From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Absolute Madness... Naturally.
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:49:38 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 3273

From article <BtCGDH.35t@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> In article <1992Aug20.195900.12568@mprgate.mpr.ca> heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath) writes:
>>In article <BtAM0G.H6F@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> Good!  With the stupid agreement they announced yesterday (the only
>>|> use of a minimum 25% of seats for Quebec corresponds to a racist
>>|> behaviour of stopping almost completely immigration),
>>
>>You kind of lost me there, Denis. Please explain yourself.

  I was going to ask how these items wer related and where on earth racism
  fits into this.

  Denis' explanation:
> 
> If you mean about the word racist : Quebec opened the door to immigration
> a few years ago because her population was growing slower (if not declining)
> than Canada's mean.  Thus, if a 25% minimum is guaranteed, the immigration
> is no more necessary, at least concerning the preservation of a political
> weight in Commons.  Using this as a reason for stopping immigration would
> be considered as a racist behaviour in my opinion and if Quebec does so,
> just expect some bashing on that topics (i.e. Quebec negociated a 25%
> minimum to stop immigration and preserve purety of the race (sigh) ).
> Note that I do not promote to stop immigration, I just say it can happen
> and some media may give this as the reason.
> 

  I find the argument weak if not ridiculous.

  Let's take a look at it again though...

  Using a guaranteed percentage of political representation as a reason for
  stopping immigration is racist behaviour, in Denis' opinion.

  Using a perceived threat to one's language and culture as a reason for
  denying immigrants access to schools in their own language is not?

  No - it still needs explanation and some major qualifications, Denis. 
 
  Mind you don't dig yourself too deep a hole with this one!

>>
>>|> Bourassa will loose the elections.
>>
>>I assume the latest polls showing a comfortable  PQ lead have you hoping for
>>an early election. As you may know, polls go up, polls go down. No doubt
>>you would be unhappy with a referendum on a federal offer and are hoping
>>for a failure of the current negotiations. Would you be more happy with
> 
> With the current proposition, a federal referendum would get a no in Quebec.
> 

  There are, of course, many reasons why individual citizens would reject
  the package. A "NO" vote does not indicate a desire to break the country
  apart - or a desire for a "separate" Quebec.

>>a referendum on a fuzzy "sovereignty association" proposal? Like it or
>>not, the Liberals are still in power in Quebec and have their choice of
>>options to present until their term expires.
>>

   [stuff about the senate etc. deleted]

> 
> If something is debattable, IMHO, it can be changed later and if we
> think to have gain today, we could loose this gain tomorrow.
> 

  Nothing is etched in stone eh, Denis?
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||