Just what does Quebec's official answer to multiculturalism entail? - Macleans.ca

Just what does Quebec’s official answer to multiculturalism entail?

It’s all about language—or is it?

It's all about language - or is it?

Fred Chartrand/Cp;

The Sikh religion forbids religious face covering on the grounds that it subjugates the wearer. Still, religious freedom is an article of faith for Sikhs, so the four-member contingent from the World Sikh Organization of Canada saw nothing wrong in defending the right to veil one’s face in Quebec, where the province is in the midst of passing a bill that would ban face coverings of any kind when providing or receiving government services. Invited to the national assembly, the four planned to speak in favour of Bill 94’s unspoken target: the handful of Muslim women in Quebec who wear the niqab. They were stymied by their kirpans, the six-inch knives that baptized Sikhs must wear at all times. Ceremonial or not, the National Assembly’s security guards said they amounted to just that: knives. “They told us if we weren’t satisfied with their decision, there are people who you can talk to,” says Harminder Kaur, one of two Montrealers who made the trip.

Instead, the quartet walked out the front door and into what has become the latest flashpoint in the battle over the place of religious customs and practices, as well as Canadian multiculturalism, in Quebec society. In the days following the thwarted visit, the national assembly unanimously voted in favour of a Parti Québécois motion commending the security team’s actions—not for being good security guards, but because in denying the Sikhs’ entry they “upheld the principle of the state’s neutrality.”

According to Louise Beaudoin, the motion’s sponsor, the right to wear the kirpan, guaranteed by Canada’s policy on multiculturalism (and the Charter), doesn’t apply in Quebec because the province isn’t a multicultural society. She’s right, in a way: while this may be news to the nearly 250,000 permanent residents who have settled there in the last five years alone, Canada’s second most populous province has never officially endorsed the country’s multiculturalism policy.

This is as significant as it is surprising, given the increasing control Quebec has had over the past four decades over who settles within its borders. Unbeknownst to immigrants—and­, it seems, other Quebecers—Quebec’s immigration policy has been to ignore multiculturalism in favour of a made-in-Quebec model called “interculturalism.” The term first popped up in a policy paper in 1981, and has been periodically bandied about by demographers, intellectuals and policy wonks as a way of differentiating Quebec from the rest of the country. (Beaudoin herself referenced it when alluding to the Sikhs who were turned away.) Suffice to say, it isn’t exactly well-known. “I’d never even heard of it until all this happened,” says Kaur, who has lived in Quebec for 22 years and is fluent in French.

It's all about language - or is it?

Denis Beaumont/CP

This might be because defining the term can be a difficult feat; effectively, interculturalism is a “moral contract” between immigrants and Quebec society, in which both the host culture and new cultures are encouraged to exchange and participate­­—en français, bien sûr. Unlike multiculturalism, in which differences are sacred, interculturalism emphasizes the common link between all Quebecers, native-born or otherwise: the French language. “It’s the idea that we hope to get to the point where immigrants and people who are born here interact with each other in French. These repeated exchanges have the effect of integrating immigrants into society,” says Michel Seymour, a philosophy professor at Université de Montréal.

Amorphous as that may be, it’s apparently Quebec’s official policy. “It’s been like that for a number of years, I think,” says Renaud Dugas, spokesperson for Quebec Immigration Minister Kathleen Weil. Others have their own take on it: Beaudoin, who couldn’t be reached for comment, has said Quebec’s model of interculturalism is inherently secular, though that term is scarcely mentioned in key documents.

While its exact scope and status are debatable, proponents have long said the other model, multiculturalism, enacted by Pierre Trudeau’s government in 1971, is detrimental to the survival of the French language. “The view here is multiculturalism means the host culture isn’t any more important than immigrant cultures,” says Seymour. “Quebec society is fragile, uncertain, worried. It’s totally understandable that we’re in this situation. We are a tiny minority on the continent.”

Tiny and inconsistent, it would seem. The kirpan, of course, has nothing to do with language, and neither do face coverings. Yet even on secularism, the ground shifts. The Quebec human rights tribunal recently ordered the mayor of Saguenay to cease saying prayers before council meetings, and to remove the crucifix bolted to the wall of council chambers. Yet Beaudoin’s Parti Québécois, along with the governing Liberals, passed a motion in 2008 opposing the removal of a similar crucifix in the national assembly—placed there in 1936 by the Maurice Duplessis government as a monument to the bond between church and state. That crucifix, according to the motion, is part of Quebec’s “heritage.” Yes, a cross, much like a kirpan, isn’t always what it seems.


Just what does Quebec’s official answer to multiculturalism entail?

