Coopting Québécois Nationalism
Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe (wikimedia)
A very interesting Globe and Mail article by Lawrence Martin about the paradoxical success of the Bloc Québécois in Canada does a good job of illustrating some of the ideas about political legitimacy, reconciliation, and cooptation that you see a lot in counterinsurgency talk these days. His point is that the BQ, seen as short-lived novelty party when it was launched in 1990, has actually been wildly successful:
Since its debut election campaign in 1993, the Bloc has never been beaten by a federalist party. Not in six elections. The demise of the Bloquistes is often predicted. It never happens. They are entrenched. In the next campaign, they are on course to rout the Liberals and Conservatives in Quebec again.
But this success has actually wound up undermining the cause of Québec nationalism. The BQ does such a good job of wielding influence at the federal level that people are losing interest in separatism:
Benefiting from the shrewd leadership of Gilles Duceppe and a smart, disciplined caucus, the Bloc has been able to address many of Quebec’s grievances. But its steady progress now sees it scraping the barrel in search of meaningful injustices to fortify its underlying pathology (witness its current election advertising planning).
This sort of dynamic is precisely what makes Canada a successful, stable, liberal society rather than a war-torn wreck of a country. As Francophone Canadians grew increasingly disgruntled with federalism, a new separatist political party was formed. But rather than separatism swiftly sweeping the province and taking over, the separatist party sent a bunch of MPs to Ottawa and has been able to robustly represent Québécois interests there. Consequently, people aren’t as interested in seceding as they once were.
But this only works because the Anglophone community in Canada is politically divided. If there were some kind of Anglo-Canadian nationalist party that had as much appeal outside of Québec as the Bloc has in-province, then it would achieve a position of permanent electoral dominance. Then suddenly the BQ’s relatively good electoral showings still wouldn’t leave it in a position to accomplish anything. And Québec nationalist sentiment would find its energies channeled in the direction of secession. But that’s not the world we live in. Of course we also live in a world where Canada is a wealthy liberal democracy with a long tradition of political stability, and basically no tradition of political violence. So what works in Ottawa may not have such hot prospects in Kabul.
88 Responses to “Coopting Québécois Nationalism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 11th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
This yet another dynamic that makes Canada a successful, stable, liberal society. English-speaking Canadians aren’t going to vote for a party like that. What about the roads? What about the schools? What about global warming? Save the clock tower!
September 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
And yet Conservative fearmongering about the horrible seperatist bloquistes still goes over like hotcakes in english canada.
The Bloq is also helped by having the most charismatic leader in canadian politics, in either language.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Doesn’t this demonstrate the usefulness of a parliamentary-style democracy that can accommodate more than two parties?
September 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The CPC has also run into slight difficulties because its attempts to compete in Québec require the recruitment of candidates who, to put it bluntly, wouldn’t go down well in Alberta. (There were predictions of CPC breakthroughs in the last federal election, based upon a perception of growing social conservatism in the province, but that didn’t really happen.)
Anyway, all discussions of the Bloc also ought to make the point that it’s firmly to the left of the Grits, especially under Carpetbagnatieff, and possibly even the NDP.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Matt, until I got to the end of the post, I honestly thought you were comparing the Quebecois to the secessionist, “Tenther” Republicans. It still works in a way. Most of their talk is a result of their feeling shunned by, and cut off from, their government. (Of course, whereas the Quebecois feel that way because of a lingual and cultural divide, the Tenthers just lost an election.)
The parallel would be, if the GOP wins back a few seats and rejoins the working government, the nonsense secessionist talk should quiet down. This would be made much easier by a divided Democratic party, and harder by a more unified Progressive front.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Another reason for the popularity of the Bloc stems from the chronic ambivalence of quebecois. French-speaking people are proud of being quebecois but are not ready to throw away their canadian citizenship. Voting for the Bloc thus give them the best of both worlds i.e. electing people who care about their problems but within a stable political system. Before the Bloc, people voted for the PQ (separatist party) in the provincial election but for the liberal party (federalist party) at the national level As Yvon Deschamps, a famous quebecois comedian, said at that time: Quebecois vote for the PQ at the provincial level but for the liberals at the national level because he knows what he wants: an independent quebec within a strong Canada !
This being said, the popularity of the Bloc also reflects the failure of english Canada to recognize the requests of the french minority (Quebec has still not signed the 1981 constitution).
September 11th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Even better: Duceppe is a former Maoist… aaaannnd most people don’t really care.
(I find reasons to be proud of Canada where I can.)
Not only is he the most charismatic leader right now, he’s also the most progressive.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
This doesn’t make much sense as a scenario, since the whole point of the BQ is that it fights for the interests of a minority. As long as Quebeckers believe that the BQ will do this better than one of the national parties (which must consider the needs of other parts of the country), the BQ will continue to win.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Quebec has some good reasons to stay in Canada. The same logic that suggests that Quebec should be its own country would detach largely non-Francophone Northern Quebec, with its natural resources, from it and combine it into a greater Labrador. Oops good-bye hydro.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Did/do the Quebecois really have legitimate complaints (as opposed to perceiving insufficient acknowledgment of the superiority of everything French)?
September 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Quebecois vote for the PQ at the provincial level but for the liberals at the national level because he knows what he wants: an independent quebec within a strong Canada !
Must be an old quote since the PQ have been out of power in the assemblee nationale for a long while, and is kind of a disaster right now. And i agree, not only is Duceppe the most charismatic, he is also one of the best progressive canadian politicians.
