Defenestrate Them All: Canadian Politics 2021

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6b5f9n7E-0

lol, native French Canadian speakers have a much easier time with English pronunciation, there's no competition.

Like, it's true that Legault isn't particularly good at it, but this is still better than your average French person who thinks their English is halfway decent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX8_g2UMcts

Bonus with Jay Baruchel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiM2AzgWYL8

Ha, I haven't watched the videos yet but I had to ask the mother of a new student, who had just recently come from France, to repeat the name of the street she lived on a few times before I realized she was saying "Pinetrail".

After lessons, we went back and forth repeating "Merci/Bienvenue" for a while before I thought to say "Je vous en prie".

re: learning French in childhood - I am a bit disappointed by my experience of this. I had a Francophone parent with an enormous Franco-Albertan extended family, but all my dad passed down to me was being able to count in French. My parents nearly put me in French immersion, which I was excited about, but we moved before I started kindergarten and it was no longer an option. I couldn't wait to start French in school, which for most 'normal' schools starts in grade 4, imagining I'd finally be able understand conversations at family gatherings and feel connected to the French half of my 'background'... except that from grades 4 to 6 all we learned was vocabulary and really simple present-tense sentences. I was so fed up with the painfully slow pace of it that I stopped taking it after grade 7 when it was no longer mandatory.

For me, French immersion was effective in making French feel like a burden and a requirement, and not very effective in conveying the joy of speaking a second language.

This feels true for my non-immersion experience too, but then I don't really know how you'd go about making French joyful for 9 to 12 year olds.

I try not to be too annoyed about it - almost everyone I know who carried on taking French til grade 12 (which would get them up to B2 level) has forgotten all of it anyway - but I do wonder if daily exposure to French from an earlier age would've made it easier to re-learn as an adult. I can read most things now, and speak alright-ish (probably with an awkward accent though), but even after 12+ years of re-learning I still struggle to follow a film without subtitles or a podcast played at normal pace unless they're intended for children, which is frustrating although I guess not unexpected since I'm not immersed in the language.

What a fucking tool. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you speak English with a Scottish accent, right? That makes it even worse somehow. Like, what the fuck has Scotland got to do with your beef?

Haha, arguably, QC has more justifiable grounds to have beef with Great Britain than with Saskatchewan or New Brunswick.

I mean, of the things you mentioned, the Durham Report was obv written by a visit Brit and the Act of Union was an act of the UK Parliament. The oppression of working class francophones by capitalist anglophones up to the 70s surely had at least as much to do with anglophones in Quebec as with the ROC aiui.

*visiting

although I agree that it's more reasonable to expect native-born Canadians to know some French than immigrants from the UK and obv no one should be yelling at jim regardless

I mean, of the things you mentioned, the Durham Report was obv written by a visit Brit and the Act of Union was an act of the UK Parliament. The oppression of working class francophones by capitalist anglophones up to the 70s surely had at least as much to do with anglophones in Quebec as with the ROC aiui.

That is a very generous reading. On average, French Canadians were far more opposed to British rule than English Canadians, for obvious reasons. This was a land of Loyalists after all. Barring a few notable exceptions, I think it’s fair to say that English Canadians in 1840 cannot be simply dissociated from the views set forth in the Durham Report (cue Shaggy: ‘it wasn’t me!’), although it’s important to point out that the 1837 rebellions in Lower Canada, while chiefly spurred by francophone political leaders, also garnered support from noted members of the anglophone community (besides, Upper Canada followed suit). But I’m not sure I completely agree with your second point: is the historically Protestant British elite caste in Northern Ireland mainly evidence of intra-Irish conflict? To me, that’s putting the cart before the horse. The majority of Québécois anglophones identify as Canadians first and Québécois second (et encore…), hence their marked preference for federalist parties. I also think we’re losing sight of the fact that for the better part of Quebec’s history, its francophone population did everything within its power to affirm its cultural/political/religious/linguistic difference from the rest of Canada, which surely means something? The territory of present-day Quebec wasn’t peacefully co-opted into the federal dominion – France lost a war that it had no intention of losing, and New France suffered the consequences. That being said, and to echo VHS’s point upthread, we did have not one but *two* referenda in recent memory, both of which ended in ‘no’, although I do find it amusing to note that the feds pulled some dirty tricks to influence the result (my parents are among the immigrants who got fast-tracked for Canadian citizenship, just in time for the referendum since it was fairly obvious that almost none of us would end up in the ‘yes’ camp).

