Talk:English-speaking Quebecers/Archive 1

Anglo-Quebecer

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Wikipedia community for the recent improvements in this article. I was surprised to see, visiting for the first time in several months, the huge difference in quality, appearance, and content.

Thank you. Please, please add more pictures of people. All I could find was buildings. I was looking for an open-source picture of the St. Patrick's Day parade. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people attending the parade are francophones with or without Irish roots. Everyone love the Irish and everyone is Irish on St. Patrick's Day. Please, don't ethnicize this event like so many others. -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't ehtnicize the St. Patrick's day parade? Youre joking, right? The Irish are an ethnic group in Canada. The Irish people have no problem with their etnicity and diaspora identity. Seriously, start making sense. Again, look at the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day parade [1]; they're all anglophone. Their website is English; maybe you can get your friends at the Sain Jean de Fascist society to scare them into translating it. It's an anglophone cultural event open to everone, just the francopholies are a fracnophone cultural event open to everyone. It's amazing how nationalist ideologues will deny basic realisties such as the Irish community being anglophone just to keep up polical appearances. Unbelievable! --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When you have no arguments, call the other side fascist. Quebecers with Irish roots are not necessarily anglophones. Hence, it does not make sense to put pictures of what most people will know in Québec as La parade de la Saint-Patrick on an article about the English-speaking minority in Quebecer. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This article Les Irlandais du Québec : à la croisée de deux cultures, makes it clear that in Quebec there are more francophones with Irish ancestry than anglophones. Because it is not a commercial organization, the United Irish Societies of Montreal are not required to "serve their customers" in the official language of Quebec. They are free to publish their site in Irish only, English only, Irish-English, Irish-French, French only or French-Irish-English. There is no basic customer right being violated here. However, considering how the majority of the people who might be interested in finding out about their Irish heritage are francophones, it would make sense for their organization to adapt to this reality and translate their web site. I will e-mail them about it. They probably just don't have the time & resources to translate it. I can volunteer. -- Mathieugp 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. Don't be surprised if they decline, though. It does make my point, though, that the Irish communiy in Montreal is Anglophne and always has been. The organisers are all anglophone and the parade route is through the largely anglophone west-end of Montreal. The center of festivities are on Crescent street, which is anglo party central. They haven't all been assimilated yet.

The article is good, though. Of coursde, the Quebecois are not ethnically Irish as you imply: ethnicity implies a common language, religion or culture in addition to ancestry, and the Queebcois lagely do not identify culturally with the language of James Joyce and Yeats. But perhaps if they realized how many anglophones assimilated into French Canadian/ Quebecois society in France, they won't be as frightened of assimilation when political demagogues play on these fears by quoting selective statistics. The common ancestry will be more likely to make more Quebecois see anglophones as real Quebckers as opposed to Westmount Rhodesians, which is undoubdedly the intent of this article. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You have an extraordinary ability to distord the meaning of everything I write. As we say in French L'esprit de parti ne raisonne pas. I write about the fact that Quebec francophones can claim Irish ancestry as much as Anglophones.

This article is not about French-speaking Quebecers. It is about the origins of current anglophone institutions and communities in Quebec, which evolved in part out of accomadating the religion, language, and distinct cultural identity of Irish immigrants. To be Irish Canadian is to have a cultural affiliation with Irish culture. The Irish community in Quebec (those in Quebec that express an affiliation and identifictaion with Irish culture i.e. literature, religion, customs) are almost all anglophone. They opt to maintain a distinct identity from francophone Quebecers in part by mantaining their language, just like the francophone community in Caaada keeps its identity by maintaining a culture distinct from English Canada. Francophone Quebecers with Irish ancestry identify more with French Canadian Quebecois culture than with Irish culture; that is the nature of assimilation. --Soulscanner 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is there to prove the exact opposite: Beaurivage: The Development of an Irish Ethnic Identity in Rural Quebec: 1820-1860 by D. Aidan McQuillan -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I give you a link so you can educate yourself on something you really should have known about before opening your mouth in public, if only for the sake of preserving your honour. I tell you that since both francophones and anglophones can claim Irish ancestry, it would make sense for the institution promoting pride in this heritage to reach out everyone. Everything here points out to a desire for greater understanding between communities in an effort to strenghten national unity among Quebecers. As if that were not enough non-sense, you write something as completely in contradiction with the logical flow of the conversation as this: "if they realized how many anglophones assimilated into French Canadian/ Quebecois society in France, they won't be as frightened of assimilation". That is beyond understanding. Everything that I wrote, everything that is part of the discourse of those you call "political demagogues" suggest the exact opposite. There is not a single nationalist I know of, including myself or Charles Castonguay (who by the way is a native English speaker from Ontario) who expressed explicitely or implicitely the idea that assimilation is bad in itself. What is bad, and I cannot believe I have to explain this to someone who claims knowledge on the subject, is the loss of language for entire national communities.

In that case, the loss of English among Irish Quebecers resulting from their assimilation into French Canadian society should be viewed as a national calamity. That won't happen among Quebec nationalists, though. --Soulscanner 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the complete assimilation of all Irish in Ireland would be a national calamity as would the complete assimilation of all Quebecers in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The majority of human languages are spoken, kept alive, by less than 10% of the Earth's population. Unless one believes in the superiority of some human languages and associated cultures over others, unless one does not love humanity and its formidable diversity, one should be concerned as are millions of linguists, anthropologists and ordinary citizens. In the most easy to understand words I can come up with : it is good for humanity that we mix. it is bad when one language community dies out or is reduced to an unsignificant number because its members were intentionally or unintentionally prevented from passing on this heritage to next generations. Whether it is because of the hostility of a conquering power, natural disaster, indifference of cocitizens, the net result is the same: a violation of human rights. On what planet do you live? -- Mathieugp 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this apply to anglophones in Quebec City (the majority of whom were Irish) and the Eastern Townships as well , or only to Acadians or Franco-Ontarians? The Irish in Quebec either assimilated into the French-speaking community or they moved on to New England. They survive collectively as an anglophone cultural community in Montreal (who organize a pretty large parade every March). Assimilation happens to most immigrant communities, except it seems those with strong religious ties (i.e. Jews, Armenians, Muslims). So we lossed a bit of cultural diversity in Quebec because of it. --Soulscanner 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That millions of Irish were driven out of the home country by an artificially created poverty should be your first concern. You really seem to confuse the entire assimilation of a people in its homeland and the assimilation of some of its members outside of it. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

However, I was disheartened to see that the article had been renamed. To me, the term "English-speaking Quebecer" as the title of this article is offensive. To call Anglo-Quebecers nothing more than "English speakers" is to reduce a cohesive community to a circumstantial grouping of people sharing nothing more than English as a mother- or acquired tongue. In fact, while ethnically diverse, Quebec's anglophone community is strong and united. It is true that in the past, ethnicity was more important than Anglophonism (you may add that newly coined term to your dictionaries). This began to change with the rise of Quebec Nationalism. As Francophones began to think of themselves as a majority and as a nation, Anglophones were forced to think of themselves as a minority within that nation. Francophone Quebec Nationalism has, from what I see and live every day, created Anglophone Nationalism in Quebec. Anglo-Quebecers have more and more begun to define themselves in relation (or opposition) to Francophones.

To me, Anglo-Quebecers implies British Ancestry. I have never in my 40 years of life refered to myself as an anglo-Quebecer. Anglo, yes, Anglophone, yes, English-Quebecer, yes, but never anglo-Quebecer. Name me one English institution that uses the word anglo in it; we talk about English hospitals, English schools, and English Quebec, not anglo-schools. So given that these designations are somewhat subjective, i think its important to appeal to what will convey the greatest clarity to a reader new to the subject. A Swedish-speaking Finn is more likely to comprehend English-speaking Quebecer than Anglo-Quebecer.--Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Anglo-Quebecers or English-Quebecers could be a source of confusion. Anglophone Quebecers would be best in my opinion, but inside the English language Wikipedia the target readership is the English speaking part of th world and "anglophone" is not commonly used. The meaning of "English speaking Quebecers" is clear and sound. There certainly is not Quebec anglophone nationalism as Anglophones already identify as Canadians. Being Canadian of course, in the cultural sense, implies a knowledge of English, even if only a weak one.

Untrue. Completely false. Canadian means that you have a knowledge of either English or French. There are many Canadians who speak no English andf there always will be. You integrate into one or the other language community. Canada is an officially bilingual country. --Soulscanner 09:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. You simply cannot identify to Canada without being in contact with those who call themselves Canadians. Stop pretending. Integration into the francophone national group means integration in Quebec's majority. There are two nationalities and the laws don't reflect this, hence the reason why there is reformist movement and a secessionist movement in Quebec. What is so difficult to understand? -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But francophones and anglophones are both Canadian: they constitute English and French Canada. Integration into the francophone majority (the Quebecois) in Quebec is integration into Canadian society, or integration into the English-speaking minority in Quebec is integration into Canadian society. Both are recognized in the Canadian constitution as equally Canadian. The majority of even francophone immigrants identify with a bilingual, multicultural Canada. Not all, of course, but a very large majority. All you need to do is look at the referendum results. Jacques Parizeau hoped that they would one day vote like French Canadians, but this is more wishful thinking than anything. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are so poorly informed. Jacques Parizeau stated, to university students, his comments on a survey that suggested that the more they are francophones, the more the children of immigrants to Quebec vote along the same lines as native francophones. (Something that was already known, but apparently not by Parizeau, who is after all not a sociologist, neither a demographer, but an economist). This is obvious: when people are not primarily or exclusively gaining their information on Quebec through the web of lies that pollute the English language media of Canada, they consider both sovereignty and constitutional reforms to be valid options. -- Mathieugp 13:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When he referred to native francophones (i.e. French Candians), he said 'nous'. That much is clear in all his speaches, and that is the problem with Quebec nationalism (especially that of seperatists). People like Parizeau do not think of immigrants as 'nous' culturally unless they talk and think just like French Canadians. They poison their own minds with all kinds of fears and xenophobia. --Soulscanner 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "nous" referred to all Quebec francophones who had just voted Yes at a huge majority. Native francophones != to French Canadians. There are native Quebec francophones of all origins. A year after, Parizeau was holding the same discourse: Who are we? Where are we going? -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was not already a Quebecer, I could very well be a Canadian.

You are both. As am I. Canadian is defined civically. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of both political communities, both civic, but I do not identify as a Canadian, culturally speaking. I became directly acquainted with American and Canadian cultures after learning English, but I identity to Quebec's own national culture first. This doesn't mean I rejet any other human cultures. Only, I have only one head, one mind, one soul, and my Quebecness occupies a great deal of space in those. When I look at Canadian culture, I look at it with the eyes of a foreigner who had to learn a different language to understand it. The same can be done the other way around. Welcome to multilingualism and complex modern identities. But for multilingualism to even exist, there must be strong language communities in the first place. -- Mathieugp 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't identify as Canadian culturally either. I subcribe to Candian civic value of tolerance, bilingualism and multiculturalism; that is something I share with other Canadians, but that Quebec nationalists reject; that is largely a question of political beliefs as opposed to culture. I identify culturally as English-speaking Canadian (what you would call Canadian), North American, German, French Canadian, and Quebecois in that order , so one can see why that would be. Even there, English Canadian and American culture is to ethnically and regionally diverse to distinguish properly. People from Vancouver sound more like people from Seattle than other Canadians, and Black Montrealers sound more like Black New Yorkers than other anglophones. Anglophone "Canadian Culture" is a delusion maintained by an academic elite and the CRTC. The ideology of a French Quebec and English Rest-of-Canada just does not correspond to my reality or those of non-francophones in Montreal or Quebec; that is why a pan-Canadian civic identity trumps that of a francophone Quebecois cultural identity among immigrants. In all honesty, the only reason I bristle at being called Quebecois (I get just as angry when some red-neck in Ontario complains about French on his cereal boxes as a Quebecois) is because some ideologues in this province believe in using the state as a club to force-feed language and culture; in fact, it is only the individual that can decide for themselves what this is. Perhaps if Outremont Rhodesians like Parizeau had stepped into lower Outremont in their childhood, they would have understood the reality of complex identities and see that having the state push an official culture will only trigger resistance. --Soulscanner 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My English is excellent and I could be, from a strictly personal point of view, at home everywhere in North America. I have rarely felt unwelcomed, even after telling Canadians I favoured the independence of Quebec. Most were actually curious to know me, since I did not at all correspond to the fabricated image of the evil separatist the TV fed to them. -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, you were saying before that they were colonizers. Actually, as I said, the seperatists themselves do a good job of making themselves look silly if not scary. --Soulscanner 09:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are saying that. There is an Anglophone colonizing establishment in Quebec. Quebec was conquered and colonized. The colonizing power shifted from London to Ottawa. I have never in my life generalized this attitute to all Anglophones. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire Western Hemisphere was conquered and colonized by European powers. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. We're all here because our forerunners cleared out the natives. All these countries are now independent, including Canada (well, except St. Pierre et Miquelon). The terrorist FLQ argued that Quebec was colonized by English Canada and went to the U.N. to argue the case. They were laughed out of the building. If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop your blatant name calling and Canada-bashing. Quebec elects members to the Canadian government in proportion to its population. Quebec is no more a colony of Ottawa than Texas is a colony of the U.S. Actually, Texas used to be part of Spain, then Mexico, and then was an independent Republic, and then a "colony" of the Washington D.C., so I guess they have even more of a claim to independence. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You should read more on the decolonization movement, which is at the origin of efforts that lead to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is self-evident that after the forced union of 1841, Quebec 1) remained a colony of Great Britain and 2) became a colony of Upper Canada and later the rest of Canada when the Dominion state was founded.

False. Lets look at the facts. Canada West (Upper Canada) and Canada East (Lower Canada) were two parts of the Province of Canada, a colony of Britain. The two parts had equal representation in Parliament. Canada East and Canada West were divided into Quebec and Ontario, two provinces in the Dominion of Canada (which was a British Colony). Canada became independent in 1931 under the Statute of West Minster. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That Quebec sends MPs to the Dominion Parliament is the same as Scots sending MPs to the UK Parliament.

Or Newfoundlanders sending MPS to parliament, or Texans sending representatives to Congress, or Bavarians sending representatives to the Bundestag, or Corsicans, Alsatians, and Basques sending representatives to the National Assembly, etc. Quebec is a Province in Canada, with full representation. A colony does not have full representation in the sovereign body. No province in Quebec is a colony.

The devolution of powers clearly illustrates how a nation cannot be represented adequately when it can only hope to send but a minority of MPs to a foreign parliament. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet the Cree and Inuit stay part of Quebec and Canada. How about that! Quebec is adequately represented. Modern Canadian identity was indeed constructed by a French Quebecer, Pierre Trudeau. Quebec nationalists hate him and other french Quebecers like him, of course, becaseu they destroy their pet theory that Canada is a construction of English colonialism. The fact is that French Quebecers are the only minority people in the world that can put restrictions on the majority language and have full control over immigration. The Cree and Inuit, cannot do this, nor can the Catalans, nor can the Scots or Bavarians. Canadian law even gives Quebec (or any province) the right to secede, going beyond what it needs to dp under international Law (Corsicans and Basques, for example, do not have that right). --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How nice of Ottawa to "allow" us all that we have an unalienable right to. Ottawa has no legitimacy making those decisions. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When one believes in Human Rights, which includes the rights of peoples, one knows about the right to self-determination.\

Indeed, I think of the Cree and Inuit, who had their lands forcibly annexed to Canada in 1868 and to Quebec in 1912 without their consent or any democratic representation. Still, they cannot secede under international law, given that Caanda respects their rights as nations. Given that Canada grants Quebec as a province far more cultural and economic autonomy than it gives the Cree and Inuit (whose language and culture are far more in danger than those of French Canadians), how could Quebec claim independence outside Canadian law and deny it to the Cree? Even Kosovars and Kurds are not granted independence despite being very badly treated by Serbia and Iraq. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you comparing Canada to Turkey now? States secede, not peoples that were denied the right create their own States. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Even there, I think if Quebec wants to be independent, Canada should let it go. No country is forever, and I think joining the U.S. would greatly bolster economies and national identity out West, in Ontario, and Atlantic Canada if Confesderation dissolves. It is pretty much inevitable anyways, given the common culture and language, and it will improve the mobility of most Canadians. Personally, I won't stick around Quebec to see how this little "Projet de Societe" turns out, and I don't think Quebec will benefit from a United North America. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

When one knows international law, one also knows that "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.". That is where we are coming from. -- Mathieugp 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This refers to a civic people: the people of Canada, of the United States, of France, Germany, Spain, the U.K. Provided they respect the rights of aboriginal, lingusitic, cultural and ethnic minorities (i.e. Francophone Canadians, Cree and Inuit, the Corsicans, the Bavarians, the Catalans and Basques, the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish) minorities do not have the right to secede. That is clear in international law. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quebecers have a State recognized in British and international law since 1763. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article hearkens back to a time of mass immigration when many "Anglophones" were nothing more than Allophones who spoke a few words of English (like my grandparents). Today, their children and grandchildren have all grown up speaking English and living in Quebec, and a Montreal Italian has more in common with a Montreal Pakistani or Trinidadian than to a native-born Italian. Also in the intervening period, Quebec Nationalists have begun to define their "Nation" (at least officially) as multicultural and even multilingual as opposed to Pure-Laine-French-Catholic. The idea of ethnic nationalism is beginning to seem outdated. The Anglo-Quebecer Nation was just ahead of the curve.

A Montreal Jew has more in common culturally with a Toronto or New York Jew than with a Montreal Italian. The same holds for a Jamaican or local Afro-Canadian, or a Pakistani. A little less than half of English- speaking Montrealers are allophone, and a good number of the native-speakers belong to another cultural community. That doesn't take anything away from the community, it only speaks to the community being fully committed to a Canadian sense of multiculturalism and bilingualism. As for ethnic nationalism, there is nothing wrong of being proud of your roots and I would not take that away from the Quebecois. It's only when you feel that it entitles you to a different tier of citizenship that it becomes a problem. As for Quebec nationalism becoming multicultural, when it really does that it will be just like what Trudeau envisaged and it will lose its political bight. It will almost cease to be nationalism. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quebec nationalists are precisely those who wanted to build a national community that is more and more diverse all the while remaining French-speaking. Those who opposed it were Canadian nationalists who knew very well that if Quebec succeeded at making the Québécois identity universal like the French or American identities, it would play in favour of the supporters of independence.