In addition, something many people don’t realize is that the electoral fortunes of the Bloc are not really tied to separatist sentiment. The Bloc are near their height of popularity right now, but seperatism is at a low ebb. Quebecois just trust them the most on the issues, and not without reason.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Matt,
I seem to recall you used to assert that Quebec independence was inevitable. Have you changed your view on this?
(I used to think so, too; it’s partly why I left, since it then seemed to me Canada would swiftly become a much less interesting or desirable place to live.)
failure of english Canada to recognize the requests of the french minority (Quebec has still not signed the 1981 constitution)
What do these two things have to do with each other? English Canada could give Quebec absolutely everything, and it still would not sign — after all, it might at some future date dream up other demands, and if it had signed, it would have lost its major means of extorting compliance.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Duceppe will hear the squeak soon enough.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I think Quebec independence is a long shot these days. They’ve now got the special recognition within canada that they wish, and independence could mean the loss for quebec of their two most productive areas, montreal and the north.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I think it’s worth pointing out that Martin’s piece wildly overstates the sway of the Bloc in Québec. At the moment, they’re only getting between 30-35% in the polls (as are the Liberals), and in the 2000 election the Liberals actually beat them 44 to 40% in the popular vote. But because of the First Past the Post system used in federal elections, the Bloc, whose votes are advantageously distributed, usually punches well above it’s weight. What Martin says may be true in terms of seats (and at this point, who knows, the Liberals are as strong as they’ve been in Québec in 10 years), but not in terms of raw popular opinion.
Another quibble is this: the decline of separatism has little to do with the purported ’success’ of the Bloc at securing favourable outcomes for Québec at the federal level. The Bloc hasn’t actually done anything, except serve as a pressure valve allowing separatist sentiment some kind of outlet. In fact, separatism hasn’t really ‘declined’. It’s been holding steady at roughly 40% since the late 70’s (under the confederalist approach known as ’sovereignty-association’–true independence has never garnered more than 25-30% in the polls). It has occasionally spiked higher than that when major crises of identity politics have erupted, like with the Meech Lake Accord in the early 90’s or the sponsorship scandal in the early 00’s, but the base line has remained constant.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Did/do the Quebecois really have legitimate complaints (as opposed to perceiving insufficient acknowledgment of the superiority of everything French)?
I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised either way. I remember when I read All the President’s Men I was surprised to learn that the word “canuck” is or was actually an offensive bit of slang for French-Canadians. I knew the word, but I had no idea there was any kind of hurtful connotation to it. But apparently, for a while in New England, French Canadians were discriminated against. Maybe they were in English-speaking Canada too, and most of Canada is English-speaking.
From the Wikipedia article on the Parti Québécois:
It’s not apartheid, but it’s not nothing.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I think that, in some ways, independence would weaken Quebec’s Francophone identity. As a province of Canada, Quebec can impose draconian restrictions on free speech in the name of preserving their culture; they’re a minority province of a larger country, and you can say “go to Ontario” or something to English speakers who don’t like it. (This isn’t to say I really think it’s justified, but it’s moderated by its regional specificity.) If Quebec were its own country, on the other hand, it would be a state which imposed draconian restrictions on free speech throughout its whole territory in the name of preserving the hegemony of the majority.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Quick list of a few of the historical English/French tensions:
o In 1755, the British attacked and expelled 6000-7000 French speaking Acadians from Nova Scotia.
o Armed rebellions [occurred] in 1837 and 1838 led by reformers from the Parti canadien. Key goals for the rebels were to have responsible government and, for many, to terminate prejudicial dominance of the English minority over the French majority. (From wikipedia)
o Louis Riel returned to what is now the province of Saskatchewan to represent Métis grievances to the Canadian government. This resistance escalated into a military confrontation known as the North-West Rebellion of 1885. It ended in his arrest, trial, and execution on a charge of high treason. Riel was viewed sympathetically in francophone regions of Canada, and his execution had a lasting influence on relations between the province of Quebec and English-speaking Canada. (From wikipedia)
o In both worlds wars conscription was hugely unpopular in Quebec, and enacted over their opposition.
This is clearly a ridiculously abbreviated list of grievances, but I’m not sure the average reader really needs more details. Suffice it to say that yes, they did have legitimate complaints. (Not that I think it merited separation, but then I grew up in English speaking Canada)
The resentment led to the formation of the terrorist organization FLQ (no tradition of political violence??) in the 1960s.
A lot of Canadians don’t understand why there are Quebec nationalists, so I don’t really expect the typical American reader to be particularly sympathetic. Still, you should know that it’s based on more than “whining.”
September 11th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The resentment led to the formation of the terrorist organization FLQ (no tradition of political violence??) in the 1960s.
To say nothing of the AFR…
September 11th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
French-Canadians DID have legitimate grievances (as Cyrus notes) but nowadays I can’t possibly imagine what they are, especially since the parliamentary motion to recognize Quebec as a “nation.” I think, at this point, most Quebec nationalists would argue its about protecting their language and culture, rather than any specific grievance about Canada that is actionable.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Canada’s first-past-the-post system combined with an over-representation of rural ridings relative to the rural population give the country some interesting structural peculiarities.
In Canada, a party can win a majority of the seats in Parliament with only 30-40 percent of the popular vote.
The Liberals under Chretien won successive majority governments throughout the nineties with popular returns in the mid-high 30s. This was because the right was split.
This meant that, in one election (1995?), the Liberals won every seat in Ontario, the country’s most populated province. Also, in a Parliament, the Prime Minister can engineer an election pretty much whenever he wants one (there is only an upper limit), which the Liberals took ample advantage of – current Prime Minister Harper did legislate fixed election dates, but ignored the law as soon as he thought the conditions were right to win a majority. He was wrong.
