Quebec Sovereignty: A Legitimate Goal - Revision history

Mathieugp at 03:04, 30 January 2011

2011-01-30T03:04:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:04, 30 January 2011
Line 155:		Line 155:
	[[Category:Manifestoes]]		[[Category:Manifestoes]]
	[[Category:20th century]]		[[Category:20th century]]
			[[Category:1995]]

Mathieugp at 16:30, 11 November 2010

2010-11-11T16:30:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 11 November 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	----		----
	This document, intended for an international public, was prepared by: [[Michel Seymour]], Département de philosophie, Université de Montréal, [[Lubin Bisson]], administrateur, Radio C.I.B.L. - FM, [[Didier Calmels]], journaliste, Station de télévision indépendante, [[Jean-Pierre Chelhot]], étudiant à la maîtrise, Département de sociologie, Université de Québec à Montréal, [[Jocelyne Couture]], Département de philosophie, Université de Québec à Montréal, [[Guy Lachapelle]], Département de sciences politiques, Université Concordia, [[Yves Nadeau]], Faculté de Droit, Université de Montréal, [[Kai Nielsen]], Département de philosophie, Université Concordia, [[Éric Normandeau]], M.A. en sciences politiques, Université de Québec à Montréal, [[Ercilia Palacio]], Département de philosophie, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, [[Paul-André Quintin]], Département de philosophie, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, [[Michel Robert]], Département de philosophie, CÉGEP du Vieux-Montréal, [[Geneviève Sicotte]] Ph.D., Département d'études françaises, Université de Montréal, [[Daniel Turp]], Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal, [[Louise Vandelac]], Département de sociologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, [[Jules-Pascal Venne]], Département de sciences politiques, CÉGEP Édouard-Montpetit		This document, intended for an international public, was prepared by: [[Michel Seymour]], Département de philosophie, Université de Montréal, [[Lubin Bisson]], administrateur, Radio C.I.B.L. - FM, [[Didier Calmels]], journaliste, Station de télévision indépendante, [[Jean-Pierre Chelhot]], étudiant à la maîtrise, Département de sociologie, Université de Québec à Montréal, [[Jocelyne Couture]], Département de philosophie, Université de Québec à Montréal, [[Guy Lachapelle]], Département de sciences politiques, Université Concordia, [[Yves Nadeau]], Faculté de Droit, Université de Montréal, [[Kai Nielsen]], Département de philosophie, Université Concordia, [[Éric Normandeau]], M.A. en sciences politiques, Université de Québec à Montréal, [[Ercilia Palacio]], Département de philosophie, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, [[Paul-André Quintin]], Département de philosophie, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, [[Michel Robert]], Département de philosophie, CÉGEP du Vieux-Montréal, [[Geneviève Sicotte]] Ph.D., Département d'études françaises, Université de Montréal, [[Daniel Turp]], Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal, [[Louise Vandelac]], Département de sociologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, [[Jules-Pascal Venne]], Département de sciences politiques, CÉGEP Édouard-Montpetit.
	----		----

Line 26:		Line 26:
	Even in Quebec, where French-speaking people are a majority, the situation of the French language remains precarious. Two sets of language laws are at work. On the one hand, in theory, the Canadian government promotes country-wide bilingualism, while in practice, this amounts to almost total English unilingualism outside Quebec (except in New Brunswick) and relative bilingualism in Quebec. On the other hand, the Quebec government tries to ensure that French is the common language within the province, specifically by promoting French in education and in the workplace, as well as on public signs.		Even in Quebec, where French-speaking people are a majority, the situation of the French language remains precarious. Two sets of language laws are at work. On the one hand, in theory, the Canadian government promotes country-wide bilingualism, while in practice, this amounts to almost total English unilingualism outside Quebec (except in New Brunswick) and relative bilingualism in Quebec. On the other hand, the Quebec government tries to ensure that French is the common language within the province, specifically by promoting French in education and in the workplace, as well as on public signs.