The thing is, basing a nationalism on a culture, language, race, or religion (i.e. an ethnic nationalism) is not inclusive and asking for trouble. It excludes neccessarily those who do not identify with that language, religion, race, or culture. In order to make the sense of being a Quebecois universal, Quebec would need to adopt policies of multiculturalism and bilingualism similar to that of the federal government and make these the founding principles of the nation as opposed to anything based on the French language or the Catholic religion. This will result in a society all over Quebec like you see now in Montreal: bilingual and multicultural. Abandoning the type of tribal nationalism displayed in Jacques Parizeau's money and the etnic vote speech and Lucien Bouchard emotional appeals at being "humiliated" by English Canada will then have no more appeal; it already shows less and less appeal in Montreal, as the referendum results show. Quebec nationalism will have neutred itself as political force, and remain as a cultural force; I would certainly invite that. This would be perfectly okay with me. If sovereignists want to adopt truly inclusive models of multiculturalism and bilingualism, then by all means go ahead. I won't hold my breath. --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are so far off the truth. Since when is the Catholic religion at the heart of modern Quebec identity???

For about 400 years, between 1608 and 1960. Most Quebeckers are still Catholic, but they do not base their identity on it. My point is, if Quebec based its "nationhood" on Catholicism like they did before 1960, it would exclude Jews and Protestants from being Quebecers no matter how strong the claims that al citixens were invited to share in the Eucharist. Similarly, if Quebec chooses to base its identity on the French language, it excludes anglophones and aboriginals, who do not identify with that language. They speak it as a functional, useful tool to earn money, order poutine, and get health services. But it's not who they are as it is with the Quebecois. They love Quebec because they can live there in their mother tongue. The Cree actually use bilingualism to preserve their language. Parents send four of their gkids into the French system, four into the English system, and when they get together they all have to speak Cree. I'm not joking. They have set up their education system this way. So bilingualism is very god for them. Frankly, anglophones believe that most Quebecois understand and respect the desire to live as fully as possible in ones language, and that is why we stay. If we all respect this principle, there is no reason we cannot get along. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Crees have a right to self-determination and are recognized as nation within Quebec. That among the Amerinds of Quebec we count dead languages and large parts of the population assimilited to either English or French is extremely sad for all of humanity. That the Cree work hard not to abandon their native language despite the unatural necessity they have to learn two foreign languages in order to live a decent life in their home country shows a great deal of courage, determination and is much to their honour. It is no surprise that Bernard Landry, who speak French, English and Spanish and Ted Moses got along so well since they both recognized their being engaged in the same fight for their respective communities. Human being can learn other languages. It can be very positive for individual to learn other languages and for communities to have some of its members be multiligual. That has never been the object of any debate among Quebec nationalists going as far back as Louis-Joseph Papineau who in 1867 was saying: "In the current state of our society, with the ease of learning the two languages as of childhood, it would be to condemn ourselves to a marked inferiority to neglect to learn them both correctly, to not be able to taste the exquisite fruits that their literature produced, more abundant and tastier than those of the other peoples." Pierre Bourgault, René Lévesque, Pierre-Marc Johnson, Jacques Parizeau, Bernard Landry, André Boisclair were (or are) all perfectly fluent in French and English. So am I. Are you? -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They are hypocrites. What measures have they taken or do they propose to ensure that all Quebeckers learn both correctly? The only people graduating from public schools with a full command of both languages are those graduating from private schools and from English public schools.

Quebec has policies of immigration, integration of its immigrants, and an official policy of interculturalism which produces better result than the ill-conceived policy of multiculturalism of Ottawa. At least in the UK, they have a multiculturalism policy, but they don't deny the specificity of Scotland and Wales as distinct national communities. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What results? Are their more minorities in the Quebec civil service than in the federal governemnt or other provinces? No. It is lowest in Quebec. The aspects of "interculturalism" or "pluriethnicism" that work are the same as multiculturalism. Quebec nationalists don't like the word multiculturalism because Pierre Trudeau thought of it before they did and it makes them look bad. Even there, French Quebec is way behind the other provinces and English Quebec institutions at integrating immigrants. To be fair, this is becaure the Quebecois haven't been doing it as long as their anglophoine neigbours. This will change once these largely bilingual and trilingual genration of multuicultural Montrealers start taking over francophone institutions and insist that discriminatory practices in the provincial civil service change. Their view of being "Quebecois" will be far differrnt than that of the white baby boomers who now run things. So there is hope for the future. In the very near future.

What is the logical connection between what I wrote and your pathetic attempt at using a weakness in one part of Quebec policies in support of your biased and ridiculous prejudice that Canada = multiculturalism = good vs Quebec = unilingualism = bad. You are making a mockery of a very serious philosophical debate that goes on to deal with the complex reality of modern societies that welcome a lot of immigrants. If Quebecers wanted to be savagely hostile to the cultural differences of immigrants for centuries and later try to cover it all up by becoming indifferent to their faith, promote gethoization all the while maintaining the same rate of assimilation, then we could look at what the majorities in the US and Canada are doing. But since the majority of Quebec was itself a minority and still is today, it has a very different perspective and a different challenge which it is dealing with admirably under the circumstances that were imposed to it against its will. Need I remind that it is the nationalist who battled to have the progressive immigration policy Quebec has today? -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As for being considered a nation, that has changed. All political parties in Canada have recognized the Quebecois as a nation. And being a province in Canada means a lot more than being a nation ni the U.K. In Canada, it gets you control over education, natural resources, healthcare, immigration, etc. IN the U.K., it gets you your own soccer team. Big deal.

--Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Up until the 1950s, Quebec francophones were a community whose members could trace their ancestry to mostly France, Ireland, Scotland, England or Germany etc. The common language among the members of this community was French. Quebec anglophones were similarly a community whose members could trace their ancestry to mostly the British Isles and continental Europe. The common language of those people was English. These were and still are the nucleus of two distinct national communities, the second in a position to dominate the first because of its numerical majority inside the Dominion (something that became a demographic reality in the 1850s under the forced Union regime). It would have never come to the mind of any English speaking Canadian living in Quebec at the time to consider himself a member of a minority group.

Actually, they would have considered themselves Irish, English, or Scotish. All you need to do is look at the flag of Montreal. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Around the same time, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada, a redefinition of the core social values occurred, not in isolation from the rest of the world, but very much within world wide movement of civil actions for the progress of human rights which began with the decolonization of Africa.

In Quebec, the position of inferiority of Francophones inside Canada and even inside Quebec where they formed a majority was made visible for the first time to the Canadian public with the release of the 1965 preliminary report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

Goodness! ALl you had to do is walk on any road connecting Sherbrooke and St. Antoine streets to see that. --Soulscanner 10:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No Soulscanner. People in federal government didn't have the measure of it. You cannot understand social phenomenons just based on your own personal experience. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't. I wasn;t born then. Francophones noticed. All you have to do is read the literature of the time. They didn;lt need a study by well-paid bureaucats to tell them that something was wrong. As a matter of fact, most anglophones knew it was wrong too. Ther est of Canada was too far away to know or care. The Quebecois did well to raise themselves out this situation by finally throwing out the U.N. and putting in the Lesage Liberals. ENglish Quebckers voted Liberal en masses long before this. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The final 1969 report recommended a strategy to redress the injustices, injustices that were for the first time properly named and analyzed. Unfortunately, the recommendations of that report were followed selectively by the Trudeau government. A Radio-Canada interview with Davidson Dunton makes this clear here : http://archives.radio-canada.ca/IDC-0-17-592-3077/politique_economie/bilinguisme_biculturalisme/clip8

Somewhat subjective to say unfortunately. The Trudeau model was perfectly valid. It certainly protected the rights of linguistic minorities everywhere in Canada. --Soulscanner 10:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

?????????????? The rights of all linguistic minorities?????? I assume you meant official language minorities. But that is still incorrect. Read Charles Castongay, Getting the facts straight on French : Reflections following the 1996 Census, in Inroads Journal, volume 8, 1999, pages 57 to 77 and learn what every person even remotely interested in Canada's linguistic duality should know. It is absolutely undeniable that francophone minorities outside Quebec are still in decline. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Castonguay's analysis is intellectually dishonest and mostly motivated by a hard-line nationalist and separastist political agenda. It is based on a policy of further marginalizing anglophones and their institutions in Quebec with the ventual aim of eliminating them entirely (same for francophone institutins elsewhere). Castonguay along with hard-line nationalists in the PQ seek to restict access to postsecondary education and emasculate English universities by drastically reducing their funding. They have also opposed extending francophone language rights outside in Quebec in court.

Talk about paranoia and delusion. Do you even know who the person you are attacking with such unfouded and low accusations is? -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The real aim of much of his rhetoric and selective statistics is to keep language resentments alive and agitate francophones to support sovereignty. It is mostly to provoke fear and anger towards English Canada. It is typical of the manipulation of data for political purposes practiced by Quebec nationalist demographers, and why their "research" is really more politial polemic as opposed to honest assessments of Quebec society.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I would suggest you do a little bit of research on the work Castonguay has published. First, he is not a demographer, is a mathematician and a professor. -- 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why does he publish demographic studies? Are you saying that he isn't even qualified to publish demographic studies? --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He is the mathematician who conceived the indicators used by the OQLF to monitor the language shifts occurring in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is especially true when it comes to his analysis of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. Castonguay hopes to to provide an apparant scientific basis for heating up language frictions in Quebec. He focusses exclusively on language transfers to argue that this is leading to the anglicisation of Montreal since it leads to a smaller proportion of francophones in Montreal and Quebec as a whole. Hence English (and by extension anglophones) is politicized and made an object of fear, a threat to the survival of French in Quebec.

Or maybe he is accurately reading all the available details and is not hiding what a lot of demographers are predicting and have been predicting since the 1970s, but that the federal state refuses to acknowlege? What is your evidence against his other than calling the man a "nationalist" as if it were and insult? -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have said: he deliberately ignores the effect of outmigration on the anglophone population of Quebec, which is what is leading to the demographic collapse of English-speaking Quebecers everywhere in Quebec except Montreal. --155.42.21.135 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. The fact is that the number of English-speaking Quebecers is in decline everywhere in Quebec due to outmigration. Outmigration far outstrips the number of immigrants who adopt English as their home language, which is why the population continues to decline. The current rate of lanugage transfers into English is not enough to curb that demographic decline. Castonguay deliberately ignores this and focuses obsessively on language transfer in order to promote his political positions and make the numbers look threatening to the Quebecois. It is particularly obsecene considering that anglophones have all but disappeared from Quebec outside Montreal. It is also particularly dangerous since, intentionally or not, it breeds a fear and resentment not only of anglophones but immigrants too.

Now you are distorting what his analyis made him, and quantity of others, see: That both the Anglophones of Canada and the Francophones of Canada depend on language shifts because of their weak reproduction rate. That because of language shifts, Anglophones of Canada succeed at compensating for what would normally lead to a demographic collapse. The fact that Anglophones move from one province to the other doesn't change much to this. Meanwhile, Francophones are not doing so well and this is what he explains in words accessible to the general public. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't challenge or even refer to this conclusion. Castonguay and other nationalist demographers have and still play on fears that francophones will experience a demographic collapse IN QUEBEC; that is where he is being intellectually dishonest and acting as a statistician for demagogues. I have made this perfectly clear, yet you choose to be intellectually dishonest and change the subject by refering to his ruminations on the situation in Canada as a whole (which franckly, as a Quebec nationalist, he really does not care about; Quebec nationalists and politicians have considered French Canadians outside Quebec to be "dead ducks" since the 1970's and actively opposed adoption of French rights in places like Alberta, and use this self-fulfilling prophecy as a reason to separte from Quebec). In fact, it is the anglophone population in Quebec that is experiencing a demographic collapse everywhere in Quebec except Montreal, where only the integration of allophones prevents it. that is a simple fact; you might not care, but the numbers do not lie. Castonguay argues that the intergration of immigrants into the English-speaking community threatens the francophone community in Quebec, and deliberately ignores the fact that most anglophones leave Quebec. To argue this, all his studies conveniently ignore the effect of outmigration threatening the Anglophone population. Integrating immigrants in fact is the only thing preventing demographic collapse of anglophones. Given that Castonguay ignores this when he advocated taking strong measures to prevent lingusitic transfers to English IN QUEBEC, we can only conclude that he wishes to see the collapse of the anglophone population. Do you want to see this too? --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Only francophones are a linguistic minority inside Canada. The Anglophones of Canada are doing well in spite of a weak reproduction rate, even in Quebec where our Anglophone community experiences outmigration much like in the Maritimes. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So, since a) the only thing that is keeping the anglophone population in Montreal from collapsing currently is allophones adopting English (The allo-anglophones constitute 50% of anglophone, including myself); and b) Castonguay, as a demographer, is smart enough to know this; one can only conclude that his real intention is see the collapse of the anglophone population in Montreal. That is what would happen very quickly if his proposed measures of completely eliminating lanuage transfers to anglophones plays out. That is really what his underlying and motivating ideology seeks: anglos on one side of the Ottawa, francos on the other, a kind of Balkanization.

Again. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am beginning to feel uncomfortable imagining myself in your shoes. As anyone who would bother to do some research on the subject would find out, Castonguay was, like many scientists, of opinions along the lines of those who wrote the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. In other words, his first choice is a strong policy by Ottawa to improve the situation of the French language in Canada, the only official language seriously needing help. Comparing the demographic collapse, in absolute number, of francophones in Canada with reduction of the share of the anglophone population of Quebec is a clear indication that one needs to read a lot more on the subject. A lot of it is available online now. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

But I DO know what I am talking about. I do not believe that languages need help. People need help, meaning communitees and individuals, whether their identities are based on language, religion, or other cultural identities. Neither the French nor English language need help in the world. Both will survive and thrive. What might happen is that distinct French communities might disappear from parts of Canada outside Quebec, and that distinct English-language communities may disappear from Quebec. Both would be equally regretable, but neither of these compare to disappearance of Cree or Mohawk, which nobody in Quebec or Canada really cares about. Is it really so beyond you to understand that an anglophone living in the Eastern Townships cares as much about his communnity as a franco-Ontarian living in Sudbury? Do not both hurt Canada as a whole (which you as a seperatist don;t really care about anyways) if they disappear? You as a Quebecois nationalist simply do not care if anglophones dissappear from Quebec, so you couch it in terms of "English" survival as a language in Canada as opposed to the survival of a distinct anglophone community in Quebec with a distinct cultural identity from that of the francophone Quebecois. The difference on the intellectual level is the difference between your abstract notion of a language as something intrinsically worthy, and my notion of a language only being significant in as much as it expresses a community or individual identity. But in reality, it is based on your identification with your linguistic, cultural and ancestral identity (you really cannot divide the two in French Quebec), and my mutlicultural and bilingual background. If your Quebec nationalism were truely civic, you would advocate measures to stabilize the demographic balance in Quebec as opposed to accelerating the demise of the English-speaking community in Quebec. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One wonders at what point you will realize that the goal of having 80% of language shifts go to the French-speaking group instead of the English-speaking group precisely follows the idea of "stabiliz[zing] the demographic balance in Quebec". The outmigration of Quebecers, which naturally affects English speakers more than French speakers, will be difficult to solve. Killing the economy of Toronto and New York falls outside the powers that we Quebecers have. The best thing we can do is to get rid of Ottawa. In an independent Quebec, more Quebec Anglophones will identify as Quebecers first and foremost if not only. Then maybe the Anglophone minority will consider this country to be theirs like francophones do and they will want to make their life there after getting their diploma from McGill. The younger generations are bilingual so there is no problem for them moving to Chicoutimi. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Using demographic data as a weapon to support an ideological agenda using fear and resentment is nothing new. In the 1970's, it can be seen in the alarmist agiprop documentary "Disparaitre" by pur-et-dur PQ polititian Lise Payette, which extends this into a feature length film. In the 1990's, Lucien Bouchard effectively fired up fear and resentment of English Canada by saying that the Quebecois are the "white race" that produces the fewest babies in the World.

It's important to keep the political context of so-called "scientific" studies. Castonguay is more of a demagogue than demographer. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. As your evidence clearly shows doctor. The fact that only 5.x million people out of some 20 million of French-Quebecian ancestry in North America speak French today adds even more strength to your thesis. I can't believe those Quebec nationalist bastards who claim a human right to build a political nation inside which the common language will not be English. Shame on them. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as French Quebecian. The term is French Canadian. Again, I see it as hypocritical to advocate bilingualism outside Quebec and a common French language inside the way Castonguay does. I cannot accept the dissapearance of an English-speaking community from Quebec anymore than I can accept the dissappearanc of French-speaking communities in Ontario or Alberta. I cannot accept a French Quebec anymore than you could accept an English Canada. I believe that Anglophones can no more identify with an officially French Quebec as francophones could identify with an officially English Canada. My position is consistent. Yours is based on a duplicious, one-sided ethnic nationalism. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He advocates two majorities respecting their minorities. First, Anglophones stop thinking of Franco-Quebecers as a minority: they are not. Second, they do what is necessary so that their francophone minorities start receiving the same treatment anglophones get in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The federal state gave itself a language policy based on personal and non-territorial rights that failed to solve the problem for francophones inside or outside Quebec.

It certainly did. It guearanteed everyone their institutions everywhere in Canada that it was reasonable.--

Soulscanner 10:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Convinced that nothing good could come from Ottawa, the Mouvement Québec français and the nationalist movement in general placed all its hope in actions by the government of Quebec and legislation from the Parliament of Quebec. The 1973 report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Situation of the French Language and Linguistic Rights in Quebec laid the foundation of Quebec's language policy. Some aspects of the report were followed and implemented in the 1974 Official Language Act of the liberals, shortly followed by the Charter of the French Language. In 1977, Quebec had a powerful and progressive Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms protecting fundamental freedoms and rights, equality rights, political rights, judicial rights, economic rights, social rights, youth right as well a powerful and progressive Charter of the French Language defining linguistic rights and giving the citizens of Quebec the means to redress the position of its main national language within Quebec.

None of these were given constitutional force, and the Charter of the French Language broke several fundamental human rights such as the freedom of expression as well as established rights regarding the use of English. --Soulscanner 10:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Charter of the French Language never broke several fundamental human rights. Against basic common sense, the Supreme Court considered that outside commercial signing was "freedom of expression". This resulted in the reintroduction of the abolished colonial-type bilingualism.