Believing in a more de-centralized confederation, the Conservative Party in Quebec competes with the Bloc for the soft nationalist vote. Although the Bloc’s current leadership is progressive, many Bloc supporters are considered potential Conservative voters – as previous elections have shown.
The Bloc was started (Federal) by Lucien Bouchard, who had previously been a member of Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s cabinet. (Mulroney signed the free trade deal with the Reagan Administration).
What this means is the Bloc’s creation destroyed the conservative coalition in Quebec that had helped Brain Mulroney win two majorities in the eighties.
Similarly, outside of Quebec, the progressive/ centrist vote is split between the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens. This allows the Conservatives to win some seats in ridings where they might not otherwise be competitive. The same goes to a lesser extent for the Liberals and the NDP (much lesser extent).
Canada’s current political divisions combined with the above structural issues makes it hard to see any party winning a majority. And minority governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, will mean the Bloc punches above its weight. As does the NDP. If only because the ruling minority government has to make deals to survive.
I agree with Matt. Maybe this does take some of the steam out of the broader francophone desire to create an actual country called Quebec.
The separatists are a creation of the sixties-era national liberation ideology, which fed upon an earlier revival of nationalist sentiment – though not one which had lent itself automatically to separatism.
After the conquest in the French Indian war/ Seven Year War the French of North American got a pretty good deal. The British North American act guaranteed freedom of religion and of language, for example. The British pretty much left the French alone (Previously in Acadia they had deported them – many to Louisiana).
French Canadian militias defeated at least two American invasion attempts. The Americans had assumed les Habitants would welcome them. They were wrong. The Quebecois preferred British rule. In the 19th Century and the introduction of responsible government, bourgeois, francophone Quebecers felt they had the best of both worlds. British Parliament. French Culture.
That said. The separatists have forced two fairly traumatic referendums on the province and, by extension, the country. There will be another one.
wsam
September 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
It goes much further than that. Every time talk of Quebec separatism cranks up, the First Nations begin loudly musing that their old treaties are with the Queen, not with Canada or any of its provinces. That means that any native land in Quebec would more or less automatically be subtracted from an independent Quebec. Unless, of course, Quebec wanted to remain a Dominion of the Crown. What a delightful dilemma….
Incidentally, that’s one major reason that the monarchy will never be entirely abolished in Canada. The legal ramifications are horrendous — if you think land claims negotiations are difficult now, try them with nearly all the existing legal treaty framework thrown into the crapper. It’s highly unlikely that the First Nations would just shrug and agree to the authority being transferred to a Republic of Canada. Why should they give up such a good negotiating point?
September 11th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I always thought questions about the validity of Quebecois grievances were beside the point. Who’s to say what’s a good enough reason to want independence? Fundamentally you can’t force a group of people to remain part of a political entity they don’t want to belong to. If that’s their democratically expressed will, no one else has veto rights over it.
(And incidentally, this applies to US states, too. If Texas decides, democratically, to leave the union, it should be allowed to.)
My problem — coming of age, in Anglo Canada, during the unity crises of the 80s and 90s, the child of Quebecer parents — was always that Quebec never made its demands in good faith. The province’s negotiating strategy has always been: ‘Give us X, Y, and Z or we’ll separate — or at least, we’ll continue to refuse to sign the Constitution.’ But ‘X, Y, and Z’ in practice has proven to be an infinitely replenishable list.
Even non-separatist governments, when they take power in Quebec, have refused to sign the constitution. Why would they? It’s their main point of leverage. And they know it. And so it will never happen. It’s an endless extortion racket which Quebec has a vested interest in never bringing to an end. It’s a ridiculous way to run a country.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I think, Matt, you’re also missing (with your comment about no Anglo-Canadian nationalist party that you imply would oppress Quebec) that Canadian political culture just isn’t like that, and that even from before Confederation(see, e.g., Durham Report) it was always understood that Quebecers could be Quebecers. Add to that official multiculturalism and Canadians just don’t get into any sort of nationalist “Be Canadian!” attempt to impose one way of life on anyone(except for a few nuts in the boonies). In marked contrast to the US, with all the political talk about “Real Americans.”
September 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
As Canadian as possible considering the circumstances.
wsam
September 11th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Julian Elson -
That’s a gross misrepresentation of Quebec’s language laws. There are no (I repeat, ZERO) restrictions on freedom of speech of the kind that you’re alluding to. The only requirements regarding language are a) that all commercial signs must include French (they can have any other language you want) b) businesses with more than 50 employees must conduct their affairs primarily in French.
These are measures intended to protect French from the gradual erosion caused by the economic and demographic might of English in North America. They in no way amount to restrictions on free expression of ideas.
Why is it that Quebec’s language laws are so frequently caricatured by English-Canadians?
September 11th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“But apparently, for a while in New England, French Canadians were discriminated against.”
When I lived in Maine, the running joke was “We don’t have any black people to discriminate against. So, we discriminate against the French instead.” This was a time when approximately a third of the state spoke French at home. Now, I hear that only about 10% still do.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I think, Matt, you’re also missing (with your comment about no Anglo-Canadian nationalist party that you imply would oppress Quebec) that Canadian political culture just isn’t like that, and that even from before Confederation(see, e.g., Durham Report) it was always understood that Quebecers could be Quebecers. Add to that official multiculturalism and Canadians just don’t get into any sort of nationalist “Be Canadian!” attempt to impose one way of life on anyone(except for a few nuts in the boonies). In marked contrast to the US, with all the political talk about “Real Americans.”
Check out the Canadian Alliance, Stockwell Day et al. They were (and are) basically a Bloc Albertois.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
There’s more to it than that Erik.
