From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Fete Nationale du Quebec
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 01:35:14 GMT

In article <Btx74v.DG9@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.150508.2052@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>>>  (c) They're not separatists.  Not all celebrators are necessarily
>>>>  separatists, but there is certainly a tendancy...  Why would someone
>>>>  that doesn't want Quebec to leave Canada "celebrate" a day whose
>>>>  primary purpose is to assert Quebec nationalism.
>>>
>>>This is irrelevant.
>>
>>Irrelevant?!?  When the majority of the participants are there to
>>celebrate the fact that they want their nation to leave Canada, this
>>fact is irrelevant?!?
>
>There something wrong somewhere in the redneck group.
>Someone said that majority of Quebec are not independentist.
>And you said that most participants in Quebec national day
>are separatist or pro.  

The issue was the question of why the anglophones don't go to the QND
celebrations.  Nothing to do with MY accepting the Quebecois "as they
are."

>But, if you can't accept Quebecois as
>they are, why is it that bad to want Quebec not to be in the same
>country as people like you who are against what Quebecois are?

Question:  Do I (and others) oppose "what Quebecois are?"  Or do we
oppose some of the features of Quebecois nationalism that we see as
undesirable?  I do not dislike the French language (tho there are
times I can get frustrated when I have difficulty in using it), nor do
I dislike either the Quebecois people, or their (your) culture.

What I DO oppose and dislike is the various forms of oppression that
are being attached to the "Quebec National Cause."

>>>>  (d) They're the "ENEMY."  After all the dumping on that Denis and
>>>>  others have done on the anglo-quebecois, I certainly wouldn't want
>>>>  to come to HIS party, and the anglo-quebecois probably think the
>>>>  same.
>>>
>>>If the situation is French against English, they are enemies.  But,
>>>who created this situation ?  OK, I know, the French because they lost
>>>on Abraham Plains. 
>>
>>The issue is the Nationalist holiday, not the Plains of Abraham.
>
>Quebec National Day has been voted years after Quebecois elected a
>government in favor of Quebec secession.

And that government asked the people if they wished to secede, and
they said "Non, merci."  They changed their mind then.  What's
happening now is certainly less clear.

>>In case it's hard to tell - it wasn't anglophones that created the
>>celebrations, and it's not anglophones that are celebrated.
>
>Because they DO NOT ACCEPT the French reality, the fact they are
>a minority in Quebec that was privileged for years and that they
>will be no more.

By "they will be no more", do you mean:

(a) They will no longer be privileged in Quebec?
or
(b) They will now be an oppressed minority in Quebec?
or
(c) They will no longer be in Quebec?

This phrase could be misinterpreted quite widely, from the (probably
favorable extreme) that NOBODY in Quebec will be "privileged", to the
extreme that anglophones in Quebec will be shot forthright.  The
phrase "will be no more" is sometimes used in English to
euphamistically say "put to death."

I expect that you referred to something like (b).

>>>>(Denis:)
>>>>>   A wide majority of Francos favor a similar structure.
>>>>
>>>>It is just SO typical here that you consider that the thoughts of the
>>>>Francos is the ONLY thing worth considering.
>
>Obviously, before 1976 (1980?), I have not seen any anglophone
>fighting for the right of francophones out of Quebec.  They
>tolerated some situation, but never promoted the French.  ANd if
>some did, they were some few that they were like talking in desert.

As other postings have made clear, the Quebec government has certainly
not been a great promoter of French for the rest of the country.

>>>
>>>Has the democracy other bases that the will of majority? 
>>
>>That is ONE of the definitions of democracy.  It is a DANGEROUS
>>definition, in that it allows the justification of all sorts of evils.
>>The term is the "tyranny of the majority."
>
>Gosh.  You prefer to give the government to a minority having
>some privilege?  I'm not in favor of that.

Did I say that I favored "giving the government to a minority?"  Of
course not!

>>If some action is desired the majority, and harms a minority, this
>>form of democracy SHOULD do that action, whether it's the issue of
>>increasing some tax that only the minority pays, or if it's an issue
>>of repression.  At various times, this has been used to injure people.
>
>This was used against the francophones for centuries.  Why can't the
>anglophones accept this a single year?

Why should ANYbody accept tyranny?  Why should ANYBODY feel that they
have the RIGHT to be a tyrant?

>>If you're claiming that the use of the "tyrrany of the majority" makes
>>repression in Quebec morally good, that's fine.  Don't expect anybody
>>to respect that moral stance.
>
>A majority of Quebecois is nobody?  

Ah, so a majority of Quebecois believe that it is morally correct to
act as tyrants, on the basis that the fact that the tyranny comes
democratically makes it right?

You've just admitted that your "new" Quebec would be a tyranny.  The
majority of new nations that start on that basis tend to REALLY go
down the drain.  Between Eastern Europe, the VAST majority of Africa,
and most of South America, there have been a LOT of tyrannical
governments.  They tend not to be very desirable places to live.


-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: can.politics