If you hate the site of english in public, and you're constantly fed by your professors that this is atheeat to the survival of your culture, I guess it's against common sense. But to someone whonthinks fundamental human rights are more important than ethno-linguistic hegemony over a territory, banning a language in any way is odious. French, English or Urdu; anywhere in the world. That is basic common sense to me. I think the fact that you think it can be justified says more about you than the Supreme Court. Both the U.N. and the Supreme Court of Canada stated that it broke fundamental rights of freedom of expression. If English-speaking Quebeckers cannot post information to anglophone clients freely in English, or Haitian Quebeckers cannot post information to other Haitians in Creole, then how can you say that they have this freedom?. You are just plain wrong on that one. I'm all for protecting French, but the perceived weakness of French does not justify measures that are patently illiberal. But go on. Speak out load about banning English. Quebecers are listening. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not against Quebec law to do any of the things you gave examples of. You are attacking an imaginary political adversary, a straw man, that only exists in the fiction and you ignore the actual content of the laws. To get in touch with the details of the court judgements, and the opinions of the UN committee, you may want to start by reading Legal dispute over Quebec's language policy. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do. Even bilingual signs are deemed illegal and can be taken down, let alone those that are not translated into French. If an anglophone or Hatian post signs in their mother tongue, they will be fined if they do not translate it and have French predomninate over the other languages. If an individual person or an organization cannot display their language freely without harrassment from government officials, then you are limiting their freedom to be themselves. Imagine if all French Quebecers had to post in English. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can start enlightening yourself on language rights by reading these:

A legal opinion on international law, language and the future of French-speaking Canada, a memorandum by Ramsey Clark, 1993

Ethical Reflections on Bill 101, an opinion by Gregory Baum, 1993

-- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Minority Language Educational Rights" is not a fundamental right, it is a right that was meant to break the Charter of the French language and it did.

Yes it is. It is protected in the "Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities" [2] and "The Convention on the Rights of the Child" [3]. The European Union has similar, stronger laws. These protect the right of children of linguistic minorities to education in their mother tongue. Bill 101 still violates this law by not allowing anglophone immigrants, clearly members of the English-speaking minority in Quebec, to be educated in their mother tongue.

Actually, the U.N. has ruled that the law doesn't apply in Quebec becasue anglophones are in a fact a member of the majority in Canada. It's the Quebcois that are the minority in Canada. Quebec is in fact the only jurisdiction in the world that is allowed to put restriction on the majority national language, or indeed. Canada in no way violates the rights of the Quebecois and is more homogenerous than any other country in t e world towards its minority; that is why the world will not recognize Quebec independence until Canada recognizes it. This facts show that the Quebecois are the best treated minority in the world. I doubt that France would allow the Bretons or Corsicans (whose lanuages are really in danger) to put as many restrictions on French as Quebc puts on English. That would change if Quebc became independent, of course(a very, very hypothetical situation). The U.N. would not recognize Quebec independence until it respected these Charters, and guaranteed English education rights. You can be sure that anglophones would point this out at the United Nations (the few that would stay in Quebec would have their demographic collapse to argue for extra rights to protect them). --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% supportive of all the rights expressed in this Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities in principle and in practice. So are Quebec nationalists and the Quebec laws. There is nothing in this declaration resembling the "Minority Language Educational Rights" included in the Constitution of Canada. Indeed, the fabrication in the minds of many people of an English-speaking linguistic minority on the territory of Quebec while it is inside Canada has caused a lot of confusion. Anglo-Quebecers will of course be a national minority only after secession, in which case the rights and guarantees recognized to them, and them alone, in the Charter of the French Language will become useful instead of being superflous. The fact that the majority of Quebec has to protect itself against foreign assimilation is there to attest the abnormal colonial situation under which it is subjected, against its will, and against the laws of humanity, since 1763. Yet a majority of Quebecers continue to wish that the majority of Canada will someday awake and take the steps necessary the redress the constitutional problems, thereby avoiding secession. This would be so easy if only the political class in Ottawa believed in the equality of nations. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is mostly incindiary political rhetoric. You are also contradicting yourself. You insist that Quebec is a civic nation. Yet you deny that anglophones are a national minority. This shows clearly that you wish to have Quebec recognized as a nation, while denying anglophones as national mnority. In fact, it is Canada that is the current civic nation, and Quebec that isn't. Until Quebec secedes from Canada, Quebec remains a province, and francophone Qubeecers remain the best treated regional national minority in the world, recognized under the Canadian constitution with all the collective rights of a national majority, including jurisdiction over civil law, natural resources, immigration, and language. You may wish that you may be recognized as a symbolic "nation" like Scotland or Wales, but all that really gets them is their own soccer team. The rights of the francophone minority in Canada are respected under all U.N. Charters, and French Quebecers have no real grievance. I'd be much more convinced of your fair-mindedness if you would provide anglophones in Quebec with this kind of autonomy (say on the West Island) as frabcophone Quebecers currently enjoy in Quebec. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quebec anglophones will become a national and linguistic minority after independence. Right now, inside Canada, anglophones are a linguistic majority. Francophones were artificially made a minority by violating the human and political rights of all Quebecers from 1763 to 1841. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It prevented Quebec from applying its language policy correctly. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Charter of the French Language will have constitutional force when Quebec is free. As a province, it cannot do more than what it did. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It assured that the Charter respected basic human rights. Canada would have violated its international obligations to uphold fundamental freedoms if it did not strike down these laws.--Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Directing all Quebec children to the French language school network all the while allowing Quebec anglophones to chose French or English schools, made Francophones a decidedly pluriethnic community.

So anglophones aren't part of "all Quebec children", now. Funny how the true attitude always slips out. It never fails. --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When you have no arguments, attack the messenger. Quebec anglophones are recognized as a special community with group rights by the Charter. They have all the rights of Quebecers + other ones. Are you saying Bourgault should have won? Should every child in Quebec have been sent to French school without exception as of 1977?

I'm simply saying that you do not consider anglophones as part of "all Quebec children". You really don't include anglophones in your definition of a Quebecker. That's all. Anglophones are Quebeckers, period. When you refer to all Quebec children, you should be refering to anglophone children too. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have stated with much clarity that all Quebec children are set to attend the main public school system. I do not know how to make it clearer. In addition to this, the parents of Quebecers who received education in English have the right to chose the alternative and equally funded English language public school system. Again, I do not know how to make it clearer. This is what the law says and that is how jurists interpret the situtation. You are attributing to me and those you contemptuously call the "nationalists" intentions we do not have and beliefs we do not share. When we explicitate the evidence of the contrary to your decade-old prejudice, you continue to persist in your error. Since you are, honestly I am sure, concerned with the rights of all "official language" minorities, I presume you are engaged in a daily fight to help the francophone minorities have access to a public education system, funded as equally as the main one, in their language in Ontario and other provinces. You are also engaged in a fight so that francophones keep loosing their right to education in French if the previous generation(s) went to English school. You are also working hard to redress the harm that was done to them for more than a century. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Questioning what the law says. You said that the law directs all Quebec students to French schools. Anglophones are not directed to French schools, hence you do not consider these students to be "Quebec children". It is telling. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I repeat: All Quebec children are directed to French schools. In addition, the parents of Quebecers who received education in English have the right to chose the alternative and equally funded English language public school system. Many chose the French system thinking it will give their kids a better chance in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot imagine what the legal battle against the Charter would have been then. There would have been a near complete exodus of Quebec English speakers this time. There would only be the one pluriethnic group in Quebec instead of two. Instead of two multicultural societies overlapping, there would have been no overlap. There is nothing wrong with no overlap, only violating the historical rights of Quebecers (here anglophones) is not the way to gain independence.

It would have been a very short legal battel. It would have been struck down in no time, and people like you would call it proof of a colonial imperial attitude and a WASP conspiracy in Ottawa etc. etc. etc. blah, blah, blah. It would have changed nothing ultimately. It might have been worth in that it would have gien the usual suspects with more "humiliations" at the hands of a colonial power. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Violating human rights is the way of those imperialist an WASP supremacist who built the Canadian Dominion, locking Canada's former majority inside a province and ignoring the opposition of Nova Scotia to the federal union. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure there were English supremicists in Canada. It's the nature of colonialism. It;s also the nature of Europan societies in genral to believe that the French, English, Spanish, German cultures represent the pinnacle of human civilaization. They were moderated in Canada by those who put in laws protecting French institutions in Quebec and joint institutions. You make no sense. You complain that Confederation locked fracnophones into Quebec. Yet you argue for separation, which would lock Quebecers even further into Quebec, denying them access to the rest of the country. It makes no sense. When the British give francophones their own territorial majority, it's lockin up. But when Quebec nationalists insist not only preserving it, but locking it up even more, it becomes huniliating to deny it. The fact is, your motivation is Canada bashing. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am obviously arguing for the secession of Quebec so that the laws of the federal state of Canada no longer applies on our homeland, putting an end to a situation that is unacceptable.

The laws of Canada are generous towards French Quebec, more generous than international law requires. The respect the individual and collective lingusitic rights of all Quebecers according to all international organizations and are seen as a model for other coutries. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The federal State of Canada was not chosen by Quebecers in a referendum. Quebecers rights to draft and modify their own constitution was militarily prevented in 1837. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian nationalists claim that Canada is livable, in all provinces, for francophones. They are the ones appealing to part of the Quebec population by raising fear of what might happen to out-of-Quebec francophone minorities if Quebec becomes a free state. They are also raising fear of what might happen to the new anglophone minority.

There's not secret there. They will leave for economic reasons. The Parti Quebecois could simply quell any fears in Quebec by saying that an independent Quebec will be as officially bilingual as Canada is now, and safeguard all rights and services that they currently enjoy under the Canadian constituion. Anglophones would obviuosly rather live in a biligual country than a unilingual one with only one official language. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Their fear campain is formidable and ingenious. Quebecers are all divided up and the rest of Canada is united in its hatred of nationalists for different and competing reasons. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is demagogues like Castonguay that stir up ethnic and lingusitic fear and loathing on both sides; it serves a strategic purpose of promoting mutual distrust among English and French-speaking Canadians, whih obviously fans seperatist sentiment in Quebec. That is why Castonguay advocated a bilingual Ontario, while at the same time advocating a seperate French-only Quebec. He does it only to provoke radical English-only sentiment in Ontario, and play on fears of francophone demographic collapse of French Quebec at the hands of immigrants. It is much harder to blunt this kind of fear-mongering than that found among federalists. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad you hate English Candians and call them WASPs, but I guess that is part of the history of Canada. That's changed. Trudeau was no WASP, and he decolonized Canada. Neither were Irish or Jewish anglophones. Neither am I. It's Qubec nationalists that seek to lock Francophones inside their province, wishing to limit the people's knowledge of English, and see to it that they feel at home only in Quebec. Bilingualism was intended to make them feel at home everywhere in Canada by guaranteeing them their French instituions outside as well as inside Quebec, where the right to their institutions was protected since 1867. The Quebecois declined this offer, choosing to stay locked in Quebec. That is unfortunate, but it is their choice. I guess that does represent a failure of bilingualism, but that certainly isn't Trudeau's fault. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not hate White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Canadians. Some of them are my heroes like Robert Nelson, and to a lesser extent Wolfred Nelson. I do despise the WASP imperialist and colonialists who fought against the justice and equality for all in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Anglophones and anglicized allophones are largely unaware of what is going on within Francophone Quebec because the English language media are used by the adversaries to Quebec independence to divide Quebecers along ethnic lines and shed the overall Quebec nationalist in a bad light.

What a patronizing attitude. It's pretty typical of seperatist ideologues who rely on old stereotypes of English Qubecers to fire the residual resentment of "Westmount Rhodesians" that has never been more than a charicature. Anglophones are pretty aware of that the integration of immigrants into French Canadian society in Montreal has created a level of integrated bilingualism and multiculturalism in Montreal that is unprecedented. That is why they love Montreal. Most workplaces are integrated and bilingual, a reflection of the North American, cosmopolitain urban culture that is Montreal. It's created a bastion of Trudeau federalism and liberalism in Quebec. Unfortunately, this has not happened outside of Montreal. You go to Boucherville, Chicoutimi, and Quebec City and you see that not much has changed. That's not a bad thing, by the way. It assures a certain cultural continuity in Quebec.

The Rhodesians are still there, but Westmount isn't so hot a place anymore. They have moved elsewhere.

They were not Rhodesians. The were Quebeckers. They were here for generations. You have a whole ideology based on name

calling and exclusion of minorities. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Francophones being bilingual French-English is a reflection of them being in North America. But the number is way to high and that is because they are forced to speak English to earn a living, which should not be the norm, rather the exception. Allophones and Anglophones speaking French is the result of the Charter of the French language. That is undeniable. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this shows that many languasge laws are a deliberate attempt to stop Queebckers from learning English. What an ignorant attitude. A second and third language is a wonderful thing. And English is by far the most useful second language in the world, not to mention Noerth America. It's amazing how much some are motivated by pure anglophobia. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The result of the Charter of the French language is that Quebec French speakers are today a multiethnic community comparable to the English-speaking Canadian or American melting pots.

Montreal only. The rest of Quebec is pretty monocultural and monolingual. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As are all regions of Canada outside the metropolitan areas. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cities the size of Quebc City and Sherbrooke suburbs the size of Boucherville or St. Jerome outside of Quebec are quite cosmopolitain in comparison; go to Burlington Vermont or London Ontario, or Victoria B.C and you'll see. You should get out more. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Quebec anglophones who today know French well and are not hostile to francophones or simply ignorant of Quebec history already know this.

Indeed they are. Very few anglophones are hostile to francophones. They are hostile to the political ideologies of the PQ. Of course, the PQ portrays that hostility as being hostile to francophones, which exacerbates the problem. That's ther nature of political demagogues: you oppose them, you oppose the whole country. They're just like Geroge Bush int his kind of "us and them" jingoism. And of course anglos deeply resent the anti-English policies and demagoguery of the PQ. You are attempting to do it right here. I have to admit, its' pretty audacious of you to do this on an English website; usually people like you do it only indulge in this anglo-bashing within the francophone media. I'll give you points for chutzpah. As a result, anglophones have more or less dropped out of provincial politics because they know the choice for the moment is either being demonized as "Westmont Rhodesians" if they stand up for themselves, or indulging in self-deprecation and diminishing the real importance of their grievances when talking to francophones. You either get abuse, or you lose you self-respect: so you stay quiet. --Soulscanner 10:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You have never met sovereignists in your life and it shows. Anglophones who did do not hold a discourse like yours.

You have never spoken honestly with an anglophone. If you have, you'd know that the vast majority of anglophones who were born here feel this way. People will avoid politics in mixed company to be polite, especially when they know it will lead to an unpleasant scence. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in a seperatist 95% francophone neighbourhood. I also worked in small town french Quebec where everyone was sovereignist. You know, in places like Lake Saint John ( ;-) ) I almost wouldnt have it any way. I have one friend that's sovereignist even though he's totally apolitical: he wants sovereignty because all his favorite authors and musicians are seperatists. Who am I to argue with sentiment? It's honest. We all got along and know better than to talk politics. The ones I can't stand is demagogues who know just which nerves to press to get a reaction, and who load on B.S. about Ottawa being a colonialist force and who demonize English Speaking Quebecers as Rhodesians. People like Castonguay/ They do not give the respect they ask for their identity to those who do not share it. As I said, if I were French Canadian, I'd be a seperatist too; not a wimpy Sovereignist, a real independentist liek Pierre Bourgault. Being German-Canadian, I've seen first hand what emotional politcized appeal to culural identity can do. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The majority of francophones, of all origins, voted Yes in 1995.

LOL. Boy, you are totally mezmerized by Parizeau's propaganda. Do you actually believe this, or are you just putting on spin to try to actually convince people it's true? I'll admit, the 75% odd Hatians that voted NO are not as large as the 95% of anglophones that did, but it is far from a majority Yes. Please check you sources before you post pure fabrications. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an undisputable fact that a majority of francophones (that means those who speak mostly this language at home, alone or with another language) voted Yes in 1995. In 1980, it was 50/50 inside the francophone community and 40/60 inside the whole of the political community. There is nobody denying this to my knowledge. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. parizeau refered to those in this francophone community as "us", and those in the anglo and immigrant community as "them". It was more than a simple demographic analysis, but a plea for a strategy of appealing to the "vielle souche" vote and excluding others from the so-called "national project", and all your sophist apologetics are not going to change this fact. The encouraging thing about this is that 40% of francophones are not influenced by ethnic nationalist demagoguery. It's what keeps me in Quebec. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So if Anglophones were hostile to sovereignists, they would be hostile to the majority francophones. But there is no real hostility, only misunderstanding, confusion and (understandable) frustration.

By your reasoning, you are even more hostile to anglophones becasue 95% of anglophones are Trudeau federalist.

Not that I believe that. Get real. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your reasoning. Mine was given in the sentence above, where I state (as all can see for themselves) that what dominates is misunderstanding, confusion and (understandable) frustration. You are the perfect example case. -- Mathieugp 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think your aplogetics for ethnic nationalism and complete lack of concern for the anglophone community in Quebec go a long way to showing the reason behind anglophone and allophone alienation from their province, and a prefernece for the bilingual and multicultural vision offered by a united Canada. Any fair-mnded person could see that. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Anglophones are feed lies all day by media operated from Ontario and that more would support the independence of Quebec were we in a position to reach them.

Quite the opposite. The more I talk to seperatist ideologue, the more convinced I'm going to get out of this place if they ever win (and thise chances look very slim now). What people like you do not realize is that you do it yourselves, not any media. When you talk of Ottawa being a colonizing power, blurting out Castonguay's propaganda without applying rudimentary critical thinking processes, and spewing nonsense that Algerians, Vietnamese, and Haitians voted "yes" in the referendum then you show yourself to be so radicalized that you're not even worth thaken seriously. We are not stupid. I'm being polite here. If it were not wikipedia, I'd be using much stronger language.

If you want to get down to conspiracy theories, I think that radical ideologues like yourself in the provinicial civil service deliberately stifle the learning of English and exposure to English Canadians to make it easier to alienate French Canadian Quebecers from Canada, and hence increase support for sovereignty. I'll save that conversationf or another time.

Were we able to reach only 10% of our anglophone compatriots and give them a clear voice in our movement, people holding an anti-francophone discourse like the one you believe in would be discredited for good. With more anglophones and allophones in our coalition, we can win any referendum with 60% of the vote like in the good old days of the Meech demise. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is typical of the demagoguery of Quebec nationalists. You will be better off following Parizeau's plan to appeal strictly to francophones. Advocating bilingualism and multiculturalism is not anti-francophone; it is a logical choice for lingusitic and cultural minorities in Canada who see their communities dissappearing, both inside and outside Quebec. Nationalists depict it as anti francophone to alienate French Quebeckers from the rest of Canada and Quebec federalists and to dismiss the legitimate concerns of English-speaking Qubeecers all the while nursing their own. Again, if Quebec nationaklists advocated bilingualism and multiculturalism, there would be little reason to object to Quebec seccession. Of course, there would be little reason to support it as well becaseu all the fire and emotion would go out of it. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of anger in that one. Pretty much consistent that the seperatist movement is little more than a "ideologie de colere". Most allophones are sophisticatd enough to understand that. It will lose its pop, though. Slogans like "le Quebec aux Quebecois et Quebecoises" loose a certain amount of macho verility at the root of this kind of political movement and sap much of its power to inflame the nationalist anger you so yearn for. That type of demonstration does not attract minorities. It frightens them. So if that's what your looking for (in fact I wouldn't blame you if you do becasue it is your only hope at ever gettng that level of support again), you probably won't get it. Even nationalist francophnes know that the francophobe --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This brings me back to Castonguay. His political agenda of making Ottawa a bilingual city as a national capital is insincere. Being a seperatist and affilated with the Seperatist Action-Nationale, he in fact wishes that Ottawa no longer be his national capital. His underlying ideology really promotes that all anglophones in Quebec eventually assimilate into a French culture, and all francophones outside Quebec assimilate to English culture. Hence, when he advocates making Ottawa a bilingual city, or even feigns defending French outside the province, it is merely an act to provoke the type of anti-French backlash in English Canada that sovereignists like you hope will fuel the type of ethnic-nationalist backlash; like you, he wants the good ol' days of Meech. He uses his studies of linguistic transfers outside Quebec to generate a sense of hopelessness there to make Rene Levesques statement that francophones outside Quebec were "dead ducks" a self-fulfilling prophecy. At the same time, it fires fears in francophones that it could happen here unless drastic action is taken.