One example, the children of immigrants (if the immigrants do not speak english) must go to french public schools. They don’t have the option to send their kids to an english public school. That is slightly draconian.
One funny thing about the language laws, at least in, is that the current children of Anglo Quebecers are all bilingual, while many of the franco quebecers are monolingual. Its a bit of a reversal of past patterns, and it actually hurts the monolingual francophone’s income prospects.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
While it’s definitely true that there has always been greater respect for French Canadians than there has been for language minorities in the United States, I think this goes a bit too far – there are plenty of statements by early politicians, etc., about the goal of eventually turning Lower Canada Anglophone. Indeed, that was part of the reason that Upper and Lower Canada were joined together in a non-federal union. It was only a combination of the sheer number of French Canadians and the relative undesirability of Quebec for settlers (when compared to the Canadian or American prairies, where there was plenty of available land) that kept Quebec largely French. Even then, however, the ruling class was dominated by Anglophones until the 1970s. (BTW – it is no coincidence that the rise of Toronto occurred at the same time as the rise of Quebec nationalism – many English businesses relocated from Montreal to escape language restrictions, etc.)
September 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding to suggest that Quebec separatist sentiment has ebbed because, as Matt’s post suggests, the Bloc Quebecois has somehow influenced matters to a sufficient degree to appease Quebec sentiment.
To begin, between 1993 and 2004 we’ve had majority governments over which the Bloc has had zero influence whatsoever. But even with the new trend towards minority governments, one can only point to a handful of votes where the Bloc propped up the government (this came in the early days of the first Harper minority). So the Bloc’s success has influenced very little, except to the extent that its success has precluded other parties from achieving majority governments.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Apart from practical issues like the whole Civil War thing, allowing a state to secede because it doesn’t like the current national government is in effect giving every state the right to overturn an election. As Lincoln pointed out, if you are allowed to throw out any election you do not like the results of, then democracy cannot continue to exist, nor by extension can the Union.
On an additional note, by the very fact of its history in the Union other citizens have invested heavily in Texas (and vice versa). Americans have died to protect Texans, their tax money has paid for highways, schools, military facilities, airports and ports in Texas. Americans, and not just Texans alone, have helped develop its resources, build its cities and secure its borders. That gives all Americans a proprietary right in the state of Texas, a right that cannot be canceled without their consent.
The only morally acceptable exception would be if the rights of Texans were violated to the extent that greater harm would result from their remaining in the Union than from leaving it.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I don’t think you can judge the effectiveness of the Bloc (or any party, for that matter) based only on the votes in which its members were decisive. The important question is what issues were brought to the fore because they were there; what language of what bills changed because of their presence. That is much harder to answer. But I would say that there have been two major impacts of the Bloc – first, the Quebec as a distinct nation bill would not have been discussed without them there. Second, a number of other bills have taken a decidedly federal approach that has been advocated by the Bloc – without a party arguing strongly for provincial rights, there is good reason to believe the issues would have been handled in a more uniform manner across Canada.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
September 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
In addition, the Bloc have had a major influence by pushing the Liberal (and the Conservatives, more recently) towards far more pro-Quebec platforms than they would otherwise hold. Both of the large national parties need Quebec seats if they ever hope for a majority, and they must compete with the Bloc to get them.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Aqua Regia -
That’s not a restriction on freedom of speech. In any case, the existence of publicly funded minority language schools is anomalous in international terms. If you want to go to public school in the US, or France, or Germany, or Italy, you have no choice but to attend a majority-language school. The reason why that requirement had to be put in place is that beforehand the overwhelming majority of immigrants sent their children to English schools. Given that the language of the majority was French, that was totally perverse. Furthermore, given the precipitous decline in birthrates in the 1960’s, that trend was undermining the long-term viability of the francophone community.
I am continually shocked at how little anglophones are able to appreciate the particular circumstances in which French finds itself in Canada. Because of its small numbers, and the fact that (unlike small European cultures) it is surrounded by a continent of people who speak a single language, the French-Canadian community requires state support in order to survive and thrive. ‘Formal’ equality of languages would merely entrench the dominant status of English and would in fact result in gross INEQUALITY in the ability of each linguistic community to flourish. This, more than historical grievances, is what the separatist movement has always been about.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
You are right that it is not a restriction of speech, but it also does real harm to the children of those immigrants, who want to send their kids to english schools because they’ll have much higher future earning potential that way.
I respect the rights of the francophone community to protect themselves and their culture, and I don’t object to the language laws. I realize why they exist, and I support them, but they are pretty strong. They help to protect quebec’s culture and language, but i do worry about the economic costs they impose on the residents of quebec, and if its all worth it.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
If you want to go to public school in the US, or France, or Germany, or Italy, you have no choice but to attend a majority-language school.
This is just not true. There are publically funded schools in Germany for recognised linguistic minorities, such as Danes in Schleswig and Sorbs in…somwhere else
. You can attend school in Danish or Sorbian (Sorbish?) in regions where there are significant populations of those minorities. (The Danish minority’s political party is even guaranteed a seat in the Schleswig-Holstein state parliament.) And you can attend school in English in Germany as well.
In Britain you can attend Welsh immersion school in most of Wales. Doesn’t France offer public schooling in Breton? You’re just wrong.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
You can also go to a french public school in ontario if you want to.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Apart from practical issues like the whole Civil War thing
I’m missing the point here. Obviously I wouldn’t support a Civil War today if, say, Texas were to vote to secede. Let ‘em go. (The first time, of course, lots of Texans were denied a say in the matter because of the undemocratic nature of the polity.)
allowing a state to secede because it doesn’t like the current national government is in effect giving every state the right to overturn an election.