	French is Quebec's official language. Nevertheless, Quebec's English-speaking community has always had the right to maintain and develop its own institutions, especially in the fields of health and education, and it is quite possible for an English-speaking person to live and even work in Montreal in English. Despite these guarantees, some people regard the measures taken to protect French as excessive and systematically fight against it with the aid of the Canadian government. It is our view that all citizens, regardless of their origins or the communities they belong to, are entitled to freedom of expression; and indeed Quebec's Bill of Rights is among the most progressive on that score. This individual freedom of expression can, in our view, coexist harmoniously with the legitimate promotion of the French language which, in the North-American context, requires appropriate legislation. The Canadian government does not appear to share this view.		French is Quebec's official language. Nevertheless, Quebec's English-speaking community has always had the right to maintain and develop its own institutions, especially in the fields of health and education, and it is quite possible for an English-speaking person to live and even work in Montreal in English. Despite these guarantees, some people regard the measures taken to protect French as excessive and systematically fight against it with the aid of the Canadian government. It is our view that all citizens, regardless of their origins or the communities they belong to, are entitled to freedom of expression; and indeed [[Charter of human rights and freedoms\|Quebec's Bill of Rights]] is among the most progressive on that score. This individual freedom of expression can, in our view, coexist harmoniously with the legitimate promotion of the French language which, in the North-American context, requires appropriate legislation. The Canadian government does not appear to share this view.

	Another indicator of the French language's precariousness is the limited ability of the French majority to integrate immigrants. Canada has one of the highest immigration rates in the world, without which neither Canada nor Quebec would have experienced the population growth that has occurred. Yet, in Quebec, the assimilation rate of immigrants is barely 40% (assimilation meaning a change in the language spoken at home, from mother tongue to English or French), a rate lower than that in other provinces. In fact, were it not for English-speaking Quebecers' greater mobility towards the other provinces, the process of assimilation would augment the proportion of English-speaking Quebecers. The immigrant assimilation rate is lower in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada, and this works to the advantage of the English-speaking community. It increases the proportion of the English-speaking population in Canada. Furthermore, there are many more anglicized French-speaking Quebecers than there are francicized English speakers. The present French-speaking majority on the island of Montreal will, in the near future, drop below 50%. Of course, these data must be qualified somewhat, since Quebec's policy aims at integrating immigrants linguistically, i.e. promoting their use of French as a common language in public and at work, rather than assimilating them. This policy has met with some degree of success, since a number of non-French speakers have adopted French as their language outside their home. One may, however, wonder whether their numbers are sufficient to ensure a snowball effect. We feel that such linguistic integration is necessary not only for the survival of the French-speaking community but also for the welfare of the immigrants themselves, who, by mastering the language of their new community, will be able to participate in civic life as full-fledged citizens and avoid becoming ghettoized. A common language allows people of various cultures to coexist in mutual understanding, instead of living uneasily side by side, divided by barriers to communication.		Another indicator of the French language's precariousness is the limited ability of the French majority to integrate immigrants. Canada has one of the highest immigration rates in the world, without which neither Canada nor Quebec would have experienced the population growth that has occurred. Yet, in Quebec, the assimilation rate of immigrants is barely 40% (assimilation meaning a change in the language spoken at home, from mother tongue to English or French), a rate lower than that in other provinces. In fact, were it not for English-speaking Quebecers' greater mobility towards the other provinces, the process of assimilation would augment the proportion of English-speaking Quebecers. The immigrant assimilation rate is lower in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada, and this works to the advantage of the English-speaking community. It increases the proportion of the English-speaking population in Canada. Furthermore, there are many more anglicized French-speaking Quebecers than there are francicized English speakers. The present French-speaking majority on the island of Montreal will, in the near future, drop below 50%. Of course, these data must be qualified somewhat, since Quebec's policy aims at integrating immigrants linguistically, i.e. promoting their use of French as a common language in public and at work, rather than assimilating them. This policy has met with some degree of success, since a number of non-French speakers have adopted French as their language outside their home. One may, however, wonder whether their numbers are sufficient to ensure a snowball effect. We feel that such linguistic integration is necessary not only for the survival of the French-speaking community but also for the welfare of the immigrants themselves, who, by mastering the language of their new community, will be able to participate in civic life as full-fledged citizens and avoid becoming ghettoized. A common language allows people of various cultures to coexist in mutual understanding, instead of living uneasily side by side, divided by barriers to communication.
Line 47:		Line 47:
	The slowness of the process toward sovereignty is indicative of its democratic nature and of a real desire to accommodate the vast majority of Quebecers. It is based in large part on referendums, but these are merely the culmination of long negotiations which have been going on for over thirty years. A brief history of these negotiations may help the reader understand the aspirations of the Quebec people.		The slowness of the process toward sovereignty is indicative of its democratic nature and of a real desire to accommodate the vast majority of Quebecers. It is based in large part on referendums, but these are merely the culmination of long negotiations which have been going on for over thirty years. A brief history of these negotiations may help the reader understand the aspirations of the Quebec people.