Finally he provides skewed and warped statistical fodder for those who wish to cut anglophone institutions drastically to their minimum and least generous, with the longterm intention of eliminating them entirely [4](remember: he believes that all anglophones should be assimilated in Quebec). If he wants to cut funding to McGill, please cut all of it. McGill would survive nicely and probably even do better as an elite private institution like Harvard or Cornell. The we'd become WASPs and Rhodesian again. Anglophones don't really need Quebec funding to survive, but I would prefer to see my provincial government as serving me rather than acting against me and my instituions rather than working agianst them. But I as a minority have no real control over that anyways. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the first community is locked inside a province while the other two control fully sovereign States. Everyone can join the francophone community of Quebec.

B.S. Quebeckers (French and English) are full participants in Quebec democracy. No ones locked in anywhere, and no one shuts them out.

The majority of Canadians elect the majority of MPs in Ottawa. The majority of Canadians are anglophones. The majority of Quebecers elect a majority of MPs in Quebec. The majority of Quebecers are francophones. Do the math. -- Mathieugp 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Quebecois minority is fairly treated; in fact, they are elected Prime minister and have determined the balance of power in almost every federal election.

And Sure. Everyone can assimilate and join Quebec francophones. Francophones can assimilate into American culture too. The question is whether it is just to force people to do so. The problem with Quebec nationalists is that they hold double standards: absorption of anglophones into francophone society is good and called "integration", while absorption of francophones into anglophone society is bad and called "assimilation". The Trudeau model is consistent in that it considers forced assimilation wrong for everyone. That's wh it is so attractive to cultural and linguistic minorities. --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nation building is done by policy. Individuals can only choose among a small set of possibles and law frames what is and is not possible or viable inside society. Individual assimilation is never the problem. The problem is the downsizing of a national community and its consequences, the destruction of a nation's culture. Wake up. The Canadian states enforces a set of laws that result in the downsizing of its francophone minority. Anglophones assimilate so much non-anglophones that the community still grows even though its has a negative reproduction rate!

Show me the statistics that the anglophone population is growing in Quebec. All statistics show clearly that outmigration is leading to a steady reduction of the population in absolute and relative terms. Outside Monteral, it has already completely killed the population. So really, don't feed me these fabricated one-sided statistics. What Quebc nationalists like you really want is for anglos to either assimilate of get out. Fortunately, most francophones do not feel that way. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nobody denying that Quebec anglophones, moving to other provinces (seeking employment, along with francophones and anglophones) faster than the community's reproduction and assimilation rates, has caused a reduction in size, both in absolute numbers and relative numbers, of that language community, on the territory of Quebec. That is not what the expression "demographic collapse" refers to at all.

Yes it is. Demographic collapse refers to a sudden drop in the population, the effect being that the community cannot sustain itself or its institutions. Selectively chosing definitions to suit your political agenda is intellectually dishonest. Castonguay and nationalist demographers continually cite immigration and language transfers to English as a threat that will lead to the demographic collapse of FRENCH in QUEBEC. That is intellectually dishonest, becasue it is the English-speaking community that is experiencing the decline. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The anglophones who moved to Ontario are still anglophones living inside what they consider their home country. The francophones and francized allophones are however lost unless they find a job back in Montreal. You are wrongfully equating a population displacement with a collapse in reproduction rate that is not, in the case of francophones, proportionally compensated by language shifts. Did you even read the studies your are denouncing so vigorously? When Quebec is independent, we will have to elaborate a policy that will insure Quebec anglophones 1) don't feel they have to move out of Quebec to find jobs (this will be very difficult if they do not want to work in French) and 2) integrates its fair share of immigrants. -- Mathieugp 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, before you said that there was nothing wrong with assimilation per se, and that your main concern was the dissappearance of viable cultural or language communities outside Quebec. Now you are saying that it's okay if communities disappear, as long as it is by outmigration and that there is no assimilation involved. Again, you are contradicting yourself. You are employing double standards for minority anglophone and francophone communities. Let me put these facts to you: neither English nor French is in danger of dissappearing from the world. If anything, both languages are responisble for the destruction of indigeonous languages, particularly in Africa. I agree with your statement that it is sad when linguistic minorities disappear from a region, be it through low birth rates, assimilation, out migration, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. I do not understand how someone could be concerned about assimilation for one community that shares your ethnicity and culture (French Canadians in Ontario), and not about one that shares your territory (your nation). This clearly shows that you base your sense of nationalism on a shared ethnicity (language, culture and ancestry), and not territory (residents of Quebec). In other words, your nationalism is clearly ethnic and not territorial.--Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The allophones are not organized as national communities anywhere in Canada. The have rights as individual citizens, rights as minority cultural groups, but not as national groups. The Amerindians and the Inuit on the other hands are nations and the level of assimilation of those communities is devastating and criminal. We consider nations to be equal in rights. What are not equal and even comparable are the situations of francophones in Canada and anglophones in Quebec, yet Ottawa's policy is to make Canadians think so. -- Mathieugp 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cree Nation has as much control over its natural resources in Quebec as the Quebec nation? That is a new one to me. When Quebec recognizes that, and gives them all the tools they need to develop a national economy, I'll be convinced that they really mean it and not just blowing smoke. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Then read on the Paix des braves, the agreement Ottawa won't sign with the Crees. -- Mathieugp 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it grant them the right to claim independence like the Clarity act? Does it grant them exclusive control over their natural resources like the Canadian Constitution gives Quebec? Does it recognize their right to self-determination in the event of Quebec seccession? Why does Landry claimn this for Quebec francophones, yet not for the Cree and Inuit? Is the Quebecois nation entitled to more than Cree and Inuit nations? Why does it not explicitly give the two "nations" equal rights? --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We love to hear your accents in our language. We are still in the process of reacquiring the taste for our language and need all the new "blood" we an get to heal completely. Our cultural heritage is rich and for all to explore. -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How incredibly patronizing. Again, it's like inviting Jews to pray in a Christian Church. It completely misses the point. Nationalists just don't get it. Immigrants do not come to Quebec to save Quebec culture. They come seeking opportunity to make a better life for themselves. That is their aspiration. Until that reality is adressed in Quebec, as the english-speaking community has realized long ago, immigrants will continue to resent and reject Quebec nationalism. It's not that they don't want to be Quebecers; they in fact insist on it; they want to do it on their own terms, though, and not according to the whims of nativist ideologues who "invite them" to think, act, and vote just like them. That ain't going to happen no natter how much you wish for it. Their definition of inclusion clashes with those of the white, French-Canadian bureaucrats in Quebec City, and until the composition of the elite in the Quebec civil service changes, that messsage just won't get through, and we risk degenerating into the type of societal schisms we see in France. The only thing that saves us right now is that many Quebeckers relize what it's like to be on the receiving end of similar types of expectations to "integrate" by many conservative English Canadian nationalists. --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are taking our opinion for that of hundreds of people you have never met. Immigrants do not integrate to Quebec's mainstream society only when they have already integrated another society, which is only possible in Quebec (in fact only in Montreal is the choice visible). Immigrants are granted citizenship, which ensures them that the State will protect their liberties and right. This comes in exchange for exercising responsibilities. Among the central responsibilities of citizens is solidarity toward the citizen community.

I couldn't agree more. Caanda grants the immigrant citizenship. But the state in Quebec does a poor job of respecting these rights. They swear an Oath to their new country of Canada, and they most certainly not betray that by voting for its dissolution. France would not tolerate that, the U.S. certainly wouldn't. Only Canadas does. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Quebec community faces challenges like all other national communities and immigrants are asked to join us in all our fights for the improvement of our community and the future of our children.

The Quebec community is not a national community. It is one of ten provinces, and is unique in consisting of two linguistic communities and several aboriginal ones, with the largest linguistic community being francophone. The francophone Quebecois community is now recognized as a nation in the sociological and cultural sense of the word. Together we are all Quebeckers of course, with equal rights. That is the Canadian entity that all citizens have a duty to uphold.--Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Quebec political nation is an older nation inside the younger political nation of Canada. The federal state used to recognize this without any problem when Lester Pearson was in power. Unlike Trudeau, he knew the history of Quebec and had respect for its people and wasn't trying to foster a strong Pan-Canadian nationalist sentiment built on anti-Quebec prejudice. -- Mathieugp 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Quebec was a colony founded by the British in 1763. French Canadians formed as a distinct ethnic group under colonial New France. Like the Afrikaners, it never constituted an independent civic nation, and occupy a priveleged position in Canada. There is little doubt that they will outlive Canada, which will probably eventually will be absorbed the United States. The question for Quebecers is whether it is in their interest to speed up this process. My opinion is that they are best off aligning themselves with Caandian cultural nationalists who beleive in maintaining a civic identity distinct from that of the U.S.; they will find a United States of North America favoured by the likes of Stephen harper neo-cons far less interested in their concerns. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Among those fights are the central questions of the environment, the reduction of inequalities of wealth etc. In Quebec, there is also the question of national independence, a just and universal cause. All are invited to join, but nobody blames anyone for being more concerned with the environment or international politics.

And nobody, except radical sovereignists, blames people for supporting a the multicultural, bilingual country that allowed you in. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Most difficulties of integration would be solved by independence. Quebecers would then have exactly the same problems of integration as other normal nations instead of having them in addition to the problem of the competition offered by a stronger language on its territory. -- Mathieugp 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Durhams assinmilationist policies would have similarly solved the problem by slowly and quitly eliminating francophones too. But a paralell process on anglophones will not make anglophones feel more Queebcois. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And sure, te of about 1 000 000 anglophones and allophones and the companies who employ them would certainly solve that problem. But it will usher in a host of much more severe problems. In any case, it is not going to happen. The next referendum will likely be boycotted as unclear and unwanted, if it happens at all. Allthis talk is hypothetical. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a change from the days when my grandparents were dissuaded from sending their children to French school in an effort on the part of the Catholic Church and other Francophone leaders to "keep" Francophone "bloodlines" "pure". Of course, that intention was never explicitly stated (at least not officially), and therefore we may say, looking back, with no one willing to admit how they really felt, that it was never so. My grandparents will tell you otherwise. There definitely did exist hostility towards immigrants and non-Catholics. This only began to change as Francophone birthrates plummeted and Francophone society began needing immigrants to survive. Of course this is not the only or even the main factor in the opening of French Quebec, but it is the one that most impacted Anglophones.

All you have to do is ask a Haitian and they'll tell you its still there. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could speak to your grand parents and get them to meet my grand parents. Your grand parents would learn that they were feed lies about a community they never understood and my grand parents would learn that it is not because your parents speak English that they are "English" and against our freedom. Most immigrants' children were being sent to English language public schools for the same reasons francophones were also sending their children to English school whenever they had the chance: they were better funded and gave a future in life.

How incredibly presunptious to assume that you know about the reasons immigrants sent their kids to English schools. In the case of my parents, it was becasue they couldn't stand the idea of having priests run the schools.

Which make sense. They did the right choice at the time, but the unfortunate result is that you and I will never undersand each other because of language divide. -- Mathieugp 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Assimilation would have assured that we think and vote the same, and that alternative viewpoints that come from a different lanuage and culture no longer exist. Durham's solution would have solved that problem too,a nd we would speak, act, and think more alike. That's the advantage of a state enforced official culture. Everyone is the same.

I understand your ethnic nationalism very well. I don't blame you for your attachment to your ancestral culture and language, and I suppose if someone convinces you being in an ethnic or linguistic majority gives you the right to impose it on everyone with the law, it will be hard to change your mind. I don't want to get in the way of it and don't mind talking French just for you wherever the law requires. Is that really what you want, though? Wouldn't it be better that it be a pleasure? If you turn those laws into a Jackboot, you'll get resistance. That's what the Durham experience teaches. I know several anglophones that were forced to french school in the 1980's, and they speak much better French than me. They refuse to use it unless they have to, though, becasue of their experiences. They're the new Rhodesians. Funny, I didn't know what "bloke" meant before they told me about it, so I guess my experience wasn't so bad. They now live in Winnipeg and California, the last I heard. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are again making a mockery of subjects you do not master. There is nothing funny with anything you wrote. That you take the conclusion of the Durham report so lightly when it points to the cultural genocide of the majority of the people in the historical national community of Quebec is very sad. We Quebecers inherited a conflict that we have the responsiblity not to ignore so it is not passed on as a poisonous heritage to future generations. -- Mathieugp 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn right; there is nothng funny about the effect of Quebec's language laws and nationalist demagogues. Again, you have no idea what goes on in the anglophone community. You speak English, yet you show little interest in the welfare of the Egnlish-speaking community. To call Durham's recomendation cultural genocide is over the top and typical of why seperatist and national ideologues have no credibility outside their small-minded, angry circles. It reminds me of the Balkan habit of using ancient ethnic hatreds to stir up animosity for nationalistic political motivations. It goes beyond credible belief. If that is cultural genocide, than Bill 101 is cultural genocide. Certainly, both laws use the state as a vehicle for cultural assimilation, but it simply does not compare to the forced migrations and segregation endured by Native peoples or the extern=mination of six million Jews in Europe. Both these laws had in mind the introduction of forcing a common language on all citizens (without the consent of established communities), and in that sense could both be seen as quite liberal. Both also had the effect of alienating the targeted community. Go figure!

Unless strongly attached to Quebec French language and culture, one would have needed to be completely irresponsible to send their children to a dead end French language school. This is no longer the case as both networks are now equally unfunded! ;-) -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Quebec education system is well funded. Teachers have the lightest workload of anywhere in Canada. It is better funded than almost any in Canada. The problem is that the money goes to a top-heavy administration, and that schools are considered more of a workplace for teachers rather than an education system for students. That's why everyone who can sends their kids to private schools.

That looks like a description of some of the problems right now, but the situation was completely different back them. The education system being funded in part by school taxes levied on properties, the richer anglophones had better schools than the poorer francophones. That is why the Quebec government had to nearly bankrupt us all to build high scools, CEGEPs and Universities all over Quebec, including in remote regions of our country like Chicoutimi. Luckily, this investment in the future paid of and today the education level of Quebecers is much higher and the francophones are no longer behind. -- Mathieugp 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a great accomplishment that all Canadians should be proud of. But I'm sure it means something even more special for people with French Canadian ancestry, having a long personal heritage of poverty dating back to your grandparents. Understand that it is quite difderent for those of us with ancestries from elsewhere; although we can admire the accomplishements of our Quebcois neighbours, it is merely one facet of our identity and not our history to the same degree that it is yours. There is nothing wrong with this ethnic nationalism

You expliticely and proudly express your refusal to give your human solidarity to the majority of the people who live with you inside Quebec, because they are, as you say Quebecois, not like you, and you then refer to the solidary and the desire for equality that the francophones share with all Quebecers, of past and present generations, and that some less bigoted anglophones and allophones also share with all Quebecers, as "ethnic nationalism". Talk about a contradiction. -- Mathieugp 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. I expressly said that I'm proud as a Canadian that my French canadian or Quebecois neighbours have preserved their culture and language, and speak French to them by default. I do not hold it against them for wanting to preserve their culture and language. It is a worthwhile project for all Canadians, which is why I support bilingualism all across the country. I just don't share their ethnic nationalism, just like I don't share that of my Jewish or Haitian neighbours. I don't have to become Jewish to show solidarity with them, and I do not have to subscribe to nationalist ideology or identify with the French language to show solidarity with francophoe Quebecers. I subscribe to a civic Canadian nationalism of bilingualism and multiculturalism that allows both francophone, anglophone and other communties (religious, racial, or otherwise) to persue their cultural interests in paralell, and I do not see it as a zero sum game where one wins at the expense of the other. My ethnic nationalism is based on my German background, and I will never be French Canadian. My cultural identity is North American mostly, and I share most cultural references with Americans. My civic identity, though, is more important than all of these. Rejecting nationalist ideology is no different than rejecting federalism or conservatism; it is a political opinion that all Quebecers and Canadians are entitled to. --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not to attack, insult, or accuse Quebec Francophones. It is simply to say that many Anglophones, especially those descendants of immigrants arrived in the 20th Century, grew up in a time of perceived (and often real) hostility towards immigrants and Anglos on the part of the French majority (here I use the term "French" loosely, in the colloquial Quebecer manner, to mean Francophone Quebecers).

French isn't the colloquial Quebec manner. It's the same in Ontario and the U.S. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There certainly was distrust, frustration and sometimes even hostility coming from francophones toward what many of them saw as an arrogant, racist and colonizing establishement within their midst. The decolonization of most colonies was much more bloody, yet you do not see people so out of touch with reality as to accuse the Algerians of having been unfairly "hostile" to the French colonizers. Everyone knows that the hostility of Algerians, Indians, Jamaican was a response to an aggression. Why the double standard? -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the old white niggers thesis. Please. Things were bad, but you cannot compare Quebec to Africa or the Caribean or to the situation of Blacks in America. If Algeria had only one Muslim Arab French president, I think Algeria would still be part of France today; Quebec had had two important French Canadian (Quebecois) Prime Ministers by the 1950's. The fact is, if you really believed that all residents of Quebec are Quebecois, then you would see the "Westmount Rhodesians" not as foreign colonists, but as a Quebcois elite, particularly since Canad aceased to be a colony in 1931. The implied problem with nationalists here is not with the huge disparities in income within Quebec society (a legitimate grivance), but the fact that the elite with money was not French Canadian.