Overturn, no. Opt out, yes. If Texas secedes, Barack Obama is still President of the U.S. Nothing overturned. No guarantee they’d be readmitted at a later date if they wanted to, and this knowledge would in practice deter states from taking the step lightly.
if you are allowed to throw out any election you do not like the results of, then democracy cannot continue to exist, nor by extension can the Union.
If a state democratically votes to leave, democracy still exists. So does the Union, just smaller.
Americans have died to protect Texans, their tax money has paid for highways, schools, military facilities, airports and ports in Texas.
All true. But the same was true of Russians in the old USSR, Serbs in the old Yugoslavia, Czechs in the old Czechoslovakia, etc etc. Were those dissolutions illegitimate? Should Czechs have had veto rights over the Slovaks’ leaving?
That gives all Americans a proprietary right in the state of Texas, a right that cannot be canceled without their consent.
Oh come on, proportionally very few of those investments were made by Americans actually living today. Are the ‘proprietary rights’ conferred by past tax payments really heritable? Texans living today surely can’t be morally bound by what some Yankee’s great-granddaddy paid into the Department of Education’s budget. And as for the Yankee guarding Texas’ borders today — do his/her ‘proprietary rights’ deriving from that service (which he was assigned to, by the way) really outweigh those of the people actually living there? Why?
Of course, the US would have every right to insist on compensation for loss of federally owned facilities like bases etc. And it’d have every right to insist by force if necessary. Likewise on the right of loyal Americans to leave.
The only morally acceptable exception would be if the rights of Texans were violated to the extent that greater harm would result from their remaining in the Union than from leaving it.
But that just begs the question. Who gets to measure the harm? And who decides whether it’s sufficient? There’s no court for these things. Lacking one, we can only defer to majority preference, expressed in a fair vote.
Yes, these things are messy. Nation-forming always is. I realize my view is unpopular. I just don’t think there’s anything magically sacrosanct about the makeup of the Union as it is now.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The best irony of all is that Canada as we know it now came about because in the 1850s Ontario was pretty much threatening to separate from the “United Province of Canada.” A hundred years later it was Quebec’s turn. Alberta seems to be next in line.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
The point is that the question of whether states can constitutionally nullify their connection to the Union and obligations under the constitution was decided in the negative by the Civil War. So TX can’t secede.
And the idea that it is Democratic to allow them to secede if “they” want to is far too simple an idea of “they”. If, say, Mississippi wanted to secede and form an apartheid Republic, we’d have a duty to protect our black fellow citizens from that fate, because of rights they have as Americans and obligations we have to them. “Mississippi” wouldn’t have decided to secede–a majority of Mississippians would have, and the constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
the Bloc has been able to address many of Quebec’s grievances.
Such as? I mean beside our symbolic recognition of Quebec as a nation in 2006. That was without practical consequences.
Correct me if I’m wrong but Quebec is still the only province that has not ratified the constitution.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Francophones, on average, enjoy huge advantages in government hiring.
The rational thing for Anglophones would be to kick Quebec out. But they are too wimpish to imagine doing something so much in their self-interest.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I don’t want the francophones out (and not only because i’m living in quebec).
Quebec is a large part of what makes Canada Canada, and not just America Jr. We would lose a real part of our national identity without quebec, in addition to losing the 2nd largest province.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
You can also go to a french public school in ontario if you want to.
Only if you speak French as a first language. Otherwise, you can only send your child to a French *emersion* school, which is a far cry from a French language education.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but Quebec is still the only province that has not ratified the constitution.
This is one of the greatest mythologies of the separatist movement. Quebec is subject to the constitution just as much as any other province. Moreover, at the time of the constitution’s patriation, all but one Quebec MPs voted for it, and opinion polls showed an overwhelming majority of Quebeckers supported it.
Saying that Quebec has not ratified the constitution is as meaningful (and irrelevant) as saying that Mississippi has yet to ratify the 13th Amendment.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
That’s not really true – Upper Canada was definitely pushing for rep. by pop., but there were not many pushing for outright separation from Lower Canada. By the late 1850s, a lot of the rep. by pop. talk had turned to talk of confederation (whether between just Upper and Lower Canada or between the Canadas and the Maritimes), but the consensus among the ruling class was that the Canadas would remain united to some degree.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Almost true – Mississippi ratified the 13th Amendment in the mid-90s after a segment of TV Nation mocked them for not having ratified it.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
(And the idea that it is Democratic to allow them to secede if “they” want to is far too simple an idea of “they”. If, say, Mississippi wanted to secede and form an apartheid Republic, we’d have a duty to protect our black fellow citizens from that fate, because of rights they have as Americans and obligations we have to them. “Mississippi” wouldn’t have decided to secede–a majority of Mississippians would have, and the constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.)
(DUTY TO PROTECT OUR BLACK FELLOW CITIZENS) It seem that some Black Fellow Citizens themselves see the need for Secession and the establishment of a Black State, the (SLA), and The Nation of Islam. And, on the other side of the question is of course the (KKK), and the Neo-Nazis Groups, both prefer seperate Republic upon North America.
And Lincoln said it himself but took a different interpertation of a House Divide Against It Self Can Not Stand. Secession is a Divorce, and the Demography of the Empire is against it, you can’t force people who don’t want mixing of cutures, races, nationalities, to accept the concept of a cuture of a third world bases.
The Republic of Alaska, The Republic of Hawaii, The Republic of Texas, The Confederate States of America, have the right to leave the Union if the Union is failing, and the Union is failing.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
September 11th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
The Confederate States of America, have the right to leave the Union if the Union is failing, and the Union is failing.