Also, sadlol #1 @ the fact that the only topic that yields nearly 100 new answers itt in less than 24h is Quebec separatism and sadlol #2 @ me playing devil’s advocate for an ideology that mostly hates me and my ilk. Anyway, separatism is very much on the wane and younger generations are especially indifferent towards it, which is interesting insofar as in 1995, the exact opposite was true iirc.

The topics were academic freedom and bilingualism tbf. I don't think most of the discussion was about separatism?

All roads lead to separatism!

To circle back to what kicked off this discussion, I am very curious to see whether other conservative premiers will imitate Legault and make a similarly hypocritical pledge to defend free speech on campus. It’s certainly been gaining traction in other parts of the so-called Western world:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/14/government-to-appoint-free-speech-champion-for-universities-heritage-history-cancel-culture

(But no, I'm not sure that a historical francophone grievance against English colonialism within Quebec does add up to a fair grievance against the RoC, much of which joined Confederation later and includes many populations who were themselves also victims of colonialism, including significant French-speaking communities, just as I don't really see disputes over how Quebecois federal leaders responded to Quebecois separatism as conflicts between Quebec and the RoC per se).

xp I think Ford has already said something?

Agree to disagree? I doubt I could sway you (or anyone else itt, for that matter).

Yeah of course, and I get that you're playing devil's advocate to a point, as you said.

I mentioned separatism because Quebec's conservatives wrap themselves in the flag of Quebec to criticize anything that might upset the status quo when it comes to race relations.

What do we think of this case?

https://www.macleans.ca/news/the-joke-that-went-to-the-supreme-court/

Based on the article, which is the first I've heard of it, I'd tentatively lean towards "very bad taste but probably shouldn't be illegal".

I watched the original comedy bit here and it doesn't seem to me like it should be actionable: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2vxsn1
Seems p obvious that the comic is being goofy imo, although yeah it's not nice to make fun of a kid. Idk if he came back to it later in a harsher way.

In 2016, the tribunal found the effect of Ward’s comments—no matter their intent, since good intent is not a defence in human rights law—was to ostracize Gabriel and infringe on his rights to dignity and honour. It ordered Ward to pay $25,000 in moral damages and $10,000 in punitive damages to Gabriel, plus $7,000 to his mother. “Ward recognizes that he does not concern himself with the feelings of the victims and their families when he writes jokes,” the decision states. “The Tribunal is convinced that Ward could not have been oblivious of the consequences of his jokes on Jérémy.”

Yeah this standard that intent doesn't matter, only impact, seems bizarre to me. Shouldn't the kids who bullied Jeremy be the responsible ones?

also is there an anglo equivalent to the "Association des professionnels de l’industrie de l’humour"

y'all have "moral damages" huh?

Gabriel made a point years back that I think I agree with in that laughing at a collective ‘i.e the disabled’ is not the same as laughing at an individual ‘i.e Jeremy Gabriel’ in that a collective can properly respond to jokes and that an individual is more likely to take it personally and suffer consequences.

His argument is that it would be better for comedians to make racist, sexist, ableist, etc jokes?

He makes a difference between the right to offend a group and the right to hurt an individual.

I agree that there is a difference but what is the line that Ward crossed in this case? Comedians mock the appearance and abilities of public figures all the time, as per the Trump example in the article. I don't think someone would reasonably watch the clip and think Ward actually wished death on Gabriel. So is the issue that Gabriel was a child - should there be special legislation to protect children from being publicly insulted? Perhaps. Is it that Gabriel is disabled and so especially vulnerable?

And how far should we go wrt allowing individuals to sue for being emotionally hurt?

I think in this case Gabriel being a public figure should make him fair game yes.

And how far should we go wrt allowing individuals to sue for being emotionally hurt?