There is a francophone business class today, but not back then. Go tell the Rhodesians that they are Quebecois because they are in Quebec. Good luck. They did not even believe in the equality among "races", why would they have accepted to be equal citizens of our country. You are seeing things upside down. By the way, the B & B commission report made it clear that the average income of francophones in Quebec was among the lowest in Quebec and yes lower than that of Black Americans. Some aspects of all colonizations are comparable. Some other are not. Quebec is of course more comparable to Ireland than Algeria or South Africa. You will not find a single nationalist to deny this. -- Mathieugp 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau and Jacques Parizeau's families did well in their Outremont world of the francophone business class. And, I already quoted Pierre Vallières. He had no problem using somewhat offensive African and AOuthern U.S. anlogies. Andre Laurendeau made the comparison too (see La théorie du roi nègre [5]) Sure things were not grweat for French Quebecers, but this is over the top. They were much worse for the Irish on the Point (who were anglos). --Soulscanner 09:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I digress. My point is that English-speaking Quebecers have evolved over the past half-century into Anglo-Quebecers. There is a shift from calling themselves "English-speakers" to calling themselves "Anglophones". The term "Anglophone" has acquired the same Nationalistic connotations as "Francophone". "English-speaker", like "French-speaker", means just that and nothing more.

They never called themselves English-speaking. They called themselves English: period, which implied a certain fealty to the British crown at the time. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

French speaker is synonymous with Francophone. Only the second word is more "technical"

and could be considered jargon. -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Francophone is sometimes used like "French Canadian". The elimination of "Canadien-Francais" from the Quebec lexicon leads to awkward statements; for instance, I one heard Lise Payette refer to a franco-Ontarioan athlest in the olympics as Quebecoise, then quickly changing it to "Quebcoise-Ontarioenne" just to avoid using the word "Canadian". Sports shows on RDS will often follow "francophone" athletes, wehn they really mean French-Canadian. It's just a fact of life. I hate it too, but that's life. --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, I believe that an article discussing not just the linguistic reality but also the cultural legacy, history, and communityhood (another one for the dictionary) of Anglo-Quebecers should refer to them as Anglo-Quebecers. Instead, the article currently presents English-speaking Quebecers as a community, "nation", or whatever one would call it, while contradicting itself with a title that implies mere linguistic co-existence.

I don't see it. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that an article on the English immigration to Quebec could be very interesting. I have already done some preliminary research on the history of Scottish immigration to Quebec and I was just about to start writing on it in my draft page on fr.wikipedia.org (fr:Utilisateur:Mathieugp/Brouillons/Histoire des Écossais au Québec). I guess we could also write one on the history of the English in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several articles that describe Jewish-Canadian, Irish-Canadian, Scottish Canadian. etc immigration. No need to distinguish it from Quebec as these cultures are almost interchangeable and all arrived in Quebec. --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are reason to distinguish different histories. The history of Irish immigration to Quebec is not at all like that of the Irish immigration to Ontario. Same for the Scots who are with us since even before the Conquest. -- Mathieugp 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also the terms Franco-Ontarian, Franco-Albertan, Franco-Columbian, etc. In fact, all of the English provinces' French minorities start with Franco- ("English provinces" excludes New Brunswick, officially bilingual, which has the Acadians).

But English-speaking Nova Scotians don't call themselves "Anglo-Nova Scotians". That would sound silly. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reasons given in the History for the name change are, to me, unsatisfactory. As I have outlined above, and as outlined in the article itself, Anglo-Quebecers do indeed form a nation or community. Furthermore, the fact that the term "Anglophone" is "rarely understood" outside Quebec is both incorrect and irrelevant.

I've cited parallels with linguistic communities all over the world. German-speakers in Switzerland, Hungarians in Romania, Swedish-speakers in Finland, etc. Lets not be so provinicial. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The term has currency and its meaning is easily discernable by context or even simple deduction.

Do you go to the U.S.? They will stare at you blankly. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And, made obvious by my post, the term Anglo-Quebecer is highly used, at least by some.

Usually among francophones and anglophone academics. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that most Anglo-Quebecers refer to themselves as "English" is almost silly. It is common to refer to "English" and "French" within Quebec itself, as the meaning is clearly understood by all Quebecers. This shorthand form, however, should not be confused with the average outsider's idea of what "English-speaker" means. To Anglo-Quebecers, "English-speaker" means "Anglo-Quebecer" whereas to non-Quebecers it means simply a Quebecer who speaks English. Furthermore, the term has the encyclopedic accuracy (i.e. the added connotations) that "English-speaking Quebecer" simply lacks.

Actually, anglophone means English-speaker outside Quebec (i.e. someone who CAN speak English). It is used mostly by linguists. --Soulscanner 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify that the spelling "Quebecker", while correct, both ignores actual Quebecers' usage and implies that the reader is from a farm in Alberta or is one of those Ontarian students who attend McGill and think they're cool because now they live in Montreal and pretend to know about English Quebec while they insist on pronouncing St Catherine, Fort, and Guy the French way and calling Park Ave. "Avenue du Parc", or even worse, "du Parc".

Those people hang out in the dorms and watch Leafs games. Hey, I still call it the corner of Dorchester and Mountain. Poor Bishop Mountain, they changes his name.--Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can't find a vote on moving the article on the talk page. I can't tell for sure, but it seems it was moved unilaterally. If I am wrong, please forgive me, however if it was, I believe the issue should be discussed and voted upon democratically in the typical style of Wikipedia. While it is clear that Soul scanner has greatly improved the article and has the best interest of the reader in mind, I find the unilateral moving of the page, if it was so, to be distasteful. --Larineso 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no one here to talk with about moving the page. And frankly, I put enough work into improving the page that I feel a little bit justified in moving it unilaterally.

Personally, I find the word anglophone somewhat insulting. It makes me feel like I'm being pigeon-holed by some Marxist demographer at the Universite de Montreal. Nevertheless, that's the way people have labeled us, so in Quebec, that's what I go by when dealing with francophones. I'm not alone in this. In the townships, they prefer "English-speaking" too [6]. I've even once read "quebecois de l'expression anglaise" just to avoid the word anglophone.

It probably was Québécois d'expression anglaise, in contrast with Québécois d'expression française. -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like something invented by the same fonctionnaire who came up with the equally awkard and officious-sounding "quebecois et quebecoises"; leave it to bureaucrats to mangle any language. --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, working in the states, no one here would know what the word "anglophone" means. English, they understand. As a matter of fact, most people elsewhere in Canada would not know what the word means. They would just go by English and French as well. It by no means diminishes the status of the community either.

After independence, Quebec English speakers will either call themselves Canadians and accepte their status as a protected and respected national minority living in Quebec or they will finally stop thinking they cannot be Québécois too and join us once and for all. Maybe it is time to start speaking of Quebec unity and drop the imperialist dream of a cost to cost Dominion. -- Mathieugp 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If Quebeckers really wanted independence, they would have declared it by now like the Algerians, Slovaks, Slovenians, and Uzbeks and not come up with vague half-measures like "Sovereignty-Association" and "a Partnership". And frankly, given that the other provinces will likely join the U.S. with no legitimate central authority to hold them together (like the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, or even Iraq). Most English-speaking Quebeckers will likely consider themselves Americans and identify with that culture; the question will then be whether the ideologues in the PQ will be mature enough to recognize that the desire of anglophones to assimilate into their culture is about as strong as their desire to assimilate into English-speaking culture. The fact is, most Quebecois recognize it; it's the politicians that have trouble with this reality. If French Quebeckers do not want to assimilate into an English Canadian society, why would English Quebeckers want to assimilate into a French Quebec? Makes no sense. However, if Quebec followed the Finish model of recognizing English as an official language, that would go a long way towards making anglophone feel included in Quebec society. In anycase, it's much better to recognize that --Soulscanner 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your ability to predict the future is amazing. Quebec will secede and Canada will refuse its offer of a partership. Like the Soviet Union, it will disintegrate. I have heard that from Anglophones so often that you wonder if that is not truly what they wish. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be. If federalism is so patently unfair, why would Albertans or Newfoundlanders not see it the same way? Just becasue they don't speak the same language or share the same ancestry? Are you so unable to put yourself in their shoes? I thnik that is a big part of the problem here. Ypp much navel gazing and ignorance of the rest of your contry. You don;t even know that Anglo-Quebecers are thinking. Why would Albertans or British Columbians want to sign on with a partnership with Quebec when they are free to have one with Washnigton State and California? Sentiment? No, negotiations will be based on interests, espetially since any lingering sentiment (other than indeiference) would be a certain anger. Would sentiment be there after Quebec secedes? I have to say, a free pass into the U.S. would be highly attractive for anglophones hoping to leave Quebec. It will open up considerably more employment opportunities. American political, cultural and economic clout should also help anglophones who decide to stay in Quebec to protect us internationally and maintain the cultural attraction of Amnerican culture and English. I would certainly hope for it. I thik you should be open to all possibilities. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Many supporters of Quebec independence don't care to know what the relationship between Canada and Quebec will be after independence. Some others do.

Indeed. The seperatists are divided on that issue, which is why we get convoluted referendum questions that awkwardly merge two distinct option (partnership and independence) into one option. And those who care should take into account the likelyhood of other provinces seceding to obtain the same deal as Quebec in terms of sovereignty, or to simply join the U.S. It would be highly in the interest of Alberta to do so for one. That is precisely why a referendum question should state clearly that Quebec will be independent, pure and simple. The terms of secession could be negotiated, the debt divided, border crossings fixed, and then orderly international treaties arranged along with the U.S.; as a matter of fact, it might with the U.S. only if Canada disintegrate and the U.S. acts quickly to absorb it. Otherwise, it is possible that the Canadian government will insist on a clean break, that there will be no Canadian government left, and that Quebec may face a NAFTA with a U.S. government alone, or negotiate a new partnership to maintain hydroelectricity from independent Cree lands. But all this is speculation for a seccession vote that is not going to happen. It's fun, but a useless exercise in so many ways. Anything could happen really. --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What is certain is that we have the right to prefer independence + interdependence. "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development." - 1975 Helsinki Final Act, principle VIII -- Mathieugp 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. you have the right to prefer anything. You have the right to prefer that winter never happen. You don't have the right to delude voters into thinking you will actually get your first or even second preference, so you better plan for lots of contingencies. It's also certain that Quebec has only partial control over the validity of the question asked and the threshold for clarity. That is a question for Canadian and international laws, and there are precdents for establishing them. That applies to all Canadian provinces equally , and I hope you keep it mind too when the Cree vote to secede from Quebec in the event of Quebec separation (again). That too can enter into negotiations --Soul scanner 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more references

Demographic studies From the federal government:

• Indicators of Diversity in the English-Speaking Population of Quebec by Michael O'Keefe, based on 1996 census
• Demographic Trends and Minority-Language Communities in Canada, by Michael O'Keefe, 2003
• Analysis of Trends for. First Official Language Spoken by Age Group and Selected Regions by Michael O'Keefe, 2004

From the Missisquoi Institute:

• The Anglophone Community of Quebec in the Year 2000, Slides showing a summary of the enquiry and its results

From the Quebec government:

• Les anglophones de Montréal; émigration et évolution des attitudes 1978-1983, by Uli Locher, McGill University, 1988
• Les allophones et les anglophones inscrits à l'école française : sondage sur les attitudes et les comportements linguistiques, Gilles Sénéchal, 1987
• La Charte de la langue française vue par les anglophones by Gary Caldwell, 2002

Not really studies, but good leads for further research:

• Les anglophones descendent des gradins by Claude Tourigny
• Un mystérieux mélange : Sheila McLeod Arnopoulos by Claude Tourigny
• Josée Legault, "L'invention d'une minorité. Les Anglo-Québécois", Édition du Boréal, May 4, 1992, 282 pages ISBN 2-89052-464-7
• CBS News 60 Minutes reports on Quebec language laws and the exodus of English-speaking Quebecers

Other links

• The Montreal Bourgeoisie (1840-1945),

Images from the McCord Museum's collections —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Expansion

Hello and bonjour! I am new to editing here but I have been reading Wikipedia for some time. What I would like to see is more information on the participation of anglophones in the Quebec and Montreal political spheres, because certainly this is relevant. So far the Quebec articles on this topic mostly relate to the language laws and such, and honestly, this is far too limited in scope. There is a greater range of participation and involvement. I have not been making major edits but would be interested in working in this area at some point.

I would have to agree that this limiting, which is why I started with other more relevant aspects of life among English-speaking Quebeckers. However, political involvement is mostly either historical or on an individual basis. As a community, what is most noticeable is the lack of political involvement on the provincial level among anglophones. The fact is, the last anglophone provinicial cabinet ministers (Herbert Marx, Clifford Lincoln, etc.) resigned over the sign law issue. So the most significant fact of provincial politics among anglophones is alienation owing to Quebec's language policies. --Soul scanner 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was Alliance Quebec, which while not a political party was a lobby group that enjoyed significant levels of support amongst the anglophone community for a time. But of course you make a very good point in that community participation has been severely lacking in the political circus itself. However, the community is certainly very active in the Montreal political scene, if not directly at the political level, then most definitely at the grassroots level. For example, the Parc Avenue and Robert Bourassa affair. There are also anglophone cultural organizations such as the Quebec Writers Federation (which seems to lack an article at the moment.) Laval 06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Alliance Quebec is mentioned in the article, although Alliance Quebec no longer exists; it's demise is not described becasue I ran out of time, and that itself is related to referensum and language politics. The Parc Avenue thing is small potatoes; the fact that the biggest thing the community can rally around is a street name shows how patheticly inactive the community is politcally. The Quebec Writers federation is also mentioned in the article, but that is more like a small literary circle that is supported by a federally funded Can-lit/CBC infrastructure. --Soulscanner 11:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As well it might be of interest to include information on anglophone support for Quebec sovereignty. Of course it is nowhere near substantial but I believe there exists some level of support, even if very minimal. I will try to find some articles on this as well. Laval 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The main item of interest is that 90% are against it, owing to a strong Canadian identity (which is mentioned in the article). English-speaking sovereignists exist, but they are marginal. There are also francophone partitionists, annexationists (see Parti 51, libertarians [7], but it would be misleading to mention these as an important political force in an introductory article on Quebec politics.--Soul scanner 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the 90% figure? I don't think this is something unique to anglophones, as it would appear that significant numbers of francophones in Montreal are against sovereignty, and perhaps in the National Capital Region as well (which would make sense, as many are employed at the federal level.) However, I am not sure it is correct to say that Montreal anglophones have a strong "Canadian" identity. Arguably the anglophone culture of Montreal has evolved very differently from every other Canadian city and since the Quiet Revolution is closely intertwined with that of the metropolitan francophones culture. Exceptions might be areas such as Westmount and Gatineau (where most spend their time in Ottawa), but in Montreal the situation is quite different. This is also evident in the antagonism towards Montreal from some elements in Quebec City and the hinterlands, which is far more pronounced than say, the attitude of people in the outlying areas surrounding Toronto towards that metropolis. I have to ask, in the discussion above you seem to be saying that there is no strong Canadian identity and that it is inevitable that Canada will break apart and perhaps join the United States, but here you appear to have a change of heart. I have to disagree quite strongly that Canada and the U.S. share similar cultures. There are similarities, of course, but only to a point. Even the far Western provinces of British Columbia and Alberta are different enough from the States to constitute distinctiveness on their own merits. The core values of Canada are fundamentally opposed to the militarism, religious conservatism, and jingoism of both the federal U.S. government and most of the states (the so-called "red" states in particular.) This is the main reason that Quebec remains part of Canada. What are your thoughts on this sovereignist website? There could be some useful data there. Laval 06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm .... material at a soveriegnist website. I'm sure you'll find lots of objective analysis there (sarcasm). There is a reference for the 90% figure in one of the cited papers (I forget which one, but I was pretty thorough in documenting anything claimed in the Politics part of the article article). If not, you can check-out any one of Jacques Parizeau's many speeches and astute analysis on the subject for confirmation. Francophones all over Quebec voted 60% for sovereignty, even in Montreal. The West Island voted massively against it becaude of all the anglophones and anglicized allophones living there; they also vote heavily for Trudeau Liberals, owing to the stong sense of multiculturalism and bilingualism (which are in fact a Quebec inventions). English Canada voted for Harper who is a total neocon; he would consolidate power if Quebec separated, and turn towards the U.S. to shore up the Canadian economy. AS for the U.S., that is also a regionalized country. New England voted heavily against Bush, and so did California and New York City. Go across the border to Burlington and see how many jingoistic Bush fans you find; You'll find more in Calgary. Senator Patrick Leahy has railed against Bush's jingoism, and Bernie Sanders is the only socialist Senator in the U.S., so stereotypes about Americans are simplistic. Frankly, the urban/rural dichotomy you find in Quebec you find in the U.S. too. As for Toronto, Toronto-bashing is the Canadain national passtime. It's the only thing French Quebeckers and other Canadians agree on. --Soulscanner 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the Candian identity, it is fragile. All national identities are; even the American one is, and they faught two civil wars (1776 and 1860) precisely because it is so. It is currently based largely on bilingualism and the English accomadation of French Quebeckers, and has been Upper and Lower Canada were divided in 1791. The removal of Quebec will destroy the national dialogue; the fact is, Alberta and British Columbia will have more of an economic and cultural interest with Washington State and Colorado than with Ontario or Quebec. That is why a strong, central government is neccesary to hold the nation together with strong social democratic institutions that affect the lives of Canadian directly, and not just a loose confederation based on tenuous economic links and Canadian cable companies that sell Amercan entertainment. Both Dion and Trudeau are absolutely right on this. --Soulscanner 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While some of your points are valid, ultimately support for Bush and conservative Democrats far outweighs the more liberal elements in society. New England largely supports Clinton II, and she is as jingoistic as you can get. Everyone knows that she is even more pro-Israel than her husband and would not shy away from a war with Iran at Israel's behest. The fact remains that the liberal base of the Democratic Party has become marginalized over the years and they have moved closer to the neo-conservative agenda. Stephan Harper is a far cry from that sort of thing, and while Alberta has more of an "American" economic system, it still retains its social health care system, which the public overwhelmingly supports. British Columbia does not have a whole lot in common with Washington state. Vancouver is not reflective of the entire province, and I would concede that Seattle is probably more "Canadian" in spirit than is Vancouver, which has really gone down the toilet even though property rates there are reaching ridiculous levels. Canada's central government is not as strong as the federalists would have one believe. In fact, ever since the Trudeau years it has been moving closer and closer to a devolved federal system, and yet Canada remains different from its southern neighbour. Polls have consistently revealed that nationwide, from east to west, Canadians disagree with the American model, political system, and foreign policy. That is why Harper and his Conservatives were only able to achieve a minority government and are forced to call for early elections, and why the NDP is getting stronger. Everyone thought Harper would bow to the U.S. on everything, and yet even he has shown restraint and caution, for instance the issue with the ports, which was last year I believe, and the continued lack of Canadian support for the American-British mission in Iraq and militarization of space. I would say that since the election Harper has become more "liberal" in his political outlook, which occurred even before the elections, which rewarded him with a certain level of victories nationwide, even in Quebec. Every single piece of evidence shows an ever widening rift between Canada and the United States, not the opposite, and the increasing border restrictions and trade issues are likely to increase them even further. Laval 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what planet you're on, but Harper has been more pro-Israel than even the U.S. Canada was the first (and probabl only) couintry to give unconditional support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. He has caved into the U.S. on softwood lumber (for which Quebec is paying dearly), and advocated renewing repressive "anti-terror" laws to please Bush. The widening rift between Canada and the U.S. is because of Bush's idiocy: there's a wider rift betweent he world and Bush because of it. The biggest opposition to it is from Quebec, which skews any national figures. Without Quebec, Harper would have an easy majority, and move Canada even closer than he has. It is only needing Quebec votes that keeps him from doing this. And where does Harper's foreign policy differ from the U.S.? He has agreed with Bush on everything, from Afghanistan to Israel. Peer Mackay practically necks with Condaleeza Rice every time they meet.