Nope, and nope. Thanks for trying.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
NOT FAILING? Let’s see, two high ranking Jew’s of Russian Heritage have made secret trips to Russia, Henry Kissinger, and now BiBi. Were in debt far over the national security limit to a Communist Nation, The Peoples Republic of China, We are losing yet the second major war in a row, to Non-State (IFF) Islamic Freedom Fighters, The war on drugs has been lost, the boarders are a joke, now the American Empire wants the (EU) European Union to foot the bill for its War on Islam, and list goes on. Every other country in the world has the cement of Language, Religion, Culture, and other means of keeping their countries together. Mexico (Catholic/Spanish), England (Church of England/English), Germany (Lutheran/German), France (Catholic/French), not to list cultural unity. The Founding Fathers forgot the Cement.
(BiBi’s Reality)
The question is what is going on in BiBi’s head, has Bibi, come to terms with the knowledge that The Empire is in rapid decline, the American Empire could only fight combined forces of The Peoples Republic of China and The Republic of North Korea to a draw, with the former Impeached President Clinton Kowtowing to the President of North Korea Kim Chung Ill , its forces lost to the combined forces of (NVA/VC) North Vietnamese Army, and Vietcong Forces, pulling its people of the Embassy Roof Top, and now in yet another war, fighting a non-nation force of (IFF) Islamic Freedom Fighters are losing yet again, that its Demographics are in rapid decline towards a third world country demographic, without a, race identity, state language, or
religion, to cement its mogul demographic society together, as the world is in fact decoupling itself form a Dollar based currency system, to one based upon multiply currency, gold, silver, and other precious mediums, as the Dollar and (T-Bill’s) have been printed into worthlessness in the Community of Nations, lead by a failing and corrupt government. Were then does Israel go in (NOW) for a protector a guardian, who now does Israel turn to but the Russian Federation and the Strongest Sphere of Influence, within the (BRIC) Brazil, The Russian Federation, India, and The Peoples Republic of China, Spheres of Community of Nations Spheres. The Empire represent the Past the Russian Sphere of Influence represent the Future.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Let’s see, two high ranking Jew’s of Russian Heritage have made secret trips to Russia, Henry Kissinger, and now BiBi.
We know how seriously to treat Jews. By the way, how do you post on blogs from where you are? They have wireless internet in Munich c.1933?
September 11th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Also, you think Germany is bound together by Lutheranism and France by Catholicism? Man, so so stupid. Shouldn’t you be shouting at passersby on a thoroughfare with a cardboard sign around your kneck?
Also, oops, this:
We know how seriously to treat Jews.
Was supposed to say: “We know how seriously to take you [because of your comments on Jews].”
September 11th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
JEW/JEWISH/ISRAELI/HEBREW
Choose your term, they are a people and you must be a Democratic do to your attack the messenger and not the message. What holds Israel together but its faith, there were wars fought over religion both in Germany, between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran, and Luther was Anti-Semetic, and then there was the fight between the French Catholic Church and The Roman Catholic Church. And, yes Religion is a Cement, to a country, its language is a cement to the country. The Pilgrim came to the new world to practice their religion freely.
And, yes to answer your unwarranted personal attack, Religion does play an important part in the cementing of national unity.
Israel and its Hebrew Language, Jewish Population may in fact see the hand writing on the wall and is looking to have a Special Relationship with another up and coming Super Star.
Personal Attack belong on Bill Bradleys, site (wwww.NewWestsNote.Com).
September 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
You seriously know nothing about the world, other countries, culture, language, religion, Jews. (Funny that the enlightenment-based French Revolution and aggressively secular republic doesn’t enter your little romp.)
You are pretty funny though, especially to me (a history teacher). So keep it up.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
(We know how seriously to treat Jews. By the way, how do you post on blogs from where you are? They have wireless internet in Munich c.1933?)
And, then the world wonders why the New German is once again turning hard Right, why the Nazis Party is gaining in membership not only in Germany but around the world. Germans are dying in Afghanistan but in return they get what anti-German blogging and movies, anti-German propaganda each and every (6th) of June.
The Vietnamese should work with The Peoples Republic of China and start making movies of the defeat of the American Empires Military, and release them the date of the pulling of American from the roof of its embassy in Hanoi City.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
What holds Israel together but its faith
You don’t know a whole lot about Israeli society, do you…
September 11th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
(We know how seriously to treat Jews. By the way, how do you post on blogs from where you are? They have wireless internet in Munich c.1933?)
Holy non-sequitur, batman!! Associating your anti-Semitism with Germany 1933 is hardly anti-German. It’s anti-you, dipshit.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
By the way, putting your bullshit in capital letters doesn’t make it true. It just makes you look crazy. Well, crazier.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
And, then the world wonders why the New German is once again turning hard Right, why the Nazis Party is gaining in membership not only in Germany but around the world
Why won’t mean Jews and liberals stop making people become Nazis?!?!?! Mean ol’ liberals. Always making people be Nazis.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Immigrants to places like Germany aren’t allowed to get education in Sorbian. What we are discussing here is immigrants coming to Quebec and educating their children in English with the unspoken goal of turning Quebec into an English-language dominant polity. The voters of Quebec are under no obligation to allow immigrants to do this. Quebec does allow for the English-language speaking minority to get education in English, and in fact does a far, far better job of this for its English speakers than the rest of Anglo Canada does for French speakers. I also want to point out the honorable position of New Brunswick which is officially bilingual and doesn’t seem to have fallen into the sea.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
(You seriously know nothing about the world, other countries, culture, language, religion, Jews. (Funny that the enlightenment-based French Revolution and aggressively secular republic doesn’t enter your little romp.)
