From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Sur mon telephone, NON = 666, le chiffre du diable
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:30:37 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <9659@s3.ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
	beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

>Si j'ai bien compris les derniers articles en reaction aux miens,

Obviously not.

>1- Si Lionel Groulx n'avait pas existe, le nationalisme quebecois
>moderne, avec l'idee de former un pays independant, n'aurait pas
>existe.

If Lionel Groulx did not exist, it is possible that modern Quebec
nationalism would have a different underlying philosophy. It is possible
that the preservation of French through positive, not negative means,
would have been seen as preferable.

As example, perhaps English-controlled companies could have been persuaded
to be more sensitive to the needs of Francophones through organizaed boycotts,
rather than laws that affect not only the arrogant but the sympathetic.

>2- Avant Groulx, aucun Quebecois ne voulait que le Quebec ne devienne
>un pays.

Not necessarily. But perhaps Groulx put the spin on nationhood that
Quebec, as only a province, does not have enough authority over its
English, Jews, and other undesirables. As just another minority within
Canada (though a large one), francophones do not have the ability to fully
control the immigration, education or cultural practices of
non-francophones within Quebec. As "maitres chez nous", in a sovereign
country, Quebecois would certainly have the ability to impose any such
restrictions it sees "necessary" to keep its culture pure. It could make a
constitution under which Law 178 -- or worse -- could be totally consistent.

Without Groulx, the move to nationhood could have arisen from a move to
enlightenment, not repression.

>4- Le nationalisme quebecois est mauvais parce qu'il est base sur
>le racisme et des idees farfelues, mal-fondees et irrealistes.

I wouldn't use quite those words.

Quebec nationalism, in its current form, is at least to an extent
based on xenophobia, on a need to restrict the actions of others to
preserve Quebec culture. Thus the demand for more powers for Quebec.
Certainly some of this underlying philosophy can be attributed to Groulx.

>Tres difficile a defendre tout cela.

Maybe for you...

>7- Quelle est la difference entre la minorite francophone et les
>minorites plus petites?  La quantite.  Avec 6 millions, nous sommes
>assez nombreux pour avoir un pays.

There exist countries with smaller populations than the three Quebec
ridings with Equality Party (aka Le Bloc Anglophone) members. The only
difference is that you draw the line differently as to what quantity is
necessary. How convenient.

Besides, if English Quebec does not want to be part of an independent
Quebec, it would likely choose to stay within Canada rather than become
totally sovereign itself.

>Le Canada anglais
>rejette le Quebec parce qu'il fait des lois pour proteger sa langue.
>Et le Quebec fait ces lois parce qu'il se sent rejete.

English Canada may not like the laws, but does not "reject" Quebec
because of them.  It may, however, reject the idea of special powers for
Quebec, seeing as how the current ones have been abused. I would argue
against extra powers for *any* provinces, since others have used the
notwithstanding clause to allow unfair laws.

The perception of this reaction as the wholesale rejection of Quebec is
no more than a product of your own mind. I suggest it may be Groulx-inspired
xenophobia which causes you to perceive rejection where it does not exist
(lunatic fringe notwithstanding).

>Denis Beauregard        beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
>Promoting use of QC as logical abbreviation for Quebec 

And seeing an incredible act of oppression as long as it isn't...

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
              If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?