The Cultural Post - Latest Comments in http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Mike Vukovich — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:25:00 -0000

What a stupid, racist bill. I also saw the official translation of the bill on the internet and, as expected, it says "every Quebecer has the right to learn French". In addition, it says that immigrants are automatically taught French no matter what. I hate that, making French a right and no other language. This bill is just one step towards the PQ establishing their "dream dictatorship" where anyone speaking a language other than perfect French in a public place (maybe at home too) gets the electric chair. Fortunately, it didn't pass, which means that their dream dictatorship is one step further away.

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Leonard Langlois — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:05:00 -0000

Concerning Marois, I don't know if you've heard of it, but earlier, in 2001 or 2002 while she was in the government at that time, there was a similar law bill project the PQ studied and she rejected it with other people from the party. I guess that if she brings it out now, it is because there must be pressure from inside, the radicals you know... you must search for this.

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Anh Khoi Do — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:53:00 -0000

Bernard said:"[The abolition of multiculturalism] could provoke a sense of discrimination. We have been living with this [...] policy for over a decade now that it has become a norm."

Multiculturalism is a norm? Oh, does that mean that I don't have the right to question it? What's wrong with saying that (for instance) Chinese, Italian or Serbian cultures are not part of Canada's mainstream culture? Besides, you're so ignorant, you (Bernard and Sam) can't even prove how discriminating the abolition of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act can be.

Bernard said:"Also don't forget that there have been MUCH more immigrants landing in Canada since the multiculturalism act than before"

Totally wrong.

Don't forget that there have been MUCH more immigrants coming here since the abrogation of the Chinese Immigration Act in 1947 and the complete modification of the Immigration Act. In fact, while the former made sure that Chinese immigrants no longer needed to pay entry taxes, the latter made sure that non-white people who applied for Canadian citizenship will be treated without racist discrimination. Frankly, I don't think that the Multiculturalism Act has something to do, because most immigrants don't even know that Canada has this kind of policy.

Moreover, the reason why the USA attracts much more immigrants than Canada, it's because if you go there, your credentials as a, let's say, doctor will be recognized unlike in Canada.

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Sam — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:44:00 -0000

Bernard I totally agree with you. We have a short history, and the policy was applied quite "early" to the extent that removing it now would cause some sort of trouble. Nevertheless many people want this country to be identified in some way, let alone clean up the political debates on whether or not culture and religion should be a part of politics. Although this could be the main reason for anti-multiculturalism, I believe a secondary effect would exist in damaging ethnic minorities' image.

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Bernard — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:18:00 -0000

on the contrary I still think it could provoke a sense of discrimination. We have been living with this muliticulturalism law/policy for over a decade now that it has become a norm. Also don't forget that there have been MUCH more immigrants landing in Canada since the multiculturalism act than before, therefore I think it would be reasonable to believe that by puting an act against it, the post multiculturalism immigrants, living in a multicultural society without acknowledgement of what happened in canada before, would feel in a sense, discriminated, dont you think?

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Anh Khoi Do — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:52:00 -0000

Hi there, Bernard.

Indeed, the bill (which is likely to die on the order paper) is discriminatory, because it also prevents an English-speaking Canadian, who comes to live in Quebec, to have the right to vote during our provincial election, to fund a political party and to petition the National Assembly. Obviously, this is a violation of federal laws!

Bernard said:"[...] wouldn't putting a law against multiculturalism be discriminatory as well?"

Stop right there, political newbie! First of all, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is not an immigration policy. Got it? Multiculturalism is just a pathetic policy that "encourages" all ethnic minorities to keep their own culture. Evidently, multiculturalism also recognizes the culture of ethnic minorities as being part of the Canadian national identity.

Therefore, there's no possibility to "put a law against [it]". Moreover, it this act was repelled by the federal government, it wouldn't have any effect on Canada's immigration policies. In fact, Western countries like the USA, France and Holland, for instance, don't have a policy of multiculturalism. Yet, these countries welcome international immigration. Besides, the USA welcome more immigrants than Canada.

Seriously, for anything's sake, Bernard, do some research.

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Bernard — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:01:00 -0000

The law does intriguingly sound discriminatory, but wouldn't putting a law against multiculturalism be discriminatory as well?

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Anh Khoi Do — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:21:00 -0000

I agree with you, François, that we have to focus on immigrants' children. In fact, the latter can learn French more quickly than their parents and the presentation of Bill 195 shows us that Pauline Marois is badly advised (by none other than Martin Lemay) on the issue of immigration. In short, Pauline Marois just never understood the world of today.

Obviously, I think that journalists in Quebec did a bad job by refusing to compare Marois with political scientist Guy Bouthillier (a man who is openly racist against Anglophones). All in all, in the debate about the Quebecker identity, Marois is a populist more than Mario Dumont, in my opinion.

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Francois — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:14:00 -0000

I don’t understand how a serious party can propose that… maybe because Pauline doesn’t speak English; she has problems to understand the world of today. The key for Quebec immigration about the language isn’t to focus on first generation immigrant but on their children… and actually most of them speak French! I Hope Montreal will follow the rest of Quebec and will kick the PQ out of the assemblée nationale at the next election. Marois is ridiculous

Why journalists had compared Dumont to LePen but nothing about Marois and her fascist bill ?

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Anh Khoi Do — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:08:00 -0000

I know that Canada has two official languages, which means French and English. Secondly, if you read correctly, I never said or suggested that Pauline Marois' right to vote at the federal election should be removed. It was just sarcasm. Hence, the use of the question mark.

Moreover, I hate to to say that, but Canada is predominantly white Anglo-Saxon. This means that debates and other stuff are mostly in English, but they are meant to be translated in French. Don't forget that since I advocate republicanism, I always believe that ethnic minorities should end up melting in our mainstream culture ;-)

Re: http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/down-with-mrs-marois-bill-195.html

Leif Thande — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:16:00 -0000

The automatic granting of the Quebecker citizenship to those who already live in Quebec reminds me of the Grandfather clause adopted in Louisiana in 1896 giving the right to vote only to the individuals who had a grandfather living in the country in 1867. While there is an opportunity for newcomers to become citizens, this Bill puts an obstacle in front of them.

As for removing Marois' right to vote because of her english, don't forget that Canada has two official languages, and so if a language was to be required than it should be any one of them because requiring both would exclude 80% of Canada's population. Don't forget there is always two side to the medal ...