There is not rift between English Canada and the U.S. The only thing keeping the center left afloat is the Liberals, who cobbled together Quebec, Ontario, and BC coalition. A Canada without Quebc would resemble the U.S., and would benefit greatly from a soveriegnty association with the U.S. that would open the border. Here is an interesting article on the subject from a B.C. journalist [8].

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 05:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

By the way, reading some of the discussion above, I have to state as an originally native English-speaker, that in eastern Ontario and Quebec the designator "anglophone" among English-speakers is very common and ordinary. I cannot speak for the rest of Canada, but in the bilingual regions it is not a problem. I have not often heard any anglophone in Quebec refer to themselves as "English Quebecer" since "English" can be usually interpreted as an ethnic designator which would exclude non-English. Laval 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is regional dialect; most anglos know that as soon as you leave Quebec no one will know what you are talking about, just like with dep, SAQ, or OLF. If you go anywhere else in the English-speaking world, only linguists would know what you are talking about. Even in Eastern Ontario, most English-speakers I know would refer to the groups as English and French. It is mostly francophones that use the franco- anglo- linguistic designation. --Soul scanner 02:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, right there you have a fundamental difference between the anglophones of Quebec and the English-speakers in the rest of Canada. We can argue whether or not such distinctions make them more Quebecer and less Canadian (especially as the years pass by and more anglophones become fully bilingual), but consider that if you were to ask those in the Montreal anglophone community today - those who have chosen to remain and weather the political and cultural changes - about such issues, I think it is quite likely that they will feel, when traveling to other parts of Canada, that they have entered an entirely different country. It is far more pronounced than, for instance, migrating from Toronto to Calgary or Vancouver. What is most unfortunate is that most politicians and academics continue to ignore the anglophone presence in Quebec - there are a lot of issues that have not been studied or analyzed, which I am sure would reveal a strongly cohesive and refined community identity due to having minority status unique to North America. Laval 06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

These are trivial differences. Canada is a regional country. Frankly, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are cosmopolitain cities, and Anglo-Montrealers feel comfortable in all of them. Anglophone and allophone Montrealers are more likely to migrate to these cities than to homeogenous, exclusively francophone Quebec City or Trois Rivieres. It has more to do with a cosmopolitain identity based on multiculturalism and bilingualism contrasting with the state-mandated Quebec identity based primarily on the French language; it's only a small part of who anglophones are. The exodus of young anglophones to other provinces has not subsided, so the numbers simply do not support your assertion; if there is a diffence, it's not enough to keep bilingual anglos from moving out. A more significant difference is that anglophones are largely alienated from their provincial government because of language policy. That distinguishes them other anglophones in Canada, but I would not say that this fosters a positive Quebecois identity. All the studies cited here point to this. If you have others that show otherwise, I welcome them. --Soul scanner 10:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are incorrect. According to the same source you used in the article [9], migration patterns are changing and anglophones are moving in, not out, as you wrongly claim. In fact, since 2001 more and more international companies and organizations have been moving to the province. There is no evidence at all to back up your claims that anglophones refuse to move to Montreal because they would feel out of place. Laval 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The references were in the 'Politics' section and I hadn't got around to posting the links in this section. This site needs some cleaning up. The only part that is extensively documented in the Politics section. Please read the references at the bottom of the page before removing anything. All information on this page can be found there. You can find I've not posted them. Please read these links carefully. They summarize extensive polling done on anglophones that reveals their attitudes. Also, please use the reference template found under the references section. I take a lot of care to cite scholarly and other legitimate sources here, so please do not remove them. If you have sources that. --Soulscanner 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, please do not fall back on claims that Quebec City or other parts of Quebec are "homogeneous" this and that because that is not true at all. Quebec City is almost entirely francophone, that is true, but it is far from "homogeneous." Can you please show sources to back up the claims that anglophones in Montreal feel "alienated" and that they would be just as comfortable in another city like Vancouver (!) or Toronto? Any anglophone from Montreal would vigorously dispute such a potentially inflammatory assertion. Laval 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please go through the sources I posted carefully. They discuss all of this in some detail. All of this is well known withnin the English-speaking community in Montreal and Quebec. As for Quebec City, it is as culturally diverse as Des Moines, Iowa or Regina. It is not a cosmopolitain city like Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto or even Halifax. I was refering to linguistic homogeneity anyways. --Soulscanner 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Population figures

I edited this article to clarify the meaning of the population figures introduced by Soulscanner, but he has reverted [10] my changes. There are essentially two possible ways to arrive at a figure, depending on one's view of native speakers of third languages:

• 1. Soulscanner's figure of 918,000. This is used by the federal government for determining where English-language services should be provided, based on the idea that some people with a third language as mother tongue will prefer English-language services to French-language ones. It is derived from a statistical notion known as "first official language spoken", based first on mother tongue, then on home language, then on knowledge of languages. When it is impossible, for a given individual, to distinguish between English and French based on these considerations, they have two first official languages (or rarely, none, if they have knowledge of neither language.) The 918,000 figure is arrived at by adding up all those who have English as their first official language, plus half of those who have both English and French. Thus, for example, half of those whose first language is Italian, speak Italian at home, and have knowledge of both English and French are deemed English-speaking.

Soulscanner says that this is the figure used by representatives of the English-speaking community. This would not be surprising, because these figures are more favourable. Historically, Anglophones have favoured the inclusion of non-native speakers in official statistics used in determining the provision of English-language services. I do not know who the "Greater Montreal Community Development Initiative" given in Soulscanner's reference are, though. The 918,000 number is not reported by the census as the sole measure of the number of English-speaking Quebecers, since there is obviously a great deal of ambiguity in what "English-speaking" means. Soulscanner is correct in asserting that it is the population figure for the "minority official language community" of Quebec, but this is only one possible meaning of "English-speaking", and it is quite technical.

• 2. A number based on the number of mother-tongue speakers, 591,000 according to the provincial government's method. The provincial government uses these figures for determining the circumstances in which municipalities can be officially bilingual, since the Charter of the French language explicitly mentions "English mother tongue". Since people, by and large, have a single mother tongue, there is less variation in this figure. But the 591,000 figure is arrived at by dividing those who claim multiple mother tongues equally among the languages they declare to be mother tongues. This number is not very different from the 557,000 who have English as their sole mother tongue, a number which is also reported by the census.

Until changes were introduced by Soulscanner on April 3, 2007, the figure given in the introduction was 591,000. Now, only the 918,000 figure is given, and with little warning that it includes so many non-native speakers. I am in favour of providing both numbers, without relegating the mother-tongue numbers to lesser prominence as Soulscanner has done, on the basis that 918,000 is the figure used by the English-speaking community. I had made this change, but Soulscanner reverted it, and the article again gives little notice, until much further down, that the population number is much larger than the number of mother-tongue speakers. I find this approach quite POV, because many people who do not look that far are likely to misinterpret the 918,000 figure. Given the enormous discrepancy in the numbers, it is important to be upfront about them. Having more detailed information lower down in the article doesn't cut it. Joeldl 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored Soulscanner's comments below so that they don't break mine up. The original versions were: [11] [12] Joeldl 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to explanation of 918,000 figure:

These technical details are fully and succinctly explained under the demographics section, fully referenced and are redundant here. The introduction gives the definition used in the Official census and in federal legislation to define the English-language community that has constitutional recognition. It is the one used by the Commissioner of Official Languages to define the official English-speaking community, and by the community itself.

Referring to comments on 918,000 figure:

This would make an excellent addition to the article under the demographics section. That would be a good place for it. I'd also eventually start a section on relations witht he provincial government.

Referring to 591,000 figure:

The provincial government also uses ancestry to define the rights of English-speaking community, making access to English school dependent on whether a parent received education in English in Canada. This is more significant, as it defines the role of English language institutions in Quebec and who can and cannt get into English schools. The provincial government also uses criteria of self-identification when it comes to school board elections, allowing anglophones to self-identify in this case. If we were to list all the possibilities in an introduction, the introduction would never end. None of these laws officially define the English-speaking community in Quebec. The Official community designation does define the community, has constitutional backing, and is hence more authoritative than the others. --Soulscanner 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to second part about 591,000 figure:

A lot of numbers are given by the census, as shown in the demographics section. However, the only number used in the census to as identifying the community is the Official Language minority designation. All other definitions are administrative. --Soulscanner 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to conclusion:

The 591,000 figure was unreferenced and not based on authoritatively definitions of the community. You will note that the Official language Community designation (referenced and justified) was found long before then, and some changed the number without justification. I know because I introduced the box and dug up the official sources when writing the bulk of this page. You should not misrepresent the sequence of events. It shows bad faith. I also include many statistics based on this definition, including the ethnic composition and the fact that over 30% of English-speaking Quebecers were born outside Canada. You will also find that all the demographic studies and references I cited on this article use this definition, unless otherwise noted. For example, statistics on outmigration cite mother tongues because these statistics by convention classify allophones, anglophones, and francophones separately. The article clearly states at the beginning what the Official language community designation is, that it has constitutional backing, and that it is the one used by English-speaking Quebecers themselves to define themselves. If you wish to contribute positively to this article, do so. Please do not vandalize with malicious tags, though. --Soulscanner 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to using the federal definition as the basis for the statistics presented in the article, as long as this is clearly stated. People reading the introduction and looking at the infobox deserve to know what numbers they're looking at without having to look at another section of the article (at present, they're not even warned that they need to look at another part of the article, and might well believe they were reading mother-tongue figures, since most people are unaware of the definition of "official language minority population"). Using the "official language minority" figure only makes sense when we believe that pretty much everyone should be categorized as either anglophone or francophone. That's a possible view of things, and is certainly relevant when services are provided in one of only two languages, and provision of services is the topic of the discussion. However, there is nothing in the article to warn the reader that that is the point of view being adopted, and you seem to be opposed to giving people that information upfront. As for the 590,000 figure for mother-tongue speakers, it can be found here: [13]. Your insistence that mother tongue is just one statistic among many is absurd, given that it is the statistic most often used around the world to define the populations of language communities. As for "constitutional backing", I have no idea what you're talking about. I doubt that "first official language learned" is defined in the Constitution.

I placed the neutrality tag because I made changes to clarify the text and you reverted them. Since I have no appetite for an edit war, I placed the tags to warn people that there's something fishy until this matter can be resolved. There is nothing "malicious" about that, and it is most certainly not "vandalism". Joeldl 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And as I said, the rationale behind these are not only summarized in the appropriate section on demographics, but can also be verified by clicking on the footnotes leading the various sources I provide. The explanations are there, and there is no nead to go into long rambling caveats in an introduction, especially when they add redundancies to the article. --Soulscanner 08:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A while ago, I pointed out with much details the issue you are now raising. Somehow, parts of the contents of this talk page got removed. Here is what I wrote basically:

I guess you misunderstood what I meant. The official language minority figure in the table is a composite measure. The number of 918,955 is neither the language by mother tongue (557,040) nor the language spoken at home most often (700,890) not even the Language spoken at home on a regular basis (1,190,435). The OLM is derived from the First official language learned and is meant to be used by the federal governement when deploying public services in areas where the concentration of minority language speakers lives. Please read this page, under C: http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/burolis/burolis-man_e.asp -- Mathieugp 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

These technical details are all explained in the appropriate article and in the footnotes beside the given definitions. --Soulscanner 08:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

in reply to SoulScanner, I wrote "I get the impression that you are trying very hard not to understand. The OLM is NOT the number we want to use in the intro. It is "derived from three language variables on the census questionnaire - knowledge of official languages, mother tongue and language spoken at home." and "The size of the official language minority is determined by the sum of the minority population and half of the population having English and French as first official language spoken. " http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/ollo/reimplementation-reapplication/MP-PM200101_e.asp That's why it gives a bloated result of 12.9% for Quebec. That is to make sure they don't miss anyone when providing services since failure to do so can lead to court. This 12.9% is never used when describing Anglo-Quebecers outside of federal programs. This would be innaccurate. Demographers use either A) mother tongue or B) home language because A) gives us who speaks it as first language and B) gives us who actually can be considered Anglophone, Francophone or Allophone right now. The current 2001 figures for English, once you have distributed the multiple responses equally, are:

1a) Mother tongue for Quebec: 582 564 1b) ...for Montreal area: 427 166 1c)... for rest of Quebec: 155 398

1a) Home language for Quebec: 733 643 1b) ...for Montreal area: 580 123 1c)... for rest of Quebec: 153 520

This is from the big table on pages 41 and 42 of Les indicateurs généraux de vitalité des langues au Québec : comparabilité et tendances 1971-2001 by Charles Castonguay. The OLM figure should be shown in the Demographics table with an explanation. The intro should show who is an English speaker right now (i.e., home language) at the very least. We could also use the figures you added, those raw figures that do not consider multiple responses, but it would be less accurate. It is important to give the proper interpretation of raw census data. -- Mathieugp 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

These figure are all given in the appriate section in statistics Canada. As for weather they are bloated, that points to your POV. Hardline Quebec nationalists wish to minimize the numbers so as to minimize the importanc eof anglophones in Quebec, and to provide the minimum services possible becaseu they believe a large anglophone community represents a threat to their survivaol and an impediment to Quebec independence. That explains your objections.

All this is actually beside the point, which is that the Official language minority is the only consistent definition that defines a linguistic community that uses and identifies with English as their national language in Quebec. All other measure are merely statistical measures. --Soulscanner 08:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another unresolved issue... -- Mathieugp 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about which measure is most appropriate for the other statistics such as ethnic origin, religion, etc. Obviously, mother tongue is the most straightforward measure. On the other hand, in many ways allophones who lean towards English are part of the Anglophone community, much as Adrienne Clarkson is English Canadian. But either way, the introduction and infobox currently contain information which, although strictly speaking accurate, is misleading if one is not curious enough to glance at the demographics section. At the very least I would like to get agreement on telling readers in the introduction that the 918,000 figure is a composite measure, and giving a number based on mother tongue as well. After that, we can determine which number is most appropriate as the basis for the other statistics in the article. Home language would also be a possibility. I guess it depends on how ethnic, religious, statistics are broken down in sources. Joeldl 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All stats are important in my opinion. The OLM is not a figure to hide or neglect, it just needs to be explained like all jargon. To mention the most common and easily accessible data in the intro can be done nicely with something like: "According to the 2001 Canadian census, English is the language most often spoken at home for 700,890 Quebecers. 557,040 Quebecers declared English their mother tongue and is as well a language spoken on a regular basis, with one or more other languages, by 1,190,435 residents. The full details can be given in the right section of the article, including the figures of the OQLF in which multiples responses are redistributed evenly. I have a paper copy of the Les caractéristiques linguistiques de la population du Québec : profil et tendances 1991-2001, dating 2005 which gives (2001) 591,379 for English mother tongue in Quebec, 431,827 in Montreal metro, and 316,410 on the Montreal island. The corresponding figures for language most often spoken at home are: Quebec = 746, 892 Montreal metro = 587, 924 Montreal Island = 444, 767.

I should also mention, maybe you already know, that the conclusion of the OQLF studies on the effects of the sous-dénombrement of the census population is that "le poids de la population de langue maternelle autre aussi bien que le poids de celle de la langue d'usage autre poursuivent, entre 1996 et 2001, la tendance à la haute enregistrée entre 1991 et 1996" and that the values for mother tongue and language most often spoken at home all over-estimate the populations of French speakers and English speakers. See Incidence du sous-dénombrement et des changements apportés aux questions de recensement sur l'évolution de la composition linguistique de la population du Québec entre 1991 et 2001 -- Mathieugp 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. You really seem to be on top of language numbers so maybe you should edit the article. I don't think we need to overload the introduction with everything, but we need to make sure that readers who only read the introduction know what they're looking at. Joeldl 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All numbers cited are included in the article in a very short and legible table. They are taken from an article on a scholarly article on the English language community in the Quebec. The numbers on this article also include "First Official Language" used so that people like my parents who speak other languages with each other, but mostly English in social and work settings and demand English language health and social services are incuded as anglophones. The Official Language Minority designation makes the most sense in this respect because it correctly guages the degree of integration within the English language community in Quebec. It reflects the fact that immigrants eventually integrate into either or both linguistic communities in Quebec.

As for the article you cite, it is a very technical footnote that really has no bearing om the numbers we discuss. it talks about data in 1991 and 1996, and deosn't even mention the first official language learned. As a matter of fact, it discusses allophones, who will speak either English or French in their public lives, and generally integrate into one or the other official language community. --Soulscanner 08:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the fact that the "official language minority" number is relevant to include, and that it is used in some circumstances. Do you really think that mother tongue is never used? Here are my points in order of importance.

1. The number is presented in a way that makes it likely people will misinterpret it, since the only hint that it is not just a mother tongue figure (which people who didn't know better and didn't check the source could legitimately be expected to believe) comes in the demographics section, not the intro or infobox.

2. The mother tongue figure is very important as well, and deserves to be given intro and infobox level prominence, especially since the name of the article is "English-speaking Quebecer". This could be in addition to the "official language minority" figure.