  1. Mon dieu. Quebec is so out-of-date, most of them would fit happily into the feudal system New France started out with.

    Seigneur, priests, Joual, and solely pur laine.

    Meanwhile, there are millions of refugees, migrants and emmigrants in the world today, all looking for a home. It's a tidal wave we won't be able to hold back no matter how many 'regulations' and quotas we enact.

    Quebec, with it's dropping population, is on the wrong side of history.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Well that's just restricting French to NA….where it is spoken in many places including Louisiana…..but it's in no more trouble than Spanish in the 'new world'

        Globally it's an official language everywhere.

      • "When the Confederation was formed in 1867, roughly half the population of Canada, mostly in Quebec and western New Brunswick, spoke French."

        Wrong; the percentage was closer to 30%. And that's _northern_ New Brunswick.

        "When immigrants come to Canada, nearly all of them speak English and their children grow up speaking English."

        Wrong. The tendency is for the more recent generations of immigrants, coming as they do from Francophone or Francophile countries, to integrate with the Francophone majority, and for this majority, in turn, to be influenced.

        "The only hope for Quebec's survival as a separate and distinct society is for La Belle Province to become so politically, culturally and economically insignificant that nobody but a small-minded Francophone Quebecker would want to live there."

        Wrong; right now, in terms of output per capita and demographics et cetera, Quebec is just as viable a national society as Sweden.

    • "Quebec is so out-of-date, most of them would fit happily into the feudal system New France started out with."

      English Canadian, I take it? My non-Canadian friends are frequently amused that we can be so hostile towards Quebec and feel comfortable calling ourselves neutral objective observers.

      • My point about being out-of-date applies equally well to the ROC.

        You can't build walls and isolate yourself as a nation or society

        • "My point about being out-of-date applies equally well to the ROC. "

          It wasn't apparent from your quote above, where you singled out Quebec as uniquely out-of-date: "Quebec is so out-of-date, most of them would fit happily into the feudal system New France started out with." Unless you were saying that English Canada, likewise, would fit happily back in the era of the Family Compact and all that. Were you?

          • The articl is about Quebec….specifically refusing to be multicultural

            If you read this thread you'll discover the ROC has it's outdated morons aussi.

          • The article is about Quebec, and there is room to criticize Quebec, but the language that you used to describe Quebec's policies–the language you used in the article's first comment, predating any of the others–is extreme. Quebec is as conservative as New France ever was?

            That comment doesn't leave much room for an interpretation not holding that Quebec is uniquely conservative, again, unless you're also saying that English Canada is the way that it was back in the days of the Family Compact.

          • I said Quebec was as outdated as New France now is.

            You must be Quebecois…everything's an insult to you

            The Family Compact was in Ontario btw…not 'English Canada'

            It is as outdated as the New France pur laine attitude of Quebec….and for that matter the aging provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that don't like immigration

            Eventually we'll all discover it's the 21st century.

          • Just stop.

          • No, no: What you said that "Quebec is so out-of-date, most of them would fit happily into the feudal system New France started out with." if that sentence doesn't mean that those two societies are so similar that members of one would be happy with living in another, what does?

            And Quebec, as you may or may not know, is hardly synonymous with a New France that stretched to the Gulf of Mexico, governed settlements as far distant as Détroit, and had nothing to do juridically with the Acadians who lived quite peaceably until their ethnic cleansing in the Seven Years War. If you use a sloppy historical analogy, can't I be allowed to do the same?

          • "New France pur laine attitude of Quebec….and for that matter the aging provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that don't like immigration"

            12% of the population of Quebec is of first-generation immigrant background. Quebec's official immigration policy is to try to recruit immigrants, with some success; 1% of the population of Quebec is of Haitian background, for instance. How do you reconcile a fairly open immigration policy–requiring, true, knowledge of French–with your argument of Quebec as a place run by "pur laine" values? It doesn't seem possible.

            And no, I'm not Québécois at all. The only French Canadian ancestor I know of is a lone Acadian on my father's side of the family who died in the 1860s. I _am_ someone who just doesn't like people making arguments without actually, you know, referring to facts, instead using stereotypes.

    • Emily seems to know little about Quebec and anything else I see. Yet she comments . Ahem…..

    • So, according to you, bowing down to disfunctional 3rd world cultures, as we are encouraged to do in English Canada is very modern and up-to-date? And Western nations have no right to control who enters their land? We have to lay down and let ourselves be taken over by hordes of 3rd world people who have destroyed their own lands and are now seeking greener pastures to destroy?

