Pearson-Shoyama Institute
Archives
Re-thinking an Anglo perspective on Quebec
Great! I can read most of the postings now. Did you change something or is there
something different on this end?
My letter to you is the last posting shown on my screen. Did everyone suddenly become
quiet?
I wish to apologize to those whom I referred to as "eastern anglophones" in
that posting. I was very angry at the time, having only just realized the full extent of
the discrimination against francophones that had occurred over the centuries. It is not
only the "eastern anglophones" who are reluctant to discuss this issue; the
western ones are too. Sorry.
If we cannot come to terms with our history (but please, if there any of you out there
who want to discuss our history, we might be able to accomplish something), the only
course left is to accept Quebec's demands for respect. We can do this in two ways:
Distinct Society or Sovereinty. ,p> Distinct Society doesn't mean more powers or
influence for Quebec as compared to the other provinces. It just means they get to decide
for themselves how they want to handle their own internal affairs. They absolutely don't
want any influence over the rest of the provinces. Distinct Society also doesn't mean
instant discrimination against non-francophones. All it means is that the francophones
will have the majority of the votes, a sort of role-reversal. (I can't help but interject
a little history here: this would be the first time since 1759 that francophones would be
allowed to determine their own course through democracy, in spite of having a greater
population than the anglophones up to the 1840's.) ,p> The most important example I can
think of that shows how francophones vote one way and anglophones another is conscription.
(At this time I won't go into the reasons for the split, but this would be another
instructive topic of discussion for the open-minded.) For issues like this, francophones
need to have laws in place that allow their views to be reflected in policy.
There really isn't much difference between this and Sovereinty. But the difference is
important. We get to keep our country. We don't get customs offices at the borders. We
keep our trade arrangements, our armed forces, our currency, and our high opinion of
ourselves.
Back in 1992, I voted against the Charlotte-town Accord because I didn't like the idea
of Distinct Society taking precedence over other stipulations in the Constitution. I
thought it was a political power grab, with the result being Quebec courts would have the
power to deny the basic individual human rights of people living in Quebec for the sake of
protecting the French culture. I wasn't aware of the need to protect francophones against
discrimination. I should have been willing to give Quebec the benefit of the doubt. After
all, much of the social benefits we all enjoy as Canadians are due to the influence of the
francophones. Our basic values are the same.
We even have the beginnings of a precedent for such an arrangement, Native
Self-Government. It may be a contradiction in terms, to have areas of autonomy within one
country. 'Swiss cheese,' I've heard it described, but a more appropriate term might be
'marble'. But why not? All we need to do is agree that we want to stay together, for
economic reasons if nothing else. As long as we respect each other's ways of doing things,
things should work out. Any comments?
Dani Taylor
email: dani@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Edmonton, Canada
| 
