declining, while right now,it's remaining mostly stable.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 20, 2012, 11:44:03 PM
What's been going on in Ontario this year?
Nothing, they don't want to hear about it. So long as nobody stirs up shit, they believe everything is ok. You former mayor could be perfect for the job of Ontario's Premier :P
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:50:21 PM
So then why doesn't Quebec have the will to get out? They're just trapped so tightly they can't vote in favor of independence?
'cause not everyone feel that way.
Anglophones certainly enjoy the protection of canadian federalism and certainly do not want to risk having the status of francophones outside of Quebec.
Recent immigrants feel they owe Canada for the protection they have; they came here to live in Canada, not specifically Quebec.
Some French Quebecers feel strongly that Quebec should be put down like a mad dog for Canada to prosper.
Some others believe ou French community can not evolve on its own and needs Canada to prosper.
Some do not trust socialist parties to realize independance.
Some do not care either way.
Some truly believe Canada to be their country first&foremost.
Some think Canada will eventually change, stop be so static (they are called dreamers ;) ).
The independantists parties have done a poor job of convincing the majority to vote for their option.
The federalists have done a good job of convincing the majority they are better with the devil they know.
The reasons are many.
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 09:45:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:49:19 PM
But there you go again consulting distant history. Sure some of Vermont might see Arizona like behavior but I don't see how you can dredge up the less enlightened past and say that such would dictate how an entire country would react to in the future.
You can't understand the present without knowing history. You can't understand someone without knowing where they came from.
While there's truth in this, at the same time, refusal to let go of the past doesn't much lead to anything good. It lead to a century of Jim Crow laws in the US, it lead to the never-ending Palestinian/Isreali conflict, it lead to the Irish-American retards who give donations to the IRA.
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 10:11:48 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 09:45:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:49:19 PM
But there you go again consulting distant history. Sure some of Vermont might see Arizona like behavior but I don't see how you can dredge up the less enlightened past and say that such would dictate how an entire country would react to in the future.
You can't understand the present without knowing history. You can't understand someone without knowing where they came from.
While there's truth in this, at the same time, refusal to let go of the past doesn't much lead to anything good. It lead to a century of Jim Crow laws in the US, it lead to the never-ending Palestinian/Isreali conflict, it lead to the Irish-American retards who give donations to the IRA.
:yes:
It's hard to move forwards if you force yourself to mime out old blood feuds.
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 10:11:48 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 09:45:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:49:19 PM
But there you go again consulting distant history. Sure some of Vermont might see Arizona like behavior but I don't see how you can dredge up the less enlightened past and say that such would dictate how an entire country would react to in the future.
You can't understand the present without knowing history. You can't understand someone without knowing where they came from.
While there's truth in this, at the same time, refusal to let go of the past doesn't much lead to anything good. It lead to a century of Jim Crow laws in the US, it lead to the never-ending Palestinian/Isreali conflict, it lead to the Irish-American retards who give donations to the IRA.
Or clinging to guns and religion.
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 10:11:48 AM
While there's truth in this, at the same time, refusal to let go of the past doesn't much lead to anything good. It lead to a century of Jim Crow laws in the US, it lead to the never-ending Palestinian/Isreali conflict, it lead to the Irish-American retards who give donations to the IRA.
There's a difference between acknowledging the past and living in it. I thought a forum composed mainly of gamers who loved Europa Universalis would know that ;) We like playing the general/conqueror of the past, some of us like to role play an historical or fictive figure, that doesn't mean we think we live in 1590.
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 11:55:29 AM
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 10:11:48 AM
While there's truth in this, at the same time, refusal to let go of the past doesn't much lead to anything good. It lead to a century of Jim Crow laws in the US, it lead to the never-ending Palestinian/Isreali conflict, it lead to the Irish-American retards who give donations to the IRA.
There's a difference between acknowledging the past and living in it. I thought a forum composed mainly of gamers who loved Europa Universalis would know that ;) We like playing the general/conqueror of the past, some of us like to role play an historical or fictive figure, that doesn't mean we think we live in 1590.
