Will Toronto benefit from the Quebec Charter of values fisaco?

[Silence&Motion]

Notions of 'French-ness' or 'English-ness' are not modern inventions, the roots reach back hundreds of years (the Académie Francaise itself goes back to 1635)... and to suggest that France or England are without defining 'ideals' is simply wrong. Think of Magna Carta, the Edict of Nantes or the Declaration of the Rights of Man, among many many others, ideals in fact which were among the very foundations for notions of democracy and rights in America... and for that matter is America really all that different in its approach to its national identity than they are in Europe? I mean, how were American borders or American identity any less artificially created?

These are obviously not absolute distinctions, and I'm not trying to imply that Europeans haven't enshrined certain ideals, but the distinction does help to explain some of differences between how Americans and Europeans talk and think about citizenship (the British are obviously closer to the Americans than other European nations in this respect). Most people probably see French-ness and English-ness existing prior to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Magna Carta and having evolved to some extent beyond these documents. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's as much obsession in those countries as there is in America to "protect" the documents as "the founders intended it" - as if America cannot exist independently of the founding documents, exactly as they were produced in the late 18th century. You can also trace similar differences to the expansionist/imperialist histories of America and Europe. The United States doesn't really think of itself as an empire ruling over other peoples so much as a political and economic system that is destined to one day expand to every corner of the globe (assisted by a powerful military if need be).

The Academie Francaise itself is one of the reasons why French-ness should be considered a modern invention. It's purpose was to formalized a French language at a time when the people living in the geographic region we now call France were speaking hundreds of other dialects and languages and certainly didn't see themselves as being part of the same people. France was an early innovator in nationalism.

As for xenophobia, extreme nationalism in the absence of defining ideals can obviously lead to bad things given the right circumstances but not all notions of national identity are xenophobic. On the contrary, it may be the defining ideals of a nation's identity that stops bad behaviour?

I didn't mean to imply that all concepts of national identity are xenophobic. I agree that national identities can serve very good purposes (and anyway, we're stuck with them for good or ill). The tricky part is when a national identity that is tied to a belief in common primordial ancestry runs up against immigration. How do you welcome someone into your nation who does not conform to your basic understanding of what it means to be a member of that nation? You can pledge allegiance to the constitution and transform into an American, but becoming "Dutch" or "Japanese" is a lot more complicated.

 

[Tewder]

Most people probably see French-ness and English-ness existing prior to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Magna Carta and having evolved to some extent beyond these documents.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's as much obsession in those countries as there is in America to "protect" the documents as "the founders intended it" - as if America cannot exist independently of the founding documents, exactly as they were produced in the late 18th century.

What you may be alluding to here is the power of mythology in a nation's identity. Obviously myths operate in a different way than pure truths do, but this isn't to say that there is no 'truth' in a myth. In America the constitution is a powerful symbol, as is the crown in Britain... and the constitution does indeed change and evolve over time, in a way that is meant to ensure that the original values continue to reflect the evolving nature of the people, culture and nation they represent, which may be one of the reasons it is so powerful and durable.

The tricky part is when a national identity that is tied to a belief in common primordial ancestry runs up against immigration. How do you welcome someone into your nation who does not conform to your basic understanding of what it means to be a member of that nation? You can pledge allegiance to the constitution and transform into an American, but becoming "Dutch" or "Japanese" is a lot more complicated.

Yes, I agree with this. In the modern age national identities and values must evolve, though I don't necessarily feel that they have to become 100% inclusive or tolerant (as I mentioned in previous posts about the Quebec charter of values). We simply cannot be a collectivity without any shared values, beliefs or myths, or ultimately it will all unravel.

Also, funnily enough, when certain nations celebrate a 'primordial ancestry' it is often because no such lineage actually continues to exist, the ancestry is being romanticized and mythologized as any other symbol is (think of the Gauls in France or the celts in Ireland), in this sense it can be embraced by all citizens, naturalized or not.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Back to the original intent of the thread the one think I know is that this is not good economically for Quebec.

I love visiting Quebec but either as a part of this country or a nation or quasi-nation of it's own I see Quebec's destiny as being like Atlantic Canada, a quaint place frozen in time to take the family for a summer road-trip. Ironically, immigrants from the francophone global diaspora were one of Quebec's potential assets. The question is are they going to screw that up too?

This question has significance for Toronto to. I notice distinctly there is a growth in the size and social infrastructure of the francophone population in Toronto. The larger this community (if it can be called a community) grows the more irrelevent a place like Montreal becomes as a landing pad, support network, and base for french speaking people in Canada.

I have rented out spaces to a young guy originally from Cameron (via London) and just recently to a young hipster couple from Paris. These are people coming to make a life in Canada and by-passing Quebec altogether. I can't tell you if this is a trend but we certainly did not see this kind of thing before in Toronto. I mention those two examples because it shows you that not only visible minorities are coming and bypassing Quebec but the kind of Caucasian Francophones that the PQ would salivate over.

 

[Lenser]

From what I can see in Montreal, its largely negative stance regarding the Charter of Values puts it at odds with the rest of the province (not unlike how Rob Ford is seen in centre-core Toronto vs the surrounding urban belt). The notion of Montreal as its own city state has been floated in recent public conversations, the idea being that it could then better formulate and act along its own interests as opposed to those of largely rural Quebec, where there is much more of a homogenous feel in terms of culture, immigration and religion.