3. Which definition of "English-speaking" is appropriate for secondary statistics like ethnic origin, etc., is a good question. Arguments can be made either way, and the answer will depend to some extent on the availability of statistics. In any case, the definition used must br clarified before the statistics are introduced, or, at the very least, readers should be referred to the demographics section for the definition in a way that gives them a hint that the definition is broader than "mother tongue", if the other definition is chosen. Joeldl 10:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that all of these are important, which is why they're included in the Demographics section. The introduction of the article mentions that, like Swedish-speaking Finns and other "language minorities", English-speaking Quebecers form an Official Language Minority in Canada. It is the official designation that is used in the case of national linguistic or ethnic groups. It is also the definition used by most of the literature cited in this article that directly discusses the English-speaking community. If you start including things like mother tongue, then you have to included home language, which is considered a better measure of community numbers used by most present demographers in Canada , and that of first official language learned, which makes sense too in its own way. Seeing that all of these are valid, it makes sense to go with one rather than 5 or 6. The Official designation is best because a) it is official; b) it is accepted by the community itself; and c) it is used in most of the recent research on the anglophone community (cited in the references below). --Soulscanner 07:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Swedish-speaking Finns has this in the second paragraph: "Swedish is the mother tongue of about 265,000 people in mainland Finland and of about 25,000 people in Åland, together representing about 5.50% of the total population (according to official statistics for 2005 1) or about 5.08% without Åland. [...]" We can expect most articles describing ethnic groups or national minorities to use mother tongue in the info box and in the intro. However, in Canada, with multiple census questions dealing with languages, we are not stuck with one variable, which is good. We are already in the habit of distinguishing between Francophones and native Francophones, Anglophones and native Anglophones etc. It would make sense to introduce the population size with both these self-explanatory variables. The use of the OLM variable could also be used, the problem is that to explain what the hell it is, we need a entire paragraph. It does not seem suited to be placed in the introduction. It is perfectly valid and useful information in the section on demographics. As for the arguments that "it is used in most of the recent research on the anglophone community (cited in the references below)", I provided most of the sources and SoulScanner used what he was interested in them based on his POV. If he were to provide a count of the references to mother tongue vs home language vs FOLS vs OLM in these sources, then he could assert that one dominates over the other, assuming one really gets on top. Unfortunately this one thing does not have much weight in itself as this sample of sources is unrepresentative of the body of references on the subject. -- Mathieugp 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mathieugp, except that if the mother tongue figure has already been given, we can include the OLM figure in the introduction with "(see Demographics section below for definition)". I don't think this is a big problem, if people have a sense that the number is a good deal bigger than the mother tongue one. Soulscanner, you are in the minority here, and none of us seems like they'll change their mind. Will you contest the inclusion of multiple figures in the introduction and infobox? If so, we will need to call for outside comment, and frankly, what you are advocating will be transparently POV to everybody. Joeldl 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Finland doesn't have as many immigrants integrating into the Swedish-speaking community. Immigration obviously makes the situation in Montreal and Quebec different, since many allophones come with a good knowledge of ENglish (e.g. Chinese from Hong Kong, Filipinos, Indians, etc.).

There are several good indicators of the size of the anglophone population in Quebec. Mother tongue is actually one of the worst. It used to be highly relevant up to the 1970's, but the departure of half the mother-tongue population in one generation means that the dynamism of the English-speaking population now depends on its ability to integrate allophones. I guess it's obvious to me because English is not my mother tongue even though anyone would consider me anglophone. If we were to include a second number, I would say it would be home language because it would not exclude anglophones like myself. I would also want to include the "spoken frequently at home" statistic, because in the increasing number of marriages between anglophones and francophones, both languages are often used by children.

So since there is a consensus here that OLM is a good indicator, but we disagree about mother tongue, why not stick with OLM? If we have to include three numbers (maybe more) the intro and the box will get unwieldy. I think we should decide on the best indicator, and stick with that one.

The reason I went with the OLM statistic is:

1. It's an official number used by the Canadian government to identify the community; the rationale for using it is wel documented

2. It is the number used by the English-speaking community to identify itself

3. It is the definition used in almost all the surveys and studies of anglophones provided in the references

A great deal of work has gone into this page. If we change the definition of "English-speaking",large tracts of the article will need to be rewritten. --Soulscanner 03:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the particular definition we use for other statistics depends on what's available, and I don't have a strong argument one way or the other as long as people know what they're looking at. Mother tongue figures are standard and are usually the main number people look at. They are used by the Quebec government. I don't know who you say represents the English-speaking community. Mother tongue numbers also give an idea of the range of possible population numbers. They should be included here. Joeldl 04:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the articles and check the references. You'll see that English-speaking organizations listed all prefer the OLM statistics. They even provide rationales for using this statistic in the articles. [14] I don't go into the details in this article, and rely on the definitions given in the most recent research. As I said, mother tongue figures WERE standard, but current studies (certainly the ones cited here) almost all use the OLM or home language. Check the references yourself.

Please cite a source stating that mother tongue figures are considered authoritative in modern studies on language in Canada. I haven't found any. In fact, all studies I've seen prefer using First Official language spoken or Home Language as the preferred criteria. While Wikipedia articles do make for an interesting reference, they are not as authoratitive as contemporary research done by anglophones in Quebec.

I've already told you that the Quebec government uses a number of inconsistent criteria to identify the anglophone population: mother tongue for determining if a municipality is bilingual, language of school attended for eligibility for English schools, self-identification in school board elections, etc. I'm planning on including these in appropriate sections of the article, and I encourage you to include these. None is as definitive or widely used as the OLM definition, though. --Soulscanner 05:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the statistics. Joeldl 06:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What Joeldl is perfectly fine by me. Why is SoulScanner asking Joeldl to produce a source "stating that mother tongue figures are considered authoritative in modern studies on language in Canada" when his reason for using OLM, alone, was that English-speaking organizations listed it as "preferred". All are important measures and Joeldl found a simple way to fit them all in the introduction, which is good. -- Mathieugp 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted blanking and honoured citation requests

Several people attempted to change the definition of English-speaking Quebecer without providing a rationale. Referenced items that were blanked were restored. Where citations were requested they were given. These references were then blanked in an ensuing edit war. I recommend that those wishing to change the definition used by default in this article acknowledge and adress the given rationale before changing definitions. I also request that all acknowledge that this is not a demographics page, and that technical details can be discussed elsewhere than the introduction. All information inserted already was discussed in the poplation section. --Soulscanner 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely inaccurate statement. Mathieugp and I are well aware of your arguments and we both rejected them. You call clarifying misleading information turning this into a "demographics page". Most of the edits you are talking about consisted of you repeatedly removing fact tags I had placed before I had a chance to verify the sources. As it turns out, the sources don't support the statements as they are formulated, but I had to place the tags several times for you to point to the precise pages. Joeldl 13:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on Soulscanner's edits

Listed at WP:RFC/HIST

Soulscanner has made these edits: [15] to the page. I am requesting comment on the edits. They consist almost entirely of reverts of edits I made. I believe there is also a certain POV pattern to the edits, and comment on the nature of the edits from the point of view of Soulscanner's conduct would also be appreciated. This can be done here: Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Population figures in introduction and infobox

Please indicate whether the introduction and infobox are better before or after the edits above.

Joeldl's comments

Mathieugp and I feel that both the mother-tongue numbers (about 600,000) and the "First official language spoken" numbers (about 900,000) should be given in the introduction and infobox. Soulscanner wishes to include only the FOLS numbers, calling them the "Official-language minority population". This is technically accurate. However, it is misleading, particularly as Soulscanner's version gives no indication in the introduction and infobox themselves that the 900,000 number includes so many non-native speakers. He has now twice reverted my changes on this point.

In this government study:[16], Jack Jedwab makes this statement:

Of note is the question of how the size of Quebec’s English-speaking population is defined, as its number can range from 600,000 to 900,000.

The size of the population depends on the definition used. The Treasury Board Secretariat of the Government of Canada characterizes Anglophones and Francophones in terms of their first official language – the one they declare as reflecting their primary personal identification. The Quebec Treasury Board uses mother tongue to estimate the size of a linguistic population. These definitions produce different estimates of the size of the population.

When language used most often is the basis for definition, 2001 census data show that Quebec Anglophones represent 11.6 percent of the population. When mother tongue is used, the representation is 8.3 percent of the provincial population. When the first language spoken is used, the representation is 12.9 percent.Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner has gone as far as to remove "federal definition, see population section below" from the introduction. Joeldl 18:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner's comments

This technical discussion is in the Population section. AS I said, if we gave every statistic, we would have a very long introduction that would read like a demographic study.

The OLM statistic is usued because:

• 1. It's an official number used by the Canadian government to identify the community; the rationale for using it is well documented; it is used across the country to define official language communities.
• 2. It is the number used by the English-speaking community to identify itself; this is documented in the article
• 3. It is the definition used in almost all the surveys and studies of anglophones provided in the references

A great deal of work has gone into this page. If we change the definition of "English-speaking" Quebecker, large tracts of the article will need to be rewritten. If you read the articles and check the references. You'll see that English-speaking organizations listed all prefer the OLM statistics. They even provide rationales for using this statistic in the articles. [17] I don't go into the details in this article, and rely on this research as authoratiative and a good encyclopedic source. As I said, mother tongue figures WERE standard, but current studies (certainly the ones cited here) almost all use the OLM or home language. This owes, as is obvious in the article, to the large numbers of immigrants that integrate into the English-language community. I requested a recent source that considers mother tongue authoritative in modern studies on language in Canada. I haven't found any. In fact, all studies I've seen prefer using First Official language spoken or Home Language as the preferred criteria.

I'll add that the Quebec government uses a number of inconsistent criteria to identify the anglophone population: mother tongue for determining if a municipality is bilingual, language of school attended for eligibility for English schools, self-identification in school board elections, etc. These definitions are included in appropriate sections of the article.

You will also note that I already offered this explanation earlier (see above dialogue). After this, Joel proceeded with edits to the introduction without providing a rationale or appropriate references that justify using mother tongue over the many other figures used. It is the refusal to use proper rigor and offer appropriate references in his edits and outright refusal to acknowledge.--Soulscanner 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathieugp's comments

See Joeldl's comment. We are both in favour of precision and clarity. The inclusion of mother-tongue stats and the "First official language spoken" stats does not need to be made into a matter of choice. In Joeldl's version, all relevant data are present. In SoulScanner's version, only his preferred definition prevails. -- Mathieugp 17:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments

I dont see any problem with including both numbers. Its just more info. The readers can determine for themselves which numbers are accurate.IP198 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend towards "include both numbers," but if a hard choice had to be made, I prefer Soulseeker's approach. Using the national standard makes more sense, and is the best-documented and most consistent version to adhere to. --66.129.135.114 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think both numbers should be used. The "if we included every statistic" argument does not seem to be a problem, because no one is proposing that every statistic be included, only two. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"English-speaking Asians"

I am referring to the following text. I had placed a "citation needed tag". The third time Soulscanner removed the tag [18] [19] [20], he told me to look at p.16 of the reference (it turned out to be p. 15). However, in my opinion, it does not fully support the statements made.

However, immigrants from English-speaking countries such as Britain, the United States, and Jamaica or countries such as India, China, or the Filipino Canadian usually come with a knowledge of English; Asians account for the fastest growing segment of the population, with over 26 000 English-speaking Asians coming to Quebec between 1996 and 2001; as a result, over a quarter of anglophones now come from visible minority groups.

Please indicate whether the source supports the statements made. Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl's comments

The table on p. 16 considers as "anglophone" those immigrants who, as of 2001, have English as their first official language spoken. For this it is enough to have a knowledge of English at the time of the Census in 2001, once the immigrants may have been in Canada for up to 5 years. The source does not indicate, at least on p. 16, what fraction of immigrants from China, India and the Philippines come with a knowledge of English. It is also ambiguous to refer to the 26,000 who eventually speak English as "English-speaking Asians coming to the province" without further qualification.

Please bear in mind that I had to place the tag three times before Soulscanner would give the page number, and in the end it did not fully support the statement. Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the number referred to in the reference, which is based on a study by professional demographers. If you can find a more authoritative study that documents changes in the ethnic composition of the English-speaking Quebecers, peae give it. The link to the reference was there. The document comes with an index. It would have taken you two minutes to find it yourself. You are assuming bad faith on my part. The data are there. --Soulscanner 10:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You repeatedly removed the "citation needed" tag which is designed precisely to ask for an exact reference so the statements can be verified by all parties involved. Instead, you just removed it twice, and the third time removed it and gave a page number but substituted your judgment for mine about whether the statements were supported. The statement that "English-speaking Asians" were "coming to Quebec" was not supported, because the data referred to FOLS in 2001. Nothing is said on p. 15 about most Chinese immigrants speaking English before arrival. Joeldl 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you questioned the veracity of anglophone East-Asian immigration showed that you did not bother to read the cited sources properly (if at all) before calling for citations. The fact that you asked for the page numbre proves this. The fact that these data were given graphically and the subject of extensive comment in the article shows that you were placing these primarily to deface the article. If I can take the time to read through the references (which is neccessary to right a high-quality article), then it's reasonable for an editor to take the time to read through them thoroughly. Moreover, had you inquire on this subject politely on the discussion page first as opposed to "looking forward to confrontation", I would have gladly taken the time and pointed you to the page. It is not a long reference document (25 pages) and has a table of contents. It is reasonable that you could have used these to find the information. --Soulscanner 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What I wanted was a precise reference, because the statements appeared inaccurate. They are still not supported by the reference you provided, because "anglophone" clearly relates to FOLS at a time possibly well after first arrival. Therefore, the statistics should be retained, but the wording needs to be changed. You have still not provided any statistical source for Asians "arriving with a knowledge of English". It seems likely to me in the case of the Philippines and India, but unsourced. In the case of China, there is room for some doubt about whether the majority arrive with a knowledge of English. Joeldl 00:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner's comments

The link to the reference was there. The document comes with an index. It would have taken you two minutes to find it yourself. You are assuming bad faith on my part. The data are there. --Soulscanner 10:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't know where in the source one can find the statement that most Chinese immigrants know English before arrival. So what you are saying is that I should have known that it was p. 15 which was claimed to support this statement because it gives related information. Joeldl 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathieugp's comments

Citation needed tags should not be removed until citations have been provided, otherwize there is no point to them. -- Mathieugp 23:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Inuit and Cree in Montreal

This refers to the following text in the "Montreal" section. I had removed the reference to Cree and Inuit for apparent lack of relevance, since the Cree and Inuit live in northern Quebec. There was, in my view based on available sources, to believe that there are many in Montreal, or that those who do live there speak English. Census statistics indicate there are 435 Inuit in the Metropolitan area, with an unknown number speaking English.

Some First nation peoples such as the Mohawk, the Cree [21], and Inuit [22] also use English in their day-to-day lives and use English-language health services based in Montreal [23].

Do the links provided support the statements? Is it relevant to mention Inuit and Cree living in Montreal? Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl's comments

There was, in my view, no reason based on available sources, to believe that there are many Cree or Inuit in Montreal, or that those who do live there speak English. Census statistics indicate there are 435 Inuit in the Montreal metropolitan area, with the number speaking English not indicated in what I've seen. Cree and Inuit are among those Aboriginals who most strongly retain their ancestral languages. Use of French as a second language among young Quebec Inuit is significant, and it is difficult to tell how many of those in Montreal "use English in their daily lives".

Soulscanner himself added the statement about health services "based in Montreal". What he appears to mean is that health authorities in northern Quebec have some affiliation with the McGill medical school. The webpage given does not show that the services are accessed in English (presumably doctors in Montreal, even at McGill, speak English and French, and interpretation in Inuktitut or Cree is likely available) and does not relate to Inuit or Cree who live in Montreal, despite being in the "Montreal" section of the article. Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, census data indicate that of 330 people in Montreal giving the single response "Inuit" as their ethnic origin, 70 have English as their most common home language. 70 people. [24] Joeldl 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner's comments

AS the links show, the Cree and Inuit use the McGill University Health Center; for medical Emegencies, they are evacuated to English-language hospitals because they demand these services in English. School boards teach in native languages, and have English and French sectors. The Kativik school board is headquartered in Montreal. All websites are predominantly in English because most institutions are administered in English.

The links say nothing about language of services. Service is available in French at all hospitals. The relation to Montreal is tenuous. Joeldl 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Several other links:

• MUHC runs dialysis clinics for Cree [25]
• Sector for Services to the English-speaking community supervises English-sector Cree schools (see page 2) [26]
• Kativik School Board (they're always recruting from their head office in Dorval) [27] They conciuosly practice true official bilingualism so when the family gets together, they have to speak Inuktituk
• JAANIMMARIK SCHOOL, Kuujjuaq, Qc [28]
  • 147 students from Kindergarten to Grade 2 in Inuktitut
  • 169 students in the French sector
  • 185 students in the English sector
• ASIMAUTTAQ SCHOOL [29]
  • 30 students from Kindergarten to Grade 2 in Inuktitut
  • 54 students in the French sector
  • 70 students in the English sector
• Voyageur Memorial School, Mistissini, Qc [30]
  • 50 percent instruction in English and 50 percent in Cree in Grades 1 and 2 for the English sector
  • 80 percent French and 20 percent Cree in the French sector

I taught in Northern Quebec for 3 years. Either you are ill-informed, or you are indulging in some mischievoous editing. --Soulscanner 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathieugp's comments

Cree and Inuit have nothing to do with English-speaking Quebec, even less with English-speaking Montreal. That seems pretty off topic to me. I understand User:SoulScanner has taken control of the article. His personal POV is made clear through various statements in the article:

"Some First nation peoples such as the Mohawk, the Cree [1], and Inuit [2] also use English in their day-to-day lives and use English-language health services based in Montreal [3]. These groups blend in easily in a community that defines itself increasingly as multicultural and bilingual. Its dwindling numbers, its large diversity, its mobility and access to mainstream North American society means that most anglophones in Quebec will identify themselves as Canadian or by their cultural group, and identify as "anglophone" only in the context of Quebec's French-speaking majority.[3]"

No doubt, Mohawks have been assimilated to the English language. The Mohawk language is currently considered extinct. Although the sources [1] and [2] provided by SoulScanner do not support his assertions very well, it seems plausible that some Cree and Inuit, unable to find services in their native language, use English language services in Montreal. The second and third sentences are 100% SoulScanner's opinion and [3] says nothing about it. -- Mathieugp 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One point. Mohawk is definitely not extinct. About a quarter of Mohawks, I think, speak their ancestral language, and I personally know two who do. Joeldl 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nearly extinct would be more exact, but I am very pessimistic about the situation of this language. The official stats are 16 211 total population, 75 speak it as mother tongue, 30 as home language. Others speak it as second language. This is the result of the revival programs initiated in the 1970s. In English, I found this: http://www.brandonu.ca/Library/CJNS/12.2/hoover.pdf

In French, I had already read this: http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca/Publications/pubb133/B133ch7.html#mohawk

Will there be a Eliezer Ben Yehuda for this venerable language or will the utilitariste spirit win? I am afraid prayers in Mohawk, English or French won't do it. In an article I have not yet published on my blog, I advocate the turning of the Office de la langue française into an Office des langues du Québec whose mission with regards to French would remain the same, but the mission to safeguard Aboriginal languages would become a responsibility of all humans living in Quebec. When I am done with my taxes, I'll work on it and send you the link. :-) -- Mathieugp 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Those statistics can't be right. According to Ethnologue, about 3,000 of 10,000 Mohawks in the US speak the language as their mother tongue. For Canada, it gives a figure of 350, which it attributes to Statistics Canada. However, the serious problems with incomplete enumeration of Indian reserves mean that census numbers are excluding a good number of speakers. This source: [31] places Mohawk in a category with between 7,000 and 15,000 fluent speakers. Another source says "less than 2,000" in Canada, so obviously, there is disagreement. In any case, the total population in both countries is in the thousands. I agree that Aboriginal languages are a serious responsibility for governments. However, it's not clear what the provincial vs. federal role should be. The federal government probably has a bigger role to play, except maybe among those peoples for which education is under provincial jurisdiction. Joeldl 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The stats I gave you were for in and out of reserve Mohawks, but in Quebec only. My mistake.