We already know all about Quebec's past. You certainly harp on about it - every second you get. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 09:56:51 AM
Some do not trust socialist parties
Sounds like a good reason -_-
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 11:55:29 AM
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 10:11:48 AM
While there's truth in this, at the same time, refusal to let go of the past doesn't much lead to anything good. It lead to a century of Jim Crow laws in the US, it lead to the never-ending Palestinian/Isreali conflict, it lead to the Irish-American retards who give donations to the IRA.
There's a difference between acknowledging the past and living in it. I thought a forum composed mainly of gamers who loved Europa Universalis would know that ;) We like playing the general/conqueror of the past, some of us like to role play an historical or fictive figure, that doesn't mean we think we live in 1590.
We already know all about Quebec's past. You certainly harp on about it - every second you get. ;)
Be damn glad the other Quebecers don't also do it! Unless you want to hear about colonization thru Catholics commune.
Darling, I come from groups that can cite a lot of historical oppression as well. There are reasons I don't do so though. For one it gets tiresome and for two its insulting to say that everyone now and in the future will act like their more ignorant/malicious ancestors. Oh and then thirdly, it isn't accurate to do that.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 11:55:29 AM
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 10:11:48 AM
While there's truth in this, at the same time, refusal to let go of the past doesn't much lead to anything good. It lead to a century of Jim Crow laws in the US, it lead to the never-ending Palestinian/Isreali conflict, it lead to the Irish-American retards who give donations to the IRA.
There's a difference between acknowledging the past and living in it. I thought a forum composed mainly of gamers who loved Europa Universalis would know that ;) We like playing the general/conqueror of the past, some of us like to role play an historical or fictive figure, that doesn't mean we think we live in 1590.
We already know all about Quebec's past. You certainly harp on about it - every second you get. ;)
I'm not the one starting all these threads, I just answer in it to establish the facts, away from the distorted truths. You've been to Quebec twice. Did people look like nazis to you?
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 12:51:57 PM
Darling, I come from groups that can cite a lot of historical oppression as well. There are reasons I don't do so though. For one it gets tiresome and for two its insulting to say that everyone now and in the future will act like their more ignorant/malicious ancestors. Oh and then thirdly, it isn't accurate to do that.
True but unlike what viper conveys all of our history isn't all oppression all the time.
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 12:55:00 PM
I'm not the one starting all these threads, I just answer in it to establish the facts, away from the distorted truths.
Again though, I think by now anyone participating in these discussions has picked up at least a smattering of the history of Quebec, provided by you. I'm not sure what values it adds to continue to repeat it - especially as it just makes it sound like you are stuck in the past and unwilling to deal in the present.
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 12:55:00 PMYou've been to Quebec twice. Did people look like nazis to you?
No, but what does that have to do with anything? :unsure:
Quebec doesn't want to be taken seriously, so it won't be.
Les Québecois sont bien sûr les racistes, oui?
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 12:55:00 PMYou've been to Quebec twice. Did people look like nazis to you?
No, but what does that have to do with anything? :unsure:
Without the "cool" SS uniforms, can you tell if someone is a Nazi just by looking anyway?
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 12:55:00 PM
I'm not the one starting all these threads, I just answer in it to establish the facts, away from the distorted truths.
Again though, I think by now anyone participating in these discussions has picked up at least a smattering of the history of Quebec, provided by you. I'm not sure what values it adds to continue to repeat it - especially as it just makes it sound like you are stuck in the past and unwilling to deal in the present.
The "past" in Qc is still not so far past. Any francophone over 50 could tell you horror stories about work back then.
I've been told to "speak white", and that was in the 90s.
I've been told to stop making an ass of my myself, and that was within this last decade!
Quote from: Zoupa on November 21, 2012, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 12:55:00 PM
I'm not the one starting all these threads, I just answer in it to establish the facts, away from the distorted truths.
Again though, I think by now anyone participating in these discussions has picked up at least a smattering of the history of Quebec, provided by you. I'm not sure what values it adds to continue to repeat it - especially as it just makes it sound like you are stuck in the past and unwilling to deal in the present.
The "past" in Qc is still not so far past. Any francophone over 50 could tell you horror stories about work back then.