You are pretty funny though, especially to me (a history teacher). So keep it up)
ISRAEL LOANS
Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. Whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury. Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer. In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries. Although Israel is an advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country, it receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states. There is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years. (Stephen Zunes). In fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000. (Richard H. Curtiss) Mid-1995 the Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $79 per person. It spent $214 on tiny IsrealSo what if Israel got $130 billion in aid since 1949. At least they have had a positive economic impact on the US. On the other end you have the palestinians who get more aid per capita than any group in the world and what have they to show for it. They get 2% of the entire UN budget year while the other hundereds of millions only account for 3%. All the while the Islamic world has received considerably more than Israel and their people think we are at war with them. Have you ever considered the fact the Islamic world almost negates their positive economic impact on the west because terrorism. Every year hundereds of billions are spent combating terrorism, not counting Iraq or Afghanistan, throughout the west. Add into that the productivity lost and damages due to attacks and one could argue the Islamic worlds impact on the US and West in general is a wash or in the red. Israel has been a good investment and not the problem. Excluding all of the extra costs, America’s $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.” Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.No wonder America is in recession, you paid for the Israelis to have a magnificent cost of living. The question know is, how mush of this bail-out is going to Isreal. Wake up and smell the recession. Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest. Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget. In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually. By Stephen Zunes. Dr. Zunes Department of Politics at the University of San FranciscoAmerica politicians should first stop AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the pro-Israel lobby,” and other similar groups from taking much needed money from their citizens. These so called funds to a foreign state is ridiculous to say the least. It is interesting that Isreal is not in a recession.
And, this is not counting the killing of (1400) Gaza citizens with (400) of them children, and the Tee-shirts about killing children made in Israel, and its not about Religion, culture, race, language?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
To reinforce the original point, by the way, no, states don’t hve the right to secede. There’s nothing in the constitution that says if illiterate blog commenters post about “third world base,” then states can secede. The protecting black fellow citizens comment had to do with a hypothetical scenario, to show that even if the majority in a state votes to secede, we have responsibilies toward fellow citizens, guaranteed rights by us, in those states. Your Nation of Islam/black separatist comments are irrelevant, except in so far as if they put a majority together, I’d oppose their “right” to secede for the same reason.
I know fringe extremists seem pretty important to a guy like you, but they’re really not.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Re: #63:
seriously, what was that supposed to be in response to? And no, the war in Gaza was/is not about religion. That should be pretty clear. And even if it were, I’m not sure how that helps you case…
September 11th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Vandoos and Quebec
When a Vandoo is killed in Afghanistan all posting of comments on Candian sites is generally terminated and the death of a Vandoo is generally, kept silent, for polical reasons, the Afghanistan war is not making things between English speaking Canada and French speaking Canada easier, the French want there sons home on Canandian Soil.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I’m sorry you’ve spent so much time writing all that garbage. From two sentences it is clear that you are a kook, and no one is going to read it. But I guess if you’re typing, you’re not under a bridge hassling peaceable citizens, so it’s a good thing. And it’s entertaining to everyone else to see such a rare combination of stupid, paranoid, incoherent and semi-literate.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
(seriously, what was that supposed to be in response to? And no, the war in Gaza was/is not about religion. That should be pretty clear. And even if it were, I’m not sure how that helps you case)
We stand on opposite sides, Divorce is a right, Secession is a Right, Religion, Language, Culture are Cements to a society, and people are entitled to their freedom of choice.
Abortion is a womans choice.
Your position is Divorce is never allowed, Secession is never allowed, Religion, Culture, and Language are not cements that bind a nation nor community together, and your would have to be Abortion is illegal.
Your position is a forced union, mine is a freedom of choice to end that union.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
(I’m sorry you’ve spent so much time writing all that garbage. From two sentences it is clear that you are a kook, and no one is going to read it. But I guess if you’re typing, you’re not under a bridge hassling peaceable citizens, so it’s a good thing. And it’s entertaining to everyone else to see such a rare combination of stupid, paranoid, incoherent and semi-literate)
And you sir are a Democratic
September 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Divorce is a right. Secession is not.
These aren’t opinions, jackass, they are matters of law and constitutional jurisprudence.
As for your other points, your historical/political examples are really bankrupt. Read a book–it’ll help your spelling too–and come back in a few years when you’re ready to disucss things without embarassing yourself.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I am indeed a Democratic. A Democratic am I. A Democratic what, you ask? It’s part of my mystery.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Religion, Language, Culture are Cements to a society, and people are entitled to their freedom of choice.
France is a great example where the societal “cement” was created by people exercising their freedom of choice to reject religion. Dude, I just blew your mind! Especially if you think the Fr. Revolution was a fight between French Catholics and Roman Catholics. Do you read books that weren’t handed to you by someone on the street?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I’m sorry, I meant “Cement”, not “cement”.
I haven’t had this much fun in months. Do you do weddings and bar mitzvahs?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Holy crap did THIS thread ever get off track.