  2. The purpose of a Kirpan:
    Kirpan is a combination of two words–Kirpa+aan…'Kirpa' is mercy/compassion and "aan" refers to self-respect and dignity. It is meant to show compassion towards mankind (irrespective of religion,caste, creed, race and nationality) and to safeguard the interests of weak/helpless/meek/. By wearing the Kirpan, one declares that he is committed to the above principles of compassion and protecting the oppressed and weak (irrespective of the faith victim belongs to). For instance, if a Sikh sees that a Christian brother/sister is being oppressed ( or his/her basic human rights are being violated), then Kirpan reminds the Sikh that he should take a stand and protect the rights of Christian fellow out of Compassion.

    Sikhism is a faith to promote love and brotherhood for entire humanity and to be one with the Creator.

    • The purpose of a Magnum 44:
      Magnum 44 is a combination of the Latin word "Magnum", which means "Large" or "Great", and the number 44, a tribonacci number, a happy number as well as an octahedral number. So Magnum 44 could be intrepreted as "Great Happiness". By carrying a Magnum 44 a person declares he is committed to the principles of protecting the oppressed and the weak from sadness. Oh, yeah, and there is lots of compassion involved…
      Magnum-44ism is a faith to promote love happiness and brotherhood for entire humanity and to be one with the Magnum Creator.

      The kirpan is not a dagger in the same way that a Magnum 44 is not a revolver. Only the spiritual blind cannot see this great true…

      • Cleverness is not, despite the common misconception, an adequate replacement for comprehension.

      • A cleaver argument :-). Something similar to Maple vs Marijuana leave in Canadian flag, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/43517501@N00/2098477….

        But in the defense of Kirpan – Sikhs accept that it has a weapon attribute as well as, for them a spiritual symbol attribute. And they are willing to curtail its weapon attribute as long as it retains its spiritual one. What if its blade is made so dull that it cease to be a weapon and hence satisfy the need of public security n safety. Sikhs have accepted this logic and will be very happy if it is left alone after that. Anything beyond that has smell of prejudice and Sikhs have a long n glorious history of fighting prejudice, and Kirpan represent that commitment – neither inflict injustice nor tolerate it.

      • I would have gone with the Desert Eagle .50 AE.

  3. I agree that there's inconsistency.

    They are worried about preserving their french heritage. Yet they have no trouble removing their Catholic heritage. As far as most people can tell, there really are no principles at play. They seem to have adopted a secular stance that rejects Quebec history, yet they claim their stance on language is to uphold their history.

    And finally, while they may wish to preserve their own history, they have no trouble denying the rights of those who do not share the same values.

    • i agree they are thier own worst enemy it seems somewhat ridiculus to say you want to preserve your culture and history when you've spent the last forty years throwing that culture and history out the door so we'll get rid of the church,the culture,the history but dont worry we'll make damm sure that all those niquab clab women all speak french.Yah cause that will save "french culture" completly ridiculus.But until people want to admit that this issue is about religion and yes race than it will remain in the rhelm of they absured.

    • You're also missing the larger inconsistancy – They lay such importance on the 'host' culture – Quebec for Immigrants but isn't the rest of Canada the host culture that Quebec is in?

      • No, not really.

      • Yes and no. One could draw arbitrary lines everywhere to define what is the larger host culture. It might never end. Nobody claims there is a north american host culture. But certainly many people do wish to emphasize there is a Canadian culture, which is shared by all Canadians. All Canadians like hockey and Tim Horton's, after all. But I don't think that Quebecers do much to deny their similarities with the rest of Canada, and their Canadian culture. And there is also no doubt that Quebecers also have a cultural identity, historically based on language, religion, food (poutine) and French heritage.

        My personal feeling is that you cannot "force" the "preservation" of culture (culture evolves on its own under the control of nobody), and it is always wrong to deny people basic human rights of free speech and freedom of choice, which they do in Quebec. What they do there is not the preservation of culture at all (which is why there are such inconsistencies). What it really is: xenophobia. Bill 101 forbids minority Quebecers from expressing their own culture. The majority is xenophobic to the minorities. They do not wish for their own culture to mix with others. This is basic xenophobia.

        • Not to be excessively anything, but doesn't Quebec's language laws, by requiring immigrants to interact with Francophones, act to _encourage_ immigrant cultures to mix with the majority one?

          • No. You don't understand the meaning of the word "mix". Mix means taking two ingredients and combining them. Quebec's laws act to eliminate every ingredient except one.

            There's a difference between a "mix" of languages and a "ban on all languages except one, enforced by fines". There's a difference between a "mix" of schools to choose from, and a ban on attending the school of your choice.

            Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion: it would suggest that Europe was a better place when everyone was required to "interact" and "mix" with the Germans in 1939. It would suggest that the USSR was a wonderful place when dozens of countries were required to "mix" into a single one during the twentieth century and "interact" with the majority Russian culture.

            Now you probably think those examples are not the same thing, but in reality they are, the principle is the same. There is no virtue to "mixing" and "interacting" when you use the force of law to enforce a ban on all cultures except your own. That's not a "mix". That's a violation of basic human rights.

            I love your concept of the word "mix".

            People will "mix" on their own. It's been happening in North America for centuries, long before Bill 101 came along. When it's voluntary, typically you'll end up with a mix of culture that everyone likes (everyone except the xenophobic). You don't need to ban other languages and culture and force others to adopt your own when they get off the boat. That's not why they chose to come here. Many of them came to escape that sort of thing.

          • "You don't understand the meaning of the word "mix". Mix means taking two ingredients and combining them. Quebec's laws act to eliminate every ingredient except one."

            Actually, no. The big issue that triggered the language laws was the knowledge that most immigrants in Quebec didn't speak French. If these immigrants didn't speak the language used by the majority population in the province, how could immigrants and the _pure laine_ French Canadians interact? Seriously. For there to be mixing in a society there has to be ways for different populations to communicate with each other. Children of mixed backgrounds go to school together; adults of mixed backgrounds live together in public life; stereotypes are shed.

            A thesis: by making and recruiting immigrant populations fluent in French, and by removing whatever plausible barrier to keep French Canadians from interacting with immigrants, the language laws made Francophone Quebec a multicultural society by mixing everyone up–in the context of French, sure.

          • Was this perfect? No. I do think it better than the other likely scenario, which would have seen a cotninued and deepening split between a multicultural Anglophone population and an ethnically homogeneous and substantially less open Francophone one.

            Does it differ substantially from what happened in English Canada? Looking here in Toronto, as a matter of course children–including children of immigrants, or children immigrants themselves–are streamed into English-language public education. How is this different from the automatic ditrection of children into the French-language education system in Quebec?

            Yes, yes, all this is exactly like what the Nazis or Soviets did to their Soviet populations, save in all the many, many ways in which they were completely different. Unless the Hydro-Québec dams _were_ built using forced labour, that is.

            I wonder why people belonging to one party in an ethnic dispute automatically believe theirs is right. Oh, wait, stupid question.

        • i am a retired history teacher . You seem to know little about Quebec history.

    • Expecting Quebec to favour changing everything and changing nothing is ridiculously binary. Aren't cultures changeable?

    • To the extent that is post is true, it's an observation rather than a counterargument. If I chose to enact policy X and policy X has some similarities with policy Y, I am not required to adopt policy Y.

  4. God bless Quebec for doing the kinds of things English Canada is too limp to do. Reasonable accommodation does have a limit.

    • Somehow you've gotten the idea that Canada is, and always was, a white christian country.

      I'm sorry, but that was never true, nor will it ever be.

      • "Canada is, and always was, a white christian country"

        No but the successful part of Canada and many places, is a White British Empire accomplishment, and when it is forced out by the panderers, you will be much closer to watching your guts spill out in religious fervor. Why, anybody would fight to destroy the greatest most compassionate civilization in history is worth a study. People running around trying to raise the profile of the french, as an example, when the only reason they are still around was British compassion! Any other of the potential history winners would have annihilated them. Folks you better get on the North American Bandwagon or your in BIG trouble.

        • No, we've always been a multicultural society….the fact we were a colony is irrelevant, since Britain had many colonies.

          The Empire was no greater or more compassionate than any other Empire in history….but they were just as rough and brutal as all of them. Perhaps you need to read more about the Brits in China, India, Africa and Ireland. Angels they were not.

          They were more civilized towards Quebec, because they already knew what they'd done in Ireland didn't work, that's all

          I fail to see why we should get on some NA bandwagon….they have a multicultural society too, including blacks and Hispanics….in fact the US won't be majority white in a few years.

          Perhaps instead of being afraid all the time, you might try getting along with people.

          • Wow. Someone took History of Canada 101 (probably as taught by a left-leaning professor who listens to Neil Young's After The Gold Rush in heavy rotation.)

            Emily, Canada as you know it today, never existed before the British came here: To say that Canada was always a multicultural society is pointless, irrelevant and untrue.

            If you want to play "what if" I'm gamed though. What if the Brits had never come? What if even with the Brits and the French before them, and even the Vikings before them, all were subjugated by the native populations? What if that happened? The country you live in today would be very different. It would not be Canada.