I've been told to "speak white", and that was in the 90s.
And I'm sure any Albertan of the same age could tell you horror stories about the National Energy Program. And from what I understand of the early 80s, they would be right.
Does that really mean that Alberta Separatism is a valid political idea?
A valid political idea is quite subjective, bb.
Qc separation is at its lowest poll numbers in decades and still runs around 35%. What about Alberta's?
Quote from: Zoupa on November 21, 2012, 11:58:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 21, 2012, 12:55:00 PM
I'm not the one starting all these threads, I just answer in it to establish the facts, away from the distorted truths.
Again though, I think by now anyone participating in these discussions has picked up at least a smattering of the history of Quebec, provided by you. I'm not sure what values it adds to continue to repeat it - especially as it just makes it sound like you are stuck in the past and unwilling to deal in the present.
The "past" in Qc is still not so far past. Any francophone over 50 could tell you horror stories about work back then.
I've been told to "speak white", and that was in the 90s.
Well yes bigots haven't bigots haven't gone away. I've been told terrible things myself. That doesn't mean I have to take those as instructive on how the majority would act if they could truly have their way.
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 01:09:18 PM
Again though, I think by now anyone participating in these discussions has picked up at least a smattering of the history of Quebec, provided by you. I'm not sure what values it adds to continue to repeat it - especially as it just makes it sound like you are stuck in the past and unwilling to deal in the present.
because clearly people have not picked it up?
Quote
No, but what does that have to do with anything? :unsure:
Canadian media regularly portrays Quebec, and its supposed "language police" as nazis.
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 09:41:22 AM
Canadian media regularly portrays Quebec, and its supposed "language police" as nazis.
No, just silly.
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 10:58:22 PM
And I'm sure any Albertan of the same age could tell you horror stories about the National Energy Program. And from what I understand of the early 80s, they would be right.
Does that really mean that Alberta Separatism is a valid political idea?
Alberta's massive vote for the Reform/Alliance/Conservative instead of any other party that means nothing to you?
Had not the Conservative taken power in 2006, 2008 and 2011 with a clear shift in their canadian policy, going from massively pro-Ontario to massively pro-Alberta, things could have been different in regards to the seperatist movement.
And a short lived economic policiy of the 1980s wich had a moderate negative impact for a decade is very different. Once the oil prices surged again, economic development went ahead in Alberta.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 22, 2012, 01:32:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 09:41:22 AM
Canadian media regularly portrays Quebec, and its supposed "language police" as nazis.
No, just silly.
More Colonel Klink than Heinrich Himmler? :lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on November 21, 2012, 11:58:49 PM
I've been told to "speak white", and that was in the 90s.
That is what happens when you copy that Snow fella.
Btw Malthus & co, racist and backwards quebecers just elected a jewish anglophone as mayor of Montreal.
I'm sure this is widely reported in your media, yes?
Quote from: Zoupa on November 22, 2012, 02:20:56 PM
Btw Malthus & co, racist and backwards quebecers just elected a jewish anglophone as mayor of Montreal.
I'm sure this is widely reported in your media, yes?
As a matter of fact, yes. There was a big article in the Globe on it. Why do you ask?
Title: "Montreal's New Mayor Defies Stereotyping of Quebec Politics".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/montreals-new-mayor-defies-stereotyping-of-quebec-politics/article5462459/
Article mentioned that he was not actually "elected" by the electorate but was rather appointed by his fellow councellors as an interim mayor for a year to replace the guy who resigned over corruption allegations, and he's said he will not actually run for election.
But nonetheless.
Point? The Nazis elected an immigrant.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 22, 2012, 02:20:56 PM
Btw Malthus & co, racist and backwards quebecers just elected a jewish anglophone as mayor of Montreal.
I'm sure this is widely reported in your media, yes?
I wanted to confirm - I saw it in multiple news stories.
He sounds like a good guy. I wish we could appoint him Mayor of Toronto, in place of our current clown. :lol:
Clown is an elected position? I thought Americans were weird.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Clown is an elected position? I thought Americans were weird.