Those who would love to see Montreal assume a state-within-a-province status seem to feel that the city has, over the past decades, been an economic underperformer, largely stemming from hugely disruptive political machinations over identity and destiny. I'm not suggesting that the city state thing has signifcant traction - but it's fascinating that it's being talked about at all.

In short, Montreal and Quebec as a whole are two different things. Marois and co. have jacked open a huge can of worms for themselves and the province. In a sense it's probably a good thing that this all come out. Best that all the differences be sharply illuminated so that those living in Quebec can choose just what it is they want going forward.

 

[Johnny Au]

Montreal can be its own province (well, the entire island that is).

It is much easier for island cities to separate itself than it is for cities that have land boundaries to do the same.

 

[Lenser]

And yet there are instances of where some form of official separation and autonomy have been done. Washington DC and Vatican City, to name but two.

 

[Johnny Au]

And yet there are instances of where some form of official separation and autonomy have been done. Washington DC and Vatican City, to name but two.

Singapore is an independent country (and it is on its own island).

 

[freshcutgrass]

I have rented out spaces to a young guy originally from Cameron (via London) and just recently to a young hipster couple from Paris. These are people coming to make a life in Canada and by-passing Quebec altogether.

From my own experience, the Quebecois don't offer an advantage to the Parisian French in the first place. They'd prefer to speak english than try to understand Quebec gibberish. And they certainly aren't under any kind of delusions that Montreal is more sophisticated than Toronto.

 

[nfitz]

... than try to understand Quebec gibberish. And they certainly aren't under any kind of delusions that Montreal is more sophisticated than Toronto.

I'm always surprised that someone can write something so prejudiced. Was this intended to be some kind of ironic humour?

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm always surprised that someone can write something so prejudiced.

I'm not being prejudiced about it...I am just relaying the message as told to me. People just assume french speaking immigrants are naturally attracted to Montreal/Quebec, when that simply isn't the case (at least any more).

I also rent out units (I manage two small apt. buildings on the side), and have spoken to many young continental europeans and scandinavians who seem to be moving to Toronto in droves these days.

Last week a young couple from Lyon told me exactly that...Quebecois sounds like gibberish to them. They speak english just fine. They were specifically moving to Toronto and Montreal was never even on their radar (any more than say Halifax was). And it had nothing to do with any Quebec legislation. Montreal just doesn't hold the same position within Canada to the international crowd it did in previous generations.

 

[nfitz]

I'm not being prejudiced about it...

Surely referring to the form of French used in Quebec as gibberish is prejudiced ...

 

[egotrippin]

What religious text isn't a hate manual to some degree or another, honestly? Just look at Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis. God essentially destroyed the cities because of those darn sinning homosexuals*.

Regardless, there's room for moderation, and as long as religious wear doesn't conflict with our laws and values as a society, there's no reason to ban it. Niqabs are a bit different though, because if I walked into a bank with my face completely covered by say, a balaclava, I might get some attention. I think for identification and security reasons, a person's face should be uncovered while in public or commercial spaces.

*This comment is to be taken lightly, I'm quite liberal and think most religions interpreted literally are downright nutty.

 

[Tewder]

I find this idea of a 'war against religion' to be a tired one that needs to be put to bed. We certainly had our fill of it during the whole gay marriage debate... and it's the same old bs that any contextual expectation of compromise (of religious custom only in this case) - for the benefit of greater society as a whole - is interpreted as an attack on religious freedom, or intolerance. Religion is NOT at risk in our world, no matter what the fear mongers would have us think, and tolerance is a two-way street.

 

[gabe]

What religious text isn'tRegardless, there's room for moderation, and as long as religious wear doesn't conflict with our laws and values as a society, there's no reason to ban it. Niqabs are a bit different though, because if I walked into a bank with my face completely covered by say, a balaclava, I might get some attention. I think for identification and security reasons, a person's face should be uncovered while in public or commercial spaces.

*This comment is to be taken lightly, I'm quite liberal and think most religions interpreted literally are downright nutty.

Nowhere in the qu'ran does it say the face should be covered. Niqabs should be removed when entering banks, airports, government buildings.etc

If get you pulled over for speeding on a motorcycle and you're wearing one of those helmets that cover your face. The officer will ask you to remove your helmet. Now if a cop stops someone wearing Niqab would the officer ask the person to remove the mask?

 

[js97]

Nowhere in the qu'ran does it say the face should be covered. Niqabs should be removed when entering banks, airports, government buildings.etc

Agreed. Niqabs are also banned from Mecca - regarded as the most holy place is Islam. It's pretty simply - show your face. The Niqab is more of a cultural interpretation than actual religious expression. They probably should have done a 'common sense' legislation - show your face, or stay home.


Alternatively, Immigration Canada should be more prejudice as to who we let in. We already judge an individual based on a whole lot of factors (including language and criminal background, education background, etc). Why is common sense no different? A Niqab is simply a extreme expression of a religion, extremism is something we should keep out. Period. (this includes the husbands/children of the women with a Niqab)


And as one of the supreme judges backing this legislation pointed out- not all charter of rights are absolute in a society. Freedom of expression is somewhat limited (yelling fire in a crowded theatre). Religious expression is no different.