	The transformation of French-Canadian nationalism into Quebec nationalism took place during the 1960s. One result of this process was a series of platforms adopted by various Quebec governments. A few examples of these are the 1962 Lesage government's request that Quebec be granted special status; the position of the [[Daniel Johnson]] government, based on the principle of "equality or independence"; the 1967 position of the Liberal party, which proposed a framework between "Associated States"; and the position of the 1970 [[Robert Bourassa]] government (reiterated in 1973 and 1976) which requested that Quebec be granted a "distinct society" status. All of these repeated requests for political autonomy met with failure during constitutional negotiations and commissions of inquiry, for example, Quebec's rejection of the Fulton-Favreau 1964 proposal regarding the constitutional amending formula (which granted a veto to all the provinces); the rejection of the report issued by the 1967 commission on bilingualism and biculturalism (which recognized Canada's bicultural status); the failure of the 1971 Victoria Conference (which did not propose a sharing of powers compatible with the structure proposed by Quebec) and the rejection of the Pépin-Robarts Commission report (which proposed an asymmetrical federalism).		The transformation of French-Canadian nationalism into Quebec nationalism took place during the 1960s. One result of this process was a series of platforms adopted by various Quebec governments. A few examples of these are the 1962 [[w:Jean Lesage\|Lesage]] government's request that Quebec be granted special status; the position of the [[Daniel Johnson]] government, based on the principle of "equality or independence"; the 1967 position of the Liberal party, which proposed a framework between "Associated States"; and the position of the 1970 [[Robert Bourassa]] government (reiterated in 1973 and 1976) which requested that Quebec be granted a "distinct society" status. All of these repeated requests for political autonomy met with failure during constitutional negotiations and commissions of inquiry, for example, Quebec's rejection of the Fulton-Favreau 1964 proposal regarding the constitutional amending formula (which granted a veto to all the provinces); the rejection of the report issued by the 1967 commission on bilingualism and biculturalism (which recognized Canada's bicultural status); the failure of the 1971 Victoria Conference (which did not propose a sharing of powers compatible with the structure proposed by Quebec) and the rejection of the Pépin-Robarts Commission report (which proposed an asymmetrical federalism).

	All of these fruitless negotiations led to the election of the (sovereignist) [[Parti Québécois]] in 1976, which promised to hold a referendum on Quebec sovereignty. This referendum, which took place in 1980, was to conclude a process of national affirmation that had begun in the 1960's. Its purpose was to give Quebec a mandate to negotiate political sovereignty and an economic association with Canada. A victory for the "yes" side would give rise to a second referendum in which the Quebec people would be given a chance to ratify such an agreement. As we all know, this referendum resulted in defeat for the sovereignists, who won 40% of the vote, as opposed to 60% for the supporters of federalism.		All of these fruitless negotiations led to the election of the (sovereignist) [[Parti Québécois]] in 1976, which promised to hold a referendum on Quebec sovereignty. This referendum, which took place in 1980, was to conclude a process of national affirmation that had begun in the 1960's. Its purpose was to give Quebec a mandate to negotiate political sovereignty and an economic association with Canada. A victory for the "yes" side would give rise to a second referendum in which the Quebec people would be given a chance to ratify such an agreement. As we all know, this referendum resulted in defeat for the sovereignists, who won 40% of the vote, as opposed to 60% for the supporters of federalism.

Mathieugp at 05:49, 20 August 2010

2010-08-20T05:49:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:49, 20 August 2010
Line 150:		Line 150:
	{{Refa\|5}} However, if we consider all of the taxes that the federal government collected from Quebec as well as the total amount it spent on Quebec (including transfer payments) it is clear that, with respect to the 1996-97 federal budget, the Canadian government comes out ahead. Therefore, the transfer payments Quebec receives could very well be considered as money which is simply being returned to it. Of course, some would reply that the Canadian government must aim to come out ahead with respect to its current operations, especially when one considers the very heavy debt load it must bear. In fact, the government can use these extra funds to pay part of the interest on its debt. Clearly, Quebec should be taxed according to its share of the GDP and not according to the proportion of the population it represents. Therefore, transfer payments should be considered as an equal sharing of funds, and not an advantage for Quebec.		{{Refa\|5}} However, if we consider all of the taxes that the federal government collected from Quebec as well as the total amount it spent on Quebec (including transfer payments) it is clear that, with respect to the 1996-97 federal budget, the Canadian government comes out ahead. Therefore, the transfer payments Quebec receives could very well be considered as money which is simply being returned to it. Of course, some would reply that the Canadian government must aim to come out ahead with respect to its current operations, especially when one considers the very heavy debt load it must bear. In fact, the government can use these extra funds to pay part of the interest on its debt. Clearly, Quebec should be taxed according to its share of the GDP and not according to the proportion of the population it represents. Therefore, transfer payments should be considered as an equal sharing of funds, and not an advantage for Quebec.