I used to actually think that triathlon was a spambot until a week ago, when he replied to something. He really is a stunning piece of work. and anthony is trying to complete a sisyphean task by debating him.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
O I’m just bored and having a little fun pushing the little guy’s buttons. I sort of can’t believe he’s real either and am trying to follow his logical process, so as to better understand the schizophrenic guy shouting random epithets on my corner.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Having lived in Montreal for the last 15 years, one thing I’ve noticed (not sure what to attribute it to) is that second and third generation immigrants tend to preserve their mother language. It’s not uncommon to see second and third generation Italian, Greek, etc, children speaking among themselves in their language. This is quite different, in my experience, from English Canada, where second generation immigrants tend to immediately integrate and lose their mother language. Not sure why that is, but it’s something I’ve noticed. I’ve always thought it had to do with social pressure to not seem different from others (speaking as someone who grew up in English Canada not speaking his mother tongue from just this kind of pressure.) But maybe this distinction has more to do with big city vs small cities, as was my case.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I forgot to include my point, which is that francophones sympathize with ethnic communities wanting to preserve their mother language, so long as they learn French too. Attitudes toward English are different though, for obvious reasons.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Sebastian–could it have something allophone being a cultural/political identity itself, due to the polarisation of linguistic/cultural groups in the province—so allophones sort of carve out a “third way” in that charged atmosphere? I really don’t know–I’m in ROC–so I’m wondering what you think.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Sebastian–I meant, could it have something *to do with* allophone being a …..
sorry. talking to Triathlon has made me stupider.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Sebastian, I really don’t think that’s accurate. If anything the laws in Quebec are geared towards forcing the children of these cultural groups towards French, thanks to the schooling laws that Erik and i discussed earlier. I don’t think you’ll find that Montreal is any more multicultural than say Toronto or Vancouver in this respect.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
@Aqua
There is no connection between allophone children attending French schools and preserving the language of their parents. It would make no difference if they attended English schools. My observation concerned allophones preserving their parents anguage, regardless of the English or French schools they attend. In English Canada, I have found second generation immigrants tend to lose their mother language, whereas in Quebec (or more accurately Montreal), I noticed groups of children often speaking in their national languages, actually shifting back and forth between it and French or English. Where I grew up, this was considered somewhat strange. This is all based on some fairly narrow and personal observations on my part, and I wonder out loud if it could be attributed to the greater sensitivity people here have toward language and cultural heritage. “Sensitivity” not as in better, but just sensitive. It’s on the surface more.
As for being forced to attend French schools, I have no problem with that law given the larger context of the Quebec culture. I will happily send my daughter to French school, since in the long run it will be much more advantageous to be bilingual in Quebec, than unilingual, regardless of which language one holds. The French language is harder to learn than English. Allophones being sent to French schools are guaranteed to be proficient in at least two languages, and English is less expensive and more accessible to learn than French as an adult. Then again, even bright people like Dion couldn’t get English down. But the grammar is much easier than French. I don’t think anyone would argue otherwise.
You mentioned economic advantages of going to English school, that may be so, but only if you have no intention of working in Quebec.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
You might be right about the sensitivity issue, though I have noticed people keeping their language in both english and french cities so it may be more connected to the size of the ethnic enclaves than any other factor.
About the economic advantages though, I am not so sure. For a native english speaker such as yourself it would not be an issue. Your daughter will be proficient in French and English whether you send her to an English school or a French school in Montreal. A French school would probably be the better choice in fact, since she’ll learn English at home.
But what I was referring to was not a case such as yours, but for an immigrant who came to Montreal speaking neither French nor English. It was pretty obvious that prior to the language laws being passed, immigrants in that situation were overwhelmingly sending their children to English schools. This was because, as was mentioned by people above, the language of business in Quebec has always been (until recently) English. So an immigrant that did not speak English is severely harming there earning potential. Even today, it is almost impossible to get a customer service job in Montreal without speaking English.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
THEIR not there.
damn drunk typing.
ARGH.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
@ Aqua
I am not a native English speaker. I am a native Spanish speaker, who grew up in English Canada, but who attended French immersion. I don’t think my case is a good example of immigrants arriving in Quebec. I was not aware that the language of business in Quebec used to be English. But even so, working in the government sector, or French teaching institutions, among others, requires French. Both languages are necessary. English will come more naturally than French. The French language has to be learned at an early age to really be grasped and integrated.
I have many examples, but I’ll take the two I have at hand. My sister chose to send my nephew to an English school. She had the option because the child’s father had attended English school in Quebec (not sure if this provision still exists). My nephew speaks French, but so-so. He will struggle with it. My brother sent his kids to French school. They are both perfectly bilingual. English as a second language is easier to learn than French as a second language, in my opinion. Sending children to French school is a smart choice if they intend to work in Quebec (or even if they do not). Given the permeation of English in every aspect of our lives, it will come more naturally than French.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Sebastian,
I was not aware that the language of business in Quebec used to be English.
You’d learn a lot from this book.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
As a Canadian and patriot, I loathe the Bloc and separatism generally. But you make a good point about why having them is probably a better option than trying to exclude separatism from the political discourse.
Carpetbagnatieff
I like that,’ pseudonymous in nc’.
Did/do the Quebecois really have legitimate complaints (as opposed to perceiving insufficient acknowledgment of the superiority of everything French)? ~ PeakVT
Currently, no. At the origins of the Quebec nationalist movement, when the language of business in Quebec was English and anglophones controlled most of the province’s wealth, they did. Now – no, not at all.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I like you Yglesias but your analysis is very simplistic. The decline in separatism has very little to do with the Bloq Qebecois. Remember the Bloq Quebecois is the not the same as the Parti Quebecois, which is the provincial party. If u wanna measure the popularity of separatism you have to look at how the PQ, not the BQ does. Only the PQ can make a referendum. A lot of non-separatists vote for the BQ here in Quebec. In the last election, for instance, many people voted for the BQ to deny the Conservatives the majority they were seeking.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am
McKingford.
In case you were interested.
In my experience (Pierre Elliot in Toronto’s West End) only required there be a French speaker in the home. Not necessarily someone with French as a first language.
Not sure what the actual rule is, but our neighbours have had the same experience and several kids in our immediate neighbourhood (Beakonsfield) go there. It’s a good school.
I found your post on the constitution interesting. I had assumed Quebec had never signed. Where can I read more?
wsam