An appointed position, anyway.
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 02:30:59 PM
He sounds like a good guy. I wish we could appoint him Mayor of Toronto, in place of our current clown. :lol:
This one as a job for the foreseeable future. However, Montreal and Laval ex-mayors are available, and might be available on the cheap.
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Clown is an elected position? I thought Americans were weird.
It's Canada. We have a foreigh Queen as head of State and an appointed representative to supervise our democracy.
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 02:39:06 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 02:30:59 PM
He sounds like a good guy. I wish we could appoint him Mayor of Toronto, in place of our current clown. :lol:
This one as a job for the foreseeable future. However, Montreal and Laval ex-mayors are available, and might be available on the cheap.
Yeah, but going to the bus station washroom with a bag full of unmarked, non-sequential bills is *such* an awkward way to pay one's mayor. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Clown is an elected position? I thought Americans were weird.
It's Canada. We have a foreigh Queen as head of State and an appointed representative to supervise our democracy.
You are just piss off because when the LT-Gov spent 700k none of it came your way.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 22, 2012, 02:55:00 PM
You are just piss off because when the LT-Gov spent 700k none of it came your way.
Looking at th CIEC, it seems I'm really doing something wrong as I can't offer hundreds of thousands of dollars to corrupt bureaucrats :P
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Clown is an elected position? I thought Americans were weird.
It's Canada. We have a foreigh Queen as head of State and an appointed representative to supervise our democracy.
If she's the queen is she really foreign? How does that work exactly? Does she have citizenship or what?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 22, 2012, 02:33:53 PM
Clown is an elected position? I thought Americans were weird.
It's Canada. We have a foreigh Queen as head of State and an appointed representative to supervise our democracy.
If she's the queen is she really foreign? How does that work exactly? Does she have citizenship or what?
Thought that it was pretty weel know that the British Empire has had German monarchs for nearly 3 centuries now.
I have German ancestry, but nobody calls me foreign.
Quote from: Malthus on November 22, 2012, 02:27:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on November 22, 2012, 02:20:56 PM
Btw Malthus & co, racist and backwards quebecers just elected a jewish anglophone as mayor of Montreal.
I'm sure this is widely reported in your media, yes?
As a matter of fact, yes. There was a big article in the Globe on it. Why do you ask?
Title: "Montreal's New Mayor Defies Stereotyping of Quebec Politics".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/montreals-new-mayor-defies-stereotyping-of-quebec-politics/article5462459/
Article mentioned that he was not actually "elected" by the electorate but was rather appointed by his fellow councellors as an interim mayor for a year to replace the guy who resigned over corruption allegations, and he's said he will not actually run for election.
But nonetheless.
I'm looking more for an op-ed Jan Wong style. Like maybe he got selected so we could murder him easier.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 03:57:32 PM
If she's the queen is she really foreign? How does that work exactly? Does she have citizenship or what?
She does not have a Canadian passport, she is not a Canadian citizen.
Quote from: dps on November 22, 2012, 06:12:37 PM
Thought that it was pretty weel know that the British Empire has had German monarchs for nearly 3 centuries now.
Really? How does that work? They ruled over England & the United Kingdom from Berlin?
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 03:57:32 PM
If she's the queen is she really foreign? How does that work exactly? Does she have citizenship or what?
She does not have a Canadian passport, she is not a Canadian citizen.
I didn't think a passport was required to be a citizen, I thought it was the other way around. I honestly don't know how Commonwealth rules are. If she visits does she have to get a visa or something? I checked Wikipedia, and it states that she is in fact Canadian according to Canadian law (though it was unclear as to whether that meant she had citizenship). Unfortunately the sources were not websites but books, and thus I couldn't verify them. Still, it would seem that your complaint has little merit. If she is indeed Canadian, then you aren't ruled by a foreign queen, merely one that has more then one nationality.
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 08:21:28 PM
Quote from: dps on November 22, 2012, 06:12:37 PM
Thought that it was pretty weel know that the British Empire has had German monarchs for nearly 3 centuries now.
Really? How does that work? They ruled over England & the United Kingdom from Berlin?