            Keep talking about how wronged the natives have been if it makes you feel better and morally superior. But know that your moral superiority does nothing practical to help the current native populations.

          • Canada as you know it today is the result of people from all over the earth migrating here….including you

            We've had Muslims, Chinese, Jews ….200 languages or so….and yes indeed they came early in our history.

            What if the Brits had never come? Same thing.

          • If the brits had never come, this country would speak Spanish and be Christian.

            As for Canada, I think the original FRENCH version of our national anthem is quite clear :
            Car ton bras sais portée l'épée… il sait porter la CROIX.

            So, Canada is English and French and Christian. A generation of clowns tried changing that, getting rid of common sense and ended up creating a huge debt and deficit, a high suicide rate and all sorts of crazy stuff.

            However, common sense is coming back as these baby boomers are getting old… I'm sure you'll love this country in a couple of years EMILY.
            LOL !!!!

          • We'd speak Spanish and French and many more languages just as we do now. And we'd have all the religions here as well.

            Canada is mainly secular, but it sounds like you have a lot of crazy in your head to deal with.

            The youngest baby boomers btw are 46.

          • "If the brits had never come, this country would speak Spanish and be Christian. "

            Um, what? Spain never had an enduring imperial presence in North America above Florida. If England never became a colonizing power–or, say, not as big a colonizing power, let's say with English colonies alongside Dutch and maybe Swedish and Scottish colonies on the East Coast–New France would be doing just fine.

          • What is that link supposed to illustrate? The closest that the Spanisn empire came to central Canada was in 1763, after Spain took over France's Lousiana just as Britain took over France's Canada. Before that, Grand Banks fisheries aside, there was no Spanish presence in northeastern North America, and Spanish-British interaction on the west coast long predated British Columbia's colonization. Portuguese are different–there was even, briefly, a Portuguese outpost in Cape Breton in the 1920s–but that's not what the original poster suggested.

          • Maybe you should reread our Irish history! The British didn't invent Blight rot, the only food of the Irish. But who did, bring in food. The British, who also were in depression. If they were more civilized toward the french after they defeated them, why? Because NOBODY else wanted them ANYWHERE, even Haiti! Any other of the powers at that time would have slaughtered them to the last. Just like the french supplied and encourage the Wabanaki Confederacy to slaughter man women and child in New England. Have you got that far yet, in your reading of history? Because if the tables ever turned, the french would be right back at it. Thats the facts!

          • Actually, no. if we're speaking about colonists as opposed to First Nations people or slaves, by the 18th century the idea of committing mass murder agaisnt fellow Christians was seen as horrible–their ethnic cleansing, as with the Acadians, was seen as bad enough. Atrocities were increasingly unpopular. A hypothetical campaign of genocide against the Canadiens after the Conquest just isn't plausible.

      • Canada _was_, but it's moving beyond that. Or beyond being only that, at any rate. Fortunately.

    • 100% agree.

  5. Quebeckers have it right. Multiculturalism is a well-meaning policy that is failing dismally. Several PMs of the European Union have publicly stated that multiculturalism was a failed project. If you want to come to our country and receive the benefits that we receive there has to be some give and take. I'm not racist and I respect other cultures. I just want my culture to be respected too.

    • LOL well the Queen of England is German, and her husband Philip is Greek…so I'd say multicultualism is working just fine.

      • LOL. Oh my gosh you're right. And the extremist Muslims that can can riot in the streets of London in ways that no white person would be permitted to, simply because they are "expressing their culture" is another great benefit :D. I'm so glad that the Queen is of German descent so that the extremist Muslims that want to turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque can express their culture as well! Gosh Emily thanks for correcting me. You truly are a gift. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mlxMndnlzw

        • Riots in the streets of London are a commonplace in their history….there was a huge one just awhile ago by students and Charles and Camilla got caught up in it.

          • Hell is paved with good intentions. That is where multiculturalism is taking us.
            Anyone with half a brain would've realized that in Sarajevo.

            But our governing class used to be a bunch of crooks.

            Now, we have better people taking control and, hopefully, common sense will come back in force. GO EUROPE !!

          • What the hell are you so afraid of?

            Sarajevo was precisely because people were fighting multiculturalism

            The world is multicultural I'm afraid….and we either join the world or the world will join us.

        • Ahahahaha. Exactly. The snotty "history buffs" here should realize that having a British Queen of German descent is hardly an excellent example of a multicultural world. Go look up "Westphalian System" please!

          • What that has to do with anything, I don't know.