How far should we let people use their platform to bully individuals?

I'd draw a line at credible threats or incitement of violence.

like actual "physical injury to a human being" violence, not "semantic violence" or whatever

Let's not pretend words can't have a meaningful impact on someone's wellbeing.

And how far should we go wrt allowing individuals to sue for being emotionally hurt?

at long last I can sue the girls who ghosted me on okcupid

Let's not pretend words can't have a meaningful impact on someone's wellbeing.

They can but I don't think the government and courts should protect us from every insult, offence, heartbreak, etc. that words can cause.

Would the fact that this is a minor make this a bit different? As an adult, I suppose you could say you’d “consented” to being a public figure and all that comes with it - and you’re certainly better equipped to handle that. Targeting a literal child, by name, might be taking things too far.

Who mentioned heartbreak? What a weird thing to include.

I think we should protect people from bullying, cyberbullying and harassment. Obviously, those things can take the verbal form.

Something similar happened in the context of Canadian culture, with famed (and wonderful) singer songwriter Safia Nolin having her zoom class interrupted by jerks who called her 'fat ugly arab' and other horrible things. She's been harassed for months by an online mob for years and yes, I believe that whoever participated in this should be sued. Now, Ward and the joke is a different thing because the initial intent is to make people laugh. I just think that drawing the line only a physical violence is laughable now that we have tons of research about mental health wellbeing and verbal violence.

Comedians @jess_salomon, @JoshBlueComedy, and @Statuesse weighed in on the Supreme Court case that will decide if Mike Ward had a constitutional right to make fun of a disabled teen in his act.
Watch the full episode of Canada Tonight on @cbcgem https://t.co/WKPDc1l0Xw pic.twitter.com/Lzhh5MJNJo

— Ginella Massa (@Ginella_M) February 19, 2021

thought what this comedian and lawyer said about the case made a lot of sense

That sounds OTM, yeah.

Agreed. Thanks for posting that, symsymsym.

I think we should protect people from bullying, cyberbullying and harassment. Obviously, those things can take the verbal form...

I just think that drawing the line only a physical violence is laughable now that we have tons of research about mental health wellbeing and verbal violence.

Tbc, I was thinking about the context of a comedy performance, or another such artistic or journalistic commentary on a public figure. I do think there should be legal restrictions on things like sexual harassment in the workplace.

Since I shared an article earlier about my partner's fight to get needed accommodations in lockdown, I should note there was some progress on this, due in no small part to the efforts of NDP MPP Joel Harden. P sure it's the first time I've seen a political representative actually listen and get something done in response to appeals from anyone I know.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/municipalities-can-open-facilities-for-those-with-medical-needs-says-province

P sure it's the first time I've seen a political representative actually listen and get something done in response to appeals from anyone I know.

Same here, heh. I'm amazed and happy to see that it paid off.

I watched the full panel discussion from the CBC Gem link. It was good, I thought. Salomon made a number of good points.

The most talked about news item in sovereignist circles right now is...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-u-s-trudeau-parti-quebecois-1.5922938

Good on them for caring about history, I guess?

that pic of PET, lol

definitely looks like he's plotting some cheeky political interference there

More like Pierre Elliott Trolleau amirite.

xxxxxp That's really good news, sund4r.

Thanks!

"Canadian Pacific chairman Ian Sinclair, who is the country's most influential businessman and who has also contacted Trudeau for guidance, tells me he didn't get a pull-out signal but got no encouragement to hang in," the telegram said.

Lol. Tbh, I wouldnt put it past PET to scheme like that but this is also v nebulous, all "suggests", "might", "thinks", etc. And it's p obvious that the "anglo capitalist elite" didn't need a conspiracy in order to want to flee a PQ government. The RCMP espionage of the PQ, which we know to be fact, is far more damning, honestly.

If anyone hasn't seen the multi-part NFB doc The/Les Champions about Trudeau, Levesque, and their rivalry, btw, it's v good (and available in both languages).

If you want to have a bit of fun, try arguing with this crowd:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Quebec/comments/lqgg0x/pierre_trudeau_may_have_asked_business_leader_to/