The current House of Windsor was originally German. As was the house of Hanover.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 10:03:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 03:57:32 PM
If she's the queen is she really foreign? How does that work exactly? Does she have citizenship or what?
I didn't think a passport was required to be a citizen, I thought it was the other way around.
She travels to more than one country, so she needs a passport. Unless I am mistaken, it is not a canadian passport.
She's your queen, deal.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2012, 10:05:32 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 08:21:28 PM
Quote from: dps on November 22, 2012, 06:12:37 PM
Thought that it was pretty weel know that the British Empire has had German monarchs for nearly 3 centuries now.
Really? How does that work? They ruled over England & the United Kingdom from Berlin?
The current House of Windsor was originally German. As was the house of Hanover.
I know that. I was being sarcastic.
There's a difference between having ancestry from another country and living in another country ruling over distant subjects.
The Queen of England does not rule over Germany, or any part of it.
I figure the Queen inherited citizenship of all Commonwealth countries, due to it being the remnant of the Empire.
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2012, 12:00:19 AM
She's your queen, deal.
I'd take Justin Trudeau as King of Canada over any foreigner, any time. As a bonus, it would piss of Neil to no end, so it would be good :)
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 12:02:29 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2012, 12:00:19 AM
She's your queen, deal.
I'd take Justin Trudeau as King of Canada over any foreigner, any time. As a bonus, it would piss of Neil to no end, so it would be good :)
You make an intriguing proposal, i shall have to think on it :P
But really, I don't know why this bugs you so much. I mean none of the other Quebecer posters, seperatists or not, seem bothered by our head of state. She's not a foreigner, she's your queen. What passport, if any, she travels with makes no difference. My parents, should they so wish, could travel under a Portuguese passport, but they're still Canadian.
The Queen does not have a passport as she is not a citizen of any country :
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2012, 11:58:31 PM
She travels to more than one country, so she needs a passport. Unless I am mistaken, it is not a canadian passport.
Only if the law requires it. Since it does not, she needs no passport. Heads of State and Diplomats don't always require passports to move from one country to another.
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 12:02:29 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2012, 12:00:19 AM
She's your queen, deal.
I'd take Justin Trudeau as King of Canada over any foreigner, any time. As a bonus, it would piss of Neil to no end, so it would be good :)
You make an intriguing proposal, i shall have to think on it :P
But really, I don't know why this bugs you so much. I mean none of the other Quebecer posters, seperatists or not, seem bothered by our head of state. She's not a foreigner, she's your queen. What passport, if any, she travels with makes no difference. My parents, should they so wish, could travel under a Portuguese passport, but they're still Canadian.
I don't really get Nationalism. I have a difficult time seeing why one group should be exalted above others due to the actions of their ancestors several hundred years ago.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2012, 03:42:59 AM
The Queen does not have a passport as she is not a citizen of any country :
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx
doesn't that make her stateless?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 23, 2012, 07:15:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2012, 03:42:59 AM
The Queen does not have a passport as she is not a citizen of any country :
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx
doesn't that make her stateless?
No, she's the sovereign of 15 states.
Jesus is stateless even though he's king of Poland.
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
But really, I don't know why this bugs you so much. I mean none of the other Quebecer posters, seperatists or not, seem bothered by our head of state. She's not a foreigner, she's your queen. What passport, if any, she travels with makes no difference. My parents, should they so wish, could travel under a Portuguese passport, but they're still Canadian.
Dude, the seperatists want to quit Canada. De facto, she wouldn't be our queen if we were to seperate... Even I don't think the PQ would be moronic enough to adopt the Queen as head of State for an independant Quebec. Chavez is a possibility, though :P
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 09:34:43 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
But really, I don't know why this bugs you so much. I mean none of the other Quebecer posters, seperatists or not, seem bothered by our head of state. She's not a foreigner, she's your queen. What passport, if any, she travels with makes no difference. My parents, should they so wish, could travel under a Portuguese passport, but they're still Canadian.