			{{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.5-can}}

	[[Category:Manifestoes]]		[[Category:Manifestoes]]
	[[Category:20th century]]		[[Category:20th century]]

Mathieugp at 05:12, 15 August 2010

2010-08-15T05:12:51Z

Show changes

Mathieugp at 05:57, 14 August 2010

2010-08-14T05:57:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 14 August 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Title\|The International Document - ''Quebec Sovereignty : a Legitimate Goal''\|[[Intellectuels pour la souveraineté]]\|1995}}		{{Title\|The International Document - ''Quebec Sovereignty: A Legitimate Goal''\|[[Intellectuels pour la souveraineté]]\|1995}}

	----		----

Mathieugp: moved Quebec Sovereignty : a Legitimate Goal to Quebec Sovereignty: A Legitimate Goal

2010-08-14T05:57:39Z

moved Quebec Sovereignty : a Legitimate Goal to Quebec Sovereignty: A Legitimate Goal

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 14 August 2010
(No difference)

Mathieugp: /* = Quebec sovereignty and international law */

2010-08-14T04:38:32Z

= Quebec sovereignty and international law

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:38, 14 August 2010
Line 86:		Line 86:
	Peoples create constitutions, constitutions do not create peoples. And when a constitution is imposed on a people against its will, they have every right to acquire a new one. If there are sufficient moral justifications, such a people could even resort to political sovereignty as part of this process. All in all, Quebec sovereignty only appears illegal in relation to a constitution which has been illegitimately imposed on Quebec. This is the reason why the Canadian Constitution cannot be used to counter Quebec's proposed actions.		Peoples create constitutions, constitutions do not create peoples. And when a constitution is imposed on a people against its will, they have every right to acquire a new one. If there are sufficient moral justifications, such a people could even resort to political sovereignty as part of this process. All in all, Quebec sovereignty only appears illegal in relation to a constitution which has been illegitimately imposed on Quebec. This is the reason why the Canadian Constitution cannot be used to counter Quebec's proposed actions.

	=== Quebec sovereignty and international law==		=== Quebec sovereignty and international law===

	The Canadian Constitution cannot legitimately exert influence over Quebec's sovereignist aspirations, but can such aspirations be governed and directed by international law? The right to self-determination written into the United Nations Charter, stated in the U.N. 1970 Declaration of Friendly Relations (A.G. Resolution 2625), essentially concerns colonized peoples, and some understand this to mean that the right to sovereignty is limited to them. Yet in practice, international law recognizes a society's right to accede to sovereignty, if the process is democratic and if it is able to properly govern its territory and population. Therefore, the process of attaining sovereignty is first and foremost a political issue, not a legal one. International law neither authorizes nor prohibits sovereignty; it simply recognizes it. On this basis, we claim that Quebec sovereignty is in keeping with international law, in the same way as the sovereignty of many states since the end of the Second World War, and especially during this decade (during which 21 new states have been recognized).		The Canadian Constitution cannot legitimately exert influence over Quebec's sovereignist aspirations, but can such aspirations be governed and directed by international law? The right to self-determination written into the United Nations Charter, stated in the U.N. 1970 Declaration of Friendly Relations (A.G. Resolution 2625), essentially concerns colonized peoples, and some understand this to mean that the right to sovereignty is limited to them. Yet in practice, international law recognizes a society's right to accede to sovereignty, if the process is democratic and if it is able to properly govern its territory and population. Therefore, the process of attaining sovereignty is first and foremost a political issue, not a legal one. International law neither authorizes nor prohibits sovereignty; it simply recognizes it. On this basis, we claim that Quebec sovereignty is in keeping with international law, in the same way as the sovereignty of many states since the end of the Second World War, and especially during this decade (during which 21 new states have been recognized).

Mathieugp: Created page with '{{Title|The International Document - ''Quebec Sovereignty : a Legitimate Goal''|Intellectuels pour la souveraineté|1995}} ---- This document, intended for an international …'

2010-08-14T04:35:57Z

Created page with '{{Title|The International Document - ''Quebec Sovereignty : a Legitimate Goal''|Intellectuels pour la souveraineté|1995}} ---- This document, intended for an international …'

Show changes