Jacques Parizeau
- Thread starter SkyRider
- Start date
For some people with a bipolar mind, a person is at either end of the extreme. In Parizeau's case he was the devil incarnate and anybody who doesn't agree with that is accused of thinking he's some sort of a saint. A very childish and immature attitude.
Putting things in perspective and calling out blatant hate is not expressing admiration. I didn't really like the guy but some of the stuff said on this thread is hysterical.
It's the expression of deep seated hate against anything one doesn't agree with. Ideal storm trooper material.
Last edited:
And how do you know that he really discouraged people from learning English? were you married to him?
All these policies you're talking about were carried over by successive Liberal governments, including Bill 101.
Bill 22 was the brainchild of Robert Bourassa. Robert Libman's Equality Party of Quebec was formed because it was disenchanted with the policies of the party traditionally supported by Quebec Anglophones: the Quebec Liberal Party. So don't start laying the blame exclusively on Parizeau. You can also blame Robert Bourassa, Daniel Johnson and Jean Charest.
But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
huckfinn
My book has been banned from schools.
Sure. But they got far more than they gave Toronto from the rest of the taxpayers in Canada.
Uh huh........
What rights will we recognize?’: Jacques Parizeau muses on anglo rights in an independent Quebec at sovereignist rally
Jacques Parizeau muses on anglo rights in an independent Quebec
MONTREAL — Federal constitutional guarantees on the use of English in Quebec “will disappear” with an independent Quebec, Jacques Parizeau said Saturday, urging the sovereignist Option Nationale party to both consider and decide what would replace them.
“Once we are rid of constitutional constraints,” he asked — without answering — “where will we go with regard to the anglophones, for example? What rights will we recognize?
“I’m not here to make comments on your [party] program,” he said. However, “get rid of the Supreme Court [of Canada] and there will be no guarantee in the constitution for English schooling,” he said. “All that will disappear. Will we go back to the original Bill 101?”
The former Parti Québécois premier was speaking to an audience mostly under 35 years of age and gathered at a weekend convention to build the fledgling pro-independence party.http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...n-an-independent-quebec-at-sovereignist-rally
I've spent the last 15 years working in Quebec, at least 50 percent of my year is spent here.
In fact, I'm in Quebec right now.
The hard core PQ'ists look up to Perizeau far more than they ever did or do to Rene Levesque.
What he said was factually correct. Once independent, the laws of Canada, and the jurisdiction of its courts would not apply to Quebec anymore. Any more than the laws of the Soviet Union continued to apply to the Baltic States when they became independent from them.
The English language is presently protected by the Constitution Act of 1982. It becomes nul and void to Quebec if it achieved independence. That's the definition of sovereignty: not subservient to a higher entity.
He was not dictating what would happen then. He was asking the question: What will happen then?, which is far from your interpretatioin that those rights would simply cease to exist.
'he asked — without answering — “where will we go with regard to the anglophones, for example? What rights will we recognize?'
You seem to have overlooked all of the questions marks in his quotes.
Anyway, wouldn't it be normal for the hardcore PQ to look up to Parizeau more than Levesque? Levesque's been dead for nearly 3 decades.
If anybody actually viewed the clip, he proposed that the Mohawks remain where they are, but that they would continue to be part of Canada. That actually meant ceding a parcel of Quebec territory to Canada.
However, it was under a PQ government that the Mohawks and other First Nations were allowed to police their own territories with their own police forces. They were even allowed to send their recruits to English speaking police colleges elsewhere in Canada if they chose.
The facts that he even asked these questions is concerning, especially if one is an Anglophone.
I don't see why. We didn't do anything about giving Francophones any language rights in Canada for almost a century after Confederation. Surely we wouldn't want a sovereign Québec to show us up by acting faster.
Real life is a whole lot more complicated than thought-free anonymous internet quips.
I would generally agree that he didn't commit treason. He didn't take up arms against Canada. He was promoting independence through a peaceful (generally) and democratic (generally) manner.
Among the biggest concerns was how an independent Quebec would treat minority groups.
The issue was a matter of constitutional law that had to be addressed.
As I pointed out earlier, Bilingual rights throughout Canada are guaranteed in the Constitution Act of 1982, and previously in the British North America Act of 1867.
Post Quebec independence, those laws become null and void as concerns a sovereign Quebec. That's because a sovereign country is not bound by the laws of another country.
Rather than just saying 'too bad so sad' and you wind up with nothing, has asked the question, what was Quebec going to do, in a legal manner, after Quebec is sovereign.
That implied the possibility of some consideration for the English speaking minority that could have been enshrined in the new Quebec constitution. But we never got there in the first place.... did we?
Mohawk position on Quebec independence.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...if-pq-wins-sovereignty-referendum-grand-chief
Hopefully we will never get to that place. If we ever do, let's hope Quebec is tolerant and accommodating to its minority groups.
huckfinn
My book has been banned from schools.
Maybe someone can answer this for me.
I thought that Quebec was looking to be a sovereign nation, but still carry the same currency, military, federal support etc.
What was the position on that?
I thought that Quebec was looking to be a sovereign nation, but still carry the same currency, military, federal support etc.
What was the position on that?
The separatists were pushing a concept call "sovereignty association" which basically means sovereignty with some links to Canada.
His legacy is that he encouraged English-speaking Canadians to be treated as second class citizens in Quebec. I'm, for one, not going to miss him.
Similar threads