Dude, the seperatists want to quit Canada. De facto, she wouldn't be our queen if we were to seperate... Even I don't think the PQ would be moronic enough to adopt the Queen as head of State for an independant Quebec. Chavez is a possibility, though :P
How about sharing France's head of state? :P
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 09:34:43 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
But really, I don't know why this bugs you so much. I mean none of the other Quebecer posters, seperatists or not, seem bothered by our head of state. She's not a foreigner, she's your queen. What passport, if any, she travels with makes no difference. My parents, should they so wish, could travel under a Portuguese passport, but they're still Canadian.
Dude, the seperatists want to quit Canada. De facto, she wouldn't be our queen if we were to seperate... Even I don't think the PQ would be moronic enough to adopt the Queen as head of State for an independant Quebec. Chavez is a possibility, though :P
The 1995 question would have kept The Queen has HoS.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2012, 03:42:59 AM
The Queen does not have a passport as she is not a citizen of any country :
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx
Why would she not be a citizen of Britain, Canada, Australia etc.?
Quote from: Zanza on November 23, 2012, 10:00:47 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2012, 03:42:59 AM
The Queen does not have a passport as she is not a citizen of any country :
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx
Why would she not be a citizen of Britain, Canada, Australia etc.?
Interesting link RH.
She's not a citizen because she's The Queen. She *is* the state.
I want a queen. :(
Max, move me to Canada, stat! :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 10:04:58 AMShe's not a citizen because she's The Queen. She *is* the state.
She is not an absolute monarch, so she is merely the head of state, not the state. "The Crown" may be a synonym for the state, but the person itself isn't.
Quote from: Zanza on November 23, 2012, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 10:04:58 AMShe's not a citizen because she's The Queen. She *is* the state.
She is not an absolute monarch, so she is merely the head of state, not the state. "The Crown" may be a synonym for the state, but the person itself isn't.
Well she is and she isn't.
I mean, I'm a government lawyer. Criminal prosecutions are properly styled as Her Majesty The Queen v. Joe Criminal. It's not Canada v. Joe Criminal. She may not be an absolute monarch, but she does embody The State.
It's the word that is wrong BB. She's the Sovereign, not the state. Potato, Potato really.
Funningly enough, the Queen is an EU citizen.
QuoteAs a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen of the European Union, but that in no way affects her prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queenandthelaw/HowUKandEUlawaffectTheQueen.aspx
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2012, 10:15:14 AMWell she is and she isn't.
I mean, I'm a government lawyer. Criminal prosecutions are properly styled as Her Majesty The Queen v. Joe Criminal. It's not Canada v. Joe Criminal. She may not be an absolute monarch, but she does embody The State.
Well, over here, judgments are made in the name of the people, but that doesn't mean none of us is a citizen. :contract:
Quote from: Zoupa on November 22, 2012, 02:20:56 PM
Btw Malthus & co, racist and backwards quebecers just elected a jewish anglophone as mayor of Montreal.
I'm sure this is widely reported in your media, yes?
I'd already posted it in this thread, dumb head.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2012, 06:22:43 AM
I don't really get Nationalism. I have a difficult time seeing why one group should be exalted above others due to the actions of their ancestors several hundred years ago.
those american flags everywhere... it must make you sick, surely?
I had to show my Quebecoise coworker the bit in Canadian Bacon with Dan Akroyd because she didn't know the movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5l0PD80u9k
Quote from: Zanza on November 23, 2012, 10:00:47 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2012, 03:42:59 AM
The Queen does not have a passport as she is not a citizen of any country :
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx
Why would she not be a citizen of Britain, Canada, Australia etc.?
It is the way those countries are governed, her representation in Parliament is as the monarch, it would be unfair for her to have the vote as well. It is the same with the UK House of Lords, their representation in Parliament is their vote in the Lords, so they are not allowed to vote in General Elections. All these people do get to vote in EU elections, local elections and so on though.
The "foreign queen" stuff makes me think of Americans who insist that Barak Obama is Kenyan.
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2012, 04:30:44 PM
The "foreign queen" stuff makes me think of Americans who insist that Barak Obama is Kenyan.
You can't have a President not born in the US, can't you now? Do you think it's silly?
