From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:18:24 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <BtLJ61.JAx@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan) writes:
>
>This is a pretty vapous argument.  There is no way you can make the claim that
>laws prevented people from migrating there.  And then to go on to claim that
>this forced them to be assimilated is also suspect.  At worst it would have
>prevented their leaving Quebec, it would do nothing to force assimilation.  It
>didn't even force assimilation of the French that were in the west.

This is one part of the problem : if Canada was that generous with francos,
why is the west almost unilingual anglo?  Why does it take one century
to change the illegal law in Manitoba that make it unilingual?
Just look some historical books and you'll see that a lot of people
tried to redirect to west the migration to south.  Would the Manitoba
be officially bilingual at that time, this would have favored some
more migration to west.  My point was not that migration was forbidden, but
that having laws against a status of French of the same level as the
English, that made the francos not feeling welcome.  And between choosing
to go west and being assimilated or go south and being assimilated, most
chosed south.

But, we can redo the history.  We just can remember.

>Yes there was an agreement in principle about what should be in the
>constitution itself.  But, this is a different matter.  The repaitriation of
>the consistution was unilateral by Treadeau himself.  The point is that there
>never was a need for a province to sign the constitution and no province
>ever did.  If you don't beleive me go look.  Read a copy of the constitution
>and try and find anywhere where a representative of any province signed it.

In that case, what was Meech Lake agreement?  If Quebec was in the
constitution as any provinces, Meech Lake is totally useless, just like
the current discussions!

>The point of what I am trying to say is that it is simply too easy to blame
>the people outside of Quebec for what you preceive as all the problems.  I

I don't blame people out of Quebec!

>don't accept your aguements that somehow all English speaking people are
>evil oppressors bent on dominating the French people.  It is too simple to
>say that.  The government and system we live in today, the one you seem to
>disagree so strongly with, is just as much a result of the French in Quebec
>as anyone else.  You must remember that Quebec itself is not a monolithic
>entity and there are French people with different views on how the country
>should be structured.  And it is those people, more than anyone, who had a

A wide majority of Francos favor a similar structure.  In national days
celebration, most Quebecois will celebrate Quebec National Day while
_anglo-quebecois_ will celebrate Canada days.  I think this is meaningful.

>large hand in writing our current constitution.
>
>What I am trying to say is that you should not see the people around you as one
>of enemies but rather as people trying, but always succeeding, to do what they
>think are best for everyone.

Some error in that phrase?  isn't it ... but never succeeding ... ?
I'm not sure at all anglos are working for the best of francos' interest.
Indeed, it was not before 1976 that the situation began to change in a
deep manner.

>
>Gordon


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Vient de paraitre : Andre Jarret et ses Ancetres
\_.-===  En vente par l'auteur                      Opinions ? Et pis non !