      • A analogy of the ignorant. Best read more, of the battle for dominance in Europe and the World. When your are finished, after about 100 books, you will be mighty glad the British reigned supreme and onward to the Americans. And would take very little knowledge to realize we better give full support to America, or enjoy watching the slaughter of your grankids from that cloud on high.

      • "LOL well the Queen of England is German, and her husban Philip is Greek…so I'd say multiculturalism is working just fine"
        Are you trolling?

        • Thats all she does.

    • "Quebeckers have it right?"
      If destroying the Country, has been their goal, I guarantee, if you can understand the political moves, they have succeeded, and I am actually now happy, because NOTHING can stop the Americans taking over, which will end this pathetic pandering half nation. And believe me, and history, you better support the North American Union or your Granchildren will suffer the same thing the French African and Muslim Countries are now!.

      • The HIspanic Americans or the black ones? Or maybe the Muslim ones?

        There is no white country anywhere, anymore. So retire your hood.

        • Then you better start having some white offsprings, instead of a new wrapped conquest a day. Does one have to look far to see the results of the end of the British, American Empire? You brown nosing knee huggers are a pathetic bunch.
          For some useless fool, bragging about the demise of the white race after the World success for so long because of those white race, is verification of the growing illiteracy. Turn on Press TV and take your pick of the Country you would sooner have run North America. Or, stay here and continue your stupidity, and it will come to you. Guaranteed!

      • Quebeckers have it right in regards to their policy on multiculturalism, is what the poster probably meant… because they're officials aren't a bunch of wet blankets who sit back and watch their society crumble in fear of being politically incorrect or racist. The majority of immigrants that come to this country are excellent people who work hard and embrace Canadian values to an acceptable degree. But, the fact that our multicultural policy says pass no judgment on who we let in here, means that extremists and radical religious freaks can get in too. Because Quebec has their own minority problem to defend: their LANGUAGE and way of life, of course they have reason to discriminate against immigrants who want to learn English (the world's current most influential language), and yet still absorb the great pension plans and social benefits that are provided in that province.
        Quebeckers have it right in defending their own culture. English Canadians should do the same. We should defend ours. Wet blanket politics are a road to hell paved with good intentions.

        • Actually we have a very strict immigration policy…always have had.

          Quebec btw usually gets all the French speakers

          Our 'culture' is multi-ethnic…what are you 'defending'….hockey?

          • Go learn something. You are already fully qualified for illiteracy pension. And for your information, there are very few French speakers coming ANYWHERE in Canada. They can't get out of their RD World Country, can't afford the 2$ bus fare to the airport, and can't pass the corruption and brutality examination. Thats the facts. Canada, through the OLA is spending billions trying to immigrate French, but they still can't meet their FORCED French Quota. Meanwhile, no white educated decent person, need apply to this backward Country.
            The information is all on the websites! I have no Idea if illiterates have the ability to find it. I have had no experience in that field.

          • How do you live with all that hate?

          • Easy, when its fact. I only read history. I don't make it. The biggest problem is knowing all that history, but no one else knows. And they don't know it, because from sitting in a library watching 99% of the people check out their make believe fiction life books, is very discouraging for any expectation of any progress in the World. The knee walking panderers are going to get creamed, and it will be real. Besides, I see signs of the United States, making a huge move, soon. Canada, and their policies of the liberals, have left this a growing dangerous Country. Lets get it done!

          • Wow, no denial of living in hate and fear. Enough said. Though I applaud Emily's efforts to reason with you, I must add that there is really no point in trying to instill rationality into a paranoid ethnocentrist… you can fearmonger all day long if you like, we're still going to live here, we're not going anywhere, and your kids haven't been "slaughtered" yet. What an unfortunate ideology to live with everyday. I can't imagine one derives any comfort or pleasure from it. Oh well.

          • I doubt it would be interesting, even if I knew what your talking about.

  6. At this point I think Emily should accuse someone of being a nazi. Go ahead, girl, do it.

    • I think the ignorance on this thread is plain for everyone to see.

      • Visible from multiple people, sure. I'm not sure how well modern Quebec, with its feminism, its gay rights, its secularism, its completely transformed economic and political system, et cetera, would mesh with New France.

        • The difference is one of depth.

          Feminism….except they supposedly worry about women being stoned.

          Secularism….except they won't give up the legislature cross, and christian prayers at council meetings.

          Xenophobia…they've kept.

          Economic system….you mean broke?

          • Since when is worrying about women being stoned _not_ feminist?