Statistiques des populations autochtones du Québec 2005

Quebec - Langue parlée à la maison détaillée

Mohawk language use for all of Canada is here: [32]

I do not know where to look for US Stats on this.

I am a fluent speaker of English. Number of fluent speakers is not a very good indication. I understand the desire to show positive results for the psychological impact. In his autobiography, Eliezer Ben Yehuda writes how the fact that they (the pre-Zionists) did not have an accurate picture of the situation of the Jews in Israel and did not yet know the obstacles they would have to overcome ended up being a very good thing. Knowing it would have demoralized them completely and nothing would have ever been accomplished! "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome." - Samuel Johnson

Hope is important, maybe more so than the facts. I think we should translate Eliezer Ben Yehuda's autobiography in all Native American languages. It can be good for them to know for a fact that resurrecting a language has actually been done. So it is official: the impossible is possible. -- Mathieugp 13:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am talking about is here:[33]. Statistics from Kanesatake, Akwesasne and Kahnawake were not included in census tabulations. Therefore, estimates must be made of the total number of speakers. I agree that fluent is not the same as mother tongue, but I think it would be highly unusual for thousands of speakers to be fluent if only 75 were mother tongue speakers. While the census did not attempt to estimate language data, they did use alternate methods to estimate population (such as registration as a status Indian), so population figures may in some cases include these reserves. Joeldl 23:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments

I can confirm that English and Cree are used almost equally in the James Bay Cree communities in Northern Quebec. I fail to understand why entire segments of the population are being dismissed as "not relevant" by other editors; they are definitely relevant, and an entire generation of Cree fall more closely under the definition of "English-speaking" than any other language (the newer generation of Cree are being re-instructed in Cree, so they are mostly English/Cree bilingual). I can't speak to other native populations, but English is definitely the codominant language for the James Bay Cree. --66.129.135.114 17:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Much of the issue has to do with the fact that it's in the Montreal section. As for relevance within Quebec's English-speaking community, I believe it's worth noting which communities use English daily (e.g. Mohawks), which ones generally speak their ancestral language but use English as their primary official language (e.g. Cree), and which ones do the same but with French. (e.g. Montagnais). But why should this be in the Montreal section, other than for the Mohawks? Soulscanner is attempting to show that this is relevant to Montreal. Joeldl 09:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Languages in infobox

I changed this from a list of about six languages to just English. Soulscanner amended it to include English, French and Italian.

Is this appropriate? Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl's comments

I find this absurd. The language of English-speaking Quebecers is English. Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner's comments

More than half also speak French. Italians constitute the larges ethnic groups. Greeks also have integrated into the English-speaking community, and Asians do as well.

Mathieugp's comments

I think the multilingualism of English-speakers is worth mentioning. I do not know if it belongs in the info box though. -- Mathieugp 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments

The languages in the infobox should be indicative of the people. As not an overwhelming majority speak them, they are better being left out. Languages other than English is likely to cause confusion with the title of the article. Keep this information in prose. –Pomte 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that most of the English speaking people are bilingual and can speak French, then French should also be included. Smaller languages such as Italian should not be included. IP198 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

I removed Canada from the infobox under "region with significant populations", leaving only Quebec. Soulscanner reverted the change here: [34] with the following edit summary: (Restoring Canadian flag; removing this was cheap vandalism).

Should the infobox indicate both Canada and Quebec as regions with significant populations? Was my edit removing Canada vandalism? Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl's comments

All of the regions indicated are in Quebec, and the article is called English-speaking Quebecer. Since the very name involves Quebec, it makes sense to have only the Quebec flag. The infoboxes at Quebec and California do not have the relevant national flags.

I made the edit in good faith. It was not vandalism, even if Soulscanner disagrees with it. Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner's comments

They live in Canada. Quebec is part of Canada. English-speaking Quebecers have a strong Canadian identity. You know this. It was strictly a bad-faith edit with no rationale behind it. --Soulscanner 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathieugp's comments

I am not sure. Right now, it says that there are populations of "English-speaking Quebecers" outside Quebec in Canada, which is true. But there are also many in the USA and everywhere else people speak English on this planet. Joeldl is a living proof of a Quebecer in the USA who still cares about what is going on here.

Should we add the US and British flags? Keep only the Quebec flag? -- Mathieugp 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments

The section is about location, not identity. Doesn't matter whether English-speaking Quebecers identify with Canada. I find this trivial though, and don't see how including or excluding Canada will make an inappropriate implication to the reader. They can tell from the title of the article alone what the region of most significant population is (hint: it is Quebec). They see Canada, and understand that Quebec is inside Canada just like the other cities/regions listed are inside Quebec. They are not going to think, "oh just because Canada is listed here, that means a lot of them are dispersed outside Quebec in the rest of Canada." If they somehow get that impression, they should read the article to find out. Please do not pick a debate on every single minute issue there is. –Pomte 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it was a closer call than for some other questions here. I requested outside comment in large part because of the accusation of vandalism. Joeldl 08:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an accusation of vandalism is a little OTT; that said, removing the Canada tag is just getting silly. --MattShepherd 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dwindling numbers of English-speaking community"

Is this an accurate description without further qualification? Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl's comments

Most of the statistics in the article refer to the 900,000 number based on "first official language spoken". The reference Soulscanner gave, after removing my "citation needed" tag twice, was Table 1 on this page: [35]. The table shows a decline of English-speakers by mother tongue. However, it shows an increase in the number of anglophones defined by first official language spoken from 1991 to 2001, and there are no statistics before that under the FOLS definition. I believe the reference should be to the dwindling numbers of mother-tongue anglophones.

Soulscanner's comments

The consistent 30-year decline abated slightly for one 5 year period; the downward trend then continued. I will also point you to the final sentence of the Population section, which includes projections out to 2010 confirming a continued fall. You should amend the table under population to show all the statistics. That way, people could easily scrutinize if you are misrepresenting the data. --Soulscanner 10:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I posted the statistics with links to references. The webpage with the Official Language community statistics is down, so I will add that data later. --Soulscanner 06:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathieugp's comments

The English-speaking community in Canada is strong an growing, even in Quebec, as made obvious by the number of English speakers counted by home language versus mother tongue, in a context of economic migration disfavorable to all of Canada relative to the USA and to Quebec relative to Ontario and the West.

The vitality index of English is at 1.259 in Quebec and 1.358 in Montreal. Compare that to 1.019 and 1.036 for French and 0.616 and 0.622 for all other languages together. (1.0 means the same number of people who speak a given language as mother tongue keep it in the privacy of their homes later on in life). See Charles Castonguay, Les indicateurs généraux de vitalité des langues au Québec : comparabilité et tendances 1971-2001 (Étude 1), Office québécois de la langue française, 26 mai, 2005, 48 pages

Mother tongue English speakers have been moving out of Quebec in greater number than they have been moving in since the 1940s mostly as a result of the stronger growth of the Toronto region compared to the Montreal region. This precedes the election of the PQ in 1976 and the adoption of the Charter of the French language in 1977.

This is well summarized and vulgarized in Chapter 2 of Jane Jacobs's book entitled The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over Sovereignty

The depiction of English-speaking Quebecers as 1) a linguistic minority(!) 2) a declining minority 3) a declining minority because of Quebec's language law, utterly makes abstraction of major facts. Describing English speakers as a minority in Quebec is true, but this population is part of a language community that is not in a minority. As for the reason for the outmigration of Quebecers, which affect English speakers more than French-speakers at the moment (this was not true for most of the 19th and 20th centuries), the facts support other theories much better.

1. Emigration outside Canada is an old problem. From Lord Durham's 1839 Report on the Affairs of British North America, page 68:

"[...] Still less can we attribute to such causes [natural causes] another circumstance, which in some measure accounts for the different values of property, and which has a close relation to the subject of public lands -- I mean the great amount of re-emigration from the British colonies to the border states. This is a notorious fact. No body denies it; almost every colonist [British colonist] speaks of it with regret. What the proportion may be of those emigrants from the United Kingdom who, soon after their arrival, remove to the United States, it would be very difficult to ascertain precisely. Mr. Bell Forsyth, of Quebec, who has paid much attention to the subject, and with the best opportunities of observing correctly in both the Canadas, estimates that proportion at sixty per cent of the whole. Mr. Hawke, the chief agent for emigrants in Upper Canada, calculates that out of two-thirds of the immigrants by the St. Lawrence who reach that province, one fourth re-emigrate chieftly to settle in the States. It would appear, however, that the amount of emigration from Upper Canada, whether of new comers or others, must be nearer Mr. Forsyth's estimate. [...]"

2. Emigration from Quebec to booming regions in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia seems to be a post-WWII phenomenon affecting all Canadian provinces. Singling out the case of English-speaking Quebecers and blaming it on Language laws is scapegoating: The Maritime provinces have the same problem and the Maritime provinces are not affected the least bit by Quebec's language law. No doubt, the Charter of the French language did not reverse the emigration trend already very well in motion, most likely it made it worst, but it is not responsible for it.

These information, presented more neutraly than here, will have to make their way in the article whether User:SoulScanner likes it or not. -- Mathieugp 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments on the nature of Soulscanner's edits and edit summaries

Please comment on Soulscanner's conduct in this matter. (These edits: [36])Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl's comments

I have, in a short time, had confrontational dealings with Soulscanner on a number of pages, as have others, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. In the view of some (see Talk:Québécois and the deletion debate), Soulscanner is attempting to turn that article into a vehicle for an anti-francophone POV.

In the present case, Mathieugp and I have been discussing with Soulscanner, seemingly ad infinitum, the appropriate population statistics to present in the introduction and infobox. Soulscanner has, on his own, gone against our opinion. Soulscanner prefers presenting only the largest population number (including many non-native speakers). He has twice removed the mother tongue population from the introduction and infobox, as well as the comment "(federal definition, see "Population" section below)" I introduced after the 919,000 number. His justification in the edit summary was: Reinstated documented official definition; removed technical expalantions; this is not an article on demography; inclusion of mother tongue figure as authorative not shown.

This is a transparent attempt to give readers an exaggerated impression of the size of the community. The most common statistic around the world is mother tongue. People cannot guess that the 900,000 figure does not refer to mother tongue, and Soulscanner is making a huge effort to prevent the six words "federal definition, see "Population" section below" from appearing in the introduction.

A glance at the edit history of the page from 24 April, 2007 will show that Soulscanner repeatedly removed "citation needed" tags. The sequence of edit summaries for the "English-speaking Asians" is typical:

[37](Facts are accounted for in refrence at end of sentence)

[38] (→Montreal - please give page numbers; do not remove fact tags unilaterally until I've checked they say what you say they say)

[39] (→Montreal - Please do not removed referenced facts. They were there before you put in the citation tags. Please read references before you edit.)

[40] (rv; I am entitled to request a precise reference. Do not remove tags until references with page numbers provided and I have verified)

[41] (It's on page 16;you have not read the reference; it's huge graph and impossible to miss)

Of course, in the end, the source did not, for example, support the statement that most Chinese immigrants speak English before coming to Quebec, or certain other parts of the statements. That's a lot of work to get a source which doesn't fully support the statements. What justification is there for removing the tags before the page of the source has been specified? And once it's been specified, why remove the tag before I can read the source?

There is also the matter of the unjustified accusation of vandalism concerning the regions with significant populations in the infobox.

Soulscanner does not seem concerned with WP:RS or WP:NPOV, and makes life difficult for anyone who questions his edits.

There are likely other points on this page and pages elsewhere where I will have disagreements with Soulscanner, and I am not looking forward to it. It is urgent that he adopt proper Wikiquette in his dealings with other editors. His edits also show a distinct POV pattern and opposition to clear improvements to the informative value of the article. I would urge those who agree to share here their thoughts on these edits. Joeldl 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner's comments

I don't look forward to confrontations. I like to avoid them. Is it appropriate use of Wikipedia to provoke confrontation?

Mathieugp's comments

Ad infinitum struggling to get simple corrections made for better clarity and neutrality. I frankly have much better things to do. I find it pathetic that Quebec/Canada confrontations make their way into an encyclopedia: this should be the place of reconciliation. We are all here to learn. -- Mathieugp 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl's personal accusation of anti-French bias

Joeldl left a personal accusation of anti-Quebecois bias on Soulscanner User_talk:Soulscanner page. "I was originally inclined to believe that, though you had a definite anti-francophone POV, you would play by the rules in editing." -- Joeldl --Soulscanner 11:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathieugp's comments

Requesting a comment on a statement that I would describe as a victimization discourse is too much ridicule for me to comment. -- Mathieugp 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the entire above section "General comments on the nature of Soulscanner's edits and edit summaries" is a "victimization discourse." Isn't the pot calling the kettle black here?--MattShepherd 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl made sensible edits with explanations and they were simply reverted without any discussion by SoulScanner. Then, on User:SoulScanner's talk page, he wrote:

"I was originally inclined to believe that, though you had a definite anti-francophone POV, you would play by the rules in editing. But I now see that that is not the case. In removing the population figures, you went against the majority opinion expressed on the talk page. You are also removing fact tags before I have had a chance to verify the information. You cannot make judgments unilaterally about whether the statements made are accurate reflections of the sources. You also cannot accuse me of vandalism for an edit on which you happen to have a different point of view. Joeldl 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested comment on your edits at WP:RFC/HIST. You can respond at Talk:English-speaking Quebecer. Joeldl 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)"

To understand where the "definite anti-francophone POV" comes from, you would have to be crazy enough to read the endless discussions at Talk:Quebecois (including all those that were erased). If really you have that much free time to waste, be my guest. (Please tell me you do not have that much free time to waste... ;-) -- Mathieugp 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming here from RFC

Reading this entire talk page, I fail to see how Soulseeker has done anything more "wrong" than having the temerity to disagree with two editors that obviously share the same strong opinions. The accusations of "anti-Francophone bias" are more than a little tenuous -- all of his edits are, as far as I can see, at least sourced, and there's a certain amount of bullish "whatever Soulseeker does is wrong" entrenchment on the part of the two other editors involved in this dispute. Starting a section about Soulseeker's conduct before going to RFC is leading and disingenuous, to say the least. A "Request for Comment" should be just that, not a "Request for People to Agree With Me and Excoriate This Fellow Who I Disagree With." Joeldl and Mathieu have obviously put a lot of hard work into this article, but I think they may be falling into the old trap of feelings of ownership. It's not your article, and if Soulseeker has information to add, and facts to back up that information, there is nothing wrong with his editing the article. I don't think either side in this dispute can claim to be entirely free of bias. Might I suggest that all editors just step back and settle down a bit before this turns into some sort of Wikivendetta? --MattShepherd 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming here from RFC, MattShepherd's input is understandable. That being said, MattShepherd does not appear to be informed of the history of the conflicts between SoulScanner and various other editors, over the article Quebecois especially. This is where one should start to get the whole picture. Also, "Joeldl and Mathieu have obviously put a lot of hard work into this article" is wrong, because SoulScanner has in fact monopolized the article and reverted all of Joeldl's edits. Simply looking a the article's history will reveal this. SoulScanner has made more edits to this article than all the other users combined. A great deal of the information he has added was more than welcomed. Unfortunately, there were POV issues in a lot of his edits. I have for my part given up on trying to neutralize and correct this article at this point. Fixing the more serious POV issues in this article will involve first finishing the rewrite of the articles on language demographics in Canada. Once these articles are solid and properly referenced, it will be easier to summarize the key infos on the English-speaking and French-speaking populations of Quebec within English-speaking Quebecer and the new French-speaking Quebecer. -- Mathieugp 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner moved a comment here from his talk page. The statement I made there that Soulscanner had an anti-francophone bias was not made primarily in relation to his edits here, but rather to many of his comments at Talk:Québécois and edits to the corresponding article. Mathieugp's last comments sum the situation up well. Soulscanner has reverted virtually all the edits I made to this page. The first of these is the object of the infobox question above, where I was attempting to clarify what he had written. Most of the others were Soulscanner removing "citation needed" tags for information that I felt was not properly sourced. Soulscanner removed the tags without appropriately sourcing the material. This is not a matter where it is appropriate to treat Soulscanner and myself in a symmetric fashion, because "citation needed" tags should remain until there is consensus to remove them. I would ask you to please examine Soulscanner's edits in a detailed way before passing judgment. In particular, you should begin by examining the introduction and infobox as they were before and after Soulscanner's reversion of my edits. Then say what you think. Joeldl 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OscarPetersoncomposer.jpg

Image:OscarPetersoncomposer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as B, although it needs more inline citations, and of mid importance, as I feel that this topic plays a strong role in the understanding of the history of Canada. Cheers, CP 03:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

English

Just a little question, my grandfather is english quebecer and my grandmother is french quebecer (my parents are french quebecers) so i am considered english quebecer and french quebecer? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That depends on how you define it, but mostly, it's up to you and how you respond to the census and surveys about the subject.

Mother tongue: is the first language you learned English or French? If you learned English first, you are English-speaking. I learned German first, so I'm allophone.

Home language: do you speak mostly French or English at home? If it is English, you are English speaking by that category. I speak mostly English, so I'm anglophone in this context.

First official language learned: Did you learn English or French first? If you learned English first, you are English-speaking. I learned English before French, so I'm anglophone in this context.

Ancestry: If your grandfather came from England, and your grandmother has roots in France, then you're both. My parents don't come from any of these places, so I'm not English or French.

Identity: Do you feel more English more, more French, or neither? Is ancestry, religion, mother tongue, home language, or some other criteria most important to you? In this case, it's up to you.

Hope that clears things up. --Soulscanner (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that clear, so i am French- speaking quebecer with English-speaking Ancestry (If I understand).

Well, you probably have some English, Scottish, or Irish ancestry (most likely Irish). English-speaking is about the language people speak now. --Soulscanner (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondary 5 or Secondary V?

I thought seeing Secondary 1 to 5 odd, since I remember it always being specified with Roman numerals - Secondary I to V when I was in school. Google shows a 2.5 to 1 ratio of "Secondary 5" to "Secondary V". What is the official designation by the ministry of education? --Michael Daly (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Me im presently in school and we daid secondary 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2006commemorativeBromeFairposter xw500.jpg

Image:2006commemorativeBromeFairposter xw500.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)