4 ms·

I feel btilly's comment contained more venom than it ought to have, but it does give you some idea of a common viewpoint in English Canada. >In what ways? Do y

I feel btilly's comment contained more venom than it ought to have, but it does give you some idea of a common viewpoint in English Canada. >In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out English Canadians? The law itself is probably not so bad, but the perception has been that it specifically targets English speaking Quebecois. There have certainly been plenty of news stories over the years about inappropriate and over zealous enforcement. For example, a store owner receiving a fine for a sign saying "leave the air conditioner plugged in" without a French translation. Now, I don't know, he probably won in court, but the fact that he even had to go to court is a travesty. >I don't follow - how did that happen? The uncertainty surrounding the referendum in 1995 caused a significant fall in the value of the Canadian dollar. >Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which territory and treaty are you referring to? I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here, but for an idea of what inspired this bit of the rant read this short section on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#First_Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#First_N..., keeping in mind that Jacques Parizeau insisted that Quebec could not be partitioned, "the borders are protected by international law," while at the same time insisting that Quebec could unilaterally leave Canada.

btilly 14y ago
The law itself is probably not so bad... Until they were forced to change it because of the 1982 Constitution, anglophone children of anglophone parents who had moved to Quebec from elsewhere in Canada were forced to send their children to French only schools. This was in fact the primary reason that the families of children who I met in school gave for having recently left Quebec. (Even after the new Constitution, people who had moved to Quebec from other countries were still impacted.) I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here... I misremembered the statistics, but not the gist of the facts. As I pointed out in a separate response, the rest of the history that I'm digging up is that 2/3 of the current boundaries of Quebec were given to it post-Confederation. And the bills which gave those to Quebec came with both rights and responsibilities. With the clear message that if Quebec failed of its responsibilities, it could not retain its rights. Given that historical fact, Jacques Parizeau's proclamation that Quebec is unpartitionable was incredibly one-sided. And I have no clue why so many in Quebec both did, and continue to, accept that position as being undisputedly correct.

btilly 14y ago

The law itself is probably not so bad... Until they were forced to change it because of the 1982 Constitution, anglophone children of anglophone parents who had moved to Quebec from elsewhere in Canada were forced to send their children to French only schools. This was in fact the primary reason that the families of children who I met in school gave for having recently left Quebec. (Even after the new Constitution, people who had moved to Quebec from other countries were still impacted.) I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here... I misremembered the statistics, but not the gist of the facts. As I pointed out in a separate response, the rest of the history that I'm digging up is that 2/3 of the current boundaries of Quebec were given to it post-Confederation. And the bills which gave those to Quebec came with both rights and responsibilities. With the clear message that if Quebec failed of its responsibilities, it could not retain its rights. Given that historical fact, Jacques Parizeau's proclamation that Quebec is unpartitionable was incredibly one-sided. And I have no clue why so many in Quebec both did, and continue to, accept that position as being undisputedly correct.