            More seriously, to some extent Quebec is reacting to its own history of intrusive, misogynistic religion. Codes of law, personal conduct and fashion rooted in religion which discriminate systematically against women are things that the generation running Quebec experienced. You don't have to be xenophobic to not want a past you thought you escaped from reinstalled. Whether this is a good way of going after this is another thing entirely; I've very strong doubts, not least because of the different dynamics involved (immigrant minority versus local majority, for instance, different statuses of religions).

            Who says secularism has to be perfect? Certainly the current state of affairs, with religion explicitly kept out of the public education system and displaced from its other former domains by the welfare state, has no parallels with New France. It has no parallels with Ontario, actually, which is manifestly less secular in that it still has separate Catholic education and health systems.

            Xenophobia? 12% of Quebec's population is of first-generation immigrant stock, a figure pretty comparable to that of Sweden, say, or Switzerland, another traditionally homogeneous society that opened up to immigration recently. Don't forget that Quebec's official policies are to recruit immigrants, not to keep them out, and that if anything Quebec's lower qualifications (Frnech fluency aside) constitute a back door for immigrants who want to get into Canada.

            Finally, Quebec can be richer, but it's still a rich society. It went through a much milder recession than Ontario's because Quebec's economy is much more diverse than Ontario's, not being solely dependent on automotives. Debt? It certainly has problems. It's certainly not unique in having them. Comparing Quebec's economy in a global context, again, in terms of income, unemployment, etc, Quebec looks a lot like Sweden–it's bigger than the other Scandinavian countries.

            The difference is in depth, sure. The difference between a puddle and an ocean is depth, too. Does that mean that puddles and oceans are pretty much the same?

          • I realize you're deliberatly being obtuse here….but I'm not interested in playing games or waving flags.

            Quebec is more Belgium than Sweden.

            And more broke than most.

          • Sorry, I'm trying to introduce facts.

            You're saying Quebec's not feminist; I'm suggesting it is.

            You're suggesting Quebec's not secular; I'm pointing out that it's more secular than an Ontario that continues to fund Roman Catholic schools.

            You're suggesting that Quebec is fundamentally xenophobic; I'm pointing out that it's been official Quebec policy for decades to recruit immigrants, and that it's been reasonably successful in doing so.

            You're saying that Quebec's economy is bankrupt, a dead end, I'm pointing out that Quebec is still rich, that its greater diversification let it weather the recent recession better than car-dependent Ontario, and that its problems of debt and deficits are not unique to Quebec. (Again, Ontario?)

            Don't blame me if you disilike doing research while disliking being proven wrong.

      • Your ignorance is as plain as the nose on my face.

        • I'm sorry to hear about your nose….perhaps surgery is in order.

          • Perhaps. Will look into it.

  7. This comment was deleted.

    • I have no idea….under a rock perhaps?

      • Spelling error – Stormfront and Macleans so similar?

  8. Will Ms. Beaduoin be overriding religious rights using s. 33 of the Charter?

    Cause if not, it kinda IS a multicultural society.

  9. if Quebec's policy were adopted across Canada that would mean Francophones would have to integrate themselves better with the English majority

  10. LOL the 'Westphalian system' of 1648 has long since been tossed into the dumpster of history.

    It created 'nation-states' and they are now obsolete

    As to the monarchy being inbred, it's no more so than most families.

    Most of Spain and Portugal were Moorish at one time….Muslim. Something you missed, along with most of European history. LOL

    The UK is multicultural…always has been….Celts, Angles, Jutes, Saxons….big long list.

    Many countries teach that the 'other'….whoever it is on any given day….are pigs and evil and all that crud.

    Educated people are long past that 'blood libel'.

    Fact is….we are all the same race…human. We all have the same DNA….only variations are from where your ancestors spent the most amount of time. [all your 'white skin' denotes is that your ancestors were in a place with very little sun]

    And we are all originally South Africans.

    So that guy in Mecca? He's yer brudder, dude.

    Get over it.

  11. What a fantastic move by Quebec. Religion should never compromise safety, or security. Don't like it? Then leave.
    "Religion is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions"
    – Albert Einstein

    • Religion should never compromise safety, or security.


      I agree. And since letting kirpans into the house doesn't seriously compromise safety or security, that issue doesn't come into play.

  12. I dunno where you got your education….but you should demand your money back.

  13. Kirpans are not religious, its culture. One far superior to Quebecs, if they knew what their culture was, besides entitlement.