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2012, 04:30:44 PM
The "foreign queen" stuff makes me think of Americans who insist that Barak Obama is Kenyan.
You can't have a President not born in the US, can't you now? Do you think it's silly?
A lot of people think that it's a silly requirement that the President be a "natural-born" citizen. But beyond that, "natural-born" as it is generally interpreted would include children born outside of the US to parents who are American citizens, so yes we can have a President who wasn't born here.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: dps on November 23, 2012, 04:30:44 PM
The "foreign queen" stuff makes me think of Americans who insist that Barak Obama is Kenyan.
You can't have a President not born in the US, can't you now? Do you think it's silly?
Actually you can.
Quote from: viper37 on November 23, 2012, 01:54:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2012, 06:22:43 AM
I don't really get Nationalism. I have a difficult time seeing why one group should be exalted above others due to the actions of their ancestors several hundred years ago.
those american flags everywhere... it must make you sick, surely?
And this indicates that one group of citizens are more worthy then another? I'm not seeing it.
Well American citizens are more worthy.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2012, 03:42:59 AM
The Queen does not have a passport as she is not a citizen of any country :
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx
Wonder if a border guard who really doesn't care about his continued employment has ever caused trouble for her.
Well, I don't wonder, I know nothing so stupid has ever happened, but it would be amusing.
Wonder if she would then show a £20 as her proof of ID.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2012, 02:09:41 PM
It is the way those countries are governed, her representation in Parliament is as the monarch, it would be unfair for her to have the vote as well. It is the same with the UK House of Lords, their representation in Parliament is their vote in the Lords, so they are not allowed to vote in General Elections. All these people do get to vote in EU elections, local elections and so on though.
Having the right to vote in elections is not a criteria for being a citizen though, so whether she has that right or not isn't relevant. Or are kids not citizens in the UK?
Quote from: Zanza on November 24, 2012, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 23, 2012, 02:09:41 PM
It is the way those countries are governed, her representation in Parliament is as the monarch, it would be unfair for her to have the vote as well. It is the same with the UK House of Lords, their representation in Parliament is their vote in the Lords, so they are not allowed to vote in General Elections. All these people do get to vote in EU elections, local elections and so on though.
Having the right to vote in elections is not a criteria for being a citizen though, so whether she has that right or not isn't relevant. Or are kids not citizens in the UK?
Dictionary.com defines citizen (first definition) as: "a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection. And as BB pointed out, in the Queen doesn't technically owe allegiance to the government--she
is the government. On a practical level of course she isn't an absolute monarch, but look at how things are styled: "Her Majesty's Government".
Oxford Dictionary defines a citizen as "a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized". Clearly Elizabeth II is a legally recognized national of the United Kingdom, Canada etc.
And "Her Majesty's government" suggests that Her Majesty is indeed not the government, but rather that it is a distinct institution that may get its legitimacy from her, but is not her as a person.
Quote from: Zanza on November 24, 2012, 11:04:33 AM
Oxford Dictionary defines a citizen as "a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized". Clearly Elizabeth II is a legally recognized national of the United Kingdom, Canada etc.
And "Her Majesty's government" suggests that Her Majesty is indeed not the government, but rather that it is a distinct institution that may get its legitimacy from her, but is not her as a person.
And the law doesn't recognize her as a subject or national.
Why is she not a national?
Only subjects can be nationals and she is not a subject. I agree with this wiki answer :
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_queen%27s_nationality
A constitutional lawyer may differ of course :P
Quote from: Zanza on November 24, 2012, 11:57:46 AM
Why is she not a national?
Because she's the queen, and the law says that she isn't.
Care to quote the law? Because the British citizenship law does not seem to exclude her. Her parents, the Duke and Duchess of York were British nationals and citizens at her birth, so she should be one as well. Did she lose nationality and citizenship on coronation?
Quote from: Zanza on November 24, 2012, 01:00:21 PM
Care to quote the law? Because the British citizenship law does not seem to exclude her. Her parents, the Duke and Duchess of York were British nationals and citizens at her birth, so she should be one as well. Did she lose nationality and citizenship on coronation?
There is no law. It's constitutional.