  14. Looks like the french lobby gang has taken control of the CBC blogging. Looks like when 90% of the blogs became antifrench, the only thing to do is Censor like China! lol

  15. Yes abc, a DNA of the french might shock one! As in, "I'm my own granpa". lol

  16. So, just out of curiousity, which group of these "minorities" to do you foresee killing your children?: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010001/c-ghttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010001/t/1

    Have you taken a look at Canadian hate crime statistics lately? Let me tell ya, even though there's obviously more opportunity to harm one of the 86% majority than the 14% minority, they're not the ones doing the attacking… that's a statistical fact.

    • The statistical fact is that only the french, or the french liquor and gun supplied Indians killed our Children. The same people (french) who continue and always will, cause trouble. Thats a World statistic. Also the reason every criminal organization, or World dictator cozy up to the french. Anything goes, for a price.
      Also, the hate, is located in Quebec. With such visible facts, I assume you are in agreement with we, the majority. Contempt and disgust is not hate.

  17. People writing on this blog: do you know you scare me sometimes!? And probably other Quebecers as well who are not extreme nationalists?

    Saying that bill 101 is xenophobic, after more than 40 years, is simply proving that you know as much about Quebec than you do about… let's say… Kirghizistan!

    I'm glad to see Canadians and Québécois are similar in one point: we all have stupid citizens in our land! :-) Finally, we've found what is Canada's unity!

    • Who wants to waste their time trying to know "about quebec"? And yes, there are french all over Canada, unfortunately. And here is an example of what you can learn from the French! How to abuse and turn every cheap trick to their advantage. Another drunk gets off, using the forced language crap. http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbpc/doc/2011/2011nbp

      • Socrates use to say you know something when you know that you know nothing. That the beginning of wisdom.
        But Knowing nothing and still doing judgment it just plain stupidity!

  18. If I (white boy) walked around with a six inch knife in my belt, I would be arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. If I checked in for my flight wearing my darth vader mask, and refused to remove it, I would be detained and not be allowed on my flight cause my pass port has my face and not Darth's.. How can anyone dispute these or argue in the case of religious beleifs..Its scarry being in an airport with people running around concealing their identity…Who knows what is under all that clothing. Quebec is right, Canada has to get its head out of the sand and wake up.

    • Are you a weirdo. Use a mirror, look up skirts and gowns. You will love it, I think. lol

  19. "The neutrality of the State"?!

    So how about all those Christian symbols in the Assemble Nationale then?

    I've got nothing against Christianity but when someone claims Christianity as "neutral" that's when there is a problem.

  20. This time Quebec has it right. Down with multicult all the way. Multicult is a recipe for disaster. Multicult is a formula for turning our peaceful and prosperous Canada into the next Iraq. If people are so attached to the culture of the country they came from, there is nothing to stop them from going back and if they can't because it's too violent there….that should tell you something about whether their culture is so great in the first place

    • So simple isnt it :)

  21. Multiculturalism + Mass Immigration = Shariah hell for our children and grandchildren.

    Any stupid questions?

    • Don't you like multiculturalism = go back to your home country (I know which is your home country)

  22. 'Interculturalism'.. Such a fancy word for Assimilation…

    • Too bad. Assimilation works, multicult fails. Assimilation leads to strong cohesive nations, multicult leads to fragmented hell-holes.

  23. Regardless of the significance to Sikhs of the importance of the kirpan in the Sikh religion for its wearers most I think of the rest of us see it as a potential weapon or at least worn when one goes camping/hunting. It may be a bit dated but a perfect example would be dear olde Jed Clampett marching into Mr. Drysdale's bank upon arriving in Beverely Hills with a shotgun.

  24. Quebec = Kentucky. Once you've figured that out, the rest is quite simple.

  25. when are we going to all realize that multiculturalism is nothing more than government funded racism. Do we all have to experience it first hand? as i have. Government funded racism at New Hibret Coop Toronto. Thank you Trudeau.

  26. Here we are talking about a security issue ,not a religous issue .Whatever the religion is ,the concept of security is having the priority more than freedom here.

  27. That crucifix, according to the motion, is part of Quebec's “heritage.” Yes, a cross, much like a kirpan, isn't always what it seems.

  28. The balance between ethnocentric and relative cultural practices should be addressed as well as negociated among those involved in cultural conflicts. I do believe educational settings are the best place to start it. Moreover, educational practices must be guided by the multicultural peace approach, which seeks to accomplish and accomodate the fundamental cultural needs of different communities.

  29. Nah. It’s bigotry. Plain and simple. Immigrants who have lived in Canada for 10 years are, 80% of the time, fully integrated. They will always have their own little differences, such as some religious beliefs, but that’s ok. That’s Canada, that’s who WE are. Call it what you want….. But when you start going on these kinds of witch hunts, it’s not about integration, it’s about exclusion.